Talk:Babymetal

The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group'.

The word 'band' is misleading and should be replaced with 'idol group' or simply 'group' because:

It is inconsistent with the cited source material.

You can go through all the cited source material, and vast majority of them refer to them as "idol", "metal idol", "idol group" or something along those lines. For example the very first citied sources states:

"BABYMETAL" was formed in 2010 with the concept of "fusion of idol and metal". It is a derivative unit in which three members of the idol group "Sakura Gakuin" work as "Juonbu", and they are quite unusual in the idol market where the group is divided." (translated from Japanese).

The very first English language source cited in the article states:

"The Japanese pop-metal group’s third album, which arrives October 11th, will contain 14 songs and feature a bevy of guest artists."

It is inconsistent with the literary definition of the word 'band'.

Oxford dictionary defines the term band as:

"a small group of musicians who play popular music together, often with a singer or singers" [band_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Cambridge dictionary defines:

"a group of musicians who play music together" [BAND | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary]

So it is safe to assume that the term band refers to a group of musicians. Are Babymetal musicians by definition? Let's see how the term musician is defined. According to Oxford dictionary:

"a person who plays a musical instrument or writes music, especially as a job"

[musician noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com]

The Babymetal girls neither play musical instruments nor write music. So they are singers and dancers, not musicians according to the literary definition, and hence not a "group of musicians" i.e. a band.

It is to be noted that the Kami band is not a part of Babymetal according to Babymetal's own official website, they are essentially just a backing band. Many musical acts use backing bands, even solo artists use backing bands during live performances, that doesn't make them a 'rock band' or a 'metal band'. For examples Ayumi Hamasaki uses a backing band during live performances, it is also more or less a permanent band since many instrumentalists are long standing members, who have also appeared in her music videos, just like kami band, but it doesn't make the act a band. it is still a solo act, since those guys aren't official members.

It is inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia articles about other similar musical acts like Passcode and Necronomidol clearly define them as "metal idol group", which would make defining Babymetal as a "metal band' inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles. This will cause confusion among readers at the very least. Other metal idol groups also use backing bands but are still defined as "idols".

It is inconsistent with the historical precedent in terms of the usage of the 'metal band'.

Historically the term 'boy band' and 'girl band' have been used for groups who only sing and dance like Backstreet Boys, One Direction, Spice Girls etc. The term 'boy/girl band' have never been interchangeable with 'rock/metal band'. Even the origin of the word band lies in the group of instrumentalists used by armies, and have always been linked to playing instruments as described here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/band

Instrumentalists were intrinsically linked to the word 'band'. The word 'one man band' conjures an image of a man who plays all the instruments by himself. A group of instrumentalists have historically been referred to as a band, but a group of singers were usually not.

The term 'band' is not universally accepted in context of Babymetal.

A large section of the music community including professionals, other artists and music critics refuse use the term 'metal band' for Babymetal. Referring to them as such is 'contentious' at best. If we strictly go by the definitions then, Babymetal is 'metal' but not a 'band'.

[Removed this section because it was perceived as personal attack]

Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' presents an inaccurate image to the people who are unfamiliar with the group. It does not reflect the true nature of the group. Referring to Babymetal as a 'metal band' while other heavy metal vocal-dance groups with a backing band are referred to as "metal idol groups" is misleading.

The term 'idol' should be used as Babymetal fits most criteria of being a Japanese idol group. So it should be called a 'metal idol group' instead. If the term 'idol' is not accepted by people here then at least the term 'group' should be used as it will the least contentious. Lucems (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I have no opinion on the matter, but I wanted to talk about the dictionary definitions you include here. Fundamentally, dictionaries do not define how languages should work, so their descriptions should not be taken as gospel. A dictionary is not infallible, and picking a single definition from a single reference work does not determine how a word is used within a given language. Specifically, your definition of "musician" derived from Oxford's Advanced Learners Dictionary is simply one reference point. I've looked in several other dictionaries, and they all define "musician" as a person who creates and/or performs music ([1], [2], [3]), which categorically includes the singers of Babymetal. Dictionary definitions should not be used to demarcate article subjects regardless, as articles are based entirely on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic; whether to describe Babymetal as a metal band or an idol group is entirely contingent on what reliable sources call it.

