Talk:Korn (album)

divine

what is the point of having all the redirecting links for the one song? it's really pointless and unimportant, the article is on the album, not one song on it. (Drugyourlove (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

telephone sample

Does anyone have any info on the telephone call sample? Either what it says or what it's from?

what telephone sample?

I think he's talking about the one before Helmet In A Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.189.77 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unrecorded Cover?

From the track listing:

During the recording sessions of this album, several other songs were made. These include:

• "U Mean I'm Not" (unrecorded cover of a Black Sheep song by the same name)

What this says to me is that another band recorded a song and Korn didn't cover it. How is this worth mentioning? --H3xx (^t/c/_b) 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Album art," and "B-sides"

Some people got mad that I removed these sections, so allow me to elaborate. The information is, in no way, verifiable at all. Let me quote the deleted things.

"The album art depicts a young girl whose name is Justine Ferrara (and who is the niece of Immortal Records rep Paul Pontius) on a swing being overlooked by a man whose hands look like those of either Edward Scissorhands or Freddy Krueger (it was later revealed that the man is holding horseshoes). Also, the Korn logo is positioned so that the young girl's shadow looks as if it had just been hung by the neck by the letter "K" (although this may have been unintentional), and the back of the case shows the empty swing. It primarily depicts abduction of children. The inside art consists of a boy with a mutilated eye in the disc tray (cover art for "Clown") and a table covered with porn magazines with the labels "liar", "bitch", and "whore" covering their eyes (cover art for "Need To"), toys, and a doll with a beetle on it (cover art for "Blind"). The rest of the album art features vague, dark band photographs and the chorus lyrics to "Shoots and Ladders."

Now tell me, what in that is original research? OK, that's a bit of a sexsy gueston, let me ask what's NOT original research. And allow me to bee gay whit you. "The inside art consists of a boy with a mutilated eye in the disc tray (cover art for "Clown") and a table covered with porn magazines with the labels "liar", "bitch", and "whore" covering their eyes (cover art for "Need To"), toys, and a doll with a beetle on it (cover art for "Blind"). The rest of the album art features vague, dark band photographs and the chorus lyrics to "Shoots and Ladders," is verifiable, but only because it's printed on copies. The stuff that is original research are statements such as "a man whose hands look like those of either Edward Scissorhands or Freddy Krueger," and "had just been hung by the neck by the letter "K" (although this may have been unintentional)," and "It primarily depicts abduction of children." These are the types of statements it primarily consisted of, which is not verifiable by cited sources, and is therefore original research, which is not allowed. Articles are to remain cited, and any original research removed. That's stated very clearly in both WP:V and WP:NOR, so I removed it.

As for the "b-sides" section, same issue. To convince you more, let me pull a few quotes from my good friends WP:V and WP:NOR. From WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. . . Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." And from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth . . . already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

In a nutshell, that means, we can't add anything without citations, from reliable sources. The one citation no longer existed, and therefore ceased reliability. Adding material, WITHOUT citing a source, is against the rules, and can be challenged, and removed, unless a source is cited. Please note, too, the quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," as this is the primary thing. Something might be true, and someone knows it is, but, without a reliable source providing coverage, that person is shit out of luck. Now, I am not against re-adding this information, if you can find a reliable source. If you can't, then the information stays out. Sorry. You can't escape the rules. Re-adding it after you read and understand this is vandalism, too. dude527 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong in the way you quoted policy. Do we need citations for album credits? Uh huh. You should be careful about saying this kind of stuff to n00bs (I assume that's what you think I am). Lucky for you, I've been here a couple years. Ultimate guitar is a reliable source, so that info can stay. Deleting the entire paragraph because of a few problem sentences is not the way to go. As for B-sides, you'd be hard pressed to find sources for them in any album article. So why do you ask for them here? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAX? The Ultimate Guitar article is no longer there, check for yourself, so the source is no longer there. I didn't delete it for a few problems. We don't need citations for album credits, as they are printed on the album booklet, which is a reliable source. If you really want to keep the info, here's what's keep-able.

"The album art depicts a young girl on a swing being overlooked by a man, and the back of the case shows the empty swing. The inside art consists of a boy with a mutilated eye in the disc tray, and a table covered with porn magazines with the labels "liar," "bitch," and "whore" covering their eyes, toys, and a doll with a beetle on it. The rest of the album art features vague, dark band photographs."

I always ask for sources, on any article. WP:NOR clearly states everything, every statement needs a source. This stuff was all original research, except the statement of the images, which goes against WP:MOS (we don't have a run down of album artwork on any other Korn article). Bottom line, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, is verifiability, not necessarily truth (as I have quoted to you). You can feel free to ignore me, but my points are valid. Find me some reliable sources to show your information is true, or you can't re-add it. dude527 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"we don't have a run down of album artwork on any other Korn article" ... What was the first thing in your reply? Absolutely hilarious. Wow. Next time you decide to quote an alphabet soup of policy, think about what you type. Let me guess.. that last comment gets me WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Let's get real here.. you are a deletionist. You deleted the article on their demo. Nice work there. LOL. Now I can't start the article because I can't see what was there before. How do you expect Wikipedia to get better if you don't allow for more content? --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Because things with no citations do not belong here. If it can't be accurately verified, it does not belongs here. I will quote for you again. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I really don't see what you find so redundant, or funny. dude527 (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, take a look at my contribution list. Does it look like the majority of my edits are deletes? I delete only information that is not verifiable. You said you've been here for years, then surely you are familiar with the rules, yet you seem to have complete disregard for them. You said I was completely wrong in quoting WP:NOR and WP:V, but how can direct quotes be wrong? Bottom line, things need citations. No non-cited information belongs on Wikipedia, at all. "Verifiability, not truth." dude527 (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is tons of uncited information on Wikipedia. You must be blind to have not seen this.. or you just delete it when you do. If this is indeed your line of thinking, then you are a deletionist. Inclusionists try to improve content, deletionists get rid of it. That's exactly what you did to Niedermeyer's Mind. At the very least you could've kept the tracklisting with a short description, and it would've met WP:V, but because you are a deletionist, that didn't come to mind ;) Getting back on topic.. it seems all you can do is quote policy, even when it's not relevant. You say Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, but you just said that part of the section is verifiable and the rest is original research. Where is truth relevant here? If the section is verifiable, and you're not a deletionist, surely you wouldn't have a problem with putting it back in. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of it, and I delete it if it's not cited. Wikipedia is about citations, plain and simple. Verifiability, not truth. I don't see how that's irrelevant when the issue was about information without citations. If you look at the archive, I voted for the verifiable information to be folded in Korn. But, the information about the track listing isn't really verifiable, either, as the tape was never released legit. I will state again, how is protocol not relevant here? Every time I even imply I want to know, you don't give me a reply, you tell me I'm "completely wrong when I quote policy," or that I'm "a deletionist." Where is that relevant to this discussion? Come to think of it, you haven't really provided any relevant replies, just "we have an article on x, so shouldn't this remain, too?" You have also been trying to tell me I'm incompetant for following procedure. Does Wikipedia not post guidelines for them to be followed? dude527 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that the album art is verifiable, then you say "Wikipedia is about citations, plain and simple". Did it ever occur to you that you don't need citations for something to be verifiable? If not, then you are incredibly inept at understanding policy, and yes, you are in the wrong. Don't you realize that WP:WAX works both ways? We could both invoke it, and we'd both be right. So you shouldn't have used it in the first place. What we're dealing with here is Verifiability vs. Original research, and NOT truth. That does not mean that policy should be ignored. An album doesn't have to be released on a label in order for the tracklist to be verifiable. This discussion is not a contest over who can invoke policy more, which appears to be what you're doing, since we're not dealing with Verifiability vs. Truth here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The things that were stated ". . .whose hands look like those of either Edward Scissorhands or Freddy Krueger. . ." is indeed original research, not verifiable. Those statements that were in that section is what this discussion is about. If you don't need citations for something to be verifiable, why does Wikipedia say everything must have citations by reliable sources? A bit redundant, don't you think? From WP:V (once again) - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed," if you do not think that means all information placed, need to be cited, I don't know what rules you're following. You're being very vague about it all. As for Neidermeyer's Mind, if any reliable source published information about it, then there could be thing, but because it wasn't officially even released, ever, that makes it original research. It may all be true, and, in fact, is, but it's original research, unless citations can be provided.dude527 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are numerous grammar issues in the prose, some examples are given below. There are more - I will not list every single one. I suggest a third-party do a thorough copy edit of this. If you can't find anyone, you can try WP:GOCE/REQ.

   • "Korn (promoted with a ya as KoЯn)" - Is that meant to be "pronounced"?

   • Fixed

   • "The band would records at Indigo Ranch Studios" - The band would "record".

   • Fixed

   • "Stephen Thomas Erlewine of allmusic..." - Allmusic is spelt with a capital 'A'.

   • Fixed

   • Common words such as "loitering" should not be wikified.

   • Fixed

   • There are three sentences, almost one ofter the other, that contain "began playing". Rephrase these to eliminate the constant repetition.

   • Fixed

   • "The equipment Korn used is what gave the music its it..." - its it

   • Fixed

   • All music GA chart numbers are written alphabetically and not numerically. E.g. charted at number seventy-two (not 72).

   • Per WP:ORDINAL, it's unnecessary to spell out numbers greater than nine.

   I am aware of what WP:MOS says, however, as I have already mentioned, all GAs that I have seen to do with music, it has been insisted that music charts be spelt out alphabetically. See Madonna (Madonna album)#Chart performance as an example, and there are many more if you look. I can't find the exact place where it says this must be like this, perhaps it is from a discussion at one of the music projects, but I have been told that they must be this way. Please change these or I will need to get an second opinion. - SMasters (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Okay, well I've fixed it. CrowzRSA 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for doing the fixes. SMasters (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is properly referenced and has no WP:OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers all major aspects and is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article complies to WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image tag checks out.

7. Overall: There are numerous grammar and punctuation issues in the prose, which need to be rectified before the article can be passed. I will allow up to 7 days for these to be fixed. - SMasters (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've fixed everything you've asked, and I copyedited the page, and I think it looks good now. CrowzRSA 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for all the work done on the article. I am now confident that it now meets all the requirements for a GA and I am happy to pass it. Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

this is korn's least nu metal album

this album was made before the term nu metal existed and before korn were famous. korn's music on this album was influenced by alternative bands from the early 90s, so quit calling this an nu metal album, it's an alternative album that just happened to influence a genre of music [e.g nirvana's bleach] it also sounds grungy

[probably to do with it being made right after cobain killed himself] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hidden track"

Does anyone have any further background information on this crazy hidden track at the end of the album (the one about an argument between a man and a woman) ? The article just states that Ross Robinson "found this tape in an abandoned house".. but why should anyone tape themselves arguing ?! Thanks in advance !

Alternative/Nu metal

This is one of the first albums in history Nu Metal, then of course it is also of Alternative Metal. It is with Rap Metal, which also influenced the Nu Metal, but not all rap songs of this genre have rap. So this abum can also be considered Alternative Metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.122.142 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support your opinion? Flat Out let's discuss it 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception

I think Suicide Silence needs to be added to the list of bands this record inspired. Mitch Lucker was a huge fan of Korn, this album in particular. He talks about it a bit in this interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlayerKitten (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

References

COAL CHAMBER

--72.251.108.14 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Coal Chamber wasnt influenced by Korn. they really hate it when people say that. korn and coal chamber formed the same year they also were gonna be signed to a label by Ross Robinson but they decided not to becuase they wanted to distance themselve from being compared to korn. i read this in the book Louder Than Hell. True shit. --72.251.108.14 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000936/http://kornseed.cro.net/music/mean/korn.htm to http://kornseed.cro.net/music/mean/korn.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724200230/http://charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Korn to http://charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Korn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024195243/http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Korn to http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Korn

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Alt text edit request

Can someone please add alt text for this album (and every other album by this artist that has no alt text)? 2601:205:4300:5100:F57D:1D50:7832:4E76 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)