Talk:Deftones/Archive 6

Nu metal again

This is an attempt to resolve the coflict that stems around the genre nu metal in the infobox of the band Deftones. I oppose to it's adition because is a genre that is constantly dismissed by music critics, and the band themselves disagrees with it. Here is the support to my statement: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Now here's a problem, one week ago the editor named Hrz did a word search based in the tags "Deftones" and "Nu metal" and brought some sources, however, he clearly stated that he haven't read the sources that he found, and that, once that has been done, these would be weighted against the ones that refutes the genre, however that never happened, and one week later he comes back adding nu metal pretending that nothing happened, so Hrz or anybody involved in the discussion come and give their input about the topic, instead of doing precary edits that clearly go against wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Trascendence (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is a horribly uncivil comment. I am well aware of what a consensus is.

If you'll go back and re-read the last discussion (and probably all the others on the same issue) you'll notice there were concerns raised about the quality of your sources, not the quantity. Neither the quantity nor the quality of sources are in favor of removing nu-metal. On the issue of quantity, in one of the earlier discussions I demonstrated that hundreds of news sources associated Deftones with nu-metal. You have only provided a small handful. On the issue of quality, the sources currently in this article supporting nu-metal are all published books. Generally, books have a reputation for fact-checking accuracy. Fact-checking accuracy is an important part of identifying reliable sources. Reviews are the opinion of one writer that are not checked by the publication before printing. A reviewer can literally say whatever he wants. A reviewer could say Deftones are actually a banana, but that wouldn't make it true. The four book sources greatly outweigh the reviews you have provided. I might even go so far as to say these four book sources would greatly outweigh 40 reviews. What we're weighing here is verifiable fact versus opinion, in which verifiable fact will win every time.

What you are suggesting is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Reviews are not exceptional sources, especially when weighed against several published books.

In the message you left on my talk page, you included a quote from WP:CON that said a final decision must incorporate wiki policies and guidelines. Removing nu-metal does not seem to be compliant with wiki policies and guidelines. I have just demonstrated why it doesn't here, and it has been beaten to death in the archives. You're more than welcome to open up a dispute resolution, but I honestly don't see it going in favor of removing nu-metal. However, if that is what will finally put the nail in this coffin, then maybe it should be done. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I really thought you didn't knew what consensus was, that's why i mentioned it in your talkpage. The credibility of my sources was something related to the sources I presented to support post-metal, the credibility of the sources that i'm using to remove nu metal it's allright and has never been questioned. There is no standard in wikipeda to know if a book source weights what 10 reviews does, anyway, we aren't talking of a book that is all about Deftones, the books mentioned here only uses 1/4 of a page to superficialy talk about them, same goes to using word filters to prove anything, because we don't know, from all the results you got, how many refers to Deftones beng nu metal, and how many says that Deftones have never been nu metal. I weren't talking about bring this to the dispute resolution board (thing that has been done efore and didn't worked), i was doing reference to the lineaments of the policy itself. Trascendence (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that you removed nu metal without first gaining any consensus from editors (WP:SILENT clearly states at the top of the page that it is not a policy or guideline while later saying it is a weak form of consensus). It should also be noted that it has been 17-18 says since you replied to the topic which went stale and was archived. Due to this and seeing as how no consensus existed before you removed it, and the majority of the editors here were in favour of it being restored (consensus is not the same as unanimity), I re-added it, not pretend it didn't happen. "he clearly stated that he haven't read the sources that he found" I, infact, stated that I havn't "read them all the way through" not I hadn't read them at all. From what I have read, all 22reliable sources refer to Deftones as nu metal. Add to that the existing sources in the article and we have a number of sources weighed in favour of nu metal. "There is no standard in wikipeda to know if a book source weights what 10 reviews does" but we do know they are prefered and you are making the assumption they are not. Per Wikipedia:SOURCES "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." This topic has been done to death and the only person disagreeing with its inclusion is you. I'm just going to take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Deftones HrZ (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Silent consensus is a weak form of consensus, but stills a consensus, one that, if i remember well, lasted two weeks before you wanted to change it, I didn't comented about the sources you brought because you said you haven't read them completely yet, and you said you'll weight these sources against the mines, but still you haven't done so. Well i actually did what you should have done on first place, from the sources you brought:

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] can´t be comfirmed or used (lack of aditional text to determine the correct context of the sentences or mentioning the term but not refering to the band as such).

[15] [16] [17] [18] actually favors my point of the band moving away from nu metal or not playing it at all.

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] favors your point.

If we weight the sources that are usefull the result is 11 against nu metal and 10 in favor of nu metal. Even thought the result favors the rejection of nu metal, it would be better to wait until the new album is out, because many new sources related to the genres that the band play will be coming with it. Trascendence (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"[15] [16] [17] [18] actually favors my point of the band moving away from nu metal or not playing it at all." Not really. All of those sources call the band a nu metal band. You're often glossing over what the sources actually say. In the Deftones entry in the first link, it outright calls them nu metal by the third sentence. The third link says "They took their nu-metal positioning and flipped it on its head. It was a bold move and one that really paid off. It gave us an indication of where this band might be headed, creatively speaking. Diamond Eyes is unfortunately three steps back. " The fourth says "The record's finely realized textures stand apart from most of their nu-metal counterparts". Even if we to to concur with "the band moving away from nu metal", that would still mean they were nu metal at one point. And you statement "it would be better to wait until the new album is out, because many new sources related to the genres that the band play will be coming with it" flies in the face of WP:CRYSTAL. We're not concerned with what people will say about the band, we need to be focused on what has already been said about them. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• We both agree that the sources says that they moved away from nu metal, right? we aren't discussing if they ever were or not, we are discussing if they're today, thats my point As for the crystal thing, well i consider pointless to make any critic change right now because it will very probably change in 16 days, but whatever. Trascendence (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] can´t be comfirmed or used (lack of aditional text to determine the correct context of the sentences or mentioning the term but not refering to the band as such)." Tool were repelled by elements of the nu-metal sound and attracted by others. As Maynard observed, "I think the Deftones do a pretty good job.", Grunge also spawned the success of American-dominated nu metal in the late 1990's, when bands like Korn, Slipknot, Staind, System of a Down, or Deftones merged their death and thrash metal roots with the sounds of alternative rock., Nu metal. Bands: Korn, Linking Park, Deftones, In the red corner, a cluth of Korn/Slayer-inspired nu-metal bands each as subtle as a sledgehammer wake-up call, ranging from the good (Deftones, System of a Down)..., With a slew of mediocre nu-metal bands popping up, stalwart metal mongers Deftones have managed to stay on top of the heap artistically, if not commercially. Looks well confirmed to me and the context is pretty clear. HrZ (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Hrz, serious question, how do you manage to know what the pages of these books says? when i clic your links i only get an advise that says "you've reached the previw page limit" or something like that, i really would like to know, so i can confirm these. i'm short of time today, but i found more sources that refute nu metal: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34](No.30), [35], [36], [37], [38] This ones added to ones that have been presented before makes up for a total of 20 sources rejecting the nu metal genre, i believe the opposition to the genre is clear enough, and there is no reason to even discuss this topic again. Trascendence (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)