Talk:Hed PE - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roux (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 18 October 2008 (→Musicmight: Calm down, please.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 18 October 2008 by Roux (talk | contribs) (→Musicmight: Calm down, please.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Medcabbox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hed PE article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Hed PE has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 10, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rock music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article status

The Hed PE is funked up, its not even funny. they repeat so much crap, and really, just read the History Section, ill be working to fix this up from time to time if noone minds. 68.103.28.224 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Band name

What is the actual name of this band? The article uses different forms in different places - sometimes "(Həd) p.e.", sometimes "(həd) P.E.", sometimes "Hed PE", and others. --Phronima 14:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

On their first album, Church of Realities, it's written as "hәd" on the cover and "(hәd)" on the spine. On the self-titled album it's written "(hәd) pe" on the cover and "(hed) pe" on the spine (I think there's a space in there but I guess that's kind of nitpicky!). On Broke it's written "(hәd) PLANET EARTH" on the cover and on the spine. I don't own Blackout or Only in Amerika, but it looks like Blackout uses the same logo as Broke did, and Only in Amerika uses "HED p.e." On a semi-recent version of their official site it was listed as "HED pe". My personal preferences are either "(hәd) pe" or "HED pe" (space between the hәd and the pe, either all uppercase or all lowercase for the hәd, no periods after the p or the e since they just tacked those on there to differentiate themselves from another band called Head ). Blogbourri 17:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think now it is (hed). But I will have them as (hed)pe on my iPod forever ;-)

Just FYI for anyone who cares (which is probably nobody), I added the "technical restriction" tag to the top of the article to show that the correct capitalization does not include a capitalized h. While the band has gone by many names, I think everyone can agree that none of them have included the capitalization of the h unless the e and d are also capitalized, which they are not in the page's title. -- Kicking222 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If the schwa is a problem, why not move it to (hed) pe - the brackets are definitely part of the band name, and Misplaced Pages can handle it, unlike --Montchav (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS-TM also asks us to "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced are included purely for decoration". Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(həd) p.e. → Hed PE — Per WP:MOS-TM, we should avoid special characters like the schwa in titles, particularly when they are only used for decoration (the schwa here doesn't make a schwa sound). Separately, WP:MOS-TM says that trademarks starting with lowercase letters should always be capitalized, and that terms that aren't acronyms should only have their first letters capitalized. The band's record company refers to it as "HED PE", "Hed P.E.", "(hed) p.e." and "Hed PE". I have no strong feelings about including the periods, but it seems clear that the current title is not preferred by the MOS. This change would also affect several other articles: (həd) p.e. (album), Blackout ((həd) p.e. album), Insomnia ((həd) p.e. album), The Best of (həd) Planet Earth, and (həd) p.e. discography. —Dekimasuよ! 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

Support a move to Hed PE or any of User:Dekimasu's suggested locations per WP:MOS-TM and external link usage which includes and "Hed PE" and "(hed)p.e" (without the schwa) among others. — AjaxSmack 01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. My cogent argument thus: "Hey dude, I got a cool name for our band. We'll call it Hed PE but we'll use these little squiggly characters instead of regular letters." Ugh. --DeLarge (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hed PE/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Formation and major-label debut (1994–99) section, this sentence ---> "The band built a following based on energetic performances at local venues such as Club 369", might need to be re-written, as it sounds a little strange.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Broke and Blackout (2000–04) section, link "Modern Rock Tracks". Same section, add a colon after "wrote" on reviews of the band/albums. In the Independent releases (2005–present) section, this sentence ---> "Allmusic's Rob Theakston wrote that "Back 2 Base X suffers from the same problems as Amerika: it tries to be conceptual in thought à la Tool and vicious in its political commentary à la Fugazi or System of a Down", does this sentence, about "Tool", talk about the device or the band?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Does Reference 2 cover all this ---> "Hed PE released their second studio album, Broke on August 22, 2000. It incorporated more classic rock and world music influences, and featured guest appearances by System of a Down's Serj Tankian and Kittie's Morgan Lander"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It would help if an image can be inserted to the article, so it can illustrate the significance of it. But, if an image can't be found, I won't fail the article because of that.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

1A: Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
1B: Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

YES. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
There are no free images on Flickr. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Thank you to Ibaranoff24 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

The majority of sources found in relation to the band and their albums point to alternative metal, punk rock and rap rock as the main genres for this article's infobox, and punk rock/rap rock for each of the individual albums. Nu metal is not listed on the band or album articles because there are not enough sources to include this supposed genre (did it ever exist before it supposedly declined?) in their oeuvre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, I've changed the genres to "alternative rock" and "nu metal", as those are given by rockdetector, a reliable source. If more sources are found, this can be changed around. Prophaniti (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the sources that I have found and use in the article cite Hed PE as a punk rock band, and the band itself identifies as such. I don't think that rockdetector is notable enough to add inaccurate genre terms to a punk band's repertoire. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Rockdetector (or musicmight, as it's now known) does count as a reliable source. It's the site of published and respected rock/metal journalist Garry Sharpe-Young. Listening to their music, I can definitely hear nu metal in it much stronger than the punk side: there're hefty ammounts of hip hop and rap in there. There's definitely a hardcore aspect, but then "nu metal" is generally a blending of modern hard rock, hardcore and hip hop/rap, with little to no metal side, so that fits. So, I'll keep it as the cited genres unless other sources can be found that conflict with that. Prophaniti (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article for Rockdetector does not establish notability beyond the fact that it exists and that its creator happened to have written a couple of books on metal. Additionally, that website has countless mistakes (if you search for the hip hop group Insane Clown Posse, the genre listed is "industrial") in its band biographies. There's no proof that this author wrote the site's Hed PE biography, and there's no reason to recklessly attribute genres that a band does not perform in, beyond the fact that "nu metal" isn't actually an existing genre of music being that it has been applied to countless bands across various genres with no legitimacy to the term being an actual existing style of music - isn't it illogical that a genre term with the word "metal" in it isn't actually a subgenre of heavy metal? Beyond that, whatever elements you feel that are connected to this supposed genre are actually connected to the rapcore style. I have done a great deal of research in cleaning up this article. Hed PE are a punk/rapcore group. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Nevertheless, it is a website attributed to and run by him. To assume the articles aren't his is original research. As it happens, I don't think "nu metal" is an appropriate term either, because it's got zero metal influence in it. However, if it has to exist, it should at least be consistent, and this band -do- fit the qualities given of the genre, and have a reliable source to back it up.

Rap rock is the appropriate term for the qualities you hear that you attribute to nu metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Concerning the site itself, I'll stop using it when the rest of wikipedia stops using allmusic for metal bands/genres: the site makes far fewer mistakes than allmusic on metal bands/genres; Sharpe-Young may have "only written a few books on metal", but by that same logic it still outranks allmusic in reliability; and the section on this band might not have been written by him, but equally, there's nothing whatsoever suggesting anything written on allmusic is done by anyone with knowledge of what they're talking about. So sorry, as long as allmusic counts as any kind of valid source, so too does musicmight. Prophaniti (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use Allmusic in sourcing the band's genres. I went by the quantity and quality of the sources used, thus alternative rock, punk rock and rap rock are mentioned in this article. You still can't use citations in Infoboxes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

My reference to allmusic is more due to it's common nature on wikipedia rather than you specifically using it.

You saying the genre is actually rap rock when there is a valid source -very clearly- giving it as nu metal constitutes original research. Likewise, unless you have direct quotes giving their genres as alt. rock, punk rock and rap rock, that too is original research. If you do have those, add them in clearly and properly, and even if then, the nu metal tag is staying. Prophaniti (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are not supposed to have citations in the Infobox. Secondly, the genres listed are very clearly sourced. You simply refuse to pay attention to them. Thirdly, the links clearly work. You choose to ignore this fact in order to further your own agenda. Hed PE are not nu metal. Saying so based on what some fan site says is original research. Back off. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

(reset indents) Firstly, I suggest you calm down. Your tone is very clearly angry, and I won't stand for attempts at intimidation when I'm the one abiding by the rules here.

