This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bassnectar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Electronic music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Bassnectar: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-03-16  In progress: expand on personal life section - lots of details missing, possibly re-organize article once revised expand on early career and validate timeline for key events incorporate writeups for published releases and quotes from reviewers expand on the relevance of the "basshead" fan community, including family photos and live set recordings by fan base (if source-able and consider WP:WEIGHT) detail collaborations with other artists detail musical style and add references to ashton's key influences  Done: add max hattler lawsuit info revise intro paragraph to better summarize the project and overall importance expand on the various parts of the live set experience, including use of ableton live for mixing and integration of visuals vs standard DJ mix setup

Hi Pdubs.94, this doesn't need a discussion: this is WP:PEACOCK and not appropriate, whether or not it is cited. With a career spanning several decades, Bassnectar has gained recognition for his innovative sound design and energetic live performances is not encyclopedic in tone. Several decades can be be two or eighty and is vague. If it's a quote, it should be attributed and written as such, that Ashton is considered to be by some, it can't be presented as fact. kicking off a string of annual performances at the festival that would continue Kicking off is again not a formal tone. Would continue? No, use simple past tense. In 2005, Ashton signed with Madison House, a booking agency predominantly known at the time for its work with jam bands - Jam bands? So? What does that have to do with Ashton? UnlocktheOtherSide.com", which would act as a “centralized hub” for the community going forward - this is fluffy adspeak and there is no reason to mention the website at all. Bassnectar concerts is under the section 'Live performances' - do you think the general reader would somehow think it's about concerts in general? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revise the language as you see fit but i don't think removing it entirely is very collaborative. Let me give you my thoughts on each area you are seeing issues with:

• "Career spanning several decades...." this provides context on the career length. if you are unhappy with the phrasing i'm sure we can edit to make it more specific and less ambiguous.
• "Recognition for innovative sound design and live performances..." this is discussed at length in the cited source and is important context that ties into emphasizing his impact as an artist further in the lead. I can see the argument that this could be considered WP:PEACOCK but in the WP article, they provide suggestions on how to rephrase to comply with tone, so i think that we should try and do that vs removing entirely.
• "Kicking off..." I agree
• "Jam bands" provides some interesting context on Madison House's history as it demonstrates a departure from their prior work (Bassnectar =/= jam band) and offers an opportunity to link Jam Band and provide general info on MH since they have no WP article
• "Unlocktheotherside.com" I can see your point on adspeak and that's not the intent. The reason it's included is not to drive links to the website but to mark a significant change in the bassnectar timeline. I think it's worth noting since artists don't usually change their platform mid-career. Previously, much of the artist's content was on bassnectar.net and now it is on another website so that is the context i was trying to provide.
• "Bassnectar Concerts" I think this reads better vs just "Concerts" but it's not worth arguing about.

Pdubs.94 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that my recent revision to the lead section (in diff 1314847342) was reverted. I’d like to re-open discussion about including more explicit mention of the sexual misconduct allegations in the lead, because I believe they are a defining and enduring element of Bassnectar’s public legacy, and should not be relegated solely to the “Legal issues” section. Here is my rationale for why my edit is a legitimate improvement and adheres to Wikipedia's policy's.

What my edit added (per the diff)

From the diff view, these were the key additions or shifts in what I contributed:

1. In the lead, I added:

'In July 2020, Ashton announced he was stepping back from music following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct … In 2021, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual abuse and human trafficking, which he has denied. The allegations led to the suspension of his performances, the shuttering of his nonprofit Be Interactive, and a prolonged hiatus from public activity.” (This mirrors language already present in the article’s lead just before it was reverted)

2. I made sure the lead’s description aligns with the later “2020–present / Hiatus” career section, by putting the allegations into chronological context (i.e. stepping back in 2020, lawsuit filing in 2021, ongoing hiatus) rather than burying them deeper.

3. I removed or replaced any vague phrasing that suggested the allegations were a transient issue (e.g. “amid allegations”) and instead used phrasing that frames them as a long-term factor in his career narrative. (In the reverted version, the lead stops after discussing his music career, omitting mention of misconduct entirely.)

4. I preserved the balance of the lead by not asserting guilt, but noting that the allegations have had real consequences (suspension of performances, nonprofit closure, lawsuit) — all supported by reliable sources already in the article.

Why I believe the change is justified

1. The allegations are not incidental or fleeting

Since July 2020, these allegations have shaped how Bassnectar is publicly perceived, affected his activity, led to legal action, and triggered community responses (show cancellations, public statements by collaborators). Because of that, they have become a part of his lasting public narrative. Excluding them from the lead gives an incomplete view of who the artist is post-2020.

2. Consistency with WP:LEAD and major topics

Wikipedia’s lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the subject. If sexual misconduct allegations have been a dominant issue in the last five years of his public life, they merit inclusion in the lead.

3. Adherence to BLP policies

I used careful language, attributing claims (e.g. “allegations,” “filed suit”) and citing reliable sources (Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Billboard) that have covered the allegations in depth. There is no assertion that he is guilty outside of what sources support. That respects WP:BLP and WP:RS.

4. Reader utility and context

A reader coming to the Bassnectar page should see up front that a significant disruption to his career followed sexual misconduct allegations — that context helps readers understand his later hiatus, backlash, and cancellations. It’s not fair to relegate that to a later section only.

I will be re-introducing my previous edits as I see no justification for the reversion.

OctaviusBCS (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Support Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Octavius, some of your edits have caused citation reference errors - can you please help fix them? Pdubs.94 (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current “Legacy” section consists almost entirely of (a) highly technical descriptions of Bassnectar’s equipment and stage configuration, (b) detailed accounts of sound-system wattage, lighting rigs, and production logistics, and (c) uncritical praise of live-show intensity and charitable programs. Its core issues:

• WP:UNDUE — The section devotes extreme detail to controller brands, laptop sync methods, customized Ableton templates, and specific speaker manufacturers. None of these factors appear in independent secondary analyses of Bassnectar’s actual legacy; they instead resemble fan-oriented documentation or promotional material. Wikipedia should summarize *how independent sources* characterize legacy, not catalogue gear.

• WP:NOTPROMO — Much of the existing text presents Bassnectar’s production choices in a celebratory tone (“captivating,” “ever-increasing emphasis on high quality sound,” “hundreds of thousands of watts”), with minimal attribution. This resembles promotional copy and lacks critical distance.

• WP:NPOV — The current content is almost exclusively positive and omits the extensive post-2020 critical reassessment discussed in major publications. This creates a biased narrative that is incompatible with neutral-point-of-view requirements.

• WP:BLP — For living persons accused of serious misconduct, Wikipedia must not selectively highlight only favorable information. Because major reliable outlets (The Guardian, New York Times, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, KQED, Vice, NPR/WAMU) treat the 2020–2021 allegations and lawsuits as central to any modern evaluation of Bassnectar’s legacy, omitting those elements violates BLP by presenting an incomplete and misleading picture.

• WP:RS — Many of the existing citations are vendor announcements, company case studies, or EDM-scene blogs that do not independently analyze his cultural significance. These are not appropriate sources for claims about legacy.

• Structural redundancy — The existing section repeats information already present in the “Live performances” and “Activism” sections, instead of summarizing secondary-source evaluations of long-term influence (the purpose of a Legacy section).

For these reasons, the existing Legacy section does not meet encyclopedic standards and should be fully replaced.

---

The replacement section:

• Summarizes the evaluations made by independent, high-quality secondary sources.

Billboard, Rolling Stone, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, New York Times, Pitchfork, Vice, KQED, NPR/WAMU, and peer-reviewed journals are used exclusively. These outlets analyze Bassnectar’s influence, fan culture, and post-2020 controversies—exactly the topics reliable sources treat as central to his legacy.

• Establishes legacy using neutral summary rather than praise.

The revised section describes his influence on U.S. bass music and festival culture *as reported by journalists and scholars*. It avoids technical detail, live-show hyperbole, or subjective praise.

• Handles allegations in a BLP-compliant manner.

All allegations are:

• clearly labeled as allegations;
• attributed to specific sources;
• balanced with Ashton's stated denials;
• contextualized within broader industry reporting.

This satisfies WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP's requirement to treat accused persons fairly while presenting well-sourced information.

• Balances influence and controversy in proportion to coverage (WP:UNDUE).

Since post-2020 reassessment dominates recent secondary coverage of Bassnectar’s career, the section reflects that weighting. It does not exaggerate or suppress, but simply mirrors how reliable sources frame the topic.

• Avoids original research (WP:OR) and synthesis (WP:SYNTH).

Every statement is directly supported by at least one reliable source, with interpretative claims attributed to named journalists or publications, not Wikipedia’s editors.

• Provides an accurate, concise, and policy-aligned summary of his legacy.

The final section presents Bassnectar as:

• an influential figure in late-2000s/2010s U.S. bass music and festival culture; and
• a musician whose professional legacy is now widely described as contested following well-documented allegations and lawsuits.

This matches the consensus of independent coverage. OctaviusBCS (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Reverted I've reverted these changes as the edits now cause undue weight to the recent controversies. I don't agree that "Legacy" needs to cover the controversy that's already covered in the "Legal Issues" section - see Michael Jackson article for reference.

Generally I disagree on approach and find it a bit anti-collaborative to remove entire sections without opportunity to discuss in Talk. I plan to review your comments more thoroughly and prepare a longer response where we find the best way to revise based on your observations. Pdubs.94 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]