Talk:Evanescence

Talk page archived

Discussions from January 2008 through July 2008 have been archived. Let the new, and hopefully constructive, discussion begin below. --Brownings (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlogged albums or EPs

Wikipedia doesn't have any reference to EPs/singles in the discography section Bring me to life EP Mystery EP Not for your ears Sound Asleep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.97.197 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All offical releases are detailed at Evanescence discography (which have the tracklistings of the EPs you mentioned). Not For Your Ears isn't mentioned at all because it is a bootleg and not apart of the Evanescence official back catalogue therefore isn't mentioned. If you were referring to the Evanescence#Discography section: the Eps and singles aren't mentioned there because that section is just for detailing the main album releases in summary on the main (band) page if a separate discography page also exists AngelOfSadness talk 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

outoftheshadows.com

this domain doesn't exist anymore... -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, very odd, it worked when I originally tried it, but I might have had a cached version. Regardless, just because a site disappears, doesn't mean the citation is any less valid. If a replacement can be found, then certainly, replace it, but we don't delete references just because the site or article or whatever disappeared. We'd lose a significant number of citations if that were the case, across Wikipedia. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And if an external link is technically "dead", then it should be tagged as such using the {{dead link}} template. See Wikipedia:Dead external links and Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Sure you can discuss it on this talk page, but it will help all those who check references if the link is tagged as dead so that they know ahead of time to try and find either an archived version of the page or an alternative source (without needing to know about the discussion on the talk page). So please just leave the link tagged as dead where it is for now and move on. Anyway... I'm going to run the Checklinks tool (here) to see if there are any more dead links. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never got the site to work. Of course I thought it was perhaps it was developed for Internet Explorer and I always tried with Firefox. Anyway, perhaps we can find a Google cached version of the page to use as the linked reference? --Brownings (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The page used to work, and I recall reading it. It appears the page had a robots.txt query exclusion, so it won't show up at archive sites that recognize robots.txt. However, there wasn't much there. Lee was involved with the "Out of the Shadows" campaign about epilepsy, and the site included a brief bio saying, among other things, "Lee, a classically trained pianist, founded Evanescence in 1995 and by the late 90's the group had released its major-label debut, Fallen..." I didn't think the page was particularly credible months ago [1] and it could just as well go now. Gimmetrow 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying to you both: Brownings, it is better to leave the dead link there, than link to a Google cache, since it too will disappear after only a week or two (plus, I looked for one, and the cached page is the same as the dead link...points to the generic page bit). Gimmetrow, it could certainly "just as well go now", but only if you have something to replace it with. Theoretically at least, that page and the information on it was built with input from Lee, so I would hope it reflects accurate information. I'm kicking myself for not using Webcitation.org to archive it...I thought for sure that I had. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes, it should have been reviewed by Lee, and in the absence of any other information one could argue it's better than nothing. However, such bios are often written by someone on staff and may or may not be particularly reliable. Given what it says about Fallen, does it really seem all that accurate? Gimmetrow 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Three options, then. 1) Keep the reference at face value, 2) Keep date as unreferenced (1995 or 1998, which do you use?), 3) Remove founding dates. Take your pick. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead could be written to correspond to the main text "...founded in Little Rock, Arkansas by singer/pianist Amy Lee and guitarist Ben Moody after their 1994 meeting." Gimmetrow 02:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre removal

Good luck Nazzzz with that strong warning. We'll see how long till the troll come back and start adding random links in the genre areas. The best bet is just to remove it completely, then weather out the storm till they give up. However, we'll see how your approach works. --Brownings (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with the Alternative metal tag, but hey, if it will give this page a break from another genre war then go for it.Emo777 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Will someone provide a source to the claim that they are in the "alternative metal" genre? I dont care if I get a warning, if I dont see a source I will change it myself WITH a source. Coiler fan (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And here we go again, I don't agree with it either, but there should be sources that say they are alternative metal, i've seen them. Emo777 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot, don't remove the genre without having a discussion, let's try and avoid another genre war, at least inform someone 1st.Emo777 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there's already a source for alternative metal under the Style section (last sentence of forst paragraph). But I don't know if the source needs to be cited twice for the same thing in the same article but if it'll prevent a mistaken genre edit war, citing it twice shouldn't hurt. Anyway this is currently the source used in the article for alternative metal. But I did find other sources on alternative metal which could also be used; aol.com, Allmusic, Billboard.com, metrotimes.com. AngelOfSadness talk 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing a source in the lead paragraph is unnecessary, so long as it is sourced elsewhere in the article. The lead is intended to be a summary of the whole article, making duplicate sourcing there unnecessary. If it is change, just revert and move on. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite it twice, but I think it would be a good idea to have more than one source that says they're Alternative Metal, that way people can't argue that the one source isn't enough, and beleave me some will, I see it in other parts of wikipedia all the time. So yeah, their might be more than one source, but last I checked there was only one saying they were alt-metal. Emo777 (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find a second or third source, that would be fantastic. Like with alt rock, alt metal is being used because it is a generic genre, and given the contentious nature of this, generic is the best answer right now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will add my voice to any argument that the alternative metal tag be removed. Evanescence isn't, and never has been, a heavy metal band. Despite what some might think, alternative metal is at the core a heavy metal genre, it's just metal that's playing in an alternative manner, not, as so many seem to think, alternative rock with some metal tones or elements, and Evanescence do not meet this requirement. They are alternative rock with some modern gothic overtones and heavily-tuned chords. This is not a criticism, nor is it elitism, just simple statement of fact.

As it is, I won't make any attempt to change it, because it does seem there are generally reliable sources (note: Not allmusic) citing it, and unfortunately wikipedia's rules state that no ammount of logic or reason can overcome a handful of sources. That's just the way it is. But there's my 2 pence on the matter. Prophaniti (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't consider them alt-metal either, but I also don't consider them alt-rock, personally I consider them gothic rock. But that's why alt-metal is up there, we all say they're something different and only alt-metal is properly Sourced. Besides, I've never even seen a source that call them alt-rock. Leave alt-metal. Emo777 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, will this weblink count as a relible source? I haven't gotten to look at it, I just found it on the internet somewhere, it says they're alt-metal, but I don't know if it's a good source or not: http://www.mp3.com/tags/alternative+metal/ Emo777 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MP3.com isn't a reliable source, as far as I'm aware. It's just a site that sells music, like amazon. I could be wrong of course. And aye, as I say I shan't try changing the genre, and with them on haitus it's not likely to change anytime soon. Ah well, can't win 'em all. Prophaniti (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what genre they fall under, but alot of people seem to peg them as 'gothic metal'. While I'm not too sure on that either, does anyone have an actual sorce for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a mention of gothic metal in the Style section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know how big a debate this causes, but my personal opinion is that they are an alternative metal band. Fallen was a pop-rock album in my opinion, yes, but the Open Door, with its sweeping atmostpheric techniques, its simple guitar chords (which points to alternative) and its depth and feelings is what I'd call alternative metal. Lacuna Coil is progressive metal. Within Temptation is symphonic metal. Evanescence is alternative metal. Just my opinion. When will they begin working on a third studio album? User:Borr29 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Well, the "genre" section was removed from the template per here. I think saying "American al-metal band" is better if there is no genre in the infobox.--Nazzzz (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, I mean, it's controversal as it is. Why not just keep it the way that it was and put all of the genres in the style section? Emo777 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that alternative metal is Ok, Evanescence is a band that had a lot of gender changes in all their career, I think the correct genders are Alternative Metal, Alternative Rock, Gothic Rock/Metal (on the beginings and in some songs). --Tokioadicti0n (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you meant "genre" there, or else my opinion of Amy Lee's appeal just fell quite rapidly XP

On a more on-topic note: the points above just illustrate why so many bands now are incorrectly classed as heavy metal. People use the "hopping" technique, whereby we have one band that moves away from heavy metal, but is still within it, it's just a bit different (e.g. Faith No More). Then people say "This band sounds like Faith No More, so they must be metal too". This further dilutes the definition. And so on, and so on, until we end up in situations like this where bands with absolutely no metal content get called heavy metal because they can trace some kind of comparisons link back to band that actually is.

But this is straying into far too much general discussion, sorry. Regardless, if it ever came down to an actual editor discussion, I'll firmly cast my vote against them being called any kind of metal. But given the sources, I severly doubt it ever will, we have plenty. Prophaniti (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are sources.The same sources has been used in the Gothic metal article.For citing Evanescence to be a Gothic metal act.I dont know why everytime I put it on the genre with the sources,and as Prophaniti said correctly "unfortunately wikipedia's rules state that no ammount of logic or reason can overcome a handful of sources" ,Still they remove it.Its intrestingSolino the Wolf (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to be like that too, but I soon realised that removing sourced content won't get me anywhere. There are times when I disagree with the sources, as in this case, and there's nothing wrong in expressing that. But that's just the way wikipedia is: it simply reports what the sources say, and the sources in this case say Evanescence is a gothic metal band. What I think most folks who do remove that sort of thing need to remember is that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia isn't saying "Evanescence are a gothic metal band" per se, rather it's saying "The sources say Evanescence is a gothic metal band". Prophaniti (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Evenessence are not any sort of metal, and Alternative metal isn't metal either. Alternative metal is rooted in Post-Grunge and Industrial with bits of metal,alternative rock,rapcore and post-hardcore. They are not gothic rock either, only their lyrical content is slightly content, this does not make them goth rock or goth metal. Goth metal evolved from Death/Doom that added synths and arranged the riff structure to a more gothic rhythm. evenessence are post-grunge/Alternative rock at the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True bacon222 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing bothers me; why do we need to find sources on some sites that call Evanescence this or that if we have a great source right here - Wikipedia! Most people who write for magazines or something and/or post on the internet don't even think about genres and just add something similar without thinking. I think that we should investigate genres on Wikipedia to see which one describes Evanescence the best. Many people will say that Evanescence is not metal, but they are definitely more close to some metal subgenre (like gothic or alternative metal) than to regular rock. Besides, there are very few new bands that can be described by one genre. Instead, their music is described as a fusion of genres or a bridge from one genre to another. One of genres for Evanescence that never occurred to anyone's mind is neo-classical metal - not just because of Mozart's Lacrimosa cover. There are many elements of classical music in Evanescence's style. I'll do a little research on the genres and when I'll have something, I'll write it here before I edit anything. NikFreak (talk) 20:35, 06 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia as a source, period. In order to claim a genre for a band, we must use external reliable sources, which we've already done in depth in the Style section, which has described a number of reported genres. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind a little bit since the last time I wrote. Why should anyone care what some guy from Paradise Lost thinks who influenced Evanescence (since he doesn't have a clue), or that the other guy from Moonspell (or something) doesn't consider Evanescence a metal band. And nobody even looked up what the band members said about their music. I'm not saying that we should consider Amy Lee's statement an ultimate truth, but I think it should be written down in the style section. And I think Amy spoke very carefully about the genre, she simply said that it is rock with various influences in metal, classical music and electronica. Did anyone occur that it is that simple? Most of the people who write for the magazines listens to one song and determines the genre. My point is that you could find a million sources claiming Evanescence is Gothic metal, but none of them really said WHY. They only write down what they think it could be based on listening to one or two songs (probably singles which are usually most commercial songs). And this ends in Wikipedia being the most UNreliable source. To get back on topic, there is really no need for labeling things and if someone agrees with me, let me now: I think that we should leave See Below in genre infobox. But we should change the style section drastically. We should first quote what Amy Lee and/or other members said about their music. Then we should remove statements from people that have nothing to do with Evanescence (which includes both guys from Moonspell and Paradise Lost). We also can't ignore the fact that Evanescence is mostly categorized by medias as Gothic metal and compared to Gothic and nu metal bands such as Lacuna Coil, Linkin Park, etc., but one or two sentences are enough for it. Than we might find some criticist and/or artist that actually knows something about music and can view things objectively and write down his statement. Then we would have: what the band thinks about their style, what medias think about it and what someone objective with good knowledge about music thinks about it. That would cover pretty much everything while keeping everything sourced and including opinions on all sides. Someone should, at least, consider this. Regards: NikFreak (talk)) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia that most people don't quite get is that it's based on verifiability (aka, what can be sourced) rather than absolute truths. I agree that the band members would be a good source, but it needs to be presented alongside what others have said. In this situation, if we can find quotes or other statements from band members describing their genre, then we can certainly use it (likely the the format of showing what others considering them, then contrast with what the band themselves think). But we need good sources for this, either from print or tv interviews. Until we have those sources, we cannot include anything. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But everything I mentioned can be sourced. There really are a bunch of interviews with Amy Lee talking about the genre. So if I could find some good sources for it, can I modify the style section? I will, ofcourse, leave a few sentences about how was Evanescence recognized in medias like I said in post before. I will just add more points of view because it seems to me that the whole style section is only considering what medias think. And the artists that talk about Evanescence in the section are, in my opinion, completely unrelated and I think they should be replaced. NikFreak (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide solid sources for material, by all means add in what the band considers themselves. Of course, don't go overboard...just the most brief and relevant stuff. And remember, you don't have to include whole quotations, just something along the lines of "However (or similarly), lead singer Amy Lee has mentioned in interviews that she considers the band to be ____ and ____." or whatever is most appropriate. However, I will ask that you not remove anything that already exists, at least not without a much wider consensus. Other musicians are in a much better position than you or I or news writers to judge what another musician sounds like. I'd rather keep them than anything else, but for now, I think we can safely leave everything in place. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't remove anything for now. But this musicians are completely unrelated to Evanescence and that is what is bothering me. If there were opinions from K.O.R.N or System of a Down band members, I would understand since they are related to them one way or another, but I really don't see what does Paradise Lost has to do with Evanescence. Sure, they are Gothic metal and Evanescence is mostly recognized as Gothic metal, but still there is no controversy about their genre and they do consider themselves goth while Evanescence does not and they never even mentioned Paradise Lost in any interview or whatsoever. And all that would be okay, but that guy said something completely stupid and wrong. Evanescence was definitely not influenced by Lacuna Coil and there is no reason why the generation gap would indicate that the newer band could not be influenced by some older band. I will start a new topic about this when I get some more info. Meanwhile I will just edit the style section to feature Amy Lee's statement on band's genre. NikFreak (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More news on the Narnia track

this artcile: [2] says that Evanescence WAS in fact approached about the song, two conflicting articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.212.50 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a very odd situation...we have articles that go both ways, and say two things. I'd say the article reflects this conundrum fairly well as it is, but I'll go back and try to rewrite to improve the wording. Thanks for the link! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

band formation year

Could someone please try to find a reliable source that tells what year Evanescence was formed. It previously said 1994, but now it says 1995...I don't know which is right and therefore, I need help looking.

Alice1869 (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)alice1869

As far as I can remember, it has never said 1994. That year is when Lee and Moody first met. The article did previously say 1998, which I still believe to be correct, but the only source that could be found stated 1995. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops sorry about that. I put that I thought it said 1994, but now I remember that it did say 1998. But I still do need to know when they really formed. Thanks.Alice1869 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Alice1869

I found these 2 weblinks, the first was something on youtube.com, I think it was a interview, but I didn't get to watch it all (I currently have Dial-Up), it said they formed in 1995. The secound doesn't give a date but it says they started at the end of the 90s. I don't know if these are valid, but they're all I could find, sorry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFgKzUEL9Ww & http://www.answers.com/topic/evanescence-2 Emo777 (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first link, most definitely not valid, as it is just a comment saying 1995. For the second, Answers.com really isn't considered reliable, as it isn't terribly different from Wikipedia...don't think they use experts for their material. Also, it just says late-90s, so isn't really defined. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Sorry, those are the best things I could find that said there date on it, I thought the youtube vid would be an interview, guess not, sorry, I have a slow connection for the time being so I couldn't watch it. If I see anything i'll let you know. Emo777 (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Answers.com is a wikipedia mirror site --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1998. is the year their first EP was released. The year of formation is at least 1997., since the first demo of My Immortal is from 1997., but in some inteview, Amy Lee stated that the band was unofficially founded in 1995. Until late 1999. when David Hodges joined the band, there were only Amy and Ben in the band and later in 2002, John LeCompt and Rocky Grey also joined (although they were previously playing instruments on Evanescence EPs), so we could say that the full band was formed in 2002. The idea of the band exists since the first song was written. We could leave 1995. as the band's formation year, or put that the band formation period is 1995.-2002., which would, in my opinion, be the best solution. P.S. I am going to change it, if someone thinks it's wrong, just change it back. NikFreak (talk) 12:37, 08 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming up with a date range for "formulative years" is original research, and I have reverted this edit. We have a source which states 1995, and it is in the infobox. I see no reason to expound on this subject further than we already have. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-Grunge

Evanescence sounds post-grunge. One of Amy's inspirations is nirvana. Shouldnt they also be Post-grunge along with alternative metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardulli22 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because you believe they sound a certain way doesn't mean it should be listed here (even if your assessment is correct). You will need to find a valid source which says they are post-grunge. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that they sound remotely post-grunge. I think that if you have some of the old pre-Fallen Evanescence, there's nothing grunge about it.

Hyatt (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

It's been a few months since we discussed nominating this article again for Featured Article status. While we all seemed to agree to nominate, no one pulled the trigger. Now the the genre war has seemed to have settled down a bit, I figured it would be a good time to give it a shot. Wish us luck as we push for the front page! --Brownings (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the nom because it was incompletely submitted; please let me know (per FAC instructions, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination.") if Huntster (talk · contribs) agrees the article is ready, and if you need help to correctly submit the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article still needs some things addressed before it's really ready for FAC. I think there ought to be a section on themes, and a few questionable references justified or replaced. (A couple references are also dead links, which is separate from reliability questions.) Gimmetrow 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer if some well-versed copyeditors gave this a thorough cleaning. My recent experience at peer review has indicated I'm not competent at identifying such issues. I certainly don't own this article (heck, I've mostly taken a backseat and just do cleanup duty these days), however, it still feels like the genre issue is a bit incomplete for FA. To Gimmetrow, my experience here has been that despite Evanescence's fairly high profile, not a lot has been said about issues like Themes or Genres, or even much of their history. This seems to be one of those bands that get the "hey, they are superstars, go see them in concert" treatment in the press, rather than a more detailed reviewing. Both Lee and Moody seem to prescribe to "letting their music speak for them" mindset, and are rather private. Despite lots being said and published, there just doesn't appear to be much quality press to draw from. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was for a long time my baby, it has had some very good work done on it however it is not yet ready for featured status. There is a distinct lack of up to date information in the line up chnages section. It should prehaps read differently because it doesnt actually say they are on hiatus (bearing in mind that the start is merely an introduction, everything in the intro should be explained in greater detail through the article) so things like that need sorting --Childzy ¤ Talk 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm sure I'm going to get Heaven, Hell and everything in between for this, I am nominating Evanescence for featured article status. Well, it's open season, folks, so let's get decided on this. /\\//\|_()|\| (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

the open door double platinum

According to this artical the open door is double platinum. Just thought i would let you all know

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=106660

thanks.. 121.72.236.247 (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

According to RIAAs own website, it has not officially been certified double. More likely, Blabbermouth interpreted shipping over two million as equal to double platinum, which isn't quite accurate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gothic Metal

In "Style" part of the article ,it's been called to many refrences that the band's been called "Goth" ,"Gothic Metal" and "Pop-Goth" So why not adding Gothic metal to the band's genre? I think it might help the readers get better description of the band's sound since Alt Metal is a good but incomplete description of the band's music.<Solino the Wolf (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)>

Because they all fall under the header of Alt metal, and for the Infobox and lede genre descriptor, its easiest to use the broad title, and leave the details to the Style section. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

!!Gothic metal is certainly not a subgenre of alt metal + all Metal Genres (from thrash,Death and black to alternative,Nu Metal and etc) are subgenres of heavy metal and heavy metal itself is under the header of ROCK. But we can not call all metal bands simply "rock" or "heavy metal" cause we want the readers to have more direct and better description of the bands' music.So even if Gothic metal falls under the header of alt metal (wich is not true according to Wikipedia itself) it's better to name Gothic metal in the band's genres in order to give a better description of the band's music.Solino the Wolf (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above, ending in October, seems to me mostly for "alternative metal". But when a genre is subject to this much debate, it takes text to explain, and it can't be easily shoehorned into an infobox field. If we can't get stability on the genre, I would rather not have any genre field at all. Gimmetrow 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence has nothing to do with Gothic metal. Their influences are Tori Amos, Linkin Park, Sarah McLachlan, Rage Against the Machine und Type O Negative. And Type O isn't an audible influence. --Ada Kataki (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok.I suggest you just take a look at Gothic metal's article in wikipedia.And see Evanescence in it!And see that Evanescence being a Gothic act AND getting influences from gothic acts such as Within temptation and Lacuna coil isnt an unsources claim.(you can look at the sources number 182,185 and 186 in the Gothic metal page) Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They're METAL acts, not Goth. --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about taking a look at their pages?(or simply listening them?) and besides,The are Gothic metal acts.what you said (Metal acts not goth) doesnt make any sense. Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should use your little brain. Gothic METAL is not GOTH. --Ada Kataki (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Ada Kataki, this band is neither 'gothic' nor 'metal'. Gothic metal descends from Death/Doom, and Evanescence really has nothing in common with those bands, or even bands such as The Gathering (Mandilyon) or Within Temptation (Enter). The only reason Evanescence gets this label is because the band is fronted by a female who dresses in 'gothic' attire. I have always felt Evanescence was a alternative rock band with maybe some nu metal leanings, so the current genre is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I may not agree with the way it's being said, but I quite agree with this point: if the band didn't have a female gothic-styled vocalist they wouldn't be called "gothic metal" at all. Unfortunately, we just report what the sources say, no matter how wrong or ignorant they are. Prophaniti (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok!lets talk it more serious.It's not about what YOU feel!Wikipedia is not about what we feel.its about sourcing.The sources say that within temptaion is a gothic metal band.They also say Evanescence has its biggest influence from gothic metal bands such as within temptation and lacuna coil.If you have a source wich denies these claims,bring it up.Until then,do not remove it just because you feel they dont sound like it."Gothic metal not GOTH" this still doesnt make sense.Nobody said their goth.Brain?LOL(and about Gothic metal,you're right it has originaly come from Death/Doom,But if you listen to Gothic metal bands such as within temptation and Darkseed you'll see Evanescence has strong Gothic metal elements.)Solino the Wolf (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you high on something? There is ABSOLUTELY no source that claims Evanescence is influenced by ANY gothic metal band, especially not Lacuna Coil. And if you see some similarity beetween Evanescence and Within Temptation, you should really try to listen more closely. Besides, isn't it logical that a band will search for influences in some older bands. In time Evanescence started with music, nobody even knew about Within Temptation or Lacuna Coil, so how can they be their influences? If I decide to make my music, I won't search for some bands that were founded yesterday. My influences would be already known bands like Evanescence, or even older ones, like Metallica. As for the genre, I don't think that Evanescence is completely gothic metal, but I also don't know which genre would describe it better. And the most sources claim Evanescence to be Gothic metal, so even if we don't fully agree, I think that we should state Gothic metal in the genre infobox. NikFreak (talk) 17:41, 08 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, we've beat the genre thing into the ground...we have the Style section, which provides numerous sources for genres and comparisons with other bands. NikFreak, I like your enthusiasm, but please read what's already been established regarding this subject...what is already in the article is a result of consensus here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

http://cgi.ebay.com/VERY-RARE-BRAZIL-PROMO-CD-EVANESCENCE-LACRYMOSA-1-TRACK_W0QQitemZ230330350142QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item230330350142&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A2%7C294%3A50#ebayphotohosting

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)

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 [3], 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.

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)

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)

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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Will "Science"

So, apparently they've gotten a new member (collaborator) for the album, a guy identified as 'Will "Science"'. Obviously Science is not his last name...its almost universally placed in quotes. I've seen an unofficial and unusable mention that he may also be named "Will Hunt" and Science is his nickname to differentiate between the two Hunts (one Hunt is strange enough...I know, as it's my last name; but two in one place is really bizarre). So, please keep your eyes peeled for a proper source for 'Will "Science" Hunt' so the article can show correct information. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

His name is Will Hunt. I remember an article from the start of 2009 saying that he was working with Amy Lee. I'll Try to find it :) 121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. I do hope you can find that article. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have disappeared but here is an article from rolling stone which says stuff about both Will Hunts

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2010/03/02/evanescence-go-electro-as-lee-has-fun-with-music-on-next-lp/

I hope this can help you :) 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.247 (talk)

Fantastic, that's exactly what I was looking for. Good catch! — Huntster (t @ c) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) - Also amy has posted something on evthreads concerning Troy -

http://evthreads.com/showpost.php?p=1315159&postcount=64

Dunno if Evthreads is a source you can use on here but its explains how Troy won't be able to do the next tour!121.72.236.247 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to keep EvThread cites to an absolute minimum, with the goal of eliminating them altogether, since they aren't considered reliable sources (even if it is Lee who is writing them). I rather figured that McLawhorn wouldn't return...I imagine being an active core member of Seether is more along the lines of what he wants to be doing. You know, the interesting thing here is that Science has been brought in as lead drummer, with Will Hunt acting as secondary stage performer (two drummers playing at once, whaaa?). But hey 121, I really appreciate you doing this legwork. You might want to consider signing up with an account here and being an active editor, though that is, of course, up to you. The help is always welcome. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think by drumming she's meaning duel drumming or using two drummers on the next tour. Maybe the drumming is going to be that complicated on the tour. I don't mind helping out here. I'd rather stay anonymous for know. I tend to lurk and revert vandalism but wikipidea is a little to hard for me to get my grip on. I'll feel like i'm consistently editing an essay when that is what I do primarily do as a uni student but I don't mind helping out once in a while :) 121.72.236.247 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I understand completely. Well, if you ever have questions about how something works here, just leave a message on my talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More stuff on the new eavenscence sound and will hunt :)

http://www.spin.com/articles/exclusive-amy-lee-new-evanescence-album

03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.247 (talk)

Boy, if that's not enough proof of the band members' names, I don't know what is. It just says it plain and simple that there are indeed two Will Hunts. lol Great find. There's a lot of good info about the sound of the new album but I'm not really sure where or how to use it, so I added it as a secondary citation to Will "Science" for now so it doesn't get lost. Thanks! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement

I am going to get flamed for this because I am going to be rude now, but I don't care. This was a Good Article once and no active editor here is even trying to improve it, while it has potential of becoming at least good, if not a featured article. This genre section is only one in the sea of reasons why this article fails at the GA criteria. And if someone tells me "why don't you try to improve it?", well, I'm not a Wikipedian even though I was once. I don't have time, I don't want to, it doesn't matter. What matters is that people like Hunster are working very hard around having nice discussions with people, pretty much repeating the rules every time and reverting nonconstructive edits. How about trying to actually do something with this article that is a complete mess? Roxor (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to get flamed for offering your opinions on the article in order to make it better. I've just started becoming an editor on Wikipedia (has it REALLY been 7 months already?!) and I try to improve anywhere I can. If you have some suggestions as to what specifically to change in this article, we may be able to work on them. I'm unfamiliar with how it looked when it was a "Good Article" so I am interested in your input on how to make it better. Thanks =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, actually it looked pretty much like it looks right now. I don't know how it got to be a good article. I was actually one of the people who helped removing the GA status when I was still a member. I thought that it was going to encourage enthusiastic editors to help bring it back. But no constructive edits were made ever since as it seems. There are some new informations, but what needed to be fixed remains as it was. If you are interested, check out the old reassessment page and a review by Gahonzu. For some problems I do understand that they might be unsolvable for the time. But there are always at least some compromises that can be made. Not always can the rules be blindly followed. I've seen some GAs where people actually agreed upon something even though it doesn't completely conform to the rules, just to help make the article better. Check those links and see what are the main things that should be changed and improved. Just don't touch the genre field for now. The genre question is obviously not solvable for now. However, the style section should be drastically changed. --Roxor (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About Ben Moody and We Are The Fallen

Ben Moody is no longer relevant to Evanescence. His new projects doesn't matter to Evanescence. No need to write about the rumors or citations related to his band We Are The Fallen in the "In Other Media". This information should be on We Are The Fallen or Ben Moody's Wikipedia page.

Should only cite the band as a result of the departure of former members.

Arlindo 88 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think that the rumor of Evanescence breaking up should be kept since that, in fact, does directly involve Evanescence as a result of the forming of We Are the Fallen, I agree that this paragraph elaborates a bit too much. And not only that, it falls into that category described in the previous section (Article improvement). It's just text to make it look bigger. It's just direct quoting from interviews which, in my opinion, should NOT belong in a wikipedia article. Quotes are fine, but extensive quoting with the only non-quoted text being "Moody stated" seems very unprofessional as if just thrown onto the wiki. I think we could probably chop down the entire second half of the section to read as:

...look out for new music [in 2010]." Former band member and co-founder Ben Moody responded, "I don't really think she's at all threatened by us. She said, 'Don't worry, you'll have your music next year.' But people might want something to listen to before then. That's what we're here for."

That sums up the question of Evanescence splitting up while not straying into a long description of WAtF, maintaining neutral language, and removing extensive quoting. The quotes from Ben always seem to "provoke", which is why "Lee has not responded to these comments" has also been removed. This isn't the controversy section or the "Ben smack-talk" section.

I didn't go ahead and make this edit directly just in case someone is opposed to this, given that it is and active discussion. If someone wants to make the change, go ahead. If nobody opposes, I'll just add it myself. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 08:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This new section of information added simply drags on this "disagreement" between Moody and Lee. It all seems irrelevant to me. This belongs in tabloids and gossip websites and blogs, but not in an encyclopedia. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ben Moody is no longer relevant. Amy said in Spin (http://spin.com/articles/exclusive-amy-lee-new-evanescence-album) that Ben Moody and his new band have nothing to do with Evanescence. What Ben Moody speaks today about Evanescence shouldn't be cited. He left the band for a long time and Evanescence has proven, with the album "The Open Door", he's a very distant past and he is not important to the band's success. I do not understand the insistence on quoting him. Arlindo 88 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nobody disagreeing with you. My proposal was just that--a proposed change. In fact, after looking at it after the change in a sandbox type format, most of it does seem irrelevant. The only thing I'm "insisting" we keep is the reaction of the fans which provoked a response from the band due to the creation of We Are the Fallen since it did start rumors about Evanescence being scrapped with Amy's solo album coming out. Bottom line is that the whole paragraph needs a serious re-write to just get the basics written. This includes removing most of the Ben Moody quotes. And I'm not even sure if this qualifies as "In Other Media". But I agree the section needs a serious overhaul, but not deleted completely. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so can you fix it? I don't speak english, I'm a Portuguese Wikipedia member. Arlindo 88 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a small bit of cleaning while I'm here editing on my lunch break. It looks better already, but I still think a large portion of Amy's quotes can be chunked. I just don't have the time at the moment to re-word the paragraph. I'll see what i can do later. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/news/evanescence-recording-new-album-plots-summer-1004078783.story#/news/evanescence-recording-new-album-plots-summer-1004078783.story

Amy Lee has said more stuff about We are the fallen and some more stuff on the album. just thought I would point this out to the editors

121.72.236.247 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

New Evanescence photo?

I understand the want for a new photo of Evanescence, but is the new photo a valid photo for use for the band? To me, it looks more like an "Amy Lee" photo than an "Evanescence" photo. The previous photo wasn't "current" but it was at least the entire band as a whole at one point. This new photo contains Amy Lee, Tim McCord (is that even him? his BACK is turned!) and a blurry image of possibly Will Hunt (who was only a temporary member of the band at that point)? This photo doesn't even have Terry Balsamo, who is a key member of the band. I've reverted the change temporarily so that it may be discussed prior to change. I invite Huntster (clearly the top contributor to this article) to weigh in with thoughts regarding this change. But personally, I think the hunt for a better image must continue.. this one just doesn't seem cut the mustard quite right. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely, this is not an appropriate photo for the infobox. At least the original image had Lee, Balsamo and McCord...the new one is just a grainy picture of Lee and *maybe* the two (at the time) touring musicians. Yes, a newer photo with all the current members would be ideal, but we have to work with what we've got, and the original photo accomplishes that job the best. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup! I agree with you guys. But but BUT! Its a new Evanescence photo from 2009! =D I think we should insert it somewhere in the article! To keep it fresh and new! Maybe we should put it somewhere in the bottom... cause it seems that's where it would only fit. Maybe in the musical style section? Hmmm.. Okay I just added the photo in the musical style section on the right. What do ya'll think? =D --Homezfoo (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that instead of flooding the Evanescence page with images (this isn't a photo gallery), we can make better use of it (if we should include it at all). There is an image of John LeCompt that only seems to fit the portion of the article mentioning his termination. He is directly pictured next to the paragraph that speaks of him, but if you want to "freshen" up, perhaps we should replace this image of a person who is no longer a member with the new one and lower it down to the Third Album section where it speaks of that concert. And please.. when there is a discussion already in progress regarding inclusion of new material, please wait until a consensus has been reached before inserting it without any prior discussion. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 12:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. So do you want to replace the John LeCompt picture with the new Evanescence 2009 one too? --Homezfoo (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it's needed at all. There's already 2 "concert" photos on the page, and adding more would just be redundant. I only offered that if we must use the image, we should perhaps replace what isn't current. But I think the article stands well enough on its own as it is now. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then... --Homezfoo (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce what Scott says...Homezfoo, if you really want to find some updated images, start scouting out images of other Evanescence members, new and old, *not* Lee (we have plenty of images of her), and we can determine which of those will best fit the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:LDR - New Referencing system?

There is a "new" method of defining references on Wikipedia that I am very interested to find out if this should be implemented to the Evanescence article(s). I can't describe it quite as well as Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies, so here's a direct quote:

I have converted the referencing system to a system to keep the article edit window free from reference clutter. This is an incredible advantage for those of us who don't use special software. Please see Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references for a very simple explanation of exactly what is happening.

In short:

1. You may now add/edit/remove references by editing the References section
2. Every reference must have a name assigned to it. For example, <ref name="rollingstone">{{cite web |url=...}}</ref>
3. Every citation only requires the <ref name=xxxxxxxx/> segment

This is a new feature implemented in the {{reflist}} template since September 2009. The gist is to keep all references together in a section and to free up space and time while editing.

Is there any objections to me implementing this system here? The pros are that it will significantly clean up the editing window of coding and make it much easier to edit the references that might have errors (instead of searching through the entire article to find the specific reference). It seems to make more sense editing references in the "References" section anyway. When I first wanted to edit some references, I'd open the section to edit only to find a "reflist" tag and getting confused. Some cons would be having to edit TWICE, if you wish to make an edit within a 'section' and adding a reference (as you would have to add the reference coding into the ref section) and maintaining the new format for users adding references under the previous method.

What do you think? I'm game and willing to do the converstion. But the old system isn't horrible. So if the idea gets shot down, it won't break my heart, it just seems more organized this way. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted the entire Evanescence article (in a subpage of mine) and you can see by this edit how drastically different each paragraph looks after the references are "removed". They are much smaller and readable--especially the Musical Style paragraph where there are 26 references alone! The change was easy since most of the tags were already named so the full process will be quite simple across all the pages. What's anyone else think? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going to have Rich Farmbrough do this conversion automatically, but if you've already done it, then by all means, implement it. I'm a huge fan of this new referencing system, as it makes editing tremendously easier, yet still allows new editors to add in-line citations as they used to if they don't understand this new one, or if they simply don't want to make two edits (as pointed out above). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent! I never knew this existed before I found it on that other article and was amazed at the ease of use. I'm going to add documentation at the top of the article (again, "borrowed" from this other aritlce), but feel free to change any wording and documentation. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tables!

Should we add tables to the Albums of Evanescence? How come its in lists? --Homezfoo (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is because there exists an article that explains the albums in detail--Evanescence discography. This space is only needed to summarize the main albums. Converting them into a table would only entice others to add additional information that would be redundant. A table works for We Are the Fallen (assuming that's where this topic came from) because there is no discography page for that band so the more information the better. =D ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaah I see :O --Homezfoo (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editwar

This is the first time I've encountered what can easily be considered an edit war. How is such a thing handled? There have been 22 edits (including their reverts) since this version of the article which all amount to the article keeping its original version. What is the process here? I have opened a discussion on the user's talk page requesting reasons for this repeated change, but I suppose we can open a discussion about it here, as well. I feel that this paragraph is in its correct location since it directly discusses the new album and should be listed within the third album section. I'd like to know what reasons Stardreamer86 and 66.27.210.46 (if that even is a different person) may have to want this paragraph moved. This has been done (and reverted) FIVE times so far in the past three days. Why? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph should belong under THE OPEN DOOR 2006 - 2009 section. Third studio album should be labeled 2010. That's why!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardreamer86 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that is what you want, but have given no reasons. The third studio album was being formed in 2009 (as this paragraph itself says). Since it discusses the third album, it should be the first paragraph of the third album. And since the third album got its beginnings in 2009, it should be labeled that way. Perhaps if I knew the reasons you want to include it with The Open Door, I might even agree. But until then, it makes the most sense to keep it where it is. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. The part I think should be under THE OPEN DOOR section is the part about the secret show cause it's technically part of THE OPEN DOOR era and not the third album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardreamer86 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So that's what's going on... I see your point now. It's as though that show was their last concert of the open door era. It does make sense. The only problem is article chronology. The concert was after the beginnings of their third album (which starts the next 'era') so it's listed in the history in that order. Stepping back and reading the article without any titles at all, it flows in a chronological history. The titles are just added at the starting point of a 'new era'. There doesn't appear to be any rule that topics of a previous section can't be talked about in a later one. For example, if after the start of their third album, Fallen begins to rise in the charts and puts Evanescence in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (or something), there's nothing saying that information must be included in the "Fallen" section. That's just how I see it. It's better to leave it chronological with the titles placed at the first talks of where that new topic begins. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It is the dates that are important in the section titles, not the album names. It is just standard practice amongst the music articles to leave the dates to the end of the title rather than the beginning. However, if it is felt that there should be some division beyond just chronological, I'm sure we can come up with a solution. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)