Talk:...And Justice for All (album)/Archive 3

Genre?

Arguments from IPs

You first notice Metallica shifting towards a heavier sound with Master of Puppets, and with ...And Justice for All creating a new sound with high gain thrash/ heavy metal sound that is repeated on the tracks 'Blackened' with the part after the opening riff and the chorus riff, 'Eye of the Beholder' with the slow, yet thrashy opening, and of course, on 'One' with the heavy chorus part before the 'machine gun' bridge. So if you really listen to the album carefully, you will notice that there is, as a matter of fact, a significant bit of heavy metal mixed in on the album. 117.195.49.12 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 9 May 2013.

That's great, but since genres are subjective labels, they should be attributed to the "experts" in the field, in this case being reputed critics or journalists (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reputed critics or journalists saying anything about the genre. And they might be misled, too, so the really decisive thing to do would be to ask them if there is any heavy metal in the album. And Allmusic is unreliable, with the Motorhead page having 'Metal' and 'Speed/Thrash Metal' being listed as seperate genres, and St Anger being listed as a Speed/Thrash Metal (and pop!) album 117.195.32.163 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliability doesn't apply to subjective labels/aesthetic opinions; these aren't reported facts. And Allmusic's sidebar is considered unreliable, because it rarely reflects what is actually written by the reviewer (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid). And I'm getting a GWAR vibe from the activity at this article. Just cite the most reputed source you can find and edit without any preconceived opinion of the article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just attacking me. I, as a matter of fact, am impartial towards Metallica, because ,just for instance, they're not on my list of the top THIRTY-FIVE bands, but still believe that there is a real need for accuracy. Now, when I see someone like you misinforming the 'flock', I feel it is my duty to, at the very least, make myself heard on this issue. And how is the particular genre(or type) of anything be subjective to opinion? You're redefining the mechanics of the universe! Now there are progressions in the whole album, but they are just like the progressions Megadeth makes in 'Holy Wars...The Punishment Due.' They are progressions that just fall short of the label 'Progressive Metal', because, if you will excuse the term, they are 'back and forth' progressions that are just two different sections, switching between one another or just one after another, and so are not counted as progressive metal. However, on the other hand, this album does contain true progressive moments, but they are either few and far between, or 'diluted', which means there is not enough strength in the progressions.

Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do about it now, as it has been locked. However I will continue to present my views, so take some time to consider them, which I do not think you are adequately doing.117.195.34.13 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way I understand that you can cite the theory of relativity, but the genre of '...And Justice for all' is relative to all the music that is not the same genre. That is all I have to say.117.195.34.13 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)117.195.34.13 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted, which means Wikipedia is still based on reputed third-party sources and not the opinions of editors. Since genres are terms describing music, they are subjective and not fact, so we cite the opinions of prominent writers in the field (music journalism, musicology, etc.) BTW, don't misspell what I wrote. And create an account if you intend to regularly edit, but use different IP addresses. Dan56 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. The misspelling was because I leaned on the keyboard, and something must have happened involving the arrow keys and the delete key. As for an account, that is something I shall have to discuss with my father. A pity.117.195.60.29 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this silly issue continues to occur, as another editor is ignoring the "common interpretation" of this album's music as cited in the "music and lyrics" section. "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Please take this into consideration, SickBehemoth, rather than reintroducing this change, especially when this section is supposed to be reflected in the infobox ("thrash is too demeaning a term", "gave way to weirdly produced progressive metal on 1988's ...And Justice for All"). Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Вик's argument

