Talk:System of a Down/Archive 4

Photos...
For the band photos, could you guys please upload and use This? If you don't want to, then fine. I thought it would be a great group shot, and you could crop it and use it for the individual band members. | YESSSS! (Talk to YESSSS! ) 19:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)| Why don't you create an account and do so yourself? --Skater (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)--Skater (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any article image has to have a free license. The images currently being used in this article and each band member article are perfectly fine. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Getting back to important subjects...
All of the citations from the fansite and the group's MySpace page has to go. If better sources cannot be found for those statements, they have to be removed. I asked a member of the Guild of Copyeditors to do a little work on the article. Hopefully, we can get it up to the standards of other music articles like Frank Zappa and Black Sabbath. Obviously, it looks real pretty to have a bunch of citations in the article, but if they are not reliable, readers aren't getting any verifiable information, and there's nothing that separates this from a fan page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

The fansite is actually quite a reliable source, as it they have numerous interviews with the band. They may not be official but the SOAD members do seem to grant them more members then other site I've seen. As for their Myspace, I didn't see it was it there official Myspace? If so and if it is updated by the band, I would consider it reliable. --Skater (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Alright, I'll see what I can do.--Skater (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the fansite: it can't be confirmed that the interviews are legitimate. The information has to be verifiable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * According to this, you're right about the MySpace page. But try to find a better source, because it's likely to be challenged. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I added a query about questionable sources at the Noticeboard. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I went ahead and removed the Ultimate Guitar citation. It's pretty clear that this is a fan-written biography. The author is credited as "feesk8ordie", and appears to have posted on the website's message boards. User-edited content is not reliable. The cited statement will need a better source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I didn't even know there was a biography on System, It would be great if someone did have a copy.--Skater (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a copy of the biography System of a Down: Right Here in Hollywood by Ben Myers? This seems like a good source for the article - it was written by an editor and writer for Kerrang!, Melody Maker, and Q. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I took out the citation sourced from the SOAD Fans forum. That one should have been pretty obvious as not being a reliable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Relevance
"System of a Down was honored at the USC v. Cal game at the Los Angeles Coliseum in Los Angeles, CA in 2006. The Trojan Marching Band, along with Dolmayan and Odadjian, performed three System of a Down songs: Toxicity, Sugar, and Hypnotize. System of a Down's song Lonely Day was nominated for Best Hard Rock Performance in the 49th Grammy Awards in 2007, but lost to Woman by Wolfmother."

This whole paragraph seems out of place and irrelevant. Yes, it is in the correct time period. But, I am not sure if it is even necessary information. If anything it should be in a Trivia section. --Blckhawk1234 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:TRIVIA.--  C  anniba loki  19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) — Perhaps a section awards and nominations would be more appropriate.--  C  anniba  loki  19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, I am ErikTheBikeMan (talk), the mediator who has accepted this case with the Mediation Cabal. To briefly summarize, the dispute seems to be between User:Zouavman Le Zouave and User:Ibaranoff24 over whether or not System of a Down is progressive metal or nu metal. Both parties seem to agree that the band is experimental rock and hard rock, which is a good start. The requester of the mediation, User:Ibaranoff24, believes that nu metal is "a poorly-sourced and inconsistent term, " though briefly looking over both articles, they are both tagged as needing additional sources and containing original research, so I'm not sure how accurate Ibaranoff24's description is. I would like to here what Zouavman Le Zouave thinks of this in his explanation.

To suggest a compromise right out of the gate, would the parties agree that the band could be classified as both progressive and nu metal? They seem to agree on the band being experimental rock and hard rock, so they seem to believe that a band may be classified by several genres.

Now, I would like to go over how I would like to run this mediation. I would like both parties to explain their rationale for their beliefs in this case in their respective sections farther down. I would also like them to both answer the questions I have left in the "Questions" section, though if they agree on a point, only one of them needs to answer, and the other may simply note their agreement. Any other parties who would like to comment may create their own subsections above the "General Discussion" subsection and weigh in on the matter. Anyone who wishes to join the discussion may do so at will.

As a friendly reminder, I hope that both parties will remain civil throughout the process, which will hopefully not take to long. I have not seen any real degeneration of wikiquette in the discussion, but nerves do tend to get frayed as the argument drags on.

Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions

 * To both parties, if there are reliable sources for both genres, why can't both genres be included?
 * What was the rationale behind the "Survey: Is System of a Down Nu metal ?" section?

Explanation by Zouavman Le Zouave
First of all, I want to thank ErikTheBikeMan for agreeing to take the time to mediate this discussion. Now I'd like to say that the term nu metal is an easily verifiable term that has been used often in the musical press since the early 1990s. Numerous books have been written about the musical movement, important musical media such as MTV have been using the term, and the term has repeatedly been used to describe System of a Down. As another user cited in the discussion, Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. While the term has proven itself to be verifiable, Ibaranoff24 claims that it is "not actually a genre". Ibaranoff24 claims he has given "a very valid explanation as to why it is not a legitimate genre." It is not to Wikipedia users to determine if a musical genre is legitimate or not; it is up to the sources do determine that.

Concerning my claim that Ibaranoff24 did not respect consensus, I will explain the reasoning. When the article's infobox genres changed every single day, several users and myself took part in a lengthy set of discussions to come up with a neutral and verifiable consensus on the issue. The end of the discussions, where consensus was found, can be found here. Since that day, there never was considerable debate on the infobox genres, most of the users contesting consensus giving in or never replying. I have always been open to re-opening discussions. When Ibaranoff24 modified the genres without a new consensus on the talk page, I reverted him a first time. However, when Ibaranoff24 restored his preferred version, and accused me of making edits supporting my point of view, I decided not to revert him, in order to avoid an edit war. Instead, I focused my time and energy on discussing the issue in the talk page, which is what I think Ibaranoff24 should have done before editing the article. On an issue like this, one can't afford to edit the article as he or she wishes; consensus must be found on the talk page first. Since the genre debate was re-opened, Ibaranoff24 has been the only one to push for the inclusion of progressive metal in the infobox, which has at most four sources describing the band as such, and has been with Prophaniti the only two users to push for the exclusion of nu metal, which has at least eight sources describing the band explicitly as such.

Explanation by Ibaranoff24
"Nu metal" was a term that was in use for a very brief period of time and, in most cases, was used inconsistently, generally applied to groups of musical groups in various genres who happened to tour together. Most bands who had previously been tagged as "nu metal" were described as with different terms later in their career. The argument is not actually about the terms being applied, but more that Zouavman Le Zouave has accused me of being "unable to respect consensus", even though I cannot see an actual consensus in any previous archived discussion, whereas I feel that Zouavman takes a negative attitude towards editors who do not agree with his opinions. I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of progressive metal as a genre term, but I would like Zouavman to take an interest in coming to an agreement with other editors rather than drawing out a long argument that goes nowhere, and I do not think that we should categorize musical groups on the basis that they were in "the right place at the right time", as there is significant opinion by both music journalists and fans that the categorization of "nu metal" for System of a Down is inaccurate. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Furthermore, Zouavman Le Zouave has consistently shown his bias by refusing to acknowledge that the references to this genre term were not consistent, and by continuing to make false statements about a consensus that never existed, statements that were never made, and actions that never took place. Claims to have stopped adding the poorly sourced genre to the Infobox to "avoid an edit war" when, if any edit war would have ever took place, he would have instigated and engaged in it, no matter who the other editor was. Lists a series of false allegations on his user page and claims that it is not an attack page. Continues to argue with other editors and behave rudely towards any person who disagrees with his opinion, and refuses to admit that his opinions are not shared by all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

General Discussion
Ibaranoff, could you please provide some sources (either online or easily accessible offline) that show that "There is significant opinion by both music journalists and fans that the categorization of 'nu metal' for System of a Down is inaccurate"? Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a few examples:

And, of course, there is plently of fan opinion in the talk archives. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The citation you use from the first source says in no way that they are not a nu metal band. It simply says that some of their characteristics differ from "many nu metal bands". In fact, the complete title of this article is They're an Armenian band, But nu-metal System of a Down is rising to the top in U.S.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The version published on the author's website does not have that title. It's not likely that the author intended that to be the full title. A newspaper editor can go against the author's intentions and change the titles of their content. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC))


 * In direct contradiction to your claim that I am the only person to try and exclude the term from the infobox, the talk archives list several examples in which editors argued against the genre's inclusion for one reason or another, including several that I have cited here. If you've ever looked at these discussions, you would also see that there has never been a consensus. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I believe my statement started with "Since the genre debate was re-opened". You are the only user to have pushed for the inclusion of progressive metal in the infobox, and of the users involved in the most recent genre debate, most have disagreed with you on removing nu metal from the infobox. On the source above : it is not up to Wikipedia editors to interpret what the author's intentions were. Fact is the article, as published by the Chicago Tribune, directly and explicitly states that System of a Down is a nu metal act. The other version does not contradict this.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The genre debate never closed. There was never any consensus. Your continued insistance of such contradicts direct evidence of the opposite. Secondly, you are the only editor who has disagreed with the removal of nu metal. And, as I've stated, the version on the author's website does not refer to System of a Down as a nu metal act, but an art rock act. In fact, the article states that SOAD is not a nu metal band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * In respect to the first source, I was able to find this quote: "The band is the bright shining hope of the otherwise dismal nu-metal scene," which the interviewer appears to have said in a question. The response makes no attempt to refute that claim, so I think that we can discount that article as saying that SoaD is not nu-metal.
 * I'm also not really seeing where any of the other sources say that SoaD is not nu-metal. In fact, the only claim that I could really find along those lines is: "Not to be confused with the nu-metal bunch out there, SOAD is very much rooted in old school death metal music." This quote appears to say (and correct me if I'm wrong) that SoaD is more death metal than nu-metal.
 * Finally, I would like to ask both parties if classifying the band as both progressive and nu metal would be acceptable?
 * Respectfully,
 * ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clinging to the idea of System of a Down as "progressive" metal, although that term fits the band better than "nu metal" (and several sources for the albums refer to the music as progressive rock). I really don't believe the categorization of nu metal is consistent enough for it to be included. There were millions of bands coming out during a certain period, and if you take any tour you can get, and wind up paired with Limp Bizkit, etc., they wound up calling the music "nu metal". The problem is that there were so many genre-crossers coming out during that time that even hip hop groups got tagged as "nu metal". It's really a very inconsistent term. I don't think it is being well-applied here. I've previously pushed for something simpler along the lines of what the article for Frank Zappa has: something like "Rock, heavy metal, experimental"? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Concerning the quote equating System of a Down's genre to death metal, I think anyone with minimal knowledge of heavy metal subgenres would be able to dismiss this as ridiculous. No reliable source has ever described System of a Down as a death metal act, for the simple reason that System of a Down shares hardly no musical characteristics with the genre (death growls, used almost unanimously in the death metal genre, are not used in SoaD's music, for example). That's for that. For the suggestion of including both genres in the infobox, I am strictly opposed to the inclusion of progressive metal. Why? Because not enough reliable sources have labeled the band as such, and it would be unfair to give special treatment to that genre. If we are to use the most verifiable genres in the infobox, let's do it right. As for Ibaranoff24's denial of previous consensus, it is one of the stances that causes the heat in this debate. Ibaranoff24 refuses to acknowledge the fact that a long-term consensus had been found (see my explanation a couple sections above). I have been following the article for more than two years, and when consensus was found, the infobox genres became stable. I think that, even if Ibaranoff24 did not believe that consensus existed, he should not have edited the genres and reverted other users without reaching a consensus on the talk page first.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus. I do not need to deny anything, because the facts are set in stone. There was never a consensus. I've looked through page after page of discussion, and none exists. Repeatedly stating such and asking me to accept your version of reality is the reason why a MedCab was opened. I have read through the archives, and there was never a consensus. Not even briefly. It's very clear to anyone who actually reads these archives that no one has ever agreed upon the genres. Denying reality will not get us closer to coming to a consensus. It will continue to delay any possible consensus that could be drawn upon, if any could ever be found, considering that there has never been any consensus previously. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * For the last time, I'll give you a link to the section where consensus had come to be found : Talk:System of a Down/Archive 3. But let's just say there never was any consensus. Let's just assume so. You still pushed your preferred version of the article without seeking consensus beforehand. Actually, you favored plain reverting to discussion. As the history can testify, I have not reverted you after this, because I knew this would only lead to an edit war. So your claim that "there never was any consensus" is not only inaccurate, but it is also irrelevant to the subject at hand.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the last time, you can't just declare a consensus when none clearly exists. Claiming a consensus of your own invention does not solve the problem. It only worsens it. Secondly, I reverted you because you were pushing your own opinion. Don't twist this around. Do you not understand why there is a MedCab discussion? Do you not understand why no one could ever come to a consensus? Do you not understand why there is still no consensus today? You clearly have "bias" tattooed onto your face when you claim on your attack page that I've been pushing for the inclusion of progressive metal when I've repeatedly stated that is not my perogative and claim support of the inclusion of nu metal when none exists. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * And you're still pushing your own opinion by removing sourced material and claiming that it is unsourced. The cited quote refers to the tuning within the context of a musical style. Removing the word "genre's" from the statement removes the context, and does not read correctly within the context of the sentence. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I assume you are referring to this edit. Why did I edit "the genre's dropped A tuning" to "the dropped A tuning"? Because the dropped A tuning does not belong to the nu metal genre. Bands in many other musical genres have used it, and unless you can show me a reliable source that claims that this tuning belongs to this genre, claiming the dropped A tuning as "the genre's tuning" is original research. Why did I remove "The band has contested the use of the term "nu metal" to refer to its music" ? Because it cannot be found in the source that you gave. The closest thing there is in this article is the phrase "never felt comfortable with glib stereotypes". Never does the article explicitly mention the band's opposition to that claim. Now you can interpret the article as you wish, but you cannot add a statement on an article from the sole fruit of interpretation. I encourage our mediator to check out the source in question.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can go on about whatever opinions you may have, but we have a source, and that source is Malakian discussing the musical aspects of the band, and referring to dropped A tuning as being a part of "nu metal", and stating that he dislikes that tuning. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to make statements that jibe with our own opinions. We have to go with the sourced text. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Please give me the exact quote from the article that mentions explicitly that the band rejects the nu metal classification. Please do. Because I cannot find it. Enlighten me.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's right there. I have already posted it once:

"The group was once labeled 'nu metal' and lumped in with such acts as Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Rage Against the Machine. But Rage is gone, Korn and Bizkit have faded, and that leaves System, which has never felt comfortable with glib stereotypes. 'We don't belong to any one scene,' says Malakian."

How is that not clear enough for you? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but this mentions the band's uncomfort with the stereotype, not with the genre. The rest is to interpretation, and interpretation cannot be used as a source in a Wikipedia article (WP:OR).  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   01:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it isn't direct enough for you, I guess we'll just have to find another source. Still want to explain how dropped A guitar tuning is not a common aspect of "nu metal" even though we have a source with a member of the band expressing a dislike for the tuning style and attributing it to that style term? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I found a page listing a couple of relevant statements from Malakian. Does anyone have the exact sources and articles, so we can add the content into the article? The page references a Guitar World interview in which Malakian says that he's "glad System of a Down has not slipped into the nu metal genre", and a Houston Press interview in which he gives the following statement:

"Lately, we've been doing interviews, and people have been like, 'You guys are really leading the way for the new prog movement,' and I'm like, 'What?' Because a couple of years ago, these guys were comparing us to Limp Bizkit and Korn, and now that we're still here and those bands aren't, they're talking about prog. It's just kind of aggravating that people always have to have something to compare us to, or bunch us up with. I'm not saying we're the most original band in the world, but I don't really feel that we fall into a heavy-metal category or a pure rock category. There's a lot of stuff mixed up into one."

Does anyone have the exact issues/articles being referenced here? Can we get a couple of citations into the article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That last quote would be great to add in the article, for it reflects well the band's attitude towards musical genres. But it does not give Malakian's opinion on the nu metal genre in particular, just about musical labels in general. As for "the genre's", even if Malakian mentioned the tuning as "belonging" to the nu metal genre, it does not make it so. Malakian is a musician, not a musicologist or a music journalist. By adding "genre's" in the sentence, the sentence reflects Malakian's point of view. To make it neutral and accurate, we should simply mention "the dropped A tuning".  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Omg! Ibaranoff24, do you really think that Zouavman Le Zouave is here just to sabotage your idea of the perfect infobox? Why do you even care what genre the band is listed under? as long as you enjoy the music you shouldn't. Zouavman Le Zouave doesn't want you changing the genres everyday because it makes for a bad article. why can't we just leave the genres how they are right now, and talk about new ones in the discussion. then when everyone agrees we can change them. and just to add my 2 cents in, i used to be like you, a die hard soad fan who would do anything just to get rid of the nu metal label. then i started listening to other bands, other genres, and my views changed. there are probably 1 million sources that say they are nu metal. not only are there next to no sources for prog metal, but honestly a band with the longest song being 5 minutes, 99% of songs being in 4/4 time, and attracting a pop audience is not prog. dont go and say pink floyd sold millions because that was a different time! And just to give you a different perspective of things, the reasons you give to exclude nu metal are similar to the reasons you give to include prog metal. for example, a source might say "soad is different from other nu metal bands", and you would argue that its saying they arent nu metal. then you give a source for prog metal saying something like "soads genre is often hard to categorize, incorporating prog like elements", and somehow to you this is an amazing source. do you see what everyone means? 99.234.128.114 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you think you are, but no one is changing the genres "everyday". Both of the disputed genres are being left off while this discussion is going on, and there has been no attempt to add either genre since they have been removed. Secondly, there are excellent sources for progressive metal. Better sources, in fact, than those for "nu metal". And I never expressed a strong opinion in favor of any genre. Next time you want to comment on an article, can you not make this a ridiculous rant about other editors, and focus on the actual content? By the way, sales does not equate to a genre music. The actual music itself equates to the relevant terms. The statements you make to claim a dominating genre of your own opinion are nonsense. The band has had songs longer than five minutes, and in other time signatures than 4/4, and no one is claiming that SOAD is progressive simply because they're "different" or that they are not nu metal because they are "different from other nu metal bands". That has nothing to do with any of the sourced information that is provided here and in the article. That's just how you perceive the discussion to be. I'm sorry to inform you that your interpretations of the statements being made by the editors in the discussion just don't relate to what is actually being discussed. The rest of your spiel is nonsense. Do you know me personally? No, you don't. So, what gives you the idea that you think you know what kind of music I listen to? And how is that of any relevance to the editing of an article? By ridiculing other editors for not sharing your idea of music, you end up disrupting the editing progress, not advancing the discussion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

If you are saying that you don't have a "personal, for lack of a better word" connection to the band, then why are you trying so hard to disregard the number of sources stating that they are nu metal.99.234.128.114 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What "number of sources"? The referral to the band as "nu metal" is incredibly inconsistent and contradictory. The best sources for "nu metal" are three obscure books, whereas there are some actual, authorative sources referring to System of a Down as "progressive metal". I don't have to "try hard" when the sources given for "nu metal" are as terrible as they are. There's no reason to do so. My argument is incredibly easy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

allmusic listed them as Heavy Metal .MetalMagnet1987 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, a lot has been written since I last had time to check here, so please forgive me if I've missed some important points while I skimmed.


 * It seems to me that neither of the parties (nor anyone else involved) seems to have ever suggested a simple compromise of calling the band by both genres. Is this acceptable to anyone? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not want to see that happen, no. While this may sound counterproductive to refuse such a compromise, it does not reflect what the sources report. It's as simple as that.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Nu metal" is not reported consistently enough to appear in the Infobox. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't know if this is important, but while playing Rock Band 2 I discovered that "B.Y.O.B.", "Toxicity", and "Chop Suey" are all listed as nu-metal.Skater (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The game was developed by MTV, not by music experts. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
 * To be honest, from the sources I've seen above, it seems as though both genres are reported fairly consistently in sources, so I don't see why we shouldn't report them as belonging to both genres and letting our readers decide for themselves which is correct. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another alternative we have had this entire time is that of adding no genres in the infobox, simply a link to the section in the article. I do not find this preferable, but I would think it is a better alternative than putting genres that have no consensus or considerable sources to back up. If we look at the numbers, progressive metal is not in the top three most sourced genres for this band, and should not be included in the infobox. We still have the no genres possibility.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that possibility, though it could certainly work as well. Ibaranoff, your opinion? On a side note, would it be possible to remove some of the footnotes in the genres list? It seems a bit excessive... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've suggested placing the genres as something along the lines of "Rock, experimental". That would be fine, wouldn't it? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Sounds fine to me.--Skater (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be fine to me if Experimental rock was used instead. System of a Down never played Experimental music. Other than that, it would be fine with me.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Should I go ahead and make the change? Also, does this apply only to the infobox or the genres section as well? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article page, I see that it has already been changed. Is the current article acceptable to both parties? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The current listing of "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock" is fine with me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Ibaranoff: Thanks for cleaning up the styles and influences section! It is finally readable... ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with having Alternative metal in there or Hard rock if it is going to be a simplified "Rock, Experimental rock". Either we put rock and experimental rock, without those other genres, or we include nu metal in there.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   04:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "Rock, Experimental rock" sounds sloppy. What is wrong with "Rock, experimental"? Experimental rock is a type of experimental music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Experimental music is not the same thing as experimental rock, I think we can all agree on that. System of a Down plays music that has been described by some as being experimental rock, but never experimental music in a general sense. Experimental music is defying the definition of music, with composers such as John Cage or Glenn Branca. Experimental rock is rock music with a certain amount of experimentation in the composition style. I don't think that experimental music should be there.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But if listing experimental rock is fine, why you disagree with the inclusion of alternative metal and hard rock? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The way I see it, the "Rock, Experimental rock" solution is a simplified version. If we're going to include alt metal and hard rock, might as well include nu metal as well. The only reason I do not mind the "Rock, Experimental rock" solution is that it is a simplified.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   02:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) May I inquire as to what is wrong with the current version: "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock"? It seems to cover all the genres presented in the styles and influences section without going into excessive detail. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe if we are trying to include the most sourced genres, which is the case in the current version, that nu metal should be added. Nu metal has been reported much more than some of those genres.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained before, nu metal has been poorly and inconsistently reported. "Progressive metal", which you dismissed, is better-sourced than nu metal. "Alternative metal", "experimental rock" and "hard rock" are all better sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
 * No, Ibaranoff24, they are not. Nu metal has at least eight references, which you deleted from the article. The sources you use for progressive metal are not labeling the band as such. The best sourced genre is nu metal, and I don't see how eight sources aren't enough.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no excuse for your explicit POV-pushing here. Nu metal is the worst-sourced out of all of the genres. It is the most inconsistently-attributed. The facts don't lie, and I am still astonished as to how you perceive this as a matter of how many sources are "needed" when alternative metal was more widely and consistently reported. Your history shows that you refuse to come to any comprimise that challenges your own opinion of the articles you edit, especially when you try to claim that I deleted references, when I only deleted poor sources. It makes it very difficult for other editors to improve articles when certain editors try to enforce their own POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Don't you accuse me of POV pushing. Eight (the number of sources backing up nu metal) is a superior number to three (the number of sources labeling the band as a progressive metal band). You do not know my history, and I have come to multiple compromises on multiple articles. You have no right to claim those things. On the other side, here are a couple of diffs where you edit according to your point of view without getting consensus in the talk page first : removal of sources according to your point of view and removal of categories according to your point of view. You are no one to talk.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as "removing categories toward my own point of view", that is not my point of view, that's the consensus. Which you would know if you've looked at the overall projectory of sources, which, so far, you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't try to add sources that do not explicitly refer to the band as "nu metal" to try and back up your own opinion as you come back at opposing editors with a smug sense of superiority and try to act as if they are morons and that you are a genius when it comes to deciding musical genres. Until you can edit without making false accusations toward other editors and starting up ridiculous attack pages, you should not try to claim that you are willing to come to an agreement. Your heated arguments here and elsewhere clearly show that you have made no attempt thus far to agree on any revision that doesn't match up with your own POV. And stop putting emphasis on the perceived slant towards progressive metal. I never made any such attempt. All I said was that it was more consistently reported than "nu metal" (which it is). I've repeatedly stated that I am not biased toward any of the genres. Repeatedly stating such in spite of the contradictory evidence makes you look foolish. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Again, you are no one to talk when it comes to accusations. You are the one accusing me of POV pushing, and of making an attack page. I have done neither. I am trying to get consistency in the infobox. If a genre is repeatedly attributed by numerous reliable, renowed sources, it is obviously to be cited at one point or another. And if the genres with most verifiability belong in the infobox, then nu metal belongs there. You claim repeatedly that the genre is "inconsistently" sourced. However, when you look at all the genres, nu metal is the most sourced genre out there. I also advise you to stop making ridiculous accusations, it's getting very frustrating for me, and for the other editors, I'm sure.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is inconsistently sourced. We have scattered reports from mostly non-notable publications who believe that SOAD's music has "elements" of "nu-metal". But who are these guys? Are they music experts? Largely not. The writers of the citations you provided are largely reporters struggling with the content they are given because they're not music experts. Should we put "folk" in there as well, since there are reports saying that SOAD incorporates elements of folk? Alternative metal, experimental rock and hard rock are all better cited than nu-metal, but you only push for that genre's inclusion because of your personal opinion. Don't try to twist things to try to make other editors look bad because you aren't getting things your way. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

An outsider's opinion
I'll admit from the start here that I've never heard any of SoaD's music, but I'm inclined to hand over my opinion, having spent the last couple hours reading over the discussions. I agree with each and every one of ErikTheBikeMan's (your friendly neighborhood mediator's) concerns with Ibaranoff's source material for not-nu-metal. From everything I've looked at, the is-nu-metal argument is rather well-sourced, including from some of the articles Ibaranoff linked to in an attempt to argue the other side. However, if sources can be found for the other side where the meaning isn't open to interpretation, the dispute can probably be included in the influences section. No one here can decide that SoaD isn't nu metal if multiple sources say that it is--we're the record, not the jury. With that in mind, I'm trying to understand why this edit was made. The view that nu metal is "inconsistently-sourced" as regards SoaD is not well-documented (or well-sourced?) in itself. I'm glad that's only been a mild point of contention, however. I believe the suggestion for rock and experimental music was reasonable. As for the rest... Experimental music and experimental rock, from their respective articles, seem to have a similar relationship as alternative metal and nu metal. That is, nu metal is listed in the alternative metal article as a subgenre. Experimental rock features a "common elements" section that consists mainly (if not entirely) of selected points from experimental music. That is, if the common elements of experimental rock are a subset of the common elements of experimental music, I'm inclined to believe that experimental rock is a subset of experimental music. Experimental music, rock, and alternative metal would, in my opinion, be broad enough (and far enough removed from specific things like nu metal and hard rock) to cover a fair amount of what the group represents. But again, I'm a newbie outsider, just puttin' things in for consideration by both sides. Hope to happily interact with you all on other articles. Irisa Dunner (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "Alternative metal/experimental/rock" sounds reasonable. Any other opinions? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I believe Nu metal should be included in the list. --Skater (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've already gone over this. There is no reason why "nu-metal" should be included. It was never consistently reported. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The sources by Zouvman state otherwise. --Skater (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources given by Zouvman are inconsistent. Why do you not understand this? Several of the sources Zouvman offers don't actually refer to the band as "nu-metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Ibaranoff24, your repeated claim of inconsistency in the sources for the nu metal label is backed up by nothing but your personal assessment on the issue. In fact, you are the only one to see this inconsistency. You are not the first one to be upset by this categorization, but as Wikipedia editors, our personal point of view on the matter must not interfere with what the sources decide.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   08:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Zouavman Le Zouave, your repeated claim that the sources are not inconsistent is backed up by nothing but your personal assessment on the issue. In fact, you are the only one to claim that the sources are not inconsistent. You are not the first one to be upset by the fact that the term isn't factually backed up, but as Wikipedia editors, our personal POV on the matter must not interfere with what the sources decide. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

The sources are not inconsistent. Based on the sources, you are lucky people aren't pushing for nu metal as the only genre in the infobox. can you please look at this issue with an outside perspective!?! system of a down are a nu metal band! who cares! they dont have solos like traditional metal, they have song structures based in alternative rock and grunge, they came out with other nu metal bands, use similar tunnings(even though other metal bands use drop tunings), and have songs with similar topics. not to mention that they have a very pop influenced sound. you dont see many slayer or cannibal corpse type bands on the mtv countdown after britney spears! Not to mentions the TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS of reliable sources. TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 99.234.145.123 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) should we include heavy metal? That's how allmusic described them. MetalMagnet1987 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are irrelevant to what is actually sourced, and the statements that you've made are straight-up misinformed. Until you have something to contribute, please do not vandalize article talk pages. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
 * That anonymous comment is not vandalism. Poorly written, yes. Vandalism, no. --Bardin (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rock, heavy metal, experimental" sounds good. Although I must point out that Allmusic is really sloppy with its music categorization, so it would be best not to simply go by what they say. For example, non-metal bands are often mistakenly categorized as heavy metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I don't see any objection to having heavy metal in there, but I still do object to having experimental music included in there. Experimental rock is fine, but experimental music is too general. By the way, I intend on making clear that if this more general version of the infobox genres was to be chosen, that it has nothing to do with sources, and that this relates to the choices of Wikipedia editors rather than anything else. I would rather have something backed up by sources, but hey, that didn't seem to be working out too great.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have consistent referral to the band as hard rock (a type of rock music), alternative metal (a type of heavy metal music), and experimental rock (a type of experimental music). Generalizing the genre terms improves the article by simplifying things for readers who are not already familiar with the band. I prefer the approach taken in articles like Frank Zappa to having a long, drawn-out argument that leads nowhere. Having genres that are backed up by sourced content is working out just fine. What wasn't working out too great was having nu metal listed when it wasn't well-substantiated. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I'll agree with you on that one. I did not see things from that angle. I guess using broader genres can't hurt the infobox. "Rock, Heavy metal, Experimental" has my support. But just for the record, the nu metal genre is clearly sourced, much more than the other subgenres, and I will expand on that in the styles and influences section. Can the users involved in the discussion express themselves on the "Rock, heavy metal, experimental" proposition? Do we have consensus?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   04:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, happy to see the genre war come to a close. Now, let's focus on getting this to FA status!--Skater (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)