|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Clearly, Tasic's additions drew heavily on Laibach's VH1 biography, but were not credited in the article to that source. I am adding that citation. Someone else may want to judge whether it drew so heavily on that site as to raise copyright issues. These were Tasic's only contributions to Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Also-- Where are the confirmations that Dejan Knez, the founding member, is no longer in Laibach? This seems to me like a particularly important line-up change, even if the line-up itself matters little as they are not necessarily a band. But has Dejan Knez simply receded into the murky margins of NSK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Rammstein influenced by Laibach?
I'm a huge Rammstein and Laibach fan and I don't hear much influence between the two. Also, this is the only place I've read that Rammstein was influenced by them. Can anyone provide any other reference to this? If not I think I'm going to remove it. - DNewhall
- Disagreed. The influences from Laibach are obvious, from the usage of symbols to the musical approach. Compare Laibach's metal releases to Rammstein's. Compare the symbolism. It is commonly noticed by Laibach fans and deserves a place in this article.
- Laibach have even responded to this themselves:
- "D: Laibach can’t seem to get Wat reviewed without silly comparisons to Rammstein. I’ve seen lots of arguments about Rammstein stealing elements from Laibach in the past, mostly concerning vocal style and even logo design. I’m curious of your reaction to this.
- L: Laibach does not believe in originality and we don’t consider ourselves as sole authors and owners of our own ideas. Therefore, Rammstein could not “steal” much from us. They simply let themselves get inspired by our work, which is absolutely a legitimate process. We are glad that they made it. In a way, they have proven once again that a good “copy” can make more money on the market than the “original.” Anyhow, today we share the territory: Rammstein seem to be a kind of Laibach for adolescents and Laibach are Rammstein for “grown-ups.”"
- So, basically, a simple google search would have ended this debate. --:bloodofox: 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's an acknowledgment by the influenced band, then we should simply say they are 'compared' to Laibach, no? You can say that Laibach acknowledges their influence in others' music, but I would say leave it at that. Although similarities are obvious, 'influence' implies that one band is influenced by an older band - an alternate theory would simply be that the two draw their influence from an even older band. -Greymanx - 2008-07-26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanx (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Laibach's metal releases? As far as I know, the only Laibach album that could be considered somewhat metal is Jesuschrist Superstars. They have always aligned themselves more with electronic music than with rock music. --Rivet138 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The article suggests that Laibach appreciate the way Rammstein has been influenced by them. To me that is certainly not the case. The article even deliberately omits the last phrase of the quoted interview: “Rammstein are Laibach for adolescents and Laibach are Rammstein for grownups”. Does this phrase suggest that Laibach hold in high steem Rammstein´s work? I am not sure about it, and I would even think that it is the other way around. If you read between the lines Laibach is saying that only immature kids could enjoy Rammstein. Oh, and Laibach´s “Ohne Dich” cover switch the lines from “Ohne dich kann ich nicht sein (without you I can´t be)” to “Ohne mich kannst du nicht sein (without me you can´t be)”. He is clearly making fun of Lindemann´s pretentious melodrama. --Rivet138 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- While what you are saying may be true, your own admission of "reading between the lines" makes it opinion and original research. --dashiellx (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention something about how Laibach is strongly influenced by Kraftwerk and Ultravox? As for their image... it can be found in a lot of bands from the 80s and is nothing unique to Laibach (Gary Numan, Depeche Mode, Ultravox etc.). I found the Rammstein link to be misleading and something should be added to indicate that while there is a lot of shared imagery between the two bands, and while both bands share the industrial roots of Kraftwerk and Ultravox, Rammstein has taken a more Nine Inch Nails approach to their music while Laibach has remained closer to the work of Kraftwerk. The article's mention of Rammstein is fine but there needs to be a disclaimer that Rammstein's music is a lot heavier/hard rock while Laibach is alot more electronic.
- Here http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1479 (and some other sources) is said that he was other founder member with Thomas Hostnik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.
Why link the individual band members' names? Do any of them have fame outside of Laibach? Given Laibach's own opposition to taking individual credit for work, this seems particularly odd. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that you should mention the major influence of Bertrand Burgalat for their work in the eighties. He is really the one who made their classic sound for "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Let it be".
Vberger 11:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article you've linked to simply mentions Laibach in a long list of bands. Do you have something more substantive to suggest as a reference? - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
He made (producing, instruments) for exemple their "let it be" album. He worked with them during 3 years. 126.96.36.199 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Divided States of America
i'm adding an imdb link to the latest documentary on laibach. haven't seen it yet, so any additional info would be appreciated.188.8.131.52 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Controversy and Hitler
The quote where the vocalist says they're as much fascists as Hitler was a painter... Well, Hitler was a painter. I think whatever they're tying to say aught to be better clarified in the article, but I'm not sure how to word it. Leekohlbradley 08:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's not really up to Wikipedia to clarify people's own words, particularly with a group like Laibach, who are generally intentionally ambiguous. Better to let people draw their own conclusions. VoluntarySlave 23:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I thought when I read it. As far as I know Laibach never denied nationalism. They like it to be ambigious. So this part should be changed in the text.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"'We are fascists as much as Hitler was a painter.' It is a well known fact that Hitler tried to be a painter in his youth, but was never recognized to be an artist of any value, which would imply that Laibach are as fascist as Hitler was an artist - only pretending to be." I think this last part is an inaccurate interpretation. Hitler was trying to be a painter, but lacked the talent to be a successful one. I think a more accurate interpretation of Laibach's statement would be that Laibach are trying to be fascists, but for whatever reason (i.e., lack of talent) they are unable to achieve success as fascists. Eriksandall (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Should the controversy section really be the very first thing in this article? I think there is more relevantg information about the band that should come prior to that.Kittynboi 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel the wording of the MEMBERSS section needs a complete re-working, as it really does not match the tone of the rest of the page. Additionally, the "drug addicts" comment sounds very juvenile ("drugs" is a very broad-sweeping term) and--unless reliable sources are cited--might also be considered libelous. Once these items are fixed, I would move that this section be moved above the CONTROVERSY section. (The only real argument against being that I've read articles in which Laibach states that the members of the band are not necessarily static and should not take precedence over the message their music conveys... which leads into controversy, of course.) --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously controversy is a controversial subject. Unless a specific article, news item, quote, or event is cited, 'controversy' shouldn't be a word used. There are plenty of opportunities in this article for citing interviews. Without examples, 'controversy' is meaningless in describing an art-related topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanx (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.|
As mentioned in the revert reasoning, the write-up you added, while containing good information, also contains:
- basically no citations
- WP:POV / WP:WEASEL / non-encyclopedic writing
- mis-wiki-linking (like to web sites)
Zare2: "For what do I need a citation??? Thanks"
- Much like any encyclopedia, you must have your long historical run-down backed by reference. Also, seriously: read the above WP links; read WP:OR; sign your discussion page edits; cite copyrights for the images you've uploaded; and please don't re-add your un-referenced thesis until you've complied with those. Lastly, avoid deleting relevant good material when you make edits in general (like the Japanese language article link). Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so instead of choosing to discuss this Zare2 / Zare* has gone back to pasting in what is apparently the contents of a band promo sheet from a booking agency.
- Zare2/Zare*: If you read this, it's not encyclopedic, IMO. Could you imagine reading "Rather like super heroes in a comic book, it seems that wherever there is injustice there is also Laibach always attempting to save the day. Saviours of the universe? It could happen yet!" in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
- Other editors: I'd appreciate some comments yay or nay on these edits.
- This was a citation from a link I gave. What if I remove those lines? As a fan I'm trying to gave some better information from reliable sources and links. Will you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zare2 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for writing. I've asked for outside mediation to clarify whether it is ok to basically put the verbiage of an act's booking agent as article text (I have questions as to where this treads with respect to point-of-view, promotional issues, etc — i honestly have no idea). Beyond that, you're adding such a massive amount of content which is also breaking references (for example, scroll down to the references part of the article here) that i think it would be a lot more sane were you to make a version of the article in your sandbox and then have editors review it there before transplanting it here. In the meantime, it seems like it would be best to wait until mediation or other editors chimed in here. Thanks - Quaeler (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have accepted the mediation request made to WP:MEDCAB. I'm reviewing the dispute and will be getting back to you shortly. Since this seems to be a very simple issue, I will most likely be getting back to you tonight. Trusilver 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, for the time being I'm declining to edit protect the article. Regardless of the suitability of Zare's edits, they do appear to be made in good faith and I see no reason to protect a page that isn't being abused maliciously. Trusilver 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have looked over the dispute and while I'm not sure that MEDCAB was the best forum for airing this disagreement, I will see what we can work out here. The major issue that I see here has to do with a lack of knowledge concerning Wikipedia policies. So I will start with this question: Zare, what is it that you would like to see on this article that isn't already here, and why? Trusilver 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the compilation CD "An Anthology of Noise and Electronic Music, Vol. 2" should be added to the discography because there is the Laibach piece "Industrial Ambients" which is unreleased elsewhere. However, I don't know how to add it because there is no section for compilations in the discography. What do you think? Roope (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you think is is appropriate, go ahead and add a section. --dashiellx (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not check them all, but for sure, 300.000 K.V. gets redirected to Laibach. It is their side project, but it is a side project. It has it's own context, feel and musical style. Along with this redirect, is no mention or information really on this side project. Nor is the 300.000 K.V. Discography listed. I am not a writer, and I am far from the authoritarian on this group, but it deserves it's own page. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked again, and un the "related articles" section, are "links" to side projects and related nsk. the link for Germania, redirects to this very same page (the Laibach page), resulting in 2 cyclical link backs, at the least. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be a history of Laibach in the beginning of the article. But who would write it? At the moment there is something about the history in the different sections of the article.
The "members" section of the infobox is a bit problematic. At the moment five members are mentioned: Fras, Eber, Saliger, Dachauer, Keller. I think there should be either just the four fictional "official" member or there should be whoever is in the current performing lineup of Laibach. One more possibility might be that there were only Milan Fras and Ivan Novak.
Being tired of the many ignorant things Wikipedia editors write, I haven't taken time to establish when the city of Laibach (Lubljana) was first referred to as Laibach, but it clearly wasn't WW II as this article implies. Ljubljana had been part of Austria for centuries, probably since the city was founded. The city's name had nothing to do with WW II. In fact Slovenia had a large German population (Laibach probably also did). That is why it was called Laibach. Because it belonged to Austria (of the Austro-Hungarian empire), whose dominant language was German.
What is the version of Tico Tico used by Laibach in concerts as interlude? It's also heard on Ljubljana-Zagreb-Beograd album as Tito-Tito and could be heard also here (at 34'15"). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)