Talk:Limp Bizkit/Archive 2

New song?

An untitled acoustic song has been circulating torrent websites. It is undeniably Fred Durst, who doesn't appear to like the song, saying "That was shit" at the end. Does anyone know if this is an old demo or a brand new track?

LIMP AND THE BOYZ NEED TO TOUR SOUTH AFRICA PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.32.34 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Any thoughts about adding a summary of this under a "Controversy" heading, or something similar?

http://www.blistering.com/news/newsdet.php3?ID=2583

-Some random newb.

In my hometown of Vegas, Limp Bizkit was boycotted for cancelling their Vegas shows 3 times and is banned from radio airplay which happened in 2004, maybe someone should add this?

sign your post? Daedae (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the Significant Other controversies, I'm removing the last "sentence" of the first paragraph,

Consequently, the music video for the band's single "Re-Arranged".

because it's not a complete thought. If somebody wants to expand on it and put it back, go ahead. Daedae (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and suggestions

General Cleanup (and future suggestions)

Deleted some unsourced, possibly libelous comments, and cleaned up the article until the "Results may vary" section:

the other major issue I have with these sections:

1)seeming contradiction... did Wes rejoin the band before or after they started driving to Los Angeles?... also a clarification or source would be nice for "after working out his personal issues"

if you feel I went too far in these edits please at least clean up the language or provide sources, thank you.Jjchong 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the article is WAAAAAY too long. You should be able to see the TOC when the page loads. --Velvet elvis81 05:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs?

Why does the reference cited as showing Limp Bizkit were one of the first new metal bands go to a page which mentions Korn and the Deftones, but not Limp Bizkit? (This is the first ref on the page.) Might change back to "citation needed" unless someone has something better to use. Random name 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed - anyone have a cite for this? Random name 10:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

August release

Can somboy Please give a link to the interview where Durst says all that stuff about the RATM comback tour and all.Jimmypop1994 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Poop DVD

In the back of the Significant Other booklet, it says Cming Soon The Limp Bizkit DVD Poop.

was this ever released??

no its been put off since 1999. the bonus dvd of results may vary was a 40min trailer of what the dvd was going to be, and its still being put off now.-HDS

is this version of results may vary avalable in the united states?Jimmypop1994 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

hold up i think i might of found the DVD

http://www.amazon.com/Limp-Bizkit-Poop/dp/B00000JGDE

Jimmypop1994 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They are noteworthy for mentioning the name of the band in every song in order to generate more album sales from radio airplay.

This is false as they do not mention thier name in every song only in an few and unless you can verfiy the album sales from mention of name to increased airplay this information will be removed.TG 50 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone could find a cite indicating this was done deliberately (even if not continuously) I'd like to see it, mostly because it sounds like an interesting article to read. Random name 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed it to take out "every" song, which I will accept. I would even accept "all songs released as singles." I don't think the point that they include their name to generate album sales is debatable.

This is not true al singles do not have the name such as "Faith" "Nookie" "Break Stuff" "My Way" "Bolier" "Eat You Alive" "Churshed". The only ones that do are "Counterfeit" "N 2 Gether Now" "My Generattion" "Rollin" (Air Raid Vechile) and "Behind Ble Eyes" futhrmore The Unquestionable Truth does not mention the bands name in any of the songs.There is no source they did this and I have never done that you have no prove and you probally have only heard the singles from Chocolate Starfish and Significant Other and think you have heard every Limp Bizkit song if you add it again unless can verfiy it it will be removed.TG 50 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC

Do you mean "proof," fanboy? You keep removing it, I'll keep adding it. I'm right, and you're trying to apologize for a crappy band that has been polluting the airwaves since they ripped off George Michael.

In Wiki you have to be able to source something if another user or users disagree to make sure it is a a accurate statement. Since you have no proof of this i will remove the information unless you verfiy a relaible source that the band indeed do this. Your or own views on the band is not a relabile source. To me you are just a hater who has come up with a idea about Limp Bizkit to generate more negative press about the band and have made up your mind you are right and can't even give me or anyone else proof that LB did this so I could help but read your little polluting airwaves statement and thought i leave you with a excerpt of "Pollution" by Limp Bizkit on thier 1997 debut ablum Three Dollar Bill Y'all [chorus] When do you decide (you decide) Then you can know in your mind (you decide) When do you decide I’ll probably never understand Pollution, you preach the noise about the words that you don’t wanna hear Pollution, I keep the grip tight on the mic when I spill Pollution, you preach the noise about the words that you don’t wanna hear Pollution, I keep that grip real tight thank you TG 50 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:25947.jpg

Image:25947.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AfjM.jpg

Image:AfjM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

rateyourmusic.com

Limp Bizkit have more albums in the Bottom 100 at influential website rateyourmusic.com than any other aritst, with six. Also, "New Old Songs" is at #2, and "Results May Vary" is at #5, so they also have the most albums in the Bottom 5. Might be worth mentioning, at least as evidence that their popularity has seriously declined.

No because ratings at rate your music change too often, for example unquestionble truth was in the top 100 worst, now its not Portillo (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm what the hell? Where did Results May Vary go?

Okay, I know not many people liked the album (i did though), but come on, the section for it has been missing since the 23rd. Please do something about it and make sure it doesnt happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornography (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me people, but results May Vary is STILL MISSING from the article. Will you people please adress this situation acordingly.--Kornography (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say... I know a lot of people didn't like Results May Vary, but totally deleting the section from the article? That's unnecessary. Can someone put it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.26.19 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, this is getting absurd. This section has been missing forever and still hasn't been addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.192.159 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for re-adding Results May Vary, Make sure it doesnt happen again :-) --Kornography (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No Problem, its a shame an admin never stepped in. Music&&Power.. (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh...

The Unquestionable Truth part Two is totally gone! It says its because it apparently isnt important and some people dont believe it will be released...Well apparently more info has appeared about three six mafia and those pictures from a few months ago. Obviously they are working on it now. So please re-add TUT(Prt2). There are alot less significant upcoming albums that dont deserve an article than this.--Kornography (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture with Wes

I think a picture with Wes woulld work better than Mike Smith since he was only in the band for one album and most people know Limp with Wes Borland.TG 50 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Need removal

I removed the section "Business Ventures": ["It was around this time that Fred Durst started to assist the careers of a number of up-and-coming bands, particularly Staind, Cold, Puddle of Mudd and Taproot (who later rejected Durst's contract). Most of these bands have since tried to cement themselves as an independent, standalone band and denounce Limp Bizkit's aid and influence. Some however, such as Staind in particular, stay true to Durst's aid. Staind had always said how thankful they are to Fred. In 2006, when Fred Durst did the song 'Outside' live for the second time with Staind, Aaron Lewis replied to several hecklers with "Hey, if it wasn't for this motherfucker right here, I wouldn't be playing in front of you tonight"."]

This is completely irrelevant. This article is suppose to be about Limp Bizkit, not just Fred Durst. That paragraph would be much more appropriate on the Fred Durst page. DubD28 (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)dubD28

Wes Borland 2nd departure

Just as a note to anyone working on the article, Wes Borland's first departure is mentioned and noted as his first, labeling something as first should mean there is a second. A 2nd departure is implied as the article states that they are looking for a replacement for Borland, yet the only mention of a 2nd departure is a note that says that Borland was working on side projects while waiting for the lyrics of Part II to be completed. There is no explanation or discussion of him actually departing from the band a second time. Livingston 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sensationalism

I removed what was an obvious sensationalist claim of fault for a death from a controversy section. I'd like to add on that note something that shouldn't be in the article but is nevertheless relevant. The girl in question (Jessica Michalik) suffered a heart attack. The only known medical reasons for a teenager to suffer a heart attack are disease, genetic predisposition, and/or preexisting condition. The article previously suggested the heart attack was caused by the activities of the band and attempted to illustrate what sounds like pieces of information heard by the news media, friends, and/or relatives the girl, drawn out to bring on a bad light about the death as if was caused by the band in question. Please note that I in particular do not care for Limp Bizkit and am personally against both the type and sound of the music and lyrics they create. I am however attentive to the truth and because Wikipedia is supposed to be a version of the truth I must stand ground even when something I don't care for is falsely chastised. Zephalis (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

What the hell happened to this article? Dumaka (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Care to be specific? SMC (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit: Collected

What the hell is up with the album "collected"?

maybe it should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.253.2 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that it was just a compilation put together by either some fans tired of waiting for TUT (Part 2), or some scammers eager to make a quick buck. I've been unable to find any official releases about this "new album". SMC (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A note to editors editing with IP addresses

Consider registering an account so other editors like me can leave you messages on your talk page. An anonymous removal of sourced material without explanation on the talk page is frequently mistaken for vandalism - it's one of the things vandals tend to do. If you put a name behind the edit or you explain it here or better yet both people will be more likely to discuss the change with you before reverting it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

On December 31, 2008, someone deleted material from the infobox that was supported by the reference. I restored it. I incorporated subsequent edits to the infobox. If anything doesn't match the references, please fix it. If the listed references are wrong, please provide higher-quality references, use those, and put a note here saying what you did, why you did it, and why you think the replacement references are more accurate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-reverted after reading discussion above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Podcast

According to the organiser of the Download Festival in the UK Wes Borland is back with Limp Bizkit, the podcast can be found at the following link - http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/download-exclusive-interview/ - Approx 5 minutes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.150.15 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

33 million albums

A reference is needed to prove that the band has actually sold over 33 million albums. Otherwise, the statement is questionable. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Albums Sold

According to a UG article: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/limp_bizkit_ready_first_album_in_over_5_years.html They say LB's first 3 albums have sold 33 million copies. but if you count RMV which went platinum, and TUTp1 which sold 1 million worldwide, its safe to say they sold at least 35 million albums. if anyone objects tell me why, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthhorizon (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Waters

Can anyone find a source for Rob Waters' lawsuit and six figure sum? I can't find it anywhere, so if no one finds it in a couple days its getting taken off. And I'm working in getting some LEGAL photos of the band. Fifthhorizon (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Backing vocals

Who does the backing vocals for Limp Bizkit. We should put that in. Drgreen19 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro

It is indeed obvious that Gold Cobra isn't coming out this year, but the intro needs to be reworded properly. "is yet to be released" doesn't sound right. Any ideas? I was thinking "With Borland, Limp Bizkit recorded their first full length album with their original lineup in ten years, "Gold Cobra". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthhorizon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Band Name

Could someone explain (and please add to the article) where the band's name comes from? --Robinson weijman (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, so don't go by my word completely, but I think it has something to do with this. --Lordnecronus (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, [1] - that could be the meaning. --Lordnecronus (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There was a nasty comment left here by some wanker regarding this band name stuff. He obviously hated speculation. Which would be fine... but I hate being insulted. Especially over something as downright innocuous as this. Actually, this particular person, I've noticed, has had a history of vandalism on the site. Can't we just ban him for good? --LordNecronus (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers - nothing so far we can add to the article, I guess. --Robinson weijman (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(Please Excuse The Innappropriate Language) A limp biscut is were several men stand in a circle around a biscut and matrurbate. The last person to ejaculate on the biscut has to eat it. There is no sourcable evidence that the band derives there name from that but it's fairly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRunyon123 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, the meaning is about how one of the members (the bassist Sam Rivers iirc) was high as fuck and said his "brain felt like a limp biscuit" [2] L.C.E.C. (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Do we really need the quote "As we head towards..." at the end of the Gold Cobra and recent events section ? It is already present in the Gold Cobra article, so it is duplication of data. By the way, this quote doesn't bring much information to be relevant in the band page. Maimai009 11:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Maimai009 11:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy Section

I was wondering if starting a criticism and controversy section would be necessary. Because Limp Bizkit is one of the most ridiculed bands I've ever heard of. They got blamed for a mosh pit death, have had feuds with other artists, and have a widely panned album, as stated in the articles about this band. So what do you guys think of this? Rocker10000 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources to support such content, then maybe. But I think you'll find that most of these things are already discussed (and sourced) in the History section (the mosh pit death, "feuds", and commercial results of their albums are all discussed in there). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not NPOV to have a section devoted to opinions of a band. WTF (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted unreferenced and incorrect information

the paragraph "Guest performances on the album include Mathematics, Raekwon, Gene Simmons, Paul Wall and Lil Wayne." was unreferenced and after hearing the album in full, untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.239.162 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Smelly Beaver album

Should we add album info about this unofficial album to the main page. Or is it a bootleg? http://www.limpbizkit.com/forum/default.aspx?tid=460976&cid=690 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campuscodi (talk • contribs) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unofficial album" and "bootleg" are the same thing, so, it doesn't belong here. WTF (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article

How can we make this into a Featured Article? Portillo (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pick up the authorized biography that was put out at the height of their popularity maybe. WTF (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got the book and I'm looking at some other band articles like Pink Floyd for style inspiration on how to write this biography. WTF (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Underneath the Gun, song on Results May Vary search result

Do you really think the search for "Underneath the Gun" should redirect to Results May Very? A deathcore band formed under this name in 2004, they broke up by the end of 2009, but may qualify under notability for Wikipedia status. If there page does get created, should it take the "Underneath the Gun" slot, or have it as "Underneath the Gun (band)"? • GunMetal Angel 01:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I personaly don't think this song is particularly notable. It's not a single, nor a popular song. I have no knowledge of the band you cited, but it would be better for Underneath the Gun to redirect to the band's article. Maimai009 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, in fact I think the article would have already been created several times if it wasn't for that redirect. • GunMetal Angel 02:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Limp Bizkit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right then, I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The first para of Formation and early years (1994–1996) - do we have and/or can we add info on how long the three were jamming before Borland joined? Did any of these three songs survive in any form or develop into anything notable?

Durst named the band Limp Bizkit, because he wanted a name that would repel listeners. According to Durst, "The name is there to turn people's heads away. A lot of people pick up the disc and go, 'Limp Bizkit. Oh, they must suck.' Those are the people that we don't even want listening to our music." - I'm torn here - the quote is really good I think as it encapsulates Durst's reasoning well and is striking. However the first sentence is then somewhat repetitious and possibly redundant, yet the quote comes over as a bit naked without it. I am musing out loud here as I don't see a clear answer here and maybe there isn't one...hmmm.

The Devenish reference page ranges, are they chapters? Just looks odd how many go into pages 21-51. Is it worth splitting them up a bit?

Durst invited Korn to drink beer and tattoo the band members. - subjects confused here -the "tattoo the band members" is written so "Korn" is the subject of it, but should be Durst.

However, Borland left the band after a disagreement with Durst. - errr, why? better, can "creative differences" be embellished at all? If not, it's cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

After a successful performance when they opened for Korn at the Dragonfly in Hollywood - "successful" is a funny word here, I mean a band doesn't "pass" or "fail" when it plays...I'd think a word like "impressive" is a better adjective (?)

While heading to California to record their first album, the band wrecked their van, leading Durst to rehire Borland - errr, why...because Borland had a van? But seriously, a reason here 'd be good.

Interscope proposed to the band that the label pay 5,000 - dollars I presume?

As a general statement, try to minimise repetition of common words such as "Durst" and the band's name if you can - I've got a few, adn a few more could be trimmed.

If you haven't seen User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, have a read now. I found it very helpful.

Several sexual assaults, that included but were not limited to rapes - the "but were not limited to" suggests there was worse than rape, but I can't figure out what that is supposed to mean. I'd leave those five words out.

Departure of Borland, hiatus and reunion (2002–2011) is a bit choppy - adding some information on why he left and returned would make it flow more smoothly. also note how para 2 reads like para 1.

Music and lyrics is also a bit choppy -- any other general discussion of band style, or of their influences and inspirations would be good here. yep, good.

Borland's visual style and guitar playing is the primary source of the band's fanbase - a pretty big statement to make...?

In the Live performances section - can we add any info on their best/worst tours?

I noticed a discussion on bootlegs above, I guess I'd think of a bootleg as notable if it had received some coverage and discussion (eg Durst or some rock critics particularly praising or damning it, and/or if it had been widely circulated). If there are none that fit, then that's fine.

Has anyone cited the band as an influence? Has any segment of their music been sampled in another notable song? Are there any notable devotees? If none to any of these, then that is ok.

Overall, promising - it is punctuated by some fun anecdotes and prose which make it a good read. I haven't looked at the refs - I don't often do band articles so am not too familiar with RS vs non RS sources. Anyway, let's see how we go with prose/comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The chapters of the book are unnamed, that's why it's split that way. WTF (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am trying to give this article as hard a shove as possible in the direction of FAC, as I think that is a good destination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Added some samples and covers. WTF (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: (Personality Rights tag noted on commons page of Fred Durst image, but is in a public place so consent unneeded) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall:

Pass or Fail: -a nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Awards

There was a nice Awards chart before, what happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xffactor (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, come on

You all know how bad this band are. Do the right thing. Undelete my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.210.48 (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The right thing is keeping it neutral and reliably sourced. Wikipedia's job is not to judge bands.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but could someone please at least acknowledge how bad this band are?

No, unless you can show that the vast majority of reliable sources (including ones used in the article) say so. That is not possible and therefore we will not flat-out say "this band sucks".--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mean acknowledge how bad they are in the article. I meant in the talk section. What are your personal thoughts on the band? Although if reviews count as reliable sources then there probably are a great deal of reliable sources that back up the idea that this band are terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.210.48 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also a great deal of reviews that say they are an awesome band, you can't say they suck on a Wikipedia article because of the opinions of a few people. I am also personally a huge fan of the rap rock genre and a fan of Limp Bizkit. Metalfan72 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be genuinely amazed if you can provide a like to even one professional review that says that Limp Bizkit are any good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.210.48 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative metal

i'm removing it since A. it's unsourced and B. calling them alternative metal implies they sound similar to bands like tool & helmet which is completely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because a band is alternative metal, doesnt mean they sound like Tool and Helmet. Portillo (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Breakup Rumors

Fred Durst did an interview with Kerrang! (magazine) in which he said Limp Bizkit's time was over. This sparked a rumor on Twitter that the band is breaking up.

"In a recent interview, Fred Durst hinted that his band, Limp Bizkit, may be over, but he took to Twitter to clear up all the confusion, noting that the group, which recently signed to Lil Wayne’s Cash Money label, is not breaking up.

Durst reportedly told Kerrang! magazine that the band’s time is “over,” explaining that the group’s popularity has waned considerably in the U.S., which is why they haven’t toured here since 2006."[3] Even though Durst should be believed when he says the band is still together, the fact that he addressed these rumors is significant enough to be included in the article on Limp Bizkit. Ibnsina786 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a rule against rumors on Wikipedia. 24.9.253.197 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Balsamo and Waters!?

Hey when there's no certain news of Terry Balsamo JOINING Limp Bizkit, and since it's just a Rumor and there has still been no confirmation as to whether or not Balsamo has in fact rejoined Limp Bizkit, Is it correct to put him in band's Members part??? Solino the Wolf (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone to answer?!!Solino the Wolf (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, unless it's referenced. My understanding was that he was working on a private project with Sam Rivers, not the whole band. SMC (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He was working with Sam on new L.B. stuff but wanted to be contractly guaranteed money which is a smart idea due to the band's sketchy business practices. lol They also had a new guitarist that went to LA for a photo shoot, but they ran into Wes in LA, and apparently they all need money and sent the new guy back to Jax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.156.100 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well even if what you guys are saying is true, this article still lacks authentic, reliable references on wether Balsamo and Rob Waters were members of L.B. All that the article on Waters was a member of the band in 95 and the reference is linked to an article where waters is barely mentioned. Same can be said for Balsamo, where 2 out of the 3 references are dead links. So what should be done about these 2? Aashwath_001 (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Limp biscuit

I don't know what sources say or what the actual origin of the band name was, but there's an obvious connection one way or another. If Durst claims it's there to "repel listeners" and "every record label that showed an interest in the band pressured its members to change its name", it's obviously not because people are annoyed by the thought of wet snacks.

Soggy biscuit currently has a "for the band, see"-link leading here, while this article leaves out the obvious association in the other direction. And before quoting the already obvious parts of WP:V or WP:OR regarding this, take a few minutes whether readers are best served by having the connection mentioned or studiously ignored.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the genres?

One of rap rock/rapcore/rap metal should definitely be there. It could easily be argued that Limp Bizkit are more of a rap rock/rapcore band than a nu metal band. Metalfan72 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw someone restored rap metal, thank you Metalfan72 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think one of them will just do. Rap metal is good enough!31.59.63.124 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Limp Bizkit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305173737/http://themusic.com.au:80/newsletter/4096/exclusive-limp-bizkit-frontman-shocked-at-bdo-barrier-decision to http://themusic.com.au/newsletter/4096/exclusive-limp-bizkit-frontman-shocked-at-bdo-barrier-decision
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108132157/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4386696-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4386696-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704154916/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4610680-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4610680-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limp Bizkit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://themusic.com.au/newsletter/4096/exclusive-limp-bizkit-frontman-shocked-at-bdo-barrier-decision

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Opening sentence in Limp Bizkit article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article's current sentence currently reads Limp Bizkit is an American band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. This RFC is seeking consensus on which genre would be best to be added to the opening sentence of Limp Bizkit. See here for article's current content and sourcing on the subject.

Options include

• A: American rock band
• B: American nu metal band
• C: American rap metal band
• D: American rap rock band
• E: American band (no genre addition)
• F: American rap rock-nu metal band
• G: Different approach - write in your own solution

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey/Discussion

• A as top choice - it's the best compromise to avoid future genre-warring, as all the sourced genre in the article fall under the bigger umbrella of rock music. It was also the genre used at the time of its GA nomination and passing, with no further consensus arriving on it since then. B, C and D are all acceptable as well, as all are heavily sourced and virtually interchangeable. All are very similar in the scheme of the history of the world's music. I'd support any consensus in their favor. Against E - its needlessly vague for a band with a relatively straightforward sound. We're not talking about the music complexities of Frank Zappa or Tool (band). Its straightforward, mainstream, commercial music with many sources available that directly classify the band. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• A seems most suitable out of the options offered. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm fine with either A or B. "Rock" covers everything the band does (aside from the odd hip hop song, such as "N 2 Gether Now" and "Red Light-Green Light"), but on the other hand, Limp Bizkit are a well-known nu metal band, and nu metal often includes rap rock and rap metal anyway. But since A seems to be the best compromise, I would just go with that. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• A should be the one used at the very least. The more exact genre could easily just be listed later in the lead, if its deemed important. "Limp Bizkit's style was deemed "nu metal" by the media, a musical fusion of rap and heavy metal" or something. That said, I personally don't have an issue with B, C and D either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Kokoro20: @ProtoDrake: I add new proposition - F (rap rock-nu metal band). This is compromise. By the way, A - rock band as only breaks up few rules of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. This version (A) has no chance of success, even if were a consensus. PS. @Dissident93:, "nu metal" is not a musical fusion of rap and heavy metal, this is rap metal. Nu metal is a form of alternative metal.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 19:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• G Since the style section indicates that they're predominately recognized as three genres, the latter two are associated with rap, I would suggest American nu metal with rap influences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• D - per MOS:IDENTITY - (if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses) - According to Durst: "We're a rap-rock band." - Full context of quote: "The epiphany was, we've got to own who we are and stay true to what we are," explains Durst, who produced Gold Cobra. "We're a rap-rock band. We're Limp Bizkit. We might individually like different things, and none of us listen to rap-rock, but when we get together in a band room, that's what we make. There's no reason to search and find a newer Limp Bizkit or an evolved style or fit the radio format. I don't think we have to prove anything. We just have to own it." rap-rock institution Limp Bizkit, Rap-rock's original boy band.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• My "vote" - D, but also support C, E F. But, this is only survey - for guidance, not more, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - So, since a number of solutions are possible, I'll break it down for what we have so far at this point:

• A - 4 people found acceptable. (Serge, Proto, Kokoro, Dissident)
• B - 3 people found acceptable. (Serge, Kokoro, Dissident)
• C - 3 people found acceptable. (Serge, Dissident, Subtropical-man)
• D - 4 people found acceptable. (Serge, Dissident, ISaidNoWay, Subtropical-man)
• E - 1 people have chosen this. (Subtropical-man)
• F - 1 person found this acceptable. (Sub-Tropical) (I think? He added it as an option at least.)
• G - 1 person found this acceptable. (Walter)

They run for 30 days, so there's more time to go. That's just where we're at after about a week. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• You know, I also have my own little alternate solution. How about we put "rock" in the first sentence of the lead, and then have a sentence somewhere else in the lead stating something like "they are often identified as nu metal, rap metal and rap rock"? Then we wouldn't have to leave out any of the often-cited genres. That seems to be a pretty neutral approach without just writing "Limp Bizkit is an American nu metal/rap metal/rap rock band", which just looks sloppy. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with user:Kokoro20 - "they are often identified as nu metal, rap metal and rap rock" is good.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you agree with Kokoro, and I agree with Kokoro, can we just implement his approach and be done with all of this? Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 16:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, "run"? "A" - rock band?

1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy - "not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee)"
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability - "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight"
3. Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS) - Wikipedians can not do original research.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - why only rock? Rap metal and rap rock is a music genre that fuses hip hop with rock and nu metal is alternative metal with elements of other music genres such as hip hop. So, this is also rap band or hip-hop band. Apart from the WP:NOR, it is not neutral because favors only one genre.
5. Wikipedia:Fringe theories - most sources shows: rap rock or/and rap metal or/and nu metal.

Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Kokoro20 (edit conflict) I am completely fine with your idea, it closely mirrors the solutions found at FAs Tool (band) and Smashing Pumpkins. I think that sounds like a good idea. Any opposition anyone? It doesn't seem to run contrary to many/any stances so far? Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Okay, here's a place to propose the official wording. Feel free to rework, this is just a rough draft to start discussion. Here is the current opening paragraph:

Limp Bizkit is an American band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. Their lineup consists of Fred Durst (lead vocals), Sam Rivers (bass guitar, backing vocals), John Otto (drums, percussions), and Wes Borland (guitars, backing vocals). Their work is marked by Durst's abrasive, angry lyrics and Borland's sonic experimentation and elaborate visual appearance, which includes face and body paint, masks and uniforms, as well as the band's elaborate live shows. The band has been nominated for three Grammy Awards, have sold 40 million records worldwide and won several other awards.

Here is something to the capacity of what Kokoro20 proposed:

Limp Bizkit is an American rock band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. Their lineup consists of Fred Durst (lead vocals), Sam Rivers (bass guitar, backing vocals), John Otto (drums, percussions), and Wes Borland (guitars, backing vocals). Their music has been described as nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, and is marked by Durst's abrasive, angry lyrics and Borland's sonic experimentation. Borland's elaborate visual appearance, which includes face and body paint, masks and uniforms, also plays a large role in the band's elaborate live shows. The band has been nominated for three Grammy Awards, have sold 40 million records worldwide and won several other awards.

How about something like that? This way it is worked into the pre-existing structure and keeps with the flow. Note: I have no opinion on which order nu metal/ rap metal / rap rock are listed. I have no preference on their ordering of the three.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit is an American band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. Their lineup consists of Fred Durst (lead vocals), Sam Rivers (bass guitar, backing vocals), John Otto (drums, percussions), and Wes Borland (guitars, backing vocals). Their music has been described as nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, and is marked by Durst's abrasive, angry lyrics and Borland's sonic experimentation. Borland's elaborate visual appearance, which includes face and body paint, masks and uniforms, also plays a large role in the band's elaborate live shows. The band has been nominated for three Grammy Awards, have sold 40 million records worldwide and won several other awards.

I support it (without term of rock band) because "rock band" break few rules of Wikipedia (see above). Order nu metal/ rap metal / rap rock is ok.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 20:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

But Kokoro's proposal used "American rock band" in it. And all three genre listed in nu metal/rap metal/rap rock all are subgenre of the wider rock music. They are all types of rock music. There is no logical argument that they aren't a rock band. I mean, read the rock music article. They're all covered there. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And all three genre listed in nu metal/rap metal/rap rock all are subgenre of the wider hip-hop music. There is no logical argument that they aren't a hip-hop band or rap band, so. Maybe I not support whole Kokoro's idea. If you absolutely want to have the genres in the intro, and without breaking a few rules, this is (without term of rock band) a good formulation. All the time I prove that the rock band breaks the rules of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:POV, WP:VER, WP:FRINGE (evidence are above) but you go still the same :( We can now complete the question, if you accept the new version:

Limp Bizkit is an American band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. Their lineup consists of Fred Durst (lead vocals), Sam Rivers (bass guitar, backing vocals), John Otto (drums, percussions), and Wes Borland (guitars, backing vocals). Their music has been described as nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, and is marked by Durst's abrasive, angry lyrics and Borland's sonic experimentation. Borland's elaborate visual appearance, which includes face and body paint, masks and uniforms, also plays a large role in the band's elaborate live shows. The band has been nominated for three Grammy Awards, have sold 40 million records worldwide and won several other awards.

User:Subtropical-man (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There are already 4 people who support using "rock music", and not a single person has agreed with your argument that "rock music" isn't usable. I think that's a pretty good sign that you're misunderstanding things here. A consensus is starting to form... Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Users can show desire, opinion, feeling... Maybe rock band looks nice but whether this opinion is consistent with the principles of Wikipedia? - this is another question. In this case, survey will not help. I want 1 million dollars - payment for editing wikipedia, very many users also want 1 million dollars and support it. But the principles and ideas of Wikipedia prohibited it. Simply. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what your last comment means, and your fundamental lack of understanding of music genre and basic policy puts you in the wrong overall...but this compromise is an improvement over its prior state, so we can at least implement that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American band

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's discuss whether Limp Bizkit should be called "an American nu metal band" or "an American rap metal band". I think Limp Bizkit should be called an American nu metal band. One reason is because while they are rap metal, not all Limp Bizkit's songs have rapping. Another reason is because many Limp Bizkit songs that are rap metal are also nu metal. Statik N (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• You wrote: "many Limp Bizkit songs that are rap metal are also nu metal" - very interesting OR (sorry, but it break Wikipedia:No original research)
• You wrote: "not all Limp Bizkit's songs have rapping" - yes, and not all Limp Bizkit's songs are nu metal
• Limp Bizkit are multi-genres band, favoring one genres breaks the rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, there are sources for nu metal, rap metal, rap rock and rapcore, so... only neutral version of "an American band" + list of genres in infobox. PS. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view are two of three core content policies of Wikipedia, they can not be broken, especially if there is the possibility of using a neutral version... so further discussion is redundant (the basic rules of Wikipedia are not subject to discussion). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Er, this response in not particularly helpful. There are a ton of reliable sources that directly call them either (or both) genre. He's just asking which genre should the band primarily be identified as? The answer should be something to the capacity of "the one they're most identified by most frequently by reliable sources". Honestly, I think either would be fine, as both genre as extremely similar (in the spectrum of the history of music goes) and have no shortage of reliable sources directly calling them as such. Statik N should be applauded and engaged in constructive construction - since a vast majority just restore to edit warring or stealth edits on genre, not repeatedly linked to the same basic pages in the same comment. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sergecross73, Statik N proposed the addition of only one genre to the first sentence. Nothing he wrote about the creation of the section about genres. Of course, we can create the section, with sentences: "the one of the most identified by most frequently by reliable sources is nu metal [source1][source2][source3], and also rap-metal [source1][source2][source3] and rap-rock [source1][source2][source3]. Occasionally also rapcore [source1][source2]. Many sources shows the band as both: rap-metal and nu metal [source1][source2][source3]". Etc etc. We can go in this way if you want.
• Sergecross73, if there are reliable sources for more than one genres, with a similar number of sources, we can not do original research to select one, because this is break Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and a bit Wikipedia:Verifiability. We should present neutral point of view, for example - genre 1+sources, genre 2+sources, eventually genre 3 and 4+sources. We as Wikipedians should present neutral facts, do not do own analysis, original research (including synthesis, per Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS). Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 19:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please stop with your lecturing. I'm very aware of how this is handled on Wikipedia, and your explanation is only one of many ways to handle this. There are other policy approved alternatives.

1. Its very common for bands to be identified by their primary genre in the opening sentence, followed by a more detailed description. An example is the peer reviewed and featured article Smashing Pumpkins.
2. Other times, a more general genre, like "rock", is used, like in FA Tool (band) or good article A Perfect Circle, and then more detailed descriptions are explained with sources in the body. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• These articles have gone through extensive peer reviews. There is both consensus and precedent for this approach as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying, possible there are cases when used discussions etc BUT does not agree with this. I understand also that you are an experienced user BUT experienced user does not know by heart all the rules of Wikipedia.
• I must cite quote fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which in this case is very important and Sergecross73, I have no desire to offend anyone.
• Please read the sentence in intro of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Of course, if almost all or all of sources saying about one genre - no problem, but if not - Wikipedians does not have the right to show only one version (in this case - genre)... and this "is non-negotiable" (per rules). So. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your opinion is noted, but you're mistaken in the assertion that it's some sort of absolute, and you've failed to articulate how this is different, nor are you likely to, with the peer reviewed examples I've already cited. If a consensus doesn't arrive naturally, I contact some Wikiprojects or start up an RFC to get more input. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Put yourself in my position. There are: You with your opinion and fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which denies its opinion. Which in this case is more important? WOW. OMG. Of course, that fundamental principle of Wikipedia. The second case: I agree with this principle. As I wrote earlier "Of course, if almost all or all of sources saying about one genre - no problem, but if not - Wikipedians does not have the right to show only one". This is talk page of Limp Bizkit, I very know this band, I read a lot of sources about this and does not exist the vast preponderance one of the genres! In this case - to select one of the genres of Limp Bizkit, I do not see any chance do not to break of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and even Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS). So. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've repeated yourself like 5 times now, yet you still have really explained how. What part of labeling the band rap metal over nu metal, or vice versa, is so grossly violating neutrality? They're virtually the same genre. Conceptually explain to me which characteristics of the genre are so grossly violating the neutrality of the band by choosing one over the other. When you're done with that, please explain to me how these very high traffic, high profile, peer reviewed articles I've cited (among many others) have used my approach, and have consistently been maintained that way for years, and yet no ones changing them due to these "non-negotiable" massive NPOV issues you keep going on about. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Soundgarden. Pearl Jam. Nirvana (band). Alice in Chains. All peer reviewed articles that define the band's genre in the opening sentence, and then explain more detailed styles and genres later in the article. That's too many GA/FAs to be a mere oversight or error. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sergecross73, you wrote: "rap metal over nu metal, or vice versa, is so grossly violating neutrality? They're virtually the same genre" and rest of your comment about relation nu metal and rap rock - no comment. This is not worth comment.
• Not interested in your idea. I do not care that someone had once supported it, etc. It has already been processed - no matter how many people and how many times you used it, enough one person which detects irregularities (break rules).
• Your examples are poor, for example: Nirvana with "consensus"? for rock band (there are sources for grunge, genre of rock and alternative rock) - so, result is simply - rock band. Pearl Jam - also. If you do not see the difference between rap metal/rap rock (hip hop with rock) and nu metal (form of alternative metal), is not even a point in arguing with you. Because how? Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 23:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, "not worth comment" and "not interested" are not valid answers to anything I asked you. Try again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a full list of peer reviewed, WP:GA/WP:FA articles that have an opening sentence that define a bands genre with a specific genre.

1. Smashing Pumpkins (FA) - Alternative rock
2. Nine Inch Nails(FA) - Industrial rock
3. Megadeth (FA) - Thrash metal
4. The Clash (GA) - Punk rock
5. Slipknot (band) (GA) - Nu metal

Here's a full list of peer reviewed, GA/FA articles that have an opening sentence that define a band simply as "rock"

1. Tool (band) (FA)
2. A Perfect Circle (GA)
3. Pearl Jam (GA)
4. Nirvana (band) (FA)
5. Alice in Chains (FA)

With 10 peer reviewed articles, and plenty more out there, there's clearly a precedent here. The question is not "Does policy allow us to do this?" The question is "Can we agree on a genre"? Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that you forcing other users to select one genre. Back to the topic - you wrote "even rock would be an improvement over "American band"" - this is your opinion, many users may think differently. If there are many reliable sources for nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Sorry. I am totally opposed for your proposition. You wrote also: " The question is not "Does policy allow us to do this?"" - you're wrong. Generally, policy does not allow according to the core content policies of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Simpler versions of proposition in parts of music articles nothing justifies. Can we no agree on a one genre, if band there are multi-genres. Of course, if music band plays the alternative rock and hard rock, we can shorten to rock band but in the case of Limp Bizkit, the situation is much more complicated - too many sources for too many genres. So, sorry but strong oppose.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I just gave you ten peer reviewed examples where editors were able to agree on a singular genre for an opening sentence, and then explained other genre later on. How an I "forcing my opinion"? I didn't even give a stance, I just put out some possibilities to start a discussion. . How is "American rock band" not better than "American band"? On what grounds do you oppose the term "rock" being associated to them? Every genre of music associated with them is a form of rock music. How did 10 high profile FA/GAs manage to do this without violating Wikipedia policy, but somehow it's impossible on this particular article? You're not even trying to come up with a solution. Unless you've got a lot of good answers that actually address these question, It looks like you're just being combative and purposefully difficult. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read with understanding. I wrote above: "versions of proposition in parts of music articles nothing justifies". And I not wrote "forcing my opinion" but "I have a feeling that you forcing other users to select one genre" - yes, this is my feeling. You wrote "How is "American rock band" not better than "American band"?" - if genre are not neutral, in the encyclopedia is worse. Encyclopedia can not impose a single genre if there are three or more. If there are many reliable sources for nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Wikipedia is not music portal, encyclopedia presents neutral facts, not doing original research.
Subtropical-man ^talk
_(en-2) 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

1. I think you need to check your understanding of music genre. Every single genre mentioned in the article falls under the umbrella term of "rock music". Nu metal is a form of rock music. Rap metal is a form of rock music. Rap rock is a form of rock music. All 3 are type of rock music. There is no neutrality violation.
2. " Encyclopedia can not impose a single genre if there are three or more." - This is an arbitrary standard not backed by any rule or guideline. Many of the featured articles I cited, like Smashing Pumpkins, do this with no opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Rap rock is form of hip hop and rock, rap metal is form of hip hop and metal, nu metal is form of metal with with elements of other music genres such as hip hop, funk. So, All 3 are type of hip hop music.
2. 100 000 or more of articles no have (correct) sources, do this with no opposition. This does not change the fact that the articles break the rules.
   Subtropical-man ^talk
   _(en-2) 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Right, but they're all types of rock. Keep in mind we're strictly talking about the opening sentence, not the entire article. The opening sentence isn't supposed to describe every single nuance to a band's sound. Its just a general overview. That's what the WP:LEAD is by definition. With your sort of impractical reasoning, there's "NPOV violations" all over the place in the lead. Its be an NPOV issue to mention that Durst does lead vocals, but we don't mention that Sam Rivers does backing vocals. It'd be a NPOV violation that we mention some members, but don't mention Mike Smith at all. Itd be a violation that we list their studio albums, but not their live albums. You can't just scream "NPOV" for every little detail that isn't covered in the lead.
2. Are you familiar with the featured article process? Its very detailed. I highly doubt all those examples are blatantly violating basic rules in their opening sentence, and have been doing so for years, unnoticed. That's not a realistic scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1. You wrote: "You can't just scream "NPOV" for every little detail that isn't covered in the lead" - little detail? "just scream "NPOV""? If you using original research exalt in the intro of article one genre ignoring other equivalents (equipollent genre) breaking neutral point of view - this is not "just". In the intro, especially in the first sentence, should not be presented disputed or controversial data - if there is no such necessity. If it is necessary to add such information, Wikipedians need to add all versions with the source. I hope, that this problem does not leak out (beyond Wikipedia). Otherwise reputation of the neutrality of Wikipedia, can significantly decrease.
2. You wrote: "That's not a realistic scenario" - no, you're wrong (even skipping fact of hoaxes - Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, who were 10 years in Wikipedia unnoticed). I just yesterday noticed a problem. Before I did not pay attention to it. If the intro of some music articles show genre+source, for me - no problem. However, I never would have imagined, that genre in intro of some bands articles are original research (with synthesis) and blatant violations of neutral point of view. Reader of the article, not looking for a some consensuses at the discussion of article. You opened my eyes, thanks. The problem will have to be discussed in a larger group on technically pages. Possible that we will need to create a commission (like constitutional review) for the analysis of whether these "practices" do not violate the basic!!! principles of Wikipedia.
   Subtropical-man ^talk
   _(en-2) 13:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm done talking circles with you. I'll let the RFC I created on this settle this dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nu metal or rap metal or rap rock

One response in, and the discussion is already off-topic.

To start up on a separate point from what the above section has diverted into: Statik N - It may be easier to come up with a consensus on all this if we get back to the actual discussion of the genre itself. Source-wise, both nu metal and rap metal are both very frequently cited in reliable, third party sources. Either seems plausible. I do think nu metal is a slightly better option. According to the article's current status, slightly more refs use that one, and I think it's because it's closer to their style. They do implement rap, but many songs do not. That's more in-line with nu metal. Rap metal more emphasizes rapping, like Rage Against the Machine. Thoughts on this line of reasoning? Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC) personal feelings? and on this you want to build an encyclopedia? I understand that you support option of "nu metal" but Wikipedia is encyclopedia, this is a bad place for your above arguments, feelings, opinions. If you are looking for a compromise, I see only two: current and neutral "American band" or "rap rock and nu metal American band". No more, not in Limp Bizkit case. PS. Do not forget that even if you create a consensus for one genre, each!!! user has the right to add the rest of the genres(+sources) or reverted your changes, according to the rules who is higher than consensus (for example: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research).... and you will not have the right to block this user. Please stop pushing "need to select one" and create not encyclopaedic discussion. You should set a good example, do not change the encyclopedia into a blog or forum :( Subtropical-man talk (en-2) 00:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC) If you feel the need to badger me with every comment, then at least address the things I actually say. My statement above was based on frequency of genre use per sources in the article. Anymore more comments that are just generalized rehashed lectures on the basics of the Wikipedia are going to be moved to the above section. This section is for discussing which genre to potentially use. Feel free to link me to WP:OR for the 8th time in the section above, Stay on topic in this section. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Specific genre proposal

Here's a full list of peer reviewed, WP:GA/WP:FA articles that have an opening sentence that define a bands genre with a specific genre.

1. Smashing Pumpkins (FA) - Alternative rock
2. Nine Inch Nails(FA) - Industrial rock
3. Megadeth (FA) - Thrash metal
4. The Clash (GA) - Punk rock
5. Slipknot (band) (GA) - Nu metal

Here's a full list of peer reviewed, GA/FA articles that have an opening sentence that define a band simply as "rock"

1. Tool (band) (FA)
2. A Perfect Circle (GA)
3. Pearl Jam (GA)
4. Nirvana (band) (FA)
5. Alice in Chains (FA)

With 10 peer reviewed articles, and plenty more out there, there's clearly a precedent here. The question is not "Does policy allow us to do this?" The question is "Can we agree on a genre"? This section is for discussing the selection of a genre for the opening sentence only. Anything off-topic will be moved to the above section or removed. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock are all cited a lot in the article, so any of these seem plausible. If none can be agreed upon, even rock would be an improvement over "American band". Reliable sources call them a few other genre too, like alternative metal, but not as frequently as the first three. Discuss. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have a feeling that you forcing other users to select one genre. Back to the topic - you wrote "even rock would be an improvement over "American band"" - this is your opinion, many users may think differently. If there are many reliable sources for nu metal, rap metal, and rap rock, better to use a neutral version of "American band", than to force to try to pick one, at the expense of neutrality. Sorry. I am totally opposed for your proposition. You wrote also: " The question is not "Does policy allow us to do this?"" - you're wrong. Generally, policy does not allow according to the core content policies of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Simpler versions of proposition in parts of music articles nothing justifies. Can we no agree on a one genre, if band there are multi-genres. Of course, if music band plays the alternative rock and hard rock, we can shorten to rock band but in the case of Limp Bizkit, the situation is much more complicated - too many sources for too many genres. So, sorry but strong oppose.
  Subtropical-man ^talk
  _(en-2) 22:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You can't even give them a regular "rock" label in the lead?

^^^^^^ That's how pitiful Wikipedia is to avoid this. How sad it is that we have people who come on here just to argue over this crap. Limp Bizkit is a ROCK BAND. That fact IS NOT controvertible. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the only person who opposed the use of "rock" in the RFC above was SubTropicalMan. He fundamentally doesn't understand music genre. He was against any genre being in the lead until we came up with the compromise sentence about ne metal/rap rock etc. I was tired of arguing with him so I dropped it, but feel free to push forward if you want to. Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: Just what violation of Wikipedia policy do you see? I had better hear a damn good specific reasoning for all of this to have been opposed like this and having you completely ignore consensus. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 05:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy say: "not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee)"
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability say: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight"
3. Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS) - Wikipedians can not do original research. You can not analyze: rap rock is part of rock, rap metal is part of metal and metal is part of rock, nu metal is part of metal and metal is part of rock = rock band. This is clear original research.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - why only rock? Rap metal and rap rock "is a music genre that fuses hip hop with rock" and nu metal "is alternative metal with elements of other music genres such as hip hop". So, this is also rap band or hip-hop band. Apart from the WP:NOR, it is not neutral because favors only one genre.
5. Direct quotation of the main principles of Wikipedia: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus"
6. - most sources shows: rap rock or/and rap metal or/and nu metal.

In the current version, they are given genres: in the intro and infobox. It is not enough? If this is not enough, I had better hear a damn good arguments to break a few rules of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a violation here. Including one genre in the intro serves to give readers a quick general idea of where the artist falls. Nu metal, rap metal and rap rock are, generally speaking and in accordance with reliable sources, all subgenres of rock. One could argue that there is a strong hip hop influence on Limp Bizkit, but unless you would claim that they are as much a hip hop group as they are a rock band (would you?), rock is a perfectly good general label to include. Why would including no label at all be preferable?--MASHAUNIX 17:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You wrote: "Including one genre in the intro serves to give readers a quick general idea of where the artist falls" - in intro and even infobox exist accurate data about genres. There is no need to insert additional genre, breaking several rules of Wikipedia.

You wrote: "Nu metal, rap metal and rap rock are, generally speaking and in accordance with reliable sources, all subgenres of rock" - no, most of sources show rap metal as subgenre of hip hop and heavy metal, most of sources show rap rock as subgenre of hip hop and rock and most of sources show nu metal as subgenre of heavy or alternative metal with some other genres (like hip hop etc). These are facts, supported by very many sources. Your opinion and your sentence stems only from the analysis.

You wrote: "One could argue that there is a strong hip hop influence on Limp Bizkit, but unless you would claim that they are as much a hip hop group as they are a rock band (would you?)" - maybe Limp Bizkit is more hip hop band than rock band or inversely, it does not matter here because again you forget where you are. Wikipedia is nor musical internet portal, blog, forum etc. Wikipedia is encyclopedia and has its own rules. If most of sources show Limp Bizkit genres as rap rock, rap metal and nu metal, you have no right to do their own analysis per Wikipedia:No original research (including Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS), you have no right to favoritism one genre per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, you have no right to use negligible amount of sources and use it as the truth per Wikipedia:Verifiability (and what follows), create your own theories per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way. Just know that you're going to an unnecessary extreme. And actually, we do have the right to favoritism of one genre, but only when that genre has far more sources than another one. It's just that that situation doesn't exist here. And heavy metal and alternative metal in turn go back to rock. Rock is the root genre. That's what we are trying to get at, and everyone knows that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but Limp Bizkit is not heavy metal, alternative rock and death metal band. Limp Bizkit is rap rock, rap metal and nu metal band. Rap rock and rap metal is not genre of rock/metal as a whole, you're wrong two concepts. Rap rock and rap metal are genres of fusion two main music styles, this is genre of hip-hop/rap and rock/metal. You can not write "rock band" if half of these genres is other music style. You used term "root genre" above, good term - but Limp Bizkit includes two root genres. Whole music of Limp Bizkit contain two "roots": rock music and hip hop music. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There would be no violation of the guidelines you mention if rock was included. Including a dominant root genre is common across musical biographies. The first sentence of the lead is important because it represents the article for example in Google search where the reader can get the most general and key info just by looking at the summary without even opening the article. Removing the intro genre from all bands whose style goes back to more than one root genre would be absurd. The music of the Beatles, for example, had been strongly influenced by a wide array of genres from blues to classical, but that does not mean that it is wrong to state that they are essentially a rock band. Limp Bizkit have much influence from hip hop but, again, they are essentially a rock band. Your determination to keep that info from the article in this specific case serves no purpose whatsoever...--MASHAUNIX 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried to explain this to him in the past, without any luck. It's not original research, it's Subtropicals failure to understand how music genre works, and when he can't get it, he mistakes it for original research. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I understand how music genre works. Case of Limp Bizkit is different than many other music bands. Limp Bizkit is not typical rock band like Beatles or metal band like Sepultura etc, in Limp Bizkit dominated by not one but two root genres: rock (including metal) and hip hop (uncluding rap). Limp Bizkit is fusion ofr these two main music genres. Even if the case of Wikipedia:No original research is debatable, term "rock band" still breaks the other above rules like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you absolutely want to have additional information in the first sentence, please use two main genres of Limp Bizkit. Examples:

• Limp Bizkit is an American band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994. (current)

OR

• Limp Bizkit is an American rock/rap band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994.

OR

• Limp Bizkit is an American rock and rap band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994.

OR

• Limp Bizkit is an American rap-rock band from Jacksonville, Florida, formed in 1994.

etc

Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Done.--MASHAUNIX 13:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Limp Bizkit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203112253/http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/11/world_exclusive_limp_bizkit_na.html to http://www2.kerrang.com/2009/11/world_exclusive_limp_bizkit_na.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sunshineslate.com/2011/05/10/florida-bad-boys-limp-bizkit-set-to-release-new-album-june-28/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/116896

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)