Talk:Nifelheim

This article is rated Start-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 articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Black MetalWikipedia:WikiProject Black MetalTemplate:WikiProject Black MetalBlack Metal articles

	Metal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:::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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I bet what you call “notifying” will be full of lies again, calling me a sock puppet user, calling my fanzine a fake or whatever other pseudo-argument you used in the past. And didn’t you state you were done with both of us? --217/83 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I could state the same except I don’t feel sorry for you at all. --217/83 02:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can we get back to the matter at hand, of improving the article, please? —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

arbitrary break

Well, problem solved? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is this your justification for calling me a “POV-pushing” arsehole and a liar who came up with a “fake” interview etc.? Do you consider this to be mature and above my level? --217/83 03:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My £0.02

Right, it seems a bit ridiculous that Slayer is not being regarded as a

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)[reply]

^Thank you for your cents; some relevant stuff was said here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --217/83 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about...

I do have issues with the wording, its overly long and a bit cumbersome but something like below seems a bit more acceptable to me. We dont need to say they were involved in controversy, its in a controversy section. The reader can follow that. The quotes themselves are shocking enough if true to be understood as to why it would be a 'thing'.

During an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine in 2008, members of the band were quoted as making derogatory remarks about deceased Metallica bassist Cliff Burton as well as deceased Damageplan and Pantera founder Dimebag Darrell; stating "I laughed and pissed on a photo of him" and "Too bad Phil Anselmo didn't die too; that was probably the only time I wished Pantera had actually played", about Burton and Darrell respectively. In a statement released to Blabbermouth.net, the band later verified that they had approved the statements before the issue was published.

In a subsequent 2010 interview published in Metalion’s Slayer fanzine, Tyrant was quoted as saying that "this 'Dimebag/Burton' fuss that was spammed out as some 'statement' on the internet" disturbed him "more then [sic] ever", and that he is "not hating either of these musicians" nor did he intend to "put any disgrace upon their memory". Apparently due to the controversy, that interview has been their last to date.

To be honest I would like to get my hands on a scan of the Slayer mag - the above quotes seem a bit disjointed. It could mean they a)made the comments and meant them, b)made the comments but were taken out of context (not unusual for a journalist to ruthlessly write down exactly what someone says!) c)they are saying they didnt make them at all. I lean towards b) only because of the use of the word 'intend'. That implies regret of something that happened. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your proposal to be agreeable and support this version of edits. Additionally, I'm interested in seeing scans if they become available as well; I've actually tried to track them down myself. I'd say the same for the original Sweden Rock Magazine interview. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a scanner myself, sorry. As I don’t know if Only in death looked at the version history, this was my version of the wording (before registering), and this is one of the edits where I added “according to Blabbermouth” to avoid implying the former version was true and that from Slayer wasn’t. But was stated elsewhere (Wikiquette assistance) I would accept if “according to Slayer” was added to “my” paragraph although I trust Metalion 100 % and Blabbermouth 0 %. --217/83 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second diff is problematic because it says that 'according to blabbermouth' they made those comments. Blabbermouth was just reporting what Sweden Rock quoted them saying. Adding the 'according to' in that part of the sentence makes it seem questionable as to the fact the interview with Sweden Rock took place, not as I think you intended, that the comments in the interview itself were suspect. We know the interview was printed, we have a source for it - Sweden Rock itself. As it stands the current two paragraphs clearly state that both slayer and sweden rock are quoting Nifelheim directly, and that Blabbermouth received a confirmation that they 'approved' the interview in Sweden Rock. At this point it cant really be toned down/altered much further without bringing into question the validity of the sources themselves.

Regarding the slayer interview, as you have read it, are they actively denying they said the comments? Or are they 'playing them down'? Bear in mind no one is now currently questioning the validity of the source or its existence, but only the context in which it is used. If its an outright denial that can be added with the same source - there are perfectly logical reasons why sources would directly contradict each other at different times. Lawyers for one... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated I don’t trust Blabbermouth, here are two examples for that:

• Tartarean Desire webzine’s reaction to Blabbermouth’s news that Quorthon was found dead. Very interesting stuff really, here’s a little quote: “First of all, the news on the death of Quorthon appeared in a single web (www.blabbermouth.net) and the rest of places where the event could be read used that as a source. You can see everywhere the same stuff, Quorthon died at 39, at his apartment in Stockholm, etc. What if that web simply reverbed a rumour? Where´s the official confirmation? Well, one must take a look at Bathory official website (www.bathory.se). At the moment of writing these lines, it features “Hammerheart” song lyrics and puts a simple “In memory of Ace/Quorthon”. So what? What really happened? Where is the information about what took place exactly? They say he was Börje Forsberg´s son. Well, Quorthon always said in interviews that his name wasn´t Tomas Forsberg, nor he was Black Mark Production owner´s son. Other names as Pugh Rogefeldt are also false. But if all this was true, it seems we find that Börje Forsberg seems to be only 12 years older than Quorthon. An age too premature to be father, certainly... Black Mark Production website is also silent about all the topic. All in all: I don´t believe a word, call me incredulous or whatever you want, but I can´t trust a rumour and even less coming from a Roadrunner Records associated website.”
• The example I referred to in the past has to do with Jon Nödtveidt’s death (the one who played guitar on the first two Nifelheim albums and interviewed the band for Slayer once) and the link to this was recently posted on the German Metal portal’s talk page. The author basically says that the Swedish Expressen wrote that an open satanistbibel was found before Nödtveidt’s corpse (here’s the original Expressen article), but that people tend to call everything a “Satanic bible”, be it the the Liber AL vel Legis, the Necronomicon or the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses. Then Blabbermouth pretended that Expressen had written he was found with The Satanic Bible, which is bullshit since it is known that Nödtveidt and the MLO (the Satanic order he was a member of) despise LaVey and the Church of Satan. --217/83 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the second one you could probably chalk up to journalistic license. If a member of a satanic order is discovered dead with a book in front of them, unless the book is 'The Cat in the Hat' you can bet at least one paper will report it as a satanic bible. But again here Blabbermouth is basing their news on other (print) media. It can be argued they are not the best at fact-checking, and this is indeed my issue with them as I explained to Willamsburgland. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid on this. If we discounted every news organization that reported news without fact checking, we wouldn't have any sources considered reliable. One the first one, I don't understand what it's supposed to be saying. Did Blabbermout incorrectly report this guy's death, and he came out and said "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated", or is the author simply calling it into question? If it's the latter, it certainly doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed paragraph above seems perfectly reasonable to me, using both sets of sources (as they both pass

WP:OR to me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I am still uncomfortable with it; “members of the band were quoted as making derogatory remarks” could be read as if they really did (could, the following one is worth in my opinion), and “[i]n a statement released to Blabbermouth.net, the band later verified that they had approved the statements before the issue was published” implies the band verified those statements. This is exactly why I came up with “according to”. And I posted the stuff regarding the reliability because I think I have to if I keep on stating I don’t trust that site. I can update the biography. --217/83 18:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sweden Rock is a RS as far as we can have for what was printed in their magazine. If they have quoted a band saying something (regardless of if they actually said it) then we can only say what they printed. The reason why I left it as 'the band later verified they approved the statements' is because thats all it says. It doesnt say the band SAID those statements, it just says they approved the interview going to press. Which is why I omitted the 'made' part of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevant discussions that have taken place on my talk page as well as Only Deaths. I'm placing them here in chronological order with my remarks indented and OD's flush. I've included them as subscript to set them apart but it doesn't look great, so if anyone else has a beet idea to present this feel free to fix it.

So I'm going to go ahead and make the edits you proposed to the first paragraph; I'll wait on the other editor so he can share his input on the second (as well as the first if he wishes). Thanks for your input on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I did make one minor change that doesn't affect the tone of the passage - I identified Dimebag Darrell as the deceased guitarist of Patnera, the same way Burton is identified as the deceased bassist for Metallica. I think that makes sense from an encyclopedic standpoint since reader may not be familiar with him. If you don't agree with that, it might make sense just to remove anything but their names, and the reader can click on their articles for details. I think it makes sense to include it since the reason it was so offensive is because they're both dead, and the reason it came up was it was the anniversary of Burton's death.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No real objection from my part on the wording used, I was hoping H. would comment first, there is no need to hurry but its been a day after all. The reason I phrased the bit about Darrell in that manner was that while he might be more notable for founding Pantera, he was actually killed on stage with his subsequent band. But if anyone is interested thats on Darrell's related article page if they need more detail.

I agree with H. as to the reliability of Blabbermouth really, it seems less reliable in this instance than Slayer because they admit they published a previous statement 'from the band' with no actual confirmation it was from the band. Indeed the band deny it while blabbermouth say 'we dont believe you'. It doesnt fill me with confidence on the quality of their reporting. And on the other hand we have Slayer - which while admittedly is a fanzine, its a well-respected fanzine with a direct interview with the subjects from someone with a reputation in the area.

If H. he has any objections he is capable of making them on the talk page without resorting to attacking another editor. Likewise so are you. I think in both your cases you were talking at cross purposes slightly. I will say that if you are both capable of making your case clearly to a third party, you are capable of doing it to each other without getting overly aggressive. Neither of you come off well on the talk page in my opinion.

Leave the WQA as it is for now, If H. doesnt post there in 4 days it will archive automatically. If he gets back before then and he concurs do you want me to mark it resolved? Remember WQA is about making people work together to resolve their issues, not sanctions. I would suggest putting the past interactions behind you.Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On the Dimebag side, I'd tend to agree - perhaps I should simply add a brief mention and a link regarding the murder and his other band.

In regards to Blabbermouth, I just want to be clear on the course of events. On December 3rd Blabbermouth did a story about an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine, including comments the band made about Motley Crue as well as the two deceased artists in question. Blabbermouth was not the only source for that story. On December 7th, Blabbermouh reported a statement from someone claiming to be in the band that made light of the comments, stating they were a bad joke and not meant to offend. I expressed my concern to H early in our interaction that the verbiage, tone and language in this apparently fake statement was similar (to me, obviously) to what apparently appeared in Slayer Fazine. FInally, on December 8, Blabbermouth reported receiving another statement from the band clarifying that the earlier statement was fake, and that they meant and approved their statements regarding the deceased musicians. Now, while I've certainly heard accusations of bias on the part of blabbermouth, I've never seen annything indicating they've patently made things up... I feel like this would need to be cited in order to mention it.

That said, one of my issues has always been that I don't really understand what the band means to convey in their Slayer interview - are they denying that they ever made the first remarks in SWM, or just the later statements? If someone could clarify this, perhaps that could be added to the second paragraph (eg, the band later denied abc...), and if there's a verifiability source that mentions a specific instance of blabbermouth making something up, I'd be open to including that in the second paragraph as well.

In order to facilitate discussion with all parties involved, particularly when two of those parties aren't interested in interacting with one another directly, perhaps it makes most sense to move copies of our user talk page discussions to the article talk page? If you agree to this I can do so in chronological order, or you can do it with my consent. If you feel that each of us should put our own comments there, let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem from me if you want to refactor the above (and your comments on my page) into the Nifelheim talk page. I would say only the first two paragraphs are relevant however, as the rest is mainly concerning conduct.Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Black Metal Baz, I agree that the controversy section was a bit long given the length of the article, but it's certainly notable. I don't think the solution is to remove notable information but to expand the biography section, which seems to be happening. I've actually find quite a bit of information on the band during the course of this fiasco, so I'll be sure to contribute to the article as well whenever I have an hour or two to kill (I'm currently working on a rewrite to another, non black metal band). --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]