Talk:Evanescence/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Evanescence. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Genre according to sources
I know, I know, this is something that has been discussed a lot before, but hear me out. It seems most editors in previous discussions have been going about this the wrong way, talking about what they think Evanescence sound like. Editor opinion isn't used for genres, sources are. So let's take a quick look at the sources (that I know of at least) and what they say:
- Allmusic – Goth metal, post-grunge, alt. metal, pop
- NME – Rock ("fusion of metal, goth rock and electronica")
- Musicmight – Alt. metal, alt. rock, gothic rock, hard rock
- Popmatters – Gothic rock (also mention of “nu metal riffage”)
- IGN Music – General goth rock suggestion (“Fear not, goth rock fan”), alt. rock
- Metal Observer – Gothic metal with nu metal influences
- Rolling Stone – Goth metal
So, tallying them up, we have 4 sources for gothic rock, 3 for gothic metal, 2 for alternative rock, 2 for alternative metal, 1 for post-grunge, 1 for pop, 1 for electronica, 1 for hard rock, and a couple talking about nu metal influence.
As such, I'd like to make three suggestions. Firstly, that the lead be changed to either "gothic rock" or just "rock". Alt. metal only has 2 sources, it's not even close to the most sourced one. The gothic rock fanboys will cry out about it if we go with "gothic rock" of course, but we don't censor wikipedia, no matter how much some folks might want us to. So in other words we don't change things to keep certain users happy. We change them to reflect sources. "Gothic rock" would also cover, to a degree, the gothic metal sources, so it's my view that having that as the lead would adequately illustrate at least something from all those sources.
Secondly, perhaps we could change the genre field of the infobox to "gothic rock, gothic metal, alternative metal, alternative rock", since those are the best sourced ones we have. I realise however that some would prefer to keep this as a link to the styles section, so that's less of a firm one.
And thirdly, to include all those genres we have sourced into the styles section. Prophaniti (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Go ahead and add sourced text to the Style section - that's where discussion of the genre belongs. Not the infobox. If the infobox lists any genre, then there seems no way to avoid listing every genre that anyone has ever mentioned in the context of this band, and some people would probably still argue about the order they would be listed. The genre of this group is an issue that needs to be dealt with by text. Gimmetrow 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perfectly fair point, but we don't have to list every genre: that's the point of tallying them up, we can just list the ones that are best sourced. People will still argue about it, but that's what page protection is for. If it's sourced, then changing/removing it without further sources is disruptive. Prophaniti (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This dispute has been going on for years. It seems impossible to resolve to one or any set of genres. Even if we were to agree, a couple months down the road someone else will come in saying X genre should be there or Y should not, and it would have to be discussed again. And then again a couple months later. And again and again forever. On Wikipedia, if you remove the controversial parts from the lead and infobox, the article becomes a LOT more stable, because most editors are less concerned with details in the rest of the text. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, it seems to be the case. The indisputable fact is that they are described in terms of varying genres. Gimmetrow 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Perfectly fair point, but we don't have to list every genre: that's the point of tallying them up, we can just list the ones that are best sourced. People will still argue about it, but that's what page protection is for. If it's sourced, then changing/removing it without further sources is disruptive. Prophaniti (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- True, but it's also indisputable fact that all sources describe them as gothic-something, and it's about a 50-50 split between gothic rock and gothic metal. I grant you they get called many things, but so do a lot of popular bands. All we need to do is sum up the best sourced ones in the infobox. True, people will revert, but that's no reason to just give in.
- However, as I say, that's not a point I'm going to push for unless other editors do as well. I'm perfectly happy with the above sources included in the styles section and the lead changed to a general "rock". Prophaniti (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- ok if all these sources call them Gothic,there can be NO doubt that the genre should be added in the infobox as it does have Reliable sources and not just one source,4 sources for Gothic rock and 3 for Gothic metal that makes it not a Minority view.The only things which are still arguable are Alt. Rock and Alt.metal. I'm agree with Prophaniti (as always) the fact that people revert something is not a good reason to ignore reliable sources and besides that's what the infobox is about.Style and influences part is not to talk about the genre,what is does is to define their style in their genre.and Infobox is to help the readers get a general information about the band,we shouldnt simply pass them to the Style and influences section.Solino the Wolf (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Becuase they are not goth or metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon222 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Infobox
Will all users who want to do something regarding the genre field of the infobox please contribute HERE rather than just edit warring?
One thing to clear up: despite what some are claiming, no one is "removing sources". The Rolling Stone and Metal Observer sources are already in the article. I'll say it again since some people seem to ignoring it: no one is removing those sources. The lords of metal one, as has also been said, I would suggest asking about at the reliable sources noticeboard, because I for one can't be sure of it's reliability, and no one has yet provided anything to indicate it is reliable.
Now, the arguments as things stand, as far as I'm aware, go like this: some people want to add genres into the infobox, others say that they cause so much controversy that it's better to have a link to the styles section, where all the genres and their sources are contained anyway.
I've already said my piece on it previously, but I'm getting sick and tired of people not looking before they revert and making incorrect claims about source removal. So here it is: if you've got something to say about this particular issue, say it here. Don't just mindlessly revert. As far as I'm aware, current consensus is to keep it as "see below". If you want to change that, make your case HERE. Prophaniti (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing it man.It was very wise of you;-) ok .About infobox, what I think is when there are sources for genres,at least one genre (Gothic metal),Why using (See below) ? When there are sources for a claim, no disscussion can remove it,and the only thing wich can remove it is a source cliaming the other source to be wrong.And if another source has just cliamd another genre, gothic metal shouldn't be moved, the other source just has to be added. I know some say "Genres cause so much controversy " but the truth is when there are sources,there shouldnt be any arguements or edit wars.Disscussions and arguements for infobox are just in case there are no sources and the genre must be chosen by editors.But now that there are sources,this is just childish.Solino the Wolf (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Solino, providing sources is of course the first step, but the final step on Wikipedia is finding consensus. So far, the consensus is, to simply direct readers to the Style section and let them make up their own minds. By the way, Prophaniti, I meant to say something before now, but yours was a very nice addition to the Style section. Good job. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you :) Much appreciated!
- My personal take would be to include the better sourced genres (gothic metal and gothic rock), while leaving the rest to the styles section. I personally (and I do stress that part, I'm not looking to argue over this) feel that the genre section should give some specifics, since that's what it's there for. And while people will revert over it, we can always request the page be protected, and anyone who does remove sourced genres/add lesser-sourced/unsourced ones wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on given the reasonable source consensus: the sources don't agree entirely, but all of them agree they're a gothic metal or gothic rock band, and so including those would satisfy the sources without requiring us to list everything they ever get called.
- But that is just my take. I put it here to be tallied up if need be, but I won't make any attempt to act on it unless the overall editor consensus goes that way. Prophaniti (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- What Gimmetrow said above is 100% accurate. We've both been watching this article for a few years now, and the trend he mentions is correct. If something is included in the Infobox, in a few months this will happen all over again, with someone claiming another point of view. The only way to avoid endless circles of dramaz is a simple link to the section. Fewer people are willing to make changes to the Style section...the infobox is just an easier target. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I quite agree that it would lead to an increase in problems, which is why I stress my take is just that: if I alone were given the choice, that's what I'd do, but it's not something I feel strongly about, I have no problem with the way things are now. Prophaniti (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- What Gimmetrow said above is 100% accurate. We've both been watching this article for a few years now, and the trend he mentions is correct. If something is included in the Infobox, in a few months this will happen all over again, with someone claiming another point of view. The only way to avoid endless circles of dramaz is a simple link to the section. Fewer people are willing to make changes to the Style section...the infobox is just an easier target. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Prophaniti on this one. I do not think that there is or ever was any real consensus over this issue. Even now, there's at least three editors who have edited this article over the past couple of days who clearly disagree with this supposed consensus: solino, prophaniti and an anonymous IP. A look through the history of the article reveals many more editors who, by their actions, can be presumed to be in disagreement with any such consensus.
- The use of this "see below" link strikes me as an attempt to sweep things under the carpet. Or more precisely, an attempt to hide the "g-word" from the infobox, as if it is something to be ashamed of. We can't get rid of the sourced information regarding the g-word within the article so the next best resort is to remove the g-word from both the infobox and the lead section of the article. I know this is just a personal impression of mine, one that others would disagree with, but that's how I see it. In any case, this "see below" tactic does not appear to be ending the "drama" nor does it appear to be effective at preventing edit wars from emerging.
- There has never been any policy that states we must list every genre associated with a band in the infobox. Taking a few examples from featured articles, the musical characteristic section for Nine Inch Nails provide sources for synth-pop as well as drums and bass but the infobox only mentions industrial rock/metal and alternative rock. The lead section for The Smashing Pumpkins mentions gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, arena rock, shoegazer and electronica but the infobox is filled with only one entry: alternative rock. The infobox for Alice in Chains does not include blues rock, rock and roll or punk, all mentioned elsewhere in the article. So why is Evanescence the exception where its either all or nothing? Another featured article Sly & the Family Stone lists six different genres in the infobox. So surely this article can list the same amount of genres too? Gothic metal and gothic rock have strong multiple sources while nu-metal, alternative rock and alternative metal have around two sources each. The others mentioned only have one source each. So if Sly & the Family Stone can have six genres in their infobox, I do not see why Evanescence can't have five. If one is concerned with the length, we can always use the stroke to group them together as such: gothic rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, nu-metal. Ta-da.
- Anyway, that's my two cents, whatever it's worth. Oh right ... it's worth two cents. --Bardin (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm strongly agreed with Bardin . Using that "see below" link might make it better but it wont make it go away and as it's said above it's like sweeping things under the carpet.And as there are acceptable numbers of sources for gothic rock/metal I think its good to bring it in the infobox.And as Prophaniti said we can request the page be protected.I personaly,dont think bringing 5 genres in the infobox is a good decision.Caus it'll make the readers confused and besides thats what the styles part is for.But if doing it makes the edit wars end,I think it might be helpful.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No opinions? Solino the Wolf (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the see below link, however, if we do have to put 5 different genres in the info box for the edit wars to finally end then I say go for it. Whatever you guys decide on sounds good to me. Emo777 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for Comment: Genre in the Infobox
This is a dispute about what should be written for genre of Evanescese in the infobox.Please do read the discussions above before you comment.Thank you.14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it is a viable source, but the official myspace page states that they are alt rock. And the official website suggests hard rock with classical influence. I think, to be safe, putting both of these down would be a good idea, and mentioning the goth genre in the style section. here are the URLs for referencing:
- Official Myspace Page
- Official Website
- Points are up for discussion ofcourse --Mkmetalhead (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- MySpace is not a viable source in any situation, and afaik many bands use the genre field just as a means to attract interest, rather than reflect their actual musical genres. However, everything you mention is listed in the Style section. The reason nothing is in the infobox is not only because of the very widely varied genres attributed to the band, but also because no one really agrees as to what Evanescence is. It would be undue weight given to a particular type if something was listed in the infobox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not read what I wrote above? It is not undue weight to list specific genres in an infobox: almost every other article on a band or musician does that, including those that are musically versatile. The featured article for The Smashing Pumpkins describes the band's genre as encompassing gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, arena rock, shoegazer and electronica but the infobox is filled with only one entry: alternative rock. Similar situation for other featured articles like Nine Inch Nails and Alice in Chains. Besides, another featured article Sly & the Family Stone actually lists six genres in its infobox. There are no reliable sources, as far as I know, stating that Evanescence is not so-and-so, only sources that state that they are this or that. Which is fine because there should be no expectation that every source will mention every possible genre that a band plays when describing them. --Bardin (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- And my understanding was that someone was wanting to use a specific genre in the box. I have no problem with a generic term like Alt Rock, or just Rock, as Edgarde suggests below. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not read what I wrote above? It is not undue weight to list specific genres in an infobox: almost every other article on a band or musician does that, including those that are musically versatile. The featured article for The Smashing Pumpkins describes the band's genre as encompassing gothic rock, heavy metal, dream pop, psychedelic rock, arena rock, shoegazer and electronica but the infobox is filled with only one entry: alternative rock. Similar situation for other featured articles like Nine Inch Nails and Alice in Chains. Besides, another featured article Sly & the Family Stone actually lists six genres in its infobox. There are no reliable sources, as far as I know, stating that Evanescence is not so-and-so, only sources that state that they are this or that. Which is fine because there should be no expectation that every source will mention every possible genre that a band plays when describing them. --Bardin (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- MySpace is not a viable source in any situation, and afaik many bands use the genre field just as a means to attract interest, rather than reflect their actual musical genres. However, everything you mention is listed in the Style section. The reason nothing is in the infobox is not only because of the very widely varied genres attributed to the band, but also because no one really agrees as to what Evanescence is. It would be undue weight given to a particular type if something was listed in the infobox. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Until there is a consensus for finer classification, "rock" would be a better genre listing than "See below". Where a rock musician (Christian rock, gothic rock and metal all being sub-genres of rock) is identified as belonging to different sub-genres, the broader category may be a better genre label. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Genre disputes are among the most pointless of Wikipedia arguments. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
lacrymosa radio promo?
Apparently it was a caneled
on ebay
Legit?121.72.236.247 (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Very unlikely. I've certainly heard nothing about a single (radio or street) being released anywhere in the world. You would, however, be better off asking over at evboard.com. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ben Moody's instruments
How come piano isn't listed as one of the instruments Ben plays? I saw him play it the video for My Immortal. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
He could have just been pretending to play it for the music video. The only part you see him play is the intro and that's isn't that hard to learn. He could have just faked it.
missing album?
don't they have another album called in the shadows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed90 dh (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. There may have been some kind of fan compilation released by that name, but no official album. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Demos and EPs
I noticed that Origin has its own article but their EPs do not. Should we create a new page for them? Maybe we could merge the page with Origin and rename the article "Evanescence Demos and EPs" if their early stuff isn't important enough for an article of its own. 75.107.254.11 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- They each had articles, but they were deemed to minor and unsourceable to stand alone. There is no need to recreate them at this point, unless reliable sources (per WP:RS and WP:V) can be found for them. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Members
Missing two members? There are five in the band, however, under current there are only three listed. --DMP47 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two of them were touring members, non-permanent. They've since moved on and AFAIK no replacements were ever named. Band is on hiatus. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha! Is this specified within the article? --DMP47 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Last I checked it was.Emo777 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Fallen? No more Amy Lee?
http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-18-hey-youre-not-amy-lee-wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. There's a lot of factual errors in that Perez article which Amy later addressed herself. Pretty much Amy has the right to the name Evanescence because the others either left the band or were fired (And formed a new unrelated band) and as you can see from the link, Evanescence are working on new material due out next year therefore have not disbanded or broken-up. Hence why we don't believe Perez Hilton as he is not a reliable source nor does he have his facts straight :) AngelOfSadness talk 11:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Discography
I'm removing everything else but the studio albums, as we have a seperate article for it, and it is best to feature only the studio albums of the band. So, I decided to be BOLD and remove this information that is clearly redundant IMO. So, not to be axed, I'm giving you my warning that I'm doing it.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
New album?
Any new information about the new album (it just says untitled 2010 album), like the release date? Or some leaks! Jeez, I can't wait to hear a new Ev song, even if it is unfinished and/or low quallity mp3! Regards: NikFreak (talk) 17:45, 07 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, considering it was only just confirmed that they were working on new material. Don't expect more information to come out anytime soon. I seriously doubt they've even gotten past the writing stage. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I just hope it will be something completely different again. I really liked Fallen and when I got used to Open Door, it became my favorite album. It is just important to keep an open mind and not to expect anything familiar. That's the good thing about Evanescence, they would never have another album sound the same as their previous work. NikFreak (talk) 11:25, 08 June 2009 (UTC)
Band on hiatus
The band was on hiatus since late 2007, so I think we should change active years in infobox to: 1995-2007 (hiatus) 2009-present. Regards: NikFreak (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like a good change, though I'm trying to think of a better way to represent the hiatus part, so it doesn't seem like they were on hiatus between 1995 and 2007 :) Thinking about it, perhaps Hiatus could be left out entirely so the date ranges speak for themselves, or include a new "2007-2009 (hiatus)" line to remove all doubt as to what is going on.— Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll just remove the "(hiatus)" part, because it is unnecessary. NikFreak (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Maintaining
Okay, so I was going to do some detailed edits in the style section and doing that I also discovered that there are a lot of invalid sources. For now I am only editing style section, so I removed pretty much everything that is leading to invalid source within that section. I also added Amy Lee's statement about the genre and edited some things while keeping the original sources. Eg.: I figured that Gregor Mackintosh didn't really compare Evanescence to Lacuna Coil, but merely stated it as a possible influence, so I edited the sentence: "Gregor Mackintosh of Paradise Lost suggests that Paradise Lost has probably influenced Evanescence only indirectly through other similar acts." I also think that it is time to rewrite the section. I will keep everything important, but add some more statements from bands like K.O.R.N or System of a Down, find new sources and generally reformulate sentences so everything fits. NikFreak (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, do what you think you need, but note that removing sources whose links no longer function is not necessary. The fact that they used to be there is generally enough, not to mention they should all be archived either in WebCitation or the Internet Archive. So take that into account when you edit, and if any of those old sources would be useful to keep, list everything here and I'll try to find an archived version. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dylan Spitzer
I did a quick google search on him and found nothing linking him to evanescence, so I delated this. If I was wrong and he was linked to evanescence then put him back on the list, but not with out a source. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your reversion was a good one. Thank you. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Request semi-protection
Hello. I am new to Wiki community. I have been contributing for awhile under alias NikFreak (IP 89.164.xxx.xxx), which is now my username. I saw a lot of vandalism lately on Evanescence-related pages (for example: adding random genres, deleting people from the band member list, etc.). I also recently learned about possibility to protect popular pages. I think we should request semi-protection for all pages from Evanescence category. Regards: — NikFreak (t • @ • c) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Protecting every page in the Ev category is very much unnecessary at this stage, and such mass protections are rarely done. Protection in general is typically only reserved for extreme vandalism cases, and these articles haven't even begun to reach that point. I try to keep close watch on Ev-related pages, and there are others as well who do the same, so vandalism or other inappropriate edits get mopped up fairly quickly. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I am not all that familiar with Wikipedia rules. I thought it would be a smart move since this person was constantly adding random genres. But that IP is now blocked, so I agree; no need for such extreme measures. --NikFreak (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Metal or not metal
I am not raising another genre discussion, since we already agreed on everything. But I would like to ask a question since only here I can be certain that I am talking (mostly) to smart people. If this is not appropriate place for such discussion, please remove this section. Everywhere on the Internet I see people saying that Evanescence is not a metal band (and a bunch of metalheads that have absolutely no respect for Evanescence and throw trash at them, but that's not what I want to discuss). But in my opinion, Evanescence sounds pretty much like some sort of metal to me (please read the rest before you answer). Sure, first heavy metal is described with "a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness. Lyrics and performance styles are generally associated with masculinity and machismo...". But now that there are so many sub-genres of heavy metal, the only thing in common with every metal genre is distorted guitars and overall heaviness. I might be wrong here, so please correct me, but if that is true, I think that Evanescence meats those requirements. Especially in songs like Weight of the World, Cloud Nine, All That I'm Living For, etc. Don't call me names for saying this, since I am no expert on metal or any other genre, but I would like if someone could explain to me why is Evanescence not a metal band. — NikFreak (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it has no impact on the article its not really the right place. They are not a metal band, as the Style section of this article explains, because users have discovered a variety of credible sources from professionals within the industry which fail to agree upon a genre. To be honest if you like the band or the music it doesn't matter what they are. Hope this answers your question anyway --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know. I don't like categorizing things that I like. I was just curious and this didn't really answer my question. I don't care what the sources say or whether people agree about it or not. I am not asking this for the article (I know this isn't the place to ask such questions). I want to know WHY Evanescence isn't metal because it sounds like metal to me. What is it in it's sound that is so non-metal. I am just confused. — NikFreak (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay a better answer, genre placement isnt a fine art. Its opinion and there are few set rules to define who is what. Evanescence are metal to you because they sound like what metal is to you. To me they sound like rock because that's what I perceive rock is. Trivium to me would be considered metal so therefore in my mind evanescence arent metal. Simply put if you think they are a "metal band" then they are. Other examples are like Pink I would say they are pop rock but they could easily be considered punk or pop punk or punk rock or dance rock or pop. --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the answer. So, I guess that It's all the matter of perception. — NikFreak (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Overall, I don't think Evanescence are a metal band, but I would agree that some of their songs have a strong metal influence. Less the songs from The Open Door but more older songs like Even in Death (end part) or Lies from the album Origin. The newer songs for sure also feature a loud and massive sound, but there are neither real persistent distorted guitar sounds nor guitar solos (a short solo at the end of Lacrymosa, but that's it). So, as the style section already explains it in Amys own words: Evanescence is neither metal or goth, but rather rock with various influences in metal, classical music and electronica. -- Lacrimus (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, I added that quote to the article :). I guess I still consider their sound being more close to metal than rock, and there actually are a few solos on TOD, they are just a bit different than the usual metal solos (more creative I would dare to say, like the one in Lose Control). Maybe as Evanescence releases more albums, we will be able to determine the genre more accurately (because all albums so far had different sound). Then again, there is no need for categorizing things that you like. I was just being curious why do most people not consider Evanescence to be metal. I think I figured that out now. Thank you all for your replies. — NikFreak (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding lead/infobox citations and member ordering
The following copied from User talk:Gimmetrow#Evanescence:
You're being mighty unconstructive here. Not that I see any evidence of disputes on ordering, but if there are the style guidelines should win out. Facts should not be cited in infoboxes or leads if they are elsewhere. That is how it's done. U-Mos (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- First thing, style guidelines are *guidelines*, which means they have exceptions. When regular editors on a page object to *style* changes, you should leave them alone. Especially here, where you are basing your changes on a template page, which is not even a guideline. Second thing, if you don't understand why the citation is there in the infobox, and a regular editor of the page says there's a reason, you should also leave it alone. Removing citations is not constructive. Gimmetrow 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know they're guidelines, but that doesn't mean they have no meaning. Apparently no one can agree on the order. Apparently. So in such a case, this is precisely why the guidelines exist: to advise on the order that should be used. So they should be followed. As for the citations, that is policy. Consensus (not that I've seen one) does not take precedence over policy. Ever. I put in some notes; they suffice if there's some ongoing dispute. Because the citations are elsewhere in the article. These are not contentious or controversial changes I have made; they are quite simply correct in line with guidelines/policy. To actually look at a page from a relatively outside perspective and make some good changes is very useful, and when they are blanket reverted for seemingly vague, nit-picking reasons it is very frustrating. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. U-Mos (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't think consensus should override policy, I have another dispute for you to drop into where exactly that is being claimed. But that's not what I'm claiming. Policy is that controversial statements need citations, and the particular element where you removed a citation is controversial. As far as I know, there is no policy that citations cannot be added. Gimmetrow 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the controversy must be the year the band became active. This is cited in the lead paragrpah, using the same source. Therefore the note I added covers this controversy, without the unnecessary source appearing in the article as it viewed by the reader. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that was the dispute, and we got stability by adding citations everywhere it appeared. In addition to that, which I view as unsettling that stability, you also rearranged the names in a way that appeared to me to be taking them from aphabetical by last name to alphabetical by first name, which was apparently just an unfortunate coincidence. There are problems with using time of joining as the ordering reason, since some members worked with the band prior to becoming part of it, and a couple members arguably "joined" at the same time. Alphabetical ordering has no ambiguity. Gimmetrow 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok then, I'll take that on board. I've put Gray and LeCompt in alphabetical order as they did join at the same time, and explained as such in the note. As for the year of forming, as the source is explained in a note anyone wishing to change it will see the source in the same way as they would previously. If editors did start persistently changing it again, then the citation could be re-added, but I would suggest seeing how it goes with the note in place. Also, as I understand it there is no consensus for anything in terms of the ordering of members, and for alphabeticalisation to be used in place of the infobox guidelines there would need to be a clear consensus. U-Mos (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that was the dispute, and we got stability by adding citations everywhere it appeared. In addition to that, which I view as unsettling that stability, you also rearranged the names in a way that appeared to me to be taking them from aphabetical by last name to alphabetical by first name, which was apparently just an unfortunate coincidence. There are problems with using time of joining as the ordering reason, since some members worked with the band prior to becoming part of it, and a couple members arguably "joined" at the same time. Alphabetical ordering has no ambiguity. Gimmetrow 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, the controversy must be the year the band became active. This is cited in the lead paragrpah, using the same source. Therefore the note I added covers this controversy, without the unnecessary source appearing in the article as it viewed by the reader. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't think consensus should override policy, I have another dispute for you to drop into where exactly that is being claimed. But that's not what I'm claiming. Policy is that controversial statements need citations, and the particular element where you removed a citation is controversial. As far as I know, there is no policy that citations cannot be added. Gimmetrow 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know they're guidelines, but that doesn't mean they have no meaning. Apparently no one can agree on the order. Apparently. So in such a case, this is precisely why the guidelines exist: to advise on the order that should be used. So they should be followed. As for the citations, that is policy. Consensus (not that I've seen one) does not take precedence over policy. Ever. I put in some notes; they suffice if there's some ongoing dispute. Because the citations are elsewhere in the article. These are not contentious or controversial changes I have made; they are quite simply correct in line with guidelines/policy. To actually look at a page from a relatively outside perspective and make some good changes is very useful, and when they are blanket reverted for seemingly vague, nit-picking reasons it is very frustrating. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. U-Mos (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've copied this across so the discussion can be held properly, and reverted back Huntster's edit for now as I feel a compromise was being reached above. Please read and discuss, taking into account WP:CITELEAD and Template:Infobox Musical artist#Past_members. U-Mos (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the hell you two have been up to its almost classically pointless. No one actually cares in which way names fall in the infobox. If you want some sort of consensus then i vote leave it however it was before the above happened, its almost ruthlessly simple, isn't it? --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- And "no one cares" is a very good argument for following the guidelines. Apparently there have been disputes over this in the past, which is why we were discussing. But defaulting to alphabetical for lack of consesnsus when clear guidelines exist isn't right. Little issues need looking after too. U-Mos (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
What's this??
Amazon emailed me a link to this [1], its nothing official is it? --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No product description, virtually no data at all. I'd guess it is just a private release. A google search for those terms shows it is a fairly wide release, but that doesn't make it any more official than the various books that have been released. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
i ordered this, it is the live dvd, with evanescence performing in chilie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.122.98 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Noone of us has the right to decide the genre
It's only the band members, and Amy Lee has told us that it is rock with various influences in metal, classical music and electronica; nothing else.--Buggwiki (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- As much as I agree with you, statements of band members about the musical genre can't be considered as the only source. The styles section is mentioning Amy Lee's statement in contrast with statements from various critics. It is the way it has to be on Wikipedia. — NikFreak (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why? I can't get it. There is many educated music professors who's agree with her. I can compromise and say that Amy and the other band members has no right to claim something that no professor support (like schlager for example), but they still have the plene right to choose which of the different professors's theory about their genre that they agree with. For short, they and their chosen professor are almighty.--Buggwiki (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Check my reply on your talk page.
- Why? I can't get it. There is many educated music professors who's agree with her. I can compromise and say that Amy and the other band members has no right to claim something that no professor support (like schlager for example), but they still have the plene right to choose which of the different professors's theory about their genre that they agree with. For short, they and their chosen professor are almighty.--Buggwiki (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
GA status
First, I really have to say this. I do think that we need something in the genre infobox, so that we can modify the style section to present more descriptions and less genre comparisons. It is much more useful for people to actually read some descriptions about the band's musical influences and sound, instead of just reading categorization from a bunch of people that don't even explain why do they feel that the band belongs to that particular category. The source can be the most reliable one, but if it includes only a bunch of claims with no argumentation, then it is pretty much useless. And the verifiability and reliability of sources is not the problem here, since we have many reliable sources where people actually describe and explain something with argumentation, instead of just stating their personal opinions. This is the main reason why do some people want to remove the GA status from this article and I agree with that. This is the biggest problem in my opinion, but not the only one (see here on the reassessment page). There is a lot of work that has to be done and I would really like to contribute to make this article better and not just pretend it is. Removing the GA status would serve as an encouragement and a challenge to people who would like to contribute and make it better. — NikFreak (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I understand you correct. For the first, it's better that it's a link to the diskussion than it is no text at all for all who really wants to know the genre. For the second, you want arguments and I have on the section right above this, and you are welcome to give me a comment.--Buggwiki (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that you understand the function of the style section. No, it is not better for the link to lead to discussion page for several reasons, but one of the biggest is that there is no place to present band's influences and descriptions of their sound. It is not that useful to know all the "names" band has been called as it is to see some descriptions, especially if you haven't heard band's music before. I won't talk about it further since there is already discussion about this on the reassessment page. You can also check article review by Gahonzu. — NikFreak (leave message) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've got a comment.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that you understand the function of the style section. No, it is not better for the link to lead to discussion page for several reasons, but one of the biggest is that there is no place to present band's influences and descriptions of their sound. It is not that useful to know all the "names" band has been called as it is to see some descriptions, especially if you haven't heard band's music before. I won't talk about it further since there is already discussion about this on the reassessment page. You can also check article review by Gahonzu. — NikFreak (leave message) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the "Style" section
If you're going to include links to publications that do not hold ANY sort of credit in the REAL goth music scene, then you need to at least acknowledge in the article that there is disagreement on whether or not the band plays anything remotely related to real goth rock music, which in reality they don't when discussing Goth Rock (e.g. The Daughters of Bristol, Sex Gang Children, Xmal Deutschland, etc). Go look at the goth music article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_rock), you won't see Evanescence listed there, nor will you ever. I really think you should remove the Gothic Rock label from the genres section, NME usually gets goth wrong. (http://www.deathrock.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=8457 - You may need to form an account to view thread) - Unsigned
The problem with the "Style" secion is that it's too fixated on listing every single genre term the band has been labeled with instead of saying anything substantive. Specifically, what does the music sound like? What are their unique traits and who are their influences? See the "musical style" sections at Featured Articles R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins to see how to approach these sorts of sections.
Also, if no one can agree on the genre, it's not appropriate to link to article sections in the infobox. It's very insular, redundant (the table of contents links to the "Style" section anyway), places undue weight on an inter-Wiki debate, and is dangerously close to using the article as a self-reference. Either go with the broadest possible genre (Rock music) or remove the field. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Removing the field was unsuccessful in the past. Gimmetrow 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then remove the infobox. Infoboxes aren't mandatory. The editors on this page need to realize that focusing on genre labeling is not resulting in a comprehensive, well written article, instead focusing on relatively minor details. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- And new people commenting need to realize that these issues were debated and discussed for a long time. Gimmetrow 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Debate can always be opened up to try and generate a new consensus. I for one have worked a long time on FA and GA music articles and I'd like to make suggestions or try things boldly based on my experience. There are several problems in this article that have been overcome by other, higher quality articles in the past. Back to the subject, how come the article lead can just say "Rock" but the infobox can't? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BRD. Gimmetrow 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, but do you have an answer for my question? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The same text as in the section right above this: For the first, it's better that it's a link to the diskussion than it is no text at all for all who really wants to know the genre. For the second, you want arguments and I have on the section right above this, and you are welcome to give me a comment.--Buggwiki (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've explained above why simply linking to a section of the article for the infobox genre field is a bad idea and is widely discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, the infobox is supposed to be a summary, particularly of relevant links to other articles. If something can't be summarized, don't include it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The same text as in the section right above this: For the first, it's better that it's a link to the diskussion than it is no text at all for all who really wants to know the genre. For the second, you want arguments and I have on the section right above this, and you are welcome to give me a comment.--Buggwiki (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, but do you have an answer for my question? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd be happy as a clam if we could just put "Rock" as the genre in the infobox, given that it is a generic genre (a catch-all, if you will). However, the current wording was arrived at, by consensus, because many disagreed with using the term "Rock". — Huntster (t @ c) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear why people didn't want to use "rock" in the infobox, partuularly since it seems fine for the article lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would be happy with anything in the genre infobox if we had a nice style section that reflects the band's style, just as WesleyDodds said. I have my personal opinion on the genre and every single person I talked to has another opinion. But we all agreed that Evanescence plays some sort of rock and the first sentence of the article refers to Evanescence as a "rock band". The See below link is definitely not a solution, so I don't see what other choice do we have. I can understand that there was no agreement about it and everyone was getting in a fight about the genre (including me, I admit), but that's not an excuse to ignore the problem and just put in some link, turning the style section into "this guy called them goth, but the other guy didn't, they have also been called this and this, etc....". Also, as YobMod once said, we don't need comparisons to bands less popular than the subject. — NikFreak (leave message) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I removed the unnecessary text of Christian controversy and merged some sentences with the rest of the style section. Now we can clearly see how short it is and all the stuff that is missing. I'll try to do something more to expand it a little bit, but eventually we will need to completely rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikFreak (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 October 2009
- I would be happy with anything in the genre infobox if we had a nice style section that reflects the band's style, just as WesleyDodds said. I have my personal opinion on the genre and every single person I talked to has another opinion. But we all agreed that Evanescence plays some sort of rock and the first sentence of the article refers to Evanescence as a "rock band". The See below link is definitely not a solution, so I don't see what other choice do we have. I can understand that there was no agreement about it and everyone was getting in a fight about the genre (including me, I admit), but that's not an excuse to ignore the problem and just put in some link, turning the style section into "this guy called them goth, but the other guy didn't, they have also been called this and this, etc....". Also, as YobMod once said, we don't need comparisons to bands less popular than the subject. — NikFreak (leave message) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear why people didn't want to use "rock" in the infobox, partuularly since it seems fine for the article lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BRD. Gimmetrow 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Debate can always be opened up to try and generate a new consensus. I for one have worked a long time on FA and GA music articles and I'd like to make suggestions or try things boldly based on my experience. There are several problems in this article that have been overcome by other, higher quality articles in the past. Back to the subject, how come the article lead can just say "Rock" but the infobox can't? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- And new people commenting need to realize that these issues were debated and discussed for a long time. Gimmetrow 00:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then remove the infobox. Infoboxes aren't mandatory. The editors on this page need to realize that focusing on genre labeling is not resulting in a comprehensive, well written article, instead focusing on relatively minor details. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't meant that the link to sthe style section was the solution, only that it's better than no text at all - you shall not have to hunt for the info. But I really agree to just put "rock" until further notice, I mean - noone can deny that it's rock. Then we can continue the discussion about the details, and I have already said mine.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you might think that it'd be uncontroversial, but you'd be surprised! :) — Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Why shouldn't Evanescence be rock according to anyone? I mean, rock is a really big group of genres even including every metals. I know that it's influenses of much other music, but if it is "rock" that will not mean that it's only rock.--Buggwiki (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Buggwiki here. Evanescence is definitely some sort of rock. If that's not enough, we could put Occult rock or Hard Rock and there are still many subgenres of those two. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many metal/rock subgenres, including Gothic rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, etc. could be labeled as Occult rock. And when we are not sure wetter a band is more close to metal or to rock, Hard Rock is the best solution. I would personally chose that over Occult rock since there is even no wiki page about it. That's a lesser problem. The real problem is in the style section as many of us agreed on the reassessment page. (okay, not many, but three... I'm sure there are others that think the same) — NikFreak (leave message) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- You see, you CAN understand my english, so why trying to not understand me when I say something that you DON'T agree with? About the text you wrote, I've already said mine. See my answer as critic.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm not pretending and the first thing I said when I responded to your claim is that I do agree with you. You didn't understand me before and you tried to say something that I couldn't understand. Also note that this is not the subject of this discussion, so please, don't bring it here. I told you this in a personal message so you should respond to it only on your or my talk page. On topic again, I think that we should try to change the genre to Rock or Hard Rock and see if there will be too many edit wars. If we can't agree on any genre, we will just have to vote. That's my opinion. — NikFreak (leave message) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We should concentrate on the important here and that is "extreme makeover" of the style section. You have some sort of obsession with musical genres here, NikFreak, don't you? Lol, I can understand that. It kind of got me too since I think that the style section and "the genre question" are the biggest problems of this article. But I came to a conclusion over a few years; you just can't put Evanescence into a single category because it has so many elements from all kinds of music. I vote for putting Hard Rock in the genre area. I'll try to find sources and rewrite that style section, but than I am going to name them here since I am not that good with all those codes here on Wikipedia. I hope that's not a problem. Cheers — Gahonzu (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. We have already tried various single and multiple genres in the infobox, and whatever is there becomes a magnet for instability - and it would be worse if the band ever releases another album. On the other hand, whatever gets written in the "style" section tends to be pretty stable so long as it mentions a few sourced genres in some way. Go ahead and work on the "style" section of the article (without removing valid sources), but we don't need to keep doing the infobox experiment over and over. I am open to considering replacing the infobox field with an appropriate editorial warning not to add any genres, or even to removing the infobox entirely. Gimmetrow 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- And if the whole article was unstable and constantly edited without permission of other Wikipedians? Would we than remove the whole article? I didn't get to read all the rules here since I only recently joined Wikipedia, but isn't there a sort of administrator's protection for an article if it is being vandalized and unstable. I think that it would be a better solution than just avoiding confrontation with people who edit without asking. Especially since most of the people edit warring aren't even members. I am sure that there is sort of protection which allows edits only to members of Wikipedia, or even better, to users that are confirmed members of Evanescence project. Not trying to be a smartass here, just asking. Thanks. — Gahonzu (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly. We have already tried various single and multiple genres in the infobox, and whatever is there becomes a magnet for instability - and it would be worse if the band ever releases another album. On the other hand, whatever gets written in the "style" section tends to be pretty stable so long as it mentions a few sourced genres in some way. Go ahead and work on the "style" section of the article (without removing valid sources), but we don't need to keep doing the infobox experiment over and over. I am open to considering replacing the infobox field with an appropriate editorial warning not to add any genres, or even to removing the infobox entirely. Gimmetrow 18:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- We should concentrate on the important here and that is "extreme makeover" of the style section. You have some sort of obsession with musical genres here, NikFreak, don't you? Lol, I can understand that. It kind of got me too since I think that the style section and "the genre question" are the biggest problems of this article. But I came to a conclusion over a few years; you just can't put Evanescence into a single category because it has so many elements from all kinds of music. I vote for putting Hard Rock in the genre area. I'll try to find sources and rewrite that style section, but than I am going to name them here since I am not that good with all those codes here on Wikipedia. I hope that's not a problem. Cheers — Gahonzu (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm not pretending and the first thing I said when I responded to your claim is that I do agree with you. You didn't understand me before and you tried to say something that I couldn't understand. Also note that this is not the subject of this discussion, so please, don't bring it here. I told you this in a personal message so you should respond to it only on your or my talk page. On topic again, I think that we should try to change the genre to Rock or Hard Rock and see if there will be too many edit wars. If we can't agree on any genre, we will just have to vote. That's my opinion. — NikFreak (leave message) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- You see, you CAN understand my english, so why trying to not understand me when I say something that you DON'T agree with? About the text you wrote, I've already said mine. See my answer as critic.--Buggwiki (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Buggwiki here. Evanescence is definitely some sort of rock. If that's not enough, we could put Occult rock or Hard Rock and there are still many subgenres of those two. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that many metal/rock subgenres, including Gothic rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, etc. could be labeled as Occult rock. And when we are not sure wetter a band is more close to metal or to rock, Hard Rock is the best solution. I would personally chose that over Occult rock since there is even no wiki page about it. That's a lesser problem. The real problem is in the style section as many of us agreed on the reassessment page. (okay, not many, but three... I'm sure there are others that think the same) — NikFreak (leave message) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Why shouldn't Evanescence be rock according to anyone? I mean, rock is a really big group of genres even including every metals. I know that it's influenses of much other music, but if it is "rock" that will not mean that it's only rock.--Buggwiki (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Back to the point: here's some examples you can follow for revamping the section: R.E.M., The Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Joy Division. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll check them out. I am traveling, so I might not have enough time to do it in next few weeks. If someone feels that he can do it, please feel free to start without me. — Gahonzu (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
! (Notice)
Before I get any backlash about deleted information on Evanescence, will everyone please take note that I only deleted unreferenced information about the EPs in the Formation section and a mention of a missing track on Fallen. If references can be provided for these, put them back, or notify Huntster (who seems to be the major Evanescence developer) or someone else before doing so. ONLY PUT THEM BACK IF YOU CAN FIND SOURCES TO SUPPORT THEM. This is in line with Wikipedia's policy about original research.
Also, Huntster, is the good article review ongoing, per discussion not four days ago? If so, I wish to withdraw nomination for FA status until GA status is confirmed. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, the GAR was finished as delisted. Article is clear for renominations. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to give some backlash to /\\//\. It seems to me that well-meaning people who apply Wikipedia policies without sufficient nuances are becoming a danger to the project. I routinely see people remove content simply because it doesn't have a footnote - often even though the info is readily available and not under any known dispute. Likewise, I see people remove content because a link goes dead to cited, quoted and fully verified content. I've even seen people claiming that when a cited webpage gets updated, if the cited info is removed from the webpage it must be immediately removed from the wiki article. No, I say; that destroys the work of previous editors. Unless material is actually - really - in dispute, please use some common sense. Here, some of the removed content was even cited to a radio interview, and there was even a recording of the interview available online at (egads!) a wiki. Then someone removed that citation, even though the citation was of the interview, not the wiki. And now someone removed the content. Was this content actually under any dispute? Was it not cited to an interview? This was early work the band has discussed and should get a brief mention. I suppose one could argue that the early material is not "encyclopedic" if it's not discussed as the primary topic in an active article by a major media outlet, but think carefully what that argument would imply if you make it. Gimmetrow 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless, they are not sourced and as such this is original research. If you can find a reliable source that's not a dead link, please feel free. However, there is no link, dead or current, and they are unreferenced. Find a reliable source and put them in. You're right- this info is viable to the early career of Evanescence. Prove it, and I'll gladly accept that. Original research, however, detracts from the quality of an article. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- One last thing: you're correct that it isn't encyclopedic. However, I am a fan and recognize the importance of such a mention, and will scour sites for a source. If you find one in the meantime, feel free. But please- make sure it's reliable. God knows Wikipedia suffers from way too many incomplete, some even biased, articles, and I can see that you all have tried very hard to keep it neutral and concise. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some of this content was sourced - and referenced - to an interview with the band; it wasn't original research. Gimmetrow 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- If that were the case, then why did it have an unreferenced tag? Find these references and properly place them, and the info can be put back. It's a very easy fix, and if they can't be found, as I said, I'll look for reliable references. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because, as I mentioned in the first reply, someone removed the reference. Gimmetrow 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- If that were the case, then why did it have an unreferenced tag? Find these references and properly place them, and the info can be put back. It's a very easy fix, and if they can't be found, as I said, I'll look for reliable references. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Haiti-related edits
Helping Haiti is of course a generous thing, but this is NOT a notable addition to this article! I don't know how many ways I can put this, but merely performing fundraising is not a notable circumstance. If it had been for anything other than Haiti, this would not be an issue. And while it is neat that a new song was offered, again, it isn't notable for *this* article. Given that "Together Again" was considered for inclusion on The Open Door, some *minor* mention may be warranted at that album's article, mentioning the circumstances of its current release, but remember: this article is about broad topics relating to Evanescence, not individual albums or songs. I've got no problem mentioning the proposed release date for the third album, which my edit reflected, but again, this fundraising effort is not notable enough for inclusion here, and is, without question, trivial in nature. Homezfoo, I also do *not* appreciate your comment which attempts to paint me as a bad guy who has no sympathy for Haiti...that is very close to being a personal attack. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. I think i get it. Cause its called fundraising because everyone else is doing it. So its not really notable right? She basically joined in? And sorry for saying that you don't want to help Haiti. Its just that We Are the Fallen are disgusting liars (especially Carly) and I have reliable sources to prove this. Amy has some faults as well, as I have read from reliable sources, and she has some stuff she's has to come clean about as well. So while on that subject for a while, can I go ahead and put "Carly is a liar and has not come clean about it" on her article even if its the truth? I don't see how that is original research by the way. Published facts lead me to this conclusion. And I barely saw your post too. Its been here for a while. I'm Sorry about that as well. :D --Homezfoo (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Basically yes. Unless the fundraising is particularly notable from a very wide perspective (aka, it significantly raised the visibility and notability of the subject, or some similar reason), then it really doesn't need to be in articles because pretty much everyone does some kind of fundraising during their careers. This is the same reason why I don't consider the Haiti fundraising thing to be reasonable for inclusion in the Evanescence article.
- As for We Are the Fallen, I don't know the first thing about them, nor anything about them being liars. I never watched Am.Idol, so I know nothing about Carly either. By no means should there be anything included in any of their articles about them being "liars", unless a reliable third-party (newspaper, etc) has published something about this...whatever "this" is. Our purpose is to provide information on subjs from a neutral point of view. Writing "Carly is a liar" is about as far from neutral as you could possibly get! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well maybe a slight mention on the open door album about together again. Anyway, back to the Carly is a liar thing, so i guess it does fall into a personal view. I try to be neutral which is how it should be and I learned. But if you did some research on Carly, you'd probably agree too. But eh. Maybe she'll learn, like some people say. :D --Homezfoo (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, something on The Open Door article seems entirely appropriate. If you want to work on that, please feel free. Also, what is your opinion regarding using Twitter as a source. Even when it's Lee's verified account, I'm still very leery of using any kind of social media as a source for the site...heck, MySpace blogs are strictly prohibited as sources, so I don't see why Twitter should be handled any differently. I'm strongly considering removing any Twitter sources from the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Its only fair. You removed WATF. And it goes by the neutral rules wikipedia goes by so go ahead. OH WAIT. Remove sources from official twitters? But its a reliable source. And Amy said on Twitter that Evanescence is gonna be on The Muppets Revisited Album coming in april i think. It was one of her early tweets. I think it falls into this article no? Into other projects?? And also, she said they were gonna do a secret show too and that was real. --Homezfoo (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but Twitter is not a reliable source. Until a reliable third party publishes it, technically speaking, it really shouldn't be included here. I love Twitter, but I don't trust everything I read there. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- But since its coming straight from the main source, Amy Lee, what more proof do you want? Amy Lee tweeted that on Twitter. Like for example, if she says SHE LOVES TACOS on Twitter. Well then there go. Amy Lee loves tacos. Twitter ain't reliable according to the rules here but if you think about it, Amy Lee said it herself. So if she says it, then its true. We can't just wait for NBC to say "Amy Lee loves Tacos". She said it first. First come, first serve. So since they're gonna be on The Muppets Revisited, then we should put it on the article since its reliable because it came from Amy Lee, who is now Evanescence since all the original members left her. That's what I was gonna say about the genre. Since nobody could come to a real conclusion, you have "See below" on the genre to see what other reliable sources say. But Amy Lee is a reliable source as well. If she says Evanescence is alternative country music now, well then there you go. Its alternative country music. If NBC says, but a real expert on this says they're "Blah blah". Amy Lee is gonna be like, what the heck is blah blah? If she says its alternative country music, its alternative country music. Period. Right? --Homezfoo (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
My main problem is that these statements made will start getting included in articles, no matter how insignificant or trivial they may be. *That's* the reason blogs, MySpace, etc, are not useful as sources...they proliferate trivia. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- But them being in the muppets revisited is pretty worthy of being mentioned. They're gonna be on the soundtrack I think. And the tacos thing is not really noteable. So you wanna wait for an official release by NBC etc? Boring. But okay... --Homezfoo (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey dude i'm still waiting for the reply if i didn't make that clear lol. --Homezfoo (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. Basically yes. Don't use Twitter or other social networking sites as sources. Wait for something official and/or third-party. I don't know anything about Muppets, but I assume you mean they will contribute a song to the soundtrack? Is it Evanescence the band contributing, or just Lee as a singer? Heck, I'm not even sure where in this article such a thing should be mentioned, since they really haven't contributed to third-party albums before? — Huntster (t @ c) 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- hmmmmm Amy Lee sang Sally's Song on Nightmare Before Christmas album. I'm pretty sure she said that Evanescence was gonna be on it and not just her. I don't see the point in waiting for something 'official' since it is official since it came from Amy Lee herself but okay. But yes Evanescence is gonna be on the soundtrack. --Homezfoo (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's get that straight, now. Evanescence was not on Nightmare...just Lee. That's why I ask about Muppets. If its like Nightmare, then Lee's article is the right place. If Evanescence as a band will appear, then *this* is the right article for the mention. Big difference, hence the need for a fact-checked source. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Tweet Nevermind. She said that they only asked her I guess. Its coming out April. But twitter can be a reliable source as well since its coming from Amy Lee herself. --Homezfoo (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Awards section
The awards section originally in this article had references. The new subpage has no references, has many links to disambiguation pages, and has some incorrect styling (quotes and italics mixed up). I tried to add references and fix styling in the new subpage, but these changes were reverted. Twice. I don't think a subpage was even needed. But in any event, until the subpage is acceptable quality, it should not be linked from here. I'm removing the link and restoring the original content. Gimmetrow 13:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've redirected the article based on your concerns. To that end, perhaps we should trim the material in the article to just that which has sources. At some point, I may look for additional sources for these other awards, but it's not high on my priority list. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Together Again release date
I seem to have found the single on Amazon.com and a confirmation of its release date there. But can that even be used as a source? I'm still a bit foggy on what's a useable source for inclusion of new material. =D ScottMHoward (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Problem is, this is nothing but a digital download of a single song. There is no "single"...usually there has to be a physical release. I would strongly discourage anyone from treating this as a single, as it shares no characteristics of other singles released by Evanescence. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I agree. ScottMHoward (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Twelve years later, and the guy who gave the band first airplay STILL can't get credit
I'll be listed as an IP address becuase I'm not really a Wiki geek and I don't spend much time online, but long story short, I was Gavin Valentino on Lick 101. Amy brought me a cassette tape in 1998 and timidly asked if I "might" be willing to play a song off of it on my local band show, Lick At Night. The funny thing is, the two or three time in the past 5 years or so when I've stumbled accross Wiki and the Evanescence section out of boredom, and I've attempted to CORRECT certain descrepancies in the timeline of the "band" or add a more ACCURATE and FACTUAL ACCOUNT of how the band first hit the radio airwaves, my information is almost immediately deleted. It's almost as if there is a sour-grapes thing going on out here in cyberland somewhere, which is undeniably ironic. The irony is that although I gave Amy and Ben the first radio airplay, and that I turned several weekends of my Lick At Night show into Evanescence-only and ignored other local talent, and that I got Amy in my studio for her FIRST EVER radio interview, and that as music director I forced the demo tape on every national international record rep who was at my office to schmooze me, and that I basically launched Amy and Ben out of singing at church and singing at piano bars into worldwide stardom, I never got an actual "thank you" nor acknowledgement. In the liner notes of the first album, "Peter Gunn" is listed as being given thanks and credit, if I recall correctly from my sister's copy of the CD. Which is another irony, because somewhere at my parent's house in the Virginia Beach area is the demo cassestte that Amy gave me. I gave it to my sister one weekend when I visited because she and Amy are the same age, and I thought my sister would be amused at how huge a voice she had. So tonight, bored, here I am bored but relaxing trying to find a funny Youtube vid of an Evanescence trainwreck I saw on TV several years ago when the band members were in different keys and Amy looked as if she were about to vomit. So as things usually go on the internet, one thing leads to circles and I'm on Wiki. I read the generic and unbelievably vague (in hinting that the "band" was active in 1994) intro, so I took a few minutes to correct it, and, yes, mention Gavin Valentino and John Lee, whom I used to work with and split spots & commercial vocs with. As I am reviewing my statements and checking for misspellings, I made a grammatical change, only to have an "edit arguement" or whatever it's called pop up. IMMEDIATELY. UN BE LIEV ABLE. It's as if there's a geek somewhere with a page-edit-alarm just waiting for someone to change what's been written innacurately about the past..... I quit radio to take time to face the facts in mourning my wife's death which had occurred a mere two months before I fell into radio. That was a long time ago, a dozen years now, and, believe it or not, I'm a police officer in Arkansas. I'm just curious to see what the powers-that-be-in-their-own-minds have to say about my factual statements here on the talk page........ perhaps I'll check back in a day (or night), or forget about it for another year or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.183 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based around what's provable with reliable sources. If you can find a newspaper report or something else that shows you were the origin of their success, then I see no reason at all why it can't be included here. Until then, no, I'm sorry. That said, I sincerely thank you for the line of work you took up. I work at a police department myself as a dispatcher. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, that was very interesting to read, but I'm afraid that Huntster is right. You must have sources that can be checked and verified. Don't take it personal that people remove your edits, they are just following the rules of Wikipedia. — Roxor (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's me again, the artist formerly known as Gavin Valentino (and my IP address will prove it, since this whooole damn thing seems to be based around "proof" anyway), back because my best friend at our jam session tonight asked me what happened with the "Evanescence groupie dorks." And for the record, Gavin Valentino IS of course a pseudonym, though based partly on my real name. So if you've been Googling Police Officer Valentino, you're not going to find me like that. So here I am again for a few minutes, and I gotta say, it's pretty fucking sad that it would require a "newspaper report" to set the record straight on who, and how, the band got launched into airplay and stardom thereafter! If only I had known that over a decade later, I would be trying to prove a point to a few people who obviously take themselves very seriously in defending what they think to be the truth because they've taken it upon themselves to be the Keepers Of Evanescence Knowledge, I certainly would've taken loads and loads of photos of Amy and I together, Ben and I together, Amy's Mitsubishi she was driving, her pimples close-up in the production booth where I was doing the stand-up-room-only interview, her handwritten phone number on her contact info card, her three strands of hair which had fallen off her head in my studio... yes, I'm kidding about a couple of those things, but do you realize why it's tongue-in-cheek? For christ's sake, if I needed or wanted "newspaper reports" for verification of every shitty local band that begged me to play their crap on my show Lick At Night, Iwould've needed an ArDemGaz reporter on constant standby. I used to get tape/minidisk/DAT tape/CD submissions ALL the time... literally, while I was there in the daytime programming the music, cutting spots, during my 7-12a on-air shift, hell, sometimes at 3a.m. when I was there hanging out in our Equity Broadcasting lounge and stoned-out band members would stagger over from the Waffle House across the street and give me what they had just finished earlier that night! I just think it's stupid that because there's no "newspaper report," that the facts can't be set straight. I still picture you sitting there just HOPING someone will try to modify what you've typed, just so you can pull a paste-powerplay. Seriously, think about it. Think about famous bands... say, for example, Rush, Black Sabbath, Led Zep. Bands MUCH bigger than the one you defend so vehemently. Do you honestly think, on the first day their demo songs ever got played on radio, or in the coming months thereafter when they were amongst buttloads of local bar bands, that there was a "newspaper report" announcing as a headline, "Local DJ John Smith Launches The Next Great Big Huge World Famous Band By Playing A Song On The Radio Last Night"??? I could go on and on, but if I actually have to explain the process of stardom unfolding piece by piece, then perhaps I'm trying to explain it to the wrong people who can't understand. IN OTHER WORDS, when I chose to play Amy's and Ben's submission on my local band show and chose to push the demo on every national record rep who came to Little Rock to kiss my ass and beg me to give the band-of-the-week a few more "spins," I did so because I felt like AMY HAD THE VOCAL PASSION TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN ANOTHER GO-NOWHERE GIRL. Again, if I thought I would someday have to PROVE it, I would've done things differently, and I would've made DAMN sure I got credit for it. Stupid me in thinking that I would actually get the thanks I deserve from Amy, who by all accounts and not mine, is beyond arrogant now. The fact that "Peter Gunn" took my place when I left and ended up getting credit thanks to a quick call to Equity Brodcasting during the writing of liner notes doesn't help my irritation. He fell into the position of Music Director for Lick when I bailed, and was actually quite pissed about it because he had an adoring bunch of groupie girls for his 7-12 gig down the hall at KHits. His effiminate lisp had a way of endearing pubescent girls to dote on him... Perhaps if you would like the real truth, in order to correct your page for the readers to follow, you could contact the following people who can verify what I've tried before to clarify: John Lee, Amy's dad, who does cheesy local (L.R.) TV spots and who used to also work down the hall from me; Doug Krile, who worked at KKYK 42 TV in the same building and listened to the demo tape with me one night when I wanted him to hear the chubby girl with the huge lungs; Corey Dietz or Jay Hamilton a.k.a. Corey & Jay, who were my bosses at the time at Lick and surely remember what a big response my show got, because all my Gavin Valentino email went through Corey before it got to me; a certain physician's wife who is currently running for political office but shall go unnamed, who fell in love with me during my wife's terminal illness and was trying to get a divorce so that we could live happily ever after, who listened to the demo in her Lincoln Navigator one day as we were going to lunch and was blown away by Amy's voice; Neil Ardman, a.k.a. Gary Lee Robbins, who was running/ruining Equity Broadcasting and stuck his nose in, among other things, ANYTHING that could get Equity or its stations any attention; any number of Lick 101 air personalities (oh, where are they all now...) and employess; and, oh, I dunno, how about AMY LEE HERSELF since obviously, you must be so close to her? I'd suggest you talk to Ben, too, but then again, he's got a bit of a sour taste in his mouth too about the whole thing. I was kind enough not to punch him in the face one night when we were hanging out at the Donaghey Building downtown LR where all the local bands, mine included and Evanescence on the top floor, used to hang out and practice, because my best friend/guitarist suggested to me as Ben was walking up to us to check out my bass guitar (Type O Negative influenced, but I'm sure you'd never believe that I was a very, very close friend of Peter Steele's from 1995-2004 because I don't have a "newspaper report", just a song called It's Never Enough and a bunch of photos from me and my wife on tour with them, Drain S.t.h., and Stuck Mojo) that we might open up for the band locally and Mps/Dallas/OKC/etc., though it never happened because we couldn't find a drummer with any talent that wasn't already playing for at least one other band. Not as a cop, but as a person who sees the idiocy and oblivious ignorance of fact every day, I realize the "burden of proof" lies with me to do these things to "prove" my points to you. I can honestly say that it's not worth it, and I'm a little pissed off at myself for wasting the last 20 minutes here at the computer. Since you are the Gatekeeper in your dweeb world of Evanescence Realm, I'll let you make the effort if you wish. It's all in the past for me. I do find it slightly pitiful, though, that you will probably continually just keep pasting your rote points over and over if anyone else tries to add two cent's worth. Hey, whatever makes you feel important. Which leaves me with this: thanks for your approval in my career choice (um, yeah, thanks, I feel better about it now that you've said something slightly noble to appease me and impress others who read this), and good luck finding something more meaningful that a dispatcher position.
- Honestly, tl;dr. You expect one of the volunteers here to spent who knows how much time tracking down your story, to bother the folks you mentioned, all to get a mention in this article? I'm not sure how to respond to that. I do find it unfortunate that you decided to resort to insults. If you are so pissed off at yourself for writing this, why even submit it? As I said before, reliable sources are the be-all, end-all on this site, so you shouldn't get angry if you can't provide any. Till then, you're just another anonymous soul like the rest of us here. And no, your IP does not tell us anything, except that you use Cricket as your wireless provider. We don't have access to ISP billing records or databases or any of that magic stuff. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I can honestly say that I'm not "pissed off" at writing this; I just find it amusing that you take yourself so seriously in defending what you believe to be true because you've gathered it from other sources along the way, so therefore it must be true, when you have, at your temporary disposal, THE ACTUAL PERSON WHO DISCOVERED THE TWO FLEDGLING MEMBERS OF THE BAND and launched them onto the airwaves for the rest of the world to hear. If you don't understand my piteous frustration, then perhaps I should just leave you to your meager worship of print about the band. My WHOLE point from the beginning was that Wiki touts itself as a source "built *and edited* by users." Now, obviously, I can understand corrections if someone were to come out here and state "Amy Lee had my abortion in high school" or something like that. But when a Wiki user, albeit a modestly occassional Wiki user like me, comes out, originally assists in expressing the TRUTH with my mods to what has become your standard paste-file if someone changes ANYTHING you've written, and is basically told "well, I don't know anything about you so there's no way it's true unless you show me a newspaper story," then it's a bit laughable. Honestly, if you think I've gone to the effort to make up loads and loads of bullshit about the inception of the band, the contacts who can verify the truth, my on-air name and details, details about the station and its parent company (hell, you can verify that there's a Waffle House right across the street, next to West End Grill and Tavern) and employees, and so on just for mental masturbation, you've lost your mind. I have SO much to do with my life than concocting fables about a band whom I really haven't had an interest or respect for since about 1999 anyway! It's not like I'm a groupie trying to lie my way into getting a backstage pass or something. I *AM* the guy who gave Evanescence the first airplay they ever had, and launched them out of Little Rock and into the rest of the world. That is a fact. Choose not to believe it, nor confirm it, so that you can pull your egocentric powerplay every single time someone changes anything about your cut-in-stone band "history." It doesn't change the truth. But you did mention the effort it would take to verify anything, and you try to pass it off that it not's worth it, but you did look into the IP adress issue? Interesting. The only other "address" I'll give is a vague one as "my little house in the countryside" in the woods of west Little Rock, the same one I've had since early '98, the same one that is 8 minutes away from the old Lick studio, the same one that borders old logging trails I used to take the Lick Jeep Wrangler out on for fun, the same one that is about 15 minutes away down I630 from downtown where Amy would do the local club scene, the same one that is 13 minutes away from one of Ben's homes, this one in Maumelle, which is also just 5 minutes away from the facility where my band practices, the same one that is 6 minutes away from Guitar Center, where my best friend for the past 8 years is a manager and could tell his own stories about the members past and present of Evanescence coming in and expecting to be treated like royalty and have everything comped for them even though to the musicians on the local scene and employees there, the bandmembers are just coddled spoiled backups for thre Amy Lee Show getting paid studio musician pay.... You're right, in the end. I made it all up just to jack off on Wiki. None of the people I mentioned even exist. Amy doesn't have a dad who ever worked in radio (or had a smarmy little TV show on his adult contemporary broadcast either, when he would bring a banjo and play it, on the frequency 101.1 that Lick moved off of to go to 96.5 then 106.3), he doesn't do local spots and commercials now for, oh, say, the Better Bath Company, Corey and Jay are not on a local station doing a morning show now as they have been for several years, in fact they don't even exist either... I made it all up just to fool you, because you are *that important.* Lastly, the "insults" were statements of fact, too, from my perspective. You kissed my ass in an attempt to keep the peace and to sugarcoat a nervous "I'm sorry, but..." Don't think I don't see it all the time from the public. Seriously, dispatching is a stepping stone for most employees in that position, so I mean it when I say good luck in moving up to an important job one day. Take care, and keep ignoring the truths that are presented to you in your lifetime. A completely closed mind once you find something you are comfortable with leads to a very simplistic life, so that's a good thing for you. Keep your life very simple, and set your expectations really low. It hard to be disappointed that way. And believe that big rock bands come from magical, faraway mystical places with no names, and huge celebrations anre held to mark the inception of a band, and newspaper stories are written every time, because THERE'S JUST NO POSSIBLE WAY A BAND COULD'VE EVER GOTTEN ITS START THANKS TO A DEMO CASSETTE PLAYED ON A LITTLE ROCK RADIO STATION WHOSE LOCAL-BAND-SHOW PRODUCER AND AIR TALENT DEVOTED VALUABLE AIRTIME AND EFFORT INTO GETTING THAT BAND OUT OF THE LOCAL SCENE AND INTO THE WORLD............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.84 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to think that my request for confirmation is something unique for the Evanescence articles. Thing is, verification is what this site is built on. Look at it from my perspective: why should I just take your word for it when there's given to back up your claim? I enjoy working with space-related articles too...if someone randomly shows up and says they have inside information from NASA or some other, why should I or any other editor just take their word? It isn't about self-importance, it's about maintaining integrity. Let me put it another way, something we can both relate to: you don't just take the word of a driver you pull over that they are valid to drive and have insurance, you ask to see license, registration and proof of insurance. I know, apples and oranges, but it's the same concept. I fully appreciate that you are frustrated at what you see to be an injustice. But just as a driver with no license shouldn't expect to claim "But I'm a good person!" and be let off the hook, why should everyone here simply embrace the word of a random person that shows up making such claims? Of course there's no reason to believe you aren't who you say you are, but verifiability is a policy on Wikipedia. If you still don't get that, then I'm sorry, but I don't know any other way to put it. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and the self-appointed keepers of Evanescence knowledge are over at http://www.evanescencereference.info/. They don't care if you have sources or not. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Informations about Origin and BigWig Enterprises (First Paragraph)
The first paragraph is a summary of the whole page (most important informations) and should not contain detailed information about the band's private records. Across the page, this information will be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.42.177.173 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. And I fixed your misspelling. ;D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] 05:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The Genre of Evanescence!
They are an Alternative Rock band according to their Official MySpace. That's it. If some other pro on music genre says they are "BLAH BLAH" who cares! They call themselves alternative rock. They are considered by many a ROCK band. Not a "see below". --Homezfoo (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but ultimately it doesn't matter what they call themselves. What is reported by others is the only thing that ultimately matters, because that is the wider perception of them. This is the whole reason why I don't want to use Twitter as a source, because it represents a primary source, when we should be relying on third-party sources for our references. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- That the band (or at least the lead singer) identifies with one genre, while (at least some) reviewers identify the band with other genres, is an example of why the genre of this band needs more explanation than reasonably fits in an infobox. Before you suggest "list 'em all with sources", we've tried that. I'm not aware of any policy requiring an infobox in every article; likewise, this particular field of this infobox is not required to be filled. Gimmetrow 04:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- @Huntster Yes I have and OF COURSE it does. If its reported by Amy Lee herself, who is much more reliable than ANY sources, then it must be true. We can't always wait for a third party to post about it because if we did then all of the information on the Third Studio Album section would be gone. @Gimmetrow I know that and that is silly. Reviewers are like critics. Who cares what they say. Its just their opinion. Evanescence call themselves Alternative Rock. They always have been. --Homezfoo (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we can wait for a third party. I'm sorry you don't seem to be understanding how Wikipedia is intended to work. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Reviewers are like critics. Who cares what they say." You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates, in terms of reliable sources and verifiability. You may not care what critics say. Wikipedia, undoubtedly, does care very much. —Dark 08:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, we can wait for a third party. I'm sorry you don't seem to be understanding how Wikipedia is intended to work. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Its the rules of Wikipedia @Huntster. I get it but that seems pretty silly. @DarkFalls I thought wikipedia only wanted facts. Not other people's opinions. I'm sure I'm not the only one that agrees that having a see below on the genre section is silly when Evanescence call themselves alternative rock. And as for the third party stuff, Amy Lee is a reliable source. I'm all for following the rules but the fact that you wanna wait for some third party to say this and that when you get first dibs from a much more reliable source is ridiculous. They are Alternative rock. Everyone calls them a rock band. Period. I don't know how ya'll can't see that. --Homezfoo (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- The reason why we need third party sources for Wikipedia is plain and simple. I could simply start an article that says "Scott M. Howard was the first person to ever hoola hoop on mars" and reference a twitter post I made that confirms it. Wikipedia needs IMPARTIAL third party sources (those who are not directly involved with the content) to maintain it's integrity. If no third party source has reported the information you are requesting to add (or in this case, everyone is reporting different things) then it should not be added. The consensus was made to keep it as "see below" because the genre is too complex to explain in an infobox. Any visitor wanting to know what genre Evanescence is affiliated with will look at their info box, see "Genre" and cilck the link which will give them a detailed explanation as to what genre they are. "Pretty silly" may be your opinion of some of the policies of wikipedia, but those are the policies. As someone before said, if you don't like the policies of Wikipedia, start a cause to have them changed, but don't just complain about them. You're here editing, so you should understand and follow the guidelines of Wikipedia editing. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 01:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Homezfoo, read the very first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...". — Huntster (t @ c) 02:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ScottMHoward So its kind of like lets say you called youself a Banana/Strawberry Lover on your MySpace. But Rolling Stone insists that you look more like a Watermelon/Strawberry Lover. But then the LA Times describe you as a Banana/Strawberry/Watermelon Lover. Nobody can come to a real conclusion so they instead put a "See Below" on your Wikipedia article. Will the "See Below" ever be removed? Because if a reader comes and reads the article, they won't find an answer. The detailed description instead gives what the answer could be. @Huntster Wikipedia wants proof. I know that. You're saying that just because they say their alternative rock doesn't matter. You want the LA Times to say so right? What if Evanescence tell LA Times they're Alternative rock? What then? --Homezfoo (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, if LA Times published in an article that they were Alternative Rock, we could use that, but that's no reason to change the current infobox configuration. There's been way too much drama over this matter in the past, and this is the best consensus we could manage. And I'm sorry, but your question to ScottHoward doesn't make sense to me...are you somehow expecting that the genre debate will one way just magically go away and we will be left with a crystal clear example to place in the infobox field? I can tell you now that that isn't going to happen. I also don't understand why you think a reader would somehow be confused by the hyperlinked text "See below"...what, are they going to think that "see below" is their genre? — Huntster (t @ c) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- So it will never ever change? The see below will be there forever? I think that is!...... depressing in a way. How come we can't ever change it? Because nobody can come to a real agreement? That is so SAD. And lol huh?? I never said that a reader would be confused by "see below". I said that the Musical Style section on the article gives a lot of examples of what the genre of Evanescence could be but it doesn't give a clear answer. It just basically says they could be "this" or "that". --Homezfoo (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I see what you were getting at. No, it doesn't give a clear answer, because no one can agree on a primary! That is the whole problem here. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- So will we ever be able to agree on a primary? Or is the see below gonna be there forever? --Homezfoo (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the situation changing. There's just too many varied opinions and sources for any one to take precedence. The current solution is the best one, and that's proven by the significantly decreased attempts of editors to change the field to suit their POV. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- So, no? Well that sucks. So no matter what Evanescence says about their genre, it doesn't matter. --Homezfoo (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are many different interpretations of Evanescence's music in terms of genre. I see wrong genres associated with wrong bands all over Wikipedia. For example, it's very funny that 30 Seconds to Mars article has Progressive Metal in genre field. I myself find that ridiculous, yet some geek who tries to "objectively" analyze music comes with "proofs" that they are a Progressive Metal band. It's still very funny to me, but I can't really give a good enough argument to that. That's why I think it's the best to just keep the See Bellow link even though it's far from a good solution. Maybe when the third album is out we will be able to determine the genre better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.86.180 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)