Talk:Heavy metal music before 1970

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First post[edit]

im really sure that all these bands are metal yeah. certainly. and black sabbath was a newly created bands in both 66 and 69, yeah, surely· Lygophile has spoken 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Man, that's for sure! Actually I'm happy with the state of this page, all things considered re how Wikipedia works. People who know the difference between 1960 & 2060 and know pop music is not the same as heavy metal should know how much value to put on this page's info. There are several interesting details on the page. You simply have to ignore the rest. IanHistor 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this wiki article is awesome[edit]

thanks wikipedia. Great job 12:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.61.253 (talk)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGES MOVED to "19XX in heavy metal music", per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Can be confused with metal as element. Visor 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi again[edit]

Well chaps, here we are: the article talk page. Used for... talking about the article. Or not, as the case may be :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

right, here's my very clear challenge: show me some sources for the material i'm removing. cos i'm getting sick of these cliquey, bully-boy tactics. page protection is not there so you can keep a page how you personally want it. it's there to stop vandalism, so stop abusing your status and locking the page every time something you don't like happens.

fact is, and i'll make this really clear:

my edits = by the rules (unsourced content can be removed)

everyone else's edits = against the rules (adding totally unsourced content)

no one's even bothering to make any attempt at explaining themselves except me. so, a clear challenge: provide sources for The Who, MC5, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, King Crimson, Grand Funk Railroad, Rolling Stones and Wishbone Ash being in significant part heavy metal. if no one can in a few days, i'll remove it again, and report it to admins. of all those pages, the only MENTIONS of metal are King Crimson (saying one bit of their works had some influence from early metal), Jimi Hendrix (who was an influence on most all rock music after he came along, not explicitly on heavy metal) and Wishbone Ash (saying they had elements of it in one or two albums). 87.224.19.114 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia it is understood that the terms 'heavy metal' and 'hard rock' are interchangeable for artists whose hard rock/heavy metal careers pre-date 1979. So all of the pov deletes you are attempting are just that... you personal opinion... which goes against the Wikipedia community. If it wasn't, your edits wouldn't be reverted by so many different people. If it is one editor vs one other editor... it's a content war. If its one editor vs many... as it is in this case... it is pov vs consensus. And the consensus is not to delete the entries that you choose to delete. So if you pursue your edit war you will just keep the page protected and your the multiple IPs that you use are detected easily based on your habits and all of your edits are reverted. Which means that, in the end, you are just wasting your time here. Follow consensus and ask permission to make the changes that you wish to make and perhaps your contributions won't be reverted en masse as they are now. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'll say it again for you: where are your sources stating that those artists/releases are sufficiently heavy metal? it's not good enough to say "this is what some of the users on wikipedia think", because guess what? that's original research. what you need instead is a selection of reliable sources stating those artists/releases are heavy metal (at least in large part so). "what is understood on wikipedia" simply translates as original research, because all it means is "the opinions of certain wikipedia editors".
i'd also like to note that none of this is based around my personal view whatsoever. i have no opinion on these artists/releases being heavy metal or not. what i have an opinion on is the lack of sources. 86.138.90.137 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki libs is correct here. There is a clear consensus for the content on this page to remain. This is not controversial text which would fall under WP:BLP rules. This is simply a common Wikipedia practice to combine early hard rock and heavy metal information in one location since the two topics are very much the same anyway. This timeline is no different than the other 'year in heavy metal' timelines which contain information that some editors (especially younger ones) would not consider to be heavy metal related. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'll say it yet again then: where are your sources? if there is no source, then it's pure ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It doesn't matter if a half dozen anonymous wikipedia editors agree with it, because anonymous opinions are meaningless.
take a look over some of wikipedia's core concepts. like how sources should be authoritative on the subject at hand. now, what that means is sometimes majority opinion is wrong. most folks, for example, would say that in the middle ages people though the world was flat. but this is rubbish, an urban legend, and informed historians will tell you so. so, this illustrates the principle that mass opinion is outweighed by informed opinion.
so far you're not showing me any informed opinion on this. all you're showing is that a handful of random people think this should be so. that doesn't mean anything. so my challenge still stands: show me some sources in the next couple of days, or i'll continue to defend the page against the insertion of totally unsourced info.
bear in mind i'm not necessarily even asking for sources that say "these bands are heavy metal". sources that say "in the 60s heavy metal and hard rock were synonymous" would do nicely. i would love to go into detail explaining how even this notion that hard rock and 60s heavy metal (proto-metal if you will) should be in the same place is incorrect, but that would only get off the core issue: the lack of sources. 81.154.150.165 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and because i know so many wikipedia editors have a habit of just repeating their statements even when someone has countered them, here's something that presents my point nicely: quotes taken directly from the core policies on verifiability and no original research:

"Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"

so, it's not the place for your own thoughts (i.e. that hard rock and early metal are the same), the material you're adding cannot be checked by readers and does not come from a reliable source, and as the one restoring material, the burden of evidence for this material which has been challenged lies with you. i really don't know how i can make that any clearer. 81.154.150.165 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal and hard rock are the same thing. It even says so in their Wikipedia articles. And it is cited. 82.109.230.130 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid not. I see plenty in the hard rock article talking about there being many connections and crossovers, and I see ONE book on music in GENERAL that claims the terms were synonymous, but not much beyond that. The very fact that there are separate terms indicates differences between the two.
Plus, as I've said repeatedly, all you need to do here is show a good number of solid references indicating that one of the following is true:
  • Those releases/artists were significantly heavy metal.
  • Those releases/artists were significantly influential on heavy metal specifically.
  • The terms can be used inter-changably in this period.
Like I've said, no personal feelings involved. But all I'm seeing here is some editors insisting on restoring unsourced material, seemingly just because they think it should be that way, and that's not good enough. Show the sources, and there's no prob.
Also looking at the heavy metal page, you'll note that Ian Christe specifically describes hard rock and heavy metal as separate entities. He does talk about it only really becoming it's own thing in the 70s, but this would bring into question the very idea of having a page for "1960s in metal", if the genre really didn't exist. As such, it would seem much more sensible to include only things which (according to sources) were significantly influential on the growth of heavy metal. Otherwise, why not just call the article "1960s in hard rock"? 86.129.208.46 (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourselves this: if hard rock and heavy metal in the 1960s are one and the same, then why is this article even called "1960s in heavy metal"? What is the point of such an article. The obvious answer is "because this isn't just hard rock, this is the albums/bands that influenced heavy metal/would become heavy metal". And this is exactly why it's not good enough to simply say "they're the same thing". Because if they really are, then this page shouldn't even exist! And if there is a distinction between hard rock that was influential on metal and hard rock that wasn't, then we need to make that distinction. 86.146.156.203 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that the 2 rock subgenres are equal up to the late 1970s. The blanking vandalism is reverted back to the agreed upon version. 217.40.128.181 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is only meaningful if it is based on an actual argument. As I have explained several times, "because a couple of people on wikipedia think so" isn't good reasoning, so the "consensus" is meaningless. Respond to my points, otherwise no dice. 86.146.156.203 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valid text has been restored. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've still not explained why it is "valid", beyond that a handful of anonymous people on the internet think it is. 86.141.186.242 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to re-iterate for the stubborn-minded among you:

"Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"

Now, what part of this don't you understand? 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. Cough up sources.[edit]

So, I'll repeat it yet AGAIN for the stubborn-minded:

  • "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."
  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
  • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"

What this means is: it doesn't matter if you have "consensus" (which in this case is barely a handful of editors anyway), because what the CORE RULES say is that what I'm doing is the right thing. And I'd say the core guidelines of wikipedia overrule what a few anonymous internet users say.

Oh, I'll also repeat this part: saying "hard rock and heavy metal are the same thing" isn't, on it's own, good enough. For one thing, you need to show a good number of authoritative sources on that first. Secondly, even if that is shown, it raises the question of having a "1960s in heavy metal" page, something I'm happy to discuss in a civil manner.

So come up with a number of good sources, or at the very least show some willingness to discuss things here. If no responses here for a while I'll revert ONCE on the page. After that, any discussion here will be responded to, and any unexplained counter-reverts will simply be reported, because I'm sick of this. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which entries relating to the history of hard rock/heavy metal are you refering to that require some sort of reference? They all appear to be relevant to the history of hard rock and heavy metal to me. And by the previous discussions and consensus found in the weight of the articles edit history... no one has struggle with the content being included other than one lonely 86/87.x IP address. Anymore IP edit wars and the page will be locked up for 6 months. Explain, one at a time, how each entry which you personally disagree with has nothing to do with the evolution of hard rock/heavy metal.. and each one will be discussed separately by regular editors to determine if it doesn't relate to hard rock/heavy metal. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making, Libs, is that my arguments are based on the core rules, as I have quoted above. Twice.
The whole point, as I have ALSO said several times, is this has nothing to do with my personal viewpoint. I have no personal problem or issue with any of it. And that's why I have the high-ground, because no dispute on wikipedia should involve personal opinions.
This "consensus" is, as I have YET AGAIN said several times, nothing more than the opinion of anonymous internet editors. And that is meaningless.
I have quoted several times now. The rules are crystal clear: this material has been challenged, and unless you can provide sources, I have every right to remove it. Please respond to my points here. Don't just say "There's a consensus. So there.", don't just say "You're an IP.", and don't just ignore my arguments. Please respond to them rather than just ignoring them. If the next response does not actually address the points I have raised, I'll take it elsewhere. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to really make it clear, here's what you need to respond to and address:
  • "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." - These bands/artists/releases, without sources, are your own opinions, experiences, arguments, conclusions, etc. They may be supported by some other editors, but as anonymous internet users (as opposed to reliable sources), this is meaningless.
  • "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - They cannot check it. This rule specifically says it doesn't matter if we (i.e. you and the other editors) think it's right. If it can't be checked, it shouldn't be in.
  • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" - The burden of evidence lies with you, being the one adding/restoring material. This material has been challegned and thus must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
As I've said probably about a half dozen times, do this and there's no problem. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. Wikipedia has no rules... Jimbo will state that himself. It has policies to help guide the flow and provide a foundation for arguement... but in the end... Wikipedia is an collection of organic documents built on agreement... including the agreement to reference... or the agreement to just go with common sense.(not every single sentence has a ref... if it did it would be unreadable) You are correct... material can be challenged.... if it is controversial material.. especially if it is a bio on a living person. The content in this article is not controversial in any way. Even if content is challenged... it can't be challenged with a "demandment"... just challenged. And that challenge does not have to be resolved with a citation... it can be resolved with a simple agreement... consensus. This article false under the timelines in heavy metal category. That category is just a sub-category to 2 other main categories.... Category:heavy metal and Category:hard rock (because they are seen as sibs). And the category of timelines itself says it is a timeline of events specifically related to the origin and evolution of hard rock and heavy metal. All non-controversial content. And all built on agreement. Articles like "List of X GENRE bands" and "timeline of X MUSIC" and such are all just setup to be companion pieces to the main articles like heavy metal and hard rock (or whatever-rock) etc. The content you are trying to blank already exists in the main articles for hard rock and heavy metal. And it is there because there is agreement among editors to keep it there. Just like there is an agreement among editors for content on this page to be maintained. So, the word in your previous post - "The point I'm making" - is just that... WP:POINT. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you call them rules or guidelines, wikipedia is crystal clear on this matter, and whatever you term them you can't simply ignore them, which is what you're doing. It says, as I'll quote yet again:
  • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". This is material that has been challenged. It doesn't say "only controversial material", it just says "material". As it has been challenged, the burden of evidence lies with you.
So whether you think they're rules or not, they very clearly rank above the opinions of a handful of other editors. This is one of the core concepts of the whole site, and you can't just brush it aside with a tiny "consensus".
As to the whole issue of including things here even if they're hard rock, I still have yet to see a good selection of sources backing this notion up. And even if you -do- provide those, it still leaves the question of "Why not call this article 1960s in hard rock" instead? If heavy metal effectively didn't exist, why is there a timeline article stretching back this far? And the only response you could give to that is that these bands/releases are specifically significant in terms of heavy metal's evolution. And THAT is what you need to provide sources for. 86.146.157.121 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a tiny consensus. By the edit history, the deletions of one editor have been reverted by 6 long term veteran accounts and at least 8 unique IP contributors. The original content for the hard rock timelines overlapped with the heavy metal timelines so much that it was decided to delete and merge any hard rock content into the already existing heavy metal articles. Citations for controversial content is a requirement for living persons. But for non-controversial content all that is required is consensus. Which there is. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because as the rule/guideline I have quoted several times says: "ANY material challenged". So whatever you personally might think is right, the -core guideline- clearly states that it doesn't matter if it's controversial or about living people: if it's challenged, it's up to YOU to provide a source for it. Becuase all this "consensus" is is just a handful of anonymous internet users. And that, again as I've explained to you over and over, is meaningless. A consensus that directly contradicts core guidelines, that is made up purely of people who plainly don't grasp/acknowledge those core rules, is worthless.86.129.194.78 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CON isn't a guideline. It's a policy. And it is binding. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the rules about sources and verifiability aren't? Come on Libs, you'll have to do better than that, that's just outright hypocrisy: you claim that there are no rules and nothing is binding, then in the next breath you say "but they are when I say so". Sorry, no dice. If WP:CON is binding, then so too is the ruling that states that if something is unsourced, it may be removed and must be sourced before it should be added back.
Also take a look at this part of the WP:CON guide: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The core policies (such as those on sources) represent community consensus, and a handful of editors here cannot over-rule that. So yet again: show me your sources.86.146.158.22 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this conversation and reviewing the edit history of the article it appears as though there is a very clear consensus to keep the content that the single IP user has attempted to blank. A limited group would be 2 or 3. Not 14 or 15. I agree that the content is related to the overall history of hard rock. I don't see where the problem is at all as far as that goes. There shouldn't be any great attempt by a single editor to try and remove text that has been re-added by so many other people. Fair Deal (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"
Nothing more needs to be said. Does this material have sources? No. Has it been challegned? Yes. No ammount of "consensus" can over-ride the core pillars of the whole site, because all those 14 or 15 people are anonymous editors, they do not represent an informed or authoritative source. A dozen random people on the internet is not a good source. That's all there is to it. Last time I checked last.fm taggings aren't used as good sources on band genres for exactly the same reason: a bunch of random net users doesn't count for anything. Yes, I am a random internet user, but the burden of evidence lies with those adding material. 86.146.158.22 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Numerous users re-adding unsourced material. Myself removing it and insisting they provide sources. No sources given. 86.146.158.22 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate (this is my take on it, not intended as part of the neutral statement required): many times I have quoted the core policies showing how this is not in keeping with them. Core policy states very clearly that if there's no source, it can be removed. Other users seem to think they can ignore this if there are a good dozen of them who think so, even though a dozen random people on the internet is in no way a good source. I've had enough of it, has anyone but me on this site got the sense to actually abide by the rules? 86.146.158.22 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources throughout the article. I have also removed all entries for which I could not find any relevant source through my google books search, namely the Amboy Dukes, Eric Burdon & The Animals, The Gun, Black Widow, King Crimson and Wishbone Ash. I have thrown out all the references to Allmusic since the only mention of heavy metal on most of those pages were on the genre infobox and I do not believe that alone is a reliable source, only the reviews and biographies that are written by identified authors. There is no restrictive inclusion criteria for the list of albums on the other timeline pages so I see no reason to have any citations for the albums when citations have already been provided for the bands. I hope this settles the issue here. --Bardin (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General question[edit]

A lot of these entries are unsourced and genuinely kind of baffling. Towards the end of the '60s the song entries start making sense, but "Tomorrow Never Knows"? "96 Tears"? Without an explanation these make zero sense. Can we remove these? Albert Mond (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heavy_metal_music_before_1970&oldid=1202650141"