Talk:Breaking Benjamin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

We Have Fucking Pics Of Ben, Mark, Aaron, and Chad but we dont have a fair use image of the whole band

WHY IS THAT THE CASE!! BLUEballsBOY (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has taken a good fair-use image of the whole band? Imasleepviking ( talk ) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There a few good pics of the whole band as promo photos, but none many of them live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Would pictures not be a good addition to the page? Maybe pictures of the band as a whole or album covers or at least a logo, so that onlookers can have some idea of what Breaking Benjamin is. I mean, I personally don't have any fair use images that could be used but if anyone did that would be a great addition. MoneyBullet 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bad idea just because it'd be hard to get a fair use gallery of images for the logo and album covers and the like.Imasleepviking ( talk ) 03:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking the Blame

Is this the new album's name? If so, where's the proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.230.206 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol... I could make a lame title too, "Beating the Game," "Throwing with Aim," or "Losing our Fame," etc. They all sound similar (all of them are very lame titles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davis Junior (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal?

So, can anyone cite any reliable sources for Brekaing Benjamin being "alternative metal"? Bear in mind that Rhapsody is just a site that sells their songs as mp3s, that doesn't qualify it, and Allmusic isn't reliable regarding metal genres (see the reliable source noticeboard for the discussion on that). Also bear in mind that a distorted, vaguely heavy guitar tone doesn't equal metal in any form. Grunge, post-grunge and modern rock (incl. alternative rock) all utilise this, and are much more suitable genres for Breaking Benjamin. Unless someone can provide a good source for it, I'll go ahead and remove their alt. metal tag. Prophaniti (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You mind pointing me in the direction of the notice board disscusion that decided that AM isn't reliable for Metal genres?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Scroll down. I've made my case, and unless someone can provide a decent reason to consider them a reliable source, I see no reason to treat them as thus. Prophaniti (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Added a source for it.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Even though I personally don't think they fit into the genre, there're now plenty of sources citing it, so fair enough. Prophaniti (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you EVER heard Breaking Benjamin they scream and have heavy guitar fiffs, like Seether, and if their metal so is Ben. Listen to "Believe" on We're not alone it is like Killswich Engage vocals. katarn17

They are definitely Alternative metal, mainly because their use of simple riffs and de-tuned guitars. I hope someone agrees?

Breaking Benjamin, in my opinion, is alternative rock/post-grunge. They have a couple of songs that might fit under alternative metal, but the majority of the songs, again in my opinion, fall into the alternative rock/post-grunge genre.--Davis Junior (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If Nirvana is classified grunge, Breaking Benjamin is most definitely post-grunge in my opinion. Post-grunge is a sub-genre of alternative rock, not alternative metal.--Davis_Junior (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Davis is spot on. Grunge is a subgenre of alt. rock, not alt. metal. BB have the odd song that might fit, but for the most part they're post-grunge through and through.

As to the comment above him "I hope someone agrees?", I'm afraid not. De-tuned guitars doesn't mean a thing, many genres besides metal use them. And simple riffs? If you think simple riffs are an indicator of metal, I'd have to assume you've barely listened to any. Quite the reverse, I'm afraid, simple riffs indicate rock, complex ones indicate metal. Very generally speaking.

Anyway, I've changed the opening line genre to post-grunge for now, because the express milwuakee reference is anonymous and thus can't really be used. This leaves three sources for post-grunge, one for alt. metal and one for alt. rock. Prophaniti (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New single-Since when?

Where exactly is the source saying that a single is going to be released in a few weeks. The band haven't even written an entire album's worth of material, let alone gone into a studio to start recording. Somehow I don't think a single release is likely in the next month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.189 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Youtube channel

The YouTube channel claiming to be BB's official one is FAKE. It is NOT the band's channel: their channel is called ShallowBayTV, and is linked to the shallowbay.com, which is the bands official website. There's even been discussion about this fake one on the official band forums. Therefore I've removed this sentence and its associated reference from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.200.103 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal and undue weight.

There seems to be some confusion as to the Wikipedia policy on undue weight on certain view points. Now what seems to be happening here is 4 sources > 1 source, even if they don't contradict each other or express a controversial issue. This is nothing what WP:UNDUE is about. It's about preventing the expression of minority views. In this case it's not a minority view, just an alternative one with similar weight. Allmusic is an established reliable source, alt metal can be considered an alt rock sub genre, something BB crosses over into many times. As as for alt metal being listed first? In this case the genre section has been messed around so much it just so happens alt metal was on the top. The sensible thing to do in this case is just be neutral and put the genres in an alphabetical order. Which I'm going to do. This is my last revert so I leave the rest to you. Rehevkor ✉ 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: it’s about preventing minority views from seeming like more than they are. Allmusic is an established source, certainly, and if someone wants to make a mention of what it says within the body of the article, then go for it. But it’s still just one journalist, and with no other ones to back it up, but lots that say something different.

It's simple, really: what is a minority? The dictionary defines it as a small part of a whole, less than half. We have six sources, of which one calls them alternative metal. 1/6 is about 17%. Much less than half, and clearly enough to qualify as a minority.

That source has the view that they are alt. metal. It is a minority. Ergo, it is a minority view. A minority view should not be given undue weight: to place a genre in the genre section itself indiciates it is a significant and accepted part of the band's overall classification. One (granted reliable) journalist in this case is certainly enough to make mention of it, but in the face of so much evidence that doesn't back it up, it's not enough alone.

How you personally choose to interpret the guidelines is up to you, but that’s really all there is to it. Prophaniti (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough to change the Genre of Breaking Benjamin I know all his songs and this is without a doubt, Post-grunge style and Alternative metal --יוני לוי (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just silly, I know all of their songs too, but that doesn't make me a credible expert. Nor does it make you one either.Imasleepviking ( talk ) 14:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you know this band sources to bring a certain style that's easy to get even 10, but his style is without doubt Post-grunge have a voice Oungina by this style, and he also Alternative metal, and also sources rather than delete it after this show proof source You can not do as you please --יוני לוי (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To be completely fair and honest, your grasp of english seems lacking. I myself can't really understand what it is you're trying to say anyway, and without that, I don't see how any kind of discussion can continue.

Editing a website you do not appear truly fluent in the language of is not advisable. Please note this is not racist or discriminatory, it's just practical. Prophaniti (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This I do not speak good English does not mean that I do not know Genre of the band do not have a justifiable reason to change the opinions you do yourself --יוני לוי (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it renders your opinion meaningless or anything, but it's going to make discussion difficult if we can't understand what the other is saying. If nothing else, it's clear you don't fully understand how wikipedia works: it doesn't matter what your analysis of the band is, however much you might be familiar with them. What matters is the sources. Prophaniti (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And sites / sources that I wrote you a lot less familiar and reliable mine --יוני לוי (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely my point: that sentence there is gibberish. Please, don't edit an encyclopedia in a language you don't speak fluently. Prophaniti (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to speak fluently to edit value Certainly do not need to speak fluently to edit style of the band In addition, and I gave Sources --יוני לוי (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you gave sources: and as I explained to you, 3 of those sources are not reliable ones, so they don’t count. The one left is thus left badly outweighed, and to include it in the infobox is giving it undue weight. And yes, you don't need to speak it fluently simply to edit. But you do if you are to make controversial edits that need discussing. Prophaniti (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Prophaniti Let's do some voting style band According to my version, or your

--יוני לוי (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breaking_Benjamin&oldid=261026251

2)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breaking_Benjamin&oldid=260686772

You see, again: you can't speak English fluently. I can just about understand what you're trying to say, but it's not my responsibility to translate for you. Why are you still adding in unreliable sources?

If you do wish (as I interpret you to) for a vote on the versions, it would be on the issue on undue weight and what constitutes a minority opinion. Prophaniti (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources will not sell less than that of my own that I do not speak English fluently does not mean that I do not know in Genre,

in this case, I do know that, so I offered a vote on

--יוני לוי (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For about the third and now final time, I never said you opinion didn't count because you aren't fluent in English. I said that because of it, you will have difficulty contributing to a discussion, and others will have difficulty understanding you. The discussion so far has attested to this. As such, again, I would recommend not making potentially controversial edits on a website written in a language you aren't fluent in. It already seems you don't understand the points I'm making, in your continual addition of non-RS material. So far you've not responded to any of my questions of the logic in this, you've just repeatedly said that not speaking English fluently won't hinder you. Prophaniti (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet again, you add sources that aren't valid. Why is this point being ignored? Three of those sources you keep re-adding are not reliable. The other one is thus outweighed, and so would be better included in a "styles and influences" section, where many bands have all the lesser sourced genres described, while the source consensus is kept to the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-grunge, but that the exact style of the band The band has all the elements of the Post-grunge

And of course Alternative metal Got sources that prove that it is also the style of the band Therefore you should not delete this style And that offense on the rules --יוני לוי (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As has already been said: you don't have "sources" for that genre. You have -1- source, and it is thus massively outweighed by the others. The mention of alt. metal would be better included in the body of the article (as in Nickelback for instance) rather than giving it undue weight. Bands will often be termed a great variety of things, and in some cases to include them all in the genres section of the infobox would just make it too cluttered. So the genres section is better used to sum up consensus, while other genres given to them are included within the article itself.

As for the lead, post-grunge is a particular style of alternative rock, and alt. rock has more sources anyway. So that is both the best sourced and most general term. Prophaniti (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to assert that the sources you're adding are reliable, simply ask about them here: WP:RSN. Until then, there's nothing to indicate they are reliable sources. Prophaniti (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again I have sources, you can not delete styles I AM ALMUSIC sources FOR THE style Alternative metal --יוני לוי (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you seem unable to speak English. Piecing together what I can, I believe you're accusing me of removing the allmusic source, which I'm not doing. I would explain in full detail to you, but it's already been explained, several times. You don't seem able to understand it though. Prophaniti (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rhapsody listed BB as alt metal.MetalMagnet1987 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As a site that sells the music, rhapsody isn't a reliable source I'm afraid. It's the same sort of thing as amazon. Prophaniti (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

mp3.com listed them as alt metal as wellMetalMagnet1987 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a usable one either I'm afraid <:) Sorry. If you look at their biographies, you'll see they just copy directly from allmusic guide, which we've already got. As a general tip for finding reliable sources, steer clear of sites that sell music, or have user-submissions, and check the site's sources, because a lot will copy directly from another one (like allmusic). Prophaniti (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we not list them as alt metal as well is it me or is there some kind of special limit to how many genres a bands song can be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.50.162 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin is listed as alternative metal by Allmusic.com, which is a reliable source. So that means it can stay here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.56.150 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you Prophaniti? Rehevkor ✉ 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not. If you look at the website, it is listed under the Alternative Metal subgenre. That's a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.56.150 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone keeps deleting "Alternative Metal" from the post when they are labeled under that subgenre? It's really annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.56.150 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales of BB albums

The RIAA website declares that phobia is listed as a gold album, not platinum. stop changing it back to platinum. your source isn't official. the RIAA website is.

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH Search Phobia in there. It was certified platinum on 05/21/2009. Check your own source before you say the article is wrong. FATWK (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin EMO

Good morning to all boys. I am not English and Italian wikipedia user, and constantly care personally of the page Breaking Benjamin. I have sources of both Italian and English who attest that Breaking Benjamin are in the genus EMO but only if you want to put it. I do not want to debate with anyone. Richiedetemi sources and if you are interested. Sorry my English not very clear. --HeavyMetalcore92 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What are these sources? Rehevkor ✉ 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are as follows (2 of them are Italian): [1], [2], [3]. I hope I can serve. Sincerely --HeavyMetalcore92 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they're making a statement about the emotional content and lyrics, rather than the genre, since BB have zero emo characteristics music wise. Rehevkor ✉ 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

these sources are not personal opinions but it's up to you to decide. On Italian wikipedia, we have put that BB is a emo band and here it is up to you to decide.--HeavyMetalcore92 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Being Italian I remember that the reviews do not explain the minimal content of the texts but the musical direction and thus the genre, on this you can be sure, otherwise we would not put either of us. Do what you want, not any obligation.--HeavyMetalcore92 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Their music does not have rudimental emo elements. --хенрик (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go and write at every Metal-band-page 'emo-band'........... Roach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.251.248 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New music video?

I see that on the music video section "i will not bow is listed as a soon to be released music video. and though likely it will be a music video the band has not yet announced there will be a music video,so it should not be there until its announced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.103.165 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

External Linking (Fansite)

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.

[4] Link To Wikipedia Source

No-games.com is the largest fansite and is allowed to link. shallowbay.com is the official site (former fansite) and cannot be considered in both categories, to do so would not be abiding by the POV guidelines.

Please do not remove the link to no-games.com, as it is considered vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.112.2 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? I don't think so. The guide lines also say fansites should be avoided, you'll have to prove it's the biggest and a reliable source and gain a consensus before it can be added to the list. Rehevkor ✉ 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Prove it's the biggest...okay, well can you name 1 other fansite? No...and if you were to go to Shallowbay.com and ask them to name a fansite other than the official site...they would say No-Games.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.112.2 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding link this, it is considered vandalism, we need more than that to even consider it's inclusion. WP:EL trumps WP:NOT in this case. If it's the only fansite if defiantly doesn't pass the policy as it specifies "about topics with many fansites" (As you already posted above, please read these before pasting. Rehevkor ✉ 21:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam? You must not be a big BB fan if you've not heard of No-Games. Either way, since you want to be the wikiNazi I guess this won't end. 173.22.112.2 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please also be aware of the policy on personal attacks. Rehevkor ✉ 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While it very well could be the biggest, that holds no ground when the site itself lacks considerably in content. Read WP:ELNO and please don't add it again until the site has more information. –túrian^patois 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he no longer cares Rehevkor ✉ 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hamill played the cowbell?

Mark Hamill - cowbell (2003-2005)

This is a joke right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.55.2 (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing yes. Removed. Will find out when it was added to make sure there's nothing else hiding tomorrow. Rehevkor ✉ 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin disbanded?