If you don't like the citations in the infobox, you can very easily shift them.

Now, regarding the main issue: do not make assumptions about what I am doing. No, I am not "simply refusing to pay attention". No, I am not "choosing to ignore facts" because of "my own agenda". My agenda is abiding by wikipedia's rules and improving it thus. -Any- further threats/intimidation attempts/personal attacks like that will be reported and otherwise ignored.

Let's take a quick look at the "styles and influences" section, shall we? The "G-punk" references don't mean anything much, since that isn't, to my knowledge, an acknowledged genre. The "fusion of styles" reference is the one that doesn't work: whenever I click it I just get the Naperville Sun "sorry, we can't find what you're looking for" page. Then there's a reference about a band's influence, which can't indicate their genre either (influences by no means equate actual genre. Metallica were influenced by punk bands, doesn't mean they're punk). The Rolling Stone reference can be used of course, but the only genre references it makes are "kind of rap rock" and "rap metal". The rest of that section is quoted from the band itself, and a band's own opinion means nothing.

So, overall, no. There's nothing in there to back up the "punk rock" genre at all, and even the rap rock one is a stretch, but acceptable.

In fact, it is YOU who aren't paying attention to the sources. Musicmight is not "some fan site". It is, as I have already explained to you, the site of Garry Sharpe-Young, a reliable source. Both he, and his site, have been published. This makes them reliable sources, and much more than "some fan site".

So:

1.) Get your facts straight.

2.) Don't make offensive claims/assumptions

3.) Stop removing sourced content

4.) Find some sources if you want those other genres kept in. Prophaniti (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gangsta punk" is a style of punk rock fused with hip-hop elements, pointing to rapcore. When you search on Misplaced Pages for "rap metal" or "rapcore", what comes up? Rap rock. And saying that it's a stretch to call Hed PE's music rap rock and punk rock proves that you have never listened to their music in your life. It is fairly clear that you are angry and need to calm down. You've already violated the 3RR rule with this nonsense. I am going to report you for repeatedly reverting this article to your petty vandalism. Read the sources used in the article and stop trying to push POV with your insistance that Rockdectector's genre listings are correct when they clearly, to anyone who has actually listened to this band's music, are not. YOU are the one who needs to get his facts straight. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Help yourself to reporting me. You'll find any admin worth his salt will take my side in this, because I'm the one abiding by wikipedia's rules. As it happens I have listened to their music, but whether I have or not is completely besides the point: my feelings or your feelings on the music are meaningless in the face of a reliable source, which is what we have. Thus, I am not the one pushing POV: you are, because it's you who is saying rockdetector's classification is incorrect, not a reliable source saying that. Hence, you are the one in the wrong. And if I have broken the 3RR rule, then so too have you, and the difference is that I am updating the article with a reliable source, something encouraged by wikipedia's rules. What you are doing is removing sourced content. That might not be vandalism, but it's certainly much closer to it than my edits. Prophaniti (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as I have told you repeatedly, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE CITATIONS IN ANY INFOBOX! Secondly, you are clearly ignoring every source this article uses. Just look at the quote from the band interview. They clearly indentify themselves as a punk band on a rap label (Jive Records). Sources indicate alternative metal, punk rock and rap rock/rap-metal/rapcore as the band's genres. Alternative rock is used per Rockdetector. Nu metal is not used because there are not enough sources to identify this band with this label. Thirdly, I never broke the 3RR rule. You did. Stop adding wrong information to the article and removing correct information! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

You don't think that using all caps, bolded, with an exclamation mark is a sign that you need to calm down?

The citations potentially being in the wrong place is no good reason to remove them entirely. If you feel they're in the wrong place, move them. Nothing more is justified.

You removed text from the article. You placed a poorly-sourced genre term in the band's Infobox without discussion. This is a lot more than just "citations in the wrong place". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

One source is all that is needed, unless you have an equally reliable one that outright denies it. Otherwise, it's not getting removed, sorry.

One source is NOT all that is needed. Rockdetector could define System of a Down as a jazz fusion band and that would still be wrong. The sources used for this article define Hed PE as alternative rock, punk rock and rap rock. Do not remove these genres, do not remove the notice clearly stating not to make changes to that section without discussion, and stop adding "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

No, I haven't ignored sources: I've just been through them all with you. And what a band says about themselves has no bearing on what wikipedia terms them. A band's own statements are not reliable sources.

You have clearly ignored sources if you are claiming that Hed PE are not punk rock or rap rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Now, as I have asked, calm down, stop making personal attacks, and stop removing perfectly valid content simply because you personally don't like it. Prophaniti (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never made any personal attacks. The sources are clearly there and you refuse to acknowledge them. This has absolutely nothing to do with 'personal feelings'. It has to do with sourcing. And there are not enough good sources to define Hed PE as 'nu metal'. Sorry. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

If rockdetector defined System of a Down as jazz fusion, it would be wrong -in your opinion-. Which is an opinion that counts for nothing compared with a source according to wikipedia's rules. You have to accept that if there's a source, your own personal views, no matter how logical they may be, count for -nothing-. Believe me, I've made many such arguments myself, they go nowhere. Remember, wikipedia is about "verafiability, not truth".

ONE SOURCE does not account for an entire genre of music. Verifiability accounts for the quality and quantity of the sources cited. There are not enough verifiable sources citing Hed PE as nu metal, just as there are not enough verifiable sources claiming System of a Down as . (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I have not ignored any sources. What you mean is I don't agree with your personal analysis. Point me to the source that says "Hed PE are punk rock". Because I've pointed you to the one that says they're nu metal. And you've chosen to ignore it purely because it conflicts with your personal interpretation of the band.

Yes, you have made personal attacks. Personal attacks do not have to be along the lines of "F*ck off!" or such. You're not doing so in your last reply though, so all is well there.

Yes, there are enough sources: one. Which is one more than you've provided for punk rock, for example. And one more than you've found saying "They're not nu metal". Prophaniti (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See citations 1, 2, 21, 22 and 23. And any of a number of sources that can be found here and here citing Hed PE as punk rock, punk metal or G-punk (rap rock). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

Citation 1 doesn't count: all it says is "California's self-tagged "G-punk" group. As has been said, what a band itself says means nothing.

What a film director states towards his film counts. What a composer states towards his composition counts. Hed PE created the music. They know more about what they are doing than you do. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Citation 2 I can't check of course, because it's non-online, but A) You'd need a specific quote from the book, and B) the book being titled "Nu metal" doesn't exactly sound like it helps your case against the nu metal tag...

The book focuses on a number of musicians from different genres, including alternative rock, alternative metal, hip hop, and punk rock. There are no good sources directly referring to Hed PE as "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Citation 21 doesn't -explicitly- term them punk rock (it says "punk work ethos", "punk rockumentary" and "taking the lead of the punk-rock forefathers"), but probably could count IF you can show where it says that a band's own record label counts as a RS. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't, but rather that I've been informed before (though not directly linked to a wiki guideline page) that they don't due to commercial considerations.

It's one of several examples proving that punk rock is indeed one of the band's genres. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Citation 22 -does- term their music a blend of "punk, hardcore and metal", so I'd say those genres would be fine to add in with this source.

Citation 23 I wouldn't really consider reliable, not the entertainment section of the publication at least, although if you can link to somewhere on wikipedia where it says otherwise, that will be fine.

So, in conclusion: thank you for -finally- finding a good source for other genres. As such, I will now add in the alt. rock and nu metal genre tags which are sourced from musicmight, and will make no attempt to undo an addition of punk/hardcore/metal in the box, nor if you wish to move the musicmight citation.

