Jump to content

Talk:HIM (Finnish band)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Umm

So they're the only Finnish love metal band to hit gold in the US? Seems a little bit stupidly narrow. Might as well say that they're the only Finnish love metal band featuring Ville Valo and calling themselves HIM to hit gold in the US. Also, I absolutely love how under genres, Love Metal links to the album Love Metal, because the genre itself appears to only involve HIM so far. 69.220.0.55 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again with the debated! Alternative rock with see below made it clear!

Heavy metal genre

There is a link to the genre discussion section, which lists heavy metal. Its just kind of a pain to see these half-ass edits (because yeah, they typed heavy metal right next to alternative rock rather than moving to the next line.)

Picture

Band picture is a bit small, eh?

Edit "warring"

Since the un-locking of the topic people have started to go and change the genre again, could we maybe just lock that one section (the part that lists genre) of the article? Or maybe lock it so people who aren't registered can't make edits, cuse to be honest with you 3/4ths of the edits to the genre to the incorrect thing are by I.P.'s if they are real wikipedia users than they should be signing in.......so if they continue with this shit we can block their accounts quicker than a cork in a bottle. --NekoD 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil according to the wikipedia policy. Civil means refraining from using unnecessary, offensive words as well as being indiscriminate of who edits. Wikipedia's goal is to make something that can be edited by anyone, including people who do not have the commitment to make an account. I, for one, rarely edit and do not have an account. There is no such thing as "real wikipedia" user. Also, I find your analogy a little hard to understand. Corks are stubborn to remove, so I think it would be more appropriate to compare it to the strength of a corked bottle than how quick it is to cork a bottle (have you ever tried putting a cork back in a bottle effectively?) Also, someone changed it back to debate. I thought the alternative rock/heavy rock combo that I changed it to was fine, though.

Love metal

If I see the reinsertion of the 'genre' Love metal again, I am going to start handing out warnings for vandalism and for making blatant false changes. Love metal isn't a genre, it's a term made-up by Valo, and it isn't a genre of music like heavy metal music, gothic rock, gothic metal or alternative rock. No, there isn't room for a compromise for adding it, because you can't prove a negative. — Moe 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

why dont we just lock the page?Razor romance 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited to Gothic Rock as it should be. As much as idiotic fanboys/fangirls would love their precious "love metal" to exist as an excuse to call HIM a metal band, they simply are not metal and shouldn't be labeled as such because Bam Margera and the media mix them in with the metal scene. I've also removed that line from the genre section that said "which further solidifies the band's heavy metal leanings" when it was talking about how they started out as a Black Sabbath tribute. This is completely irrelevant and certainly does not "solidify the band's heavy metal leanings." Tori Amos covered Slayer's "Raining Blood", does that mean that she has thrash leanings? Of course not. I'm sure if Green Day wanted to, they could release an album full of Absurd covers, that doesn't mean that their own original music is national socialist black metal influenced. Nihilistic Sadogoat 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not even supposed to be goth rock, it's supposed to link to the genre section, as 'debated', not anything else.. especially not love metal. 216.78.95.220 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
But there is no debate. One is a genre, the other (Love Metal) is not.Nihilistic Sadogoat 20:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My friend, you can call it whatever you want but it is not goth rock. Its kind of lame that the citations that support that are just mediocre "band profiles" from music compendium sites. I will add that I have seen a few bands, such as gogol bordello coin phrases that are later used as their respective genres. So, either it should be considered an accepted practice or we have inconsistent standards in regards to assigning genres on wikipedia.

while all are valid arugments i belive that it should stay as "debated" until either the music industry calls love metal a genre or it is agree upon to say it or not. i personally think that it can be called a love metal group (as they have a soft metal feel about them)Razor romance 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I also made the last comment about goth rock and the practice of using terms given by band as genres. It says they started as a black sabbath tribute band, along with other bands such as kiss. I think we can see where the band's "influences" lie, none of which is goth rock.
It's not staying at Love Metal, period. It's debated, obviously since there are sources, verifiable and valid, that state that the band is goth rock, goth metal, alternative metal and heavy metal. Love metal isn't a genre, and unless it becomes a genre that other bands use, it's not a genre, its just a term to describe the music. And your argument about the influences are moot. Influences are not the genre. I read an interview today that Marilyn Manson cites of his influences in music was David Bowie, and Manson plays nothing similar to David Bowie. 209.214.141.22 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW!!! WPHIM!!!

I started wpHIM yesterday and if any one wants to help this project will help all of the page about HIM inculding members, albums and anything else. JOIN TODAY!!!!WikiProject HIM Razor romance 14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)thanks14:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Debated

Debated is NOT an encyclopedic genre, Alternative Rock is, and people are going to read the entire article anyway, so you don't need to link to a further part of it right at the beginning. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative rock isn't the only genre though, it makes since to link to the 'genre' section of the article, and list it as debated, then assert that alternative rock is the only genre. I think you need to read up on what the word 'encyclopedic' means too. — The Future 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand, Debated is NOT a genre. You CANNOT put Debated as a genre, you can put it in the opening paragraph but not in the genre section. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I do understand. It may not be a genre per se, but when there is an entire paragraph describing what the genre has been called, it is perfectly fine to link to the section rather than list a genre that you think it is. What about heavy metal, gothic metal and gothic rock, why wouldn't they be listed too? — The Future 13:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair descision. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Implemented the third option that was decided. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Bull crap that was decided. Theres no reason to add the genres twice. — The Future 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You just said why wouldn't they be listed to, so I added them to the list. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I never meant that "Hey, maybe we should add them". I meant that You only added one, when there was four and I asked you why you just added the one. I don't give a crap when all four are listed up there with sources, but youre random assertion that they were alternative rock without justification was wrong. — The Future 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
AltRock encompases most of those other sub-sub-genres. If you want people to understand what you are asking/implying when commenting try to be less subversive and you won't have any problems in the future(haha). ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 09:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed Gothic rock and Gothic metal... HIM were never a Goth rock or Goth metal group... they produce a modern metal/alternative rock music blend, which is called "Dark Rock" in a few countries. This term was created by Nick Holmes (singer of Paradise Lost) to describe the album "Host" from 1999. Today "Dark Rock" describes the music of Zeraphine and other bands. They produce the same music like HIM and the last works of Paradise Lost, a blend of modern alternative rock and metal sounds with influences of electronic music.

If you remove sources again, I will see you are blocked. There are verifiable sources stating they are. Wikipedia doesn't care about your POV. — The Future 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you know stylistic elements of a music style? HIM is definitely no GOTH music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.5.247 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Do you honestly know stylistic elements of a music genre? You obviously don't considering you just made up the term Dark rock in the above paragraph. And since there are verifiable sources saying they are goth rock and goth metal, then we represent a neutral point of view saying that they are. — The Future 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable isn't the same like reliable. Btw: The english Wikipedia is almost the only Wikipedia which categorized HIM as a Gothic rock or Gothic metal band. --Diluvien 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You calling All Music Guide and Rockdetector unreliable? It doesn't matter what other Wikipedia's call them. We have reliable, verifiable sources stating otherwise. — The Future 19:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That's your POV, guy --Diluvien 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about? Those references that are used all over Wikipedia, not just this article. — The Future 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're adding not reliable sources. Reliable sources are books and scientific treatises of Gothic rock as a music style with genre-typical elements. It's your POV if you think that web magazines are reliable sources. --Diluvien 21:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
There are no fucking books and scientific treatises of Gothic Rock. If we waited around for books and treatises to be the most accurate source, every article would have a [citation needed] tag. They are reliable, per WP:RS, not per my POV. — The Future 21:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. There are different books of Gothic rock, published by Mick Mercer and Dave Thompson. --Diluvien 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it would be an editors POV to define an band's genre by reading one of those books. Now if there was a book on the musical styling of HIM, then it would suffice since it's specifically about HIM. That's why it's debated as to what genre they really are, because we have sources, reliable and verifiable that state heavy metal, alternative rock, gothic metal and gothic rock are the genre's. It's your POV to read the book on Gothic metal/rock and state HIM is not based on what you read. — The Future 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Genre elements are not POV, genre elements are scientific. It's the same like Jazz music or Heavy Metal. All of those styles are defined by stylistic elements. Gothic rock is a genre with strong punk and psychedelic rock influences. It's not Hard rock or Sleaze rock or HIM's "Love metal"... --Diluvien 21:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, love metal isn't a genre. Second, HIM isn't Hard Rock or sleaze rock. You're dead off. Unless you're a music expert, and I trust you're not and you're some teenager, I suggest you get sources that state what they are. And the fact is, there is nothing stating that Rockdetector and All Music Guide are unreliable and you are incorrect in labeling them as such. — The Future 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Read on rockdetector the explanation on the creator, he is a self proclaimed metal head and says he is interested in "all things metal". Hehe, well guess what you cannot define all of music by the standpoint of metal and many of his categorizations are sloppy at best. Why should we do it just because "everyone else" is using rock detector as a source. Why should we use THIS GUY's POV!!! He seems to have no real credentials other than listening to a lot of music like the rest of us do. See here,"No, not some corporate giant (surprising how many people think it is!), just your average Heavy Metal fan, Garry Sharpe-Young." Also read this,"My thirst for knowledge of all things Metal" These are quotes from the FAQ. So, does my thirst for all things goth rock mean that I can create a website and be considered a verifiable source? If so, give me a few days and i will try! Look at the front page, all the top 20 artists are lame "metal bands". This site is clearly leaning towards the metal crowd, which has NOTHING TO DO with the gothic subculture. I am just trying to fathom how this person became a credible source throughout wikipedia. Now lets move on to all music guide. Go to this page, "http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=32:amg/info_pages/a_about.html" it is their about us. Okay, i see no individual names or credentials. Again all I see is that they are "music fanatics" and listen to a lot. But no actual backing to what they put on their site. For CHRIST's SAKES, these people put them in goth rock AND goth metal! The only credibility they seem to have is the fact that they exist! Is the ability to have a site all that one requires to be a source??? What we need are people who are specialized in a specific genre. Like academic fields, this system has worked for academic institutions for years. That is why we do not have basic M.D's leading the research on like drugs, no we have doctors specialized in pharmacology. These sites seek to attempt to categorize everything under the sun in genres. No ONE PERSON or group of people can do this, and to do so only makes room for POV and errors. Get metal specialists, get goth rock specialists. These stupid indexes are the most ridiculous sources used for genres lately. Honestly, if I could go and remove them from every music related article I would but that is just too much work. The Future seems to be the main person supporting their use in this article, but after reading his less than adult farewell on his page (more like puerile) I do not think we will have further problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.222.160 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

What a problem to put simply "Rock" as the genre? They're neither metal nor alternative nor gothic, this is oblivious, but they still play rock. Garret Beaumain 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! --Diluvien 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Good, get a source and add it. But we still have to maintain an equal POV and add the other sources, because they aren't invalid because there is another genre. — The Future 21:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Alternative Rock - This describes what they are exactly. Just because there are other sources to show that they are other genres, this is the most encompasing and should be stated with the rest in the debated part of the article. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, rock music or alternative rock... this is the question. Maybe we should start a new edit war. :-) --Diluvien 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for 1 week due to the ongoing edit war. The recent reverts to this page are absolutely unacceptable. At least two of the editors deserve WP:3RR blocks, but I have opted to let the affected parties discuss this issue. Please stay civil and don't make it personal. Sean William 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose it be left as Alternative Rock, and a <!-- Do not change this genre. Refer to genre discussion section for further genre list --> for people planning to edit the page.
There are sufficient refrences for all the genres listed, and most of them fall under 'Alternative Rock'. However, 'rock music' is much too wide a genre, and just plain doesn't look good on the page anyway, if anything 'Rock' on its own.
Anyone disagree with 'Alternative Rock'? ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Though as much as I would like me or someone else to spend the time to prove that we could call it Love Metal, since we cannot then I would agree with Alternate Rock. BEFORE anyone can disagree with me agreeing for this let me state the reasons why 'I' believe it should be Alternate Rock/Alternative Rock. A) AltRock is a genre used to describe a bands playing style that uses traditional rock guitar/drum/bass elements with something that distinguishes it from the norm of "rock" music. Those things in HIM's music are (and subsequently my second and third points): B) Ville's unique and 'quite easily identifiable' writing style and C) the use of a synth player in the band. Now synth players/alt electronic instruments have been used in other rock bands but those are more like the Psychedelic rock of Pink Floyd which HIM is 'definitely' no where near being similar too. Only other kind of music that uses synths are Rap (HIM ǂ Rap) Pop (HIM ǂ Pop) Electronica (do i need to say it?) Power Metal (even i don't think they are metal and I am a huge fan). So there these are the reasons why, all you little babies who have been arguing back and forth, excuse my impoliteness but please shut the fuck up, all you are doing is locking my favorite god damn article that I would like to make real contributions to and squabbling about a FUCKING GENRE. --NekoD 03:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not only a quarrel about a "fucking genre". Kiddies of today think that HIM is a goth group. Consequently, they call himself "goths". This is the absolute dilution of a music genre and a subculture, because HIM kids are not really goths. They're HIM kids, nothing more. --Diluvien 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Goth subculture is about art, and I find it highly offensive that these people degrade and pretty much shit on it with their conceited motivations and consumerism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.44.137 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Keep the discussion about the genre of music, not about the listeners of such music as you're being incredibly offensive. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, please keep it civil. Sean William 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree with the protection as it prevents the discussion on this page from continuing like it has above with the uncivil comments. But it appears to be consensus with the relevant editors that the genre should be Alternative Rock, could you change this as the page is protected? ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As long as all parties stop edit warring, I'll unprotect the page now. Be wary that any further edit warring will result in blocks. Sean William 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the consensus is that Alternative Rock is a good third option in this case. ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit cautious to call this "consensus" so soon, but let's see how it turns out. Sean William 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll leave it as Alternative Rock purely because 'Debated' is not a genre and has been factored out of other articles (see Cradle of Filth) that originally had 'Debated' as the genre. Also; 'rock music' is quite too broad a genre and also wasn't capitalised properly, (I'm pedantic). ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I see all this debate about what the genre should be, and not what reliable sources say the genre is. Remeber WP:V and WP:RS. Copysan 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If I believe correctly MTV says they are AltRock....hows that sound quoty mc quotester. --NekoD 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE it. And I don't appreciate being called names. There is also nothing wrong with putting multiple genres into the infobox. Copysan 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

changes

All Music Guide,MTV,VH1,WIKIPEDIA,MUCH MUSIC...is EXCREMENT OF United Stades!,EUROPE rules!,and "HIM" is LOVE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ozzy said,and everybody know.



People I have not seen are suddenly messing around with this again. We spent time to discuss it and suddenly they come and change it and leave me bogus "vandalizing" messages when they are in fact the ones vandalizing. Rockdetecter is an unreliable source, I already made that clear above.

Why is Rockdetector unreliable? And why is All Music Guide and Metal observer unreliable, that has not been addressed above, all that has been addressed above is a bunch of nonsense about how unreliable it is with no proof of it being unreliable. Rockdetector, All Music Guide and Metalobserver are all reliable unless you have some proof of this other than your biased opinion. 209.214.141.2 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why you deleted the talk page, it had everyone's input on the page. Look at the HIM related pages, look at the goth rock page you are linking HIM too. He says he smokes many cigarettes a day to make his voice "gruff". Goth rock does not have gruff voices, that is metal and other genres. Look at his associated projects: one of them is crade of filth, a metal band. Goth rock is descended from post punk and new wave, I do not know why it is so hard for you to understand this. Those sites are unreliable and poor choices. I provided links to them and evidence.
I archived the talk at Archive 2. What fucking evidence have you presented that it is unreliable? Using Wikipedia as a reference to how unreliable it is doesn't cut it. 209.214.141.2 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not use Wikipedia as a reference, I used the sites themselves. They have presented nothing to make them a reliable source. I can go out and find some obscure site that supports anything I wish, but I do not because most of them are from people who merely made a site. Have you actually listened to any goth rock? I do not know if rockdetector's creator even has, he is a self-proclaimed metal enthusiast. Apart from that, nothing was presented to warrant his opinion or material as superior to anyone off of the street. The same goes for allmusicguide. I think you are letting your emotions cloud your reasoning, as evident in your unnecessary swearing and incorrect spelling. I also did not think it was necessary to archive it, for it was still valid to current issues.
Shut up with the psychoanalysis. What makes MetaCritic, which is the only source we are using (which coincidently you are removing too), more reliable than Rockdetector, All Music Guide, Notable Names Data Base, Metal observer, etc? Your grasping at straws to make your point of view more believable. Whether or not the terms are used correctly or not in your POV, they are reliable sources for information, which are in turn used as a reference on this site elsewhere. It can't be reliable some of the time and unrelaible the areas where you see fit. 209.214.141.2 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shut up"? Not exactly oxford material, are we. Regardless, how far are we going to take this POV argument. It is your POV to "believe" that rockdetector and these other various compendiums are accurate and reliable. You are right, they can not be reliable some of the time and unreliable the other time. It is unreliable all of the time, if you took the time to understand my point. Before you defend an issue, try to have some personal experience to give you a more in depth understanding of why things are what they are. I have personal experience with goth rock because it is what I listen to, but I am trying to show you the best way I can that the genre listing is incorrect from a goth rock perspective with logical analysis, conclusions, and finally sources. For the other genres, I honestly can not be sure because frankly I do not listen to them and would never have any motivation to add those even with sources, but would hope that people who do have personal experience with those genres would give reasons and sources as to why HIM is or is not classified in that genre. There is a large consensus in the goth rock community that HIM is not goth rock, and I find it contradicting and very unprofessional that HIM should link to a genre page that does not even accept HIM as its own. This is taken from the Goth Rock page,"The formerly underground subcultural aesthetic of goth was incorporated into the sound and image of several popular mainstream bands, such as HIM and Marilyn Manson although these bands did not produce goth rock." Are you going to go to that page and change that too, to make it consistent? Again, the entire goth rock scene is contradicting to HIM. To be frank, look at it from a cultural perspective. It is Bam Margera's favorite band, it associates with completely different acts from goth rock, its aesthetics and style is completely different than any other known goth rock band out there. From a musical perspective, it is just as different. Anyone from the goth rock subculture page will tell you this. Goth rock is not gruff voices, it is not "heavy", nor does it have any of the sound that HIM has. I asked you earlier if you ever listened to any goth rock bands, or knew any of its roots and influences. All I received was a "fuck" a "shutup" and "these are my sources". Rude, unprofessional, and hardly insightful. What I am doing is not trying to use any of this personal material and discussion as evidence of any content in the article, but the underlying motivation and understanding that would be very helpful in editing an article and posting it in an encyclopedia. All you have done is given me distant, nonchalant music compendiums run by guys who have no credentials and attempt to cover all genres from grunge metal to goth rock. I do not see how one person or one group can have this much insight, and it shows by the lack of any explanation on these sites regarding the material and the people behind them. What is your motivation for keeping these, that is what I wish to understand. What are you "representing" in keeping these genres. I would hope that everyone interested in editing this article would bring a little insight and understanding so that together it can form a coherent representation of popular consensus backed by verifiable, reliable sources. We are not machines here to type this encyclopedia, we are all here because we have a personal interest in the subject matter which is why I consider these things important. Just as in any debate form, you bring your own experiences in with hard evidence to support. Perhaps you should go to the goth rock and subculture page, and maybe ask why HIM is not listed as a band there. Those people who work on those articles also have a personal interest and insight that is inseparable when they create those articles. I ask the same of all the other genres that wish to be listed for any band. Honestly, I do not know a lot about heavy metal except that it is "hard" and does not sound like goth rock, so I would hope that people who do listen to that brand of music would provide their reasons and knowledge. But when I see heavy metal and goth rock on that genre listing, it just does not make sense they are too different and one style cannot be present without overtaking another. Metal and goth are just completely separate, distinctive areas. Whole hemispheres apart. Do you "understand" what you are trying to defend? Again, have you heard any goth rock? You said that rockdetector and such are used all over Wikipedia? You are paying attention solely to the HIM article however, if you want to bring in the matter of a consistent encyclopedia I also suggest you visit the list of gothic rock bands article. You will find a even more people who will disagree with HIM as a rock band. So you may want to go there as well, because if HIM is a goth rock band then we need to update this encyclopedia as a whole that recognizes this. I think you will find you need more than a site that says "this is this" and ends it. How does HIM fit into the genre and its history? Actual goth rock is not very popular. Do you know why? Because it simply does not have that "poppy, catchy" sound that most people will look for in music. Sisters of Mercy, for instance, is just not a "catchy" band, and most people who listen to HIM and other metal will probably not have heard any goth bands and if they have probably abhor them. You will find no mention of HIM on any of these goth pages, because the majority of people who listen to goth rock do not consider HIM a part of the goth subculture or goth rock scene. So what is your point, that HIM is goth rock because some site says so and that HIM is listened to by people who know nothing of any other goth rock music but are instead part of the metal scene? Who are these people listing HIM as goth rock? Do they listen to any other goth rock bands? Will someone just PLEASE tell me who these people are that are categorizing HIM as goth rock, because it sounds like people affiliated with a different genre are coming over into another to and saying "this is goth rock". I come to this article from the gothic rock parts of wikipedia and not the other way around, because this article links to them and I am just trying to find how HIM fits in a consistent manner with the rest of the gothic articles on wikipedia. You voice that wikipedia uses these sites as sources, so I voice that if HIM is going to be a part of that genre then how is it going to match up with these other articles that say "No, HIM is not gothic rock".

Finally, you decide to talk instead of the reverting doing it for you. I see you cleverly dodged the question as to what makes Rockdetector reliable or not and responded with "I want to know who they are". If you want to know that, I suggest you e-mail them. It's not my POV that they are reliable, its the fact that the community uses this website as a reliable source, and reliable sources are removed, it's considered vandalism. You claim it is unreliable because I never took the time to see your point, but you still haven't given the reason as to why rockdetector is unreliable. You say it's unreliable all the time, can you prove that it is unreliable all the time other than you're "experience"? If you could add sources (outside Wikipedia talk pages) to the genre section of the article that says "the gothic community doesn't consider HIM gothic rock/metal", that would be an even greater help. BTW, did you even read the genre section? It states
Critics commonly refer to them as alternative rock, gothic metal or gothic rock. However, their musical style varies between albums, and even between songs. Some of the more common genres applied (correctly or not) to their music include:
Emphasis added on "correctly or not". That is the reason there is a genre dispute section in the first place. No one can really identify what genre of music they really are to begin with, but with sources, sources that have been here for months before you showed up, we (the editors of the HIM article) have made an terrific and neutral genre section before this debacle with you removing everything. Am I going to change the goth rock page so that it fits this? No I don't have to. Within months, editors will change to reword it to fit it to update the page, and if not, {{fact}} tags will be added. I honestly got to ask this question to, do you even listen to HIM? His voice isn't hardly gruff, despite his mountain of cigarettes he smokes, nor does the style of music very rarely reflect that. What is my motivation for keeping gothic rock, gothic metal and heavy metal as genres for this band, it's to represent a neutral point of view, which even the article reads, again, "Critics commonly refer to them as alternative rock, gothic metal or gothic rock." And they do, the fact that we add the genre in the infobox doesn't mean it's the best choice in the description of the genre, but it's what we have sources for, and the fact we have 3 sources that state gothic rock and only 1 for the other genres, is just baffeling that you would remove the one with the most sources to back it up with. When I say rockdetector is used all over Wikipedia, I mean that there are other articles that have the link to rockdetector as a source, not that I'm specifically on the HIM article. You say you came over to this article from the "gothic part of Wikipedia", well I came over here, not from the alternative rock section, but because I like HIM. And from all the time I have spent researching and listening to HIM, I have never heard a clear genre of music come out of thier mouth. The most I heard was "love metal", which isn't a genre of music, it's a term made up by the band. With no genre of music "set in stone", so to speak, we have to go by ear on what the music sounds like. That is where the confusion comes in with people who think they know what gothic rock, alternative rock and heavy metal all sound like differently by just hearing the music once. Early HIM music had more heavy metal leanings to it, and mid-way through their career is when it became more and more difficult to really distingish what they were. I believe they did have some elements of gothic rock mixed in mostly alternative rock and some 'black sabbath-like' heavy metal, and the lyrics are based around love and death, which is why HIM has a tendency to fall under the "goth" scene when they really don't have a whole lot to do with. I agree, they barely have any elements of gothic rock in their music, but thats what they are commonly refered to as, and thats why I originally linked the genre as 'Debated' in the infobox, so people would read the genre section and understand that. No, HIM is not a gothic rock band in itself, it just incorporates some elements of gothic rock in their sound along with other genres of music, not goth rock alone. But when we have a paragraph of information that says "Critics commonly refer to them as..." we need sources, and thats when those sources some into play, and yes they are reliable sources. The fact is that you removed 3 other genres of music and 6 total sources trying to make a point, it's unacceptable behavior and quite frankly frustrating to have to go behind and readd sources we have been using for ages just because one "scene" comes here and decides to make a point about it. 209.214.141.2 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I tried to look for sites or professionals that talk about HIM and gothic rock but it was very difficult because no one who reviews or critiques gothic rock would care to review them and discuss their style in relation to gothic rock because they are not considered gothic rock. If your point is to say they barely have any gothic elements, than you could include that in the article right? By putting it in the genre listing you are saying they are a part of that genre. And lo and behold, that link goes right to a page that specifically tries to counteract the misconception of HIM by coming out and saying,"HIM is not gothic rock." It is unprofessional, and has to be remedied on either this side or the other don't you agree? I mentioned at no point that my "experience" was being used to judge rockdetector or the other sites. I was just using my common sense; read the about us on those sites they are completely biased and/or blank. Who says they are this genre? Why do they say it? Those sites are a complete dead-end, and they probably are guilty of original research. I suggest you go to the articles on wikipedia policies on original research and verifiability. These sites seem to be self-published. Please see these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources
A lot of these sources are guilty of at least one of these errors whether it be self-published, doubt as to who wrote it, or making a website and calling yourself an expert. Rockdetector, while having an editorial staff, blatantly admits all their accomplishments in the METAL field, leaving much uncovered ground in other genres. Metacritic is a site for posting reviews and averages, not citing genres. I did look at the highest review and it referred to it as goth but it was written by, yes you guessed it, a man who was a metal enthusiast with no credentials to comment on goth rock. Moving on to the next full review, he used the word goth but claimed they were goth like Dimmu Borgir a black metal death band! Such blatant confusion and mixups is hardly reliable. All music's profile on HIM was written by Mario Mesquita Borges. But who is he? What are his credentials? Their gothic rock profile is completely left unsigned, another question to verifiability. So I combed through the sources, and believe me if you think I am being too specific or scrutinizing I have suffered far worse with even being opposed on articles despite linking to government sites. What it all comes down to is the person who wrote it, and none of these are worthy because they are either left blank or have people unqualified to comment out of their respective fields. You are leaving the post-punk/goth rock side no support, instead by substituting it with more metal figures. Now if you can get someone like Mick Mercer to comment on their connection or relation with goth rock, than by all means. However, I find your sources to be unfairly representing of the other side of the coin.
I also wish to add that if what you say is correct, that they merely have "gothic influences" and barely are associated with the genre of goth rock itself then would not a link to the gothic metal page suffice? That is what that page is for, it is for those gothic bands that have no real connection with the new wave/post-punk movement. I think gothic metal should be enough. I am saying this because I read over once more the discussions on the List of Gothic rock bands page and gothic rock page and that was pretty much their point as to why metal bands such as HIM should be left out of the gothic rock section.
You are both WELL past WP:3RR, not taking sides, but if you look above on the talk page, such an argument has gone on in the past, and it was decided upon to keep it as one main genre, since all the others fall under that one. This page has been protected because of such editwars in the past. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the settlement at the time seemed to be to keep it at alternative rock, which I tried to reestablish but to my chagrin. So I tried to come in here and explain, at length, both personally and professionally, why I felt that the previous genre of just alternative rock was enough. I also wish neutrality, but I just felt that due to the continued debate over the genres that leaving it as a main genre rather than all these "fringe influence genres" was as neutral at the present time as we can get. My goal is the continuity of the content of this encyclopedia. I do not mean to "make it personal" but again I think we all have a personal interest or we would not be here. This is not our "jobs". I am trying to make my point with as much fair objectivity as possible and I thought that mentioning all these articles in the "debated" section was fair enough in regards to listing all of the influences these sites believe HIM to have.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.223.99 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OK Maurauth, now you're saying MetaCritic is unreliable. WTF? Now we have no sources, when we had seven. Some of these damn sites have to be correct or valued or we have nothing but biased opinions from editors here saying they are alternative rock, or whatever you want to call it.. 209.214.141.2 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a whole section devoted to deciding upon their genre. But there was an edit war over what should go into that genre box at the top, as "Debated" is not a valid genre, and it's silly to have about 6 different genres in there that everyone objects too, plus the fact most of them fall under Alternative Rock. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all 4 genres, not 6, fall under under alternative rock. How does Heavy Metal fall under alternative rock? Maybe gothic rock and gothic metal, but definantly not heavy metal. Its already been debated long before you even came to this article and started to screw with it that those four genres were cited and verifiable according to Wikipedia policy. 209.214.141.2 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I just showed you why they were not verifiable, and I will not blindly use any site regardless of how pretty and professional it looks. Maybe from a metal perspective they can be trusted, but you have absolutely nothing to support the other genre. The debated article is all that you need, it shows that many people across the internet have their own opinions on their genre and ultimately leaves the reader to judge for themselves which of these they think is correct.
I'm not saying that you should remove them from the body of the article, but the infobox is meant to be a concise description of the band shown simply. In this case, nobody disagrees that they are Alternative Rock, and that most of those genre's fall under that, other than heavy metal, which to be honest, they are not. Also try to be WP:CIVIL in the future. In actuality, before I came to this page there was "Debated" as the genre, which is not encyclopedic at all. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I also feel the same way that the infobox is for concise descriptions; by putting it there you are saying that is what they are accepted as and that they are a "part" of that genre. Yet even you admit in your text that they rarely have any actual connections to the goth rock genre, but instead have gothic "influences" because the sing about, as you said, "life and death". Now, while I think it takes a lot more than "life and death" to be considered in any gothic genre, you pretty much admitted that they have none of the main characteristics of the specific gothic rock genre. And this has been discussed time and time again on the gothic rock page that it is specifically for a certain brand of gothic music, not just bands with "gothic leanings". It is a recognized style with recognized roots. If HIM were to suddenly make clear their favorite bands, none of them would probably be gothic rock bands because all I see through their article is their past as covering metal bands, and their association with metal acts. That is why they have the gothic metal page, just for these sort of bands.

3RR blocks

As I had promised to do in the past, I have handed out two 24 hour 3RR blocks to the edit-warring IPs. If the edit warring does not stop, I will protect the page again. Please keep it civil and don't make it personal. Sean William 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIM_(Finnish_band)/Archive_3&oldid=1146703047"