My opinion - it should be „thrash“ only. Why? Because of these sources which all are professional reviews: Ultimate Guitar, Sputnik Music and Musicchicken.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And please archive the past conversations, the current page is way too long.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't use self-published sources such as group blogs, or user-submitted reviews from Sputnikmusic (WP:ALBUM/REVSITES). And they pale in comparison to the sources currently used in the article. Use sources that explain their side, not just make it. Dan56 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The summary on the top is done by Sputnik employees, not by the regular users. As for the remaining two, I see you accept them as reliable. The genre issue is because the ordinary reader associates progressive metal with bands such as Dream Theater, whose songs has nothing in common with the music on this album. The genre in the info box (which is part of the article's introduction) is to give the reader initial knowledge about the nature of the music. The progressiveness can be entirely explained in the paragraph about the musical structure and lyrics, but as for the genre in total it is thrash metal clearly. You can see on every web site that deals with this topic that this is a thrash metal album with progressive song structures, not a progressive metal album. I think that's crystal clear.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I guess you've noticed that four of the songs on the album have articles of their own. All of the singles are listed as thrash metal (check ...And Justice for All, Eye of the Beholder, One and Harvester of Sorrow). Then we go with songs such as „Blackened“ and „To Live Is to Die“, which both display thrash. And finally we got „The Shortest Straw“, „The Frayed Ends of Sanity“ and „Dyers Eve“ which are thrashier than those above mentioned. The result is 9:0 in favor of thrash metal as the proper genre.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly summarizing the user review (what shows the authorship of the one line summary anyway?). Ultimateguitar is a group blog, and it's not considered reliable because of WP:SPS and more clearly at WP:ALBUM/REVSITES#Non-professional reviews. I haven't noticed the song articles, all of which are either poorly sourced or lack sources altogether. The majority of sources in this article support "progressive metal", as cited in the "Music and lyrics" section. There's actually one review by Rolling Stone's Michael Azerrad, who disputes "thrash" as this album's genre, so what's the problem? If I wanted to, I might be able to get a consensus to remove "thrash metal" from the infobox altogether, since the quote from Sputnikmusic's Mike Stagno is a minority viewpoint, whereas Azerrad is a more reputed journalist from a reputed magazine. All those editors pushing for "thrash" in this article should appreciate the article as is. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And again, like those before you, you overlooked WP:SUBJECTIVE: articles on a creative work should include interpretations from professional critiques and notable individuals holding the interpretation. I don't know how you found your sources, but the most reliable sources on the topic should be researched (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) After searching GoogleNews archives and GoogleBooks for both "thrash metal" and "progressive metal" (along with the album title), I found most referring to the latter genre. Feel free to use those search engines yourself; they'll help filter out any questionable sources. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No need for repeating the Wiki principles over and over again. I've got little more than 10.000 edits and several features articles on the Macedonian language edition, so I'm not a beginner. Back to the topic. There is no line in the book you cite that says AJFA is a progressive metal album. It says gave way to weirdly produced progressive metal which means thrash metal songs with progressive production and structure. That's all. Take the biography Enter Night by Mick Wall - it says almost the same (thrash metal with unusual production for an album of that genre). If you carefully read the reviews, all of them say „thrash metal band Metallica at the pinnacle of their progressive years“. Which part you do not understand?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you interpret "progressive metal on 1988's ...And Justice for All" as "thrash metal songs with unusual production for..."? What reviews? If you're not a beginner, why did you cite questionable review sources and are not giving much weight to the Azerrad quote? Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was citing the second book when I wrote the sentence in the brackets. As for the Azerrad quote read bellow.

I wasn't referring to the bracketed statement, I was referring to this: "It says gave way to weirdly produced progressive metal which means thrash metal songs with progressive production and structure." Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I do get your point, but you can't get mine. AJFA is thrash „with progressive metal in it“ (as the author said). Are you aware that you basically claim that Justice is progressive metal album consisted of nine thrash metal tracks? And by the way, why did you reverted my edit on the single's page of the same name? If you can find better source go ahead and add it. But you should know that aren't professional reviews for that one because it's a promo single. Till then the proper thing to do is the current source to remain.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did the author of the book you're citing say this? (Can't find it here) And when did I "claim that Justice is progressive metal album consisted of..."? And didn't I leave an edit summary explaining my previous revert? NO user-generated content. Never. And it seems this is all stemming from your own point of view, seeing as how you only wrote "thrash metal" when the Discogs source you previously cited shows "rock" as the genre and "thrash" and "heavy metal" as the styles. Let's not forget that the other entries for that song at Discogs ([1], [2]) would make it 2:1 against "thrash" and for rock and heavy metal. Selective and poorly sourced. Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I read that book few months ago and then returned it to the library. I think somewhere between pages 200-250 the author wrote something in that direction. And yes, you didn't actually said the statement in quotes, but that's how it turns out to be. And for the other article, the creator of the page himself put „thrash metal“ as a genre, so you need to assume good faith. If you claim it to be prog metal, you'll have to find adequate sources, but good luck finding them because such a thing/review doesn't exist on the Internet.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well you can read the book again at GoogleBooks, which doesn't show what you're claiming the author wrote. And I don't see the relevance of who created the article or what assuming good faith has to do with any of this. The creator of the article would still need to cite a source, otherwise "thrash" can/will be removed. There's no ownership here; they still need to prove it (WP:BURDEN), although the article history shows the first revision of the article not having any genre, so who cares. BTW, found it :) Dan56 (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the review which said …And Justice For All to stand as the insurmountable pinnacle of progressive thrash metal. That means their progressiveness started as early as Ride the Lightning was released. And please tell me the similarities between „...And Justice for All (song)“ and „Wait for Sleep“.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

