Talk:Nu metal/Archive 3

This page is now poorly kept

You guys ruined it, I'm reversing all edits.--75.139.105.45 (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I reverted it. Folks, you need to understand that deleting things doesn't make an article better. Change all you want, but most of the information on this reverted version is correct. The style is well defined. Im tired of the wikipedia editors trying to get rid of this article by turning it into a stub. Which is exactly what the previous editor was trying to do. This is a genre of music. Its pretty obvious. Now lets keep the page going. --75.139.105.45 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Correct or not, it's unsourced. Add some sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree, turning it into a stub isnt going to help with anything. Portillo (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, if I add sources and do extensive research and make sure there are no unverified claims. Can I have a promise that it wont be reverted. I'm really not a fan of wasting time. Last year I added about 5 paragraphs of information with verified sources and none of it contained opinions or biased research, it all got reverted. --75.139.105.45 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the content you add is properly sourced and extensively researched, it will not be removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Comments on article content

"Nu metal initially began with the band Korn."

This should be rewritten. Saying that a genre "initially began" does not sound encyclopedic. It sounds like an opinion. Shouldn't it point to a band or album that critics generally feel was the first in the genre?

Also, does citation number 7 cover the entire block of text, or just the part about bands being influenced by Black Sabbath and traditional heavy metal? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Another question: Does the photograph of the members of Korn really enhance the readers' understanding of the subject? They are not playing any instruments in the photo, and there's nothing in the photo that supports the text, other than them being one of the bands discussed. If someone wanted to see what the bands' faces looked like, they could read that article, considering that this is a discussion of a musical genre, not a band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

The alternative metal article also has alot of unsourced stuff, why isnt it removed too? Portillo (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• That would constitute removing the entire article's text. Here, there was enough to form a few sentence. If you removed everything from alternative metal that was unsourced, you'd have less than a paragraph, and two bands. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

As long as its unsourced, i dont see why it cant be removed. Portillo (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• You can research that genre, verify the sources and remove anything that you can't immediately source if you have the time to do so. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

• I removed the photograph of Korn. As I said before, four guys standing around does not improve the reader's understanding of the subject matter. One who is not familiar with this term or the bands discussed would look at the photograph and wonder why it is in the article. If we include a photograph here, I would suggest something that features musicians playing instruments. I believe there are some concert photos in the articles Deftones and Slipknot (band) that could qualify here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

Popularity

Nu metal isn't popular anymore. Why does the info box say it currently has "mainstream popularity"? This was a fad from 1999 until about 2002, when we cared about sitting next to Carson Daley and Fred Durst to see them argue over which one of them Christina Aguilera gave head to first. The teens and 20-somethings who put bands "on the charts" were too young to get nu metal when they were just 10 years old or younger. Lothar76 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please tone down the opinion and find some sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

That is a good point, several Nu-Metal bands (KoRn, Papa Roach, Linkin Park)'s newer music can't be considered Nu Metal, and even ones like Slipknot have changed their style partly away from Nu-Metal, but exactly when did it's popularity die?

Korn

Whats with all this talk about how Korn is a "great" band its misleading. Yawaraey (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't even see that in the previous revision, but the more overtly Korn-oriented stuff has been removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Recent addition

While nu metal was widely popular, some metal purists did not fully embrace the style, arguing that the outside influences, mainly grunge and hip-hop, as well as the adaptation of those sub-cultures were not "metal."

Is this actually stated in Ian Christie's book? If not, is there another reliable source that can be used to back this statement up? (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

You're bound to be able to find something with a few google searches.

The hip-hop bit, particularly the use of DJs.

Grunge though? No, that bit, not a common comment(The Elfoid (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Pulling content

Sugar Bear, why do you keep pulling sourced content from this article? It seemed like valid information about the genre to me, and half a dozen other people editing the page had no issues with it. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• The content removed is largely unsourced, and a few things are relevant only to specific bands, not to the term. The idea here is to write a page that talks about the generalities of a genre, not to overtly rely on specific sources like Allmusic. If you look at the article Heavy metal music, it doesn't source everything from Allmusic, and it is a featured article. I cannot get ahold of either online or physical copies of Sound of the Beast, so I cannot verify its content. Particularly unsourced is the entire bulk of text discussing Korn's sound, despite the fact that this is not an article about Korn, and none of the content is sourced (about the band being influenced by Mr. Bungle and Faith No More, particularly), and the citation at the very end of the text, which seems to be referring to bands being influenced by Black Sabbath, doesn't have a page number. (Also, the article for that band notes that pretty much every band who plays a form of heavy metal or related music was influenced by Black Sabbath, so it's pretty redundant to repeat that here.) Later in the last revision, someone changed the comment about 7-string guitars sometimes being used by bands to specifically refer to Korn, whereas the source used for that paragraph did not mention Korn at all. The last revision was reverted mainly for two reasons, one being that this is not a biography of Korn, and two, the content was largely unsourced or sourced to unverifiable citations. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Okay, removing the Korn stuff is reasonable, as one band should not dominate the article. However, many articles about genres mention significant members of the genre. As for the Sound of the Beast reference, that source is used elsewhere in the article already. I think you should AGF for the rest of the citations too. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I kept the only citation that had a specific page cited. It's helpful to cite specific pages (and the chapters should probably be mentioned as well) when using citations. Citing a book without specifying where in the book this information is supposed to be is not particularly helpful to readers; the content doesn't read as being properly researched that way. Also, citing specific statements is also helpful, as it is confusing when you have an entire paragraph attributed to one source. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Stop ruining this article Sugar Bear. Portillo (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not particularly helpful to say that anyone is "ruining" the article, especially when more than one editor is reverting your edits, not just myself. Having a citation next to a statement doesn't actually mean that the statement is sourced. The sources have to back up what the article says, first off. Secondly, a few of these things don't seem to be particularly relevant:

"A contribution to nu metal's popularity was festival tours such as Family Values Tour, Lollapalooza and Ozzfest. The 30th anniversary of Woodstock also featured nu metal bands."

Source is this review, which does not mention nu metal, and doesn't back up the rest of the sentence.

"Nu metal bands also often state more conventional metal acts as an influence, such as Black Sabbath"

Source doesn't have a chapter or a page number, for one, and, for another, if you look at the legacy and influences section, you'll note several commentators noting that many hard rock bands and pretty much every band that performs a type of music with the word "metal" in its name was influenced by Black Sabbath. Why is this relevant to nu metal specifically?

"Robinson was nicknamed by some as the "Godfather of nu metal"."

For one thing, this doesn't have a chapter. For another, this is not particularly relevant.

Also, several things are not backed up by the citations added by Portillo:

"Steve Vai had originally introduced them onto the market for technical guitar players"

Portillo also changes "some bands" (from the source) to "many bands" (which is not sourced), in reference to 7-string guitars. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

All those issues can be fixed. What im trying to do is make the article neat and tidy; not with one-off sentences and ugly paragraphs. Portillo (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think your edits made the article "neat and tidy"; you completely changed the formatting of the article. If you're not going to research the subject, you don't have to change it up so that it doesn't look like an article about a music genre. Look at the way Heavy metal music is formatted, where it begins by discussing the genre from a musical perspective, in detail, then describes its history. If you put the history first, readers are not going to know what the article is talking about. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Moving the last two sentences from the history section to the lead doesn't create a summary of the article, but moves content that isn't expanded upon later. Since this is a stubby article, it doesn't need a long lead, especially not when the statements made in the lead aren't expanded upon. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Again, problems that can be fixed. This for example, is one of the ugliest paragraphs ive ever seen on Wikipedia.

"Bands associated with nu metal derive influence from a variety of diverse styles, including electronica, funk, glam rock, gothic rock, grunge, hardcore punk, hip hop, industrial rock and jazz. While electric guitar plays a strong part in the sound of nu metal bands, turntables, sequencers and samplers also play an important part in the sound. Many nu metal bands use seven-string guitars, which are sometimes down-tuned to increase heaviness, resulting in bass guitarists using five and six-string instruments."

And i changed the intro because it doesnt give readers sufficient information, for example many ppl think that nu metal was a fad, hence its important to note when it was popular and that some metal fans didnt like it. Portillo (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

k, what i want to know is, where did the article go? there is no info on Nu metal's appearance in recent years, the stylistic origins and most of the rest of the infobox are gone, and lots of content has been removed. Altenhofen 04:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two major books used as cites for this article, and they could be used to build a pretty sizable and informative article, yet content continues to be removed. If there are incorrect citations, or wrong statements, let's correct them rather than just delete them, and build the article up again. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't add content for the sake of adding content. A lot of unsourced content is not going to be particularly helpful for anyone. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

He's not saying 'add content to add content" he's saying "add [sourced] content to make this a reasonably sized, useful, informative article." is it just me or does Sugar Bear want this article to be a D-Class Stub? Altenhofen 01:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at this: [1]. that is what the article USED to look like. Its like the article was a Nu Metal song, layered with meaningful lyrics, Guitars, Bass, Drums, and Electronics. But is now some folk song with just acoustic guitar, drums, and some vocals. Where did everything go? the sourced info? The unsourced, relevant info, the info that COULD have been sourced? It even says at the top of the article: "YOU CAN HELP IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE BY EXPANDING IT". It does not say: "STRIP THIS ARTICLE NAKED AND PULL ALL OF IT'S CONTENT SO THAT THE PEOPLE READING IT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF INFORMATION." it is also rated a High importance article by WikiProject Music, and should be treated as so. We need to find sourced info to improve the article, becaause right now, its almost a stub. Altenhofen 01:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now thats a nu metal article. Portillo (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• That previous revision has no sourced information, a whole lot of OR and missattributed citations. I'm not trying to do anything to the article. All I've ever asked is for research to be done and for the content to be sourced and accurate. The idea is for people to read the article and understand the topic of discussion, not to go off long winded without any back-up. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

