Talk:Cash Cash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Promotional bombing of article

Over the past several days, this article has been subjected to well over a hundred edits, mostly from an IP, rewriting it in ways that are noncompliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article (and the band's own history) is being rewritten, presumably by their management team, into a puff piece, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Interested editors, before continuing, should have a look at the following pages: WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Also, please use the edit summary to explain your changes. Further changes without discussion may result in reversion and/or pursual of administrator action. Thank you. Chubbles (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Unsourced promotional material should remain out. If contributors would like to expand this article, there are rules about how to go about this; please see reliable sources, referencing tools, no advertising rules. If help is needed for this article, please write something here or on my talk page and I'll try to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources: I found them by putting "cash cash" in quotes, then putting -johnny (to remove johnny cash mentions) and crossing it with a search string of music publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some other sources:

December 4, 2008 Seventeen Magazine, Feb 25, 2009 Press release?, Star-Ledger March 25, 2009, Southtown Star August 27, 2009 -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is still going on, and a flood of anonymous edits have ensued over the past year, deleting all information about the band's pre-2008 history in what appears to me to be an obvious rebranding effort. Per WP:PROMO and based on the reliable sources that exist on the band's early years, I may be reverting previous edits to restore relevant information removed by what I can only assume is the band's management team. Chubbles (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of this article / Here to help / Official member

I'm Jean Paul Makhlouf. Founding member of Cash Cash. I have tried numerous times to correct information on this wiki page to reflect accurate information. It's been a constant battle. A constant revision and undo war. This should stop here. I was new to the formality of Wikipedia and how users are supposed to talk to one another, edit, cite, and summarize changes, etc but now I think I fully understand the process. I leave detailed explanations of my changes so people can see why they are being done. I'm asking you guys sincerely to let me help make this page an accurate representation of my group so I don't have to keep explaining to people in interviews how the information they looked up on us is false and inaccurate. I'm here for you to ask any questions. My twitter is officially verified by twitter and I will use it to reply anyone that needs to contact me directly. This should be enough to prove I am who I say I am.

One thing on this page that was really disheartening was the founding members part. It was listing Cash Cash roadies as members and members who we're never in the group to begin with. This is so terrible for a group's image and is a let down to have other peoples names as founding members when they are wrong. Our founding members are Jean Paul Makhlouf, Alexander Makhlouf, Sam Frisch, & Anthony Villacari. The releases section was all out of line, with incorrect record labels, etc. I've corrected it to reflect the official iTunes release discography. I'm not in anyway trying to make this page a promotional tool or use it for financial gain. We just want it to be a correct reflection of our group so we can be proud of it. This page is the first one that shows up in a Cash Cash search making it a very important website that should be relaying correct information about us.

I've cited all the associated acts on this page. We have strong direct connections with all of them. They are there for a reason. I tried citing some of them to show the connection. Please ask any questions if you need more information. Here's some more information about them.

We released an official remix for Nicky Romero on his label Protocol recordings. We did the official remix for Krewella's "Alive" as well as produced/cowrote their new single "Live For The Night." that comes out this week. We worked for SEGA on 10 remixes for Sonic Generations. We did production work on the Boys Like Girls Crazy World LP. We did artist on artist interviews for the Huffington Post with Hardwell & Nicky Romero at Ultra Festival. We did a guest set on Nicky Romero's radio show on Sirius XM. We had songs released featuring Lacey Schwimmer, Spose, & Jeffree Star

I'm here to better this page not only for the sake of our own reputation but to have correct accurate facts about the group available so the rest of the world can be properly educated on Cash Cash.

Right now with my edits, the Wiki page is a solid accurate piece on the group that I am confident with that reflects the bands official identity. Thank you for reading this and I look forward to hearing from more of the active editors on this page.

~ Jean Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.210.54 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

I have once again reverted anonymous edits made to this page, this time over the removal of the band's early history and the dubious sourcing of associated acts. There are three major problems with the edits made.

1. "Associated acts" is a field reserved for acts directly connected to the band, usually by shared membership. For instance, it would be sensible to include Talk Show as an associated act to Stone Temple Pilots, since the groups shared several members. Remixing another musician's single is not a substantial enough connection to merit inclusion in the "associated acts" field, even if the information is sourced. That said, I have no objection specifically to information about remixing being included and referenced.

Hey Chubbles. In response to this. If you feel that associated acts should only be shared membership I will compromise with you and remove them. FYI, I've seen associated acts be a place for groups that have toured together as well as collaborated with, etc. For example, check out the wiki page for Boys LIke Girls They list bands they have toured and worked together with. This is my justification for why I kept reverting it. Either way, I will compromise with you on this issue and remove them all because the truth is, less is more here and I'm actually ok with keeping it simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.210.54 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2. The early history of the band, under its earlier incarnation, has been removed repeatedly. I have a reliable reference describing the band's early years, which has been removed several times with claims that it is incorrect. Given that the AMG reference itself was probably written using the group's early interviews or EPKs, I have good reason to doubt the IP that keeps changing this. No other reliable sourcing has been brought forth to explain the revision; in fact, the Hip Online source corroborates the early history, talking about the early history of The Consequence. The IP's claims amount to, "it's incorrect because I said so". Well, who are you? That brings me to...

As far as this goes, Cash Cash's official founding members are Jean Paul Makhlouf, Alexander Makhlouf, Samuel Frisch, & Anthony Villacari. We are the only 4 founding members. I don't know how else to prove that besides the fact that we are the only names listed on all of our official album releases including our first release on Universal Records. That should be more than enough proof in itself. Mike Doerr toured with us so I listed him under past touring musicians. Anthony Villacari left the group so I listed him under Previous members. Jeff "Snakes" Sayers was a previous Cash Cash roadie/best friend of mine. He is in no way a founding member or even member of Cash Cash. I don't know where that piece of information was obtained or why a roadie is included on our wiki page. That is absurd. As far as the Consequence goes, It was a local band we played in prior to Cash Cash. Whoever perviously wrote the section of the wiki page makes it very confusing and misleading. I personally don't feel there is any need to list a local previous unfounded band on this groups wiki page but if you insist the information is important than a separate page should be created and linked. Even more important, the information listed about The Consequence was completely incorrect. High school friends and names we don't even know were being listed as band members that were never officially even in the group!! This alone is creating so much confusion about Cash Cash which is not right at all. I hope you can now understand my frustration with constantly reverting that edit after reading my explanation. I'm hoping you can see where i'm coming from and we can put this issue to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.210.54 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

3. I am fairly certain that the changes are being made by someone who thinks he sees a financial stake in them, and have been for some time. The IP now claims to be a band member, which I have no way of substantiating; this sounds to me like it might be someone from the group's promotional team buying credibility, but for all I know it could be Jean Paul Makhlouf himself. Either way, the IP ought to be familiar with WP:COI, because Wikipedia looks with great scrutiny at self-serving edits, and generally discourages editing with a personal interest. We need reliable sources to substantiate the IP's story. In the unlikely (but admittedly possible) event that all the available reliable sources are wrong (what, did the band send out a fake press release a la Delicate Steve, and are we their unwitting stooges?), band members themselves may have alternate options (such as OTRS), and I don't want the article to literally be factually incorrect. But as it stands, I don't believe that it is, and the IP is doing a whole lot of failing to convince. Chubbles (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Chubbles, I am indeed Jean Paul Makhlouf. My Twitter is verified an is official. My handle is jpcashcash. please feel free to tweet me so we can work together. We want the correct information about us as there is incorrect information about so much stuff on this page as it was listing roadies as founding members. This can be terrible for our image....I'm trying so hard to cite things so you can see they are correct. We are directly connected to all the associated acts as we cited the reasons. We've been doing recent interviews where the interviewer would look at our wiki page then ask me questions and i would be having to explain how it's all incorrect. Please work with me. My contact is jpcashcash and I use gmail. Please feel free to contact me directly. Nobody from our PR team is doing anything on this page. It's me and other founding member Sam Frisch. These changes are not for a financial stake we just want to have the correct information available so we can be proud of our wiki page and not embarrassed due to false information. I listed all the correct releases as reflected on itunes but they keep getting reverted. I'm really trying Chubbles, i'm being sincere. Please help us, This doesn't have to be a revert war. I'm here to listen and i hope you are. Wikipedia is the first page that comes up when someone does a Cash Cash search on google. It's so important for the information to be accurate. I hope you can understand our concerns.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPcashcash (talk • contribs) 16:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I still have no way of verifying whether the IP making the vast majority of the edits to this page (68.45.210.54) is in the band, works for the band, or is just a fan. Since a connection is claimed, the COI flag still flies. Regardless, a recurrent complaint has been about the inaccuracy of the members of The Consequence. However, this IP's remedy is to remove all mention of The Consequence, which has been done about 20 times, and in doing so removed cited material. Look, if somebody put a fake band member up, you remove the band member, but that doesn't give anybody license to strip the article of cited information from reliable sources about the early history of the band. If you are telling me The Consequence is a hoax and never existed (see the Delicate Steve example above), then there's reason to remove it. But this just looks like someone buttering up the band's image because they think the early history makes them look bad, or something. In the absence of compelling reason to remove it (e.g., factual inaccuracy), I have every intention of restoring the info that fills in the early history of the group. You cannot keep willy-nilly removing well-sourced things simply because you don't like them. Chubbles (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Chubbles, you can verify that I am who I say I am by tweeting at me. My twitter handle is at JPcashcash. My account is verified by twitter with a check mark. Then we can communicate with each other over the information being disputed. My biggest disagreement is that I feel The Consequence discography or anything pertaining to that group should not be listed on Cash Cash's wiki. I'm not trying to delete it from our history. It should be listed in the bio but it is a different group/project with a completely different sound. There's no reason to have albums and ep's listed under Cash Cash's disco. Doing this is like putting Stone Temple Pilot releases under Velvet Revolvers. It's confusing and not needed. My ip address is (68.45.210.54). Those edits were made by me. I have recently made a wiki account under "jeanpaulmakhlouf" and will make any further edits using that.

as far as the members thing goes. I will not stand for random names being listed as members and I will log into this page every day to delete them if I need to. The real members of this group worked very hard to get where we are and it's very disheartening to have random names, roadies, ex merch guys, kids in other local bands growing up, and even random people we went to high school with listed as members. It's just flat out crazy and hits me hard every time i see it. You must understand how that makes us feel. Try and work with me. Let's make this page an accurate and relevant source for people to find information on Cash Cash. The Consequence is listed in the bio where it should be. Listing random unofficial releases from The Consequence on Cash Cash's disco takes away from this page being a place to get relevant information on "Cash Cash" Like i said, if you really feel The Consequence is worth being spoken about this in depth it needs to be on a separate wiki page because it was a completely different group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpaulmakhlouf (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources argue differently. The AMG biography states "the Roseland, New Jersey-based band Cash Cash got their start in 2002 under the name the Consequence." And the Hip Online profile says, "the band originally formed as The Consequence in 2002, a predominantly studio-based act". It also gives the name of two of the releases. The Consequence, according to the available sourcing, was Cash Cash's early name; if these are the same band, discographical information (and, for that matter, member history, though I don't have sourcing for that) are certainly relevant to add to the page. The band's early history is an important part of the story to tell, and what music they released is part of that story. Why are you so invested in removing it? Is someone worried that it will make the band "look bad" for some reason? Is the sound quality of the releases poor, or something? Chubbles (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

we're not ashamed of it at all. It's our old band! we rocked our local garage scene! haha It's just very confusing and unrelated to have the releases right there with our Cash Cash one's given it's a completely new group/project/sound. Cash Cash is an EDM/pop based group and The Consequence was a rock band. I think I have an idea to fix this so we can compromise. My goal is not to delete that we were in a rock band prior. That's totally cool to have in the bio. Knife Party is a good example. They were a rock band called Pendulum prior and then started Knife Party. It would be crazy to have Pendulum releases mixed in with the Knife Party releases so they just mentioned it in on their wiki page and linked them. Same goes here. Completely different groups and sounds. I only kept deleting the info completely at first because I just wanted to make it less confusing. I thought our previous local unsigned band wasn't really important and could just be deleted given I didn't know how to make a new wiki for it and wanted a quick fix... Let's work together and make a separate wiki for The Consequence and then we can mention it in the Cash Cash bio and have a link that connects to The Consequence. Here's how we can get in direct contact through a source that is official. Follow me on twitter and at reply me saying your Chubbles. Then i will follow back and be able to dm you my cell phone number and we can communicate our ideas and thoughts. This way you will know you're getting the cell phone number of me "Jean Paul Makhlouf" given I am officially verified on twitter not someone pretending to be me. I hope my reasoning is starting to make some sense to you because i want to work together not against you. I look forward to talking more.

jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.210.54 (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

COI and Fact Acc tags

One or more people claiming to be bandmembers have extensively edited the page over the past couple months, fighting tooth and nail for changes that, often in my opinion, seem to burnish the band's image in biased ways. I am also unsure the extent to which their edits harmonize with available sourcing. I have grown tired of babysitting this article and have done minimal work to keep stopping them, and now they are asking what they can do to get the tags removed at the top of the page. As far as I'm concerned, the answer is "nothing". The page needs review and editing from other regulars for neutrality before the tags can justifiably be removed; this is a classic foxes-and-henhouses situation, and I will restore the tag as long as it keeps being removed by COI editors. Chubbles (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Chubbles is right on the mark with this. If the band members want the COI/neutrality tags removed, the best way to have it happen is to edit the page as little as possible. Only once there is confidence that the text has been written and vetted by uninvolved editors with no connection to the band whatsoever will the tags go away. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaving the COI up is fine with me. All I really care about is the information on the wiki page. I'm currently satisfied with the way the page is now. I've been trying to compromise with Chubbles on different issues. He needs to do the same. If I see incorrect and misleading information on this page I'm going to rectify it because "Cash Cash" is my livelihood. He needs to respect that to a certain extent. The rest of you are on here helping as outside parties either hobbyists or part time writers completely disconnected from the negative effects any false information in this article may create. We are the ones effected. I've done interviews where people would ask me ridiculous questions because they read false information on this page. This ends now. To sum it up....This group is my passion, my career, and my life. I'll say it again, I will not stand for information being on this page that claims false group members, or any false information at all. If I need to check it once a day for the rest of my life then so be it because this group's reputation means everything to me. ~ JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpaulmakhlouf (talk • contribs) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Preface

I noticed a lot of groups and artists have prefaces on their wiki pages that give important/relevant information, giving the reader a good idea of who the artist is. Somebody added one that was cited but just a bit too puff piece so I decided to reword it. Somebody also keeps bombing and deleting my work so I'm here to defend it. The preface seems to be factual/cited so I'm going to fight to make it stay. After reading the talk page, it seems like the group has been dealing with a lot of drama on this page so I'm here to help out. There's a COI up here for a reason and it's dedicated fans of Cash Cash like myself that make pages like this more neutral. The preface stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.184.71 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Genres & styles debate.

Genres listed can't be based off of opinionated reviews, critiques, fans or band members etc as they can be bias or even incorrect in this case. ex. if a critic/fan mislabels an RnB/hip hop artist as hardcore/metal. Only reported factual styles from places such as All Music, iTunes, beatport, Amazon or any official retail store should be listed.

It's very important that you note, All music is an official reported music outlet relaying official facts + opinionated reviews but they don't include any bias review information in their official styles section. "emo pop" is considered bias/opinionated as it might only be found in a random critique and not a factual section of All Music and therefore should not be listed in a place such as Wikipedia which is supposed to be based on fact..not opinion or review.

The official reported genres by All Music, iTunes, beatport, & Amazon etc are:

Dance, progressive house, electro house, electronica, pop, alternative, dubstep, rock, club, indie dance, nu disco, glitch hop

Here's another example of why band members, management or critiques should not be able to dictate genres. Let's say an artist considers themselves soft alternative rock but All Music & official retail stores consider them to be metal and hardcore given they scream, yell, and curse. The outside source is unbiased, removed, and reliable and should be used in places such as Wikipedia which is supposed to be factual not promotional or opinionated.

~ Lauren Castellano - freelance blog writer for numerous hype machine blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B125:6D08:B5B1:11CC:12B3:9D18 (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think you are having a hard time understanding the difference between fact and value. Genres are not "factual and unbiased" for being reported by official retail outlets (who are the last people we should be consulting for unbiased information!). Reviewers are still opinionated, but their opinions tend to be given more weight on Wikipedia because they act as a sort of expert judgment. Allmusic's genres are fine to include, since it is considered a reliable source, but Allmusic's reviews are no less authoritative than the sidebar genres they give, and the Allmusic review for Take It to the Floor takes that album to be not just "emo pop" but representative of the genre. Lauren, you are a new, anonymous editor, and I will assume that you are unaffiliated with all the anonymous editors who have been stubbornly reverting my edits without sufficient backing. Since I have provided a reliable source for the given genre, I will trust that you will follow Wikipedia guidelines and refrain from removing it capriciously as others have done. Chubbles (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Genres & Styles Debate Part II - Directed at Chubbles

Chubbles, I appreciate your interest on this matter but here's why you are still incorrect. This response is going to be long but I suggest you read the entire thing.

• Note - from reading the talk page more, hearing all the different sides, and doing my research on the COI etc..I'm taking initiative to make sure this page stays a factual piece for the sake of the readers as well as Cash Cash. I'm not taking their side as I'm sure they are going to have issues with me adding "Rock, Indie & Alternative" but after doing the proper research anyone can see they those genre's are listed on All Music as well as beatport which is factual data. They will have to accept that and I will make sure that member of the group nor anyone else alters or changes that. My presence here is 100% neutral as my only goal is to make this page a more accurate factual representation of the group. Now having said all that….

It is wrong to define a band off an opinionated album review that is not even being taken into consideration as an official genre by the actual site that owns the review in the first place which in this case is All Music, one of the most reputable music websites!

For Example…All Music not including "emo pop" in their own music styles sidebar validates what I'm trying to explain to you. You MUST be able to differentiate opinionated review material from informative factual data the way the source we are both citing clearly does.

• • Remember, Wikipedia is not a review site or personal/promotional blog. The group's Wiki page should ONLY reflect the official listed genres in places like the All Music sidebar and how the groups music has been sold and released (past & present) regardless of what the band thinks. You and the group need to respect that by listing official genres the public can successfully learn about music in general + an artist they are researching making it very important they are correct and factual.

Another reason you are incorrect is that your source is an opinionated review of an ALBUM not the group and that is the main reason why "All Music" does not list or respect "emo pop" in its styles section on top of it being somebody's biased opinion. This is mainly why it should not be used to define the group's sound in a place such as Wikipedia which is a place of fact not opinion or review.

I spent a lot of time recently researching this group/compiling their official genre list from various reputable/factual sources. It's completely disrespectful and wrong that it was removed. Al the official genres I added even contained separate wiki links to define each genre which were cited by the correct links! You need to respect and understand that this page needs to reflect facts and not your opinion or anyone else's.

When the page is lifted I will be restoring all my cited factual work as it is the proper way to define this band on Wiki. I would appreciate everyone leaving biased & opinionated review content off the Cash Cash wiki page as it can mislead and misinform wiki readers/researchers as well as negatively effect the artist's reputation.

Hopefully this helps you fully understand my edits as I would love to work with you instead of against. <3 There should be no discrepancies on this issue.

~ Lauren Castellano

Genres should be:

Dance, progressive house, electro house, electronica, pop, alternative, dubstep, rock, club, indie dance, nu disco, glitch hop

• This writeup indicates you are still having trouble distinguishing fact and value. Genre is a human heuristic; it's inherently a matter of opinion and based on subjective judgment, and there is no hard, objective, factual determination of genre. Furthermore, bands make albums with songs on them. The songs are what determines the genre. It makes no sense to separate album from band when considering genre. What genre is a piece of music? The only standard on Wikipedia is what reliable sources say it is - we take a nominalist view of genre.

Beatport is not factual in some authoritative, uncontestable way; it is not reliable as defined by Wikipedia's standards for sourcing. It is a sales website; its primary purpose is to move product, not to inform reliably. If you intend on properly sourcing genres you must understand what constitutes a reliable source according to Wikipedia's own reckoning. There are many thousands of (mostly young male) people who have wasted hours and hours and hours of my and other editors' time arguing over personal interpretations of what a band's genre is; we even have a page dedicated to discouraging that behavior, and a term of disparagement for it: they are the genre warriors, and I encourage you to read that as well, to ensure that you don't inadvertently fall into the same trap as all the other editors who follow those patterns on this page and others.

Now. To Cash Cash specifically. There has been a concerted effort to burnish this page by the band's management, to rewrite their history in ways that better serve their current concerns; they are apparently embarrassed about their early history, but their first album (and their early work under the name The Consequence) display marked style differences from their most recent work. Their 2008 album found them in much different company culturally and stylistically, more in line with groups like The White Tie Affair and Metro Station than, say, Tiesto or Adventure Club (where they have moved recently). In late 2008 they toured with Valencia, Sing It Loud, and Single File - a pop punk tour! The emo-pop designation for their earlier work is based upon an album review from a reliable source that is placing their earlier work in that cultural context, one the band seems to be actively suppressing, and I think it's important that they learn they do not own their presentation of themselves on this site.

Since this article is such a longstanding site of tendentious editing for promotional purposes, perhaps it is time to start strictly requiring citations for all contestable assertions on the page, to discourage promotional rewriting. Chubbles (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To Chubbles -

From reading the talk page….It seems to me the band is not necessarily embarrassed by their past but was embarrassed by incorrect information being listed on their wiki page such as mixing up roadies and crew as band members. They were also adamant about separating their old band (The Consequence) from Cash Cash as they were said to be different styles. That all seems valid and I can understand why things like that would be very upsetting. Regardless…Those issues seem to have been resolved with the separate section being created for “The Consequence.”

• • • • • • More importantly - In the last 2 years Cash Cash has released their biggest songs to date containing the styles I added and cited which were linked to wiki definitions. Now if you want to talk about value….let’s talk about how out of date the genres section is.

After researching their soundscan numbers; their biggest selling song to date is called “Take Me Home.” My mediabase research showed the song reaching #13 on top 40 radio in the US with over 8 million youtube views. This is without a doubt their biggest hit so far. This song is listed and considered a “progressive house” song within the dance community and internet. It’s a shame that their wikipedia page does not even mention the genre of their biggest song to date! On top of that…Their “Overtime EP” contains songs such as “Overtime” & “Kiss The Sky” which are known to be “nu disco & “glitch hop.” Another one of their biggest songs to date is called “Michael Jackson” which has over 3 million youtube views and is considered to be “nu disco & glitch hop” as well. This is why places like beatport named these genres to begin with along with other tags I found all over the internet. It’s important for researchers to know the new genres the group has embraced. I researched another new song they released called “Here & Now” as being “electro house” and “electronica.” Their newest single “Lightning” researched as another “progressive house” song.

If the goal here is to make their wiki page an up to date/ informative representation of Cash Cash then I believe we must at least add the following genres to the page: progressive house, electronica, nu disco, glitch hop

~ Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep in mind here that "the dance community and the internet" do not determine what genres Wikipedia assigns to things. Reliable sources do, and you are free to add reliably sourced genres. Since the band has in recent years carved out its own niche in the EDM scene, it's fine for you to add genres reflecting that stylistic change; however, "now" is not "always was", and if you want the genres you add to be left without contestation, you would do well to back them up with album reviews, interviews from major publications, or a similar reliable source that gives us verifiable information about what the dance community and the internet might be saying. Allmusic is a fine start for that, and as I noted in my edit summary, it would be fine for you to use it as a reference for adding additional genres to the infobox.

• Now that you have mentioned you are doing "mediabase research", and given your scrupulous attention to a long-dead tete-a-tete on this page, I have to admit that my ability to assume good faith here is wearing thin. I encourage you to declare if you have a conflict of interest with the band and are editing because you have personal or professional ties to them. Chubbles (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, I have no personal ties to the group whatsoever beyond the fact that I've become a fan. I'm a freelance writer and I stumbled on them within the last few years writing for various hype machine blogs. I recently stumbled on their wiki page because I needed to pull a remix credit for an article on Katy Perry I was a part of to learn that the genre section was quite a mess. This made me do further research. Cash Cash has gained quite a presence on the dance blogs the past few years and have been in the spotlight for their remix work and role in the EDM community. I have friends in the industry that have access to soundscan and media base so I'm able to access their records. I'm here to better the page for the readers as well as Cash Cash. I don't agree with you that beatport shouldn't be used as a valid source because that's how fans find other music they like based on genre but I did some more research to cite the new genres with sources other than beatport, amazon, etc so you will list them. I have already found multiple websites such as dancing astronaut one of the biggest EDM blogs that have listed their music the way I presented it. Take a look as I feel it's very important the Wiki page reflects their new genres asap. It doesn't seem fair for someone to dictate which genres should be acknowledged or not. The genres of the groups biggest songs deserve to be listed on their wiki page.

progressive house & electro house

nu disco & indie dance — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, so if you take a look at WP:RS (and I encourage you to do so), you'll see that sales websites and outlets, like Beatport and Amazon, do not qualify as reliable sources, because they are not intellectually independent of the artists whose work they sell. Wikipedia articles need to take their information from independent, third-party sources whenever possible; these include published books, academic articles, major newspapers and magazines, and online journalism outlets. Cash Cash isn't in many books or academic articles (yet), but they have gotten some coverage by magazines and major press outlets, some of which I have already added to the page and some of which have been added by others. Allmusic, Popmatters, and Seventeen are all examples. Blogs may be considered reliable sources if they are subject to editorial review or are part of a larger publishing outlet; however, since many of them are self-published and have no editor review, they wouldn't qualify. These are determined on a case-by-case basis. According to my judgment, Dancing Astronaut looks like it would qualify as a reliable source - however, my word is not final, and other editors may differ. As for the others...I'm not sure, but I'd have to evaluate based on the criteria I've outlined above in more detail. I've noted before that I have no objection to your adding genres to reflect the change in style; my main objection was to removing genres that reflected their older styles. If you add new genres and back them up with citations to Allmusic and Dancing Astronaut, I don't have a problem with it, and given that I'm just about the only other person not affiliated with the band who edits this page, I doubt you'd have much trouble with editors reverting you. Chubbles (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ultimately, though, what I want to convince you of is that this is one of the least productive ways you could spend your time. We have an entire page dedicated to making fun of people who argue incessantly about genre. It is a problem that plagues band pages constantly and demands huge amounts of manpower for oversight. There is so much more you could do to make the article better - fleshing out the history section, adding more referenced information, maybe even a section dedicated to explaining the band's stylistic evolution, as chronicled by reliable sources. The page has no free images, which is unfortunate. The band's Japanese popularity needs more explanation, and if they've ever charted in that country, that'd be a great addition. Fighting over what's in the genre field of the infobox is a common mistake new editors make; you have much greater opportunities to make this article better by doing almost anything else on it. Chubbles (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles. that's fair. I feel like we are actually making some progress here! ;-) I'll go ahead and add the new genres I can properly source with blogs vs stores after the ban is lifted and we'll take it from there. I'm not here to battle anyone. I'm just an avid fan of dance music and that's how I got into this. I started writing about dj's, remixers/producers over the years for different hype machine blogs and it turned into a job on top of a hobby and passion. I've stumbled across things Cash Cash related in my work as well as in the field at places such as Ultra & WMC Miami. The Electronic Dance scene is very community based which is what made me want to take some initiative on this page. I support these guys and feel their readers, fans, & researchers deserve relevance in the group's wiki page as I'm sure you do being the actual creator of it! Simple as that. We'll work together to keep this page an unbiased, factual, UP TO DATE ;-P, place to define the group. I think we can both agree our time debating genres could be better spent finding new recent facts and tid bits to enrich the page and not have it feel so dated.

Take care, ~ Laur — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre - Synthpop

Classifying Cash Cash using the word "Emo" is inappropriate, misleading, and incorrect. If one does their research on “Emo” they will find the type of bands it suits….For example (Taking Back Sunday, Jimmy Eat World, Senses Fail, Hawthorne Heights, etc) If you actually listen to Cash Cash’s early work you will find that it is nothing close to “Emo.” Their early releases were in the vein of electronica synth pop bands such as Hellogoodbye. Aside from actually listening to their early work...The sourced wikipedia pages pertaining to their early work, which are the releases in question, both list their early releases “Take It To The Floor” & “Cash Cash EP” as “synthpop” therefore should be the correct genre listed.

I’ve read the talk page thoroughly and have taken all the comments and statements into consideration. Believing “emo” deserves to be listed on their wikipedia page is absolutely wrong and indeed based on bias material therefore should not be respected in this article. It clearly does not suit Cash Cash in any way, shape, or form and needs to be removed. Again, it is a biased incorrect misrepresentation of Cash Cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So you've defined "emo" by giving a list of artists you believe fall under the term. The trouble with your list is, if you asked a hundred people what "emo" means, you will get a hundred different answers; the term is used by different people to refer to sets of different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, musical styles or attributes. The term has been used to describe, for better or worse, musicians as diverse as Orchid, Sunny Day Real Estate, Hey Mercedes, Fall Out Boy, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Black Veil Brides, Evanescence, and Death Cab For Cutie. What does "emo" mean, if it means all, or even many, of those things?

As Wikipedians, we don't know. What we've learned from these debates is that we cannot rely on one person's subjective interpretation of what something means; we must use reliable sources for what a term like "emo" means. "It's just wrong" is not sufficient justification for us to accept your opinion about what emo is; alternate definitions are not obviously wrong to others.

Now, as it happens, what "emo" means is not actually at issue here; the issue is what "emo-pop" means, which is not the same thing. ("emo" and "emo pop" are not totally independent of each other, no doubt, but perhaps "emo pop" is not synonymous with "emo" in the same way that, say, Celtic punk is not synonymous with Celtic music.) And, as it happens, there was a volley between (mostly anonymous) editors as to whether this term was appropriate to place here. I looked into the matter and found two major sources which described the band in these terms. Other bands similar in style to Cash Cash's earlier work and scene are also described in this way (Metro Station, the White Tie Affair, and Hellogoodbye - who, yes, are also referred to as emo-pop). You may make the case that some or all of these bands are also synthpop, but you have a harder case to make that they should not also be considered emo-pop, given that major press outlets have described them in this way.

You are a new editor and may not be familiar with the way content disputes are typically handled. It is not wise to remove reliable sources based on personal opinions, especially when there is extended debate already on the matter. Be aware that, in the absence of compelling reason to treat your removal differently from that of other previous attempts, the content may be swiftly restored. Chubbles (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Chubbles, your one statement helps explain my reasoning on changing “emopop” to “synthpop.” You stated, “The term has been used to describe, for better or worse..” In this case it’s for the worse and is borderline offensive and I’m going to further elaborate why in this response. First, Cash Cash was on the complete opposite side of the late emo movement which I’m very familiar with having worked on Warped Tour, Bamboozle, Taste Of Chaos, and Skate & Surf. The word “emo” stems from of the word “emotional.” Amazing bands like Dashboard Confessional, Jimmy Eat World, The Get Up Kids & Brand New greatly embraced the term. On the contrary, Cash Cash’s lyrical content along with instrumentation strayed far away from emo given their bubble gum lyrics and use of synthesizers. Their first single was called “Party In Your Bedroom.” The title alone is self explanatory of what this band was about during that era. The song is in the vein of Hellogoodbye. Another one of their earlier songs called “Red Cup” was in the vein of 3Oh!3. Both groups are listed on wikipedia as “synthpop,” which is the accurate way to describe the early formation of Cash Cash.

Regardless of it being worded ‘emo’ or ‘emo - pop’- When someone researches their wikipedia page and sees the word ‘emo’ anywhere they are left with the impression of dark, emotional, depressing, or deep lyrical content either paired with yelling, soft light vocals, or even screaming. That is what the word “emo” evokes to the majority of music listeners but that was not always the case. Emo started as a crystal clear term for awesome music that had turned into it’s own scene. Certain record labels like Drive Thru Records, Fueled By Ramen, Vagrant, Victory Records, etc slowly connected and intertwined the emo scene with the punk, hardcore, pop punk movements. What was left? A conglomerate of all the scenes with bands of all the various genres touring together and such. It eventually became so over saturated that towards the end of that era people started using the term “emo” to define bands that were hardcore screaming and singing about dark depressing issues / self inflicting actions in an overly dramatic way. Eventually some people learned to distinguish the difference and labeled the new genre “screamo” but this occurrence really ended up turning “emo” into a very confusing and misleading word. Aside from all that, Cash Cash clearly began as a jubilant synthpop / electronica act that did some tours with a few “emo” artists along with many other bands of different styles including rap, metal, rock, and even rnb; but that does not justify them to be listed as any of those genres. If that was the case then we could call them Hip Hop and Rap because they toured with Tyga.