"Alternative rock" had already been included. It's not necessary to revert to your previous revision when, in fact, there are no good sources stating directly that Hed PE perform "nu metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for at last doing as I have asked and getting together decent sources. Now, was that really so hard? Prophaniti (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources were there. You never looked at them. Was it so hard to look at the articles you edit rather than try to pass off your opinions as fact? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Musicmight

Although Musicmight appears to have been created by a notable person, genre sections of the website, such as those on Hed PE, System of a Down, etc. appear to have been added/updated by users of the website, not by persons of any notability. As such, I must ask that editors do not add this website as a source, being that the Internet Movie Database is not generally considered an reliable source for information on film articles. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

However, review/database sites that maintain a staff are still used as valid sources. It's only if anyone can edit/update that it doesn't count. Both melodic.net and metal-observer have been used with that concept. There's also nothing to actually suggest that the genre section for Hed PE wasn't done by G S-Y himself. Prophaniti (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the genre section was done by G S-Y. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Except that it is his website, created and set up by him, and with all band entries credited to him prior to it's move from rockdetector to musicmight. To assume it wasn't done by him is original research, given that there're no additional names under "contributors". In addition, all the books published about the website are given with him as the sole author. That's more than enough to take it that he wrote it. Prophaniti (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no names listed under the contributors section, period. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

So? You're suggesting it was written by no one, it just appeared out of no where? No names suggests the author of the website as a whole, the man to whom the site and all books from the site are acredited, wrote it. That is the plain logical conclusion. Even if we don't draw a conclusion on who precisely wrote it, it still passes the necessary criteria for a RS, because it's not open to the public, but has an editorial staff, and the site's material itself has been published. Prophaniti (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I sincerly doubt that Musicmight is more reliable than any of the printed sources that are cited in the article which state the band's genres as alternative rock, punk rock and rap rock. "Heavy metal," "hardcore punk" and "nu metal" are original research. Although their musical style is partially influenced by hardcore punk and heavy metal, there are not enough sources to cite the band as a part of these genres. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Nevertheless, what you or I or any other editor thinks of Musicmight's reliability isn't the issue: it meets the criteria. I don't consider allmusic a reliable source, but I can't get anything done about that because it meets the technical requirements.

Allmusic is more reliable than Musicmight, and is pretty well known. The article for Allmusic clearly establishes its notability, whereas the article for Musicmight does not establish any notability. However, I do not rely on Allmusic in order to source any genre-related information, and I do not suggest relying on some overactive fanboy's website in order to source genres. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Hardcore punk and heavy metal being put in aren't what I'm concerned about, that was just an attempt to summarise what was said in the sources. All I'm really concerned about is that nu metal is included, as given by musicmight. As long as there aren't any other sources contradicting it, there's nothing to say it can't be included.

Hed PE are not "nu metal". There are no good sources saying that they are. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

As a kind of side-note, if you can show me where on wikipedia it says that band genres can be removed if there's only a single source giving the genre, then I'll be a very happy boy indeed, and will quite happily leave you to set Hed PE's genre as whatever you wish. Prophaniti (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have been paying attention, the content of the article is based upon the quantity and quality of the sources used. There are not enough quality sources to include "nu metal" in the band's genres. Stop trying to push your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

I can't remember how many times I've said it already, so I doubt it'll get through to you this time, but here we go: Musicmight is not "some overactive fanboy"s website. If you believe it to be, it only suggests a complete lack of understanding of the source in question. It is a site set up and maintained by a respected rock/metal journalist. Both he, and the site itself, have been published. It is a reliable source.

I am not pushing point of view. My point of view has never entered into this discussion, only the point of view of the reliable source. Any further suggestions that I am "pushing pov" will result in a report to the incivility board. Any further accusations that my inclusion of sourced material is vandalism will also be reported. Prophaniti (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned about this several times. You are the one who is not acting civil. Find some reliable sources and chill out. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm completely chilled out and civil. I'm not the one who's been using bold text, all caps, exclamation marks, making insulting statements about sources and ordering the other editor to "back off" repeatedly. My warning still stands, as does my reliable source. Prophaniti (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I appear uncivil, but the fact still stands that Musicmight is not as reliable as the sources cited that clearly state the band's genres as alternative rock, punk rock and rap rock. Hed PE are not "nu metal". Please stop adding to this genre to the Infobox on the basis of a single source that is not as good as any of the published sources (books, newspaper articles) that do not claim Hed PE as nu metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

First off, thanks for the apology for any potential incivility, it's much appreciated, honestly.