That's slightly disingenuous of you. You've twice tried to get this article deleted (1st try and 2nd try) and you've stated that you don't think nu metal is even a true genre. If you've got such a strong interest in improving this article, why is it that you're so focused on removing content, rather than adding it? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on content, rather than contributors. You're ridiculously overstating things. I've added plenty of content. Anything that is removed has to do with things like sources and whatnot. If you want to add content, please do some research and use sourcing, rather than cite old revisions with no sourcing and lots of original research, etc. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

K, Sugar bear, u are not understanding what i am saying. I am not saying "stop deleting stuff" I'm saying "stop deleting stuff, instead, try and source the information so that you don't have to delete it." and btw, you did delete sourced info, which is contradictory to your statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenhofen (talk • contribs)

Actually, no, I didn't. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Sourcing

We're looking at books on the subject of music, and particularly this genre, as reliable sources. Student term papers and magazines shouldn't be used to source elements of a musical genre. The writers of the cited sources have to have knowledge in music. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Three of the sources I added were articles appearing in scholarly journals, one of the journals specifically called "Popular Music". This is more or less the height of a reliable source. From WP:RS:

Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

The other source I added was a published book. Do you really think a single Hawaiian equivelant to the Metro described on wikipedia as "The paper runs a number of regular columns, most with an opinionated slant," trumps that at all? Even on that same article you have "Incubus treated that genre like the fad it was" where 'genre' refers to nu metal so the consensus among all sources is it being a (sub)genre. The description of it as 'umbrella term' is limited to this single newspaper out of all the sources. Munci (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources clearly disagree with you. I am really astounded that you're trying to justify adding opinionated material by saying "my bad sources are better than your bad sources". Better sources refer to nu metal as an umbrella term, not as a subgenre of heavy metal (which is also incorrect; see Heavy metal subgenres#Nu metal, where it is categorized as a fusion genre). The journals you cited are not reliable sources. A book on the history of OzzFest, a music festival, is not a reliable source for discussions on actual musical qualities. Sourcing the history of the festival, yes, but you can't use sources like this for discussion of actual music, especially controversial terms like nu metal. We're looking for neutrality and reliability here. Also, we're looking at trying to justify the categorization of the various bands that appear on List of nu metal bands. Most of these are sourced to have been influenced by hardcore punk or industrial rock. Changing up the article to call nu metal a fusion of hip hop, funk, etc. will make people want to delete this article, because it makes no sense in conjunction with the majority of sources on the bands categorized as nu metal. If you want to do some proper research, look into actual sources, not some student's term paper. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. RG (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Mocking me is not particularly helpful, especially in light of your recent attempt to revert to the poorly-sourced version that fits your POV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped removing my messages from your talk page. Just because you don't agree with what I'm saying, doesn't mean that you get to ignore the rules and guidelines of this website. Either follow the rules, or don't edit here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

I do not see any sign of mocking in Rockgenre's statement. It's completely factual, if brief. Your above statement consists of:

• claiming the sources disagree with me. If you believe this to be the case, would it help for me to quote the source within the article?
• claiming that scholarly journals are somehow poor sources with flat-out denial. If you disagree with the reliability of a source, what you do is go to WP:RS/N and post a section there.
• disagreeing with the importance of Tompkins' statement as compared with McIver's. I can accept that maybe.
• That a book on OzzFest, a music festival where nu metal is one of the main genres played, is inappropriate, given the topic it is cited for. If this is the case, then how is a preview of an Incubus concert, a band which plays nu metal music, not equally inappropriate? If you still disagree, take it to WP:RS/N. If they say no, it does not make much difference as the information is already cited mutiple times to one of the best sorts of sources possible.

In any case, it would be helpful if you would wait a while. I was in the middle of this and other things while you replied on my talk page.

The sentence relating to "DJ instrumentation" was already present in the article and talks about some nu metal bands, not every nu metal band. The article states that nu metal vocals are generally 'influenced' by rapping, just like the article in the journal Popular Music states, not that they all include rapping.

Also, would you consider this to be an RS:[2] Page 13 stating nu metal to be part of metal, page 16 stating it to be a genre. Munci (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted about the sources at WP:RS/N myself. This way, third parties may judge the reliability of the sources and whether they are reliable or not can be judged. Munci (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you add slanted material. It doesn't matter how good the sources are, if the material is slanted. Slanted material doesn't give the reader an unbiased view of anything. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC))