Williamsburgland (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Williamsburgland (talk | contribs) Changed formatting of link to other user's talk page |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
::That ''is'' how I phrased it on my talk page, you are referring to the wrong section (which doesn't surprise me). For my reply to the rest of this message, see my talk page. --[[User:H. 217.83|217]]<small>/[[User talk:H. 217.83|83]]</small> 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
::That ''is'' how I phrased it on my talk page, you are referring to the wrong section (which doesn't surprise me). For my reply to the rest of this message, see my talk page. --[[User:H. 217.83|217]]<small>/[[User talk:H. 217.83|83]]</small> 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:For other parties involved, this is the compromise I proposed on [ |
:For other parties involved, this is the compromise I proposed on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:H._217.83#Compromise.3F H's talk page], you can see the proposal as I initially made to him as well as variations of his phrasing there. At this point I am unable to directly interact with this user any longer without losing my temper again. |
||
:My proposal is that the paragraph covering Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth's referenced material stays as is. The second paragraph, containing Slayer Fanzine's content, which seems to contradict what Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth reported, would be edited as the above user, and anyone else with access to the source material sees fit. This user's is that he feels blabbermouth is not reliable (despite meeting the criteria set forth in WP: Reliability) and therefore should be treated as unreliable. I disagree with this, as I feel any reasonable person would. Therefore, my proposal as it stands is that the contradictory information will be included without OR or Op/Ed and the reader can make their own decision. --[[User:Williamsburgland|Williamsburgland]] ([[User talk:Williamsburgland|talk]]) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
:My proposal is that the paragraph covering Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth's referenced material stays as is. The second paragraph, containing Slayer Fanzine's content, which seems to contradict what Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth reported, would be edited as the above user, and anyone else with access to the source material sees fit. This user's is that he feels blabbermouth is not reliable (despite meeting the criteria set forth in WP: Reliability) and therefore should be treated as unreliable. I disagree with this, as I feel any reasonable person would. Therefore, my proposal as it stands is that the contradictory information will be included without OR or Op/Ed and the reader can make their own decision. --[[User:Williamsburgland|Williamsburgland]] ([[User talk:Williamsburgland|talk]]) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:19, 5 May 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Controversy
Instead of removing these lines because they seem contradictory or whatever the problem was, can the section be rewritten more neutrally? The sources used are all valid, if they seem to contradict each other then we simply report what each source says -- as Wikipedians we can't pass judgement or make our own conclusions about what is right or wrong. Any ideas on how to rewrite it? (I'm not fully informed about this topic myself.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how a self published fanzine which barely has a website (it has not been updated since 2002) that one needs to literally comb the web for is a valid reference source? The fact that it isn't verifiable and that it's self published tells me it does not meet reliability guidelines. Even if it did, there is no record whatsoever, anywhere of the interview that he keeps referencing. No evidence that it happened. Now, contract that with three separate articles from a respected, well known (it has a well developed entry on wikipedia) and generally trusted Heavy Metal Web Magazine, one of which cites a third party source for the original comments. Lastly, the content this user keeps trying to add (which is apparently dated 2010) looks a lot like a fake statement that the band demanded be retracted while reiterating the comments they'd made earlier.
- Please also contrast the way I'm communicating my point and the way he's communicating his. I have a logical argument back up by verifiable fact, and he has personal views laced with profanity and personal insults. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You accuse me of having made up that interview? That’s not civil either, nor is your ignorance of my information on that fanzine’s notability (referring to the fanzine itself, not only to the book); your “logical argument back up by verifiable fact” is a bad joke. And as you claim that this site is a “generally trusted Heavy Metal Web Magazine”, read Talk:Black metal#Melodic black metal. --217/83 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Insults don't make anyone's points any less valid, any serious civility issues can be taken to WP:WQA.
- If the interview was reprinted in a published book, as H.217 said, then it's a valid source. Whether the 'zine has a website or not is not really relevant. Now if the different sources say contradicting things, then we state which source says what and and write these things in a chronological order. You don't have the authority to state that someone fabricated an interview or whatever. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- :::Please also see this edit from September 6 where the editor replaces the original content with Weasel Words like "were said to have said". The fact is he doens't like the source (which, interestingly, isn't even where the original comments came from, they came from a magazine called Sweden Rock. I guess that's bullshit too? I guess little known self published fanzines are the only reliable sources for this stuff, huh? It's funny that no matter how much evidence I offer you ignore it and focus on defending your buddy here (who hasn't even bothered to join the discussion). When I'm 'uncivil' you're quick to reprimand, but when he does you immediately go on the defensive for him. It's not a question of authority, it's a question of verifiability, and there is not a single shred of evidence that this interview happened or what was said. As I've said (you haven't bothered to acknowledge) the content used in the interview bears a striking similarity to a fake statement from 2008.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you numerous times that Slayer is not a “little known self published” fanzine, but it has become obvious that you ignore whatever I write except the parts that might be uncivil. --217/83 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- What edit are you referring to? All of the sources mentioned are valid, and it's okay if they contradict each other. Nothing is 'bullshit' here. The interview is, according to H, in a published book. You have to take into consideration that the band itself isn't exactly popular so yeah, it's going to be difficult to find sufficient reliable sources. We have to make due with what we have. I 'bothered to acknowledge' what you said, with my last sentence above: you don't have the authority to state that the interview never happened. You don't know this. Given that Nifelheim isn't exactly a mainstream band, you're not going to have secondary evidence of every single interview. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- And as the user won’t believe me anyway, they can ask Sheep18 who owns the book thanks to me (see de:Benutzer Diskussion:H. 217.83#Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries). --217/83 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- :::Please also see this edit from September 6 where the editor replaces the original content with Weasel Words like "were said to have said". The fact is he doens't like the source (which, interestingly, isn't even where the original comments came from, they came from a magazine called Sweden Rock. I guess that's bullshit too? I guess little known self published fanzines are the only reliable sources for this stuff, huh? It's funny that no matter how much evidence I offer you ignore it and focus on defending your buddy here (who hasn't even bothered to join the discussion). When I'm 'uncivil' you're quick to reprimand, but when he does you immediately go on the defensive for him. It's not a question of authority, it's a question of verifiability, and there is not a single shred of evidence that this interview happened or what was said. As I've said (you haven't bothered to acknowledge) the content used in the interview bears a striking similarity to a fake statement from 2008.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I'm done with both of you. I'll wait to see what the administrators say.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so: how do we rewrite the section? Because honestly, by reading the section as it was, I still have no idea what happened or who claimed what and when. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- We wait until a decision is made by Admins on the noticeboard and a consensus is reached here. I'll also be notifying others that have been involved in this article in the past and the overall Metal project.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You have to be the single most juvenile creature I've ever had the dissatisfaction of coming across. I feel sorry for you.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Admins aren't an authority in content disputes, they just help keep things in line. There's no one we have to wait for, you were the one who removed sourced content and your edit is questioned by two other users. The current consensus is clear. Please tell me what you have against using all of the available sources? It really, really isn't a problem that they contradict each other. If we phrase things right (which is my aim right now, someone who understands the whole thing should rewrite the section so everyone else can understand as well), then the readers will be able to tell which source they should trust. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm notifying other users who have edited this page before per wikipedia's consensus building policy. You and your friend have made your positions clear, and now I kindly ask that you wait (per the 24 hour rule) for outside involvement.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well please do, the more the merrier.
- I wish the both of you would stop derailing with irrelevant stuff and your personal feelings, and actually make it clear WHAT HAPPENED. What is the controversy about? Who said what? When? And how should we write about it? Why are the sources problematic?
- (I don't have to wait for anything, I haven't made any edits to the article so the 24 hour rule is irrelevant. I *am* your only "outside involvement" right now, until someone else shows up to give a damn, but we're not required to wait for it.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Well, I don’t know what isn’t unclear for you, but I might try. Blabbermouth claims Nifelheim insulted the Pantera member Dimebag Darrell who had been killed and stated that the other well-known member Phil Anselmo should have been killed, too. And Nifelheim member Tyrant stated that this is a wrong statement “that was spammed out […] on the internet” and that he is “not hating either of these musicians” nor wants to “put any disgrace upon their memory”. Shortly put, according to Tyrant, that Blabbermouth post was spam not information. My edit also included the information that due to that controversy and people stamping Nifelheim as “non serious”, the band decided not to do any interviews anymore, the interview published in Slayer no. 20 being the band’s last one. This is redundant to my edit but I hope it helps you. --217/83 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've invited users who have contributed over the past year, as well as users who have had the distinct pleasure of working with 'H' in disputes to share their thoughts in gathering a consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS. It's okay to contact users who are knowledgeable about this topic, but it's hardly okay to contact users who you think will side with you for personal reasons. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, ridiculous! I DID select users who had edited here before and that had experience with H; none had any with me and I have no 'personal reason' to assume they'd side with me. Now you, on the other hand, it seems H cherry picked you for that very reason and it seems to be paying off well. It's great that you chimed in for him on the noticeboard as well. I look forward to seeing what others have to say on the subject.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nice way to state you stalked my edits and contacted everybody you might be able to use against me. --217/83 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't stalk anything much less your edits. I invited users that had interacted with you via your talk page, much like your friend up there and myself, and invited them to join - exactly like you did. To my knowledge I've never interacted with any of them, and have no reason to suspect they'll take my side or yours other than the fact that most people that interact with you seem to react in a way similar to how I do. Can you say the same for the guy you selected? Seems like he's doing an awful good job of running all over wikipedia to advocate for you.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You assume that these particular editors dislike H and will disagree with him, this is inappropriate canvassing by you. Contacting one editor whose opinion one trusts to get a third opinion on something is not inappropriate, in fact I do this myself all the time by turning to different admins for advice because they're experienced editors.
- I don't side with H.217: I think he's overly rude and besides that I hate metal bands. (And I'm not a 'guy'.) This dispute was brought to my attention and I'm trying to solve it -- I abide by policy and I don't care about this particular band or any particular users. I'm neutral. I just do what is right. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you, Williamsburgland, did only invite those I had conflicts with on my talk page and not Asarlaí, Backtable and Thesteve. I can guess why. I, on the other hand, only asked two users (there were others who worked with me, but Dark Prime is into Black Metal and I remember Jeraphine Gryphon as a person which seems to be able to moderate and mediate, so I asked them). --217/83 02:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can we get back to the matter at hand, of improving the article, please? —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- For the love of god, yes. Thank you for swinging by; perhaps it's time for cooler heads to prevail and for someone else to look at this. I'm done for the evening. I look forward to seeing what your thoughts are. --Williamsburgland (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can we get back to the matter at hand, of improving the article, please? —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't stalk anything much less your edits. I invited users that had interacted with you via your talk page, much like your friend up there and myself, and invited them to join - exactly like you did. To my knowledge I've never interacted with any of them, and have no reason to suspect they'll take my side or yours other than the fact that most people that interact with you seem to react in a way similar to how I do. Can you say the same for the guy you selected? Seems like he's doing an awful good job of running all over wikipedia to advocate for you.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nice way to state you stalked my edits and contacted everybody you might be able to use against me. --217/83 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again, ridiculous! I DID select users who had edited here before and that had experience with H; none had any with me and I have no 'personal reason' to assume they'd side with me. Now you, on the other hand, it seems H cherry picked you for that very reason and it seems to be paying off well. It's great that you chimed in for him on the noticeboard as well. I look forward to seeing what others have to say on the subject.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
arbitrary break
Well, problem solved? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Totally!! You sided with an abject asshole, didn't bother even considering my argument, and reverted my edits, leaving his fanzine as a trusted source and two other noted sources in question. Bang up job you did. I've, at the very least, removed his skeptical POV and unlinked the non existant articles on his fanzines.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I have no right to call your comments “bullshit” when that is what they are but you have the right to call me an “asshole” and a “worthless moron”? I won’t ask an administrator to block you but won’t mind if they do. And for the last fucking time, this article is not “non existant”; buy the fanzine or the book and see for yourself. --217/83 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So in order to validate this I have to buy a $78 book I don't give a shit about, but you absolutely, positively, will not accept verifiable information from freely available sources? Again, dealing with you has been the single worst experience of my entire wikipedian history. You're beyond juvenile and petulant and having been dragged down to your level, I feel bad for you, because it's been miserable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, we have no reason to assume that he's lying about what the source says. For the last time, quit with the personal attacks, they do not interest anyone else but yourselves. Please take a break for the day, both of you. And I'll actually read through the Blabbermouth articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike you, Williamsburgland, I accept the information’s presence. I added “according to Blabbermouth.net” because this is what Blabbermouth.net states (might falsify what was written in Sweden Rock, this wouldn’t be the first time) and because you depict this as truth whereas the interview I refer to implies the contrary. And as it doesn’t fit your world view, you claim it is fake and come up with various other ridiculous claims. You obviously never were above my level. --217/83 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I should be skeptical of one of the biggest metal publications on Earth, but take you right at your word? --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So in order to validate this I have to buy a $78 book I don't give a shit about, but you absolutely, positively, will not accept verifiable information from freely available sources? Again, dealing with you has been the single worst experience of my entire wikipedian history. You're beyond juvenile and petulant and having been dragged down to your level, I feel bad for you, because it's been miserable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- So I have no right to call your comments “bullshit” when that is what they are but you have the right to call me an “asshole” and a “worthless moron”? I won’t ask an administrator to block you but won’t mind if they do. And for the last fucking time, this article is not “non existant”; buy the fanzine or the book and see for yourself. --217/83 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
My £0.02
Right, it seems a bit ridiculous that Slayer is not being regarded as a WP:RS; it passes the criteria not because it is a respected underground publication (which it is, but that is irrelevant) but because its contents have been reprinted by the commercial, third-party Bazillion Books. Without this reprinting, fanzines and webzines fail WP:RS as WP:SPS, but that is not the case here. Blabbermouth also passes WP:RS, which leads to the current situation where two sources contradict each other, so we can maintain the status quo of reporting both versions. I have to question though - is it even really notable? The whole article needs a thorough expansion, which I might begin at the weekend if I get some free time! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Making my deposit of a few pennies here as well now although I have all but yet to see the actual article revisions in detail, I'd like to say that the Slayer fanzine is hardly a "little known" zine having had been referenced many times in prominent secondary sources and as Blackmetalbaz points out above, its contents havee been reprinted by Bazillion Books and therefore qualifies as a WP:RS. It is perfectly appropriate for it to be in the article. The eligibility of blabbermouth as a WP:RS on the other has in fact been disputed in the past but nevertheless bands and fans alike have acknowledged it as the de facto official site for heavy metal news and therefore passes. In any event it would not be a good idea to take blabbermouth for granted at the expense of other sources, as I would like to point that contradicting its "objective" reputation (as compared to other metal news outlets) it has been biased in time to time in what it publishes, from publishing frivolous articles about Gene Simmons and headlines such as "Varg Vikernes is free!" with an exclamation mark, to ostensible blacklisting of well-established bands such as Deicide and Gorgoroth at certain periods of time. As regards to the contradicting statements I'd like to point out that the virtue of blabbermouth as that it is there for wider dissemination of what should be prior published on something like an official website, for the sake of verifiability. Dark Prime (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
^Thank you for your cents; some relevant stuff was said here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I have to repeat what I already stated on my talk page: “Metalion knows the band personally and is, unlike Blabbermouth, reliable in the true sense of the word (in the sense of trustworthy, not what this project considers to be ‘reliable’”, which means I don’t doubt Blabbermouth passes the “reliable sources” guideline, but that site shouldn’t be generally trusted; I guess this was misunderstood at some point, but this is obviously not the reason why this controversy had such results. And besides the fact that parts of all Slayer issues were reprinted as a book, the final issue’s official distributor is Nuclear War Now! Productions (this label has no article here but is notable and has one on the German project). --217/83 15:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- That isn't quite how you phrased it on your talk page, but here was my response:
- Nope, it reflects what Sweden Rock Magazine, Blabbermouth and Slayer Zine reported without Op/Ed or OR. Since the interview in Slayer Zine seems to contradict what the other two sources reported, it's then up to the reader to come to their own conclusion. It's difficult to understand what you really want here because every one of your responses have been laced with personal attacks and swears, but if I'm to understand, you want to treat Sweden Rock and Blabbermouth (or just blabbermouth, I'm not sure) as unreliable sources, which they aren't. Even if the band says "We didn't say that", it's not enough to discount the other two sources. You could, on the other hand, put in the second paragraph something to the effect of "The band denied/contested these statements saying..." or something to that effect.
- I don't have any desire to continue being treated like this by you, and I'm not going to allow myself to be dragged into a cussing war again. I think what I've proposed is fair, and it reflects what Jeraphine proposed if I understand correctly. I don't have time right now, but I do plan to seek outside assistance and report any further violations of WP: Civility. I'm making an effort to resolve this amicably, I'd appreciate it if you would too.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- For other parties involved, this is the compromise I proposed on H's talk page, you can see the proposal as I initially made to him as well as variations of his phrasing there. At this point I am unable to directly interact with this user any longer without losing my temper again.
- My proposal is that the paragraph covering Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth's referenced material stays as is. The second paragraph, containing Slayer Fanzine's content, which seems to contradict what Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth reported, would be edited as the above user, and anyone else with access to the source material sees fit. This user's is that he feels blabbermouth is not reliable (despite meeting the criteria set forth in WP: Reliability) and therefore should be treated as unreliable. I disagree with this, as I feel any reasonable person would. Therefore, my proposal as it stands is that the contradictory information will be included without OR or Op/Ed and the reader can make their own decision. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)