This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsongs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong Metal This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofheavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Black Sabbath, according to its article's lead, is a rock band. Yet for some reason, they're described here as a heavy metal band. I think this needs to be changed to rock.-Teh Thrasher (talk)18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell is there info about that? This is about the song Black Sabbath, not how the band changed their name.

RandySavageFTW (talk)16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no citation for the story of the origin of the song...recommend it be checked or removed.—Precedingunsigned comment added by199.76.155.217 (talk)03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is a myth & it SHOULD be removed & replaced with the correct origin, which is, simply Ozzy & Bill Ward wrote the song.— Precedingunsigned comment added by174.74.174.162 (talk)20:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found that one of my edits has been the object of expeditious deletion without any attempt of discussion or compromise. First I've been accused of OR despite the sources. Don't misunderstand me, I find it normal that anyone might raise doubts concerning any passage with respect to wikipedia's policy. I insist,I find it normal that any user be carefull that any passage complies with wikipedia's rules concerning source, verifiability and reliability. This is a healthy attitude and that's the way wikipedia works. I have no problem with that. But perhaps one can have the decency to discuss and express their doubts before deleting it expeditiously without any other why or wherefore.

But ok say the passage wasn't sufficiently sourced. I can hear that. But still it is possible to discuss about that before deleting.

Anyway, I've provided several other reliable sources including musicological/scholar one (Cooke), an ethnology documentary(Dunn) and a referential american guitar magazine(GW), not to mention the music encyclopaedias entries I've already used before to back up this passage.

But once again the passage is deleted expeditiously without any reason except an offensive message:"removed poorly written fluff". Yeah, my english is not my mother tongue, so yeah it's crappy, but I think anyone can understand it and anyone can fix it, that's the way wikipedia, no need to delete it. Come on, it's not like it was incomprehensible. I find it offensive because the relevance of my edit is challenged and bellitled just because of my language. This is probably an impression of mine, but I can't help feeling I'm discriminated because of my language and my origins. But somehow it seems just like an excuse to remove the passage for some ulterior motives. So what's wrong with this passage? Can't we just talk about it? I'm ready to consider any change, if something's wrong. I'm not stubborn, I'm not dogmatic, I'm open to dialogue. But considering this passage is sourced with reliable and authority sources I find it excessive to delete it like this.Fred D.Hunter (talk)17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you deleted it again, without discussing plus you're using offensive comments to bellitle me (seeWP:CIV concerning # Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice). Fine, I'm not going to engage myself into an edit war. I may sound like "a kid" but I'm bit more sensible than that and I know wikipedia's rules.Fred D.Hunter (talk)17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text has been added in a way that doesn't impair the quality of the article text (as it did previously). Another editor has also removed un-required text and corrected some formatting of the page. I support RichardBB's text and Enigmaman's edit to RichardBB's version. So theconsensus is now to leave the reference to the riff trivia as is.The Real Libs-speak politely20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are heard. But don't confuse majority with consensus. Consensus doesn't mean the majority's opinion prevails. Consensus doesn't mean imposing majority's solution. There is no consensus here since my point of view is disregarded and despised and there wasn't a single attempt of real discussion to meet a consensus. I'm ready to meet a real consensus but certainly not to let people decide arbitrary disregarding anything I have to say. Besides Enigmama didn't close the door : he suggested me to discuss on the question and collaborate with people to fix the english, if I want it back in", and Richard BB view doesn't seem to be as categorical as you on this topic. So please don't try to twist their exact views to serve your purpose and let them express and contradict me by themselves if they have to.

Wikipedia's consensus principle is not a way to impose your view. I'm ready to discuss and hear what's wrong with the passage.

The text has been added in a way that doesn't impair the quality of the article text (as it did previously).

I take this for a fallascious excuse. Certains of my previous edits had syntax problems, but users didn't deleted them, no they just help me to fix them.Fred D.Hunter (talk)20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back through the article history, I see no problem with the content being completely removed. It was a lot of text about something other than the song. The small portion that has been restored is fine because it relates the musical term directly back to the article subject. The rest was not needed at all. I won't comment on the quality of the writing as that subject is now moot.Fair Deal (talk)03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it should be mentioned that the creation of this song is claimed to be the moment Heavy Metal came together as a genre of its own. I'm not saying it is undisputed fact, but it is certainly a popular view which can be readily referenced by various magazines, films as well as interviews by later 80s performers.—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.83.185.118 (talk)22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a music sample to the infobox and it broke the track listing section, posting this here in hopes that someone knows how to fix it. The infobox template{{Infobox song}} naturally, is fully protected.
Mlpearc(powwow)(Review me !)16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, it needed |Misc= before the sample.J04n(talk page)22:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several important crowd sourced websites seem to classify this song/the album that contains it as doom metal (RateYourMusic, last.fm, Metal-Archives, and even AllMusicGuide). Shouldn't this be considered in the genre classification, especially when it shows several of the traits of the genre.— Precedingunsigned comment added by190.109.207.2 (talk)17:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Geezer Butler vision" origin regarding the composition of the lyrics is a myth. Episode 7 season 1 (i think) of "the Osbourne's want to believe", Jack Osbourne askes Ozzy Osbourne about the "Geezer Vision origin", to which Ozzy replies "No, Me & Bill (Ward, drummer) wrote that song...".— Precedingunsigned comment added by174.74.174.162 (talk)20:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class song articles
• Start-Class Heavy Metal articles
• WikiProject Metal articles