Talk:System of a Down/Archive 2

Rationales for genre inclusion/exclusion
Experimental rock


 * Inclusion: Genre is well-sourced for both the band and multiple albums, in addition to adequately describing System of a Down's diverse style. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Inclusion: Well-sourced genre indeed.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard rock


 * Inclusion: Genre is well-sourced for both the band and multiple albums. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Inclusion: Genre well-sourced indeed.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nu metal


 * Strong Exclusion: Genre was never consistently reported in connection with System of a Down as a whole or its albums and is no longer in use by mainstream press in connection to the band's music; genre's attributes don't fit the band's overall musical style. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Strong Inclusion: Myriads of reliable, renowed, and pertinent sources have labeled the band as such since the beginning of their career. No reason what-so-ever to exclude the genre from the infobox.

Progressive metal


 * Inclusion: Genre is well-sourced by several major newspapers and Rolling Stone for both the band and multiple albums, in addition to adequately describing System of a Down's diverse style. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Strong Exclusion: Most of the sources claiming the band is a progressive metal band are newspapers whose subject of focus is current events, not music. The musical journalists working for an institution specializing in music are more reliable sources than those who publish articles in the general press.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey: Is System of a Down Nu metal ?
Weak support of inclusion. It appears that the classification into Nu metal is supported by 2 sources. In my opinion Musicmight.com over classifies bands. For example, calling Motorhead NWOBHM and Black Sabbath doom metal, however they do refer to them as Nu metal in the opening paragraph. The other reference is a book that I do not have access to. If anyone has this book can they please provide the relevent sentance(s)? Billboard compares them to Korn and no one seems to argue against Korn being nu metal. SOAD's time and place of origin does support Nu metal, however I would like to see a reputable source supporting it, before giving my full support. At this point I offer weak support of calling them nu metal. J04n(talk page) 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sharing a background and tours with a band does not make you a part of that band's genre. This kind of oversimplification was wildly common in the late-1990s/early 2000s when the term was heavy promoted by MTV and record labels. When the term's popularity declined, classification of System of a Down within the term became less common. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * This article, for example, backs up the theory that the labeling of the band as "nu metal" was not based on the band's musical style at all, but rather the "scene" (much as The Mothers of Invention were incorrectly tagged as "psychedelic rock", rather than experimental, because of the period and scene). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That is an extremely minoritarian standpoint, and one short article in on Boston.com, obviously not a website specialized in music journalism, is definitely not sufficient to back up this fringe theory. Read the Wikipedia guideline on those kinds of standpoints.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you dismiss sources that don't back up your own viewpoint? This is not a fringe theory. There is legitimate evidence that the categorization is not as well-verified as other genres. News articles directly regarding the band are better sources than texts barely referencing the band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No, I don't dismiss sources that don't back up my own viewpoint. I do not dismiss the Rolling Stone source because that is a legitimate, reliable, and renowed source. You are the one refusing to see the facts : System of a Down has been labeled nu metal much, much, much more, and by much more reliable sources than it has been labeled progressive metal. I have no problem what so ever accepting that I disagree with some sources. However, my opinion does not matter, the sources do. You are the one being biased when it comes to the consideration of sources.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Three books and a website of vague importance are more reliable than several major newspapers and Rolling Stone? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

