Talk:Biohazard (band)

Page is mostly plagiarised/copied and pasted

After doing some digging around, I unfortunately discovered that large sections of the history and biography are actually copied and pasted from a 2001 bio from the Biohazard website (circa the Uncivilisation era), which is linked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20011219155912/http://www.biohazard.com/biography.htm

Please rewrite this severely. I will, for that matter.Chchcheckit (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Despite later interviews where the band claimed not to be a hardcore band, they were part of the hardcore scene. Later on, they became more of a metal band and appealed to those fans. When I used to go to see them in the late 80's, they would play hardcore shows, not "metalcore" shows. Metalcore, like rapcore, is a term that came up much later to describe forms of music that people couldn't, or didn't want to, pigeonhole into some other category. There were no metalcore shows and no metalcore scene back then because it didn't exist. Nobody called it that. If you want to add something saying that their mixture of the two genre served a precursor to what some call metalcore, then go right ahead. But to ignore the real past and label them as something they never were is just silly. JohnBWatt 02:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some sudden disagreement over whether Biohazard were punk or hardcore. While hardcore definitely spun out of the punk rock scene, it completely stood on its own. If we were going to be so picky as to boil down each band to the original form that each of their respective sub-genres sprang from, we'd be listing every band as rock or even blues. Hardcore punk has its own category because it was its own entity. If it was a minor sub-genre, not notable enough to stand on its own, it would only be a minor section in the punk rock article. Biohazard was a part of the hardcore scene, and not the overall punk rock scene, and that is why they are listed as hardcore. The rap metal situation follows the same logic as the metalcore tag addressed above.JohnBWatt (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre. (Sugar Bear (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

I understand aiming for generality but once again, hardcore music stands on its own. If I were to say they had been New York Hardcore, then yes, THAT'S a generality. If you're going to be so thorough on the generality issue, you might as well say all bands are Rock & Roll or even the genres that proceed that.JohnBWatt (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. There really is no arguing that X is not a sub-genre of X when X has the core genre listed as part of it's name. If it really was a separate genre, it would have it's own completely separate name. The rules stated for the template are quite clear, and have been hammered out after literally years of discussion and consensus. If you want to add an exception to that rule, take it to the talk page of the template. Here is not the place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the genre part is that there are too many genres and some of them with little citation. Crossover was really with no citation. Metalcore also has very little citation with some sites only mentioning them as some of metalcore's first sounds.31.59.63.124 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Slander

I reviewed the reference that was used for the text below, and it states that on the very site it came from (http://www.metal-sludge.com) that "I realize that this site is a parody"

The accusations of racism in their music were something strenuously denied by the band but in later interviews, Seinfeld and Graziadei explained that it had been a publicity stunt to win over the band Carnivore and their fans. The songs in question are no longer played, or even mentioned. The band has long since preached a message of tolerance and anti-racism.

I therefore removed the slanderous text.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing slanderous about a statement defending themselves and there's nothing slanderous whatsoever in the statements that say "The songs in question are no longer played, or even mentioned. The band has long since preached a message of tolerance and anti-racism." These are simply facts. Those songs are not played anymore and the band's material frequently speaks against racism. Where's the slander?

An additional interview with Seinfeld defending the band, as well as a source, has been added to back up the previous interview's statement. Neither interview makes any claim that the band made blatant racist statements. It simply states that they were perceived by some to be racist and the band's defense of what the material ACTUALLY was.

Slander is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name." The band's defense of their own lyrics, whether justified or not, is not slander. They wrote those lyrics and chose their own words in defense of them.

The Metal-Sludge website does acknowledge itself as parody in a disclaimer but at the same time, maintains accuracy within its news items. One can easily review the site and see that while it takes a tongue-in-cheek look at heavy metal, it also features legitmate news stories about the music and the people who create it. Parody is poor choice of words on their end or simply a legal loophole should someone get mad about being made fun of on the site. What line in the Seinfeld interview makes it seem like parody or untrue? I see nothing malicious, false or defamatory in any statement or within the band's own defense. Therefor, it's not slanderous. NJZombie (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biohazard (band). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=139301
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820072905/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=159103 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=159103
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822161517/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=159821 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=159821
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=169546
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=168619
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=168655

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)