Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Adding hard rock on stylistic origins

Should we add hard rock on stylistic origins? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Source? Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

http://teachrock.org/lesson/the-roots-of-heavy-metal/ Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of that website before. Are they a reliable source? What makes them an authority on music related subjects? Is anyone else familiar with them? Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could check the list of all reliable sources in Wikipedia. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here’s another link: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Heavy_metal Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with the WP:RSMUSIC list. Neither of the above sources are on it. Which is why I ask what your argument is for for them being reliable sources? Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing every instance of "metal" to "heavy metal"

Sixty Minute Limit - Please stop changing every instance of "metal" to "heavy metal". It is unnecessary. We dont' need to spell it out every single time, in the same way that we don't need to mention a person's full name every single time we mention. Again, please resist urges like this. This article is a WP:FA. It's not going to have minor writing style issues like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I only do it because saying only “metal” is colloquial. But I’ll stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixty Minute Limit (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you could tell me this in the my talk page, not the heavy metal music talk page. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Filthy Fifteen

And also, should their be PMRC’s dirty fifteen? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what this is. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The PMRC was a organization that existed in the 1980’s that wanted labels to warn parents of the material in an album, it had heavy criticism because it was accused of preventing freedom of speech, most of the artist where heavy metal musicians (8 artist were heavy metal musicians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixty Minute Limit (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In 1985, the PMRC also released what they called the "Filthy Fifteen", a list of the 15 songs they found most objectionable.

This is the filthy fifteen, it also contains the reasons that it was in the chart (though most are incorrect because of the PMRC’s tendencies to over react on messages the songs had). You can make more research of your own by going to PMRC’s Wikipedia page. But if you have a question about it, I can help.

#	Artist	Song title	Lyrical content
1	Prince	"Darling Nikki"	Sex/Masturbation
2	Sheena Easton	"Sugar Walls"	Sex
3	Judas Priest	"Eat Me Alive"	Sex
4	Vanity	"Strap On 'Robbie Baby'"	Sex
5	Mötley Crüe	"Bastard"	Violence/Language
6	AC/DC	"Let Me Put My Love Into You"	Sex
7	Twisted Sister	"We're Not Gonna Take It"	Violence
8	Madonna	"Dress You Up"	Sex
9	W.A.S.P.	"Animal (Fuck Like a Beast)"	Sex/Language
10	Def Leppard	"High 'n' Dry (Saturday Night)"	Drug and alcohol use
11	Mercyful Fate	"Into the Coven"	Occult
12	Black Sabbath	"Trashed"	Drug and alcohol use
13	Mary Jane Girls	"In My House"	Sex
14	Venom	"Possessed"	Occult
15	Cyndi Lauper	"She Bop"	Sex/Masturbation

References

I don't think this really belongs in the article. Over 1/3 of the entries have nothing to do with metal at all. (Madonna, Prince, Cyndie Lauper, Mary Jane Girls, Sheena Easton, Vanity). I think the subject is cover sufficiently at Parents Music Resource Center. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

But we could that 8 of the artist were heavy metal musicians. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is wandering off-topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Regional Scenes

And should Canada be considerd a regional scene. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it seems that every entry in the "regional scene" is based off of a separate stand-alone article. (For example, Australian heavy metal is the link for the "Australia" entry. If this is the case, then I imagine any standalone article that exists and isn't deleted/merged would probably go there. So for example, since Canadian heavy metal is on there, it should be listed. Because Italian heavy metal does not exist, "Italy" shouldn't be listed. This is only my observation though. Can you confirm, Issan Sumisu? Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The guideline for it on Template:Infobox music genre says "Articles specializing in local scenes related to the genre", which means that those without specific pages for that genre in the region should be emitted. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think Germany should be in regional scenes without Switzerland. Germany is obviously huge in terms of heavy metal bands (such as Rammstein, Destruction, Tankard, Sodom, Helloween, Kreator, arguably Scorpions, etc.) , but Germany redirects to Teutonic Thrash Metal, wish was a regional scene that included Switzerland (with having very little influential heavy metal bands, only having Hellhammer, Celtic Frost, and Coroner). Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It directs to Teutonic thrash because somebody set that link to direct there, the article "German heavy metal" actually redirects to Music of Germany#Heavy Metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh and in addition to nu metal and grindcore, crossover thrash omits guitar solos, should I add it? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a source that supports you, and if you decide to do that you should probably find a source for the addition of grindcore as well, because there's currently only a source for nu metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There's probably a bunch of minor variants that omit them. Lets not bog the reader down with excessive example bloat. We should probably just stick to one or two major ones (that are sourced.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources, but meanwhile, since Poland and the Netherlands have heavy metal sections in the countrie's music pages, then we could add them. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There should also be a section on extreme metal. Including bands such as Sarcófago, Amon Amarth or others. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Extreme metal isn't real a genre in itself, it's just an umbrella term to describe heavier metal bands, and all the genres listed on the extreme metal page, already have sections on this page about them; other than speed metal. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I know it’s an umbrella term, but it’s better to creat that section that has “sub-sections” on the genres that extreme metal covers. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, if speed metal doesn’t, should we create one? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In the speed metal page it doesn’t say that it is a extreme genre of heavy metal, and I know it is an extreme genre of heavy metal, should we add it? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And also, should Light metal music be in derivative forms. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To the questions related to reorganizing - no, it's fine the way it is. To the questions related to adding content, like always, its largely dependent on whether or not you can find reliable sources to verify it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Then in subgenres. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Issan has found some sources that say light metal is a subgenre of heavy metal. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I didn't find the source, it was already on the page, but I don't think the page is at all fleshed out enough, at this point in time, to have it's own section. But it can definitely be listed in the infobox as a subgenre. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Poland and the Netherlands have heavy metal sections in their music pages, we should add them.Sixty Minute Limit (talk)

China also has a heavy metal page. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Added those three countries, since you don’t need a source for that. They already had sections in their countrie’s music pages. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine. I'm not aware of any other inclusion requirements other than existing... Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Should southern metal have it’s own page? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably not. Sounds like yet another minor variant of metal that can just be covered here, if there's sources that cover it in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let me find one. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wish Last.fm was a reliable source. I couldn’t find one that went in depth on it. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

At least for now. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Light metal is only getting deleted by anonymous users, no users. The other time it got deleted’s summary is extremely similar to the summary done today, I think the editor in question isn’t the same person, but with other IP addresses, he might be sock puppetring or his IP address changes often. But who knows? I strongly suggest light metal be protected. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't really happened enough here or at light metal enough to warrant page protection yet. I'll keep an eye on them in case it is needed in the future though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

But what about my theory in sock puppetry, he might be, and I’m not telling for that user to be blocked, put it is probable. If the edit summaries are extremely similar (such as what happend today), it is a probable reason for him to be accused, but I know that isn’t enough, but it’s better to be on the look out for sock puppetry. But who knows? He might be just begging. I know is just speculation but still, I’ll be on the look out. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Hey so, is it alright if I added that New Orleans scen3 to local scenes?

@Sergecross73:@Issan Sumisu: I’m adding this image

The basement of Euronymous' former record shop, showing graffiti from the early 1990s

it’s already on Euronymous’ page.

SML-Growl n’ Screetch 00:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. That's a terrible image. It demonstrates nothing about the topic. It will never stick. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Genres

I added grindcore as Ann example of a genre that omits guitar solos. Is that fine? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You should generally add a source, but it seems like a pretty non-contentious claim, so it's probably fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

an* Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A helpful tip: When you make a basic typo, you don't need to make a little starred correction at the bottom like this - you can just fix the typo in the original comment. You shouldn't radically rework your comments so that they say something completely different, but as long as it's a minor spelling error, just can just edit the old comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This says that grunge is a fusion genre of alternative rock, punk rock, and heavy metal, should we move the genre to the fusion genres section? Because grunge is currently in derritative forms. ~SML • TP 22:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: And it’s also unsourced. ~SML • TP 22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Same as said above. ~SML • TP 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

When you’re making big changes, like classification of genre, you should probably make sure you’ve got multiple sources that verify it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I looked, I saw no reference saying that grunge was only a subgenre of alternative rock. ~SML • TP 01:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: Maybe I'm wrong here, but I assume that a fusion genre is a mix of two edit different, distinct styles, whereas if there's more than three then it is a sub-genre of one, and derivatives of the other two. I could be completely wrong though.

@Issan Sumisu: Well, atleast for me I consider a fusion genre to be a subgenre of two or more genres. And derivative forms to be related genres. ~SML • TP 10:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:@Issan Sumisu: This source calls post-metal a “style” (wich is used interchangeably with genre or subgenre) of heavy metal, and I’ve never seen a reliable nor unreliable source saying that post-metal is a derivative form of heavy metal music, if someone can direct me to one, please do so. ~SML • TP 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: Yeah, I'd definitely say post-metal is a sub-genre, and that source supports it. A lot of people just have a misconception that everything with "post" in the title isn't a sub-genre of it, when it clearly is. Like, post-rock is definitely rock, just like how post-black metal is black metal.

@Issan Sumisu: True. Well I’m going to put post-metal in the subgenre box with the source.

Now there’s no derivative forms, hardcore punk is probably one but that wouldn’t be sourced. ~SML • TP 14:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu:@Sergecross73: The change may be undiscussed, but it is realiably sourced, Sabbatino had little reason to delete garage rock. ~SML • TP 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: it was a pretty significant edit that probably should have been discussed. There can easily be sources to state that tons of genres influenced metal, which is why we'd usually reach a consensus for changes to that. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: You have a point there. But does someone agree on adding garage rock? ~SML • TP 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: Personally, I'm not in support of it because I'm not sure it actually had a significant enough impact upon the genre, but somebody else might support you. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: I see, well, I am because garage rock was about one of the heaviest things going on in the late 1960s. But if you aren’t, who is? You, Serge and me are practicly the only ones here on the talk page... ~SML • TP 14:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I always say: Do sources consistently call garage rock a stylistic origin for heavy metal? If not, you shouldn't be making these sorts of big changes that are radically reshaping how we define broad subjects like major music genre... Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

African heavy metal

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in this page.. defenetly not in countries but in other topics maybe. ~SML • TP 03:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? The page has been quite, that’s not that normal, especially here... ~SML • TP 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal is a bit vague, so it’s hard to answer. I have no problem with it being mentioned, and you seem to have an understanding that the content would have to be according to what reliable sources say, but I don’t really know what you have in mind beyond that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There's an African heavy metal page, no other regional scenes are mentioned on this page other than in the infobox, what makes Africa so significant that it should be included over any other regions? Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the “other topics” section in the infobox, not it’s own section. ~SML • TP 16:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I checked and apparently it's not even in the region scenes section of the infobox, it should be included there, but I don't see any reason for it to be included anywhere else. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed 216.167.232.155 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, me too. ~SML • TP 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NYC Heavy metal

I found this talking about their scene. Should it be put in the local scenes section in the infobox? ~SML • TP 21:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know. There’s not much there, and it’s entirely unsourced. It doesn’t contribute a whole lot... Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is unsourced unfortunately, but the third paragraph of this page also is. But I don’t know either since it has that issue. ~SML • TP 18:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In regards to your comment related to this article's third paragraph - On Wikipedia, we call the opening paragraphs of an article to be the WP:LEAD. The lead acts as an intro, giving a brief overview of what the article will discuss in its body. Conceptually, its agreed that the lead doesn't need sources in it directly, because if it's written correctly, the content should already be sourced later in the body, when its discussed later in greater detail. So, as long as its sourced later in the body, it's okay that the third paragraph isn't sourced in this article. However, if it's not sourced later on in the body of the article, then yes, that's another story - that would need to be fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

HatNote

Wouldn’t it better to have the HatNote go to heavy metal? ~SML • TP 22:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Blackened death metal

Blackened death metal has a a page. It should be mentioned in the infobox atleast. ~SML • TP 22:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? ~SML • TP 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does every single minor variant really need to be on there? Isn’t black and death already listed? It doesn’t seem necessary to me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn’t consider blackened death metal to be a minor variant, atleast in notability. But I think genres with pages should in the infobox, considering the great majority of subgenres are sections in pages (such as brutal death metal, psychedelic black metal, or progressive doom), so I think it wouldn’t hurt.. ~SML • TP 18:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? ~SML • TP 20:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the name itself makes it pretty clear it’s just a minor variant - it’s literally name is literally just ripped directly from two other metal variant’s name. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But as I said above, the majority of genres are simply sections within pages, meaning that having a extreme fusion genre that has an article wouldn’t hurt. ~SML • TP 00:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, we need to figure out somewhere to draw the line, because listing every single minor variant creates a real WP:SEAOFBLUE-type situation. If we make a giant blue wall of text of every single variant, then it’s going to be so large and overwhelming that readers aren’t going to look at any of it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is simply one fusion genre. If a article for noisegrind was created again one day, then I would agree not to put in the infobox. For me, a line might be including atleast sub-subgenres with articles, otherwise they won’t be included. ~SML • TP 01:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s one fusion...of 2 separate genre that are already subdivisions of heavy metal as it is though. We need to find a way to draw an objective line on what to list, and have it be understandable to your general everyday reader (ie your average everyday day person, not your local hardcore metalhead fanatic) for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, that’s probably the reason why deathgrind, goregrind, pornogrind, and death-doom aren’t here... ~SML • TP 10:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Merging sections

It think the Women in metal section might be better to put in History section, as a subsection. ~SML • TP 19:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the history section is mostly organized by decades, so it seems like it would be kind of weird to have one section randomly organized by gender rather than time? I think that's why it was pretty much put right after the history section, as it is now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It could look a little random. But having a complete section for two paragraphs is giving it too much prevelance. ~SML • TP 21:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Two paragraphs in a large 150+K size article isn’t given too much prevalence. I find it troubling how many men want to diminish any concentrated presence of women in the genre for these vague reasons like this. Feel free to expand or trim out erroneous info. But the section doesn’t need elimination. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not sexism. If it had like five paragraphs I would keep it as a whole section, but it doesn’t. Didn’t some feminist say don’t assume someone’s gender/sex? So please don’t assume that I’m sexist or something like that because of that, there’s no reason for you to find that troubling. I don’t know if whether you’re a man or a woman, but you have to admit that a section shorter than the lead with two paragraphs in a 150K+ featured article is somewhat out of place. Sub section serve good purpose for situations like that. Something so simple as gender shouldn’t be so controversial and envoke so many strong feelings. I know you didn’t, you only mentioned that you found it troubling in one sentence, but maybe take more lightly people trying to do that, there most probably non-sexist people against political correctness, wich has gotten extremely out of hand. Even some people who want men to say “Hi” to women with their conscencus. Otherwise you’re sexist. Some are even holding ignorant and awful sterotypes about men. Most are logical thinking people that are probably concerned about countries like Saudi Arabia that have women’s rights in the fifth floor of the Burj Khalifa. ~SML • TP 00:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t say any number of the things you seem to be accusing me of saying. Merely mentioned that there’s multiple people trying to eliminate a paragraph about women without a very well thought out reason. For the record, 2 paragraphs is plenty to warrant a subsection. Haven’t really discerned any other rationale from you other than that... Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I clarified that you did only say that in one sentence. This is just a BTW. But it if there’s a section for two paragraphs, then expanding is needed. ~SML • TP 01:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

We’re talking about a massive cross-section: A decade spanning major genre, and a gender that encompasses roughly half the human population. Yes, I believe expansion beyond two paragraphs is possible. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph about women in heavy metal should stay separate as it is now. There is no good place where it could be incorporated so it is best to leave it alone. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The "Women in metal" section should be removed