My point is simple - Cash Cash was not emo in any way, shape, or form and it’s not fair to describe them using a term that evokes confusion and controversy as well as negative debate. Emopop is without a doubt incorrect and completely misleading to people researching Cash Cash. The best fitting genre to describe their early work is “synthpop” the way their early album wikipedia pages list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, what you've done here is describe to me one viewpoint about what emo is. It is not shared universally. The meaning of the term is disputed, and we cannot take your version of this history as gospel. We must look to what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do not call the band emo; they call it emo-pop, among other things. I do not have an objection to the band being described as synthpop, but I do have an objection to your removing emo-pop based on a negative personal interpretation you have of what emo means (you have made no attempt to define what emo-pop means). We must use the understanding that published works have employed. Chubbles (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling this group emo - pop is a complete and total contradiction especially given the wiki definition of emo pop which is “blending "youthful angst" with "slick production" and mainstream appeal, using "high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak." The group was known to have the complete opposite lyrical content making “pop” the only correct word in that phrase. Their early work was jubilant, bright, and filled with electronic synths, production, and keyboards, and vocoder talk box. Listing “emopop” is incorrect, bias, confusing, negative, and a total contradiction. After reading the talk page you will find that it was removed from Allmusic’s side bar most likely because editors saw the mistake and realized it was based off a biased review of the album that didn’t quite make sense with the group or their sound. I agree with the statements said on the talk page about wikipedia being a place of factual information and not opinion, promo, or critique; making it very obvious that the correct definition of their early sound is “synthpop,” as both wiki pages for their first two releases list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2point5ken (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion appears to have reached an impasse, and I am tired of being reverted. Instead, I have filed a dispute resolution request, which is available here. I hope that the dispute resolution process will help you see why I have argued as I have, and perhaps it will yield a conclusion satisfactory to all parties. Chubbles (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'll note here that anyone wishing to may comment on the dispute resolution page, and I encourage you to, in order that other Wikipedia editors can more clearly understand the rationale behind your edits. Chubbles (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Response to advertising flag made by user Chubbles + hard work I put into this article.

I spent a lot of time researching new factual information on the group. I’ve sourced and cited all my statements and have no idea why you would consider my additions to be promotional or advertising. What do you feel is being promoted or advertised here that I added? Before you start throwing flags up, If there’s something I added that you feel was worded incorrectly or promotional then please feel free talk to me about fixing it or rewording it. We can work together on it. I did my absolutely very best to make sure everything I added was in a cited/neutral encyclopedic manner.

All my edits were based on historical and educational information regarding the group’s existence and story. I actually cared enough to research new content and list it accordingly. I spent days and nights doing everything I could to make this page up to date and factual…I did very valuable things like creating new specialized sections to clean up and organize the content better. I added a lot of interesting touring history that nobody ever cared to look up and list. I added information about important releases that were either completely left out or were not given the proper if any attention.

I dug deep into their remix career and explained how it effected their recent success and sound, which are very important movements that were never addressed on this page or made available for researchers like myself….That being said, my original reason for editing this page was because I came to research some information on the group for a blog I was writing for to find this article in poor shape. I took it upon myself for the sake of the readers and the group to do what I could to change that and truly believe that I did it successfully. When I arrived on this page I read up top that it “may require a cleanup.” I’m confident in saying I did a wonderful job cleaning up and on top bought a ton of new shiny furniture to make the room look beautiful.

I combed the internet to find out technical gear and equipment they use. Is that what you feel is promotional?!? I got the idea from reading John Rzeznik’s wikipedia profile after adding content to this article regarding him. His page contains an equipment section that lets readers learn about the guitars and tunings he uses and so on. The same goes for Cash Cash. Electronic music producers and researchers love this type of information and deserve to learn about it through places such as wikipedia. It’s not promoting any program, microphone, or piece of gear as being the best or that one should buy or purchase something specific….. It’s simply stating that the group uses it. I don’t see what else you could claim is advertising here.

Most important, I made the article clearly show the transition the group went through over the years by sourcing different stepping stones along the way and making it timeline based. Another issue I fixed was that their label situation was very confusing and needed to be addressed and clarified. I solved it and made it very clear especially in the preface! I actually took initiative to make this page an up to date educational piece on Cash Cash so when researchers visit it they are actually reading some present day content given the group has done a lot in last couple years that should be spoken about. The prefetch/introduction statements I added now make it easy and efficient for researchers to learn relevant information from this article without having to dig through the whole thing given how long it is. I’ve seen this on numerous wiki pages for active artists and musicians that have in-depth careers and histories. I made sure it was absolutely perfect.

I’m very surprised you would find my work to be promotional or irrelevant. It’s actually very disheartening to hear that.

~ Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• also if you're having an issue with the production section I created where I listed equipment and software and think it's advertising, you're wrong...have a look at Zedd's page and you'll also find he has that same type of information listed. His page lists actual vst instruments, and plug ins he uses as well as his DAW. Music researchers find that type of information very educational so I don't know what your issue might be. Like I said, there's also an equipment list on John Rzeznik's page showing this is common practice. There should be no issues with having one on Cash Cash's page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 09:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am but one man, and must handle these issues one at a time. I will return to dealing with the promotional content of this page once I have resolved the genre dispute. Chubbles (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled upon your troubles since I'm currently monitoring DRN myself. I'll try to assist here some as well. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

New Section titled "Production / studio equipment, & software"

I decided to make a technical section of the page devoted to equipment, software, and gear Cash Cash uses given they are a producer group. I know engineers, djs, musicians, fans and people in the recording industry love to learn and research what other producers are currently using in their studio. I combed the internet and found as much sourced information as I possibly could. If anyone has additional info regarding their studio gear, ESPECIALLY plug ins, programs, and vst instruments, definitely help expand this section as the Dance community would find it very informative! Please note that content added pertaining to this subject must be properly sourced and cited or it will be removed. There should be no statements listed in this section that are based on "word of mouth" or speculation. <3 thanks

~ Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenCastellano (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Two concerns here.

1. Wikipedia is written for "general audiences", music tech-heads. A lot of that information, without any WP:WIKILINK or explanation, doesn't really mean much to the average person, it just looks like a lot of jargon.
2. I believe a lot of the time, this sort of info is included on the respective albums/EPs rather than here, and in smaller doses. That may be more appropriate. (ie, not a section, but rather, in a "Writing and recording" section, write something to the capacity of "Musician X chose to use equipment Y due to reason Z". Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just have a look at Zedd's page [12] and you'll also find he has that same type of information listed. His page lists actual vst instruments, and plug ins he uses as well as his DAW. Music researchers find that type of information very educational so I don't know what your issue might be. Like I said, there's also an equipment list on John Rzeznik's page showing this is common practice. There should be no issues with having one on Cash Cash's page. - Lauren

When writing articles, you want to use articles that have been made good articles or featured articles, because you know they have been reviewed in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Zedd is not especially in good shape or a good example. If look at something like Nine Inch Nails, a FA dealing with electronic music, you'll see no such section. Also, like I said, if it can't be understood by a random reader with no background knowledge on the topic, then it's not being written right. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"DAW" "Cubase" "Ableton" "Avantone Pro" "Mix Cubes" "CV12 Tube", "CR14 Ribbon" "CK4O Stereo Mic" -- All of these things are listed, without being defined or given a sense of significance. This is a problem. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

New Edits - Sergecross, Chubbles

I did not undo all of Sergecross's edits. I thanked him for some. Some of the edits he made weren't the best so I explained why on every single revert. I am not just doing things for the sake of doing them. Read my explanations guys. It's valid to keep them listed as producers & DJs. They tour the world as producer DJ's now so it's important people know they are Producers, DJs on top of playing the listed instruments. I left his edits on the eras and felt it was best to keep it consistent so I changed the most recent era to reflect. Chubbles, I don't understand your problem? I also reworded a sentence in the preface that I originally wrote! It was too focused on explaining the record label's history so I reworded it to be shorter and easier to read without having to cut any information out

- Lauren

Please, familiarize yourself some on how things are typically shown in the personnel section. As I was saying above, look at things like GAs and FAs. You'll see that "DJ" is a vague term that isn't typically found there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Serge, DJ is not a vague word. Come on now, let's be reasonable. You can not leave this information off this page.

Also nobody has responded to renaming "The Consequence" early years when it's clearly stated it was a previous band. This is getting a little out of control guys. Compromise. They are signed DJs on Big Beat Records. They are Producer DJs. Enough already!

Calm down, LaurenCastellano. Nothing is "getting out of hand". This is simple, calm discussion. Anyways, again, can you find a good or featured article that uses DJ in the personnel section? I'm not denying them "DJ status" or something, its just not a label that typically goes in band personnel sections. Also, "Early years" sections commonly discuss events prior to the band forming. See Pink Floyd, or Nirvana (band), for example. (Both "Featured Articles", the highest quality level of article on the website.) And at no point does it say they are the same band at all. Please keep in mind that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a fansite trying to reinforce the band's image desires. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Early third-party accounts of Cash Cash call The Consequence an earlier incarnation of the same band; certainly, several members are shared. I have consistently attempted to keep the article with this wording. Chubbles (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you guys are refusing to acknowledge the fact that they are now a professional international Producer/DJ group. They've always been producers but now instead of being a band they have evolved into electronic music DJs. They have been one of the most successful American DJ's to pop in 2014 with their smash single "Take Me Home." What are you guys not understanding here? USA today clearly mentions how they are now DJ's. Have a look over at I'm not here deleting the fact that they used to be a band and play instruments.....I'm adding to it because it's relevant and important now that they've had their biggest hit as a producer DJ trio similar to Swedish House Mafia! Check the source. I can't seem to understand why you guys will not accept that...this is mind blowing to me at this point. If you do some research you will see they are now DJs and there are plenty of DJ wiki pages out there so your argument is invalid. Be reasonable here...Also, if you google Cash Cash. "Record Producer" comes up!! have a look and see so we can most past this already I'm one of the few people on wiki trying to bring relevance to this article and you seem to be trying to curb it...I can't even fathom what could possibly be your intentions to do so...I can't think of one singe motive why two people are so against the world knowing that Cash Cash as of 2012, is 110% a Producer, DJ trio having released an arsenal of official remixes and been DJing clubs for the last 3 years. It's not hidden, it's not a secret, it's not an opinion. We are dealing with a band that once played instruments such as guitar and drums, etc fully transforming into a producer DJ group. Both must be acknowledged in a place like wikipedia. Researchers need to know this information about the group's status.

Have a look and see that they are currently booked by AM only which is one of the biggest US Booking agencies for DJs ...There are hundreds of pictures on instgram, twitter, Facebook, etc that show them blatantly DJing with Pioneer DJ equipment. They are also shown DJing in their currently video for "Take Me Home" as well having DJed at Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC) New York on May 24, 2014, which is one of the biggest DJ festivals in the United States...I'm sorry guys but I honestly can't even believe we're still having this debate...I'm almost at a total loss for words. I need some rest and I'm really hoping by tomorrow this issue will be at rest. I'm really not trying to be aggressive... It's just frustrating that I'm having to explain something so obvious, clear, and important. I hope you can understand that. <3

Maybe it would be less mindblowing if you actually read what I wrote? The part where I said "I'm not challenging whether it not they DJ", but rather, I'm challenging whether or not it goes in the "members" section. Also, all the theatrics (I can't believe this etc etc) aren't getting you anywhere, so please take it easy with all that... Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)