Talk:Encyclopaedia Metallum/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reviewers on EM are morons 2 So-called "Controversy" 3 Who Decides? 4 The website does NOT list every known metal band 5 Unsolicited "pseudo-RFC" 6 Deathrocker 7 Mortiis 8 New Starting paragraph 9 Changes to Deathrocker's edit 10 Answers and questions to Deathrock

[edit] Reviewers on EM are morons

Seriously, I know it can't be said like that on the site, as it's a very opinionated statement, but no joke, most of the reviews one the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica. Yet they all seem to clamor for something 'original'. There really should be some sort of warning against reading any of the stupid reviews, much less taking them seriously. (user unknown)

I concur, that's why I created the "bias" section. 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. It's a good reference for what bands are out there (heck, my band is listed on there with our petty 2 self-produced albums and various demos), but outside of that the reviews can be anywhere from awesome (a select handful) to downright laughable - and the moderators aren't exactly the nicest chaps on the planet. Vegetaman 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Bias" section was horribly POV, so I cleaned it up a bit and renamed to "Controversy". Prolog 12:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks much better now. Vegetaman 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Vegetaman, if you think that a review sucks, you can post it in the review forum and ask to be deleted. There is a thread for it. If you think that your review was too good to be rejected, you can also post in the review forum. There is no unrest in the Metal Archives forums about the moderators being biased, and even that topic at GameFaqs, started by you yesterday, is far from being called "unrest". You just wanted to get a few guys that agree with you to post there (A bunch of the poster don't) and then post about it here. As for the claims of the first user about the bias towards 1994 black metal and mid-80s Metallica, it's completely absurd.

If you lost points for no good reason, send me a pm. Most of the time, when someone complains about points, they just didn't read the rules before updating the site. Evenfiel 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, it's been awhile now. Probably last year actually. It was like 10 or 20 points, but I don't really miss them. I was just kind of mad about how I was put down by the moderator (of which I can't even remember which one it was now) and told I'd be banned if I ever did it again. In fact, I pretty much quit using the site since then... I've maybe logged in a handful of times since that day, and I hardly submit anything anymore. Vegetaman 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've lost 50 points sometime after I started using the site, back in 2003, but eventually got over it.Evenfiel 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I despise EM. It is a site of unparallelled arrogance and superiority complexes, complete with a lot of racism and anti-semitism that is completely unchecked by the moderators.

--> Good for you. Now what does have to do with Wikipedia? If you have a problem with the way the EM forums deal with freedom of speech, you should complain there, not here. 69.70.27.42 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The marjority of the material on this site is extreme metal (hardcore punk influenced music) related... NOT heavy metal, the website doesn't even include Led Zeppelin or Blue Cheer. - Deathrocker 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because there are more bedroom projects in Extreme Metal that traditional stuff? Yeah so the site is baised, they admit that much, but it certain isn't against Trad. Metal, and while a fair number of classic bands got excluded off the bat only to added later, doesn't mean it's anti-Heavy Metal. Certainly the hardcore punk influence is something they want to keep out. Not a perfect source but then neither is wiki. Dace59 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So-called "Controversy"

I removed the section. It was very POV, full of weasel words ("some" consider?) and completely inaccurate. It's absurd and irrelevant to bring up what users at GameFAQs or other sites think of the site, focuses entirely too much on Opeth, and the statement about Wikipedia was completely false [1]. 69.70.27.42 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you need to re-check your facts, pal. And Opeth was just the example used, because I know it to be true. And I'm not the only one. It is not at all irrelevant if they are also users of M-A, and they get quashed or band on the M-A archives forum for complaining, and I myself got screwed out of a stack of points by using Wikipedia to back up information I had gathered from the internet about certain bands. So don't tell me I'm wrong.Vegetaman 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

About Opeth, it's true that we rarely allow new reviews in, but that works for positive and negative reviews. Beleive me, for every person willing to write a positive review, there is another one willing to write a negative. As the above user said, the statement about Wikipedia is absurd. I don't even see how your sole source of information to add a band was Wikipedia, since every Wikipedia band has link(s) to an external site. Evenfiel 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I was so angry about it, because I had Wikipedia AND all the other pages it linked to and still got shot down... And shot down hard. I was even told if I added such information again (this was my only "infraction" against M-A as I recall) then I'd be instantly banned. But you're not the mod I had a problem with, either. Half of the moderation team is awesome, the other half need their brains checked out. Vegetaman 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes can occur. If you decide to use the site again and fell that you've been wronged, just use the Suggestions and Complaints forum. Evenfiel 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am telling you you are wrong, because you are. I refuted your claim about Wikipedia with a source that clearly showed the EM policy about Wikipedia links. As Evenfiel said, if you think you were wronged, the place to complain about is at EM, not writing whiny, weasely bitching on Wikipedia. Doing that just makes you sound like one of the many bitter Opeth fanboys. ;) And by your own admission, you were angry and emotional - Wikipedia isn't the place to vent about that stuff. (PS: please use the quoting format. I edited it a bit to make it more readable.) 69.70.27.42 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

well opeth is a good example, but an even better one is all the Les Legions Noires stuff. who the fuck is in charge of that? calling half the stuff bootlegs? i run my site and i have proven facts that soem of those albums and bands are part of the lln and people are judging them upon themselfs and not with the facts... -HDS

If you have proven facts about it, go to the Suggestions and Complaints forum and show us them. How the hell should we know that you have proven facts if you don't show them to us? By using our psychic skills? Evenfiel 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Decides?

Ok so i was adding links on the bands pages to where i had posted mp3s of the band with info and everything, from my forum, and some moderator on the forum complained to me abotu and said he would remove them because they have nothing to do with the band? there is more info on my site with the bands mp3s then on MA, so who is it that chooses to remove my links without anyone else seeing if its ok or not? i spend hours upladoing this rare stuff and this guy deprives me of sharing it. -HDS

That moderator was me. First of, you need to register to use your site, second, if you wanna share mp3s, there is a thread for it in the metal forum. I don't even know why you're complaining about that here in Wikipedia. Evenfiel 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The website does NOT list every known metal band

...or even attempt to. The website does not feature Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer (two of the first heavy metal bands), etc as stated previously... it omits the entire nu-metal subgenre, and 99% of the glam metal genre. For example it does not include; Stryper or Ratt, those two are clearly known bands who play a form of metal, yet are not featured.

The majority of the bands in the "Traditional Metal" section,[2] are infact not tradtional in the sense that many are thrash, technical death metal, symphonic, power metal, etc... the site runners have a very poor grasp of "traditional" aka heavy metal, itself... its a form of music from the 1970s heavily influenced by blues rock and psychedelic rock, nothing to do with "technical death metal". In terms of coverage...

What are you talking about? The link you posted shows mostly heavy/traditional metal and NWOBHM. There is one "technical death" band in there, but they apparently also have played thrash and heavy metal. The genres listing pages are set by keywords, so that if the terms "heavy metal" (together), "traditional", "nwobhm", appear in their genre, they will be listed. Since many bands overlap genres (especially trad and thrash, for many 80's bands), that can cause some odd appearances, but that's purely a technical issue, nothing to do with EM's alleged biases against traditional metal. You are trying way too hard to look for issues that don't exist. 69.70.27.42 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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

Which shows beyond doubt that this is indeed an extreme metal orientated website. NOT a heavy metal encyclopaedia in the correct sense of the term. - Deathrocker 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just on the sheer number of bands, are you even going to talk about that point of thousands of bedroom Extreme Metal projects that managed to put out a demo CD, because that tips the balance just a bit, along with the fact the site has to exact search, so looking for "Black Metal" will get you every band with Black and Metal in it's genre tag, and there's more than a few Black/Death or Death/Black bands. And if the site has some views about what classic bands that had influence but aren't Metal, well they admit their baised (such as why Mortiis and Rush are on the site). You're just looking at the problem that it's easier to tell Noise and Grind from Extreme Metal than it is to tell 70's Blues Rock from 70's Metal. As nu-metal, it's not Metal, and Glam bands generally don't have one full Metal relase to be listed (which is why bands like Fuck The Facts are listed due to having some random fully Metal 7"s).

Ok, thats enough. There's probably some fitting wiki mid ground about the sites baises, it's problems with 70's projects and the number of bedroom/demo Extreme projects, etc, etc. I agree with some of the sites views but no one can deny it doesn't have problems, it's the nature of such a project and I think it's better than nothing. I'd rather personal views influencing the listings than comercial ones. That's my small change on all this, if it counts or nor. Dace59 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the nu-metal and glam metal articles, it explains how they are subgenres of heavy metal, just as thrash metal is. Glam metal especially is more closely related to the original heavy metal movement of the 1970s, than say Death metal.. as Glam metal takes direct influence from the original metal movement...

Where as Death Metal, is a subgenre of Thrash, which itself takes influence from NWOBHM and largely hardcore punk... Death metal is a very distant subgenre of heavy metal itself.

Through influence, it goes...

• Heavy metal -> NWOBHM -> Thrash metal -> Death metal
• Heavy metal -> Glam metal

As for the 1970s bands to extreme metal ratio... there are many underground metal bands from the 70s, just as there are many underground black metal (for example) bands today.... the point is the website purposely excludes world famous originators of heavy metal such as Led Zeppelin, due to their lack of understanding on what heavy metal is. Its a largely extreme metal site and the article (as it is at the moment) gets across that its listing every known extreme metal band, and not every known metal band. - Deathrocker 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So the site doesn't agree with wiki's views on Metal, hell I don't agree with wiki's views (nu-metal is just alt-rock/aggro and has nothingto do with real Metal, but I can't change wiki's views on that). Then again, I don't think Led Zeppelin are Metal at all, influence maybe, but not Metal. However, what about all the other bands the site lists? Not Trad/True Metal, but I don't think you'll be able to cram Power Metal into the "Extreme" label anymore. I think it's a little harsh to list Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer without saying that the site considers them Rock bands. It's even the perfect place to point ou the bais. Dace59 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nu-metal as merely "alternative rock" is very overstated by extreme metal fans who attempt to distance those bands from the "metal" label to suit their POV of what "metal" is... Slipknot for example, have far more in common in sound with Thrash metal who they take alot of influence from, such as Slayer than they do to an alternative rock band like the Cure, for example.

You don't have to like the music, but it is a subgenre and recognised as so on a genuine encyclopaedia (here)... I'd also have to question the metal knowledge of anybody who claims "Led Zeppelin are not metal at all". - Deathrocker 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Shrug* As I said, I have my views that don't match with wiki's, but that's the views of one little editor. I don't have to agree with all wiki's views to edit here either (as long as I'm not vandalising anything of course). As for "question the metal knowledge"? Go right ahread, sure there's nothing I could say to change your mind now, even if I owned nothing but 70's British Metal and Rock. And yes I have heard Led Zeppelin, still don't agree with you. I have no points that count on this issue, I'm not going to be making any edits here. Dace59 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, you fail to understand the issue at hand. Metal as a music, subculture and entity was never a music for the masses, however it is true that certain bands have broken through and became popular. What the issue is, is that the definition of Metal cannot come form uneducated sources such as the media, who call bands like Slipknot, Death Metal and Led Zeppelin, Heavy Metal,this encyclopedia who is edited by the same people that in the 70s thought that every band with long hair was Heavy Metal as well as today, every band with down-tuned guitars is some form of Metal, or the general public. The matter at hand is this, one cannot give a true definition of Metal, it is something intrinsic, something that a true listener of Metal can understand and can never be understood by people like you or people in the media. The first Heavy Metal band was Black Sabbath, they took what flower bands like Zeppelin and Styx did and turned it into heaviness and evil, for lack of a better word. Black Sabbath's debut album was THE first Metal album. This is recognized by serious metal fans and no media in the world, no matter how much they try and claim based on their ignorant sources, can take that away from metal fans. Deathrocker, you may not understand why you are wrong, but then again, you're probably not a serious Metalhead. - -Reaper- 23:06, September 19 2006

Reaper/sabbath6699, stay out of this. Please. 69.70.27.42 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A Burzum fan attempting to tell anybody what is and isn't genuine metal? lolz, anyway, no Black Sabbath weren't the first heavy metal band, they were one of the first, and certainly the first to make it popular on a larger scale with high charting positions.[3], this is why they are often credited as the first... though bands such as Blue Cheer predate them. I'm guessing you are 15 or 16 now, so you certainly werent around in the 1970s to experience the movement or understand what it was about, etc.

Angst ridden whining, claiming metal doesn't have anything to do with the mainstream is pure ignorance of the historic factualities of metal and its widely spread chartings from around the time it began (as showed in the Sabbath link), to bands from its subgenres charting highly even today; Iron Maiden's latest album has charted nationally at #9 in the US, #4 in the UK, #2 in Canada during 2006.... thus proving metal is and always has been a mainstream form of music, your obscure cookie monster music bands may not be mainstream, but then again they are only distantly related to the core of what metal is in the first place. - Deathrocker 06:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"A Burzum fan attempting to tell anybody what is and isn't genuine metal? lolz" -- Nice to see you also indulge in ad hominems. We'll remember that next time you accuse others of childishness. 69.70.27.42 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolicited "pseudo-RFC"

Just thought I contribute my opinion to the matter (without actually being involved with edits).

I don't think EM is as biased towards extreme metal as much as they are just unreasonably picky. For instance, some bands have turned up on the search which have very close ties with nu-metal (Machine Head, Pantera, Fear Factory, Chimaira, etc.) and they also have "ambient" projects from both well known/lesser known musicians that would not qualify as extreme metal, much less be considered "extreme".

In addition they have also included a lot of metalcore "acts" whose only association with extreme metal is the use of "Gothenburg" styled blast beats/tremolo picking. I have met metalheads from all over the world - extreme and traditional - and none have been a fan or considered this "fusion" genre to be an actual form of metal (It's really a hardcore punk crossover genre, attracting mainly hardcore punk/emo fans.)

The article definitely deserves a "Criticism" section and a bit of revision but to say the site caters only to extreme metal would be overdoing it; (although there are other zines, databases, etc. out there that would fit this category to a T!) --Danteferno 12:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the site definitely has its biases. Vegetaman 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm including in a version that the site also includes some Gothic metal and Power metal acts.. the ambient acts are really a minority. My main problem is this line "Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives is a large website which attempts to list every known metal band"... the last part clearly isn't aplicable to a factual article about this site because they purposely do not include every known metal band, even world famous ones. - Deathrocker 08:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why, because our interpretation of metal may be different from yours? Our belief is that Led Zeppelin or Blue Cheer are not metal bands. Noktorn

[edit] Deathrocker

You need to realize that your opinion isn't fact--Inhumer 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My facts are going by other Wikipedia articles; I have backed up my points on how the articles was inacurate and sourced it with extremely notable sources (like, All Music Guide), now state your issues and back them up or don't revert to an inferior (and incorrect) version without due reason. - Deathrocker 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted them. EM does not cater to extreme metal, nor does it have any biases towards extreme metal. EM is elitist, but that'si t. Your only evidence is a) the larger number of death and black metal bands, and b) that Led Zeppelin isn't there. Now... a) This has been addressed. There are more bedroom/Myspace-like type bands for extreme metal. Various scenes, especially in Asia, the Middle East, Canada, etc. are very much dominated by extreme metal. In the 70s and early 80s it wasn't like that, but the younger generations apparently prefer to play extreme metal. This is simply a matter of facts about the bands that get submitted, not bias from the site owners. b) Led Zeppelin is arguably not a metal band. Some older metalheads say they are, many others don't. AMG has shown to be a very unreliable source when it comes to classifying metal genres, such as their classifying of Lacuna Coil, Opeth or Nightwish as "symphonic black metal" [4] which is, to say the least, bizarre. In any case, AMG is a general-public oriented music site, not a specialised one, and that EM chose to exclude Led Zeppelin because they consider them as rock (and let's face it, Led Zep played rock songs, metal songs, folk songs, a bit of many styles, they weren't an all-out metal band despite their great influence on the genre) does not make them biased in favour of extreme metal. Please stop vandalising the article with your own petty bias. 69.70.27.42 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Read up the description of elitist, it does not apply to two guys in Canada running some website that doesnt even cover the basics of a genre. If the website was elitist it would cover genuine heavy metal bands (a movement from the 1970s) and write articles with knowledge on the movement, there is no evidence of that. I've already proven what the site covers is a majority of extreme metal bands above and included how it also covers gothic metal and power metal in the opening.

The majority of extreme metal bands are arguably more hardcore punk related in sound and tempos, than heavy metal. (Read up the article on thrash metal, which all extreme metal genres can be traced back to, and you'll see what I mean).... to have heavy metal linked in the first line is a flase statement, I've shown how the website does not attempt to cover all metal bands.

Find out what heavy metal is; click on the link and read the info box for heavy metal, that does not describe the style of music this website covers, please stop vandalising the article with your extreme metal centered bias. By blanking sourced info from reputable sites, you are commiting simple vandalism. - 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are. Your changes are reverted constantly, not just by me but other users. You are blatantly attempting to introduce slant in the article, which are transparent enough for others to see, and now you're accusing ME of "extreme metal bias" (when my favourite styles are trad, nwobhm and folk) for no reason. You are also demonstrating intellectual dishonesty by displacing my comments [5] which corrected your misconception about the number of bands by subgenre. I was refuting a specific point in your text but you moved it elsewhere and it looked less relevant - THAT is vandalism. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comment to underneath because you put it out of place (perhaps mistakenly) half way in the middle of one of my replies. If you wish to reply to someone then do so underneath, don't change other peoples replies.

I didn't change your reply - I added mine! It was indented, right below the section I wanted to address. There was no need to move it. 69.70.27.42 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Second, what exactly is "vandalism" about my edit on the main article?... if you disagree with it then it is a content dispute, not vandalism. You have not put fourth any argument on here, with points as to which parts of my version are not NPOV. I have shown on this talkpage how the website excludes hundreds, of well known metal and subgenres of metal bands, that are accepted so on this very site (thus the website the article is on, does not try to list every metal band).... you have not disproved that or even made an attempt to. The article itself even says that the website discriminates against certain metal subgenres such as: glam metal, metalcore, nu-metal, and some of the founders of heavy metal itself... which makes it impossible to list "every metal band"... do you understand the concept of that?.. is that point getting through to you?

All you have done, is vandalised the article, by blanking sourced information (see: the vandalism policy, blanking falls under it)... made snide comments on the talkpage, and haven't even made an attempt to discuss what you find objectionable about the article... that is vandalism. - Deathrocker 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Easy one for you Deathrocker, which Led Zeppelin album(s) would be Heavy Metal? This is a serious question ok. The website has a rule that a band needs at least one solidly Metal relase to be in, hence Fuck The Facts, as I said, being in for only a 7" or two, or Def Leppord because of their debute (according to the notes anyway, you might well have something to say on that as well). If there is an album that you'd call as soidly Metal, rather than a mix of Metal, Rock, etc, doesn't matter. But if there isn't one, might change the issue. Though it still wouldn't change some of the problems ,such as what would be Rush's Metal album(s)? Dace59 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

All of them. Hard Rock, Blues and Psychedelic are the essential elements that make up what heavy metal in the first place (see info box on heavy metal article), it didn't just drop out of thin air; Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, Deep Purple, fused those influences and created what is "heavy metal".

The music on all of those band's albums (including Zep) doesn’t sound the same as the blues rock, hard rock, etc bands that came before them... thus what they play became known as a new genre of music; heavy metal.

It would be like saying "Slayer don't have any Thrash metal releases, their albums are a mix of NWOBHM and Hardcore punk", duh thats what Thrash is, a mix of those other forms of music.

When people new to metal such as extreme metal kids come up and say "its not metal its hard rock"... its the same as saying "its not water, its wet"... Heavy metal IS a form of hard rock and has been since its inception. - Deathrocker 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. And hard rock is a form of rock. Punk is a form of rock. Should a list of punk bands list the Beatles? Get a grip, you are missing the point. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) You have not answered the question. List a fully metal album by Led Zep. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to add snide trolling comments such as "get a grip", you might want to have the sligtest idea of what you're talking about. Led Zeppelin use elements of hard rock... as do Black Sabbath and all heavy metal bands. Am I even speaking to an adult or what?... all you have to do to find this information out if to visit the bands appropriate articles. (which can be viewed by clicking on their name)...

Enough is enough. I am not a troll, I made "snide" comments as retaliation to your unfounded accusation of my "extreme metal bias". You set the tone, Deathrocker, so don't try to take the moral highground here. Besides, your very own posts ("slow it down for you", "stop using a sock-puppet") are full of condescension and groundless accusations, so enough with the blatant hypocrisy already.

Now, for the rest: First, you are basically using Wikipedia as a source for creating a Wikipedia article. Am I seeing correctly here? This strikes me as pretty funny, in a way. The wiki metal articles have frequent disputes about them, so why don't you stop using them as if they were undisputed sources? Wikipedia may say Led Zeppelin is metal. Not everyone agrees. This is disputed. And, even if it were not, EM's exclusion of Led Zeppelin is NOT evidence of EM policy bias in favour of extreme metal, or against traditional metal. The two site owners are not even big fans of extreme metal (you can ask them if you want). They simply differ in opinion from you, Wiki or AMG. Other big metal sites, such as metal-rules.com, do not cover Led Zeppelin [6], or BNRMetal, lists them as influential but still hard rock [7]. Does that make these sites biased towards extreme metal? Of course not (MR.com is full of heavy, trad, power, glam metal reviews, for example). The Led Zeppelin argument is tired and irrelevant, please stop repeating it.

Secondly: Just because the EM definition of metal disagrees with the Wikipedia definition of metal, does not make EM the biased one and Wikipedia the absolute one. There is strong debate on both websites. According to the EM site owners, mallcore, glam rock and a lot of metalcore bands (not all) are not metal. They differentiate with those and groove metal, glam metal, and Gothenburg/death/crossover metal, that's all. That doesn't mean they are not trying to list every metal band, they just disagree with the less elitist, more populist Wikipedia definition, which is neither absolute nor undisputable. The article itself mentions how EM enforces their elitist strictness in the disputed genres, so what is the problem, exactly? The current revision is fine as it is. 69.70.27.42 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the Beatles mentioned in the punk rock article as one of the founding punk bands? NO. Are Led Zeppelin mentioned in the heavy metal article as one of the founding heavy metal bands? YES. Is that clear enough for you?.... I can't simplify, or slow it down any more than that for you.

Oh, and I answered the "metal album" Zep question in the very first words of my reply, "all of them", are you reading the same discussion page or what? - Deathrocker 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to realize, that just because there are more Black, Death, and Thrash Metal bands on the site than there are Heavy/Traditional Metal bands, that it doesn't mean that they cater to Extreme Metal genres.--Inhumer 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so all their albums have more Metal songs than anything else? Yes I know those things are part of Metal, was just checking the mix is within the music, rather a than the albums be made up of a bunch of songs from different genres. I had a look at the wiki pages for their albums, it doesn't list Heavy Metal has a style for all of them, hence why I asked. Oh, and what did you mean by "Certain bands, like Def Leppard, are on the website, but their first album is only included."? It reads like you're saying only their first album is listed on the site, but a google cache (site's down as usual) shows released upto the present day. Ohh, looks like that comment has been removed anyway. Dace59 15:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Def Leppard was included into that sites database due to their debue (NWOBHM) album, before it read as bias it said "only one real metal album", when infact they have others that fall under glam metal catagory. - Deathrocker 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and way to take the deletion request off of Blessed Beyond The Curse when anyone could tell its a blatant advertisment--Inhumer 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) and other edits I made--Inhumer 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's shown himself to be an intellectually dishonest vandal more than once, it seems. See: needless removal [8], inaccurate POV statement [9]. 69.70.27.42 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're preching to the choir man, I've seen him at work.--Inhumer 15:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Stay logged in under the one account. Using IP to attempt to get across your "point" is sockpuppetry and a violation of WP:SOCK policy.
• 2) Content disputes (the links which you provided) are not vandalism (read the vandalism article, it says so in it), refrain from personal attacks and asume good faith or you are violating wikipedia policies, take up any issues you have up on the apropriate article articles. - Deathrocker 15:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly hope you don't think the anon was me, because I've been logged in for a good 1½ hours without logging out.Thats also not my IP.--Inhumer 15:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not Inhumer. I don't have a wiki account and never bothered registering one. As far as I know, this is allowed, or I wouldn't be able to post. Please stop your accusation of sock-puppetery, it's almost slanderous. 69.70.27.42 17:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much every site specialized in Metal do not consider bands like Led Zeppelin as a metal band. All Music Guide is a joke to say the least. Nightwish, Therion and Opeth as Symphonic Black metal? Kreator is a similar band to Opeth? Iced Earth is similar to Therion? Seriously, what the hell is that?

Not even a site like Rockdetector lists Blue Cheer and Led Zeppelin as heavy metal bands. BNR Metal, which is another known encyclopedia for those who are interested in metal, lists Led Zeppelin as a rock band. I assure you that the owners of both sites are not "extreme metal kids" who started to listen to metal yesterday.

Your claims that the site is centered on extreme metal are completely false. So what if extreme metal is more popular than traditional heavy metal, power metal and speed metal? Even if MA added the bands you want to, there would be more extreme metal bands. Evenfiel 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

BNR Metal claims Black Sabbath are "doom metal" regardless of the fact that doom wasn't a genre of music until 1980s, and under genres claims that there are two different genres one called "Goth Metal" one called "Gothic Metal".[10] It also excludes, glam metal yet includes grunge and creates an entirely new genre called Atmospheric Hardcore nuff said...

Alot of Speed metal tend to fall under extreme metal, as alot of it is linked to Thrash. If you check, Power metal was also included in the opening line of genres covered by the website, in my version.[11] Extreme metal is not a more popular form of music, the site however is more extreme metal centered as I have shown before above with the band it covers stats... show otherwise with sources if you feel otherwise.

If the site listed "all known metal bands" that exist, like the incorrect variation of this article claims, then there would be far, far more bands than the bedroom black metal bands... the NWOBHM movement for example had thousands on thousands of bands, many of which are not on this site, Glam metal was the most popular form of metal for over a decade, there are thousands and thousands of bands in that subgenre... there are hardly any of the 70s bands (the people who invented and played the original form of metal), etc,.. I could go on, yet literaly every black metal band on earth is listed... if that isn't dedication and emphasis on extreme metal, then I'd like to hear what is.

Hmmm, tough to decide validility of sources on the Zeppelin debate; All Music Guide (which feeds, iTunes Music Store, eMusic, AOL, Yahoo!, MP3.com, Windows Media Player and others) and Wikipedia (see: heavy metal & Led Zeppelin articles) Vs. an underground extreme metal site, ran by two kids who have openly admitted their bias against certain forms of metal and its bands, and that it has a baring on the sites content. - Deathrocker 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My turn to ask: are you a troll? Black Sabbath is universally recognized as the creator of doom metal. Songs like the self-titled track, Hand of Doom, Into the Void are the prototypical doom metal songs. In any case, Evenfiel's point was not that BNR was the most reliable source, only to demonstrate that calling Led Zeppelin "hard rock" (which BNR and many others do) do not give one an extreme metal bias.

I already refuted your "argument" about the statistics. And your arguments about AMG only further illustrate my point; that mainstream media sources are populist and not familiar with the metal scene (again, explain the credibility of a site that lists Lacuna Coil and Nightwish as "symphonic black metal", please). You keep calling the site owners "extreme metal kids" when this is demonstrably false (and slanderous/ad hominem). And, again, there is already a good section of the article describing in details the bias/elitism from EM, yet you persist with your "extreme metal bias!!" talk. It seems you are beyond rational and reasonable discussion. 69.70.27.42 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question; No, I'm merely interested in eradicating factual inacurracies and bias in articles (this article happens to be full of both), are you?....

Black Sabbath were influential to doom metal they were not the "founders", incase you didn't realise, Sabbath formed in 1969, doom has only existed as a genre since the mid 1980s. Sabbath are credited as been one of the bands who invented heavy metal itself, how do you suppose a band go about creating a new genre of music, and a subgenre of that new genre which wouldn't appear for another 20+ years at exactly the same time, did you think that through logically before posting?....

Just about all of the Oi! bands (a subgenre of punk), are influenced by The Rolling Stones, does that makes the Stones an "Oi!" band now? Muddy Waters must be a heavy metal "founder" going by your logic... he was a prominent blues rock figure which influenced the original metal bands.... think things through first before presenting a point please. (regardless of that fact that his has nothing to do with the topic at hand; this article)

Heavy metal was a mainstream form of music. Look at the chartings of the original metal bands (they are available on this very site), most of them were in the top 100 (US) and top 20 (UK), thus mainstream media is a perfect source of comentary.. rather than an admittedly bias site, which's owners probably weren't even born when heavy metal came about. I hope this talkpage isn't going to turn into an angsty "I hate the mainstream, etc" type deal. - Deathrocker 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't want to start a mainstream vs underground debate either, but metal hasn't been mainstream for decades, and the mainstream media knows little about metal, as was evidenced by the AMG "Symphonic black metal" page. Those who really know metal, its history and its various scenes all around the world, are those who are passionate about it, who breathe and live it, and who thrive today - sadly, mostly in the underground for North America at least. The mainstream media has only very passing knowledge at best, and focuses on well-known bands who get, well, mainstream exposure. That is why listing sources like AOL and ignoring sources like metal-rules.com is absurd. Try to understand that. 66.36.159.20 22:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? BNR and Rockdetector are definitely far from being biased sites to extreme metal.

Btw, I have yet to find a metal fan who thinks that All Music Guide is a good source of information. That site is made for people who barely known the difference between rock and metal. In pretty much every article about any metal band there is something utter hilarious. Evenfiel 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Black Sabbath, while being a forefather of heavy metal with their first two albums (Black Sabbath and Paranoid), were ALSO the prototype of doom metal with their third album and on (Master of Reality, Volume 4, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Sabotage) until Technical Ecstasy/Never Say Die. And once Heaven and Hell rolled around, they almost seemed to take on a power metal type edge with the lyrical and musical direction the band was going in. Vegetaman 06:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortiis

IIRC, Mortiis is in simply because Morrigan likes him and it's a case of "my damn website, I'll have in who I want" rather than bending the side projects rule. But I'll try to look up a defining quote on that when the site is up again. Dace59 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike what Deathrocker seems to beleive, Mortiis isn't here because he was the ex-Emperor bassist. If Mortiis had started a tango band after leaving Emperor, he wouldn't be in the site. Evenfiel 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then find a source and have it put in there (if the site is up ATM, it seems to be down alot), or put a NPOV tag in the appropriate section. Don't compromise the intergrity of the article (Looking at you Evenfiel).. by removing sorced info regarding stats, etc and undoing work without discussing which parts you rationally disgaree with, etc. That is the idea of talkpages. - Deathrocker 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The link that was posted by you is wrong. I've just posted the correct link. So, what's your source saying that Mortiis is here because he was the ex-Emperor bassists? I've posted mine. Now show yours. I'm undoing work that EVERYONE in the talk page disagress with, not just me. You're the one swimming against the flow.

Glam metal is also not completely excluded like you beleive. As a matter of fact, a lot of the most sucessful bands are there.Evenfiel 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for Mortiis' inclusion is right in the rules of MA! It is considered a dark ambient project that is a part of the metal scene.Noktorn 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Starting paragraph

I've reworked the starting paragraph to show both points of view from the debate above...

"Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives is a website which lists bands from various forms of heavy metal music; a large majority of the bands are extreme metal, though power metal and gothic metal bands amongst others are heavily represented too.

The website attempts to provide additional information on each band, such as a discography, a short history, and user-submitted reviews."

This reflects how not every band that are considered a form of Heavy metal by Wikipedia standards are included... but, it also mentions that various forms of heavy metal are incorporated into the site.. not just extreme metal, thought as I showed with stats, at the moment that is the majority of the sites conent. - Deathrocker 16:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if most bands from the site are extreme metal bands. It's also irrelevant if you don't agree with what is rock and what isn't. Music is a subjective matter. There always will be someone who doesn't agree with your views, and in this case, there are a lot of metal fans who agree that Led Zeppelin is a rock band. Evenfiel 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still blanking sourced sections of the article, genius. Wikipedia heavy metal and Led Zeppelin articles has the band marked down as heavy metal, as do All Music Guide, don't like/agree with that?... email All Music Guide, and discuss your points on the apropriate articles relating to that. There are hundreds of other metal bands excluded too, not just that band.

Most of the new extreme metal kids do not view the original heavy metal bands as "metal", because they have been brought up with a watered down more hardcore punk related version and they were not born when the original movement was around. (people who are teenagers now were not around during the 1970s, when these bands came out and were named heavy metal in the first place)

As it is mostly extreme metal kids who have the misfortune of visiting this article, the version you are pushing is bias in favour of that sides view of "heavy metal" which contradicts even the heavy metal article on here itself. Alot of heavy metal fans from the 1970s reject extreme "metal" and don't view it as metal, in the same way you view Zeppelin as "not metal".

Your reply doesn't make much sense as to what your problem with the edit is. How is the new NPOV header irrelevent?.... other people here have argued that its not just an extreme metal centered site above, thus I have included both points of view by mentioning other forms of metal covered. (such as power metal, gothic metal, amongst others), comprehend?- 17:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine the NPOV header isn't irrelevant. It was my mistake.

I have various other sources that DON'T list them as heavy metal. So what are we going to do here? If you want to criticize the site, you can add that a criticism section. And please stop the extreme metal kids thing. It's getting ludicrous. Evenfiel 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You provided two sources, neither are as promiment as the one I provided (AOL, Yahoo! Windows Media Player, iTunes, All Music Guide, MP3.com, EMusic) one of the sources you provided even creates its own genres out of thin air, and is riddled with factual inacurracies as I showed above; again... if you wish to debate whether the band are metal or not do so on the Talk:Led Zeppelin article. The other Wikipedia articles (including the heavy metal one) consider them a prominent founder of the genre... go debate it on those articles if you wish.

LED ZEPPELIN AREN'T THE ONLY METAL BAND THE SITE EXCLUDES. Please read that over 10 times.. so it sinks in how the start of your version is factually incorrect the website does not attempt to list "every known metal band".. understand?... there are hundreds of well known bands it purposely excludes and it mentions later in the article that it excludes entire subgenres of some metal bands. You haven't even begun to debate which other parts of the article that you are reverting that you disagree with.

Please obide by NPOV, I have attempted to incorporate both sides of debates on this page (such as the extreme metal thing) into a new variation of the article... you coming in and reverting the whole work of the article to push your POV is a violation of that policy. - 18:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note about Led Zeppelin. Are you happy with it?

Can't you understand that your opinion on what is metal can't be objetive? You're biased on this matter, I'm biased, wikipedia is biased, everyone is biased.

I'm going to incorporate elements of both, including the source that I provided, and that the site runners bias considers the bands as simply "hard rock".. also the first two lines need to stay as they are.. you haven't explained what you find to be wrong with them... though I have compromised and left the Mortiis part out until suitable sources can be found to say either way. - Deathrocker 18:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have more time to keep debate going, so I'll come back later. Btw, saying that "one of the sources you provided even creates its own genres out of thin air, and is riddled with factual inacurracies as I showed above; again..." is comical, since your source is riddled with inacurracies in pretty much every entry about metal bands.Evenfiel 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Deathrocker's edit

• The site does not "claims to have", it has. That is a fact.
• Add your Mortiis claim after you've found a reference.
• Changed the note about Led Zeppelin.
• Added that most of the content is extreme metal related to the trivia section.Evenfiel

And your blanking of the work done in the first paragraph?... I've explained the compromise on that above. By "changed the note about Led Zeppelin" you mean "blanked". You also blanked much of the part about Glam metal; it is a subgenre of metal, whether the site owners (who admit bias against much of it) consider it so or not.

The subject that this site covers needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article, not pushed to the bottom of some "trivia" section... it tells the reader what the site is about. - Deathrocker 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In imdb, out of 27 categories, more than half of the movies are comedies, documentaries, dramas or short movies. Do you think you should write that in the article' subject? No? I thought so. The same goes for Encyclopaedia Metallum. Also, the stats should be in the subject.

The anon user who edited the article was me. Evenfiel 21:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• By the site's standard, it tries to list all metal bands. What is metal or not is something subjetive

What the website considers "metal" and "not metal" contradicts NPOV and other Wikipedia articles. As you say "what the site considers" that is not representative of neutrality, which is the important issue.. the site admits that it is bias against certain forms of metal, thus it does not list every metal band. Simple as. - Deathrocker 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. According to the site owners, they don't discriminate against certain forms of metal, but against certain forms of rock, which are often borderline/confused with metal. This is not the same thing. They accept all glam METAL (like Motley Crue), but won't accept glam ROCK (like Poison or Bon Jovi). A lot of music styles, such as punk, rock, industrial, glam, etc. flirt with metal on some occasion, which can cause debates (unlike other styles which never do, such as rap, country, polka, for example). Of course the site owners draw a line somewhere, but there is no single authority that can say "this opinion is TRUE neutrality, everything else is biased/non-neutral!". Not even Wikipedia. 66.36.145.31 08:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Those bands aren't glam rock, you've proven yourself to not know what you are talking about. Glam rock is a form of music from the early 1970s in England (check the article for yourself)... it has nothing to do with Glam METAL bands like Ratt, Poison, Motley Crue, etc... that is an entirely different genre; a subgenre of METAL, like it or not, its as much of a subgenre if not more than a hardcore punk centered form of music like extreme metal. If the site were excluding forms of music which have mixed other styles since heavy metal's definative year zero... then they would have only 1970s bands... they wouldn't even have any bands from the NWOBHM movement who use alot of elements of punk rock.

The website owners also discriminate against metalcore; a subgenre of heavy metal, that just like thrash metal takes influences from hardcore punk and previously existing forms of metal. It also discriminates against nu-metal; a subgenre of metal which fuses hip hop and heavy metal (mostly thrash/post-thrash influences) - Deathrocker 12:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't blank the note about Led Zeppelin, here it is "Some 70s bands that are considered metal by some, but rock by others, like Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer, are also excluded."
• The Glam Metal note is still there. Even the wiki article mentions that Glam metal is a mix of glam rock and heavy metal. MA decided to exclude those that are considered more rock than metal. What's the problem with keeping the note the way it is?

I don't see your point regarding which elements it mixes?... Thrash for example is a mix of hardcore punk and NWOBHM, does that mean some of those bands "aren't metal, they're hardcore"

All of the bands which are part of the glam metal subgenre are a form of heavy metal, hense the name and the fact that they fuse large elements of the original heavy metal movement... just as all of the bands in the power metal genre are a form of metal... Glam metal happened to be the most widely spread subgenre of metal for over a decade, the article needs to reflect this fact, and "Metallum" bias against parts of it. - Deathrocker 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• The site is not just about extreme metal, it's about metal. Just by chance it has more extreme metal bands. I see no problem in keeping it in the trivia.Evenfiel 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, you have yet to answer many questions raised at you. Why is AMG a reliable source when they list Nightwish as "symphonic black metal"? Why are metal-specialised sources like metal-rules.com not reliable? Why is EM's disagreement with Wikipedia important, since Wikipedia's own article about metal constantly in dispute? Why do you persist in calling the site owners "extreme metal kids" when it's not true [12] [13] [14]? 66.36.145.31 08:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up, you were already answered as to how AOL, Yahoo! Windows Media Player, iTunes, All Music Guide, MP3.com and EMusic are more suitable sources than underground admittedly bias; extreme metal centered site. You've done this twice now... read the replies already given before repeating the same question. If you can't be bothered to read, there is no point in replying to you. - Deathrocker 12:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up, you were already answered as to how your sources are not suitable. Also, stop accusing people who don't agree with you of being "extreme metal centered". There are plenty of bands from the 70s and even 60s in the Metal Archives. Also, BNR and Rockdetector are far from being extreme metal centered. Evenfiel 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an outright lie. Please demonstrate how metal-rules.com, BNR Metal or Rock Detector are "admittedly bias, extreme metal centered" sites. Hint: you can't, because they aren't. You are the one who does not read, pay attention, nor have you answered any questions. You still haven't explained why we should take seriously a site that lists Nightwish as symphonic black metal (among other nonsense). Your logic is like taking a source for layperson instead of a specialised source because it's "more mainstream", but it's obvious that these sources know nothing about metal. These sites hardly know what classic, influential artists like Manilla Road or Metalucifer are. 66.36.130.135 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you if you consider world wide renowned sites such as AOL, Yahoo!, Windows Media Player, iTunes, All Music Guide, MP3.com and EMusic suitable or not, those fall under the terms of vertifiable acceptability policies. They are more than suitable. Admittedly bias underground websites don't fall under NPOV sources for verifiability, you've had this explained to you before.

You aren't even consistant in the point you are trying to argue on this talkpage, yesterday you were claiming the exact opposite "I've added that the majority of bands are extreme metal bands to the trivia section."[15], make your mind up which way you are arguing, its getting hard to take you serious here. - Deathrocker 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Show the "admittedly bias" in metal-rules.com or Rockdetector, or stop bringing this up. Oh, and stop bringing up the NPOV policy when you insert slanted, POV text in the article yourself. 66.36.130.135 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this an article about Rockdetector or Encyclopaedia Metallum?, you seem to be confused at the subject at hand. Nowhere in the Rockdetector link do they say "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band"... that is EM's POV, the argument as to whether the band are metal or not is not discussed by RD. (This article isn't about that site anyway, stay on topic please)...

Oh, and Metalucifer formed in 1995, heavy metal is a music genre from the 1970s hardly makes them a "classic artist" in the sceme of things.. replying to you seems to be a waste of time; you seem to have no grasp of logic and you continue asking questions three times over, when you were answered in full the very first time you asked[16], half way down.

And if you are going to reply, try not to do so in the middle of my message, it makes it confusing to read when I have to waste my time replying to you, if there is a spercific line you want to address, use quotation marks ("" <--these things before you ask), many thanks in advace.- Deathrocker 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I reply underneath the sections that I want to address. What is the problem? Do not dare to accuse me of bad logic when you are guilty of that three times over (e.g. you bring up other sites, but tell us to stop bringing up other sites; you accuse people of bias without evidence; you disregard and ignore any evidence that contradict your own opinions; you accuse other sites of bias, but then refuse to discuss these sites when you are called on it, etc etc.) 66.36.130.135 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers and questions to Deathrock

• First off, it's funny how you first chose to edit the article and then tell people to use the talk page before editing your edits.
• First you say that those sites are biased, and then, after realizing that you cannot prove that any of them are biased, you try to evade the question saying that this article has nothing to do with Rockdetector. Good try.
• We're bringing other sites because, as amazing as it may sounds to you, not every agrees with your opinion. No, the Rockdetector link does not say "Led Zeppelin is not a heavy metal band". As a matter of fact, they don't even use the word "metal" in their biography, and in their very first page they are classified as "classic rock". What makes All Music Guide more suitable than BNR or Rockdetector? Now don't say that thing about Black Sabbath, cause we caught many bands with absurd genres in AMG.
• Could you stop with your wild interpretations, please? Yes, I've said "I've added that the majority of bands are extreme metal bands to the trivia section.", but this does not means that EM is an extreme metal centered site. This just means that are more extreme metal bands around. Can't you understand that? Rockdetector also has more extreme metal bands. Do you also think they're biased because of that?

I've changed my mind and now I fell that there is no point in adding this to the EM page, cause it may give the impression that the site is biased towards extreme metal.Evenfiel 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is no need in mentioning that Glam Metal was a very popular genre in the 80s or that some thrash metal bands have hardcore influences. Such things should be limited to the genre's page. Evenfiel 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)