Rant not helping article

Assume you're someone who just heard about heavy metal music, and you're going to wikipedia to see what it's all about. What should such an article include and applied to the current situation, not include? The answer is simple, it should give an overview of the topic at hand, including its history, defining traits, and a list of bands that can be sited as heavy metal. The topic of "The importance of women in heavy metal" is not an overview idea or even an after thought. It just plain makes no sense to include such a specific topic at the overview level. Because of this, I think it should be removed, or at least given its own page if it's really that important of a topic. Either way, it should be removed from this specific page. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Feel free to suggest or implement improvements, but that’s just what it needs - improvement, not outright deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Nope, I'm going to suggest deletion. The topic of "History of women in metal" is not a frontline idea. If you would wish to debunk some of my earlier arguments which would support deleting the section (which by negation would involve proving that "the history of women in metal" is both a frontline idea, and a large enough idea to devote an entire wiki section to), feel free too, but don't tell me contrary to my opinion without stating reason. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC) You can suggest whatever you want, but you need to get a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor, which seems likely, as your argument doesn’t make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Seeing as though you're not contributing anything informational to the discussion, I'm just going to wait for someone else to way in. I shall start the consensus though. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) My contribution is that your reason for removal is invalid. You’ve got a weird personal opinion on article scope that isnt rooted in any policy or guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) You did not initially post a reason for its validity, you should do that from now on. My argument is that the section doesn't serve the purpose of delivering an element of general knowledge to the viewer, and instead focuses on a very specific non-important aspect. I'd say that its anologous to putting a section on Metallica's page about what color of tour busses they've had; It's related to the subject, but not what people look for when they go to their wiki page. They'd look elsewhere for that information. My point is, it's irrelevant to the just of the topic and thus serves no real purpose existing on an encyclopedia. My argument is rooted in the idea that the section has no implicit or explicit importance. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I’m saying that’s both a terrible argument and a terrible analogy. And it’s baffling that you can claim that gender has no role in a genre of music. Not sure why someone would be so against covering this. But regardless of your motives, you need something better than that you personally don’t like it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) You really couldn't mis-represent my argument worse here. In fact it's so poorly represented I have to wonder if it was intentionally done so. But please do demonstrate, how do you derive "I want Subject removed because I don't like it" and confusingly or "trait has no role in subject" from "Subject is not relavant and or important to the overview of the information and thus should be removed from the wiki"? You really must not get how rude and obnoxious strawmanning is. And it's probably worth noting that through out this whole thread, you haven't given a single counter argument to the point I've raised. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC) You haven’t given any reasons, just vague blanket statements like it’s “not relevant”. Meanwhile, you want me to explain how the topic “women in heavy metal” is relevant to the topic “heavy metal”? Would you also like an explanation regarding the connection between “guitars” and “guitar strings”? Sergecross73 msg me 04:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) How many times did I specify that it's not relevant to the OVERVIEW. Do you not know what the word "overview" means? The Metallica analogy was supposed to illustrate the point. You wouldn't put the color of their tour busses on an overview page, because it's unimportantly specific to the topic. Similarly, you wouldn't put "the history of women in heavy metal" in an OVERVIEW of metal, because its unimportantly specific to the topic, unless of course you have an argument which would support it being important to the topic. You don't seem to understand that it's quite literally impossible to disprove a position which has no supporting argument, since there's absolutely no argument to disprove. What I'm trying to do here is invite the argument so I can disprove it, but somehow that went way over your head. So I would ask, do you have a good reason as to why the section should be on an overview of the topic of heavy metal? 216.167.232.155 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC) It’s better to keep that section, (and the section isn’t that big, so it would be considerd a overview) because women did have impact in rock history. Notable bands such as Halestorm, Otep, Nightwish, In This Moment, Vixen, The Runaways, Girlschool, and Rock Goddess togheter desearve a section. And also, if there were one day a section in here was named “Men in heavy metal music” would exist, you would note that it would be significantly larger than the section “Women in heavy metal music” because men get more coverage, and that made-up section is kind of already here, there’s practically no other mention of atleast a female fronted band (apart from the ones in “Women in heavy metal music” section). That’s why it should be kept, it isn’t covered enough in other sections, so it is covered in a medium sized section that we should expand. And as Serge said above, feel free to add improvements, but not outright deletion. With political correctness in an all time high, you most likely find a lot of websites talking about it. ~SML • TP 00:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC) If that be the case, then it would make more sense to be moved to a sub-section of history, instead of getting its own section. The way it looks right now is like a political statement, since having it as its own section appears to give as much importance to it as the whole history of metal. And also, the "importance of women in heavy metal" section doesn't seem to convey anything important (pretty much just a few managers, which by itself isn't very important) and would probably be better off scrapped until/unless something more important appears (since templates aren't supported by wiki). Another idea would be to just integrate the ideas the section is trying to convey into the "Role of women" subsection in "Rock music". 216.167.232.155 (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC) As long as it’s reliably sourced and factually accurate, improvement and expansion is the way to go, not deletion. There’s nothing wrong with the current section title or placement either - a small section at the bottom is just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC) That is a moot argument. This way you can include all sorts of unrelated information anywhere else, and claim that it has the right to be there simply because its sourced and factually accurate. This is a political statement plain as day, and it has no place on this page. If you believe a *band* is important enough to be mentioned (and bands mentioned two comments up, such as Halestorm, Otep and others are), then these bands should have a whole section on its own, just like the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.69.53 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC) No, it isn’t, it is not unrelated, and the paragraph is neutral, so that wouldn’t fall that much under the categorization of being political, and for any band to have a whole section in a page, you need to be extremely, extremely, extremely big. Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Lynyrd Skynyrd and others don’t have sections in genre pages, so therefore, if Halestorm would be mentioned, it would be in the “Women in heavy metal” section, or in a section explaining heavy metal from the 2000s to present. And if you think the section shouldn’t be here, you can always make an article with sufficient neutral reliable sources. ~SML • TP 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) But then why include Halestorm in the first place if they aren't that important? And it most definitely is a political statement given its position on the page, and the fact that it's pretty much just a template. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC) No, 207, the argument that “women in metal” is “unrelated” is ludicrous and untrue. Also, musicians and bands are name-dropped throughout the article, so the fact that you only object to it in th section about women is equally baffling. I don’t understand your attempts to lessen an already small part of the article about women even smaller, but it’s incoherent and unacceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC) His objections were because it sounds like a political statement. Man, you're keen on jumping to the conclusion that "everyone who disagrees with it just doesn't want women to be included". Just an fyi for this thread: no one here but you cares about the gender of band members. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC) IMHO, its not about lessening anything, quite the opposite: music doesn't care about genders, so I don't see the point of having a gender-specific section, which reads exactly like "Lets just add something that specifically targets women, because that's what's PC today". There are also gender-mixed bands (Smashing pumpkins, off the top of my head), does this warrant "Women in men bands" section? If this is a page about metal music, then let it focus on music, bands and notable musicians, irrespective of their gender. Making a section (no matter how small or important) targeting one specific gender, is turning that section into gender politics, whether you're ready to see it this way or not. Its a great page overall, with lots of great material, I'm pretty sad to see you keep a totalitarian rule over whether it should match your personal worldviews or not. Additionally, if you believe women in metal are underrepresented and you believe that this isn't right - it'd be great to have largest women bands represented as much as the other big bands. It doesn't matter that Halestorm never rose to eg. Black Sabbath fame - they're easily one of the most famous, earliest women metal bands. As such, I don't think its fair to just namedrop Lita Ford in a tiny section at the bottom of the page.207.107.69.53 (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC) That’s controversial, the snowflakes are not going to back you up, but at least I’m neutral until there’s a better argument. ~SML • TP 16:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Please, don’t use nonsense terms like “snowflakes”. That’s not constructive and violates WP:NPA. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Well, I technically never called anyone that, but sorry, didn’t know. Based on the context and wording of what you said, you were clearly calling some editors that, though I do concede that it’s not really clear who you’re talking about. Regardless, please just don’t call editors anything but their names... Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC) No, he was referring to a specific group of people that are defined explicitly with the characteristic of "getting outraged at everything", not explicitly editors. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC) His statement makes zero sense unless he was referring to Wikipedia editors. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Allow me to inform you that this portion of this section is redundant and does not warrant further development 216.167.232.155 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I’m an admin. I (or anyone really) is well within their rights to warn people when they break the rules, and correct people when they chime in with a bad take on what’s going on. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I disagree. He wouldn't have worded it like that if he was explicitly targetting the admins. Either way, you're supposed to assume that his actions are in good faith. 216.167.232.155 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Nobody said he was targeting admins. I’m just saying he was name-calling, which he objectively was. Good or bad faith isn’t relevant here. If youre on Wikipedia, don’t call people names. Period. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I meant editors, he wasn't calling any specific person a name, what are you attempting to achieve here by getting outraged over literally nothing? 216.167.232.155 (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC) No one is outraged. When I warn people of WP:NPA I hope to achieve having them stop violating NPA. And they stopped. This would all be done if you hadn’t attempted to defend them with this bogus line of defense. (They instead apologized and dropped it.) Sergecross73 msg me 04:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Well sorry, please don’t think bad of me. ~SML • TP 17:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO "Women in heavy metal" fits better in the subculture article. Otherwise, I think we can just put the paragraphs into each related parts of the Heavy Metal music article. It wasn't like females were never welcomed in the metal world, you know. --- Vc06697 13:50PM 24 Sep 2018 (Hongkong time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc06697 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Trap metal and biker metal

Trap metal and biker metal have pages, can they be in the infobox? ~SML • TP 17:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these seem very prominent genre. Trap metal especially. Not even sure that’s even really a thing. It has a giant WP:OR tag on it, and has very little in the way of content or sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The trap metal page has some issues, but I‘m working on the referencing. And what about biker metal, it has a well written medium sized article with a lot of sources. ~SML • TP 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

”Medium sized”?? It’s two paragraphs long and a short list of bands. And seriously, what band is primarily known as a “biker metal” band? It’s a bunch of obscure bands and a few bigger ones like Motörhead, BLS, and Clutch, that don’t even bother mentioning it in their lead or their infobox. Adding these obscure/minor variants just bog down the list with clutter. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

None of these "subgenres" exist. A quick Google search does not give any good sources either. Therefore, both pages should be removed or redirected. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's just untrue, search "biker metal" on Google Books and eight out of ten of the books on the first page are referring to it as a genre. Trap metal's definitely not used as much but there's still articles by Rock Sound, Metal Hammer and Kerrang that come up pretty quickly. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Biker metal does appear to be a term people use, though its unclear what it actually is. As I mentioned, it doesn't really appear to be primarily applied to any band, and reading its shoddy severely under-developed article doesn't give any indication of what it's primary attributes are. It rattles off all sorts of influences and similarities to other similar metal genre variants, but at no point does it actually define what it is itself. What in the world is it besides being metal and probably being liked or played by motorcyclists or something. (That's not even explained or addressed at any point.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Didn't realize it was created and largely written by you, Issan. Struck a comment, since I didn't think I was talking about a specific editor, but rather, and old, under-developed article that's sat around since forever without improvement, like a lot of these genre articles I stumble upon. That being said, I find it's current state all the more baffling coming from an experienced editor... Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true, I'm very aware that it needs to be expanded upon but I was also hoping that other editors could help with that as, I could find many, many sources referring to it, but only two that mention it's history. There is a Spin article about it's relationship to bikers, which I'll incorporate though. The term's one that I've always heard and I was surprised when I found out that it didn't have a page. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

the way i remember it

Heavy Metal was not a widely used term to describe a musical genre until after the adult fantasy science fiction magazine Heavy Metal came out with their animated film of the same name in 1981. Not all the bands associated with the film could even be considered hard rock , Devo and Stevie Nicks come to mind and Journey BUT Black Sabbath with The Mob Rules was and i believe this association is when the term started becoming widely used to describe the musical genre. The imagery of Dio with horns up \m/ compiled with the term ...yeah that's when all hell broke loose. That's the way I remember it. (HA)

His Assholiness (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Metal_(film)<ref>

this REALLY needs to be pruned or split

Metal has been part of my life since at least 1970, so I'm not "a hater" (or whatever Oprahesque term is presently en vogue) when I say this article is far too long for its own good. It's become so sprawling that it's essentially suffocating under the weight of the bloat. People wander in and paste their trivia just about anywhere they happen to be.

By Wikipedia standards, it's at least twice its manageable size, therefore difficult both to read through and to access via mobile devices. I'd like to see suggestions as to how it could be productively split.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be split, because people have already made an article for so many of the metal sub-genres in existence, but I do agree with the bloat part. We could definitely trim up the sections that already have their own article. For example, do we really need three paragraphs at the "Power metal" section when it already has a sizeable article at Power metal? We need some sort of prose there, but not necessarily three paragraphs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Heavy Metal is a subgenre of Metal

The term 'heavy metal' refers not to all varieties of metal, from black metal to symphonic metal. but to a specific subgenre with a 'classic' sound. A taxonomy of music is incomplete if there is no metal subgenre to encompass classic bands like Led Zeppelin and newer bands such as Pentakill. Additionally, bands who combine heavy metal with other subgenres such as Unleash the Archers could not do so if heavy metal were not a subgenre of its own. Information on Metal and Heavy Metal should be split between two separate pages.

09:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.211.200 (talk)

You'll have to provide multiple reliable source which refers to a difference between the two, because there are plenty of sources referring to the two as synonyms, and having been in the scene for a long time, I've personally never heard that argument before. Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, "metal" did not exist before "heavy metal." The two-word latter term went iconic due to "Born to Be Wild" (1968) but was likely coined by William Burroughs in the early 1960s. It might be more accurate that heavy metal created metal, "stuff that's sort of like classic/core heavy metal but not totally the same for one reason or another."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be "Metal", and "Heavy Metal" treated as a subgenre (Style of Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, ...). I have been in the scene since forever, and nobody from "inside" I ever met used it otherwise. The only people I encountered so far who use the term "Heavy Metal" for Metal in general are people who don't have a clue about it, i.e. newspaper journalists. In dedicated music journals, the term "Metal" is generally used. best regards, IP 89.12.158.204 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No changes will ever be implemented unless you discuss in terms of what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say - music journalists and professional writers - not according to “personal anecdotes from the scene”. There’s countless metal fansites on the Internet that cover that sort of thing. That belongs there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Linking heavy metal to machismo and aggression

The genre's lyrics and performance styles are sometimes associated with aggression and machismo

Is this sentence really needed at the very beginning of the article? Does someone really believe that the topic of machismo or aggression is in heavy metal. Actually Heavy metal themes tend to normally revolve around fantasy, swords and dragons, where is the machismo there? About the aggression, can be talk about a lot of musical genres. The sentence is written by someone who doesn't know anything about metal and want to discredit it.

I proceed to remove it.

--NowForEurope (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There’s any number of flaws in your reasoning here.

1. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, and a source supports the statement.
2. Your explanation is extremely bad. You’ve cited nothing, and even given zero examples. You’ve just given a rather vague and unfounded assertion that most metal is fantasy-bases and therefore couldn’t be aggressive, which is ludicrous- fantasy and aggression are not mutually exclusive.
3. Even if you can’t or won’t bother yourself to learn Wikipedia policy, even anecdotally, I mean, come on. Do you hear Slipknot’s Psychosocial (song) or Warrant’s Cherry Pie, and not hear aggression and machismo respectively? Or Mudvayne? Or Static X? Or Guns N Roses. Even if you’re some sort of “metal purist”, there’s Metallica’s music being described as having aggression. Certainly not all metal, but to say that you can’t think of any examples when it’s so prominent.
4. Feel free to add a note about aggression in other genre articles. Just as long as you have a source. But be aware of WP:OSE - what other articles may say has no bearing on what we do here. And even if it did, other articles do this as well. Gangsta rap prominently mentions its ties to violence, crime, and misogyny, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 11:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NowForEurope, that should be removed. The introduction of the article is supposed to give a general overview over the topic. The word "sometimes" alone disqualifies the sentence for that. It indicates clearly that that's not mainly the case, but only in a marginal way. Best regards, IP 89.12.158.204 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

”Sometimes” and “marginal” are not synonyms. There’s no indication that it applies to a marginal degree of the music. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Women in heavy metal section

Does Women in heavy metal need to be a complete section in the page. Can’t it be a subsection? ~ ~SML • TP 22:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would it matter if it’s a section or subsection? And what would it it be a subsection of? This is a rather bizarre comment as it’s been proposed here... Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Because a I don’t think that it is such a notable topic to be a full section. I mean it doesn’t matter that if your a man or a woman but having a section on the basis of gender is kind of odd in my eyes. It can be a subsections of history, because it talks about the history of women in heavy metal. Yes I know that this has been proposed on past years. ~SML • TP 23:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But the history section is organized chronologically. Where would it even go? I also don’t see an issue with it having its own section. It’s reliably sourced and relatively brief so there’s no sourcing or WP:UNDUE issues. 95% of the article focuses on bands that are primarily male. The focus is primarily on men. So I don’t see a valid reason on why this small section should be lessened in any capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It could be right there were it is but as a subsection. And no it doesn’t have any of the issues you mentioned, and the majority of the page is based on male bands, but as you said correctly, it is relatively brief, so that making it a subsection wouldn’t be that out of place. Put I don’t really think that the average person looking for information about heavy metal music would need a section for women in the the genre. And if they do, they can go to a women subsection. And I don’t think that the page section should be smaller, but just to be a subsection. ~SML • TP 23:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But why? What is this significance you’re seeing between it being a “section” or “subsection”? Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Because there aren’t a whole lot of people that are just looking for the information the section presents. There are, but not as much for it to be a section. ~SML • TP

And that it is somewhat brief for the size of this page. ~SML • TP —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that many people aren't looking for this information? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for such a claim? And how in the world does that translate into whether it should be a section or subsection? None of this makes any sense. It sounds like you’re just making things up as you go. This doesn’t feel well thought out at all... Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I may be or may not be incorrect about that, but the section is somewhat brief for this Wikipedia page, you compare to the other sections and it dwarfs in size. I know that a section’s size doesn’t matter, but it wouldn’t make a big difference that it be a subsection about their topic because of it’s relatively small size and somewhat odd standing within the table of contents. The sections talk about the origin, characteristic, history, and then about women in heavy metal. Wich I think is not something the average person will have been thinking about when he gets to reading the section. And if he is, he can just go to a subsection. ~SML • TP —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

None of that constitutes evidence, it’s all baseless conjecture. And you even acknowledge that the section size doesn’t matter. Reread what you’ve written. How can you expect people to be persuaded by this? There’s not a coherent argument here. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Country of Origin

The US needs to have a credit in the country of origin section. The History section of the page itself mentions tons of American proto-metal and early heavy metal acts as being formative to the genre (Blue Cheer, Jimi Hendrix, Steppenwolf, Coven, Iron Butterfly, Grand Funk Railroad, Mountain, Vanilla Fudge, Alice Cooper, MC5, The Stooges, Quiet Riot, Blue Öyster Cult, Sir Lord Baltimore, Kiss, Aerosmith...) and the originating genres (hard rock, acid rock, psychedelic rock, progressive rock) all have American influence themselves. There are noted American influences in metal going back to The Kingsmen and Screamin’ Jay Hawkins. Black Sabbath didn’t single-handedly invent the genre, and of the notable proto-influences, only two were from the UK (Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple). I realize those two bands are very popular, but they clearly did not entirely invent the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:400:F535:5186:BBB2:72B3:7608 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there are just as many important early metal bands from the U.S. as there are from the UK, like Sir Lord Baltimore, Blue Oyster Cult, Clear Light and Bang. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So, did this gain any traction? I see a single comment of agreement, but you can’t say that Heavy Metal is entirely British whatsoever. You have information on this very page that contradicts that.

Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath are no more “heavy metal acts” than their inspirations Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, and Iron Butterfly. All of whom are American. Blue Öyster Cult. Who are definitely metal and are one of the more notable bands in the genre. Dust, Mountain, Steppenwolf, Alice Cooper, even Jimi Hendrix, and the early influence of bands like The Kingsmen and Screamin’ Jay Hawkins.

Again, all of the influencing genres are American. We have credits for the UK on genres that it has much less to do with, and vice versa, you cannot say Heavy Metal was entirely invented in the United Kingdom. It was not. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s a biased POV (“all the influencing genres are American”, which you then added “2” in an edit summary). Based on reliable, neutral sources, without the music that came out of the midlands in England (the Birmingham region), there wouldn’t be the metal genre we know today. The most commercially successful metal act, Metallica, most certainly wouldn’t exist. Mustaine of Megadeth has spoken frequently on this. The second paragraph has Kiss, Alice Cooper. Kiss wouldn’t exist without glam rock; Simmons – “our musical heart and soul lies in England”. With his Arthur Brown influence, Alice Cooper was mistaken as a British act in his early career. Quiet Riot? They ripped off Slade songs: it’s what they are known for. Aerosmith? They were seen as Rolling Stones knock offs. You’ve basically reeled off a list of acts that are either not metal, or that have been influenced by an array of genres from England. Art Hansel (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, The Rolling Stones much more explicitly ripped off American blues artists that came before them. I’m sorry, you can’t accuse me of having bias, you’re displaying far more bias yourself. You’re not listening to my statements, and you’re deliberately ignoring info this pages sources clearly discuss. blues rock, psychedelic rock, and acid rock are all genres that created metal that has American influence, and are listed as so on their pages. I never mentioned Metallica as a formative band of the genre, but glam rock is not listed as a feeder genre of metal. You’re making empty arguments: without experimental rock (American) and art rock (American), glam rock wouldn’t exist. Blue Cheer and Vanilla Fudge are explicitly cited as influences on the genre and Black Sabbath specifically, as are Iron Butterfly, Coven, Blue Öyster Cult, Jimi Hendrix, Grand Funk Raiload, Dust, Mountain, Steppenwolf, Sir Lord Baltimore.... If these bands aren’t heavy metal, neither are Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin. You immediately accused me of bias because I suggested crediting the US as an originating country? That’s nonsense. Almost all of the genres seminal to rock music are cited here to have American involvement, and they do. Drytalkplease98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about acts listed here, those relevant to heavy metal, not the blues. If we want to go right back we can go to Lining out hymnody from Scotland which influenced popular music today, but that would be silly. The metal genre as we know it today, as is widely sourced, was codified by the acts that came out of the midlands in England. Without that, it would not exist. You mention acts like Hendrix...he was heavily influenced by the riffs of The Kinks, describing You Really Got Me as a “landmark record”. But, none of that is metal. You are veering off course into other genres. Art Hansel (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god, am I taking crazy pills? YOU were the one who started bringing up glam rock and all these other genres. Jimi Hendrix was influenced by a vast array of American blues and rock ‘n’ roll musicians, not “by the Kinks”. You seem to be on a quest to erase the US from the genre and subgenres it invented, down to the instruments that it’s played on. Yet you want to lecture me on “bias”. The acts I’m discussing are literally cited on the “history” section of this page as influential acts to the metal genre. No single source “creates” a genre, it’s a melding of influences. Heavy Metal didn’t arise in the Midlands just because Black Sabbath originated there. Black Sabbath had “proto metal” influences in Blue Cheer and Vanilla Fudge, two bands who are cited on this page. You’re simply not making your case. Drytalkplease98 (talk)

We could add Vanilla Fudge and Iron Butterfly as the source does.--Moxy 🍁 15:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Drytalkplease98 (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this the discussion you keep saying where “it was agreed upon”? There’s only like a few people who have left very vague comments over a long period of time. That’s a pretty weak WP:CONSENSUS, especially when it’s been reverted by two separate editors now.

Please stop re-adding until there’s a stronger consensus on what to do. If you want your edits to stick, you’re going to what a much stronger and policy-bases rationale established, so editors will agree to maintain and uphold it. Which should probably arise from discussing reliable sources, and whether or not they explicitly establish either/any location as the origin. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I left a statement below. If it doesn’t establish “either” or “any” location as the origin, why is there a country of origin listed? This talk page was utilized back in March to discuss making the same changes, one person registered agreement, and nothing happened. The sources cited on this page mention multiple American bands as heavy influences, including Vanilla Fudge, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, Blue Öyster Cult, Alice Cooper, Grand Funk Railroad, Jimi Hendrix, Dust, Mountain, Sir Lord Baltimore, and all the originating genres listed on this page gave American influence. There’s ample American involvement in proto-metal going back blues artists as cited on the Heavy Metal Before 1970. The information is already all here, the page already mentions and cites massive American influence, and yet is averse to crediting the US in the countries of origin section. It doesn’t make sense. It should be a very simple edit to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drytalkplease98 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure what there is to deliberate here?

There are other genre pages on Wikipedia in which countries like the United Kingdom get co-credits on genres like proto-punk with much less influence than the US has on heavy metal.

You have sources that confirm the American influence. You discuss the influence of a vast number of American bands in the article. EVERY SINGLE INFLUENCING GENRE LISTED has American involvement.

You can’t say it was invented in the United Kingdom, because it wasn’t. That’s about as honest as saying The Beatles invented Rock music. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, your comments are riddled with bias. Art Hansel (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

For stating that the US had influence on the genre? You left me a whole paragraph about that was you simply singing the praises of British music. That’s such a hypocritical accusation. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF too. We’re not talking about other articles here. And just because other articles do it doesn’t make it right. They could be wrong too. If I go find that someone wrote the word poop 10 times at the bottom of the hard rock article, is that a valid reason to add it here? Of course not. Extreme example, but it’s what I’m getting at. Anyways, again, we need to follow WP:V and WP:OR. We need sourcing to establishes either/any as an origin spot. If we don’t have that, technically neither should be in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources left already establish many heavy metal acts from both countries as influencers of the genre. That’s more than enough to declare a country of origin, as other pages have done. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 14:05 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, if it’s that clear, then it should be very easy to list out what sources verify which origins and quickly end this dispute. Please present your sources. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How about the source the page already sites, in a line discussing Blue Cheer (American), Jimi Hendrix (American), Cream (British), and The Who (British) as the earliest influences? [98] "Riffs". Lucian K. Truscott IV for the Village Voice. January 22, 1970. "Led Zeppelin, popularly looked on as an English version of Blue Cheer, given to Vanilla Fudgeish heavy-handedness in all that it does, has come out with a good album, 'Led Zeppelin II' (Atlantic SD 8236). Sure, it's 'heavy.' Sure, it's volume-rock at a time when the trend seems to be toward acoustical niceties of country music”. Sources [111], [112], [119], [121], [122], [123], [23],[130], [131], already cited on the page, discuss the heavy American influence, as they do the British. Thats more than enough. Drytalkplease98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

More sources literally cited on this page that DIRECTLY relate to originating locations, as well as American bands that influenced the genre, are sources numbered [133], [134], [135], [140], [143], [144], [145], [150], [151]...need I say more? From this very page. The entire history page incessantly discusses the American-British involvement in the creation and influencing of the genre. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Deena Weinstein (5 August 2009). Heavy Metal: The Music And Its Culture. Hachette Books. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-7867-5103-7.

• • No, none of this indirect, WP:OR quotes about Zepellin or whatever. I’m talking about a source that directly and literally states “Heavy Metal originates from the US”. Or any location for that matter. Please link the sources directly here, so they can be clicked and checked. This is all your responsibility per WP:BURDEN. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• • • That’s not how labeling country of origin has ever been treated on here; it’s ridiculous to expect a source to support our point word for word. I literally invoked upwards of 19 sources on the talk page that discuss entirely British and American bands in relation to the genre - a pretty big clue that the countries of origin for the genre are: The United Kingdom and the United States. Is that seriously what you’re going to hold out on?There’s literally a line in the “History” section that says, with sources: “Deep Purple, the third band in what is sometimes considered the "unholy trinity" of heavy metal, despite being slightly older than Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin, fluctuated between many rock styles until late 1969 when they took a heavy metal direction.[132] A few commentators—mainly American—argue for other groups including Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf or Blue Cheer as the first to play heavy metal.[133]”. Is that not enough to label the countries of origin as the United Kingdom and the United States? As it’s done on every other music genre page on this website? Drytalkplease98 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Have you read WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:OSE or not? Maybe if you did, you’d understand why, no, that is not good enough. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment as something of an outsider. It seems to me that some of the key elements of heavy metal originated in the UK in bands like Black Sabbath. But they operated in the context of wider rock music developed in the US and UK, and the genre of heavy metal itself developed in the US and UK. There's a key point of difference between where key elements of the genre originated, and where the genre as a whole developed. Different words, different meanings. To say that the genre developed in the UK, without mentioning the US, is simply wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m not saying you, or anyone, is wrong per se. I’m saying that on Wikipedia, we need to make decisions based on what reliables sources state, not all these personal anecdotes about people’s thoughts on genre. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I point out a bunch of sources on this page, not to mention highlight parts of this article that mention location of the scene and the popular bands and artists and all of them are British and America. These aren’t “personal anecdotes” about the genre! I can’t believe this. If you are going to hold out on allowing me to edit the page to this, allow me to edit the page so that the country of origin section is blank for now, because as you say, you apparently don’t have enough sources for that. It’s absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drytalkplease98 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, it’s very simple. Please provide a link to the exact source and quote the exact content from that source that proves your point. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Until this edit in July 2017 - incidentally, the only edit ever made by that editor - the lead and the infobox both referred to the genre's origins in "the United Kingdom and the United States". The opening paragraph of the section titled "Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s" refers to both British (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath) and American (Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly) bands. It's also clear from the text that the antecedents of the genre - what many would refer to as its "origins" - were from both Britain (Kinks, Who, Cream) and America (Link Wray, Vanilla Fudge, etc.); and that the development of the genre likewise took place in both Britain and America. The statement in the infobox specifying the UK as the origin, and in the opening paragraph saying that it "largely" developed in the UK, seem to derive from a single source (Weinstein) which is not online and is therefore uncheckable to most which in its opening paragraphs does not make any assertions that the genre originated in a single country. Here, the lead and infobox should summarise the article - and the article, while giving prominence to the British bands, clearly refers to both countries, not just the UK. It is a misleading oversimplification for the lead and infobox to specify that the genre originated and "largely" developed in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, can you adjust the article accordingly? And maybe that'll stop Drytalk's ongoing jeremiad about this matter. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

My solution would be to add United States to the infobox, and, in the opening sentence, to say: "...that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely in the United Kingdom and the United States." That reverts to the pre-2017 wording, and in my view gives a better summary of both the source and the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Per Ghmyrtle, I reverted the page to the pre-2017 wording. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to take the shortcut and call it good after such a weak consensus and sourcing, feel free, but it’s never going to stay in long it be enforced if you leave it like this. I won’t argue further, but I also won’t enforce this, and I’m just saying, from my decade plus experience with this website...this isn’t going to work out like you seem to think it will. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

From "my decade plus experience with this website", it seems to me that the consensus is not "weak" - essentially, it seems to cover everyone except Sergecross73. I've reverted to the pre-2017 wording and support Drytalkplease98. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

How can you say that? He was reverted by like 5 separate editors, including one today even. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he/she is a new editor, who should never have edit-warred to have their preferred wording included. They would have been, rightly, reverted on that basis. And some of their arguments have been very poor, and their tone has been unnecessarily aggressive. However... the substance of their claim - that the US should be mentioned as a place of origin alongside the UK - is entirely justified and correct. The anonymous, unexplained and unsourced edit back in 2017 that removed mention of the US from the opening sentence and infobox should never have been allowed to stand for as long as it did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

My objection is that every argument and source so far has been a WP:SYNTH violation. I’m not arguing in favor of either, I’m saying we don’t have a source that directly establishes either. I’m sure they’re out there, it’s just that these discussions haven’t even begun to touch on them. Which is why I’m saying these discussions aren’t going to hold up over time... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article - it does not need specific citations for every statement. The origins of the genre are set out in the section headed "Origins: late 1960s and early 1970s". That section - well-referenced - clearly establishes the origins of the genre in both the UK and the US. So should the lead and infobox - as it did, I believe, when the article had its FA status confirmed here, and all the way through to 2017. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What you’re describing violates SYNTH. The sentiment isn’t directly sourced anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Not true. When an article describes elements of the genre's origin as coming from the UK, and other elements as coming from the US, it is not synthesis to summarise those statements by stating that its origins are from the UK and US. It is a summary of the facts as stated, no more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then what sources and what excerpts from them are citing the sentiment? Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What "sentiment"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The genre’s place(s) of origin? Sergecross73 msg me 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As I already said, the lead and infobox are merely summarising the content of the article, which explains its origins in both the UK and US. It does not need any specific citation to that effect, because it is simply a summary of the facts as set out in the article. We may be going round in circles here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If something is properly sourced, it’s easy to prove. It’s what WP:V is all about. It should be as simple as going “It is sourced at www.rollingstone.com/history-of-metal when the author states Heavy Metal originates from Canada in 1949 or some such. (Just a silly example, I don’t need a lecture from all the self-professed metal experts on how flawed that example is.) If you can’t provide something like that, it’s a SYNTH violation. As I said before, feel free to “call it good enough” at this point if no one else jumps into the conversation. But also be prepared to be here to enforce and maintain it indefinitely, because it’s going to be challenged over time, and no one else is going to enforce such a faulty stance. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross, the edit to remove the US from the infobar was made without any issue, and ever since then, that edit has been defended.

The source already given for the sentence in which the originating countries are stated never cites specifically the US or the UK, but it cites tons of primarily British and American influences. That is more than enough.

If it hasn’t been cited that the United Kingdom, specifically, originated Heavy Metal, it shouldn’t be in the info bar either, by your standards. Grafton56 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

By my standards, neither would be listed until we have a reliable source directly stating either. To be clear though, I havent been enforcing anything on the matter though, because it’s too weak of a consensus, and it violates WP:SYNTH. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just gave you a reliable source stating both; from a popular author.

The consensus wasn’t weak enough to have it on this page for years before someone randomly removed it with no push back in 2017.

And if neither of them would’ve been listed on this page, had you had it your way, then you should’ve allowed my removal of both from the page months ago. Grafton56 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed the sourcing was so bad until recently, through the process of this discussion, or I would have raised it sooner. That said, thank you for the source you added just yesterday. That source does actually directly state both as origin points. It eliminates my prior WP:SYNTH concerns. I no longer object to including both. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)