Talk:Korn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4

	Korn has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Korn (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korn, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KornWikipedia:WikiProject KornTemplate:WikiProject KornKorn articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rock music GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Metal GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I got a laugh out of the phrase "Metallica-esque blast beats." Metallica does not now, nor have they ever, used blast beats in any of their recorded material. Much less should such a thing be considered a Metallica signature, or its use considered "Metallica-esque". 216.246.225.57 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where the name Korn comes from, why they chose thta name??--DanTorresROCKS (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hit me up on aim and ill tell you, i have this book that explains it, i wrote it all here but then the internet crashed and i didnt wanna write it all over again haha my screenname is NOTBRENDANMALLEY Branden mellay (talk)

I'm very surprised that there is no section about Korn's musical style, influence's, and influence on other bands. I would especially think that a band like Korn would have this section since they are credited as creating a popular genre of music and have influenced many bands, Slipknot has this section but yet they have yet to be considered an influential band.Xx1994xx (talk)

You know what. You might as well change korn to a "Music" band if you want to be vague...--75.139.107.252 (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is Korn not a rock band?--猛禽22 ^•• 12:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely vague term and insults me as a fan. That doesn't mean wikipedia has to change it. But it does nonetheless make me angry with the editors. Rock is like that old CRAP from the 60s. KORN IS NU METAL, GET OVER IT!--75.139.107.252 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal is a sub-genre of Rock music. So saying that the band is a rock band is 100% accurate because nu metal is rock. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, call it rock if you want, it still isnt. Its nu metal. All these dumb wikipedia editors favor lies over facts.--75.139.107.252 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole problem right there. Rock and metal are two different genres. It is insulting to a Metal band to be called Rock. You don't Label a Blues artist as Electro or a Jazz artist as Country do you? Metal is its own genre and deserves it's own classification. Nú Metal is a sub-genre of Metal. — MisterAaft (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the original post above: Not sure if srs. Really, get over it. It insults you as a fan? Really? -_-69.249.223.63 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with 75.139.107.252 Metal and Rock are two different things. Unfourtunately, SOME people prefer to stay completely literal. It really bugs me. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metal came from Rock music. Rock 'n' roll is subgenre of rock, and that is "shit" from 60s. Rock is global term for any music that uses electric guitars and drums, and have it's characteristic style of melody and singing.VuXman ^talk 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

korn are part of a wave of music that emerged in the 80s & 90s called "hard alternative rock" (more commonly known as alternative metal or nu metal) so yes technically they are rock not metal, and korn fans insistence on putting nu metal over rock just goes to show how obsessed nu metal fans are with trying to prove how "metal" and "brootol hardcore" their bands are which is why everyone hates nu metal and bands like korn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Metal is a sub-genre of rock music, the same way punk is, saying it's not is just stupid to be honest, metal is pretty much harder hard rock, a genre doesn't become it's own genre just be being heavier, saying metal is it's own genre is like saying hardcore punk is it's own genre and not a sub-genre of punk.--84.13.85.148 (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whoever changed that needs to read the comments on youtube videos, left out was the name given by the idiot that posted all the Flymore songs (band that sounds alot like korn) saying they were korn and that was the name of the album. Drugyourlove Monday, July 27th, 2009. 12:55 am —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This is from his page: "For the first time in three years David appeared promoting Lil Kim in Dancing with the Stars." Is there a source for that? If so, I'd like to see it, I bet it's funny! 98.174.219.202 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's on his page then you should ask there. Daeth (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Korn borrows elements from such acts as Pantera, Jane's Addiction, ""Slipknot"", Rage Against the Machine, Primus, Helmet, Faith No More, Mr.Bungle,..."

LOL! Korn borrows from slipknot? thats funny... anyway the actual quote from allmusic doesn't say slipknot so I'm removing them from the list. Ducky610 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it should be the other way around. Daeth (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)slipknot took from korn[reply]

Hi, im looking for a source for the 9 million copies sold of Follow the Leader. I found this but im not sure what it means. Maybe someone can help. Thanks Portillo (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to stop. Ever since the protection was lifted, people are once again changing this from rock to metal. I remember in a previous argument saying that rock is favored over the metal genre since it's a bigger umbrella term, but now I'm looking for other people's opinions on what we should do. Should we just change it to metal and make everyone happy, or take the hard route and request another semi-protection?--猛禽22 ^•• 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No answer? I'm changing it to metal.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im happier with it being called metal than rock. It is more decriptive. Calling Korn "Rock" is like calling a vehicle an "Object" just because its an umbrella term that vaguely describes it. --75.139.107.252 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I did favour "rock", but now I agree that it is too broad. But it should be "heavy metal", which I changed it to a little while ago. The reason for this is because "metal" isn't the proper name for the genre, the genre is called "heavy metal". If we call it a "metal" band that'd be like referring to Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath as "Sabbath" or "Maiden" on their pages. Other similar bands such as Slipknot and Godsmack also have "heavy metal" in the lead. Ximmerman (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative metal and nu metal are definately korn's main genre Metalfan72 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, even in Billboard they are referred to as Hard Rock. Just because a consensus is reached once, doesn't mean a consensus might need to change. Refer to WP:CCC. Apparently more discussion is needed to come to another consensus. Korn have changed a lot since this last "consensus" was done. If a citation can validate one or many genre's, it shouldn't be thrown out just because a person believes it to be invalid or non-applicable because a consensus was reached "a long time ago". Nbcwd (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has not had its title announced. It is not Korn II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.196.44 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'd love to add "do not change" comments to all my edits that I'm "real sure" should not be changed, but on Wikipedia that's irrelevant for obvious reasons. I've removed the comment.

Secondly, regardless of what the backwards R symbol available during Wikipedia page editing is meant to represent, it still is visually identical to a backwards English letter R which is needed to spell the stylized version of Korn, so there's no reason we can't use it as such. I've therefore made that edit as well.

Just wanted to expand on my edit summary. If anyone has any argument against either of these edits feel free to comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:42, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)

First, a backwards R is as "visually identical" to a ya as a lowercase l is to a capital i and the numeral 1, and just as interchangeable. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you look at the source code of korn.com, the same character is used for the meta content and page title. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:05, 3 Feb 2010 (UTC)

So the web designer is someone who likes to shit all over Unicode and semantics. That doesn't mean that when Davis scrawled out the "logo" he meant for the third letter to be a ya. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people do happen to use this backwards R character even on websites, and the website on korn.com happens to use the Я in Korn, the part saying "typeset as KoЯn" is indeed accurate, reversed R or not, because it comes down to not how the letter is used, it is how frequent it happens to be used. My two cents.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section on Korns 9th album, it states

"Rumor began to circulate that the song would be cut from the album. When asked via Twitter to confirm this rumor, Ross confirmed that it was indeed an album cut."

This is an unclear statement, when he was asked to confirm that the song WOULD BE CUT FROM THE ALBUM, and he replied that it would INDEED BE AN ALBUM CUT. Can someone just tell me if it's going on the album or not, no wiki jargon thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.177.81 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Ross Robinson's twitter - google it. I think him saying, "It's an album cut," may have been an amusing way of fucking with fans as the question was if the song was cut or not - it can be taken either way. Until it's absolutely confirmed, I'd say it should be taken literally: saying, "It's an album cut," would mean that it IS on the album. This is likely the actual truth anyway, maybe I'm thinking Ross is more clever than he really is. 68.32.194.67 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep removing a claim that July 1, 2010, studio album Korn III - Remember Who You Are was leaked online in its entirety due to lack of source. Please don't add it without source. And no, a username (on what system?) does not count as a source. --Muhandes (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check for yourself? It leaked. Everywhere. Youtube, torrent sites, rapidshare, you name it. It's out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.247.28 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:NOR. --Muhandes (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see how album leaks are even notable. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEH, what ever. I give up on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.247.28 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the leak is notable because its going to lose millions for the band. why would you even question it being noteable? <--i asked that like a normal questio not in like a douchey way as it comes off haha. sorry that it does Branden mellay (talk)

I dont see the point in noting it as leaks happen all the time. Nothing special to Korn. But I can see it may be interesting to some for the history of music how soon leaks happen before release. Especially if there is controversy with accidental leaks and unfinished songs. Dralezero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, i will admit when im wrong, adn i was, thats a good point, this was leaked with finished songs. i agree with you guys. Branden mellay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There is no mention of the song they covered for the album Nightmare Revisited, released in 2008. They preformed the song "Kidnap Mister Sandy Claus." It deserves mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_Revisited

72.165.54.237 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it seems you waited too long. I will be reviewing this article for GA. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following are some general comments.

• Please remove the {{main}} template from the sections. The album names are all wikilinked and anyone can find them. Looks highly unencyclopedic.

• Done CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your rationale for using File:Korn - Predictable (demo).ogg? I don't see any critical commentary regarding it in the article. There is just the reference link in the ogg format display. This is same for the others also.

• Fixed CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For the section headers, there is M?OS:DATES violations, we use section names as Life Is Peachy (1996–97) if the range is in the same century.

• Fixed CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Korn MTV Asia Awards 2006.jpg is much much better sutied as the infobox pic than File:Korn.jpg.

• Done CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Discography. Only studio albums are listed. Rest is just WP:UNDUE.

• Fixed CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Discogs are unreliable sources.

• Replaced sources CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check the whole article for 3x Platinum like language. Unencyclopedic and should be changed to three-times platinum.

• Fixed CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You sometimes use the em-dash in the wuote boxes, sometimes not. Please achieve consistency. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed CrowzRSA 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Roadrunner records is used as a source multiple times. Since it is their record label, I am not sure it qualifies as a third party source. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blabbermouth.net is an established, third-party website in it's respectful field, and is only parented by Roadrunner Records. That makes it even more reliable, since they won't lie or give false information about that stuff, as they know it could contradict what a band member could say in an interview or what is on the album-notes. Besides, Roadrunner wasn't their record until 2010… CrowzRSA 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else that the writer needs to fix up? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer hasn't been active on here since the 12th, they'll probably be back on sooner or later… User:Legolas2186 just said that he won't get back on wikipedia for a few months... Should I put a note on the GAN page saying the reviewer has left, and there is need for another reviewer? CrowzRSA 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it easy and just take over this review where he left off; it shouldn't take too long since he probably found most of the issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. CrowzRSA 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

• "Korn formed in 1993, the same year they released" you say they formed in 1993 in the earlier paragraph, so it feels redundant here.
• "Korn currently has 35 singles and 19" singles, 19
• "Silveria explained, "the music makes the name, because Korn's a dumb name. But once we get established, it makes the name cool."" Quotes need cites.
• The last paragraph in the Take a Look section about Brian Welch, while worthy of note, doesn't seem to fit in with the section with the way it's currently written. If nothign else, note what the venue was that it took place (i think it's cbgb, but i could be wrong)
• "Korn announced on November 22, 2010 that they will be co-headlining the Music as a Weapon V tour with Disturbed. The tour will also feature supporting acts Sevendust and In This Moment." cite preferred for their announcement.
• "Jonathan Davis was said by Doug Small to be "the eye of the storm around which the music of Korn rages." Small described the band as "a basket-case full of contradictions."" both quotes need cites

• Everything's been fixed CrowzRSA 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-put the article on hold and will pass it when the above issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, CrowzRSA 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is this word? the mtv interview does not mention it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.253.29 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get backwards Rs? For that matter, how do you get any backwards letters? I've tried symbols on here and I've tried symbols on Word. HOW DO YOU GET BACKWARDS LETTERS?! The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Please read MOS:TM. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the introduction genre from rock to nu metal. Nu metal is a fusion genre of heavy metal; which itself is a genre of rock. The introduction needs to state it's main genre, in this case, rock. Any edits to change the genre without reliable sources will be reverted. Thank you. GWPSPØ9Ø7thAdv. 05:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issue was previouslly discussed above, so please go and give a look there[1]. if so you will see that it's not ok to give that general examples to a genre because it makes wikipedia imprecise and thus an unreliable source, i bet that if you go on a grab a physical enciclopedia about contemporany music, korn will be listed as A)- Metal B)- Nu metal. i appeal to your neutral point of view here. And please don't change the genre again untill a real consensous (I mean, one involving more users than you) being reached. Better regards: Ledforce (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Absolutely atrocious! I can't believe how bad Korn's wiki page is! I'm willing to help out, but only if Wikipedia allows me to cite Kornspace.com as an source. It is simply not worth my time if they refuse that request because most of Korn's news is released through Kornspace.com Tjohnsond (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new album, The Path of Totality is obviously dubstep. No arguing with that. It's not because Skrillex is involved. It's because if you listen to it, you'll hear all that sound that dubstep has. Just if you look up what dubstep is, you'll know. I cited my source while adding dubstep(recently) to the genre list korn has.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One album isn't enough. yawaraey (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? We just put dubstep(recently) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get direct sources from the members of the bands listed DIRECTLY STATING that their band was influenced by Korn? Allmusic's overview section (to distinguish from their biographies -- the biographies are usually written by people, the overview generation seems to be computer-generated) is not a good source for tracking artist influences, because they mostly seem to categorize bands as "following" other bands simply for having a similar style or location (I.E., numerous rappers from Detroit categorized as being "influenced" by Eminem, even if they started out before Eminem). --WTF (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ima go get sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The band Korn have been considered the pioneers of the Nu Metal sound. Their genre has been criticized by some metal purists to have been not real heavy metal. Due to controversies and arguments over the band being heavy metal or not than just with nu metal being heavy metal or not, here's what lead singer Jonathan Davis said about it. “There’s a lot of closed-minded metal purists that would hate something because it’s not true to metal or whatever, but Korn has never been a metal band, dude. We’re not a metal band.” He continued, “We’ve always been looked as as what they called the nu-metal thing. But we’ve always been the black sheep and we never fitted into that kind of thing so … We’re always ever evolving, and we always piss fans off and we’re gaining other fans and it is how it is.”

Another quote

"I remember when were coming out we were fighting being called a metal band because we weren't a metal band, we were something that wasn't classifiable," Davis says. "Then they came up with 'nu-metal' but that's still cheesy. It's frustrating."

^{[2] [3] [4]}

they don't look like korn, they look like a bunch of imposters — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will upload an updated photo on the Wikimedia Commons and update the photo. Josie Borisow 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Josie Borisow 19:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nbcwd Josie Borisow 19:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever changed the picture THANK YOU. It has been the same for 6 years now. Teresa44 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! ;) Nbcwd (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the band is named KoЯn --82.139.5.13 (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you post hiddent text, you might want to consider reading about Wikipedia's "don't revert due solely to "no consensus" policy" WP:DRNC Korn have said themselves many times they are not nu-metal or even metal at all. They fit into many categories of music. A consensus may or may not be necessary but to put a hidden text telling everyone they can't edit the article is against Wikipedia policy. WP:Hidden I have seen several people cite that a "consensus" needs to be reached before making any edits to the genre, yet no one has started an actual consensus! WP:CONS No single person owns this wikipedia article, therefore, changes can be made to any information at any time by any one without regards to hidden texts telling them they can't change it. If you feel so strongly that there should be a consensus, then start one, don't just state that no one should/can change it until a consensus is reached when you never started one. Thank you. Nbcwd (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, even in Billboard they are referred to as Hard Rock. Just because a consensus is reached once, doesn't mean a consensus might need to change. Refer to WP:CCC. Apparently more discussion is needed to come to another consensus. Korn have changed a lot since this last "consensus" was done. If a citation can validate one or many genre's, it shouldn't be thrown out just because a person believes it to be invalid or non-applicable because a consensus was reached "a long time ago". With that said, nu metal is defined in wikipedia as a subgenre of heavy metal and classed as alternative metal. Korn themselves have always said that they aren't metal and even they don't know how to classify their music. They have had so many styles incorporated into their sound its going to be difficult to come up with only one genre to define them unless you keep it very broad, such as rock music. Besides, where does it say that a band must only be classified as one genre? Is this a rule in wikipedia that I'm not aware of? Slipknot has 3 genre's listed, Deftones have 2 genre's listed, even nu metal isn't on theirs yet they are classified in the same categories as Korn are. Go look at the list of List of nu metal bands and tell me how many of those bands ONLY have 1 genre listed as their genre. I see no reason why multiple genre's can't be listed for Korn. My suggestions would be the following: nu metal, rock, industrial metal, alternative metal, and possibly even electronica due to the incorporation of electronica in their latest album, The Path of Totality. Take a look at the List of alternative metal artists and List of industrial metal bands and you'll see how Korn can easily fit in each of those categories as well as nu metal and rock. I do feel that even one album such as The Path of Totality can add a new genre to their style because they have always evolved throughout the years from one style to the next fusing many genres into their style. But that's only my opinion. Nbcwd (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke to artist management this morning and the actual number is in the 30 million range. Nielsen Soundscan has total US sales are 19,509,563 as of this week. Will continue to look for a citation to add to this number, but this is the most accurate number available as of today. Nbcwd (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would like to add this reference for 35 million record sales. [2] Thank you! Nbcwd (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been WAY TOO MUCH genre warring lately on this page. Since December when someone added industrial metal with this edit to the genre field for Korn with NO sources or even discussing it here. Sure we've seen the musical style and influences whatever section, but we're not going to add all those genres to the field. Nu metal is a hybrid of metal, grunge and rap. Thus, it is NOT hard rock. The band only played industrial metal in 2005. Please see the sources for See you on the other side and read the article. And I guess 2007 maybe. But that article's genre field wasn't sourced with industrial metal. If you look at their other stuff, they are nu metal. Industrial metal is Static-X, Ministry, Rammstein, etc. Then someone added a source in the genre field to allow industrial metal on there, but all genres got put in the musical style section, industrial metal was there, but long ago there openly was a consensus made for the genre to say (((((Nu metal, alternative metal))))) and the list of industrial metal bands article did NOT have korn in there, but you can't source wikipedia for itself. Anyone can edit it. Also, that article is barely sourced anyways. Another thing is that if the consensus was made, I reverted to pre-genre war state. Before 12/9/2012. An IP also vandalized a section in the page calling the members "homosexuals" and talking about their name having to do with diarrhea or corn or something. It was ridiculous and unsourced and obvious vandalism. Also, the sources for their formation year SPECIFICALLY say they formed in 1992. NOT 1993. The band only experimented industrial metal (precisely 'nu-industrial') with See You On the Other Side, and MAYBE Evolution. It just was unsourced. But for SYOTOS it WAS. Please don't edit the genre without a discussion.

2601:A:4100:5A:A538:D76B:C74F:B580 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider reading about Ownership of articles WP:OWN. The one consensus that was done before is no longer valid if others now feel that other genre's should be added. Anyone can edit the article. You are no more entitled to this than any other. Billboard is a valid and reliable source by the way. This "edit warring" is actually you. Mulitple people come and change the genre, not just one. By this comment, "but we're not going to add all those genres to the field", who are the "we're" you are referring to? Do you speak for every member of wikipedia that makes updates to Korn's wikipedia articles? The band only changes their musical style every single album! None of them are the same so it's completely valid to add additional genre's for their genre. Many other bands have multiple genre's listed as their genre so why can't Korn? Why would you revert this page back to 9 Dec for no valid reason? Just for the genre? Nbcwd (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myxomatosis57 Please stop reverting additions just because YOU feel that the source is not reliable. Allmusic IS considered a reliable source. You keep reverting on the page but have not contributed to the talk page. You have been given an WP:EDITWAR warning. Please stop reverting other's inputs, particularly when they have cited valid and reliable sources. Nbcwd (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myxomatosis57 I read your link to WP: ALBUMS and even there they state, as the consensus, that the overarching genre used on Allmusic is an acceptable reference. Only 1 person disagreed amongst the 5 people involved in the discussion. Therefore, electronic music and pop rock is a valid genre to list for Korn Nbcwd (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Allmusic reviews are the reliable texts. Nevertheless, the genre sidebar, the sidebar next to the reviews which provably have actually no relationship with the reviews, is not. Nearly every band and review are branded with generalized "pop/rock" or "electronic" or etc., which actually makes the sidebar obsolete. For instance, user page of Mayhem also contains pop/rock labeling, but they're obviously not "pop rock". The users who participated in the consensus I've send also can be showing distaste/disapproval for the sidebar while totally agreeing upon the accepted usage of the written review itself. Another question-answer session regarding this issue can be seen here. Apart from that, I've been warned twice by other users not to refer to the genre sidebar, as it can be seen from here and here. I'd like to make an exact quote from one of them:

(As exactly quoted from Dan56) "Thank you for your contributions to articles like How I Got Over, but the source you used is a bit questionable. Editors in the past have pointed out that Allmusic's sidebar is often incongruous with the reviewer's prose (possibly not the reviewer's choice), including at WP:ALBUMS and RSN. A perfect example is Rhythm Killers and its entry at Allmusic; the sidebar lists it as "reggae", but the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight really". If this is the only source available for a certain article, then it's fine, but more explicit, authored sources are preferred." Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Allmusic review itself (the text not the sidebar) indicated that the band was primarily a "pop rock" or "electronic" band, I'd not intervene with your edit at the first place. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you READ the review that is cited it is stated IN the review itself. Therefore it's valid/reliable nonetheless. Nbcwd (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the review and I can't find any mention of "pop rock" and solely "electronic" in the review. "The dark electronica" term which is used, while being subtle, can open something new for the discussion though. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting as the word electronic is in the review 4 times. 1) "Korn remembered who they were just in time to forget it all again on The Path of Totality, an unexpected left turn into dubstep and all manner of dark electronica from the kings of nu metal." 2) "Korn always emphasized texture over riffs, so shifting from a gray guitar grind toward claustrophobic electronic collage doesn’t induce shock, apart from the shock that the album actually works." 3) "The difference of arrangement -- heavy on skittish drums and electro walls of assault -- has the curious effect of making Korn seem not adventurous but rather mature: the content of Jonathan Davis’ rants matter less than his tone, and the producers have folded his vocals, along with Munky’s buzzing guitar, into a web that feels like Korn even if it doesn’t strictly sound like any other Korn album, not even the industrial-funk of See You on the Other Side." 4)"Despite all the electronics, there’s no mistaking The Path of Totality as a Korn album...and one of their better ones to boot." As for the pop rock, no it's not in the review. For anyone that wants to put their thoughts into this, here's the link to the article in question: http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-path-of-totality-mw0002235657 Additionally, take a look at Korn's Billboard Chart History: http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/korn/chart-history/1820890 Rock, Dance, Club, Electronic, Alternative, and Hard Rock. Nbcwd (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the term electronic is used for 3 times but in order to indicate the elements in the album and describe the type of musical instruments used (electronic musical instrument), rather than to describe the genre they're playing most often. As far as I can see, besides the defunct sidebar, nothing explicitly brands Korn as an electronic music band in that review and it is really hard to decide on a band's genre by considering just an album review, especially for an one that changes its style too frequently. If they pursue on their "dubstep influenced-metal" genre for their next albums, "electronic music" branding will be valid. However, it is too early to include that on the infobox for now. And, about the Billboard issue, I'd like to say that the charts does not necessarily indicate the bands' (or even the songs') genre. Their only album that has been charted in "electronic" charts is Path of Totatily, their latest work. Apart from that, only 5 songs of Korn has received a dance/club charting; one of them being from Path of Totatily. Nevertheless, Nine Inch Nails' The Hand That Feeds also received charting from dance charts and their next song Every Day Is Exactly the Same even topped Hot Dance Singles Sales, despite not being solely electronic or dance music. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion here before my last edit. It is important to put things in context here. I think the general consensus is to not include too many genres in an artist's infobox, but stick to a middle ground between too precise and too vague, such that it's possible to differentiate their sound without going into a sub-sub-sub-sub-genre of two bands. Pop rock is probably the vaguest genre name extent, and doesn't provide useful information. As for electronic, since you're citing the review for an individual album, that would be more appropriate to use as a source for that album, not for the band in its entirety. If you can find a bio on the group describing them as electronic, that would be more acceptable. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the reference to Korn as "industrial metal" isn't valid or reliable either. This article is clearly only speaking about another band and I would have to say that Korn are not and have never been and "industrial metal" band. "STRIKE-O-MATICS SEEK HELP ON NEW CD COVER Taking a cue from industrial metal act Korn, the Strike-O-Matics are seeking the assistance of their fans in designing the cover for their upcoming compact disc." As you have stated clearly, "heavy metal" is a genre of "rock music" and "nu metal is a sub-genre of "heavy metal" just as "industrial metal" is also a sub-genre of "heavy metal". So even by that logic, only "heavy metal" should be listed since you don't want to delve into sub-genre's. Nbcwd (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe Korn are industrial metal, since they are nu metal, which is an amalgamation of genres, including industrial. Calling Korn industrial metal is like saying alternative bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead are post-punk because they are influenced by it, which is wrong since they play alt rock, which is a derivative of post-punk. I call the big one bitey 12:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The formation was 1992. NOT 1993. Please carefully read the sources. Find this quote saying "Formed

   1992 in Bakersfield, CA " over on this source. Notice how it says 1992?

On this one find the quote saying "Korn formed in 1992 as the Bakersfield metal act LAPD"

On this one find the quote saying "The pace is unrelenting, but Korn is used to it by now. Formed in 1992, the California band spent its early years honing its chops on the road in a succession of opening gigs for the likes of Ozzy Osbourne, Marilyn Manson and Megadeth."

Notice how they all say 1992, not 1993? It specifically says it was in 1992

Any edits reverting that will be considered vandalism

Ihy34 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit changing the date are only vandalism if they are a deliberate attempt at compromising the article. These seem like good faith edits to improve the article, this a content dispute not vandalism. GB fan 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LAPD formed in 1992...KORN didn't form till 1993. Sometimes articles use 1992 because that's when LAPD started. But that was not when Korn started. LAPD changed their name to Creep and then when they found Jonathan Davis in 1993...they changed their name to Korn and Korn was born! There is nothing to argue here, these are the facts. Your sources used the date of the birth of LAPD not Korn! I can find many other sources that will dispute this date. Please read the Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles before you being this edit warring. WP:OWN Thank you! Nbcwd (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACTUALLY LAPD formed in 1989.^[5]

If the sources say 1992, then it is 1992. Jonathan joined in 1992 or 1993 beginning. Could be they formed as an instrumental first just to find a singer and jonathan joined, so therefore, it's 1992. Also, I removed vandalism. Because 1992 is the formation year.

Ihy34 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...Jonathan didn't join the band till 1993. NO article out there disputes that! Korn was formed in 1993...their first EP came out in Oct 1993. And for the record, you apparently don't understand what a consensus is. And you also are participating in an edit war. Consider this a warning. Nbcwd (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Jonathan joined in 1993, still they say they formed in 1992, but got their singer in 93. Some bands begin off without a singer, then get one.

Ihy34 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they had a singer in LAPD. Richard Morrill, Pete Capra, and Corey...James and Brian found Jonathan signing in a bar in Bakersfield in 1993. Soon after Jonathan joined the band they changed the name to Korn. Prior to that it was Creep. Nbcwd (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ihy34 you really should use this talk page to settle the dispute rather than the article itself with the edit warring you and Teresa44 partook of. You requested a consensus and then you refuse to participate in the consensus and stop the edit warring. Now, on to this dispute. In an issue of Meanstreet Magazine from October 1993 it talks about Korn and referred to them as "the six-month old band" which means that they were formed in March/April of 1993. [3] This is a reputable source that documented them right from the beginning. Regardless of the sites you find that say 1992, that was LAPD and Creep, NOT Korn.

Here's several other soruces that state Korn formed in 1993:

Marquee Magazine - [4]

Discogs - [5]

Antelope Audio - [6]

Loudwire - [7], [8]

TC Electronic - [9]

IMP Magazine - [10]

Roadrunner Records - [11]

Roadrunner Records Canada video - [12]

And for the final proof...their official merchandise store states the following: "Hailing from Bakersfield, California, Korn formed in 1993." [13] Are you actually going to dispute the band themselves on when they considered themselves to be a band? What more proof and sources do you want? Ultimately the right answer is 1993, even according to Korn. So why do you hold on to 1992 even when the band themselves say 1993? Here's another one that is OFFICIAL FROM KORN, their publicist has their biography posted as well, and it says....1993! [14] Nbcwd (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the guy that got me blocked from Korn's page for constantly changing it back to 1993. He's really stubborn and misinformed. Keep up the good fight guys, someone block him for me please.Teresa44 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comments: First, please discuss content, not contributors. Second, if you're topic banned, you might want to avoid the talk page of said topic as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is he officially rejoined? I see he did not YET. Therefore why is he listed as one of the current members in the top right corner??