iTunes? You're reaching. Dan56 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All right then. I see we are nowhere near compromise, so I'll have to ask some more skillful and experienced user for mediation. It's sad that some stubborn person is trying to change the identity of the articles.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope they're not from the Macedonian edition LOL. And excuse me for improving and expanding a couple of trash (not thrash), poorly sourced, fancrufted articles. Dan56 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They are English speakers whose edits are strictly in this field. No need for excuses, it's just providing third side editor who has greater knowledge in these issues.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic ("LOL") But what do I know? I only wrote like 40 GA album articles and five FA articles 9_9 Dan56 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that your awarded articles are mostly about funk and hip hop albums, so I doubt you know that much in heavy metal music. By the way, I regularly listen to Dream Theater (prog band) and Metallica (thrash band) and to tell you my friend there aren't much musical elements they mutually share (except for having two guitars, bass and drum set). And don't find yourself offended by my plea for mediation since we can not move a millimeter forward.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess that would make me more objective, especially when I've been relying on reliable sources solely and not referring to my personal knowledge and opinions of music (Wikipedia:GWAR#Behavior pattern and motivations). Listening to music does not make us experts, so your knowledge of heavy metal is equal to mine as far as Wikipedia should be concerned. And I've tried soliciting comments myself. Not that I'm a bit worried. There's no chance "Thrash metal" will be put ahead in the infobox, considering the prominence of the cited viewpoints. Dan56 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's good to see you're making efforts to solve this unnecessary dispute. Hope it won't take long for the guys to share their thoughts with us.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible solutions

Meanwhile, I'll lay out the possible solutions for these two problems. For the album can either stand:

1. Thrash metal (only), with the explanation as it is bellow the intro.
2. Progressive thrash metal, which I doubt you would accept since that style is not genre itself.
3. Thrash/progressive or Progressive/thrash, which can be discussed below which order is the best.
4. Progressive metal (only), for which i stand against because it's totally misleading the reader and it's nebulosity.

The same can go with the single. Please make your comment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a problem. I'm fine with the way this aspect of the article currently is. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is still on you. Dan56 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Having read the discussion and article, I think both thrash metal and progressive metal should be listed in the infobox. As for which order they are listed, I don't care and I don't think it matters. I've always found it annoying when editors start warring over the order genres appear in the infobox. It doesn't mean the album is more of one genre than the other because it is listed first. The1337gamer (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the one (reliable) source supporting thrash ([3]) is cited in the music and lyrics section, but is subsequently refuted by the Azerrod quote. It is also a minority viewpoint among the writers who say otherwise ([4], [5], [6]), so if anything, "thrash" should be removed if WP:NPOV is considered. Not that I proposed anything like that. As you can see, the other dude had the nerve to suggest "progressive metal" should be removed, contrary to the majority of the critics' interpretations. Dan56 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the single. Dan is constantly labeling it as „progressive“. And must say I'm little upset by his disparaging behavior.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: my first edit there was a citation-needed tag ([7]), then I reverted your addition of a clearly unreliable source ([8]), then I actually added verifiable information to a poorly sourced article ([9]), after you recommended I find a better source in your comment here. In conclusion, you're not being truthful. Dan56 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you are abusing your privileges by editing articles for which serious debate is ongoing. That negative phenomena is called bureaucracy. Secondly, if you consider yourself that well-informed, you wouldn't have trouble providing answers for the following questions:

• If AJFA is progressive, why don't you add that sub-genre into the Metallica article (info-box)?
  • If AFJA isn't progressive, why don't you remove it? Oh, wait... because it's supported by reliable sources! Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why the album isn't mentioned in the article about prog metal? It was released in 1988 and it would serve as one of the earliest releases in that genre?
  • Is this the talk page for progressive metal? Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• How is Metallica part of the Big Four of Thrash when the band (according to you) only released two pure thrash metal albums?
  • I don't recall ever saying that. Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• I haven't heard/read any prog metal band to cite Metallica's music as their main influence, so feel free to list some.
  • Or what? Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• I can't see that album on this list or any other familiar. Please explain the paradox how the best selling progressive metal album of all time hasn't been listed on any of these?
  • You should ask Amazon.com shopper Orlando "mcmachete", who compiled your first list, and the administrator of your other blog. Do you still not know the difference between a reliable source and a blog? Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all for now. And my humblest approval for naming the genre trash.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're hardly humble. In fact, you're showing signs of a genre warrior. No different than the IPs above, just more verbose and throwing curveball questions because you know you can't win this argument in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You should read WP:TRUTH. Dan56 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Me being a genre warrior? You've got to be kidding me. At no time I said your sources aren't reliable, at no time I said Metallica is my favorite band, at no time I said I know what's the best description (I even asked for mediation). I'm not a puppet of another editor, so you should remove your statement.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My above reference would imply your sources aren't reliable. Dan56 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you invite at least two active admins who are familiar with these topics to honor us with their respective opinion? It seems the ones you invited earlier aren't interested to speed up this boring process.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISENGAGE. Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let us not forget that no one of us decides who wins or doesn't on this topic. That my mate, should the admins resolve.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, bro. There's no process. You cannot find a reliable source to support the unconstructive change you want to make, so you want to solicit comments in hopes that someone will agree with it. And technically, there's not even a content dispute here; you've made one edit to this article, which was reverted by the experienced editor you asked to comment here, not by me. Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And tell me what's cited in the first paragraph here. Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. But as for the song, you haven't provided source which says it isn't thrash. So i propose both genres to be in the box.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't provided a source that says it isn't disco either. Should we add that too? Dan56 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And why don't you mark the source I added as retrieved? I'm 100% sure it's reliable.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your reference to Discogs a while ago ([10]). Dan56 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about this (see the second overall reference).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw it. It's a fansite wiki; open wikis are self-published sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally got one that says it's not progressive metal. See for yourself. An article made by Cosmo Lee. What you say on that?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop fishing for any piece of shit source that supports your point of view. This is an encyclopedia whose articles are supposed to be based on reliable third-party sources, not BLOGS!!! If you wont learn the difference, I'm through talking to you. READ Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. Dan56 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no. It's reliable and other articles such as grindcore, deathcore, Animosity (band), Exhumed (band) and 50 more cite him.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid in content disputes. Why are you focusing on poorly sourced/written Wikipedia articles instead of the guidelines I keep citing? Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Found the whole book here. Below are some extracts that substantiate my words. All from chapter 10.

• ... the track sequencing still followed the same template as Ride and Master, beginning with a rallying-call opener, in this case ‘Blackened’;
• The rest of the album – with one notable exception – continued along the same dark, tangled path. Again, it’s not that tracks such as ‘The Shortest Straw’ or ‘The Frayed Ends of Sanity’ are outright bad – both typically brutish rockers that would have taken pride of place on Ride, perhaps – but after the sophisticated production and arrangements on Master and the warm, all-inclusive atmosphere of Garage Days, more was now expected of Metallica.
• Similarly, the next track fed to US radio, although not physically released as a single, ‘Eye of the Beholder’ – coming straight after the title track on the album, it sounded simply like more of the same, its saving grace on radio that its faded-in staccato rhythm was attention-grabbing enough to sustain the listener through the first couple of minutes before its droning repetitiveness finally zeroed you out.
• ‘One’ was both nightmare writ large and musically transcendent journey. It was a thrash metal Tommy in miniature, depicting the protagonist’s descent into living hell, ...