It's true that other sources may not say they are nu metal. But they don't deny it either. If they did, there'd be no good reason to add it. But musicmight's author has been published, and the site itself has been published. As such, it fits wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. A website that has a published format is said to be a RS. Hence, to deny it's information is ignoring a valid source. I won't dispute what the other sources say, because there are sources present for alt. rock, punk and rap rock. But there's also one for nu metal. Many other band articles have genres based on only a single, online source. Prophaniti (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that such genres should be included, just because other articles source genres in the same way. In many cases, it's left up to the indiscretion of editors who don't know what they're doing. Musicmight isn't a major authority on music. What is published on there does not mean more than the many sources that cite Hed PE as punk, not metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

But the two are not mutually exclusive. A band can be classed as a combination of many different genres, and sources not calling them nu metal is not necessarily the same as saying "They're not nu metal". Musicmight, given it's authorship and published status, is just as valid as any of the other sources on this particular topic, so if nothing contradicts it there isn't a good reason to exclude it. The reason I make reference to other articles on wikipedia is this could set a precedent: if a genre is left out here because only a single source cites it, why could the same not be done to all other band articles? Prophaniti (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Your debate over citations in the box is about to become moot. By overwhelming consensus the music project has voted to remove the genre field from all musician/album boxes. So there won't be a field for anyone to bicker over anymore. Every artist is expected to have some sort of musical style section for cited content thus finally eliminating (an overdue change) the "battlefield of the box." So as far as adding a citation for nu metal in the infobox... that entire field is about to go bye-bye in a few days once a decent bot can be fired up. This particular article already has a musical style section. I have no personal opinion of the musicmight website. But I do know the the website owners book has been accepted as a reliable source. And, by that weight, his website has been accepted as a reliable source on hundreds of hard rock/heavy metal related Wiki articles. Whether that means it can be accepted here... that's not up to me to decide... I could care less. I've never used it as a ref. I have never used any website as a ref as I prefer the better book ref route. If you come to an agreement to use the website as a ref... just don't try and stick it in the box... because soon there won't be anything there to reference anymore. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's news indeed. Not something I expected, but fair enough. To be honest, it would seem likely to continue just the same, with wars simply taking place of the "styles" section rather than the genre box. Certainly here, I'll add that there is a source calling them nu metal into it. Cheers for the info. Prophaniti (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ibaranoff: Please do not remove the line "The band has also been termed nu metal" and it's reference. Whatever your personal feelings on the band or website, it's a valid source, as has been affirmed by at least one other user (see above). You disputed inserting the genre into their infobox, and even that has no real basis, there's certainly none whatsoever here, because the line says "the band has also been termed nu metal", then links to a RS where they have been termed just that. You really can't make any case for removing it at all.

The term "nu metal" was removed from the Infobox because there are not enough sources to describe them as such. Musicmight was removed because it is not a reliable source. In order to back up claims that have been disputed, you must provide sources that are more reliable than an obscure music website. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

As this has already had a third opinion applied to it, any further removal of that line without good reason will be taken directly to the informal mediation board. Prophaniti (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored the remark about the band sometimes being described as "nu metal", citing a more reliable source than Musicmight. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Yet it has been explained to you many times now that it -is- a reliable source. You might not think it is, you might not agree with what it says, but it is a reliable source. This has been verified now by another user also. If it will take a mediation board as well to make you accept this, then so be it.

There is nothing that says an obscure website is more reliable as a source than a notable newspaper that says the same thing. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Also, your edit violates wikipedia's rule regarding original research. Citation 17 shows the band denying their status as "rap rockers", but rap rock is not the same as nu metal, so it is original research to construe this as them denying nu metal status. I've restored things and now contacted the mediation board. Prophaniti (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone's sick of you trying to strongarm your own POV and forcing others to comply with adding bad sources to articles in order to lower the quality standards of the articles you edit. Back off. A good source has been added for the content you've fought so strongly to add. What more do you want? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Both of you please focus on content and not contributors. I would ask politely that you both engage in the MedCab case, and you both refrain from any further editing on this article or the talk page until it is concluded. 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories: