Talk:Rise Against/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Year of formation

Hey there 68.39.152.45 (talk). I just wanted to discuss the edits that you made to the article relating to the band's year of formation.

Firstly, you said, "of course everyone 'formed' years earlier, it's a common lie on Wikipedia". Yes, it's common, but it's not a lie, and especially not on Wikipedia. There are numerous other bands out there who form under one name and then change to another years later – they're still the same bands. Secondly, to make such a claim, you should be able to provide some sources. All it took was a single Google search ("when was rise against formed") for me to find numerous sites where the signs point to 1999. In order to prove otherwise, you should try and find other credible sources that state otherwise. Thirdly, there's no need to say things like "contradicts", "common lie" and "deceptive" when explaining you edits, especially when you haven't got anything to back you up. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Now, see if you can provide any sources to back up your claim. All I'm trying to do is help here. Thanks – 4TheWynne (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Meyer didn't form as Keebler . Rise Against with Different members and a Different Name and One release was not real reased under "Rise Against" the article is About rise Against . To "milk" an extra few years back to the "90s" It was written Deceptively . So are you not about a Correct Article and why are you having a problem with the truth ? Have you actually read that first section. Which for the first Few YEARS they weren't "Rise Against" . How is that Encyclopedic to lie ? 68.39.152.45 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

answer the Question . Why delete it , because you can't really Justify the edits you have undone ? Surely a Question doesn't bother you right and you're all about working with other editors to make the best Possible Articles right ? 68.39.152.45 (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

All right, let me put it to you this way: to an small extent, you are correct – the band "Transistor Revolt" formed in 1999. They then changed their name to "Rise Against" two years later; however, this is where you're wrong – they are the same band, with the same members, and the same rights; they only changed the drummer, but just because they changed their name, doesn't mean they're a different band entirely. The rest of what you're saying is utter nonsense. 4TheWynne (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ok well I am TOTALLY right . The name of the Article is what the Page is About . The name of the page is RISE AGAINST . Rise against start date is 2001 . Period . If they had "10" band names or one Prior . oranges are not apples . 4 men could form apple computers, if the same four men form dell computers later on, THEY ARE NOT APPLE . There is NO SUCH THING as "Dell was formed as APPLE" . You understand this ? 68.39.152.45 (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this being your trying to "discredit" by calling what I typed "utter nonsense" . Heres a clearer example . A musician who plays bass since 1980 but prior played harmonica for three years can not have in an Article that they played bass since 1977 . This is what "rise against" article is claiming . Its Wrong . no two ways about it . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

the information is right on the page . So I don't understand the "get sources" thing . The article is written to add 2 years to a band that didn't exist yet. Technically .This is about the last time I try to have you both understand what I am getting at . Heres a clearer example . A musician who plays Bass since 1980 but prior played, Harmonica for three years, can not have in an Article(accurately) that they played "Bass since 1977" . This is what "rise against" article is claiming . Its Wrong . no two ways about it . Why "protect" a page from Truth . Why hound my edits without understanding them . People can play in other bands for 10 years , once they become notable and have an article the start of that group isn't 10 years prior . if it were the same it would be the same name on their royalty statement .

I don't feel you are trying to help . It seems like you are protecting their page from fact . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ALSO This is Chronological

Transistor Revolt was formed in[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] Lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun on drums.

"Rise Against" was formed in 2001 after signing with Fat Wreck Chords, and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini).[4] Guitarist, Mr. Precision left the band later in the year, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[3][4] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[6] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[7]

much better than this

Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year.[4] Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[3][4] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[6] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[7]

piece by piece

-Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] The first lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000, a year before signing with Fat Wreck Chords. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun as the drummer.

Transistor Revolt was formed in[2] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[3] Lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, after a short time with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun on drums.

-The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini) on Fat Wreck Chords that same year.[4] Mr. Precision left the band in 2001, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5]

"Rise Against" was formed in 2001 after signing with Fat Wreck Chords, and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini).[4] Guitarist, Mr. Precision left the band later in the year, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[2][5] 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok Im on the talk page for like 3 days now . I don't see YOU, there . How about this you seem to have some invested interest in leaving the lies that are there . Complete nonsense is subject-able . Lets see the pages you've created Ive created about 21 . From another page . Nonsense ? not even close .Keep calling my stuff names . One page I wrote about 99% of all content is in a BOOK BY WIKI , hardly type "nonsense" . With my self esteem little trite dig words like that will never matter . Coming out in a small movie next year . How about keep your words towards the Article . Your "assessment" of my writing is no matter to me . Ive been worldwide published since age 18 . what is Important here is getting the article CORRECT . try and stop wasting your time trying to put these little "digs" in . You aren't here to try and dig on people . Just HELP OUT and BE EASY TO WORK WITH . SO you asked me to go to the talk page . Been there for a few days now . Also if you want to call anything I've done in this matter "nonsense" PROVE IT 68.39.152.45 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not calling any of your own writing nonsense. I don't know anything about your writing. It's the stuff that you've put on my talk page, Acroterion's talk page, even your own talk page (basically anywhere else where you've discussed the matter outside of this talk page) – all of which makes absolutely no sense – that I'm referring to as nonsense. And I don't think you seem to understand what I've been trying to tell you, which is why I haven't added anything yet. I want what I'm trying to tell you to sink in; clearly it's taking too long.

Understand that when a band changes its name, they are not a completely different band – which is what you're claiming. For the last time – Rise Against was formed in 1999, just under a different name. Go and type into Google "when was rise against formed". There was nothing incorrect about the article before you came along. I'm not saying that the things that you changed in the article are nonsense, just that it's incorrect. I'm not taking a dig at you, either; it's just that some of the stuff that you're saying doesn't really make sense, and that what you're editing is what's contradicting the article, not the original content. I just want you to understand exactly what I'm trying to say to you, and that – not that I want to say it – I feel like you're fighting a one-man battle here. Just in this case.

You promised you'd "get other people involved and let them handle it", and that hasn't happened yet; so don't even bother worrying about my input on the talk page just yet. I'm not the one who's being hard to work with here. The ball's in your court. 4TheWynne (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved note to 68.39.152.45: where are your third-party sources that specifically address the date of formation/name issue? Your personal analysis is not admissible on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The "sources" for the material in the first section are INTERVIEWS with the singer . SO basically as your saying the whole 2 YEARS the band was called transistor radio or whatever and had one release NO ONE THOUGHT OF THEM AS ANYTHING ELSE . Except "Transistor...." . Its in the Article . Which says RISE AGAINST formed in 2001 . On the "Transistor page it says they formed in 2000 LOL . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

a clearer example . A musician who plays bass since 1980 but prior played harmonica for three years can not have in an Article that they played bass since 1977 . This is what "rise against" article is claiming . Its Wrong . no two ways about it

Funny !they aren't allowed to use this lie ANYWHERE Else . Discogs for instance . Think they can claim the "transistor revolt" ep under their "rise against" page They Can Not . Not the same band . heres your reference : http://www.discogs.com/artist/263017-Rise-Against where they just Straight Up lie . Cover for them about how they were the same band. Not on their royalty statements they are NOT The same band either 68.39.152.45 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Third-party sources." Please? Not your interpretation, Wikipedia wants specific published statements by journalists or scholars familiar with the subject, and your reference contradicts your opinion, regardless of your view that it is a "lie." However, it does fall somewhat short of substantive journalism. Acroterion (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an Interpretation "Transistor Revolt is the eponymous self-released demo EP by the punk rock band Transistor Revolt before changing their name to Rise Against in 2000." a-DUHH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_Revolt 73.193.195.69 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference that you added is only contradicting yourself. The band "began in 1999", according to the source. Gotta do better than that. 4TheWynne (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about this . if they were formed as "rise against" why isn't the First RELEASE UNDER THAT NAME . case closed . Go Find some gullible person for your nonsense .73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI dispute

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

---

I saw the report at ANI here. I closed it, as it wasn't an appropriate venue for a content dispute. But I figured I'd stop by and try to mediate. Can someone catch me up to speed on the 2 stances, and any reliable, third party sources that support them? Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi There , I will catch you up and be as clear as possible to why a band who Formed under an entirely different name and had one ep release under that name was , Known as that name for Three YEARS and could possibly form as a different name until that name was Changed in 2001 after some personnel changes . I will provide many references as Possible . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This other editor will most likely be a no show and they need to be here too. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, he discussed in the section above, correct? So, I'm not sure why you'd think he'd be a no show now. But regardless, you don't need to wait for him to summarize your stance for me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, this "no-show" had to get some sleep – not everybody lives in America or something. All right, let me make this very simple, and I'll summarise both stances to help get you up to speed. This band, Rise Against, formed in 1999 under the name "Transistor Revolt". They released an EP under that name a year later before changing their name in 2001, but it's still under Rise Against's discography. Between when they formed and when they changed their name, they had only changed their drummer, twice, but they're still the same band. The IP feels that Transistor Revolt and Rise Against are two completely different bands, and that Rise Against formed in 2001. As I have mentioned several times, all it took me was a quick Google search ("when was rise against formed") to find countless articles that support what I've been saying (that the band formed n 1999), which has been the case with the "deceptively written" article since it was created. Of the sources that the IP has managed to provide so far, none of them have supported his view. Someone else also reverted his edit on the article earlier because the person also agreed that it contradicted his views. I hope that helps!

And with the List of hardcore punk bands, in my defense, I was only restoring edits made by other editors which the IP has been reverting. It clearly says in both bands' articles, "hardcore punk", but this IP seems to have his own view on what their genres are. I am not engaging in a content dispute – for some reason I am being targeted for this, despite only trying to help. I feel sorry for the other editors whose edits are constantly being reverted. And what about these little messages from the IP in the edit summaries – "for 6 years fine with out you", "You won't be reverting anything actually after a while", "Stick to commercial "rise against" you clearly don't know . Your WIKI HOUNDING is repotted as of Now", "cool One more Time Three revert rule and... Your Time has come". This person is just waiting, gleefully, for me to get blocked. I am not in the wrong. I hope you can understand that. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable, third party sources say. In the article currently, there's a source from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music that states "This US hardcore band was formed in 1998". Similarly, Allmusic, a source with a very strong consensus for being reliable, states that "Chicago's Rise Against began in 1999" Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait until I hear the IP's side, but it's hard to ignore the info from 2 reliable sources above. Perhaps a reword could make both parties happy though? Perhaps the opening sentence could be changed from "Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt" to The band was formed under the name Transistor Revolt, as to shift the focus to the "group of individuals" rather than the "Rise Against" name. Regardless of the labels, its important to the group's history, so it needs to be mentioned in some capacity. How about this? Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I read that wrong .

"Rise Against, formed in 1999 under the name Transistor Revolt". Not Correct Transistor Revolt was Formed as Transistor Revolt.

“They (Transistor Revolt) released an EP under that name a year later before changing their name in 2001, but it's still under Rise Against's discography. ” Not Correct its Transistor Revolts discography the name they were for 3 years Prior .

“The IP feels that Transistor Revolt and Rise Against are two completely different bands,” Ill tell what "I" feel.

Transistor Revolt was formed in 1999. Rise Against was formed in 2001 . Accurate .

When a band actually makes a recording and puts it out under a different name it solidifies that name. To make pretend they really were something else is not accurate . The sources above are UNBIASED . the reference used here (at this article) is an interview with the singer in 2008 , Obviously he can say anything to manipulate their references by supplying wrong information. Those above are Unbiased. Unbiased is the way .

4the win also did the Same thing here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_McIlrath

73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Like This :

"Transistor Revolt-Independent years (1999–2003)

Transistor Revolt was formed in[3] in 1999 by former members of the bands 88 Fingers Louie and Baxter.[4] Lineup consisted of Tim McIlrath (vocals), Joe Principe (bass and vocals), Toni Tintari (drums), and Mr. Precision (guitar and vocals). Though the band never performed live with this lineup, it released a self-produced demo EP entitled Transistor Revolt in 2000. Tintari left shortly after recording the EP, and was replaced by Brandon Barnes, and shortly after with Dan Lumley of Screeching Weasel and Squirtgun on drums.

"Rise Against" was formed in 2001 after signing with Fat Wreck Chords[5][6], and released their first album, Unraveling (produced by veteran punk producer Mass Giorgini).[7] Guitarist, Mr. Precision left the band later in the year, and was replaced by Todd Mohney of The Killing Tree.[3][8]

After touring in support of The Unraveling, the band returned to the studio in December 2002 to work on their second full-length, Revolutions per Minute (produced by Bill Stevenson and Jason Livermore at The Blasting Room),[4][7] which was released in 2003. The band toured extensively in support of its first two records, opening for Sick of It All, NOFX, Agnostic Front, No Use for a Name,[9] AFI, and Strung Out. In addition, Rise Against participated in the 2003 Warped Tour.[10]"

Put it THIS WAY this Article is about RISE AGAINST . RISE AGAINST Formed in 2001 . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:VNT. We go by what third party sources document. Can your stance be supported by any sources? Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

absolutely . However the Article is about Rise Against . Rise Against formed in 2001 . The pre-formation belongs and the article should state the history, and say its mostly the same members ect but it Didn't form until it Formed . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, nows the time where you present those sources then. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What sources do you want, and Are we understanding(together) this page is about Rise Against who formed in 2001 .Their early history can /should start in 1999 but the article should accurately state Rise Against formed in 2001 . Ill go and retrieve sources then after you say which ones and how they will be used so I can get the accurate ones 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The current status is that there's 2 reliable sources that state that the band started in the 90s. I would think you'd want to provide third party reliable sources that back your stance, that the band formed in 2001. (Which is my understanding of your stance.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, it seems even the band's official Facebook page asserts they were founded in 1999. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Of COURSE they do . Was Transistor Revolt Notable ? No . The Article is about Rise Against formed in 2001 just like it says in the article . In "punk" "commercial pop punk" hardcore and the rest Everyone tries to trump the year of formation The bands "official" FB isn't an Unbiased source . This Article is a bout Rise Against . Rise Against didnt release anything nor form until 2001 . If "transistor revolt" is part of Rise Against discography why was it sold as transistor revolt . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your stance, you don't need to reiterate it again. But Wikipedia goes by what sources say. Your argument is based entirely on a conclusion you've come to on your own. The sources are overwhelmingly against how you want to present this. Unless you start presenting some actual counter evidence, your changes won't be made to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I will look for them Im eating at the same time . However being some of my bands are in articles with them. I decided to click and read their page. It makes absolutely no sense. If I don't have it changed It won't bother or hurt me none . Its kind of laughable . Like "Oh another band who's not secure with starting when they did and are trying to link back to the 90s". I understand they make money and this article can't be changed to the truth without opposition. The win' page basically watches and makes sure of that lol . This isn't just a band who changed their name, and continued, they Released a Disc . As transistor revolt . its Still Wrong. no matter what , until Its Right . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No Actually is NOT a "conclusion Ive come up with" a band released a release. had member switches. Changed the name. That band became notable the Article is written about the NOTABLE group . Its fact not Rocket Science. Its a conclusion anyone can discern from the article itself . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Opening statement a Total LIE "Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in summer 1999." Contradicts the article and the first release. My own conclusion ? 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

then "Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 " 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

THEN "The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album," REALLY ? its Wrong 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in summer 1999."

"Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 "

"The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album," 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably a sock puppet doing that deletion. Maybe not, or maybe so, however I want to Thank You. No matter what happens for taking the time to help out and set it straight. Isn't it odd how I exposed obvious Contradictions and someone grabbed them from here. Like I said and my intuition guides also this is a Protected deceptively written page.

lets just leave it all jacked up then . Thanks For taking the time to read this however. let it stay wrong . If this article contradicts itself and its not an issue this article is beneath me and not worth any of my time . If you see the contradictions and want to make changes Im sure you'll know what to do. What do you feel 73.193.195.69 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that maybe you're just arguing semantics? Regardless of the label, this group of people started making music together at this time. It's commonly handled this way - see Linkin Park or Pink Floyd. These articles are all WP:GAs too, which means they were peer reviewed - double checked. You seem to be the only one taking issue with things...consequently also the only one not using sources to back your points. Sergecross73 msg me 04:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Pink Floyd whats so the same about that , they started in 66 or 65 like it says . Im the only one taking issue. so what , how many of you are on the cover of a double LP ? Oh None of you so then just because Im the only "one" at something really doesn't matter does it . Whats right is what matters. they aren't the same band formed as. its all nonsense. I don't care . I don't listen to commercial music. Any of your articles end up in a book by wikipedia ? Coming out in a movie in the upcoming year ? So being an individual that "no one thinks that" or "no one does those things" is irrelevant. Ive also taken a pre test for mensa . so yeah I hear you "no one thinks like that" maybe I know why then .

"Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in summer 2001."

"Transistor Revolt" was formed in 1999"

"The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album,"<-----the only accurate statement .

this way is nonsense.

"Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in summer 1999."

"Rise Against was formed under the name Transistor Revolt[2] in 1999 "

"The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album,"

"Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in summer 2001."

"Transistor Revolt" was formed in 1999"

"The band changed its name to "Rise Against" in 2001 and released their first album,"<-----the only accurate statement .

either way Ill be the only one to pick up on many things in life no one will . Thanks For your time. have a great Day . PS as a Published Writer and Artist for 27 years this article is written horribly in spots no matter what peer checked and double checked , there is always someone who can come in and do better. Thanks once again have a great day 73.193.195.69 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy for your fame and success, but it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't matter if you're a published scholar or a high school drop out - the problem is that you seem to have a very tenuous grasp on how Wikipedia works. I'd suggest you read up on policy, precedent, and how things are handled here. If you can't do that, maybe its time to go back to doing whatever you want in your own book writing endeavors. All I know is that your current approach isn't going to get you anywhere here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

21 Articles later. Im doing more than fine here . Also a WW Musician too . + Writer. This page contradicts itself , as Usual a commercial band is scared its 15 minutes could be shattered by having a page worded properly. The ONLY reference that supplies that nonsense is an interview with the singer. I do Interviews too, Ive thought that If I wanted to I could manipulate wiki by providing false info to sources during an interview . I have integrity though. So OK . DURACELL FORMED AS EVERYREADY . makes plenty of No Sense. Hey if theres no source then the lie must be true . I suppose the 3 years these people existed they really thought "I bet their real name is Rise Against" No For 3 years the were "transistor revolt" . Its Fine. The Articles I have created are accurate, also in a book by wiki. Im validated already. You're right policy and $$$$$$$ prevents things that could hurt the wallet. Its $$$$ not someones "love" for the "band" that keeps that person claiming "Im 15 but look 18" and "I guard the page" LOL. Have a nice day K . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you perceive this to be about money exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well we all know there are paid editors at wikipedia I read articles of people who say they are paid to edit and create articles , There isn't supposed to be Any paid editors but there are because those are the odds. people slip through the cracks . Labels and Companies regularly pay writers to create articles here . Not sure how often and, its highly likely mr "15" works for their label . Money being involved has more to do in this case, with, a band and money and not wanting the facade to be outed (or scrutinized). Its Highly Unlikely that someone would devote their existence to protecting "rise against" and the singer and any other relative page. The sock puppet brand-y new page should be investigated to see if its in fact mr "for the win". They are too smart for that so I doubt its that simple but who would know of this typed discussion and as it was happening "erase" part of the talk page and ONLY my addition to it . The $$$$ part is many times the only pages where people come out "swinging" is bands that are making their loot. I have helped a bigger bands discography state their release was/is on cotillion not atlantic and no argument there and I actually OWN the copy in question (however in so many cases where a page is being protected all kinds of IPs will have their "one edit" to remove info they deem they want "hidden", and or a user page) This article was pushed for GA right. Doesn't that make it easier for someone to "protect" at that point. Seems all "strategy". Ive seen hardcore punk bands state they were formed 2-3 years earlier than formation by having "one member's" inclusion 2-3 years Earlier than everyone else's lol and use that as the start date. Its a commonality in so many hardcore punk and Commercial "punk" bands. Never seen that in any Real Full Blown Pro Artist pages. Its cool , I never heard this band and I purposely never will . Even if the band has nothing to do with this page, which is highly unlikely. YOU though are Great and a Fine mediator you have explained and clarified a Lot and I sure appreciate it. At this point I don't even feel like grabbing those references. In the Underground there is a thing called "scene points" bands think they earn them by seeming to have more years to their existence . I guess starting in 2000's is deemed "uncool" and even though they wish they had real cred. by starting in the 1980s , '99 is good enough . I suppose. Anyhow , hope you have a great day. (didnt get a chance to re-read that as much as I would like so I hope its limited on spelling and other issues 73.193.195.69 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think it just comes down to what some third party sources stated, not sure I see any real evidence of these conspiracies of paid editing, sockpuppetry, or the band pushing their viewpoint to increase they're street cred. But regardless, if that that's the extent of your argument, and you're conceding that policy prevents your stance and/or opting to rely on conspiracies, then I guess we've got this all wrapped up now. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Its a FACT . this is what bands do try and exist earlier by any means possible . There is no evidence of paid editors here. however this is some of whats out there http://www.cnet.com/news/wikipedia-shutters-250-accounts-in-probe-of-paid-edits/ . Sockpuppetry ....suspicious when someone "appears out of "no where" to do what this page did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hailey_Girges . I don't know if Im conceding anything except that grammar is Horrible and written a few ways. "WAS FORMED IN 1999 as "something else", "WAS FORMED IN 2001". very interesting lol 73.193.195.69 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know paid editing is a thing, and a problem, I'm just saying I don't believe it's happening here. I do concede that Hailey Girge's edit was bizarre, but there was really no reason for someone to "sabotage" you; you weren't making any progress in swaying anyone's stance or anything. In regards to "conceding", I only meant that, as long as your arguments are hinging on unfounded conspiracies and not policy-based arguments backed by reliable sources, I think we're done here. Sergecross73 msg me

I made plenty of Progress Explaining what is actually wrong with that amateur section "Independent years" . There is a reason to sabotage me . Just going against the most likely paid editor that watches this page . lol . That edit is more than bizarre. Its obviously one of two people I can think of . My arguments were hinging on What is truly Right . Not "conspiracies" lol . We are done here / never will be back or acknowledge this band. Ever. Have a nice day thats for all your input even when you put loaded statements that include words like "conspiracies" since when is faking the funk anymore than faking the funk. it isn't . "reliable" source of spoon fed seeds that they planted via interviews . done with it. =beneath me 73.193.195.69 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

73.193.195.69, funny to read while I'm on holidays that you claim I'm a paid editor working for the band/label rather than the 15-year-old student that I am (and my username is just a play on my surname, if you couldn't figure that out). Everything that I say here is the truth, not just some fake story to help me "slip through the cracks". I hope we don't cross paths again, despite how hilarious I find your comments and fake stories. To Acroterion and Sergecross73, thank you for mediating this dispute. You have both been very thorough, clear and professional in your actions, and I know that I can reach out to the two of you in the future for help and/or advice. Thank you for allowing me to have my say, and having patience during this time. I hope we meet again soon. Anyway, we're done here. 4TheWynne (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Its fake you are no "15" year old and of course you'd disappear and re-appear when the coast is clear. You're not thanking them like you own them because you don't . They are unbiased . You 98% work for the band period. Theres nothing hilarious about you or your behavior at wikipedia. One of the worst 2 editors to deal with ever. Certainly not a "15" year old . at a Minimum You are about 30+ years of age. Why don't you "hope we don't cross paths again" is that a Threat ? "Hilarious and fake" like I said my esteem and ego is something you'll never get through . Too many walls . "fake stories" don't try and dig where it will get you no where . You always have some story where you were any time there is talk page stuff going on but "RIGHT THERE" to make a "revert" . "thank you for mediating" like they wouldn't do it without you . lol I know anyone can reach out to anyone here at wiki . Anyway were done here . FINALLY . deem this article what it is . Deceptive . "While Im on holidays" YEAH RIGHT I bet during that time If I signed in to my editor page you'd be right there to revert anything . Who are you kidding . Have a nice day. Remember when that movie comes out Ill think about how you aren't in it . Thats how much your "covert" digs matter. They don't . 73.193.195.69 (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone "thank " someone to mediate when thats what they do, conflict resolution basically , if you don't have an invested interest in the page far beyond creating an accurate article ? 73.193.195.69 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's enough. Anymore unfounded accusations is going to land you a block. No more baseless speculation. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Rise against main genre

I dont think that they are melodic hardcore i think that they are punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderdisk 93 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The article calls refers to them as punk rock multiple times as well... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015

Can you change the main genere to punk rock becouse sings about animals rights and rights and stuff like just look at the music videosWonderdisk 93 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wonderdisk 93 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The article already clearly lists punk rock as a genre, there's no need to change the order or which is listed primarily. -- ferret (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015

I really think that rise against is more punk rock in their main genre

Because with their 2004 album sirens song of counter culture they had a song that was more political that was called state of the union so can you please change just asking nicely don"t wanna make trouble Jg9443 (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Jg9443 (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Yet again – punk rock has already been listed in the infobox, and the consensus is that they're a melodic hardcore band. And your reasoning doesn't make sense. In the future, please ask in a "change XXX to YYY" format, rather than simply "change XXX". 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

NOT punk rock

I have listened to all of their albums and they are certainly not punk rock, REAL punk rock. They are melodic hardcore (early), alternative rock and pop punk (now). Please change it asap, they are a band not accepted in the punk rock community as punk Realpunkmusic (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If a published source says punk rock then that's what we put there. Your only hope is if a lot more sources agree on melodic hardcore and the other genres you listed. In that case we can remove the one punk rock source as not being typical. Binksternet (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no official reviews for most real punk albums, find me a review for d.o.a albums, all reviews for these new generation pop punk bands lists them as punk rock which is not true. This article states that rise against are mainstream punk (pop punk) and alt rock http://www.popmatters.com/review/139675-rise-against-endgame/ You wouldn't be able to find real punk being reviewed by popmatters Realpunkmusic (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing the general music genre, of which "punk rock" is considered the overarching umbrella term for on Wikipedia, with the subculture. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words you are confusing punk rock with modern alternative rock, rise against sounds nothing like the sex pistols, listing them as the same genre is disrespectful and misleading. Recent rise against is pop punk which again means your generalisation is not taken well by the punk community, rise against tour with alternative rock bands such as linkin park http://investors.livenationentertainment.com/news-center/news-center-details/2014/LINKIN-PARK-ANNOUNCE-THE-HUNTING-PARTY-TOUR-WITH-SPECIAL-GUESTS-RISE-AGAINST-AND-OF-MICE--MEN/default.aspx not punk bands Realpunkmusic (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Not accepted in the punk rock community as punk", "listing them as [punk rock] is disrespectful and misleading", "your generalisation is not taken well by the punk community". Who do you think you are? Who even says that? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Realpunkmusic (talk · contribs), please read WP:VNT. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, not your personal thoughts and opinions. You can argue all you want, but that's what its going to boil down to. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that Jg9443 (talk · contribs) has plenty to say on the matter, though with a different opinion, so if you guys could begin a new section and continue the discussion that way (if there is still one to be had), then maybe we could reach a conclusion. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I think I'll start up/mediate a new discussion on it. I can't imagine that, these two left alone to discuss, would come up with a Wikipedia policy based conclusion... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I was neither thinking nor hoping that these guys would come to a Wikipedia policy-based conclusion when left alone – I just thought that if these guys have differing opinions, then we'll see if they are able to put forward reliable sources which validify their arguments. I didn't suggest it just so that they could hammer at each other all day long – which is what appears has happened while I was in bed asleep – I was just hoping that these guys would be able to present something worthy of changing in the article, and so far, they haven't. From what I've been able to pick up on, they seem to be arguing about the genre of the band's albums and music videos, not the band itself. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if this does end up going nowhere, at least I can say I was prepared for it when I first brought up the suggestion to begin a new discussion. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

rise against are NOT punk rock, they do not play at punk rock shows or festivals, instead they tour with alternative rock bands such as linkin park. their music is a fusion of melodic and alternative rock and now moreso pop punk. for the sake of humanity please remove punk rock and hardcore punk from their genres, i would say melodic hardcore but it's fine if you leave that just remove the pure punk genres and put in alternative rock. Realpunkmusic (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre discussion - August 2015

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

---

Alright, so there continues to be argument about this, so I'm going to mediate a new discussion on it. Below, please submit suggestions on what genre the band is. Keep in mind:

1. All genre must be backed up by third part reliable sources.
2. Any suggestions made without a source backing it will be disregarded.
3. Many good examples of sources to use or not use can be found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES
4. If you aim to change their primary genre, then you're going to need lots of sources proving that its the one predominantly used.
5. If there is a consensus to change, the changes will be implemented. If there isn't any consensus, or no valid suggestions are made, then no changes will be made.

Discuss below. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

here you go: http://exclaim.ca/Music/article/rise_against-black_market states that rise against are not only pop punk in recent years but also ever since the sufferer and the witness (before that they were melodic hardcore). they never have been pure punk rock like bands from the 70's and 80's, its a completely different sound, much faster drumming, more aggressive vocals and more. they do not play at punk rock shows or festivals, instead they tour with alternative rock bands such as linkin park. their music is a fusion of melodic and alternative rock and now moreso pop punk. for the sake of humanity please remove punk rock and hardcore punk from their genres, i would say melodic hardcore but it's fine if you leave that just remove the pure punk genres and put in alternative rock. Realpunkmusic (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only part of your source that outright discusses genre says is its opening sentence: It's been eight years since Rise Against's landmark record The Sufferer & The Witness, which was characterized by masterfully meshed pop-punk melody and hooks with hardcore fury and politically-conscious lyrics. The rest of what you said wasn't represented in the source, and as such, is not usuable. Even the quote above is really only applicable to the album article - The Sufferer & The Witness - the sources isn't discussing the band in general, just that one album. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

here's another one then for another one of their albums http://www.ew.com/article/2008/09/30/appeal-reason also, a lot of genres for albums and bands on wiki aren't even backed up by source anyway, people seem to give them whatever genre they want. you wont find sources for every single album out there, its not easy. so another one claiming they are pop punk, will you change them now? Realpunkmusic (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That source compares them to Fall Out Boy, but does not actually refer to them as pop punk, so no, that's again, not good enough. And yes, there are unsourced genre out there. But there shouldn't be. Pointing out that they are there does not make it right, and is not an argument to keep doing it. If anything, its a reason to delete the other unsourced information, which you're free to do if you challenge its validity. In regards to adding unsourced information, think of it like driving over the speed limit on the highway. Yes, lots of people do it, but that doesn't make it right, and its not like saying "everyone does it" would be a valid defense if you got caught by the police. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhap we need an example, since you've missed it twice now. Look at one of the sources currently in the article. Its a Rolling Stone article directly and literally referring to the band in general as punk rock. This would be a valid argument in favor of a genre. This is why its the current consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

i've provided plenty of examples already stating their genre, they are a melodic band (early) that also fuses alternative rock and pop punk (especially recently). also, to the previous person, i am sorry but you do not have a point there considering both fall out boy and new found glory are pop punk (early material) and pop bands and rise against are being compared to them instead of the sex pistols or d.o.a for a reason. here is another one claiming they do not sound like their early material (melodic) and sound more alternative rock and pop punk in yet another album: http://www.cmj.com/reviews/rise-against-%E2%80%93-endgame they were never punk to begin with, just faux punk with a melodic sound and they have since even moved away from that in recent albums. Realpunkmusic (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

None of your sources you've presented so far are valid because none of them have literally said "The band is pop punk" (or whatever genre you want to push for.) It needs to directly and literally say it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

the sources have claimed 4 albums to be pop punk and alternative rock, each source i posted. i am sorry but you do not have a case considering those 4 albums make up the majority of the band's discography Realpunkmusic (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please copy and paste some of these sentences that directly and literally call them "pop punk"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's been eight years since Rise Against's landmark record The Sufferer & The Witness, which was characterized by masterfully meshed pop-punk melody" http://exclaim.ca/Music/article/rise_against-black_market thank you Realpunkmusic (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and as I already explained, that's a good reference for the album genre, but not a good reference to characterize the band in general (aka, this article). Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

so if a band has a total of 7 albums and 4 of them are labeled as pop punk (as well as alternative rock) those 2 genres should not be listed for the band? i'm not sure if that makes any sense, sorry. also, the hardcore punk labeling is extremely disrespectful and has no basis or reputable source backing it up, hardcore punk was a genre that sounds completely different to the melodic sound of rise against. these are hardcore punk bands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.O.A._%28band%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exploited Realpunkmusic (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I just showed you how easy it is to find a genre referring to a band in general with the Rolling Stone source. Its so easy. Literally, five seconds of searching had me find another source calling them "punk rock" in general - from KROQ does here. If you can't find any sources calling them a pop punk band, then maybe its a sign that sources don't usually call them that, and as such, neither should we. The rest of your argument is irrelevant because its not rooted in what sources say (again). Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

you're not making much sense, all of the sources I have provided thus far have stated what genres those 4 albums are very clearly, i even quoted from them. now here's another one labeling them as pop/rock instead of punk http://www.allmusic.com/search/albums/appeal+to+reason another website which labels them as pop punk and alternative rock http://www.impericon.com/uk/rise-against-heart-fist-t-shirt.html if you would please take the time to listen to real punk and hardcore punk (if you can bear to stand it) you would realise how disrespectful it is to have the genre hardcore punk for this band, thank you Realpunkmusic (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to give a source that directly says that the band (not album, but band) is pop punk. Again, if do have one, then please provide the direct quotes from the sources saying so. The Allmusic source is not usuable for genre. Please read Allmusic's entry at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES - you're only able to use the sources in the paragraph writing, like the biographies and the reviews, not the genre boxes. Impericon doesn't work either - what you make you think a retail listing for a t-shirt would be an authority/reliable source for a band's genre? Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"It's been eight years since Rise Against's landmark record The Sufferer & The Witness, which was characterized by masterfully meshed pop-punk melody" http://exclaim.ca/Music/article/rise_against-black_market, do i really have to post that again? don't forget the fact that ever since that pop punk album they have produced softer and poppier albums each and every time according to every single source out there and most importantly to your ears too. the facts are real punk bands and especially hardcore punk bands would never be even remotely mentioned as pop or anything other than punk by ANY source whilst there are plenty for rise against because they are a faux punk (pop punk) band. do you dispute that? Realpunkmusic (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, that quote/source only refers to one of their albums as pop punk. Find a source that calls the band pop punk. If its as obvious as you say it is, it should be easy to find a bunch of them. Its certainly that easy with other genre. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

it says that album is pop punk and the one under review, meaning of 2 albums from their discography. this one states they have created a rock album instead of punk http://www.cmj.com/reviews/rise-against-%E2%80%93-endgame for another one of their albums, thats 3/7 that are not punk. this one stated yet another album to be pop rock and not punk again http://www.ew.com/article/2008/09/30/appeal-reason thats 4/7 albums from their discography not punk. it even compares it to pop rock and pop punk bands like fall out boy and new found glory. real punk bands are never compared to such pop bands in ANY article or source whilst rise against are in many. "Chicagos Rise Against would like to be known as a punk band with both a social conscience and an ear for melody. Too bad frontman Tim McIlrath sings protest anthems that lean closer to the burnished angst of such bands as New Found Glory and Fall Out Boy" do you really need more than that? it even says that in comparison to GREEN DAY, green day themselves are not a genuine punk band anymore and in their early days were only pop punk. so all in all, rise against are more pop and less punk than green day let alone real punk bands such as the ones i have mentioned earlier like sex pistols, doa, agent orange and so on. Realpunkmusic (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, and then provide a source that directly calls the band a certain genre. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

i already have 5 times, please remove hardcore punk from their genre listing, it's extremely disrespectful. a band that makes pop punk and alternative rock albums should not be labeled punk, thank you Realpunkmusic (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your personal views and belief that calling them hardcore punk is "disrespectful" is completely irrelevant. Multiple sources, already in the article, refer to the band and several of the albums as hardcore punk. These are reliable sources, the genre is correctly sourced. The fact that there are other genres attributed to them as well doesn't change this, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't matter either. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have failed to even present a valid reference for pop punk, let alone a valid reason for removing hardcore or punk rock. What you find to be "disrespectful" in the world of "music genre" is irrelevant. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

change it to early then even though they shouldn't have anything to do with hardcore punk on their wiki page and add alternative rock and pop punk to their genres since I have given you many sources stating that as their genres for their albums. also calling them hardcore punk is disrespectful and misleading because they are labeled as pop punk and other genres everywhere and are simply NOT a hardcore punk band. go read through all of my posts on here again and you will find at least 5 sources saying they are pop punk and alternative rock, thank you Realpunkmusic (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so, I'm going to stop responding unless you present new sources. The ones so far do not work for reasons already explained, and all of your personal opinions on genre aren't a valid argument on Wikipedia. Your suggested changes won't happen because you don't have the proper sources backing the claims. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

blimey, you must really love this band for whatever reason mindlessly defending them like this, here is yet another source: "The Black Market is a rock album with punk influence. Rise Against have left their punk days behind in favor of a new sound. ‘The Eco-Terrorist In Me’ is the most hardcore song on the album, meaning it will be the favorite of many looking for more classic Rise Against. On the other side of the spectrum we’ve got pop-punk track “Tragedy + Time” and the pop-rock song “Sudden Life”. Otherwise, there’s more of the rock and blues-influence from Endgame filling the rest of the album." http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/63185/Rise-Against-The-Black-Market/ pop rock and pop punk.

another one "While keeping with the typical pop punk feel of a Rise Against Album , lyrically The Black Market changes gears and drives away from what’s going on with the rest of the world and focuses on the band members themselves: less a political statement, this album is inspired by their experiences in the last 15 years as a band." http://www.myfreakinears.com/album-review-rise-black-market/

another one "the punk turned pop band rise against" http://gcmag.org/album-review-rise-againsts-endgame/ another one calling them pop punk

the ones i already showed you earlier: http://www.cmj.com/reviews/rise-against-%E2%80%93-endgame "Rise Against, the band of Chicago rock (previously punk), chose to continue the process of maturation on its newest release, Endgame"

another one "Chicagos Rise Against would like to be known as a punk band with both a social conscience and an ear for melody. Too bad frontman Tim McIlrath sings protest anthems that lean closer to the burnished angst of such bands as New Found Glory and Fall Out Boy than the genuine outrage of brainy Green Day." http://www.ew.com/article/2008/09/30/appeal-reason this one even refers to green day being more punk than rise against and green day are rightly listed as pop punk on wikipedia, think about that.

another one "It's been eight years since Rise Against's landmark record The Sufferer & The Witness, which was characterized by masterfully meshed pop-punk melody" http://exclaim.ca/Music/article/rise_against-black_market

there was another one which i am not allowed to post from dyingscene.com it's already disrespectful enough ridiculously labeling them as hardcore punk but then you also refuse to add pop punk to their genre and alternative rock. something is not right here Realpunkmusic (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And like i said i realy think they are chicago punk rock and there genre are alternative rock and punk rock and melodic hardcore hardcore punkJg9443 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they also talk about animal rights and politics even they are straight edge punk rock inst about poltics and street punk clothing and you cannot judge the sound or the album it is about rights they do support animals and they are now in fat wreak chords and which fat wreak chords is only for punk rock and they have with nofx backstage so that doset mean that they are american punk no that means that they Chicago punk rock band i can find other user that think that rise against is punk rock i have poofJg9443 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And everthing about is punk rock they also with green day one time Jg9443 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

and the it should Rise against is a chicago punk rock band genre alternative rock and pop punk and melodic hardcore early and hardcore punkJg9443 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Just take a look at the facts the facts is that they are punk rock 4thewyne is wrong and realpunkmusic is wrongJg9443 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

they are not a punk rock band and certainly not hardcore punk, everyone knows wiki has labeled them wrongly and it is time they are changed to alternative rock and pop punk, melodic hardcore can stay for their earlier material Realpunkmusic (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

and i think they are punk rock because before fame they into alot of punk bands Jg9443 (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

how about this Rise against is a chicago punk rock band formed in 1999 genre punk rock ,pop punk ,meldic hardocre and posthardcorre and alterntive rock and last hardcore punk their i got what i want and realpunkmusic get what he whats if thats ok with him just trying to make thing easyierJg9443 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

it doesn't matter one bit what bands they were into, their music is not punk rock and especially not hardcore punk. id much prefer if you say rise against is a chicago melodic hardcore band (or just rock band) formed in 1999. genres: melodic hardcore (early), alternative rock, pop punk. you're better off labeling them as hard rock instead of punk rock because that's what their sound is if you need to have another genre in there Realpunkmusic (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

well realpunkmusic how come rise against associanted acts with punk rock bands since you know about punk rock and the reason you want it to be alternative beacuse you like alternative you can cry and complain all you want but fact is clearly listed as punk rockJg9443 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

and also why rise against is always on punk news and also i just looked up punk rock band and rise against seems to be one if you refuse that i put rise against is a chicago punk rock band genre alternative rock and melodic hardcore and punk rock and pop rock and hardcore punk we can vote if you have a facebook we can vote threw social media or you look up rise against in face book and clink in about it has the genre and face sometimes never wrong so quit talking and just look it up Mr punk know it all.Jg9443 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

it is wrongly listed as punk rock and especially hardcore punk, it is very disrespectful and wikipedia should be ashamed to have let them have such genres for so long. punk news also talks about bands like fall out boy which are clearly not punk. i'm not a mr punk know it all, it is clear as daylight that rise against does not make punk music: fast drumming, guitar shredding and aggressive vocals. none of which rise against portray, especially in their last 4-5 albums. thanks Realpunkmusic (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

you are the biggest jackass listen to this song grammatizator k do not say that about Wikipedia should be ashamed if you dont like it that when the time comes when it says rise against is a chicago punk rock band and if you think they should be rise against is a chiacago melodic hardocore band or rock band you can put it in Wikipedia simple english that is the true Wikipedia think about it you can do that. P.S i am sorry for my language that was a slipJg9443 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

no need for name calling, not that it affects me. that song is melodic hardcore, possibly punk rock and most of their songs now do not sound even remotely close to that. in fact even their early albums do not sound as raw as that. here is a punk rock song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og5T-3Q8mDs completely different sound, much faster drumming and guitar shredding, more aggressive vocals and lyrics. rise against is melodic and alternative with pop punk in the newer albums. thanks Realpunkmusic (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

well if you dont like it and you what ever you think it is we can come up with an soulutionJg9443 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

and also for the last time just put it in wiki simple english whats wrong you dumb ass Jg9443 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

1. None of this matters or will influence the article if it's not about sources.
2. Anymore personal attacks (name calling) will get people blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I still bealive that rise against is a chicago punk rockJg9443 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is getting nowhere, so I'm closing this discussion. You both had your chances to present reliable sources to support your arguments, but you failed to do so. Clearly I was wrong to suggest this in the hope that something meaningful would eventuate from this discussion. We're done here. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

Rise Against new label is Virgin Records Swarren38 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Two things: the information that you're claiming is unsourced, and in the future, please format your request in a "change XXX to YYY" format. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And on that note, Ced12, I'll let it slide for now, but I need you to find a better source than Twitter (social media such as Twitter and Instagram are normally discouraged on Wikipedia) and replace it with that one, both in in the infobox and the article body. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to Virgin Records' artist page, hopefully that'll suffice. --Ced12 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know i have evidence is that i really don't know how to post it in here in this talk page i hope you understand that just listen and look at the style of music. p.s meaning know and days--Jg9443 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Presenting sources is the only way to go. Copy and paste links to articles on the talk page. That being said, they're already labeled as punk rock in part of the article, so I don't understand why you continue to waste everyone's time on this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary genre discussion

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

---

An editor, Jg9443, continues to argue that the band's primary genre (mentioned in opening sentence) should be punk rock, not melodic hardcore/hardcore punk. I personally see this as a non-issue, as both genre are currently featured prominently in the article in a sourced manner, but I'm giving the user an opportunity to make a Wikipedia policy-based argument (along with anyone else who wants to contribute.)

Below, please list reliable sources (like ones at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES) that support each genre. Based on what is listed, a decision will be made:

1. If more sources tend to call them punk rock, it will be changed. (per WP:CONSENSUS)
2. If more sources tend to call them variants of hardcore music, it will not be changed. (per CONSENSUS)
3. If it's roughly equal, then no change will be made, as either are viable choices. (per WP:NOCONSENSUS)

The discussion will close on November 10. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Punk rock

Source list in favor of punk rock being used.

1. This is an existing source, but in reading it, it never refers to the band as punk, only the album The Sufferer and the Witness. Weak source: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/26025/Rise-Against-The-Sufferer-and-the-Witness/
2. Byline says "hardcore", by article body says punk. Rolling Stones is a solid source but this is 50/50 for hardcore or punk: http://web.archive.org/web/20090329093201/http://rollingstone.com/news/story/24012796/rise_againsts_punkrock_explosion
3. Solid source for "punk": http://www.avclub.com/review/rise-against-emgeneration-lostem-8029
4. Solid 2014 source for "punk": http://www.altpress.com/features/entry/rise_against_black_market_interview_2014_tim_mcilrath
5. Show flyer: http://www.chartattack.com/news/2011/05/30/rise-against-announce-canadian-tour/
6. Solid: http://clashmusic.com/news/listen-rise-against-but-tonight-we-dance
7. Solid: http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/rise-againsts-the-black-market-cracks-u-s-top-5/

Hardcore

Source list in favor of hardcore being used.

1. Existing iffy source from article: http://web.archive.org/web/20090107111633/http://chicago.decider.com/events/rise-against-alkaline-trio-thrice-and-the-gaslight,17782/
2. Existing solid source from article: http://web.archive.org/web/20090221093719/http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/blogs/popculture/2008/10/cheer_up_emo_kids_rise_against.html
3. Existing solid source from article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2008/11/rise_against_melodic_hardcore.html
4. Existing source, says specifically, hardcore punk (Mentions "melodic" though"): http://web.archive.org/web/20110814130115/http://www.thejustice.org/arts/anti-flag-and-friends-keep-political-punk-alive-and-well-at-boston-show-1.2341465
5. New solid source, from punknews.org, review of RPM10 referring to the album and band as early melodic hardcore, if not an originator: https://www.punknews.org/review/12004/rise-against-rpm10
6. New weak source, local paper in Idaho: http://www.idahostatesman.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/words-deeds/article40861572.html
7. Band directly called melodic hardcore for Endgame: http://www.avclub.com/review/rise-against-iendgamei-53163
8. Solid "Hardcore" https://www.cmj.com/bad-religion-to-tour-cross-country-with-rise-against/
9. CMJ says "hardcore" outright: https://www.cmj.com/bad-religion-to-tour-cross-country-with-rise-against/
10. Solid source from one album, as Melodic Punk: http://www.avclub.com/review/rise-against-emthe-sufferer-amp-the-witnessem-8854

A different genre

A place to suggest a possibly another genre altogether should be used.

1. Simply as "aggressive rock band": http://www.americansongwriter.com/2012/01/chimes-of-freedom-the-songs-of-bob-dylan-honoring-50-years-of-amnesty-international/
2. Pop punk: http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2011/12/27/globe-music-critics-pick-kindred-spirits-year-top-album-releases/mAdebUIG42R6NSgc34oAZN/story.html
3. CMJ here specifically labels them as "rock (Previously punk)" but mentions in the same paragraph as "has gone further away from the hardcore punk sound" so I call this a 50/50 for hardcore too: https://www.cmj.com/rise-against-%E2%80%93-endgame/

Discussion

Any random discussion goes here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Question can i use other Wikipedia articles related to rise against like discrography?Jg9443 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia. But, lets say you found a Blabbermouth source used in the discography article. You could copy/paste the Blabbermouth source in the list here, if it proves a genre, yes. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I got some proof that rise against is punk rock Chicago-based punk act has taken in some time. Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/Jg9443 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And i also got some more look it https://www.ultimate-guitar.comJg9443 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Bassist Joe Principe of the Chicago "punk rock" band Rise AgainstJg9443 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So far am my doing right?Jg9443 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not doing it right. You need to link to the specific articles at the websites, not the website's homepage. So, it should look like:

• Incorrect: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com
• Correct' : https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/papa-roach-is-a-band (Where "Papa Roach Is A Band" lists to a particular article on Ultimate Guitar.)

Does that make sense? Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

so like this for examble for rise against Bassist Joe Principe of the Chicago "punk rock" band RISE AGAINST Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/Jg9443 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Now am i doing right?Jg9443 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're not. Click on the links that you keep giving. Do they take you directly to the article you're referring to? If the answer is no, then you're not doing it right. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

And i also found sources that rise against is really punk rock and shoes the political that"s punk rock just take a look Chicago, Illinois based political punk rock band with a traditional hardcore influence. The band was formed in 1999 by Joe Principe (ex. 88 Fingers Louie) and fronted by vocalist, Tim Mcllrath. Originally 88 Fingers Louie member Dan Precision was on guitar but eventually left the band and was replaced by Chris Chasse, (ex. Reach The Sky)They released 2 albums on Fat Wreck Chords before signing to Geffen Records in 2003 and making their major label debut in 2004. Sites: riseagainst.com, MySpace, WikipediaJg9443 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

To show that rise against is punk i came up with this look it http://www.discogs.com/Chicago, Illinois based political punk rock band.Jg9443 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake this is really my proof to show that they are punk Chicago, Illinois based political punk rock band with a traditional hardcore influence. The band was formed in 1999 https:// www.discogs.com-Rise-AgainstJg9443 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry again i mean https www.discogs.com-Rise-Against.Jg9443 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've listed a bunch of sources, both those already in the article and a lot of new ones, as a starting point. But I wanted to say this is kinda of silly exercise. "Melodic hardcore" is a subgenre of "Hardcore punk" which is a subgenre of "Punk rock". They have clearly been labelled each of these in various publications. Melodic hardcore is the most specific of the genres attached to them, but in the end it's all the same thing, and the infobox shows this. I don't think the lead should be changed, and think it's about time for Jg9443 to let this alone. Regardless of how this discussion ends, it should NOT be changed to "Chicago punk rock" as Jg9443 wants. "Chicago punk rock" is not a genre, and the lead already notes they are from Chicago. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry i am going to link you another source like this Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in 1999.

Continue reading http://lyrics.songonlyrics.net/rise-against-biography#ixzz3qNqxcTkWJg9443 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Songonlyrics is clearly using Wikipedia content. When it's clear that a site is mirroring Wikipedia, it can't be used. Plus it's a user-editable site.-- ferret (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree, this charade needs to stop. This user has been hounding numerous editors about this issue for ages, and what he's requesting to be changed won't be changed. What even is "Chicago punk rock", anyway? It just seems like a made-up description/genre by the user. Serge, I know and understand what you've tried to do here, but I think it's quite meaningless, to be honest. Either this user doesn't seem to completely understand English, or he's been completely ignoring you 90% of the time. I'm sorry, that's just how I feel about the issue. This is the second huge discussion I've been part of for this article, and I just feel like it's dragged on for too long. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No no, it's fine, this is how I expected it to go down. (Though Ferret worked far faster and prolifically than expected.) This all just reiterates that the article is fine the way it is, and that JG needs to work on his basic Wikipedia (and Internet) knowledge/skills much more before taking this sort of thing on... Thank you both for you input. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just like rise against is an american melodic hardcore band i figured it would makes scenes that rise against is a Chicago punk rock band that the the sources calls them i am sorry but the what i am looking at.Jg9443 (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Usually a more vague term (American, English, etc) are mentioned in defining the band, and then it's later mention a more specific location like a city. Basically, like how it's currently worded. So, even if the genre was changed, it'd hypothetically be "American Punk Rock band". Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what i agree sorry sometimes my grammar is wrong my aplogies but i still agree that they are punk rock.Jg9443 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, no one is denying that they are punk rock, and punk rock is currently used in the article multiple times as a way of describing them. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I know but melodic hardcore i don"t know but it does not seem right rise against is american punk rock band seems right.Jg9443 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what seems right, it matters what reliable third party sources say. There is a wealth of sources that refer to them as melodic hardcore. The lead should only show one genre, which should be the most common or specific genre that they fall under. That's Melodic Hardcore. The infobox takes care of listing the rest of their genres, which already includes punk rock. -- ferret (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. You also made a good point earlier when you said that ultimately "melodic hardcore" is a kind of punk rock - with melodic hardcore being a kind of hardcore punk, and hardcore punk being a kind of punk rock. Melodic hardcore is a more specific variant of punk rock music. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But more sources say that they are punk rock.Jg9443 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You haven't been able to show that. Practically every source you have posted has shown to be unreliable or otherwise un-usable. I only made it about a third of the way down WP:MUSIC's reliable source list and melodic hardcore is still in the lead. At this point it's clear that the genres are used almost interchangeably. In that case, since Melodic hardcore is a more specific sub-genre of punk rock, it makes sense to use it. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You absolutely have not proven that. Beyond the fact that you haven't added a single reference to the reference list I set up above, I don't believe you've provided a single valid reference so far. You've linked to homepages of websites, like Blabbermouth, which doesn't help, and you've listed off some unusable websites like discogs and lyrics databases, which are not usable. As I told you before, it needs to be written by music journalists. Writers. You haven't provided any usable sources in this discussion, let alone are there more sources listed for punk rock. The list above is plain as day to see. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK which websites do i have to go to prove that they are punk rock?Jg9443 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Look man i will not stop until you give me what i want its not that hard just change it.Jg9443 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Is the above message sufficient for this to come to an end? Looks like the editor has no plans to accept consensus. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, especially considering he violated the terms I set for him on his talk page, and has made zero progress in the last 24 hours. (And was probably changing the genre on the talk page while logged out, its pretty suspicious that an IP would just pop up and start making edits as soon as he seems to be losing patience. He's blocked for 3 months, so I'll just go and close the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

i have good evidence that rise against is really punk rock all the way

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

---

http://player.listenlive.co/26831/en this shows that are punk rock all the way and it backs up more and it is very pasfic.Jg9443 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean?Jg9443 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please review all the warnings I gave you on your talk page to see what's wrong with this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

alright i"ll do that but one thing before i do i want to make an offer that you cant refuse how about that right before 12:00 am i "LL give the top best evidence like about 3 4 or 7 if you do change it to punk rock and i"ll be out of your hair what you say?Jg9443 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're free to present sources that prove your point, but I'd again like to point out that the band is already called "punk rock" multiple times in the article, so this is mostly pointless. You need to present a ton of sources, that show that it's the primary genre, used more often than others. And you need to stick to sources like those found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. So far, I still feel that you don't understand Wikipedia well enough to make such an argument. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

question how many sources do i have to do to be exact like i mean give me a number?Jg9443 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We've been telling you the same thing throughout this entire discussion. Ten unreliable or poor sources is worse than one good source. Listen to what we've been telling you, or this discussion is not going to progress any further than it did before. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ok ok ok what about if i have a user that i know that agrees and understands my argument and if me and hime can give you the best relible not poor sources that we can find will that help?Jg9443 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No. The best you can find doesn't make it reliable. WP:MUSIC/SOURCES has the list you need to use. -- ferret (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ok i also got evidence on killswitch engage i can also prove they are hardcore punk just like the new york hardcore punk scene there are boston hardcore just like this refuse to disappoint. After the eschewing of some of their hardcore punk roots in favor of a more refined melodic metal heavy ... and this is the website http://www.sputnikmusic.com/index.phpJg9443 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the talk page for Killswitch Engage. The correct link is also http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Killswitch-Engage/117/, please provide the full link or don't bother. Also, Sputnik says right from the start that they are "metalcore" and it never mentions "punk" at all... And as far as Rise Against goes, Sputnik was already listed in the previous discussion. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

they are hardcore becouse i looked up when it says that it has alot of hardcore influcces lot of articles that i can find says that are somewhat and verry close to hardcore punk and that being said about rise against look i know punk rock is listed i know my thing is that melodic hardcore title whitch says that rise against is an American melodic hardcore band that is my issue i strongley feel that all articles should be little more pacific no disrespect and for example rise against is a chicago bass punk rock band that what i mean that what i"ve been trying to tell you guys those werent my attentions to make trouble sometime i just get to a point were rush alot i hope you understand while i bring more evidence for both bands.Jg9443 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If you feel articles should be more specific, then stop asking for it to change. Melodic hardcore is very specific. It's a sub-genre of hardcore, which is a sub-genre of punk rock. Replacing it with punk rock would be more generic, not more specific. Again, you should just drop this topic until you understand how sourcing works and how to provide links. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

i dont mean pacific like that look i know melodic hardcore backs up more evidence you told me that but what if i can prove that rise against all the way punk rock that the genre are alternative rock melodic hardcore punk rock hardcore punk and the title should call rise against is Chicago native punk rock band from Chicago if i can prove that by video and website will you change ?Jg9443 (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Long answer: You just admitted melodic hardcore has more evidence. The information box already contains the other genres you want. We know they play punk rock, and the infobox already says that. The article lead though needs to show the most common genre, as backed by sources, and that is melodic hardcore. -- ferret (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

i really got provided evidence i got provided evidence that i got from one of the link you gave so here it is http://absolutepunk.net/ to prove rise against is punk rock and it should called rise against is American punk rock band.Jg9443 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

True or not, you need to link to the actual article, not the home page. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK my mistake how about this http://www.absolutepunk.net/riseagainst/.Jg9443 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

my sources this is a lot of sources to prove my point https://www.punknews.org/.Jg9443 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

im so sorry i mean to do this https://www.punknews.orgriseagainst.Jg9443 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is just one source. And even Punknews says "Rise Against is a punk/hardcore band", not "punk rock" directly. AND punknews was already used in the previous discussion. You haven't brought a single substantial OR new source to this discussion so far. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you know what your right dlvec.com/event/rise-against/.Jg9443 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

sorry i mean again LAS VEGAS – Revered punk rock band Rise Against will take over Downtown Las Vegas Events Center on Saturday, November 21. The .Jg9443 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

and the source was https://www.latimes.lasvegas-lvn-las-vegas--rise-against-killswitch-engage.Jg9443 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Those links aren't working. 24 hours in, and not a single source you've provided has exclusively proven your point. One more failed attempt and the discussion will be closed. And again, stick to sources at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

what it you got it here it is http://www.melodic.net/rise against .Jg9443 (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

sorry so sorry i mean this http://melodic.net/.Jg9443 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious now (if it wasn't before) that we're wasting our time by continuing this discussion. This user clearly doesn't understand English properly, and the above two comments are the final straw for me. Please end this discussion now. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

look i am alright just give more time and i have all ton of the evidence by sunday when i come home from school i"ll give ton of evidence please give me another chance .Jg9443 (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

More time? You've had six months (three away from the site) to gather reliable sources! You've been given multiple chances, and have still failed to provide anything stronger than the home page of some music website. You say that you'll "have all ton of the evidence" – haven't we all heard that before? We've given you more reasons why not to change the genre at all than you've given us links to anything other than home pages. I think that says enough. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

this time it wont kinda got it this time trust me come up with some thing stronger just give me more time i have been busy.Jg9443 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

i found another source that agree"s with my argument Rise Against Biography Rise Against BiographyJg9443 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

i found another source that agree"s with my argument

lyrics.songonlyrics.net/rise-against-biographyJg9443 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

oh my bad i mean to this https://www.google. rise-against-biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

oh my bad i mean to this https:// rise-against-biography.Jg9443 (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Three bad links, one of which you've been told before is unusable (Songonlyrics) -- ferret (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

my apology

Im so very sorry is that i have been having a bit trouble how to link in to things can you help with in?Jg9443 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

pop punk

Pop punk http://gcmag.org/album-review-rise-againsts-endgame/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realpunkmusic (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed and required reliable sources from WP:MUSIC. I'm not confident this site is considered reliable, as a college wordpress site. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

1. http://gcmag.org/album-review-rise-againsts-endgame/
2. http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2011/12/27/globe-music-critics-pick-kindred-spirits-year-top-album-releases/mAdebUIG42R6NSgc34oAZN/story.html
3. http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=3121011
4. http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-rise-against-brings-the-punkpop-to-the-constnat-center-at-old-dominion-40405599.html
5. http://www.myfreakinears.com/album-review-rise-black-market/

There is no way they should have Hardcore punk in their listing, they are melodic punk at best and pop punk. Hardcore punk is completely different sound like The Casualties. All sources claim MELODIC hardcore, not hardcore punk. Melodic Hardcore is a mix of punk rock and pop punk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Realpunkmusic (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I don't understand why we have to keep rehashing this. There's plenty of sources that say hardcore punk. Your personal opinions do not matter. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please find some sources such as those found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES as to show that this is not just a fringe theory. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but it seems rather apparent that it's not their primary genre, and most of those sources do not look to be what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. (For example, "alamy" appears to be, what, a Stock photo website? That doesn't sound like an authority on music or a reliable source. The Absolute Punk source just appears to be a user's post on a messageboard, which also isn't usable...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

my evidence and my apology

Before you block me 2 things one i wanted to i am truly sorry crossing my heart and i had to create a diffrent account becouse you did not reply to my messages and i am sorry about create another account i felt that was the only way i can contact you i am deeply sorry second my evidence (1)Bassist Joe Principe of the Chicago "punk rock" band RISE AGAINST Read more at http://www.blabbermouth.net/(2)Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in 1999. Their current lineup consists of Tim McIlrath (vocals, guitar), Joe Principe (bass guitar), Brandon Barnes (drums), and Zach Blair (guitar), all of whom are straight edge (excluding Barnes) PETA supporters and strict vegetarians/vegans. The band is currently signed to Geffen, a record label owned by Universal Music Group. As of 2009, Rise Against has released five studio albums, two EPs, and one DVD.

Rise Against spent its first five years signed to the independent record label Fat Wre

Continue reading http://lyrics.songonlyrics.net/rise-against-biography#ixzz47vhO5MH6 (3)Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in 1999. Their current lineup consists of Tim McIlrath (vocals, guitar), Joe Principe (bass guitar), Brandon Barnes (drums), and Zach Blair (guitar), all of whom are straight edge (excluding Barnes) PETA supporters and strict vegetarians/vegans. The band is currently signed to Geffen, a record label owned by Universal Music Group. As of 2009, Rise Against has released five studio albums, two EPs, and

Continue reading http://lyrics.songonlyrics.net/rise-against-biography#ixzz47vizeLir (4)Tim McIlrath Net Worth. Born as Timothy James McIlrath has an estimated net worth of $4 million. He is a famous songwriter, rhythm guitarist, and also singer. McIlrath is the co-founder for the American punk rock band named Rise Against. Tim McIlrath Net Worth - biography, quotes, wiki, assets, cars, homes ... www.bornrich.com/tim-mcilrath.html (5)Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in 1999. Their current lineup consists of Tim McIlrath (vocals, guitar), Joe Principe (bass guitar), Brandon Barnes (drums), and Zach Blair (guitar), all of whom are straight edge (excluding Barnes) PETA supporters and strict vegetarians/vegans. The band is currently signed to Geffen, a record label owned by Universal Music Group. As of 2009, Rise Against has released five studio albums, two EPs, and one DVD.

Rise Against spent its first five years signed to the independent record label Fat Wreck Chords, on which it released two studio albums. The band gained mainstream popularity with its first two releases on Geffen, Siren Song of the Counter Culture (2004) and The Sufferer & the Witness (2006), which produced several high-charting singles, including “Swing Life Away”, “Prayer of the Refugee”, and “The Good Left Undone”. Their most recent studio album, Appeal to Reason, was released in North America on October 7, 2008, peaking at number three on the U.S. Billboard 200 and producing the singles, “Re-Education (Through Labor)”, “Audience of One”, and “Savior”.

History

Continue reading http://lyrics.songonlyrics.net/rise-against-biography#ixzz47vnsb7Zn (6)Biography Read More Rise Against is an American punk rock band from Chicago, Illinois, formed in 1999. The band currently consists of Tim McIlrath (lead vocals, rhythm guitar), Zach Blair (lead guitar, backing vocals), Joe Principe (bass guitar, backing vocals) and Brandon Barnes (drums, percussion). Rise Against spent its first five years signed to the independent record label Fat Wreck Chords, on which it released two studio albums, The Unraveling (2001) and Revolutions per Minute (2003). Both the albums met with considerab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatefighter93 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the same as always. The blabbermouth link doesn't work, and lyric websites are not reliable sources. It just goes to show that you're still not ready to edit Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)