Is the source of their being disbanded reliable? How come I cannot Google it? Where does it say it on their official website? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the reference: http://rawkpit.com/2010/06/28/breaking-benjamin-breaking-up/ If you can't view the web page, this is what it says: [QUOTE]It’s official! The mainstream rock act Breaking Benjamin is breaking up and the members will be pursuing other ventures. This comes from a source close to the band. More information will be posted here as an official statement will be released later today by Chad Szeliga.[/QUOTE]

• • I know what it says. I just want to know if the source is reliable. What is this "source close to the band"? And could you address the previous questions (about their official website) as well? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to know why "According to TuneLab Music (www.tunelabmusic.com)," is necessary. Doesn't even cite TuneLab, which I supect would not be classed as a reliable source. Certainly not an allowable external link. Rehevkor ✉ 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's first determine whether the refs are reliable (tunelab and rawkpit) before adding material. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't shallowbay ref #23 unreliable because I have to login first? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

164.214.1.54 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC) TuneLab is not "the source", because they clearly state exactly who the source was. TuneLab is reliable for any news, however in this case they are not claiming to be the source, simply reporting what a site admin said. As far as "rawkpit", the admins of the site go around wikipedia and change anything they can to link to rawkpit.com instead of what is already there in order to try and make themselves credible.

So rawkpit is unreliable but Tunelab is reliable? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. TuneLab is reliable and RawkPit is not. However, NEITHER should be cited in this case, because neither contain the full postings, they only reference them. It's a non-story (rumor; he-said, she-said) at this point and really doesn't need to be mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article. 164.214.1.54 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, completely fails my Google test above. But at the moment it seems wisest to leave the last sentence be and see how it goes. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

http://tunelab.com/2010/06/28/confirmed-breaking-benjamin-is-done/ <---- This link supposedly confirms the break up. 76.182.136.233 (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly makes this link reliable? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tunelab says: "Honestly, you’re probably going to hear the band’s camp and/or label come out and say we’re wrong and that they’re still together, for the exact reasons I said in the article. A lot of people will believe it and be pissed at us, thinking we’re idiots. But, when it’s all over with you’ll realize we were right". Does not quite convince me. ;) KzKrann (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Top quality reporting and integrity there. Seems little more than a blog. No editorial oversight in evidence. Rehevkor ✉ 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm has no place here Rehevkor. Define "editorial oversight" and show how that site lacks it. The statement above attributed to "TuneLab" is not visible in the news content or posts. That was the author, in the comments, stating that the story is in fact true, however official sources will deny it. As they did. But "Baghdad Bob" said the Americans weren't in Iraq, and the BP spokesperson said there was much less oil spewing than there was. Point being, just because an "official statement" says something, that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.54 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me where sarcasm has a place? The sarcasm police? I'll let you define editorial oversight yourself, a dictionary may be a good start, try "editorial" and "oversight". Good luck! xxx Rehevkor ✉ 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant, as you know, was in this case, what evidence is there that there is a lack of editorial oversight. And as for who I am to tell you where sarcasm doesn't have a place, I am a wikipedia user who follows the guidelines and policies. Both the original post and your recent reply go against it. Why don't you look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility 164.214.1.54 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What I do not appreciate the accusation is the accusation that I do not follow polices and guidelines. You show me how this website has editorial oversight, it's already been shown to be wrong. I could use more unnecessary emphasis but if you want this site to be a reliable source that's your job. Did I mention unnecessary emphasis? Rehevkor ✉ 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. I am familiar with both, before you start making comments on that. But anyway, this is irrelevant, so I don't have much more to say on this. Cheers, ma dears. Rehevkor ✉ 03:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rehevkor, please calm down. We're trying to work on the article. To the ip: We don't follow what is true, we can only follow what is verifiable. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TeleCo, I agree completely. In this case, for this particular article (as I said in the discussion above this one), neither source should be cited because it's only rumor and non-verifiable, as the website didn't state their protected sources. But, to write off an entire website in the future as a non-reliable source (for their other verified/verifiable content) because of one non-verifiable posting would be irresponsible. IMO, it is a reliable source, they do use editorial oversight and fact-check and vet through multiple sources, it just so happens that the information is being denied by the rights-owners, which is a common occurrence in the music industry. To say that news posting is wrong is also incorrect. Just because a source is "official" does not make it "correct/honest". It also does not make it verifiable. To be verifiable, it must come from a reliable source, and if a source is dishonest, it is not reliable. So truth does play into that, at least in a historical sense. 164.214.1.54 (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the editorial oversight can be disputed (for example, Rehevkor). But yes, you're right, the information in the source is not reliable at the moment. As it is, we should not include it in the article. For your latter points, I believe that the verifiability of a source depends on how truthful the history of the source is. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did my unnecessary emphasis betray a lack of calm? Curse you, emphasis. Rehevkor ✉ 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did. </sarcasm> :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Shallowbay

It seems that there is consensus that both Rawkpit and Tunelab are unreliable. Now we simply have to deal with our third source: Shallowbay. Also, to repeat my previous questions: How come I cannot Google it? Where does it say it on their official website? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In cases such of these, I think it's always best to avoid any forum, social networking, blog sources (they apparently contradict each other at this point anyway) and wait for a concrete press release/announcement. At the very least wait for reliable news sites to pick up on it. Rehevkor ✉ 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Best to leave it be. Fails the Google test anyway. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a underground forum. KzKrann (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ShallowBay is their official fansite, adopted after We Are Not Alone was released. This has been confirmed by the band during live shows, and actual posts they make to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.169 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Official fansite? I thought it was their official site full stop? Rehevkor ✉ 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) They posted on myspace that they are not breaking up.

Sorry, your right. My mistake. It began as a fan site, but was adopted after the official Hollywood Records site couldn't keep up with the news and inside stuff that was being leaked to ShallowBay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.134.211 (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So, currently, it's not reliable. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's the official site, then how is it unreliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.117.39 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The site can generally be considered reliable, but the forum generally can't. As a primary source it should be used with care regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

More sources to add

I have a list of more sources that could probably be added to the Breaking Benjamin article (since its protected now):

1. [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phobia-Breaking-Benjamin/dp/B000GFRJ44 Amazon, may not be reliable.]
2. A forum that addresses the influences of other bands on Breaking Benjamin.
3. Sputnik music, which may be reliable, and fills in the citation needed for "Plan 9".
4. Ultimate-guitar, which may, or may not be, reliable.
5. [http://www.amazon.com/Are-Not-Alone-Breaking-Benjamin/dp/B0002A2VS2 Amazon again.]

Please take the time to review these. (P.S. We should probably have a new section on Critical Reception and Influences.) Thanks, and all the best, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1: As far as I can see there's nothing we can use here except for technical data on the album, rest is mostly non-professional reviews. 2: Forums are always a no no. 3: Not sure. I suspect they have copied that summary from elsewhere though. 4: Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT has this listed as an unprofessional review site. 5: 404s for me, but see "1". Rehevkor ✉ 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we generally not have Amazon as a professional review site? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know most reviews on it are made by it's customers. It sometimes quotes published reviews. I believe they also have staff/publisher editorials/descriptions or similar but I dunno off hand if they can be used as their overall aim is to sell stuff and they can't be considered neutral. This is mostly based on my own experience, I dunno if there's a community consensus on the matter. Rehevkor ✉ 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where or how sputnikmusic could have copied it from another source. Here's a Google search by the way, with the search words c&p from the sputnikmusic summary. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That is quite a lot of hits.. which is why I suspected a copy vio. How do we know Sputnikmusic is the original source for it? Rehevkor ✉ 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia at one time used some very similar text here. Sometimes it's hard to tell who copied what though. Rehevkor ✉ 03:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... so how do we track it down? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I.. have no idea actually. Text is 5 years old and has been copied so many times it may be impossible to track down. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Forums

Most of the refs are forum/faqs from shallowbay. And refs 17-20 are myspace blogs (ref 16 is also another blog, but probably more reliable). Should we continue to use them? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As primary sources they shouldn't be relied upon and used with care.. "most of the refs" is probably a bad thing.. but not the end of the world. Rehevkor ✉ 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Myspace is much of a primary source for anything besides itself. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that it isn't even listed in the non-professional reviews under Wikipedia:ALBUM/REVSIT. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume the Myspace refs are Breaking Benjamin's own Myspace? That'd make them primary sources. Either way, the thing about Myspace and Facebook and social networking sites, you never know who is really behind the text. Official websites are one thing but sites like these could be far removed from the band itself, and should be used with extreme care. The prime reason for all of this is that Wikipedia aims to be neutral, and relying on bias sources like any of the above is counter to that. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Message from Benjamin

Hey everyone, Benjamin here. I am officially letting everyone know that Breaking Benjamin has NOT broken up! This is just a false rumor that, through the miracle of modern technology, has unfortunately spread.

I am currently taking some time off from touring to further address some health issues that I have been dealing with for some years now which has been posted previously on the shallow bay website and expressed in many recent interviews. I am performing two solo acoustic shows in July but this in no way means that I have left, or am ever going to leave, Breaking Benjamin.

In closing I’d like to thank our incredible fans for their concern. The only thing that I ask, is for everyone to not believe any rumors you hear on the Internet especially when it does not come directly from the band. We hope that our fans know that we love them and are forever grateful of their continuing support.