So The Boston Globe is not a reliable sources? Wow and this is what is wrong with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 April 2009
 * The Boston Globe is a reliable news source, no question on that. But whether it should be used to support a view on a controversial musical topic is to be debated. I personally think that the Boston Globe is no authority on musical genres. Rock musicologists, such as Garry Sharpe-Young, are to be used as sources.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The newspaper articles you contest were written by the music writers for those papers, as opposed to the general stories you tried to add for "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I'd like to get back to the fact that the band was classified with this term more because of the bands they toured with than because of their actual music. Although Zouavman Le Zouave believes that this is a "fringe theory", one of the citations he added was an interview in which Tankian strongly implies that this is what happened - that they accepted any tours they could get, and because they sometimes coheadlined with bands like Slipknot, the press referred to them as a "nu metal" band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Clarification on the nature of the survey
I would like to make it clear that the survey's sole purpose is to display the opinions of the users involved in the discussion in a much more convenient fashion, not to make a vote. Things like the survey per genres tend to scare me because people interpret them as a vote, in which the top result gets automatic inclusion. This is not how Wikipedia works. Pages to read : Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I hope we all understand that this is to display the opinions of the users, and not to use as a referendum.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Who needs a survey?
Sorry but this is a ridiculous subject to discuss or edit war over when there are multiple books that support the assertion that System of a Down is nu metal. As an aside, I could find not find any book that describes them as progressive metal or experimental rock. Anyone denying that the band is nu metal needs to go through wikipedia's policies again, particularly the one that succintly states that threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Bardin (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ozzfest embraced the so-called nu-metal acts: Korn, Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, Incubus, Godsmack, System of a Down, Papa Roach, Slipknot, Tool, Rob Zombie, at p. 304 of
 * bands such as ... System of a Down, all of which plough very different musical furrows but can still be grouped under the eclectic nu-metal banner. ... If you insist on a Top 20 of nu-metal, here it is: ... 15. System of a Down at p. 14 of
 * there's a profile of the band on pp. 84-7 of this Italian language book titled Nu Metal.
 * There's also plenty of news article describing the band as nu metal.


