Talk:Crunkcore/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Have you even listened to Of Mice & Men? Lol, your argument is totally invalid they don't have one electronic piece in any of their music without to mention that I think ISFOF are included in this list because their "music" is pretty much just as bad as all of crunkcore so it makes sense why reviewers have considered them as such. • GunMetal Angel 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed some fishy information in the reception section. For one, there was an article linked that was implying that an article in The Guardian was slamming crunkcore when they were mocking only a particular Brokencyde song. Also, a Google search for an alleged Kerrang article, "What the fuck is up with Screamo Crunk?", brings only this Wikipedia article as a result. Not even Kerrang's website comes up in the search, meaning there's not evidence that this article actually existed. Even if it does, Kerrang itself is not "multiple magazines" as it was referenced in the article. I added "citation needed" tags to the Kerrang quote, and hopefully it will either be quickly cited for accuracy or removed altogether from the article. -Josh (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup? You've gutted it. At least try to expand it back from this dismal state you've left it in. That Kerrang article does exist: "we try and find out what the fuck is up with screamo crunk - possibly the worst genre of music ever created."[1][2] Fences&Windows 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can this really be considered a "derivative" when it has little-to-nothing to do with crunk according to its article? (Albert Mond (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

If anything, crunkcore is a derivative of electronicore. I say remove electronicore from the "derivative" section; it's an unsourced addition anyway. --LordNecronus (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

it's the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.125.214 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice constructive argument. --LordNecronus (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kesha should not be considered crunkcore, She does not use any elements of screamo, or barked vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.13.193 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that she should be removed. From what I recall, the source is only a mention of her guesting on a 30H!3 album or something. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

Sorry guys, but you have to remember that

(Rewritten) This source can't be considered valid because Kesha shows no style of Crunkcore, and the source appears to only use the term Crunkcore because they could, and not because Kesha actually is Crunkcore. She's not Crunkcore, all you have to do is listen to her music to find that out. She's very very clearly not a Crunkcore artist, and just because one site claims her to be Crunkcore doesn't mean she is, and as such should not be mentioned on this wikipedia article.--Raktoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Read

WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, fixed. My point still stands. Kesha is not Crunkcore.--Raktoner (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The same website's profile of Kesha doesn't even recognize her as Crunkcore, which only proves my point more.--Raktoner (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Props for ripping apart a huge music website, Raktoner. And I honestly agree that Kesha is not crunkcore, but you clearly ignored Blackmetalbaz's reasoning.

13

00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

one passing mention in possibly unreliable review. get a 2nd and we'll talk. besides, "queen" in that context just means she hangs out with crunkcore artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One:

13

01:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to find any other source that says she's crunkcore. You can't do it. You're asking us to prove a negative by finding something that says "Kesha is not crunkcore" to remove this ridiculous addition to the page. No one has written that because no one would believe the opposite to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't do it, and I don't NEED to do it. I'm not asking you or anyone to prove a negative. One reliable source, which

13

02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

so your argument is basically that that can never ever ever ever be removed. no matter what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Drive by comment: Your hands are not tied here; if something contentious is in reliable sources, then in may be included in an article, but it doesn't have to be. This is a common misconception. Whether to include this person or not is subject to consensus of those editing the article, not a straight yes/no based only on whether allmusic is reliable or not. Otherwise, every genre article would be obligated to list every single artist of that genre if you could source it; that isn't the case. And I have to say that blanket statements like "allmusic is never unreliable" seem unlikely to be true. (puts admin hat on, gets all self important and patronizing) By the way, the edit warring on the article is silly, and will likely result in blocks and pages protected to a version you hate. Discuss first, then add or remove when consensus is reached. Hint: nobody has consensus yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The article already reads "artists that have been described as crunckcore include", which is perfectly ambiguous. Campaigns by non-registered userids to remove sourced material without discussion is simply disruptive and should rightly be reverted. The claim that

good faith comes across as pretty patronising and unconstructive to be honest. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't defend someone (anyone, not just "non-registered userids", a distinction with no meaning) edit warring to take the name out; I'm saying that if a consensus developed here on the talk page to take it out, then we'd take it out; the side that disagreed couldn't ignore consensus based on "it's in a reliable source so it stays"; that part isn't true. If consensus is that it stays in, then it stays in. If there's no consensus yet, which I believe is the case here, then work it out, either leave it out until you decide, or leave it in with a {{dubious}} tag until you decide, but don't edit war. If you understand this, then I wasn't talking to you; if you don't understand this, then you probably ought to be patronized. A particularly irksome thing on Wikipedia is the large number of people who have no hesitation in patronizing IP editors, but then get offended when they feel patronized in turn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point perfectly, and yet you continue to be patronising. I have no objection to a "dubious" tag if that is what consensus calls for; however, consensus is not going to be reached by IPS sporadically turning up and removing sourced material, often with no user edit. For the record, I have never heard any Kesha, or indeed any of the other bands listed, so have no vested interest in the article. I do believe that people should have to register before editing (as it would remove a huge proportion of thr vandalism and other unconstructive editing), but that is a discussion for elsewhere. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be the problem. If you'd heard Kesha and any crunkcore band, you'd probably be really confused at Kesha's confusion. I don't know if that AMG reviewer was being sarcastic or what, but it's like comparing apples and water buffalo. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not an argument, that's just you stating your opinion. Read

WP:OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I know it's an opinion. But it's also the ability to recognize when something is patent nonsense. You need to put on your critical-thinking hat here. The inclusion of Kesha has been met with a lot of bewilderment, and the sole source you've cited DOESN'T ACTUALLY comment on her music. As Floquenbeam said, this "may be included in an article, but it doesn't have to be." 147.136.249.101 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may jump into this hornets nest, I would like to give my take on this argument. My personal opinion is that the "crunkcore" term the reviewer used was not referring to the style described here on Wikipedia, but was instead referring to

Unfortunately, Blackmetalbaz has decided that this mention of Kesha must stay forever. We're doomed. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not gotten the impression that Blackmetalbaz is trying to prevent Kesha from ever being removed, and your tone comes off as aggressive, whether you intended for it to appear that way or not. Please keep this debate

civil

.

As for me, I am not entirely sure that Kesha should be removed, though I think that may be best option. I was just pointing out a way that the source could be reliable, but not be putting Kesha under the crunkcore style listed as this article. But the reviewer may well have been putting her under this genre. Right now, there is no way to tell, but we could always contact David Jeffries and ask him (I am being slightly serious here).--3family6 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Then please ask him under what set of circumstances he would stop reverting the removal? Because he seems dead-set on keeping the mention on here forever. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him yourself?--3family6 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kesha?!

As I mentioned above, there appears to be one mention of Kesha and crunkcore in the same breath on the entire Internet. And "crunkcore queen" doesn't exactly describe her music. Based on the preceding section of the talk page, there's a trend:

Remove Kesha should not be considered crunkcore, She does not use any elements of screamo, or barked vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.13.193 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove I agree that she should be removed. From what I recall, the source is only a mention of her guesting on a 30H!3 album or something. (Albert Mond (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

Remove This source can't be considered valid because Kesha shows no style of Crunkcore, and the source appears to only use the term Crunkcore because they could, and not because Kesha actually is Crunkcore. She's not Crunkcore, all you have to do is listen to her music to find that out. She's very very clearly not a Crunkcore artist, and just because one site claims her to be Crunkcore doesn't mean she is, and as such should not be mentioned on this wikipedia article.--Raktoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong remove one passing mention in possibly unreliable review. get a 2nd and we'll talk. besides, "queen" in that context just means she hangs out with crunkcore artists. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep Keisha definitely is just as crunkcore as 3OH3 or Millionaires neither of which has screamed vocals. She is to be considered this genre because she has all the other elements.All Music is definitely a relible source and Keisha is crunkcore your attempts to gloss over the fact Keisha is the queen of cruncore is

"minimalist Southern hip-hop" — yeah, that certainly describes her ... 147.136.249.101 (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Super ultra remove Uh, guys, have you listened to a Ke$ha song? Is this some sort of prank? I don't get it. Atomequal (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Not the strongest reference, but it is still reliable. Maybe somehow make it more like a passing reference, as it is in allmusic?--3family6 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Syxxpackid. My vote was included above as part of a copy/paste. 3OH!3 and Millionaires are both covered with reliable sources, despite not appearing to be crunkcore. Kesha is the exact same in that sense. Allmusic is a reliable source, so the artist should be kept. --

Consensus seems to state that it be removed. therefore, i shall be bold and remove it. if you want it back, put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I allowed Hadomaru's edit to stand initially, but it seems to be re-igniting the edit war, so I have reverted the article back to include Kesha with a dubious tag. Please, no one touch that part of the article until some sort of agreement is reached, though right now, I'm not sure how an agreement can be reached here.--3family6 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Krazycev13 should've commented here before reverting that edit. Otherwise We should assume he didn't read the ta;k page/ignored it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk

) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no reason to comment here. The conversation can not be closed by a mere "I'm gonna say this is closed." Though there are more votes to removing it, there are no strong consensuses from any of these votes, and yet all votes for keeping it have strong consensuses citing actual policies. This never should have even turned into a vote. All remove votes were not made from a

13

17:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Strong Remove weak source and irrelevant --Hadomaru (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment I see no consensus here; WP doesn't work by vote-counting... decisions are made by referring to policy, not personal opinion. I also found it extremely telling that the vast majority of the "strong ultra remove" comments come from anon IPs or SPUs. Anyone smell a sock? For the record, I've never heard Kesha so have no personal opinion on the matter, but it has been sourced, so the only discussion to be had is about that source; until consensus is actually reached, it needs to remain (albeit with the dubious tag). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comment and note for passing admins... there appears to have been a certain amount of

canvassing going on: [3], [4]. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 11:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Further comment, I agree with you. I dont really understand why this was even turned into a consensus when I've held my point from the start. Allmusic = reliable. Reliable source means that

13

17:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

... and when someone tries to change it to say "Artists widely considered to be" or "Commonly considered", Blackmetalbaz reverts immediately. Even if that makes the article stronger by requiring more sources than 1 small mention. Which still doesn't say that Kesha's music is crunckore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC) [5]

There is a mistaken principle here. The wording shouldn't be changed so that a comment should be excluded, but the wording should be made to fit the source. The current wording seems to fit, although "have been associated with" might be an accurate compromise that could be considered.--SabreBD (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that changing the text to "associated with" is a good idea. It broadens the description slightly, and should deflect any opposition to inclusion.--3family6 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But then you're just making the article vaguer. You guys really really want to include Kesha. Who is a pop singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not making the article vaguer, its actually more accurately reflect the sources. Like a lot of editors I have no opinion over Kesha, we just have to follow reliable sources. There seems to be some support the "associated with" proposal, so lets see if we can build consensus around that.--SabreBD (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

from admin above: "Drive by comment: Your hands are not tied here; if something contentious is in reliable sources, then in may be included in an article, but it doesn't have to be. This is a common misconception. Whether to include this person or not is subject to consensus of those editing the article, not a straight yes/no based only on whether allmusic is reliable or not. Otherwise, every genre article would be obligated to list every single artist of that genre if you could source it; that isn't the case. And I have to say that blanket statements like "allmusic is never unreliable" seem unlikely to be true." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I already read it. There seems to be a misunderstanding over what consensus is, it is not a majority vote. There clearly is not a consensus here for removal. We should be looking for something around which editors can agree a new consensus and not pushing any particular POV. Please think about the proposal seriously. If that is not acceptable perhaps you can suggest something else with which you think other editors can be persuaded to agree.--SabreBD (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Artists widely considered to be" or "Commonly considered" is what i've suggested. I think it makes the article stronger by setting a higher standard than just listing every Artist who has been in the same sentence as the word crunkcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to find something that you can get others to agree to. Repeating the idea of removal seems unlikely to do that. Please read the articles on consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

so youre saying that because some people want to keep that reference to kesha in the article, we have to write the article so that we can include the reference to kesha. even if other people think that is ludicrous. and even if my idea has some merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, what is being said is that a consensus needs to be developed on whether or not Kesha should be included, and if so, whether the article should be re-worded. There will always be "some people" who want Kesha included, and there will always be "other people" who want Kesha excluded. Allmusic reviews (which are attributable to a writer) are always reliable, but as pointed out, an artist can still be excluded. So what needs to be done is to establish consensus. Your ideas do have merit, but so do the ideas of every other editor.--3family6 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So where was consensus to add her in the 1st place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor does not have to even leave a message on a talk page when adding sourced material, let alone establish consensus. As this particular addition has been challenged, a consensus must now be reached.

P.S.: Please sign your posts --3family6 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If i could find a reliable source that states Souljaboy as a metal artist, should i include him on the list of Metal bands?--Hadomaru (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source, then yes, unless there is another source that says he isn't. And it uhwould have to be a source describing his overall music, not just a particular instance on an album.--3family6 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

but this source is none of that. itsa throwawaye title used in the review of an album by another musician. Her profile doesn't even have it listed on allmusic--Hadomaru (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AllMusic is a reliable source, and a reference to musician's style does not have to be in a review of their own material. But if you look further up on this now lengthy discussion, however, you will see that I have already stated that in my opinion the reference, though reliable, is weak, and there is a possibility that the reviewer was not referring to the style described in this wiki article.

Genre tags do not factor in the discussion as they have been deemed unreliable, as they are not attributable to a writer.

P.S. It is only recently that I have become familiar with identifying sources, so I hope I do not appear condescending.--3family6 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

3family, you said something that concerns me. "unless there is another source that says he isn't". Not entirely true. On this page, if someone tried to use a source where someone states that Kesha is not crunkcore, it wouldn't matter, because the list of artists is based on at least one reliable source thinking the artist is crunkcore. Someone speaking against it is an opinion, but does not cancel the reliability of a source. If Revolver Magazine said that Soulja Boy was metal, but Kerrang! disagreed, he would be included, because Revolver is reliable and considered him metal. --

13

22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If a source was found that says she is not crunkcore, it should definitely be noted that there are differences of opinion as to whether Kesha is crunkcore.--3family6 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On her article, not this one. We have for instance similar problems with the

source specifcally stating that they weren't a deathcore band, you wouldn't remove them from the list. Blackmetalbaz (talk

) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. If a source was found that specifically says Kesha is not crunkcore (which to me seems unlikely to be found), then there would be one source that says she is, and one that says she isn't. If both are reliable, then there is contention, and this should be noted as it would be an important part of the history of crunkcore. I am not sure I understand the list of deathcore bands reference, as I am not suggesting a mention of her be removed from the article.--3family6 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Keisha is reliably sourced as crunkcore and even 5 sources saying she is not would mean she is still on here with the dubious tag. That dubious tag should be removed until any source saying she is not crunkcore can be found then it can be readded. Minority opinion is still source-able as long as it from a reliable source. So can this dubious tag either be removed from here or added to either the bring me the horizon deathcore tag or the cannibal corpse techdeath tag Syxxpackid420 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed and there is no verifiable evidence of this being dubious.--SabreBD (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For once, I am 100% in agreement with you. The dubious tag is unwarranted. The only arguments put forward have been editor opinion, which is of no consequence here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have just gone and re-read the paragraph for the first time in a while and it strikes me how this entire discussion has been a waste of everyone's time. The sentence reads, "Artists that have been described as crunkcore include [...] and Kesha." This is not a dubious statement. It is a fact. She has been described as crunkcore, by an indubitably reliable source. So what are we arguing about? The wording of the article (which I vaguely remember I wrote) allows for ambiguity. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep and close debate. Reliably sourced. Most, if not all, of the opposes here are pure

Given that X and Y are not mutually exclusive (like music genres/styles),

1) If a source A states that a thing Q is X, and

2) if another source B states that Q is Y without saying that Q is not X, this does not mean that

3) source A contradicts source B because claim X is not refuted by claim Y.

But if

1) source A states that Q is X, and

2) source B explicitly says that Q is not X, only then does

3) B contradict A.

That is to say, it does not matter one bit that allmusic does not call Ke$ha "crunkcore" without explicitly saying that she is not. There is no contradiction. QED, Ke$ha stays. ~~

Email from allmusic writer

i emailed david jeffries, who wrote the allmusic article thatm entioned kesha. here is what he said:

"That's quite funny — I didn't realize anything I wrote for Allmusic would ever lead to such a controversy. But I suppose it's saying something that Wikipedia has better fact-checkers than does the Internet's leading music website.

You're right in thinking that I wasn't being entirely serious (or, at least, precise) when I called Ke$ha the "crunkcore queen." While it's true that she runs in that crowd of musicians, her musical style is not at all similar. In a review of her album Animal (also on Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/album/animal-r1700482/review), I referred to her as part of the "trash-brat electro scene" — a scene that's contains crunkcore and other genres. If I were to pigeonhole her style, I'd call it dance pop — it certainly isn't crunkcore.

Thanks for taking the time to write. If it helps, I'll see if I can amend that 3!Oh!3 review to make it more clear (but I can't really promise that it will ever get updated).

Cheers, David"

so i'm deleting kesha now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you actually managed to get an email by Jeffries, than you really have done some excellent work. But, you simply posting an claimed email transcript on here is not at all reliable. For all we know, you could have made up that above email. Is there a way you can prove its authenticity?--3family6 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for assuming good faith. i am just trying to make wikipedia better, since some people apparently think it's better to list artsits that "have been described as" crunkcore, which is really vague, instead of a stronger wording. because that was THE ONLY mention on the entire internet of kesha being crunkcore, and even then it doesn't actually reference her MUSIC, i spent weeks trying to get in touch with the writer. and then you act as if i made it up. obviously you guys really want to keep kesha in this article no matter what. please go listen to a kesha cd and a brokencyde cd. i know it is "origianl research" or whatever and can't be used to change the atricle but i just want you to listen so you understand how frustratign this is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do understand how frustrating it can be, and I appreciate the effort you have extended toward this article. If you look at my comment above, I did not say that you did make everything up, what I did say was that you may have made the letter up. Right now, I am taking you at your word that the email is correct, but your claiming it to be true is unfortunately not good enough for Wikipedia. If you could somehow verify the email, we could include it as a source. (By the way, actually contacting the writer is pretty impressive. I do hope you can get it in a verifiable form, or that the Allmusic review is updated.)--3family6 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

how on earth do you expect me to prove it? seriously. i'm readding the dubious tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can prove it. As you were the editor who emailed the writer, I would assume you would have had a plan to prove the authenticity of the reply. I don't want all your hard work to go for nothing, but right now your source (which is you) is not reliable. As an aside, good faith refers to an editors intentions, not the reliability of their edits.--3family6 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what would it take for YOU personally to believe it? do i have to get the writer to knock on your door? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try to get a screenshot of the email, with the email address extremely clear. Or ask him to post some sort of blog or something. That's really all I can think of to help you out. But I'm doubting this will go passed Wikipedia's

13

22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a blog post too. A forum post might work too, but that would be harder to verify in terms of authorship.--3family6 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i dont know if he has a blog. and its ridiculodus to make him a part of this. but i have his email if you really want to annnoy him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't want to annoy the writer. We are just trying to come up with ways this email can be verified. As another matter, please do not make disruptive edits and then accuse me of edit warring when I revert.--3family6 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#What_edit_warring_is 147.136.249.101 (talk

) 02:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As of this edit any further reverts by you were vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not violating 3RR.--3family6 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

just because a summary called it that doesnt make it vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. But it was not my summary that called it vandalism.--3family6 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional statement: It does appear that I inadvertently violated the 3RR rule well before you accused me of edit warring, and for that I apologize. However, be aware that you also violated 3RR, and by leaving your revisions blank may have also

Gamed the system, which is vandalism. At this point, this discussion is moot, as the page is on semi-protect.--3family6 (talk

) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting content that has been extremely thoroughly discussed and decided on is vandalism. You may have actually received this e-mail, but the issue is, it's not notable. You have no way to prove it. I do believe you have good intentions, you just have no way to back up your claims. Kesha is not dubious unless something that is actually reliable comes up to challenge it. As of now, Kesha will continue to be included without any more discussion, unless you find a

13

02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The addition of Kesha to list of crunkcore artists has caused an edit war. Some users think the source for inclusion is valid. Some think it is dubious. One emailed the writer for comment. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for everyones clarification, emailing authors etc. violates

WP:OR and has been previously discussed here. Also all sourced information has to be published so it can be checked by anyone. Emails fail that criteria and are open to fraud. So the issue swings solely on sources. Mabuska ^(talk)

21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the way it is worded is key. Currently it readds: Artists that have been described as crunkcore include - a source has described Kesha as crunkcore, the wording clearly states "that have been described". On Wikipedia it doesn't have to be by many sources, just reliable ones. If thats still an issue, then try to word it better, i.e. say something like "one source describes Kesha as a crunkcore artist" - but then again i see most artists only have one source so it would be pointless stating that. There is no case for removal. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that I need to correct you on that. Obtaining further information from a reliable source is research, not original research. Obtaining it from a Wikipedia editor is original research, and forging it (as you refer to) is disruptive editing. Thus, the value of OTRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Its original research as your doing it yourself probing for more information to formulate meanings etc. It doesn't have to be between Wiki editors. No matter how you look at it, the following below this also makes it clear its wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re PERMIT: Look at the headline sentence: "I wish to reproduce material on Wikipedia that has been previously published elsewhere [emphasis mine] and am in position to verify the license, either because I am the copyright holder or because I have permission from the copyright holder." Emails have not been "previously published elsewhere". ~~

talk

) 01:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant thread from the RS noticeboard: 1. Basically, personal communications fail

Folks, I personally do not care at all about the content of this page, and was only trying to help in response to the RfC. Lothar, I would agree with you if anyone were arguing that the e-mail should be cited as a source for this page. But no one is doing that! As someone said earlier in this talk, editors decide all the time whether or not to include material from a reliable source (in this case the published review describing Kesha). Just because the source exists, there is no requirement that Wikipedia include it. Maybe it should be included, or maybe not. That's what the RfC is about. The applicable policy is actually

WP:UNDUE. Is it undue to call Kesha crunkcore because of that source, or is it appropriate? If an e-mail from the author of the source can be authenticated, and it says the author didn't really mean it, that could be a good reason to conclude that citing this particular source here would be undue. If there is no authentication of the e-mail, there is good reason to discard the claim that the e-mail exists, and to decide the content without it. But no one is saying that the e-mail should be cited as a reference for the page. --Tryptofish (talk

) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what other purpose was there in the first place in sending an email then? The response it would seem would be used to "decide" this issue and it would have to be cited so its obvious that it would have to be cited as a reference. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If—and I say if—editors ended up deciding to include the Kesha material, I would expect that it would include an inline citation referencing the published review. There would be no reason to cite the e-mail. I would suggest steering clear of trying to mind-read the reason why the editor sought the e-mail. It is possible that Mr. Jeffries could have responded by saying something like: yes, absolutely, Ke$ha is very specifically a crunkcore artist, and she should absolutely be described as such, for the following reasons:... If that had happened, there would have, perhaps, been more reason to include her here, citing Mr. Jeffries' published review, but not needing to cite his e-mail. Of course, that did not happen. Maybe he instead wrote what is quoted above. Or maybe some editors here are skeptical that he really wrote that. I suggested a way that the editor who reported the e-mail could better convince other editors. If that editor has not done so, then it's a moot point, and I'm really not sure why some of you seem to feel so strongly about arguing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by reliable, verifiable, and published sources not emails. The email has no relevance to the discussion for the reasons above. If the reliability of the source is to be queried then it should be taken to the Reliable Sources forum. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

...where they might have given you the same advice that I did. Or not. Whatever. --Tryptofish 14:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, why , if its causing so much contention, and if the source is a passing mention on the review of another band with no other backing up source do we even need Kesha here? does it add to the article at all?--Hadomaru (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

because a minority of editors are hellbent on keeping it in, that's why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.112.252 (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should the minority get to decide? --Hadomaru (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC

They shouldn't.

The debate is closed, will editors please stop harping on it. The majority has decided, a handful of editors will not accept the consensus, even though they cannot produce any new information. But even if it was a minority, that still can be a consensus, please read

WP:CON.--3family6 (talk

) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? show me where there was ever a solid majority in favor of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.20 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

i emailed david jeffries, who wrote the allmusic article thatm entioned kesha. here is what he said:

"That's quite funny — I didn't realize anything I wrote for Allmusic would ever lead to such a controversy. But I suppose it's saying something that Wikipedia has better fact-checkers than does the Internet's leading music website.

You're right in thinking that I wasn't being entirely serious (or, at least, precise) when I called Ke$ha the "crunkcore queen." While it's true that she runs in that crowd of musicians, her musical style is not at all similar. In a review of her album Animal (also on Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/album/animal-r1700482/review), I referred to her as part of the "trash-brat electro scene" — a scene that's contains crunkcore and other genres. If I were to pigeonhole her style, I'd call it dance pop — it certainly isn't crunkcore.

Thanks for taking the time to write. If it helps, I'll see if I can amend that 3!Oh!3 review to make it more clear (but I can't really promise that it will ever get updated).

Cheers, David"

so i'm deleting kesha now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you actually managed to get an email by Jeffries, than you really have done some excellent work. But, you simply posting an claimed email transcript on here is not at all reliable. For all we know, you could have made up that above email. Is there a way you can prove its authenticity?--3family6 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for assuming good faith. i am just trying to make wikipedia better, since some people apparently think it's better to list artsits that "have been described as" crunkcore, which is really vague, instead of a stronger wording. because that was THE ONLY mention on the entire internet of kesha being crunkcore, and even then it doesn't actually reference her MUSIC, i spent weeks trying to get in touch with the writer. and then you act as if i made it up. obviously you guys really want to keep kesha in this article no matter what. please go listen to a kesha cd and a brokencyde cd. i know it is "origianl research" or whatever and can't be used to change the atricle but i just want you to listen so you understand how frustratign this is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do understand how frustrating it can be, and I appreciate the effort you have extended toward this article. If you look at my comment above, I did not say that you did make everything up, what I did say was that you may have made the letter up. Right now, I am taking you at your word that the email is correct, but your claiming it to be true is unfortunately not good enough for Wikipedia. If you could somehow verify the email, we could include it as a source. (By the way, actually contacting the writer is pretty impressive. I do hope you can get it in a verifiable form, or that the Allmusic review is updated.)--3family6 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

how on earth do you expect me to prove it? seriously. i'm readding the dubious tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how you can prove it. As you were the editor who emailed the writer, I would assume you would have had a plan to prove the authenticity of the reply. I don't want all your hard work to go for nothing, but right now your source (which is you) is not reliable. As an aside, good faith refers to an editors intentions, not the reliability of their edits.--3family6 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what would it take for YOU personally to believe it? do i have to get the writer to knock on your door? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try to get a screenshot of the email, with the email address extremely clear. Or ask him to post some sort of blog or something. That's really all I can think of to help you out. But I'm doubting this will go passed Wikipedia's

13

22:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of a blog post too. A forum post might work too, but that would be harder to verify in terms of authorship.--3family6 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

i dont know if he has a blog. and its ridiculodus to make him a part of this. but i have his email if you really want to annnoy him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't want to annoy the writer. We are just trying to come up with ways this email can be verified. As another matter, please do not make disruptive edits and then accuse me of edit warring when I revert.--3family6 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#What_edit_warring_is 147.136.249.101 (talk

) 02:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As of this edit any further reverts by you were vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not violating 3RR.--3family6 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

just because a summary called it that doesnt make it vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.101 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. But it was not my summary that called it vandalism.--3family6 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional statement: It does appear that I inadvertently violated the 3RR rule well before you accused me of edit warring, and for that I apologize. However, be aware that you also violated 3RR, and by leaving your revisions blank may have also

Gamed the system, which is vandalism. At this point, this discussion is moot, as the page is on semi-protect.--3family6 (talk

) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting content that has been extremely thoroughly discussed and decided on is vandalism. You may have actually received this e-mail, but the issue is, it's not notable. You have no way to prove it. I do believe you have good intentions, you just have no way to back up your claims. Kesha is not dubious unless something that is actually reliable comes up to challenge it. As of now, Kesha will continue to be included without any more discussion, unless you find a

13

02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The addition of Kesha to list of crunkcore artists has caused an edit war. Some users think the source for inclusion is valid. Some think it is dubious. One emailed the writer for comment. 147.136.249.101 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for everyones clarification, emailing authors etc. violates

WP:OR and has been previously discussed here. Also all sourced information has to be published so it can be checked by anyone. Emails fail that criteria and are open to fraud. So the issue swings solely on sources. Mabuska ^(talk)

21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also the way it is worded is key. Currently it readds: Artists that have been described as crunkcore include - a source has described Kesha as crunkcore, the wording clearly states "that have been described". On Wikipedia it doesn't have to be by many sources, just reliable ones. If thats still an issue, then try to word it better, i.e. say something like "one source describes Kesha as a crunkcore artist" - but then again i see most artists only have one source so it would be pointless stating that. There is no case for removal. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that I need to correct you on that. Obtaining further information from a reliable source is research, not original research. Obtaining it from a Wikipedia editor is original research, and forging it (as you refer to) is disruptive editing. Thus, the value of OTRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Its original research as your doing it yourself probing for more information to formulate meanings etc. It doesn't have to be between Wiki editors. No matter how you look at it, the following below this also makes it clear its wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re PERMIT: Look at the headline sentence: "I wish to reproduce material on Wikipedia that has been previously published elsewhere [emphasis mine] and am in position to verify the license, either because I am the copyright holder or because I have permission from the copyright holder." Emails have not been "previously published elsewhere". ~~

talk

) 01:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant thread from the RS noticeboard: 1. Basically, personal communications fail

Folks, I personally do not care at all about the content of this page, and was only trying to help in response to the RfC. Lothar, I would agree with you if anyone were arguing that the e-mail should be cited as a source for this page. But no one is doing that! As someone said earlier in this talk, editors decide all the time whether or not to include material from a reliable source (in this case the published review describing Kesha). Just because the source exists, there is no requirement that Wikipedia include it. Maybe it should be included, or maybe not. That's what the RfC is about. The applicable policy is actually

WP:UNDUE. Is it undue to call Kesha crunkcore because of that source, or is it appropriate? If an e-mail from the author of the source can be authenticated, and it says the author didn't really mean it, that could be a good reason to conclude that citing this particular source here would be undue. If there is no authentication of the e-mail, there is good reason to discard the claim that the e-mail exists, and to decide the content without it. But no one is saying that the e-mail should be cited as a reference for the page. --Tryptofish (talk

) 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then what other purpose was there in the first place in sending an email then? The response it would seem would be used to "decide" this issue and it would have to be cited so its obvious that it would have to be cited as a reference. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If—and I say if—editors ended up deciding to include the Kesha material, I would expect that it would include an inline citation referencing the published review. There would be no reason to cite the e-mail. I would suggest steering clear of trying to mind-read the reason why the editor sought the e-mail. It is possible that Mr. Jeffries could have responded by saying something like: yes, absolutely, Ke$ha is very specifically a crunkcore artist, and she should absolutely be described as such, for the following reasons:... If that had happened, there would have, perhaps, been more reason to include her here, citing Mr. Jeffries' published review, but not needing to cite his e-mail. Of course, that did not happen. Maybe he instead wrote what is quoted above. Or maybe some editors here are skeptical that he really wrote that. I suggested a way that the editor who reported the e-mail could better convince other editors. If that editor has not done so, then it's a moot point, and I'm really not sure why some of you seem to feel so strongly about arguing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by reliable, verifiable, and published sources not emails. The email has no relevance to the discussion for the reasons above. If the reliability of the source is to be queried then it should be taken to the Reliable Sources forum. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

...where they might have given you the same advice that I did. Or not. Whatever. --Tryptofish 14:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, why , if its causing so much contention, and if the source is a passing mention on the review of another band with no other backing up source do we even need Kesha here? does it add to the article at all?--Hadomaru (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

because a minority of editors are hellbent on keeping it in, that's why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.112.252 (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should the minority get to decide? --Hadomaru (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC

They shouldn't.

The debate is closed, will editors please stop harping on it. The majority has decided, a handful of editors will not accept the consensus, even though they cannot produce any new information. But even if it was a minority, that still can be a consensus, please read

WP:CON.--3family6 (talk

) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? show me where there was ever a solid majority in favor of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.20 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On a bit of a whim, I decided I'd ask if we have sources for this. If not, I think we should probably remove it. S'all. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

I think that "emo" is left over from an edit that was later reverted because the statement was not found in the source. I'll remove it, and it shouldn't be added again unless a reliable reference mentions its influence on crunkcore. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The emo mention came from I think Revolver Magazine. I added it a while ago and no one objected then. I don't care if it's removed as it wasn't that strong in support, but that's the story.--3family6 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Mention is in

Boston Phoenix.--3family6 (talk

) 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't strong in support, so you don't care. But the weaker Kesha reference must stay FOREVER. I see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.24.50 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I removed the other statement. I didn't see that the reference continued onto the next page. Apparently emo IS involved, and hence I'll restore it in the infobox. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 02:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't know it continued on either, and was very delighted to find that it did.--3family6 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome work with this page! That Phoenix source is GREAT! --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 13:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you even listened to Of Mice & Men? Lol, your argument is totally invalid they don't have one electronic piece in any of their music without to mention that I think ISFOF are included in this list because their "music" is pretty much just as bad as all of crunkcore so it makes sense why reviewers have considered them as such. • GunMetal Angel 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bring this up again, but after reading the debates above on this page I feel that Kesha shouldn't be listed among the other crunkcore artists. Her music can hardly be described as such, and the reference isn't even clear on whether it's actually defining her music or not. I read one of the comments above by 3family6 that I strongly agree with; it suggested that Kesha still be mentioned on the page, but not directly as a crunkcore artist. Considering the controversy and the questionableness of the source's intent, I suggest this edit: Instead of listing her among the other crunkcore groups, this statement should follow the list: "Musicians such as Kesha have also been associated with the genre." --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 20:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that as it reflects the source.--SabreBD (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the statement. But this seems to be digging up old bones, as there is no new information to challenge the consensus.--3family6 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If anything, there is no consensus either way. But it seems like more people want her removed than listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.24.50 (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be a majority (and doesn't have to be a minority either), there was a very clear consensus, and third (and probably even fourth) opinions said the article was fine the way it was. Discussion was over for quite some time, and then one editor who opposed Kesha before suddenly started changing things and objecting to Kesha, without providing rationale or new information. Had this editor not done this, this current discussion would not be taking place. But, if we take a simple up or down vote, which we

should not do, my count has more editors in support then for removal.--3family6 (talk

) 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A source clearly states Kesha as a crunkcore artist, whilst none have explicitly stated that she isn't. A source overrules original research and personal opinion. In fact original research and personal opinion matters not on Wikipedia. However it should be noted that many artists and bands over the years have been labeled as either this genre or that whilst not really matching it at all, and its the problem of musical genre ambiguity. Chrisbkoolio's idea isn't bad, however we can't state she's associated with it unless a source makes it clear she is. We have a source if i remember correctly that stated her as, as oppossed to associated with, crunkcore.Mabuska ^(talk) 13:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a source that says nothing about her music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.136.249.20 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference makes no distinction, it just says "crunkcore queen," which is calling Kesha crunkcore.--3family6 (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to bring up an old battle. But alright, I'm glad that you all seem to like my suggestion. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 16:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have Kesha in a separate sentence that explains how the source describes her as screamo crunkcore?--3family6 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean crunkcore. It doesn't describe her as screamo at all. But yeah, a sentence that explains that she has been referred to as crunkcore by one source might be good, instead of just labeling her a crunkcore artist. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 17:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shoot, I'm involved on too many pages!--3family6 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we remove the weasel words from Ke$ha's genre description. Consensus she is crunkcore was reached ages ago Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'll make it more straightforward.--3family6 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to explain just how that was a consensus, and how is a consensus not the majority again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's how the majority thing works: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes." So, maybe we do need a majority, as a couple of editors continue to object. But the main point here is, the debate over this was long and hard, and ultimately we even had third party editors come in. And the agreement that was reached is that Kesha is crunkcore. Now, that consensus can be challenged, but the objection must present a new argument.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Kesha, simply just read the first sentence on Wikipedia:Verifiability. • GunMetal Angel 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the class= parameters not be updated to start? benzband (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. benzband (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this is probably not the greatest place to write this, but it seemed suiting. It came to my attention that the Botdf page got deleted... does anybody have any regards why? (DeanBaetz (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC))

Not sure why myself. I do know they are on the warped tour this year (UK and US) http://www.kerrangradio.co.uk/music/vans-warped-tour-uk/ not sure if this is enough to make them notable but its certainly a start. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold text

How are Millionaires listed as Crunkcore? I know that they went on tour with some Crunkcore acts (Brokencyde etc.) but I have listened to several of their songs and it sounds NOTHING like the universal definition of Crunkcore (66.159.127.219 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC))

Crunkcore isn't as uniform as it is defined. But that is my personal opinion, not reliable content. The Millionaires are sourced as crunkcore, though Revolver Magazine said that they have no screamo elements (that article is currently unavailable online as the link broke during the recent makeover of the site). But this doesn't relate at all to the RfC, I'm making this into a new section.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

the source from the boston phoenix says nothing about millionaires just so we all know,they're definitely known as a crunkcore outfit though 86.179.61.170 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The source says "Millionaires are the quintessential example []of scrunk acts."How does this mean the source said nothing. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)