I'm not familiar with the history of this article beyond what I've personally added to it, so I can't comment on any potential bias, but try to keep such accusations to a minimum unless you can support them with evidence (e.g. with diffs or links to prior discussion on talk pages). Comment on content, not the contributor (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks). ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed the part you perceived to be a personal attack. But my point still stands. it was unreferenced, and making definite statements about a widely contentious topic with no consensus among experts is an example of bias and is misleading as far as my understanding goes. Also kindly tell me what is accepted as proof of bias as I am new to this platform (as a contributor), so I can repost with evidence.

Yes, I agree with you that dictionaries should not be taken as gospels, but that goes for the dictionaries which state otherwise too. And things should not be viewed in isolation. If you take into account the historical trends of the usage of the word 'band', the opinions of large section of music critics and the general perception of the word 'band', then it is clear that in this context the term 'band' includes presence of instrumentalists more often than not. Lucems (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for claims about other editors or their behaviour is usually done through differences between page revisions (often shortened to just "diff"). For example, this is a diff of one of the edits I made to the Babymetal article on 8 April 2023 (the exact time of the diff may change depending on your time zone settings). Talk pages also have histories that you can get diffs from, for example this one. When viewing the history of an article, a diff can be accessed by clicking on the "prev" button next to a particular edit, which compares it to the previous revision of the page before the edit.

Something I forgot to mention that may be useful is looking at the history or archive of a talk page to see if a similar discussion has taken place before. This archive seems have some relevant discussion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. And yes I did miss the archive, should have looked at it before posting. Lucems (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's late here so apologies for not going through this point by point, but when WP:CONSENSUS to use "band" was established (archive 3 of this talk page if you'd like to look--there's no official note Designating Consensus™ but a majority of editors preferred band for various reasons at the time), several English sources used "band", and at least one Japanese source used several different terms (IIRC, something like "band", "group", and "artist") interchangeably. Pointing out sources that only use the words you like feels like cherry-picking.

Further, "it doesn't match other articles" on its own feels a little "other stuff exists" (which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but in other discussions is generally advised to be used judiciously). Anyway, just like I personally brought up in the last discussion (acknowledging it was technically "other stuff exists"), a lot of articles even for straight idol groups (non-metal genre) use band and group interchangeably. Passcode's article does this for instance (and for a non-metal example, so does Momoiro Clover Z).

Usage of band is not confusing as to many English readers it would be synonymous with group (which is why some articles use the two words interchangeably!); I can only imagine the most pedantic of readers being confused about it. (Though, if we are to go even just by your definition of musicians, all three original members wrote some music for the band.) As far as universal acceptance goes, it's also not universally accepted that Babymetal is metal, even just going by how often people show up to edit mentions of metal out of the article (actual reliable sources are more accepting, but I'm sure one or more reliable sources exist that refuse to acknowledge Babymetal is metal, either). I haven't seen a source that tries to refute Babymetal being a band; just not using (or not consistently using) the word "band" is not enough to say that it isn't universally accepted in the sense that it would cause issues with the article to use it, and to say that it is based on that alone feels like it's treading into original research.

Given the fact that band-to-group edits are not unheard of but also aren't any more frequent than metal-removal edits, I'd argue keeping current consensus isn't any more of a contentious option than your idea, unless we are also to strip any mention of metal from the article as well. I don't strongly care either way (much like the sources overall didn't last time I checked), but the inertia in me doesn't think the actual meat of this argument (its substance and/or any connection to policy and guidelines) is enough to sway me away from just following the current consensus.

(Whoops. I did go over virtually every point. Facepalm Maybe I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing...) - Purplewowies (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write that long reply. But please don't bother with "I'll go in tomorrow and revise slightly to directly link guidelines and policy where relevant since I did skip doing that sort of thing.." , I do not want to waste any more of your time.

I accept that I was misinformed, and even if I wasn't I am clearly not well versed in Wikipedia jargon and rules to argue my case. So I give up and I am no longer asking for any changes in the article.

The following is just my personal opinion, and is not an argument related to my demand for a change in the article, just ignore it as a rant of an ill-informed idiot. also delete this if it's against the rules.

First we disregard the historical connection of instrumentalists with the word 'band'.

Then, we disregard the long-standing conceptions held by the general public on what a 'metal band' means.

Then, we disregard the definition of musician from Oxford dictionary because it doesn't consider "singers' to be musicians, and that would make Babymetal not fit the definition of a band i.e. " a group of musicians". What is the criteria for choosing one dictionary and not the other IDK.

Even if we refer to a group of singers as a metal band, even in that case, only one of them sings 95% of the time. Is one singer considered 'a band'?

Then, we even refuse to call them idols, as per DragonFury's description. His arguments also apply to PassCode, but they are an Idol group, and Babymetal is a 'metal band'.

Then, we disregard literally all of the musical acts who are literally the same as Babymetal, infact they were all inspired by BM and are essentially BM clones, but they all are called 'idol metal/metal group' but BM is not.

Then, we disregard all the publications which have referred to BM as 'idol' or 'metal group' instead of band, and only consider the ones which call them 'metal band'. What is the criteria for using one definition and not the other, IDK again.

From what I can see, the term 'metal band' in context of Babymetal only barely qualifies, that too on technicalities.

It's like calling a quad bike a car. Yes, you probably can prove that it is a car based on technicalities, but a quad bike is not something that people imagine when they think of a car.

I know some people really hate BM and call then all sorts of things like 'fake', 'not real metal' and what not. But I am not a hater. I have been a BM fan for years and am not ashamed to accept them for what/who they are. Lucems (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Most recent news articles from reliable sources use "band" to describe Babymetal. (Example 1) ([4]Example 2) (Example 3) As pointed out in previous replies, "band" and "group" are frequently used interchangeably in sources. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can't we at least add 'idol' in front of 'band'? I am sure that there are many sources which refer to them as 'idol band', I can cite them if needed.

Also, just an honest question, what is exactly different about Babymetal when compared to Passcode, Necronomidol? Those two groups are referred to as 'idols', while it seems to be missing from the Babymetal article. Lucems (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I was involved in the idol/not idol discussion we had a few years ago; see my comments here. My opinion has not changed since then; Babymetal started as an idol group, but has long since left that title behind, in the same way they are no longer a sub unit of Sakura Gakuin anymore either.DragonFury (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote back then. Your arguments if I am not mistaken were

1. They don't interact with other idols.
2. They perform at metal festivals
3. They open for metal bands.
4. They are featured in metal magazines
5. They are featured on metal charts
6. All credible sources don't call them idols.

As for the last one I am sure many magazines do call them idols as well. Moreover, most of these can be applied to PassCode as well, but they are idols, and Babymetal is not? It just seems so arbitrary.

The following is just personal opinion, so please don't ban me for it.

How a vocal-dance group consisting of a singer and two dancers is considered a 'metal band' is beyond me. A 'metal group' would have been a more honest description considering the historical usage and origins of the term 'band'. If anyone says a 'rock band' an image of people with guitars and drums pops up. But I was misinformed all my life and Dreamcatcher was a rock band all along.

Btw if there is any way to close the thread/discussion, then please do. I was clearly wrong, and I accept my mistake, and since this discussion has already taken place before it's pointless to continues this thread/discussion. Sorry for wasting you guys' time. Lucems (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources rather than the various opinions held by Wikipedia editors. By far the great majority of secondary sources refer to Babymetal as a band rather than an idol group. End of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)