Much love, Benjamin Burnley

Yeah, that was just posted on Breaking Benjamins facebook page. Here. KzKrann (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not seriously gonna use that a source, right? Cause I can't unless I login to facebook. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't. It can be considered a primary source at best, which shouldn't be relied on, at worst an unreliable primary source, which shouldn't be used at all. Rehevkor ✉ 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be considered "unreliable?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.141.120 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin is definitely alternative metal as well as alternative rock and post grunge

go look through the genres of their singles chronology to prove it. Listen to "I will not bow" and "Lights out" and tell me those aren't alternative metal songs. Both songs are very heavy and contain screaming which is proof that Breaking Benjamin is Alternative metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowthd (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that both the terms "heavy" and "screaming" are mis-used (distorted guitars and vaguely angry vocals does not equal "heavy" and "screaming"), and is by no means indicative of alternative metal. Those terms apply perfectly well to countless examples of music that has nothing metal about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.3.86 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New singer, new name?

Some sources say Ryan Hegefeld from No Such Thing is their new singer and that the band will be renamed, anyone know if its true? --KzKrann (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What are "some sources"? Doesn't sound very likely. I don't see them giving up the Breaking Benjamin name. Even if all the remembers formed a band, sans Ben, it'd be a totally new band. Rehevkor ✉ 00:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nu Metal?

would breaking ben be coinsiered nu metal due to some songs being classifed as nu metal?--108.57.49.229 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When has BB ever done anything remotely Nu metal? They are primarily a Post Grunge Band with heavy alt metal influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the whole scheme of music, your description really isn't that far of a stretch from "nu-metal". ("nu-metal" isn't that far removed from "alt-metal". In fact, many bands are classified as both.)

All that aside, what it really comes down to is if reliable, third party sources are calling them "nu-metal". If they are, it should be listed as such in the article. If not, then it shouldn't be. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Shallow Bay

Until there is a new page on shallow bay how about including the tracklist here? Malithyapa (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's Shallow Bay: The Best of Breaking Benjamin. Яehevkor ✉ 10:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

End of the Hiatus?

Is it really appropriate to mark the hiatus over and the band active as of 2013? All Ben did was retain the rights to the band; I think it should be kept on hiatus until there are at least members to the band. A band is a group of people, not an individual. I can see marking the Benjamin Burnley page as active, but not the band. Vemnox (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I partially agree. Looking over his statement, all it says is that the legal battles are over, and he's "looking to the future" or whatever. So yes, it seems they're not really active again. However, I don't believe him recruiting new members is necessarily the point in which we mark them. Burnley could start writing lyrics or guitar rifs by himself and that would constitute as the band being active. Or even if he just writes a blog saying "Hey guys, starting BB up again today!". Any indication that future music is being worked on really. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is an unofficial end to the hiatus as the end of the legal battle was necessary before any new music could be made, so I think it should have a new heading/section. Maybe "Return" is not the correct heading for now, but maybe "End of legal battle" (or something like that) would be appropriate. Spidey104 18:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, normally I'd agree, and I'm sure it'll eventually be that, but usually separate subsections aren't made when there's only two brief sentences to be said... Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading the sentences again I think you're right. The information from the "Return" section could just be added to the "Hiatus" section, and obviously the dates fixed. Spidey104 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, initially there was a lot in the section, but they were largely unimportant quotes that I trimmed out, as they served very little purpose. (Half the quote was empty fluff about thanking fans for support and whatnot, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made those changes. I think it is fine now. We can make adjustments when new information is available. Spidey104 13:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I've reworded the lead to reflect this discussion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also posted to the official Twitter account @breakingbenj: https://twitter.com/breakingbenj/status/358048635625299968/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.128.214 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, there's Ben, standing there... Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

--72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) We should take off all of the other genres except for Alt. Metal. They're too aggressive to be any of the other stuff listed. They're influenced mainly by Alt. Metal bands like Helmet and Tool. Let's please change it and keep it changed because it is missleading. --72.251.108.18 (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• We go by what reliable sources say. They are frequently called post-grunge. Even beyond that, they've got their fair share of slow/mid-tempo songs anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

--72.251.108.186 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC) LOL!!! So?! Mid tempo songs are also in alt. metal too. Listen to [[Tool (band)] or Helmet (band). They do resemble the sound of Post grunge they're just more aggresive. They have similar influences like the post grunge bands but they aren't post grunge. Do you think they sound like Creed? Or 3 Doors Down? Or Nickelback? See what I mean? --72.251.108.186 (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I've heard all of these bands, and they all sound like Breaking Benjamin. But regardless, you missed the most important part of what I said. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, not personal observations. There are many man reliable sources that call the post-grunge, so it's going to be hard to argue why it shouldn't be at least one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

seriously? TOOL has been around WAY longer than BB so if anything BB sounds like THEM not they other way around....anyway can someone who actually knows and speaks english PLEASE edit the reformation section cuz the grammar and structure in it makes me wanna punch babies.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.16.101 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, because it's not how we determine genre on Wikipedia, but re-read what the person actually said. He said they are inflenced by Tool, not that they have influenced Tool. Beyond that, you're going to have to be more specific about the changes you want made. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

i was ref to what YOU wrote when you said that TOOL sounds like THEM when that's just flat out wrong since TOOL has been around WAY longer than BB....and the word is INFLUENCED there bud....perhaps you're not the best person to clean up the reformation section serge....unlock the page and i'll do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.7 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that either. Just because someone says a band sounds like another doesn't mean they are giving them credit for influencing them. I maintain both articles, I'm well aware Tool came first. Sergecross73 msg me 10:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Uh, yes, I've heard all of these bands, and they all sound like Breaking Benjamin."

i rest my case. the reformation section is better now but still needs some touching up.

That was in reference to the "Creed? Or 3 Doors Down? Or Nickelback?" sentence. If you read the context of the argument, it wouldn't have made any sense for me to be referring to Tool there. And again, just saying one sounds like another gives no attribution to one crediting another as an influence, or who came first. And again, you're arguing about an irrelevant part of a flawed argument to begin with (We don't determine genre by subjective personal claims about sound to begin with.)

Not sure why you're so caught up in trying to wrongfully interpret what I said, but this is the last time I'm wasting my time addressing it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reformation source?

Are there sources confirming this? The source that is used in the article only links to their Facebook page in general, rather than a specific post. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, its all over the music press now. I've added them to the article now too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Improvement needed

This article needs quite some improvement. Especially in the history section, there are hardly any citations. Rather than sticking {{citation needed}} everywhere or adding {{refimprove}}, I will start a rewrite at User:Jacedc/sandbox. Feel free to help out, just make sure that all contributions are attributable to reliable sources. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The article, since the band's hiatus, has been largely inactive - there just haven't been many/any experienced editors here contributing to it. I've monitored it in the last few years, but just in a "maintaining it from getting even worse" type way. Feel free to work on the article and make any changes, while things are still relatively slow (ie before new album release) you're not likely to find much opposition to changes yet. So nows probably a good time. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Figured as much. Hopefully the competent ones will check the talk page and see my sandbox and help out. :) Jacedc (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I've finished the lead section and first history section so I went ahead and implemented it. Will work on the rest of the article in coming moments. Jacedc (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Regarding your recent correction to associated_acts, my apologies, I missed the point where it says to avoid acts which have only one member in common. I assumed the ones I added qualified under the "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together." criteria. That said, why did you remove OurAfter? That band had ex-drummer Chad Szeliga and current bassis Aaron Bruch as members, so that's two in common, correct? Jacedc (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Evanescence has toured as a sole co-headliner once before with Breaking Benjamin, which fits into the relevant criteria. I'll add both OurAfter and Evanescence to the parameter in my sandbox and will paste them over to this article should you approve of the additions. Jacedc (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jacedc - Regarding OurAfter, I apologize, I only saw one person in common when I skimmed the page, I missed that there were 2 members. That can be added back in. Evanescence shouldn't be though. Co-headlining a tour is not one of the criteria for inclusion. Touring together as a collaboration' is, but that would be in, the artists actually consistently collaboratively playing together. Something more along the lines of Jay Z and Kanye West, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Thanks for the clarification! Jacedc (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Issues have since been addressed. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Article history

@Sergecross73: Are you sure about using the {{ArticleHistory}}'s currentstatus=FGAN? I'm not opposed to keep the template, but the current status isn't "former good article nominee", the template right above it says that it is currently a good article nominee, so it's a bit conflicting, right? I think the template does a good enough job keeping track of the article's history, since it provides a date, link, etc. No need to really keep the status at FGAN. Jacedc (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not conflicting, it's just meant to be a log of its past statuses and pass/fails. See here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. As I said, I'm not opposed to keeping the template itself, just opposed to putting currentstatus=FGAN, since its current status is just GAN. This is the part that doesn't make sense to me:

"Breaking Benjamin was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake."

"Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated" - it has been renominated. By removing currentstatus=FGAN, it removes the above text (which is a direct contradiction to the {{GA nominee}} template right above it). Jacedc (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I misread what it was you're trying to change. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dark Before Dawn release date in lede

Pinging @Kokoro20: Regarding your recent edits to the lede; we shouldn't specify "July" for the following reasons: we need to remain consistent with the rest of the lede and also keep the future in mind (I suggest you read the recentism essay, see my message above in the § "News" thread). We can't just say the year for the past four albums, and then the month and year for the latest album because that won't hold up over time. If the reader wants the release date, they'll scroll to the section on Dark Before Dawn. And this goes for all albums, as their release dates are all listed in the following sections as well. Also, even if we did specify the release date in the lede, what stops us from adding the day too? (I.e. July 23, 2015). We definitely don't want to do that, so we just use the year. And as for your summary reasoning that we shouldn't just use 2015 because it hasn't been released yet, I don't really see a problem with that. We don't need to specify when in 2015 just because we're in 2015. Again, the whole "users can just scroll down" and recentism arguments apply here. Jacedc (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "it won't hold up over time" argument, just simply remove the month once the album has been released. I think it just doesn't look right to simply say it's coming out in 2015 when it's already 2015. Not to mention, some readers only read the lead anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should always write with the future in mind, especially if this article is going to be a GA (it's currently a GA nominee). That said, some stuff in the prose is time-sensitive, so I suppose that's not really an issue. But what is an issue is consistency and summarization. First we need to be consistent with the rest of the lede, and then we need to focus on making the lede just a concise overview. And that's fine if people just read the lede, I'm not really concerned with that. But if they want to know more about Dark Before Dawn or any other albums, then they'll scroll to their respective sections. I honestly don't see a problem with saying 2015. Just because we're in 2015 doesn't preclude us from the ability to be concise and consistent. Jacedc (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the recentism thing is only an essay, after all, not a policy or guideline. If it's the consistency that you're worried about, then perhaps we could just state the months for all the albums in the lead, at least for now? Also, on band articles, we usually state the month the new album is going to be released before it's released anyway, regardless whether it's consistent with the other albums or not anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware it's only an essay, which is why I merely suggested you read it. I think, although it's not a policy, it still applies here. And I definitely don't think we should put all the months in the lead, because 1) that's what the history sections are for, and 2) what stops us from putting the full release date? And also, I don't too often encounter articles which puts the month of the release date before the year. This applies to video games, movies, musical albums, etc. But in all honesty it's a very minor thing, and a lot of other parts of the article are subject to quite some change when the album is released, so I'll just let this be. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

(Yo Serge, Kokoro20, and anyone else reading:) Who likes this lead more than the current one?

Breaking Benjamin is an American rock band from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania founded in 1998 by lead singer and guitarist Benjamin Burnley and drummer Jeremy Hummel. The original incarnation of the band included, alongside Burnely and Hummel, guitarist Aaron Fink and bassist Mark Klepaski. This lineup released two studio albums, Saturate (2002) and We Are Not Alone (2004) before Hummel was replaced by Chad Szeliga in 2005. The group thereafter released two more studio albums, Phobia (2006) and Dear Agony (2009) before entering an extended hiatus in early 2010 due to Burnley's recurring illnesses.

The release of a compilation album amid the hiatus, Shallow Bay: The Best of Breaking Benjamin (2011), unauthorized by Burnley, brought about legal trouble within the band resulting in the departure of Fink and Klepaski. When Szeliga announced his departure in 2013, citing creative differences, Burnley became the sole member of the band. However, in late 2014, the band announced a reformation including a lineup of bassist and backing vocalist Aaron Bruch, guitarist and backing vocalist Keith Wallen, guitarist Jasen Rauch, and drummer Shaun Foist, after which the group released Dark Before Dawn in 2015.

Despite significant lineup changes, the band's musical style and lyrical content has remained consistent with Burnley serving as the primary composer and lead vocalist since the band's inception. The group is noted for its formulaic hard rock tendencies, with angst-heavy lyrics, swelling choruses, and "crunchy" guitars. The band has collectively sold more than 7 million units in the United States alone and yielded two platinum records, one gold record, one gold single, and one number one record.

References

This version is a little more elaborate, which I think could be good. Plus it splits up better into paragraphs, whereas the current one is just one big paragraph. I've figured I already changed the article so much without any real discussion so this time I'd like to run it past the two most involved editors here other than myself. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Jacedc (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the new one better. The old one was basically a patched up version of the crappy old version. This sounds and flows much better. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, glad you like it. :) I'll give Kokoro a day or so to give input. Jacedc (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh screw it. If he has input he can be bold and change it himself or leave additional comments here. Jacedc (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks more organized, is broken up into more than one paragraph, and doesn't include any citations, which preferably should be avoid for the lead, especially if the material in question already cited elsewhere in the article. Overall, I support the change. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! :) It does have one citation, but that's for the 7 million figure, which isn't stated anywhere else in the article. Jacedc (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed that. Well, if possible, it should be cited elsewhere in the article instead. If not, the lead should be fine too. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The only place I can think of where the 7 mil figure would be appropriate is in a legacy and influence section as many other band articles do, but as far as reliable sources go, the band doesn't really have any legacy or influence; yet, of course. ;) One citation in the lede is okay. I've seen multiple other articles with citations in the lede, sometimes it's just inevitable. Jacedc (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)