Talk:Encyclopaedia Metallum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopaedia Metallum article.


[edit] Revert parole

Since you settled on your compromise wording regarding Led Zepplin, Deathrocker has reverted twice to a version with only two sources instead of 4.

  • 19:16 29th [1]
  • 10:59 30th [2]

Deathrocker is limited to 2 reverts per week, so that's it for the next six days. He should probably think about negotiation to reduce the number of his own sources in kind, ask for request for comment or third opinion, or just accept the inclusion of extra sources. Reverting is not endorsed as a method of editing.

You didn't ask my opinion on content, but here it is. Frankly I think the whole discussion is rather silly. Unless the Led Zepplin controversy is specifically notable to the history of EM (for example, it drove away one the founders or a large number of members, or resulted in the founding of a competing web site, or has triggered an extensive vandalism campaign by LZ fans or something significant) it probably deserves no more than a sentence in this particular article. If you want to point out that EM has controversial standards you could simply say, "EM's standards are often controversial; for example they exclude Led Zepplin, considered by some sources (2 refs) but not others (2 refs) to be a seminal heavy metal band." But that's just a suggestion. As an admin I am concerned with behavior that may contravene an arbitration ruling; what you put in the article is much less important then how it gets there. Thatcher131 03:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the post. I hope it has any effect on him. I also fully agree with your views regarding the Led Zeppelin issue. Evenfiel 05:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I've slightly edited the section using your suggestions. I hope that we can all finally drop this issue now and archive this whole thing. Morrigan 06:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think a compromise was somewhat settled here,[3] when I agreed to trim the Zeppelin section down. Until the website runner (User:Morrigan Targaryen) came in and edited since in an attempt to sabotage the NPOV and factuality.. in an attempt to swing POV in their favour and make their website look less ridiculously bias than it actually is, by extending the Zeppelin section once more.

Fact is... most of the people who have the slightest clue what they are talking about know that this band is one of the founding heavy metal acts, which I showed with sources not only from profesional musicians (members of Opeth and Megadeth), the most prominent media sources in the world, other heavy metal websites, and people who were actually involved in the movement when heavy metal was around that actually interviewed the band (1971).... not to mention the fact that even on the Wikipedia articles Led Zeppelin and heavy metal music it echos this point.

Even readers of the website have commented, stating the opinion that contributors are "morons"[4].. and that "the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica."[5]... and "The users and moderators have a severe slant to what they like and they let their opinions seep out into the "fact" pages a little too much."[6].... which I have no problem with, if extreme metal fans want to have their own little site saying whatever they want... then fine. But on a factual article about that site, it should stick to the facts... my main problem with the article from the start is that it contradicts every other article relating to it on Wikipedia. EM is not a factual encyclopedia, it openly admits bias against certain subgenres and bands... while Wikipedia however, was created to be a neutral field.- Deathrocker 10:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false. I made the section more balanced by posting the same number of sources, and you are the one who made it NPOV by adding many redundant sources and blanking others. Anyway, the rest of your post is just the same personal attacks as before. Which is why I reverted the comments below - you are in no position to accuse others of making personal attacks. Morrigan 19:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Redundant sources? HA... right, the most prominent media sources in the world, and famous musicians don't fall under "redundant". And blanking sections of the article? This isn't Evenfiel you're addressing. What is personal attacks about any of the comments I have made above?... hmmm none of it is. Unless you consider showing you that your website which claims to be an enyclopedia of heavy metal music, doesn't even cover the basics... I could see why you'd like to hide that fact in the article with your POV pushing. - Deathrocker 19:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A redundant source would be citing allmusic's genre labels for Led Zeppelin, then citing media players that use allmusic's date, as you have. PhantomOTO 20:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Your personal attacks, so far, include: calling me an extreme metal kid, accusing me of POV and bad faith with no evidence, reiterating previous labels of the EM staff being "morons", accusing everyone else who disagrees with you of bias (and "extreme metal bias"), accusations of sock puppetry with no evidence, accusation of "ushering" people to my aid (PhantomOTO has a mind of his own, thank you very much), accusing me and others of not knowing Blue Cheer, calling the EM staff "ignorant", calling people who argue with you "15-year-old kids who think Slayer started metal"... the list goes on. Frankly, this is tiring. Morrigan 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, you don't seem to know what you are talking about in regards to what was put in the article, but this happens to be your first post... so I'm guessing the site runner Morrigan has only just ushered you over here in an attempt to push their standpoint.