The extracts that substantiate his words:

• Tellingly, the only other track after ‘One’ that just about manages to transcend its laboured surrounds is the album’s shortest, ‘Dyer’s Eve’, its speedy razor-cut riff a moment of breathe-out relief after the tortuous slabs of prog-metal that precede it.
• Certainly David Ellefson of Megadeth wouldn’t disagree: ‘Because it was so progressive, it was complicated.

From the book Enter Night by Mick Wall (the guy also writes biographies for Led Zeppelin, Guns N' Roses, Nirvana, Bon Jovi and Iron Maiden among others). Glad to finally settle it down.

The only thing we can say with certainty on this subject is that nothing resembling consensus has been reached. Dan56 simply decided that the album is progressive metal. This is not how consensus works and Dan56 should know that. The progressive metal genre addition should not be allowed to stand on the basis that the consensus required to allow to stand cannot be reached. I, for the record, am not in favor of allowing this genre addition to stand. If Dan56 is determined to get his way, we can turn to the presiding administrator who can make the consensus decision, Dan56 does not have that authority on his own. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 14:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The removal of the genre was the proposal, not the addition, and was based on point-of-view based arguments made in spite of what was and still is clearly cited in the article. Cherrypicking one of the two and erroneously claiming that it's unsourced looks like fancruft, Chaka, especially since this discussion has been done for months and the article has since passed GA nomination (where something such as unsourced material would have been addressed). Read the article, both are cited. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Commonly results in" does not mean it's written in stone. There's no firm rule on that. I would just like to see more support for it than a single editor. At any rate, it's probably not worth the effort. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 02:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the burden was on those IPs and Вик to make a valid argument as to why something that is supported by several sources and duly noted in the article's body should be removed. There was no burden on me to make an argument to keep material I added when neither genres in that past were sourced. Dan56 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Something outside of this discussion. Can I delete my quotes above? I didn't know how this project was established and I was misguided by my personal beliefs. And really sorry to Dan56 if he was offended by me at the time.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute (1st attempt)

• Diffs: [11][12]

User:Вик Ретлхед insists on highlighting an out-of-context, cherry-picked quote an author ("Glenn Pillsbury") who lacks notability/reliability (not "authoritative in relation to the subject" nor a "notable individual holding that interpretation", nor covered by any reliable independent sources to gauge his notability), even though the article is full of interpretations and quotes from critics and writers that are not questionable sources. I've responded to his queries at my talk page by citing the relevant guidelines, although that it ultimately led to his responding with a dubious warning template, accusing me of "gaming the system" ([13]), and claiming that verifiable material belongs in Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially undue weight, and this material should probably be omitted, as it offers nothing beyond an author's opinion on his own, original comparison between this article's topic and an album that is irrelevant to this article. Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you patiently read the discussion above, my talking archives his talking archive and our latest arguing you should be able to judge yourself. He was first calling me genre warrior, than labeling me cherry-picker and is persistently being obsessed with all of my edits. Also sending me five warnings for blocking my account and constantly reverting my edits. He isn't showing any sings of cooperation and wasn't willing to accept mediation. The rest of the dispute you can find in the links and read from first hand.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute (2nd attempt)

All I have to say I said it above. The truth is on my side and I'm not afraid to dig at the past disputes. I'm not playing innocent victim like him, nor I'm harassing new enthusiastic editors by gaming the rules. If you do not read the past conversation from top to bottom you wouldn't be in position to judge correctly. That's all.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Focus on article content, not on editor conduct", new enthusiastic editor. You can always harass me at my talk page instead of here. LOL Dan56 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you focus on this in the first place? Like one old proverb says: Со свој камен по своја глава.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute

• Diffs: [14][15] P.S. Stick to commenting on the content.

User:Вик Ретлхед insists on highlighting an out-of-context, cherry-picked quote an author ("Glenn Pillsbury") who lacks notability/reliability (not "authoritative in relation to the subject" nor a "notable individual holding that interpretation", nor covered by any reliable independent sources to gauge his notability), even though the article is full of interpretations and quotes from critics and writers that are not questionable sources. I've responded to his queries at my talk page by citing the relevant guidelines, although that it ultimately led to his responding with a dubious warning template, accusing me of "gaming the system" ([16]), and claiming that verifiable material belongs in Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially undue weight, and this material should probably be omitted, as it offers nothing beyond an author's opinion on his own, original comparison between this article's topic and an album that is irrelevant to this article. Dan56 (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any particular value in the author's comparison. If anything, including it strikes me as a bit WP:COATRACK in that it seeks to highlight a subject (Megadeth's Rust in Peace album) not directly related to the article's subject. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Guess I'm not crazy after all. LOL Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to miss the Spurs game, so I'm leaving for now. Again don't hide the problems in the past.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WTF is this guy talking about? Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the album that bothers him, it's the "thrash metal" term being used.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And how old are you if I may know?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the long genre discussion above. I have to agree that the particular source does not directly link the genre proposed to the article's subject. I agree with GabeMc that the lack of a clear link to the subject is resulting in a POV issue. The source and related material should be omitted. More importantly please remain civil in this discussion and stick to discussing the content in question rather than slinging barbs. Good luck. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Having read through the thread & looked up the source book of the edit in question, I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. Considering the wealth of reliable sources, the lack of another cite that compares the two albums screams of undue weight to me. Echoing Flat Out, please keep disputes free of personal attacks. EBY (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please look his reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Pillsbury is authoritative professor and musicologist, which automatically makes him reliable. If the quote is out of context you can remove Rust in Peace, but surely not the whole quote since it's connected to the topic.

If I "was attacking him" with one warning note (read top of discussion), what the hell was he doing when sending me four warning notes? If he "responded to my queries at his talk page by citing the relevant guidelines" (read top) why is he deleting the conversations with me? He is citing the Wiki policies only when they support his standing point, and always neglects them when I'm right. If that's not gaming the system then I don't know what is.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a POV discussion, stick to discussions on content. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When Danny is attacking me he is sticking to the content, but when I defend myself I'm not? What is he saying in the first post?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to argue do it somewhere else. This is not a forum. You have both been asked to discuss content. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already came with a proposal which Danny reverted. See.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at this time is that the source is not reliable Flat Out let's discuss it 11:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

To wrap the discussion. Are you saying that the book Damage Incorporated: Metallica and the Production of Musical Identity by Glenn Pillsbury can not be used in any section of this article regardless of what sentence is being cited?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is citing a source and picking the parts that support an argument but ignoring those parts that don't. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. Point out which quote from the book is supposed to be included here?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the responsibility of the editor citing the reference. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely removed the controversial sentence but used the same source in describing the lyrics. If there is no one who oppose my last edits, I think we can close the discussion.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dispute Closed Flat Out let's discuss it

Offline sources

An easy way to verify offline book sources is by typing the quote in GoogleBooks, which should show you a preview. I haven't been to a library in ages because of this accessibility, and frankly if you cant find at least a bit to verify online, I wouldn't trust anyone just because they claim to have the book on them. Cheers!

• "way to weirdly produced progressive metal"
• Vale a pena lembrar que um dos discos clássicos da tendência do metal progressivo é o álbum ... And Justice for All (1988)
• "There's no blur, no mess, not even at peak velocity,"

Dan56 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The only reason why I raised this issue was that a direct link to the cited books would be more useful. But since their full editions are not available on Google Books, I guess those "verify" templates are redundant.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Can McIvler's quote from this link be incorporated into the "Music" section?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Which quote? Do you mean his quoting of the producer, Rasmussen? Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, about the producer.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This one? "They actually paid me to take a month's vacation at the start of the..." Would seem more relevant to "Production and recording", tho, no? Dan56 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes again.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Dan56 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

On a second thought, I think that quote will better suit the Black album, especially the recording section. I'll get with that one as soon as I finish Master of Puppets. Bye.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)