 * Comment — Only instance in which I've seen Kid Rock (commonly considered rap rock), Tool (considered art rock, progressive metal and progressive rock) or Rob Zombie (considered industrial and heavy metal) claimed as "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Book profiles bands of multiple genres, ranging from hardcore punk to hip hop. Inclusion in that book does not determine a band's status as a performer of a supposed genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Seems to be sourced from the above, as it shares the same lack of distinction and groups performers of multiple genres into an attempt at classifying a new wave of modern rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Coverage of the band as such is wildly inconsistent. As stated above, when the band began, it was classified with the same term as the bands it toured with. When the popularity of the term and certain acts described as such declined, coverage of the band began to more heavily lean on its experimental and progressive influences. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That would be what the news articles are for. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Please do not break up my post. This is not a forum. Your opinion of those books means nothing. This is wikipedia and the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you have a problem with that, take it up elsewhere. --Bardin (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the categorization of "nu metal" is not as well-verified as the other genres. We're looking for definitives here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes it is. If any genre is not as well verified as the others, it is progressive metal. The overwhelming evidence displayed before you should be sufficient for you to accept the facts.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, that is incorrect. "Progressive metal" is well verified. There's no way that you can look at those sources and say that it is not well verified. Several major newspapers and Rolling Stone. That is well verified. As opposed to three books of vague notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC))
 * "Progressive metal" is verified mainly by news sources. Now on a musical controversy, the logic is to listen to rock musicologists and rock authors, rather than journalists that publish in the general news press. It's not hard to comprehend. If any genre has been more verified, it is nu metal. I don't see why you are pushing for the exclusion of this genre.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am removing one of the sources used to back up the progressive metal claim, for it does not label the band as progressive metal. Instead, it claims the band has "prog components", which bands outside of the genre can have. Let's not put words in people's mouths.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources used to back up "progressive metal" were written by experts for the music sections of the papers, not some random reporter who doesn't know anything about music. No one's putting words in anybody's mouths. Rather, you are twisting the facts to fit your own perspective. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Look, I think that your edits are biased when it comes to the interpretation and consideration of sources. One of the sources, from the general press, that you use to support the "progressive metal" claim does not support it at all. Things on Wikipedia are not unilateral, and I've been very cooperative with the stubbornness of your edits up to this day. If we judge the band's genre from its sources, then "nu metal" is definitely first, while progressive metal is not.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it directly states that the band is "progressive" within the context of metal bands, whereas one of the sources (They're an Armenian Band, DeRogatis, 2001) you tried to use to back up "nu metal" doesn't actually state that the band performs nu-metal, only that they were considered nu-metal. That means nothing. A band could be considered one genre, but not actually perform it. Incubus were incorrectly categorized as nu-metal for the longest time, even though many critics and fans pointed out that their music had nothing to do with other bands associated with the term. How is it being stubborn to want the clearest-sourced, factually accurate content on the page? In an encyclopedia, you are not supposed to add a genre just because it suits you. Your referral to me as "stubborn" is another in a long line of not-too-subtle shots at me. Who is being biased? I never attacked you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Don't accuse me of personal attacks, for I have not attacked you. What I have referred to is "the stubbornness of your edits". I don't know you, I cannot judge your person from your edits. Your distinction between a band qualified as "being a nu metal band" and "performing nu metal" is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Using that logic, it would be coherent to say "The Beatles is a rock band, but they play hip-hop" or even "David Guetta is a heavy metal musician that performs house music." Let's take what the sources tell us the way it is meant to be taken. I believe we should not interpret the sources the way that is most convenient to us. So far, it seems to me that you are refusing both what the sources say, what the previous consensus has decided, and what users present in this discussion have voiced their opinion on. You are the only one pushing for the exclusion of nu metal in the infobox, and I don't see anyone else pushing for the inclusion of progressive metal.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone is being "stubborn", it is you. Your repeated attacks and accusations and attempts to put words in my mouth and drastic misinterpretation of the rules of Wikipedia and the given sources are so far extreme that you come across in a very negative light rather than appearing to be a sympathetic editor who merely wants to improve the quality of the articles. If anyone is interpreting the sources in a convienent way, it is you. Take the article They're an Armenian band. The correct version of the article, on the author's website, lists a shorter title, and the article itself does not refer to the band as performing "nu metal". In fact, the only reference to genre terms in that article refers to the band as performing "art rock". The article also states that the band is not nu-metal. Despite this fact, you have attempted to skew this to use the article to claim nu metal as a genre, disregarding the fact that whatever editorial decisions made against the author's consent by the publishing newspaper were not made by experts on musical styles. And your claim that I am the only one who is against the inclusion of nu metal is false, false, false. Every archive page for this article is filled with opposition against the inclusion of the genre. You do not see this because it does not fit your own bias and opinion, thus it is invalid to you. Just as all sources for progressive metal are invalid because they do not fit your opinion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Use of the general press
One of the issues we ran over in this debate is the inclusion of the general press on a musical controversy. After arguing against their use as a tangible source, I'll change my mind, and play by the rules Ibaranoff24 would rather have. A source is a source. I have begun to add sources labeling the band as nu metal, and as I am hardly halfway though, we already have more sources than any of the other genres. Should I add all the sources, or are we going to save some time and energy by accepting the fact that the most verified genre is nu metal?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is consistency. Coverage of progressive metal is consistent. Coverage of nu metal is not. I've repeatedly stated this, and that you ignore this fact reveals your own personal bias. No one ever tried to add minor newspapers/magazines to back up sourcing of progressive genres, as you have with "nu metal" (The Independent and Stylus Magazine are not as good as the newspapers sourcing progressive metal). I have no idea what "rules" you refer to, but I never tried to twist the facts to fit my own perspective. The fact is that the categorization of "nu metal" is inaccurate, not only for the fact that it is not a genre, but for the fact that the actual musical aspects don't add up. When are you going to accept that? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd also like to point out that the number of sources doesn't matter when the sources are strong enough for inclusion in the infobox, as is the case with alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock and progressive metal. When the sources are not strong enough, such as is the case with "nu metal" (where application is inconsistent), there's enough of a reason to exclude them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Influences
I cleaned up the influences section. I hope to add more sources. I rewrote the examples of specific influences to refer to artists that the band has cited as an influence, rather than to say that they listened to [such and such] and that it might have influenced them. In that context, I removed the citation referring to the band as having listened to Kiss - it was meant to back up the statement that they appreciate Kiss. Lots of people listened to Kiss - but is it really worth mentioning? Especially in the context of an influence. If a source can be provided stating that System of a Down were influenced by Kiss, then it's relevant, but you can listen to an artist and still not be influenced by them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC))