Talk:System of a Down/Archive 6

SOAD
They are coming back 2012 :)
 * Got Sources?-- SKATER  Speak. 15:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article on Ultimate Guitar makes it apparent that we shouldn't use "System of a Down was", as it quotes Shavo:
 * "There's always been talks. We didn't break up. This always has been and is hiatus. I know it's a time where we're taking off from working with each other and working with others. Not meaning we aren't going to get back together and work with each other again it's been a really long time that we have been together, but like I said before we're friends."
 * Can't find anything beyond rumors on a planned reunion... Especially not an announcement 3 years ahead of time. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  08:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: the genre in the infobox
You can see the discussions about the genre above and in the archive. What genre/genres should be written in the infobox?10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe, given the sources I pointed to above, that System are Hard rock, alternative, and progressive (rock/metal). Hard rock is a given because they have a hard hitting sound; which one is used I'm indifferent to since they're practically the same. Alternative because they aren't your average rock band, and progressive because their songs aren't traditional verse-chorus-bridge, because they use exotic instruments, and because the dynamics, tempo, metres, and keys change multiple times throughout many songs. I'd side progressive metal over progressive rock since the latter generally refers to much lighter sounding bands. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok as my comment, I think acourding to sources ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  gave and some other sources, the genre in the infobox should include alternative metal. And as the sources for experimental are a little more than progressive and as use of exotic instruments and other things mentioned in the comment above are more often considered the elements of experimental rock, I think the genres in the infobox should be alternative metal, experimental metal. And the reason I think it's better not to use experimental rock or Avant-garde metal is because the first one more refers to someone like Frank Zappa and the second one refers to some more Extreme metal acts like Celtic Frost. I also ask other editors to please give their comments on this RfC so we could settle the genre. Solino  the Wolf   10:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have an article for experimental metal (which redirects to avant-garde metal), experimental rock would have to suffice...I'm sorry if it is your opinion that experimental rock doesn't 'fit' SOAD, but that's not what the sources say. I like the current genre list because it is as concise as that which can be found in articles like Frank Zappa, which is the level of quality that we should aspire to. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Huh? The sources I provided don't even mention experimental rock or metal! Please provide your sources that somehow make mine absolutely irrelevent? I'm sorry that your opinion is that SOAD aren't progressive rock/metal, but thats not what the sources say. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again.... Time for me to join the source hunt.-- SKATER  Speak. 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For Alternative Metal
 * From Winamp.com:
 * Like many late-’90s metal bands, System of a Down struck a balance between ’80s underground thrash metal and metallic early-’90s alternative rockers like Jane’s Addiction. Their dark, neo-gothic alternative metal earned a cult following in the wake of the popularity of such likeminded bands as Korn and the Deftones

Somehow I think Alternative Metal has to go up there, it's bleeding obvious.. even allmusic relised it.;) 220.245.148.53 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What about putting alternative metal and not hard rock. Thus, Alternative Metal, Progressive Metal, Experimental. This would not be against the sources and we compromise. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving the sources gathered it seems alright with me.-- SKATER  Speak. 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The genre was just fine as Alternative Metal/Heavy Metal/Experimental who had to fuck with it to start this big problem?Xx1994xx (talk)

I agree with that 110%. I rasied that in on of the archives earlier when it was first changed and it was apperently against 'consensus'. But it had been left like that for a long time befor one editor decided to change it. Alternative Metal/ Heavy Metal/ Experimental or Alternative Metal/ Progressive Metal/ Experimental are both good. I would shy towards the more general 'Heavy Metal' however either works alot better than the current set up. Ducky610 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heavy metal and metal are synonymous. See Heavy metal music. It refers to metal that doesn't fit into another subgenre (Such as death, nu, black, alternative, progressive, etc.). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * About heavy metal, see traditional heavy metal. Mentioning heavy metal in the infobox, usually refers to traditional heavy metal bands such as Iron Maiden and Motorhead. Solino the Wolf   21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So until now more than 90% of the editors commenting here, agree with alternative metal and more than 60% agree on experimental and progressive metal. Still no sign of rock, and some argue on heavy metal. Solino the Wolf   21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there really a need for "rock" unless no sub-genres are specified? Getting into traditional heavy metal really become a here-say thing between hard rock and traditional heavy metal. Personally, I use hard rock to describe heavy metal from Deep Purple to the start of Thrash metal/Groove metal. It begs the question though... Is Zeppelin hard rock or heavy metal? Similarly, is Iron Maiden hard rock or heavy metal? Tough calls to make. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

System of a Down should be considered New Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.166.127 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I ask other editors to give their comments here so we get to a better result. Until now alternative metal is the most agreed genre. Experimental metal/Experimental is another genre that most of the editors agree on. Still there's argues on Heavy metal and Progressive metal. I put Alternative metal and  Experimental for instant. Again: please comment on this RfC so we could get to something most editors agree on. Solino  the Wolf   14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What everyone needs to remember is it doesn't matter what any editors agree on for the genre: all that matters is what the SOURCES say. Editor opinion is just that: editor opinion. So if all the sources say alt. metal and experimental metal, fine, we go with those. If they say "Jazz fusion" and "Extreme death metal", we go with that. So all this logical discussion of genre is a bit pointless: what do the sources say? 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC) EDIT: And actually looking at what we've got in the article so far, there are two sources each for progressive rock, progressive metal, nu metal, hard rock and experimental rock. So we could include all 5 of those, or we could just put "Rock" and maybe "See styles and influences section". Anything else would seem to be denying sources or giving some undue weight. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, one word, No. If sources are what counts then how can plain rock be used? I can't recall System of a Down being described as plain rock. Concenus also counts. Thats the point of this discussion. Alternative Metal can also be sourced twice (allmusic and metacritic). It should be up as it is agreed upon and backed up by sources. Prog Metal/Prog Rock and Experimental rock are also backed up and agreed upon.

Putting 'Rock' and 'see styles and influences section' is unorthodox and confussing. The info box is a clear and concise summery. Stating simply 'rock' is "denying sources" and 'see styles and influences section' looks messy and is inapropriate, if someone wants further information on the matter, they will do that without needing to be told. I fail to see the problem with having something like Alternative Metal (0f which Nu Metal is a derivative), Progressive Rock (of which prog Metal is a derivative) and Experimental Rock (which explains further influence from verious genres) in the infobox and other genres and citations in the 'styles and influences section'.Ducky610 (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although, on the other hand, that is exactly what was agreed upon with Queen (band). They are simply listed as 'rock' because their style spans so many scarcely defined genres. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  06:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Rock" in this context is an umbrella term: all the genres given are a form of rock music, and thus putting just "rock" is the most general way to describe the band (as the user above me says). So it's not denying any sources. As I say, all those other genres have two sources each, and thus to not include all of them, that most definitely WOULD be denying sources. I can see your logic when you talk about, for example, having alternative metal instead of nu metal, but that's original research. Sources term the two genres differently, so if we have 2 for one and 2 for another, both should be included. And I can only see one for alt. metal in there so far.
 * So the basic point still stands: the only way to be fair in accordance with wiki policies on sources and balance and original research, is to have either 5 or 6 genres all listed, or just the most basic "rock", as is used in certain other cases where the specific genre just causes too much contention. Oh, and no need for a hostile tone as in the opening of your reply: please let's keep things civil. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It needn't be all genres in any source. Given the amount of publication System has received, we can weigh the level of coverage of each genre. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not ‘all’ genres given in any source, certainly not. But if we’ve got 5 or 6 genres that are equally sourced, we are obliged to include either all or none of those ones. Anything else would be lending certain sources undue weight, which it isn’t our place to do. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of which Progressive Rock/Metal, Experimental Rock and Alternative Metal seem to be the most frequently used. Keeping in mind Nu Metal, which is disputed for this band, can be accounted for by Alternative Metal. Not listing every genre a band is ever called in the info box is NOT discounting them. If so then the Children of Bodom page is heavily discounting Black Metal, ditto the Meshuggah page with about 5 or more genres. A band doesnt have to be genreallised as Rock every time it is listed by sources as several genres, otherwise there would be almost always no point in using anything other than 'Rock'.Ducky610 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t see how nu metal is disputed: I see two perfectly acceptable sources for it. If you mean it’s disputed by editors, then again I cite WP:RS and WP:OR. Editor opinion is just the opinion of a handful of anonymous internet users.
 * And as to your comparisons to other articles, well I don’t know what you mean with Meshuggah: it’s got just “experimental metal”, and is a featured article. So that just backs up my point that sometimes it’s better to have a single, general term in the infobox and then elaborate within the body of the article itself. If you feel there is a problem with any other article, like Bodom, then by all means go and try to change things there.
 * I'm not saying every single time a band has more than one genre cited it should be generalised. What I'm saying is sometimes there are so many different equally sourced genres within the sources that it's best to just put something general in the infobox. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the articles I've mentioned, I'm using them as examples that not all reliably sourced genres need to be added to the info box, nor does it have to be generalised to 'Rock' if there are to many. The two sources for Nu Metal are perfectly acceptible, there are other sources, which Im currently not in the mood to find but they are there, that refer to System of a Down as breaking out of 'the cliched genre of nu metal' and phrases like that which is what I was refering to (yes, editors dispute nu metal alot on wiki but I am well informed of the regards to personal opinion here).

The thing about Labeling as just rock is, yes in some cases it is nessacary, but here Alternative Metal, Progressive Rock and Experimental rock are a broad enough summery with all other genres cited and explained in the styles section as they are. Perhaps even just Experimental Rock as a broad statement but in this case rock just seems 'to' broad. Ducky610 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I lean towards including all 5/6. I think that's better than just "rock". And I can also well see your logic in suggesting alt. metal, prog. rock and exp. rock. It does make a lot of sense. But it's still going against core policy, because we have two sources apiece for those three, but also just as much for nu metal, prog. metal and hard rock. If we start to talk about which ones "cover" the ones we leave out, it just complicates matters and opens up a pandora's box of wikipedia editor opinions. The simplest and safest options are to simply have "rock", or include all those that we have equally sourced.
 * Of course, if other good sources come up and change the numbers, that changes things. 86.129.209.154 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Three sources for hard rock now: I just noticed allmusic says that one too. And another two for nu metal: Ian Christe's "The Sound of the Beast", and Essi Berelian's "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal". So really, those two are the best sourced, and we also have two each for prog. rock, prog. metal, experimental rock and art rock. 86.129.209.154 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, at this stage i am inclined to agree with you, with 7 well sourced genres it's hard to argue against the general term, Pop Matters and Blender also make refrence to Thrash Metal style playing here respectivly(""B.Y.O.B." bursts out of the gate at a breakneck thrash metal pace,")(" Plenty of hard-rock bands head-thrash, but this one seems to be brain-thrashing as well. "). Thats enough for me to be swayed, 'Rock' it just about has to be. Ducky610 (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with alt metal and nu metal. Also experimental.


 * ok. First of all: This is discussed a lot. Allmusic's genre section CAN NOT be used as a source for the genre in the infobox unless there's no other source.(Although Allmusic's reviews can) About the one who said our discussions are pointless, pleas see this. Of course anything going on Wikipedia must have sources but it also has to be discussed in order to get to a neutral point of view.


 * I'm fully aware of the policy on consensus. But you have to think about what consensus is: it's an agreement between anonmyous internet users. It doesn't mean anything if weighted against actual good sources. Discussion is necessary sometimes, of course, and useful when things aren't clear. What I'm saying is: it doesn't matter what we think are the best genres, it matters only what the sources say. There should still be discussion on precisely how to put it in, but ultimately we cannot leave out well sourced genres and insert lesser sourced ones, as this would contradict core policies on sourcing and original research. After all, those core policies themselves represent a general consensus across wikipedia as a whole, so they of course must take precedence above any lesser consensus reached here. It's also worth bearing this line of the policy in mind: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Now, I'm not trying to say "My argument's better, so there", that would be somewhat arrogant :P But what I am saying is it's not about simple numbers. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This RfC is to avoid edit fights! So please do not change genres. Still most agreed genre is alternative metal and experimental. Progressive also has around 50% of editors here. Rock and Heavy metal are on discussion. So for instant I'll put Alt. metal and Experimental on. Please do not change it. If you insist on progressive, that can go too. If you dissagree, just put your comment here. Btw for any genre you wanna argue here, you have to first give sources. Solino the Wolf   12:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But as I said above: it isn't about what editors think. What are we, as wikipedia editors? We're anonymous people on the internet. It's not up to us to decide which genres are best, unless the sources are truly unclear. In this case, there are a lot of genres given, but to simply put "alt. metal" and "experimental" is clearly denying many sources. If nothing else, those aren't even the best sourced: nu metal and hard rock are. According to WP:UNDUE we have to report things as they are in the sources, no matter what some editors might think. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox doesn't have to say everything about a band. It just has to give a brief information. Of course there are many genres with sources for this band or any other bands. That's what "Styles and Influences" section is for. But as you can see in WP policies, we (editors of WP) are to agree on what should or shouldn't be written in the articles in order to get to a neutral point of view. And of course anything we write has to have source. And all the genres we are arguing about (Alt metal, progressive metal, experimental ,heavy metal) have many sources. Hard rock and rock are less sourced. Anyways, to decide which of these sourced genres should be in the infobox and which should be in the styles and influences, we should see 1.how many sources they have 2.what do the editors think. So, now alt metal and experimental are sourced genres and most editors are agreed on them, so far. Solino the Wolf   12:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should take another look at the styles section quickly: Hard rock certainly isn't less sourced: it's actually one of the best sourced, with nu metal just ahread of it. And indeed, there are more sources for some form of rock than for some form of metal. Besides which, heavy metal is a form of rock music.
 * But the point I'm making is while consensus is useful, consensus cannot directly override sources, and if (for example) the genres were "alt. metal" and "experimental rock", that is exactly what it would be doing. Because if the consensus is "Let's have alternative metal and experimental rock", then that translates as "let's give certain sources more weight and others less weight". We can't do that. I can see what people mean, but please try to understand what I'm saying (which I don't mean in a patronising manner, in case that's how it sounds): putting lesser sourced genres in the infobox while omitting better sourced ones is directly lending some sources more weight than others, and we can't do that, whether it has consensus or not. Because consensus here, among a small group of editors, can't measure up to the consensus behind the core wikipedia policies.
 * And as well, there's the line I quoted from the consensus policy about how it's not a matter of numbers: it's about the strongest arguments presented. So ultimately, we shouldn't be talking about this in terms of how many people want X genre, but rather what reasoning they're giving. And my reasoning is purely based on the golden rule of sources. 86.129.211.98 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've seen any source that genuinely calls their style plain rock. They use the term "rock band", but that is not insinuating that they are rock music. Same for prog rock, I've only seen prog metal. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are however more calling them some form of "rock" than anything else. There are two sources for prog. rock and two for prog. metal in the article itself. As well as three for hard rock, two for art rock, etc. 86.129.211.98 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, of course all the heavy metal genres are subgenres of rock music. But we wont call all metal bands rock cause then we wont be able to make a difference between Pink Floyd and Arch Enemy! That's why we use terms other than simply rock or simply heavy metal. About the sources, we are not giving any genre's sources weight. I say let's list the sources and you'll see what I mean about Alt metal and Experimental being more sourced than Rock and Hard rock.(I'm agreed with you on Nu metal) By the way don't count the sentence "SOAD is a rock band from ..." a source for rock music, cause as everyone knows and I said in the beginning, this sentence is only to define that the band is not a jazz band or a hip hop band, not to define the actual genre. At least this is my opinion. And please lets not have a fight and just have a civil discussion. Thanx. Solino the Wolf   20:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, more specific genres is better wherever possible. But sometimes, if the sources gives lots of reasonably sourced genres, a more general term is desirable (see Queen or Marilyn Manson (band) or Evanescence for example). With Arch Enemy/Pink Floyd your comparison doesn't stand up: the sources are fairly clear on those bands, so there's no need to generalise much. With this, the sources are all over the place: 4 for nu metal, 3 for hard rock, 2 each for progressive rock, progressive metal, art rock, experimental rock, then 1 each for alternative metal and alternative rock. I can also see a reference in allmusic to it being "gothic metal", and a couple of mentions of "grindcore" in one of the books I provided. So it's obvious we can't put all of those in, the question is which do we include in the infobox?
 * Now, I'm of the mind that the infobox should sum up the sources overall. But at the same time, it -is- lending certain sources more weight to leave out, for example, hard rock and nu metal: those are the best sourced genres, so those are the ones that should be prioritised for inclusion.
 * Alternative metal certainly doesn't make sense, no matter how many editors think it should be in: there's only one source for it, while there are 4 for nu metal. You could make the argument that since nu metal is a form of alternative metal, it covers it. But again, more specific is better where possible: in turn, putting "nu metal" is also covering "alt. metal", because nu metal is by definition alt. metal. So when we've got 4 sources saying "nu metal" and one saying just "alt. metal", nu metal is surely the obvious one to go with to satisfy them all. Basically, we've got 4 published books all terming the band "nu metal". Not including that one in the infobox, when it's better sourced than any other genre, is definitely lessening the overall weight of that genre in the sources.
 * Personally, based purely on the sources, I'd suggest nu metal, hard rock, experimental rock OR art rock, and progressive rock OR progressive metal. 86.129.211.98 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the question is, do we need Hard Rock? To have Nu Metal and Hard Rock is like saying "SOAD is HEAVVYY!!!! but not that heavy ."
 * Nu Metal establishes the heavy sound and pace of the band, so using that could leave 2 slots open for other genres (Not that 3 is the only option). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We do need hard rock, simply because it's one of the best sourced genres. It doesn't matter what you or I think it might sound like, that's totally subjective. If it's well-sourced, we're obliged to include it. And there are, after all, other bands with "hard rock" and then other genres in their infoboxes. 86.129.211.98 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I strongly feel like we should list the sources. Cause I dont think what you say about the sources is true. Specialy the ones about Gothic and Grindcore! And the least number of sources calling SOAD alt. metal, is 5 sources! So I think we should list the sources and see if your sources pass WP:RS and then continue the discussion. Solino the Wolf   13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not suggesting we include grindcore and gothic metal in the list. I'm just saying we have sources using those terms, to further illustrate that this band is called lots of different things. And if you have other sources, please provide them in the article, because I'm looking at it now, and alternative metal has one single source, not five. While nu metal has 4, all of them published music books, meaning there's no realistic room for debate on their validity. 86.129.211.98 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that "nu metal" is very inconsistently applied here. It was an umbrella term that was applied to every band that toured together from the late 1990s until 2003. It's also not a very well-defined genre term, as every source which applies the term to any band has a different view of what the term means, if they even have a description of what the basics of the genre are supposed to be. In interviews with the band, they also point out that they didn't share any of the musical aspects of bands which were frequently termed "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC))


 * What you say is true, but is also in the end original research. So as much as I might agree personally, nu metal is very much what the sources call the band. It's not right to exclude that just because a number of wikipedia users don't like it, or think the term is a slur. Remember, wikipedia isn't censored, and we report what sources say, however unpopular it might be (so long as it isn't actually libellous). 86.129.211.98 (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a slur. It's just inconsistently used in reference to this band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC))


 * For the record, Linkin Park and Hollywood Undead are also called Nu-metal.-- SKATER  Speak. 02:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think Nu metal is an umbrella term and we have no source claiming that.94.182.72.78 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)