"The site runners have excluded some of what are considered by some prominent sites (such as VH1,[1]BBC,[2],Wikipedia,[3]AOL,[4]The Guardian,[5]About.com[6] and others.)"[7]

Was the paragraph with the citations. Mentioning on the talkpage that All Music Guide is the feeder to the worlds most prominent music media forums (which happens to include, iTunes and as you said Windows Media Player) is not "redundant". As you can see those two particular ones weren't in the article in the first place. - Deathrocker 20:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't agree with your consensus, neither did the other user who edited the article.
I'll post the Deena Weinstein quote, cause it seems you missed it:
  • o The debate whether they are metal or not, or better, when did metal started, is something that is under discussion since the 70s. In Deena Weinstein's "Heavy Metal: A Cultural Sociology", which I hope that a musical guru like you have read, she says:
Some commentators would have the genre begin as early as the mid 60s, whereas other trace its origins to the early 70s. - page 14
Histories of heavy metal also tend to vary according to where and when they were written. For instance, the title for which was the first real heavy metal band is a contest between Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Americans tend to pull for Led Zeppelin, a band that has been popular in the United States for more than twenty years, but the British favor Black Sabbath. The American critic Peter Fornatale argues that "Without questions, the members of Led Zeppelin...were the founding fathers of heavy metal. They set standards by which all other groups who followed in their wake must be measured". A British scholar counters "arguably the first of these heavy rock bands is Black Sabbath". Many others accord both groups an equal place as the initiators of the genre. A few commentators, generally American, put forward rival groups such as Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf, or Blue Cheer, as in this dogmatic statement, "Blue Cheer...1967 was the first of all heavy metal bands". - pages 14-15
"the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica." This is a completely absurd statement. It doesn't even deserve a reply.
I agree that an article about EM should stick to the facts. The fact is that, as Thatcher said, "Unless the Led Zepplin controversy is specifically notable to the history of EM (for example, it drove away one the founders or a large number of members, or resulted in the founding of a competing web site, or has triggered an extensive vandalism campaign by LZ fans or something significant) it probably deserves no more than a sentence in this particular article.".
IF EM is such an extreme metal centered site, please show me another site that has more heavy / traditional metal bands. Evenfiel 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the Deena Weinstein quote the first time around, but didn't see what your point is with it?... if anything it proves my point that the site excludes what are considered founding heavy metal bands; such as Led Zeppelin & Blue Cheer (infavour of a more cookie monster centered approach which starts in the 1980s, and is of distant relation)... I doubt the site runners even knew who Blue Cheer was before this debate.

The compromise edit was a cut down version of the Led Zeppelin section (the cutdown which you stated favour of on the talkpage), but I added back in some of the sources you tried to blank.[8] That is called a compromise edit... by all rights I could have just removed your article blanking again as per the simple vandalism guideline.. but as you continued to return repeating the process, it was obvious that was getting the article nowhere... so under advice, I made a compromise edit consisting of a cut down version... but with the appropriate sources... before Morrigan attempted to extent it once more to POV push.

And as for you claiming this quote a reader of the site made; "the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica."... isn't worth replying to... too late, you replied to it when the other user originally posted it here.[9] - Deathrocker 17:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The point he was making with the Weinstein quote is that there is no common agreement on which band truly "invented" heavy metal. We take the stance that it was Black Sabbath (hardly a "cookie monster centered approach" - which is a completely baseless claim, seeing as we have bands from the 1970s on the site, including the Flower Travellin' Band [now, have YOU heard of them?].) Also, we know very well who Blue Cheer are. They've been proposed for inclusion many times, and I personally own and love the 'Vincebus Eruptum' album (check my collection page on the site, if you don't believe me.) It's quite silly to try making this a debate about how much we, as a community, know, and that we are rooted in "cookie monster music." You're the one who keeps resorting to saying we need to stick to the facts, so don't introduce arguments that have nothing to do with fact. PhantomOTO 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never disputed the fact that several bands (just like with any genre) were at the forefront of creating it... Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, etc (most of which aren't even on the so called "metal archive" website) are all very important early heavy metal bands... all forming during the late 60s, at around the same time. That is why I don't see the point in providing that quote, or how it relates to the debate.

And you can speak for the entire so called "community" when you say "we know who Blue Cheer are"?... very, very doubtful, and of course you can provide no citation to such a claim.

The target auidence is Burzum & similar extreme metal fans, not the original heavy metal fans, whos interest is heavy metal (a late 60s/70s genre)... hense why you will have a world famous 70s heavy metal excluded, but an obscure black metal "band", which likely made up of one person... recording demos in their room. Not that any of this has anything to do with the debate at hand. As I said, all you are offering is redundant chit chat here.. which is more suited to a user talkpage, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand; the article. - Deathrocker 20:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "we" in my statement referred to the select group of users who take part in the daily operations of the website (i.e. Morrigan, Evenfiel, myself, and many others.) Could you please source your claim that the target audience is Burzum fans? Also, how is repeatedly attacking (without sources) the knowledge and intentions of the site owners not redundant? YOU are the one who has turned this into personal bickering that has nothing to do with the article. And please, this time, try actually answering the question, instead of tossing off an ad hominem involving 1992's most cliched insult to death metal. PhantomOTO 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You failed to provide a source for your statement regarding the "we known" comment. Alas, there is no "attacking of the site owners".. there is stating of fact with sources that it claims to be a "heavy metal encyclopedia", yet excludes most of the bands that invented it... (that is before we go on to all of the later subgenres and other bands it excludes)

This discussion with you is very boring, you're basically repeating stuff I have shown with sources before... I suggest you read through article history, etc before going over already covered growned, please.

"Could you please source your claim that the target audience is Burzum fans?"

"hense why you will have a world famous 70s heavy metal excluded, [see article, and archive 1 & 2 for sources] but an obscure black metal "band", which likely made up of one person... recording demos in their room."[10]

You're welcome, anything else you'd like me to repeat?.. perhaps you'll state a cliche Encyclopadeia Metallum article 2006, POV supporter "ad hominem" claim in your reply. - Deathrocker 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: your source for your claim that EM's target audience is made of Burzum fans is... your very own original research? Okay. Morrigan 20:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Your using your own quote as a source! Unless what you say is the authoritative source for information of Encyclopaedia Metallum, that's totally BS. Please, find me something that definitively proves that we target Burzum fans. Also, if you think an ad hominem is acceptable in a debate, you have no business even entering into this discussion. PhantomOTO 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I showed you where you can find sources for the claim that the site excludes world famous 70s heavy metal bands, (some are in the article, many are in the talk archive 1 & 2), as for the "obscure black metal "band", which likely made up of one person... recording demos in their room."... go and have a look on the website in question, search black metal, read the profiles. No ad hominems have been made by myself... and I certainly don't advocate it or any unsourced attacks for that matter. - Deathrocker 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're dodging the question. I asked you to prove that the target audience of EM is Burzum fans, not that we have one-man black metal projects on the site and not proto-metal bands. I know that. PhantomOTO 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying the majority of the content featured on your website, does not appeal to your target audience at all? Where would the logic be in that, if you don't mind me asking. It would be like saying groceries don't appeal to people visiting a supermarket. What other reason would they visit, unless they were interested in the content? - Deathrocker 20:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please indent the thread. Thanks. Also, this was explained a long time ago. More such bands happen to be submitted to the Metal Archives, that's why there are more. Not because EM wants to "appeal" to the fans of these bands. If you can provide evidence that this is our motive, I'd like to see it. If Wikipedia had more articles about porn stars and Pokemon than about subatomic particles, would it mean Wikipedia's target audience are porn and Pokemon fans? Seems to me that you're shifting the "site owners are extreme metal kids" rhetoric to "site owners APPEAL TO extreme metal kids". Cute original research, but that doesn't fly, sorry. Morrigan 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is also ridiculous. I never said the majority of our content was one-man black metal bands. I am, however, aware that there are some on the site. These are far outweighed by bands from the many other genres featured, including heavy metal, power metal, progressive metal, NWOBHM, thrash metal, speed metal, and even full black metal bands. Again, to claim that the majority of our content is one-man black metal bands, or even black metal in general, is absurd. PhantomOTO 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've previously provided stats from the site showing that there are more extreme metal related bands than "heavy metal" and alot of which are titled "heavy metal" fit into other subgenres anyway...

  • Traditional/Heavy Metal - 6,436 bands (the majority of which as shown above do not fit into this specification correctly)
  • Black Metal - 11,041 bands
  • Death Metal - 13,942 bands

This is an old debate that has long been covered already. Again you are addressing things which I've already been over, please take the time to read through the older stuff, (archives) if you expect me to reply to your comment. - Deathrocker 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're reverting to different terminology. Before, you implied that our target audience, and the majority of our content, are fans of/is black metal like Burzum, i.e. one man bands. Now you're returning to extreme metal as a whole because you cannot prove your claim in its original form.
Also, here's a little bit of an interview with Robert Plant, conducted in 1983:
MUSICIAN: You're undoubtedly aware that Led Zeppelin is seen by many as the godparents of heavy metal - do you think that what you do, or did then, could accurately be called "heavy metal"?
PLANT: No. Take the first album - "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You," "Your Time Is Gonna Come," "How Many More Times" - that was not heavy metal. There was nothing heavy about it at all. You listen to "How Many More Times," which is really borrowed from the blues, anyway. The kind of dynamics in the middle of that, or Jimmy using the wah-wah pedal on some of the parts, or Bonzo aping him with the cymbals, or stuff like that - it was neat. Bonzo was twenty years old when he did that and it was neat. And it wasn't an insult to people's integrity and sophistication. It was ethereal in places and "Dazed And Confused," too. The musicianship was such that people could go off on tangents and create passages that were compelling. They were skull-crashing, in a way. But it wasn't through sheer brute volume. It was the way it was played. It's a distinct difference.
[11] is where you can find this (I apologize for my lack of knowledge on Wikipedia link formats.) PhantomOTO 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided my claim in the original form, you just chose to ignore it.

An interview conducted in 1983, after the original movement had long since moved on/died/spawned different forms... which people from the original movement may not want to be associated with. An interview I provided from 1971 (when the movement was around at its peak) stated the exact oposite. Although some musicians who play forms of metal (such as Lemmy from Motörhead, for example) attempt to distance themselves from the label despite playing the form, as typically heavy metal is not very well respected by many music critics. Or are Motörhead not metal now too? - Deathrocker 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In that 1971 interview, the interviewer is the one who uses the term "heavy metal" in his introduction. The term is never once used in the interview itself. On the subject of Lemmy, he has never stated that he did not want to be associated with heavy metal, just that he considers Motörhead a rock 'n' roll band (and throughout their career, Motörhead have been actively embraced by the heavy metal scene, and never tried to distance themselves from it. Note their headlining appearance at a festival called "Heavy Metal Holocaust" in August, 1981, with bands like Ozzy Osbourne, Riot, and Vardis.) Plant, however, expressly states that he does not like to call his music heavy metal, and in other interviews has stated his distaste for the term and genre. Why should we allow your quotes from Dave Mustaine and Mikael Akerfeldt, if you'll just wave your hand at a quote from a member of Led Zeppelin? PhantomOTO 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, stated in 1983... after the original movement had died. Unlike in the 1970s. This isn't too far removed from the Motörhead situation.. apart from Motörhead have always called themselves a rock 'n' roll band. If as you say Motörhead never "distance" themselves from heavy metal... then why do they out right reject the term to classify their band and don't consider themselves part of it... when they undoubtedly play a form of heavy metal, absolutely no question about it. Same deal as Plant in the 80s. - Deathrocker 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Motörhead don't reject the term, they just don't use it themselves. Also, I provided an example of Motörhead participating in a heavy metal event. In the 1970s, heavy metal wasn't a scene or movement, as you claim. It was just a loose collection of bands, some of whom have retained the label (Black Sabbath, Budgie, Sir Lord Baltimore, Pentagram (US), Flower Travellin' Band), and some (Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Blue Öyster Cult, Blue Cheer, Black Widow, Atomic Rooster) who have rejected it, or were no longer considered metal when the genre truly solidified into a movement. Yes, there is such a thing as 1970s heavy metal. However, and it is not necessarily heavy metal as it is understood today. Encyclopaedia Metallum's classifications do not put use that original, loose meaning, and instead opts for what the owners view as a more solid definition. Really, this has become pointless. I don't know why you need to point out that Encyclopaedia Metallum contradicts Wikipedia in the article. Users can see that for themselves if they check out the site. PhantomOTO 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


  • And as for you claiming this quote a reader of the site made; "the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica."... isn't worth replying to... too late, you replied to it when the other user originally posted it here.
Did I? Here is what I wrote "As for the claims of the first user about the bias towards 1994 black metal and mid-80s Metallica, it's completely absurd." It's so absurd, that I don't even need to give any reasons on why it's that absurd, cause such claims cannot find any support in the real world.
  • This is an old debate that has long been covered already. Again you are addressing things which I've already been over, please take the time to read through the older stuff, (archives) if you expect me to reply to your comment.
Yes, it's an old debate and you just can't understand that there are more extreme metal related bands around than non-extreme. That's the case for EM and Rockdetector. The only thing you say to counter that argument is "There are thousands upon thousands of bands not listed", but you never actually showed us any source, only rhetorics. Evenfiel 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Deathrocker, if your argument on the basis of Led Zeppelin being a heavy metal band is based on the popularity of the sources that claim it as such, take under consideration Last.fm. It is used by millions of people worldwide who can tag artists according to which genre of music they believe bands belong to. As can be seen from this link, [12] a substantial majority of people hold the same views as we do, you are the stubborn minority alongside the people that tag this band as alternative or folk rock. In comparison this is the Black Sabbath tag page, [13]. So if you want to argue your stance based on the popularity of the sources, consider mine and understand that this comes directly from hundreds of thousands of people not just a select few that have the ability to write articles on prominent sites. -Reaper- 22:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


I did a slight edit to the last paragraph of the 'bands excluded by the website' portion of the article to make it more NPOV.71.100.234.247 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm, folks?

Speaking as an outside observer, and with no offense meant to anyone, I'm going to echo Thatcher's comment from above: what, exactly, is the reason for this argument continuing for this long, and with this much anger? Looking at the article, it seems to quite clearly state "these are the bands that are included, these are the bands that aren't, this is why," and there's an explanation about some of the reasoning for it. It looks like a reasonable article to me, and I have to question what the long back-and-forth here is doing to benefit the article - it seems to have devolved into that long-standing debate over musical styles. (I remember fondly when there were, like, five types of music - rock, country, classical, jazz and blues. Ah, the good old days...) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this should stop right about now. The current revision is just fine. How about we archive this whole babble and move on? 69.70.27.42 20:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony Fox, I beleive that everyone here, with the possible exception of Deathrocker, agrees that the article is, and was, just fine. Evenfiel 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I sure do. --Inhumer 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/c/Talk%7EEncyclopaedia_Metallum_7b1f.html"