Talk:Encyclopaedia Metallum/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding sources

See the talk page from user Ours18. Answers to Deathrocker should be posted here, not there.

To Deathrocker:

• Who are you accusing of being a sockpuppet?
• We also are losing faith in replying to you, since we have already dismissed your arguments and you've not added anything new at all.
• The paragraph is clearly out of context. Everytime ANUS talks about Led Zeppelin, they say that they're a rock band. Should I quote the article for you? The part you quoted simple says that heavy metal has elements of rock music.
• The article clearly states The History of Heavy Metal Music. It talks about the origins of heavy metal before discussing extreme metal.
• AMG lacks notability when it comes down to Metal. It only has 400 or so bands, absurd genres in almost every band page and is pratically never referenced in metal forums and mailing lists, unlike all the other sites mentioned.
• EM is not a extreme metal centered site. Is that so difficult to understand? Should I copy and paste all our old posts for you?Evenfiel 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It gets rather tiresome resonding to you, because you don't seem to understand what heavy metal music is, even though there is an article on this very website which explains it fully to you. I suggest you go and read it.

Editing while you are logged out, using an IP falls when you have an account falls under sockpuppets. Anus.com refer to Led Zeppelin as metal here, whether you interperate as something else is entirely your problem, the same can be said for any other information from that website:

"At that point, however, the formula for 1970s heavy metal was established: a smidgen of the King Crimson esoteric weirdness, the dark Gothic haunting cavernous sound of Black Sabbath, the guitar wizardry of Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, the physical thunder and brash insane hedonism of Blue Cheer. "[1]

AMG, the largest music database in the world and feeder to iTunes Music Store, eMusic, AOL, Yahoo!, Windows Media Player, Musicmatch Jukebox, MTV and others, does not lack notability in acordance to Wikipedia's policy... your personal opinion of that site is irrelevant.

As for you saying "EM is not a extreme metal centered site." all of a sudden, you claim exactly the oposite here[2] "Most bands from MA are extreme metal related.".. you are not consitant. Also, Anus.com clearly states in its title "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history." which shows a focus on distantly related subgenres. Undeniable.- Deathrocker 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Led Zeppelin article says that they are also a rock band.
• I didn't ask what is a sockpuppet, but who you are accusing of using it.
• The text you quoted simple says that Heavy Metal has elements found in classic rock bands, like Led Zeppelin. According to that same article:

By 1969, the influence of these artists had saturated the forms of public consciousness which were focused on rock music as a developing artform, and contributed to the explosion of hard rock (Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple) and proto-metal (Black Sabbath), both of which occurred simultaneously to the development of distorted, power-chord based technical music from King Crimson.

by the members of Black Sabbath. They wanted to be musicians and fit in somewhere between power blues and progressive rock, and despite drug use, psychological mishaps and basic personal instability, they created a "sound" that was ahead of its time - and ahead of its musicians. 'Much less articulated than Led Zeppelin (and farther from the rock norm of the time), they launched themselves ahead of the crowd and then had to look back and gather some sense of direction, causing the band to collapse artistically by 1978.

If one were to diagram the influences between metal and progressive rock, it would resemble a game of Pong more than anything else, as any idea one had would quickly influence the other, in part because early hard rock bands such as Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin had "virtuosity" and harmonically advanced music which put them in roughly the same league as bands such as King Crimson and Camel, mainstays of the progressive rock era.

Having been thus born of the rock tradition early metal remained much within that framework, with dual lineages existing in Black Sabbath, the proto-metal architecturalists, and Led Zeppelin, the blues-folk-rock extravagantists.

• It's not only in my point of view that AMG isn't notable, but in the point of view of the metal community. Go to the Ultimate Metal forums, the largest metal forum on the internet, with over 60k members and 4million posts, and search for www.allmusicguide.com, www.metal-archives.com, www.bnrmetal.com and www.rockdetector.com. Tell me your results.

• Way to quote out of context! Here is everything that I wrote:

The statement you removed is actually true. Most bands from MA are extreme metal related. There are way more thrash / death / black and doom metal bands around.

I've decided to removed that note, cause it may give the impression that the site is biased towards extreme metal, while in fact it isn't

Also, from EM's talk page:

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.''

Is that clear enough?Evenfiel 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Led Zeppelin and heavy metal music article say that they are heavy metal, I see that you are trolling for reaction now.
• The entire Anus.com paragraph which you quoted has factual inacurracies, Black Sabbath are a heavy metal band, not proto-metal, thus rendering the entire article un-trustable. That is even before we get on to Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin.

As already shown that site has also contradicted itself, saying;

"At that point, however, the formula for 1970s heavy metal was established: a smidgen of the King Crimson esoteric weirdness, the dark Gothic haunting cavernous sound of Black Sabbath, the guitar wizardry of Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, the physical thunder and brash insane hedonism of Blue Cheer. "[3]

The site, contradicts itself, and has no consistancy... much like some of the arguments you have presented on here.

• Whether you, or an entire army of cookie monster music fans (which you haven't been able to source such claims), think AMG, iTunes Music Store, eMusic, AOL, Yahoo!, Windows Media Player, Musicmatch Jukebox and MTV are notable or not, has nothing to do with the Wikipedia notability guidelines (the site and policies which we are editing within) or this article.
• You pointed out that you contradicted yourself... and? What does that have to do with anything, other than you aren't even sure what the corner you're trying to fight is. I already pointed it out for you. - Deathrocker 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• ANUS is not contradicting themselves. You're the one who can't understand a perfectly fine sentence.

• The entire AMG site has factual innacuries when it comes down to metal. You know it just like I do, or do you think that Nightwish and Opeth are black metal bands?

• Army of cookie monster fans? Hahaha...do you even know the Ultimate Metal forum?

• I'm not contradicting myself. Is rockdetector a extreme metal centered site because they also have more extreme metal bands? Please, answer that to me.Evenfiel 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anus.com contradicts themselves as I showed with a source, they also have factual inacuracies (in regards to Sabbath) which I see you didn't address.
• Please work within the Wikipedia guidlines of notability when editing this site, that applies to the very article you are attempting to contribute to. If you'd rather work within the notability guidelines of other websites such as EM, then I suggest that you attempt to do so on that site.
• Rockdetector has more "rock" content than "extreme metal", to answer your question. - Deathrocker 18:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anus does not contradicts itself. You are the one who can't understand a simple sentence. I've tried many times to show you that, but I have to give up.

• If anus.com has some factual inacuracies, AMG is pretty much a collection of factual inacuracies when it comes down to metal. So what if all those sites use AMG? AMG is wrong, and you know it, or A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth for you?

• Rockdetector does not has more "rock" content than "extreme metal". Do you want me to prove that? Evenfiel 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockdetector and BNRMetal.com

These two websites do not agree with EM's stance on the band Led Zeppelin, as the extreme metal fans are claiming in a version of the article.[4]

Encyclopaedia Metallum exclude the band entirely from their database because they are uneducated on the history of heavy metal music (which can be read in that Wikipedia article). Rockdetector do not address the metal debate in regards to Zep, so to say they agree with EM's stance is incorrect. BNRMetal, who have a profile up for the band on their metal website, also say "no hard rock/metal discussion is complete without a mention of Led Zeppelin.".. this is also not in agreeance with EM's stance on the band.

Thus, I have copyedited this variation which gets across exactly which points it refers to;

The site runners have excluded some of what are considered by sites (even Wikipedia) as founding and definitive^[1] heavy metal acts, such as Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer; the website's runners consider these acts as simply "hard rock", despite their influence and history. Although there are some other websites which list Led Zeppelin as just a "hard rock" band, unlike Encyclopaedia Metallum these websites do not exclude the band from their databases.[5][6] - Deathrocker 17:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why should Rockdetector talks about metal if they consider Led Zeppelin a rock band?

• Of course BNR is in agreeance with EM's stance on the band. Both sites consider them as hard rock.

• So what if they include them in their site? I see no reason to add that to EM's article.Evenfiel 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockdetector don't agree with EM's stance, because they don't even discuss it, to claim they do is a lie. No, BNR is not in agreeance, as I showed with a source.

Also, you need to read the heavy metal music article and realise that all heavy metal bands are a form of hard rock from Black Sabbath to Led Zeppelin to Judas Priest to Iron Maiden to Motörhead, etc, etc.. find out what the music form is about.

Only the distant subgenres, which have no relation to the original movement (such as extreme metal) which instead are hardcore punk related instead of heavy metal's hard rock are the exception to this, and some of the original metal fans debate that, as extreme metal does not have the same characteristics as the bands which came up with the movement, they are not metal at all, (Iron Maiden's drummer has echoed this comment in regards to Black Metal)

You are attempting to contradict every other article relating to the subjects on Wikipedia, thus such bias will be removed from the article. - Deathrocker 18:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to copy and paste my previous posts.Evenfiel 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you have no argument to the points I brought up, OK I see. You haven't even attempted to discuss your problems with the NPOV variation of the paragraph I produced above. Which merely mentions the hard rock stance, not the debate on Zeppelin as a whole which isn't contained within those links. - Deathrocker 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very tired of you and of repeating myself. The only thing I have to say is that you're incredible biased against extreme metal. Hardcore punk? lol. Evenfiel 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockdetector and BNR Metal DO agree with Encyclopaedia Metallum's stance on Led Zeppelin. We all consider them a rock band who was greatly influential to heavy metal. The difference, is that Rockdetector, being a rock site, chooses to include it, and BNR Metal, for his own personal reasons, also decided to include it (as well as Nirvana and other rock groups). Encyclopaedia Metallum decided to be more strict and go for bands who are strictly metal, not rock. But the difference between these sites is in their respective site policies for inclusion, not for their opinion on Led Zeppelin. You make a lot of claims without sources, yourself, like that Iron Maiden drummer quote (not that one christian drummer's opinion on black metal should count for much, mind you), or your accusations that I, the site co-founder, am an "ignorant extreme metal kid" based on no evidence whatsoever. Interesting theories, unfortunately, such original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Morrigan 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You for your own personal reasons, decided to exclude the band from your website, that is a directly opposite stance of the website BNRMetal, a metal site who include a profile of the band and state that "no metal discussion is complete without them"[7]. Also on your own website it states:

"Now... let us elaborate on certain things which are apparently controversial, ambiguous or unclear to some members. - Mötley Crüe, Deep Purple, Rainbow and Rush are not considered metal by some. Understandable, as their music and heaviness varied and was debatable at times. But what they sometimes lacked in "metalness", they made for in historical importance, and they are there to stay."

If, as you claimed here that EM views the band as "greatly influential to heavy metal.".. surely they would be included in the database due to historic importance? You've directly contradicted what is actually stated on the website there.

And as pointed out, nowhere in the Rockdetecor article do they say "we are re-writing history, the 1970s didn't happen... we feel Led Zeppelin are not a heavy metal band all of a sudden", they don't even touch on the subject of that debate, so I'm afraid there is noway to know if they agree with the revisionist history of excluding one of the founding bands from a genre, unless they are directly contacted regarding this and state one way or another if they agree with EM's stance or not. Incase you didn't realise, heavy metal is a form of "rock music"... so why shouldn't they list the band as rock when the genre heavy metal as a whole falls under that catagory in the first place? As I've said before, that is like saying "its not water, its wet".

And no Evenfiel, I'm not "bias against extreme metal", I'm just interested in seeing factuality and consistancy on an encyclopedia.. apposed to the aims of certain extreme metal kids that seem to be drawn to the website of the article's subject and editing this article itself... who can't be bothered to educate themselves, by taking the time to read about what the subject in question; right here---> heavy metal music

I'm afraid, despite such unfounded opinion of some extreme metallers, heavy metal didn't start with Slayer, that POV is a huge contradiction of factuality, and the entire heavy metal music article (a featured article at that) on this very website. - Deathrocker 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly. Please do not post quotes out of context. We didn't say Deep Purple and Rainbow are not metal. In fact, we consider them metal enough. We just mentioned that we understand if people consider them borderline/rock (some do), and that their influence gives them more leniency on the "borderline" part than we normally would. Still, influential or not, EM accepts these bands as metal enough, since they have released at least one full-length album of metal songs (Led Zeppelin never did, though they have a few metal songs scattered across their career), which is our criteria (and also the reason Def Leppard is on, despite their later pop rock tendencies).

Secondly. Nowhere have I contradicted what I wrote on my own website. All I stated was that the difference between EM and BNR, or EM and RD, is in their band inclusion policy, not in their opinion of Led Zeppelin's actual genre. As for metal = rock, this is mere semantics. RD does use the genre "heavy metal" for other bands, and also uses the genre "hard rock", and "rock". If they were one and the same, they wouldn't bother using different terms. Heavy metal IS a form of rock, but not all rock is heavy metal (squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, you know?). They list Black Sabbath, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden as Heavy Metal, but Led Zeppelin as Rock - hence, they do note a subtle difference at least. Not that any of this really matters...

Lastly. Nowhere have I stated RD is being revisionist - this is a strawman. Nowhere has anyone here said metal started with Slayer - another strawman. We are not extreme metal kids - this is an ad hominem attack. If you persist again with this attitude, you will get reported. Morrigan 04:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That is what is said on your own website. Please show where I was disputing your classification of Rainbow and Deep Purple?... oh, thats right I wasn't. If you don't want people to quote the guidelines of your website.. then don't put them online. - Deathrocker 11:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You accused me of inconsistency/contradiction because we accepted Deep Purple and Rainbow despite being borderline because they are influential, but not Led Zeppelin. In truth, you failed to differentiate between our consideration of borderline and quite simply rock. You also didn't post the rest of the section from the guidelines which say (emphasis mine), That doesn't mean we're going to accept any glam or hippie rock bands though, and they are about as "borderline" as we are going to have. So, you see - we draw the line at Purple. Led Zep is right below it, for us. It's our decision, nothing special there. I don't know why I'm even debating this, anyway. You're the one who made such a huge fuss over Led Zep. Morrigan 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As has been discussed to death and contstantly vandalized by a user who is, ironically, a member of the local anti-vandal Wikiteam, the sources are valid and claim everything I said they do. I put them back, and tried to make it as NPOV as possible, even to the extent of including something that is blatantly false to appease the vandal in question: it is not merely MA's team members and forum posters who think this is the general consensus in the metal community, that Led Zep and the like are not metal--it IS the consensus of the metal community. Ours18 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read what is and isn't vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. Educate yourself on the policies if you are going to use Wiki-terminology, otherwise if used in an incorrect manner, it could be seen (certainly in the context which you are leveling it) as a personal attack, which is a violation.

Also your latest unvertifiable claim that "it is the concensus of the metal community that Led Zeppelin and the like are not metal bands" is obsured and entirely untrue, as I will prove later on in this post. Care to explain how an early teen, would know what was and wasn't considered part of heavy metal, when it is a movement from the 1970s long before you and other such like were even born? How could you possibly know what was covered in the media and called "heavy metal" when the movement was around?... you haven't even taken the time to read the heavy metal music article on here. I suggest you do, it will help you learn about the form of music and what the movement is about, and maybe stop you from making ridiculous claims in future. This is an encyclopedia for factual statements.

I've added some more sources.... so now its the BBC[8], VH1[9], Amazon[10], Walmart][11], The Guardian[12], Wikipedia, About.com[13], Quizilla[14], All Music Guide and affilates such as iTunes, MTV, eMusic, AOL, Windows Media Player, Yahoo! and Musicmatch Jukebox.

Not just extremely prominent sites such as those just mentioned, but people who were actually a part of the "metal community" in the 1970s and acutally have a clue what they're talking about; such as Rick Mcgrath who interviewed both Robert Plant and Jimmy Page in 1971 describes them as "Led Zep... the seminal heavy metal band of the early 70s" in the introduction to the interview.[15]

Professional metal musicians such as Dave Mustaine of Megadeth and Mikael Åkerfeldt of Opeth also voice that Led Zeppelin are not only a metal band, but one of the greatest heavy metal bands of all time (in Mustaine's view, the greatest)[16] and other metal sites such as Metalstorm.ee also have their genre listed as heavy metal.[17]

All of that Vs... what? some site that's majority of the content is bedroom] black metal projects, as stated by some of its readers,[18] and a couple of teen Burzum fans who weren't even born when heavy metal was a movement in the 70s, so weren't around to know either way in regards to the genre. Ok... on verifiability and notabilty... this is a real tough one [/sarcasm]. I think I've proven substantially with plenty of back ups from prominent sources, ranging from; the most dominant music media forces in the world, to people who were actually around in the 70s metal scene, to notable proffesional metal musicians themselves, to other heavy metal websites, etc, etc... that without reasonable doubt, you do not know what you are talking about here, thanks. - Deathrocker 07:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Led Zeppelin, yet you want to make 15% of it about this band. I'm removing all that unecessary stuff. The rest of the stuff you added is biased, so I'm reverting it. When we are about to reach some sort of agreement, you suddenly try to fall into another discussion. Do you like to keep on writing here all day long? Evenfiel 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing your article blanking (which doesn't count as a full revert as stated in WP:3RR) as it falls under simple vandalism. Do not blank large sections of information and numerous source (7 in total you vandalised).

The Led Zeppelin information is relevent to the section of the article that the information is in, as the band is likely the most prominent example of "Bands excluded by the website", all the information added is heavily backed up with numerous sources. You also blanked much of what was added in regards to some of the other Encyclopaedia Metallum rules and guidelines, which was also sourced. Do not vandalise work on Wikipedia via blanking, this is a violation of the editing policy. - Deathrocker 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong here, or if I just haven't been paying close enough attention to this discussion, but what does all of this even have to do with the article about Metal-Archives? It seems as if you're discussing Metal-Archives' site policy, rather than content for the article. You're not going to find a unanimously accepted opinion on the site's policy anyway. Runedance 05:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The article about EM should not focus so much about site policies - those things are detailed and debated on the site itself, after all. Perhaps something should be said about the impact of the site on metal's presence on the Internet? Though I wouldn't know where to start. *shrugs* Morrigan 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A new start?

I'll try to be as reasonable and unbiased as I can:

• Ok, it's fine if you want to mentiun Rammstein, but there is no need to add "refuse to accept the world famous Industrial metal".

Why not its true, the band are world famous? yes. The website refuse to accept them? Yes. Its only sticking to fact.. and there is no reason to blank it.

It's simple. You're adding it for sensationalism value. Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Unlike power metal and extreme metal related bands that fall into black metal, death metal, and doom metal genres, which have no further specific restrictions aside from "proof of existence".". You're wrong here. Drone doom bands can be rejected. Grindcore bands, that some people associate with death metal, can also be rejected. Gothic metal bands also have little restriction, as well as thrash and speed metal. Hence, this line should be deleted.

OK.... well I'll change the wording of that to include Speed metal, and the mention you made of drone doom... and add gothic metal as you wish... whether some people associate grindcore with death metal or not is irrelevent, its not the same form of music. And as for extreme metal subgenres such as thrash and speed.... that is where you add them to the article, instead of just blanking most of it. I will add them too, seen as you pointed them out.

You only want to add that part of the text to contrast with the Traditional metal, heavy metal and NWOBHM part. As there is no point is having the latter, cause you're wrong by your assumption, there is no point in having this part either. Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to add that part, but with some changes. Evenfiel 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I also have a problem with the following line "Traditional metal, heavy metal and NWOBHM genres have stringent rulings...". Nope, those genres do not have stringent rules. The problem is that people often associated wrong bands with them.

Its sourced with a citation on the site I'm afraid.[19] I didn't just make it up, please read the guidelines its mentioned.

Wrong. Read what is written: Heavy/traditional/80's metal, hard rock, rock or a combination of these. Many of so-called "heavy metal" band submissions ended up being rock, glam or even mallcore bands!, just like I said. Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are unable to restrain yourself from making snide comments in the edit summary, with a lack of editing etiquette, I won't bother wasting my time replying to you...

I've made a new edit... regarding the guideline which says to consider the following "ambiguous"...

Be careful if you submit a band with an ambiguous genre!

Over the past months we've sometimes seen some bands listed as a genre that would seem fitting, but upon hearing the actual band we've had some pretty bad surprises... So consider the following genres to be "ambiguous", in the sense that if we see a band with one of these terms in their genre field, we WILL have to hear the band, or at least read more than one detailed review, before accepting it.

• Heavy/traditional/80's metal, hard rock, rock or a combination of these. Many of so-called "heavy metal" band submissions ended up being rock, glam or even mallcore bands!
• NWOBHM - a lot of 80's UK rock and AOR bands got lumped into the NWOBHM category, even if they weren't metal[20]

I've added into the article what you said on this talkpage regarding what the website view as bands been submitted incorrectly under these terms, and that is the reason for the extra guidelines regarding them. - Deathrocker 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Now the Led Zeppelin deal.

• • First off, you have to realize that this is an article about EM, not Led Zeppelin. In that article, it should be discussed how the site works, yet it looks like you want to change EM's policy by making your point explicit here.

• • Second, the debate wehther Led Zeppelin is metal or not isn't something that appeared with EM, the extreme metal kids, the cookie monster fans of the Slayer fans (The irony is that Kerry King was the one who coined the "cookie monster vocals" term). No. 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

• • This discussion should not be conducted in EM's article, hence I'll make it shorter. There is no need to make a war out of it. I left two sources for your instance, and two sources for mine.

You have included sources into your variation claiming that there are websites which agree with EM, although that is highly debateable... fine your sources were left in, but also, so are sources from prominent sites disagreeing that website... don't blank them. This is what we call NPOV.

They are in agreement. EM considers them hard rock. Those sites consider them hard rock as well. BNR includes Led Zeppelin for personal reasons, while Rockdetector includes them because they are a rock and metal site. Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, how ironic that you say blanking sources is NPOV, yet now you suddenly decided that additional sources to balance the "LZ = rock" viewpoint should be removed to "avoid disputes" and overmentioning Led Zep? No, seriously, what's up with that? Either we remove the Led Zep section altogether since it's really not that relevant, or trim the number sources (say, one or two for each viewpoint to keep it balanced), or we leave them all (which still makes 6 sources supporting the "LZ = metal" viewpoint and only 4 supporting the "LZ = rock" viewpoint - yet that's still not good enough? So much for NPOV). Can't have your cake and eat it, too. Morrigan 04:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to point out that there are other extreme metal websites that agree with EM's exclusion then we will have to show that there are other metal website that don't exclude the band and even have profiles of the band on their website.(Such as MetalStorm & BNRMetal) To make it a NPOV regarding metal related websites.

And add in the Opeth and Megadeth quotes to show that it is not the opinion of the extreme metal community as a whole to exclude the band.

But we are trying to keep the Zeppelin mentions small as possible, as part of the compromise to avoid dispute (isn't the dispute long enough on the talkpage?)... its best to just have it the way it is keeping it to the essentials, ironic that you are actually complaining about the compromise, unless you'd like it all to be expanded of course? - Deathrocker 11:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Did you just say that the sources I posted are "extreme metal websites"? Did you know that metal-rules.com is known for covering extensively glam, hard rock and traditional and power metal?

I don't follow you. No, I don't accept your compromise because it's not a real compromise. You want to trim down the Led Zeppelin paragraph, but you only want to include information that suppots your point of view by listing SIX sources for it, and blanking those you disagree with. That's not a compromise, that's pure slant, and pure POV.

I repeat: either we keep it as I revised it, with balanced sources (it's really not much more than it was), either we trim it down a bit to maybe two sources for each side, or we remove the section altogether since it's not all that relevant. That's perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is pushing one side over the other to "save space". Morrigan 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And as for the quote from extreme metal musicians, most of the bands included in the database are extreme metal so are the people who are members of the website, as I proved quite a while back. And another editor "Ours18"... claimed above that it is the "concensus" of that community that the bands are not metal and included that in the article. I disproved it with the quotes of both members of Megadeth and Opeth, with a source from MTV. the article is quite short as it is... and expanding it to include information about the most high key band its choses to be bias against is entirely acceptable, there is no policy against it. All of the information is in relation to Encyclopaedia Metallum... its mentioned as the paragraph goes along... and its heavily sourced. no need to blank it.

So what if Ours added that? It's not there anymore. As I said before, I want to keep that debate, you, on the other hand, even wants to add a title for it. It's also sad that you completely ignored my Deena Weinstein quotes. Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've agreed to the slightly trimmed down variation and for the band not to have a subheading, thought I have kept in the sources which you tried to remove (without reason I might add) - Deathrocker 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Finally, there is no need to add this line "Most bands from the site are related to death, black, thrash, doom metal and variants, but the non-extreme metal genres, like gothic, power, speed, traditional metal and variants, are also included.", as it gives the impression that EM is biased towards extreme metal, and it isn't. Just look at one of the site's admin post and chart on last.fm [21] [22]

Another user (probably you) added that in the first place... and yes there is need, as I showed before extreme metal bands are in the majority...that is fact. It doesn't mention whether the website owners prefer it... as it mentions some of the other genres (all be it in less quantity that it covers too)... unless you'd prefer a non NPOV that some of the sites readers have voices such as "EM only accept bands that play bedroom black metal or sound like 80s Metallica" as one of its readers said on here. - Deathrocker 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, I'll try to explain that for you. Yes, it was me who added it, but I decided to remove that part because it sounds that the site is biased, while it isn't. There are more extreme metal bands in the site, because there are more extreme metal bands in the world! Rockdetector also have more extreme metal bands in their site. Why do you think that happens? Because they're biased? No, because of what I've just told you. As for that reader, he tried to bring his own personal feud to the wikipedia article.Evenfiel 13:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not fact at all, there are not more extreme metal bands in the world... more extreme metal fans happen to flock to that site. Just because you have not researched in the field does not mean there are not more in other forms of heavy metal.... there are likly more NWOBHM bands, there were thousands of bands during that movements peak... and that is before we get on to all of the 1970s bands... and not forgetting glam metal which has thousands upon thousands of bands... as it was the most popular form of music for over a decade.

So prove to me that there are more traditional and glam metal bands around. Evenfiel 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before to you, Rockdetector have more ROCK bands than anything else. Hense their name I would guess. - Deathrocker 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong.

Here are the total ammount of extreme metal bands from Rockdetector (please note that I don't consider thrash / speed metal bands as extreme metal, but as you and the Wiipedia article do, I'll list them~):

Black Ambient = 121 bands

Black Metal = 7656

Brutal Death Metal = 290

Crossover = 147

Dark Metal = 307

Death metal = 8638

Doom metal = 1323

Doom death = 413

Drone = 51

Melodic death metal = 460

Pagan metal = 182

Progressive death metal = 130

Speed metal = 259

Sludge = 195

Symphonic black metal = 134

Thrash metal = 4294

Unblack = 99

Viking metal = 129

war metal = 28

Total 24828 - Which is, by far, the largest amount of bands from a specific category, even if you count the bands with more than one genre. Evenfiel 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

>_< God, I can't believe this is still going on!--Inhumer 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost don't beleive it myself. Evenfiel 07:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Congradulations you pointed out that the site covers some extreme metal subgenres... yet failed to show results for all the genres with "rock" in their name or just standard heavy metal & NWOBHM related bands. - Deathrocker 11:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock, if the site has 48.000 bands, and I already showed that half of them are extreme metal (sure, there are some bands with more than one tag), how many bands you think that are rock and heavy metal? 50.000? In spite of that and the obvious answer to your question, I'll do what you suggested, so that you won't have any arguments left.

Heavy metal and nwobhm related bands

Heavy metal = 6677

Nwobhm = 234

Total = 6911

As you can see, it's quite close to extreme metal, haha.

Rock-related

AOR = 981

Acid Rock = 48

Alternative Rock = 1100

Blues Rock = 277

Celtic Rock = 6

Christian Rock = 307

Classic Rock = 376

Country Rock = 26

Folk Rock = 21

Funk Rock = 63

Glam Rock = 242

Gothic Rock = 205

Hard Rock = 4211

Indie Rock = 63

Jazz rock = 33

Melodic Rock = 1287

Pomp Rock = 30

Pop Rock = 273

Progressive Rock = 642

Psychedelic Rock = 96

Rock n'Roll = 96

Ska Rock = 6

Sleazy Rock = 94

Soft Rock = 15

Southern Rock = 93

Space Rock = 36

Total = 10627

Total Rock and heavy / nwobhm = 17538

Total Extreme Metal = 24828

There you have it. Now why don't you go to Rockdetector and annoy them to death as well? Evenfiel 16:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even covered all the forms of rock there Mr. Statistic. Such as punk rock and several others. - Deathrocker 21:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Rockdetector has 486 punk bands, but rock isn't what's in discussion here. My original point is that there are more extreme metal bands than non-extreme. So far, the only thing you presented to back-up your affirmation was rhetorics. Evenfiel 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)