Talk:Deftones/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DRN case

Latest comment: 11 years ago52 comments5 people in discussion

The bot archived the case, and I think thet we were quite close to a consensus. We can continue discussion here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I though it have ended, but lets see what happens, for now i will look for more sources. Trascendence (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if all users involved had moved on, we can consider it closed. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No consensus was reached on the issue so I wouldn't say it is closed just yet. The main problem I see, is that Trascendence is giving undue weight to one opinion. He appears to believe that because sources exist that state they are not nu metal, then this is correct and any sources to the contrary are wrong, based on the comment "i consider the idea of ΛΧΣ (the idea of explaining 'how they were miscatalogued and then moving away from the labe) as a good alternative." If I am wrong, please feel free to say, but that is how it appears to me. Both views should be represented in the musical style section. As for the infobox, there is enough sources (whether arguing for or against) that show, at the very least, that Deftones have a large association with the genre, if not one of the more noteworth bands of the genre. HrZ (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I too say the discussion is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not giving an undue weight to my point, there is a majority of sources stating that Deftones were mislabeled as that, I do support the idea of mentioning their erratic relation with the genre in the musical style section too, I just want the genre out of the infobox. Trascendence (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"There is a majority of sources stating that Deftones were mislabeled as that". No, there aren't. We've picked apart the sources you provided time and again. At best it's a minority. And why is your desire for the genre to be excluded from the infobox so great? If it ends up mentioned in great length in the musical style section, then there's a very good reason for it to be listed in the infobox, which is meant to be a summary of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then discussion is ongoing. Well, my recommendations at DRN still stand. I see no main issue about the infobox, but I consider that this mislabeling thing may be worth a paragraph in the article. — ΛΧΣ21™

Thus far, Trascendence has only found sources that very passively mention some sort of mislabeling. They're usually a review, and they're usually just a fraction of a sentence. WesleyDodds gave a very compelling case for why reviews shouldn't be used in this case earlier in this discussion, and we really shouldn't be reporting some sort of a dispute because a few people casually mention this in a fraction of a sentence. I would be far better persuaded if Trascendence was able to provide an article (not a review) that went into detail about why Deftones aren't nu-metal beyond a parenthetical clause. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with incorporating information about Deftones moving away from nu metal if the sources warrant it, as Hahc21 proposes. Though you could argue that's tenuous in of itself, there seems to be more evidence for that than any claims that Deftones were never nu metal to begin with. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wesleydoods and Fezmar says that there is no much evidence to support my point, that's understandable because they weren't present in the final part of the last discussion, however here are all the sources that i've found that says that Deftones weren't nu metal or moved away from it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
This must be enough to make clear that my point of view isn't a minority, and i have no doubt that i could find more. Again, i do agree with the idea of creating a paragraph that explains the relation of the band with the genre. Trascendence (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read every part of the discussion every step of the way, including the DR. Please, it's more helpful if you quote the relevant material from the sources you are listing instead of just dropping a bunch of links here. I'm getting kind of tired of having to go through all these links only to find half of them don't actually back up your points. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Trascendence (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're posting links but not quoting the relevant material contained in them you say backs up your assertions. Please do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it when sources that refutes mines have been presented. Trascendence (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You're the one who's presenting these sources to prove a point. The burden of proof is on you. What do they say that's relevant to this discussion? Quote the relevant text. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This is pointless, I don't have all the free time that other editors have, in fact I barely have time to edit the articles of my favorite band. And i'm sure that you already checked the sources and made ctrl+f thing, and if you aren't willing to give a look to the sources by yourself why do you even bother discussing this topic? Trascendence (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Who says we have lots of free time either? As I said, the burden of proof is on you. As I said, you keep posting large numbers of links without saying much beyond that they support your point, which causes us to have to dig through them to find out exactly what relevant information might be contain within. And in several instances, it turns out the links you have provided don't actually support what you are trying to argue. So to save us all a lot of time and going-around-in-circles, it would be immensely helpful you included excerpts from the relevant portions of these links here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
"And in several instances, it turns out the links you have provided don't actually support what you are trying to argue..." I'm intersted on this, care to quote wich ones are? Trascendence (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See my comments here. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I already replied there. Trascendence (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My concerns about the sources you provided were never addressed. Getting back to the point at hand, what is the information are you quoting from the in links you provided in this discussion that you are using to back up your assertions? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said that the sources states that they moved away from nu metal, also there are 17 sources more. Trascendence (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

But where are the quotations, from the sources, to back up your statement? Also "moving away from nu metal" supports the fact they would have been a nu metal band in the first place. HrZ (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And that the aren't anymore, thus not something relevant enough to be included in the infobox, we are right now just playing the fool over the face of facts aren't we? I'm sure that you and wesley already gave a look to all my sources trying to discredit them, just like you two did with the ones I brought months earlier, this behavior is just silly. Trascendence (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the sources, they don't seem to support your arguements. You keep stating they do, yet you have failed to provide the quotations that back up your statements. I don't know why you can't, seeing as you provided them (and, I assume, read them). "And that the aren't anymore, thus not something relevant enough to be included in the infobox" - they are noteworthy band of the genre, and there are plenty of sources on the topic which makes it relevant to me. HrZ (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Care to specify which one and why don't support my argument. Still nu metal deserves a mention in the body of the article. Trascendence (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the latest batch of links you've posted, for due to my browsing history I saw that I had already clicked on some of them and decided to end the cycle of us digging through links trying to find out exactly what you are drawing from by instead asking you directly. It's a really simple request: you are saying these links support your argument, so why don't you quote the relevant portions? It should be a simple cut-and-paste job. You would have to quote the material anyway if it was to be included in the article itself. You keep saying you have the best sources. If so, what exactly do they say? Can you at least quote one for starters? WesleyDodds (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't be lazy man, you already know that the sources are allright, if they weren't you would claimed otherwise already, this is just a whim from your part, so here is mine: If I quote exactly every usefull line of my sources, you and the other editors involved wouldn't argue about this issue again, deal? Trascendence (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"you already know that the sources are allright". No I don't because you have not provided any textual evidence from the links you have provided. And given some of the links I've gone over before, I wonder at times if you have read them closely. So, what exactly are you quoting from those links to back up your argument? This is important to know, and for you to state. And there's no point in trying to work out a deal, because you have to accurately reflect the sources you want to cite in the first place, so we need to know if what you claim they say is actually supported by the sources. This is a basic tenet of Wikipedia; it's not a give-and-take thing you can wrangle about. Also, given you're saying Deftones isn't nu metal anymore, that would mean they were nu metal at one time, and even if they are no longer, them being so in the past is a pretty good reason to include the genre in the infobox. After all, Pink Floyd was only psychedelic rock early on, and T. Rex moved from folk rock to glam, but both articles acknowledge those early genres in the infoboxes. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Diference is that with Pink Floyd, you don't found also sources saying that they were miscatalogued as psychodelic rock or that they never were, that's the diference. I will look for more sources. Trascendence (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Are the sources you currently have inadequate and you for some reason need to list even more? Either way, you really need to indicate what sources are saying. Also, your statements neglect the sources that say Deftones moved away from nu metal and those that say they are still nu metal. Why should we give more weight to those saying they are miscategorized? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Because there are three fields her: The sources that says that Deftones were miscatalogued (the majority); The sources that says that they moved away rom nu metal (a samaller portion); and th sources that says that they are (a smaller portion too); The first two fields discredit nu metal, while only one gives support. I believe the best to do is stay on some kind of middle ground (removing the genre from the infobox but mentioning it in the "musical style" section alongside other genres that don't have much support like post-hardcore or drone music. Trascendence (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How have you determined these results? You have been reluctant to provide textual evidence (just links that don't always support your assertions when examined). Start by quoting what you have already linked, and we can move from there. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It was determined when the sources were weighted in the last discusion that got archived. Trascendence (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You forget the part where I corrected you on some of the sources then Hrz showed that sources you claimed couldn't be viewed online in fact referred to the band as nu metal. Seriously, quote the relevant material from the links you have provided. If they back up your assertions, then the relevant text should speak for itself, and we can go from there. This has dragged on long enough. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you can't acces the sources I brought? Trascendence (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is your repeated refusal to explain what exactly you are citing and your past instances of mispresenting links you have provided that you claim support your viewpoint, which is why I've been insisting you actually quote the relevant passages for clarity's sake. It's been two weeks: why can you not quote at least one of the links you have provided? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok champion, there you go: [21] "Despite occasionally being lumped (wrongly) into the nu-metal movement, Sacramento alternative headbangers Deftones have enjoyed a long, prosperous career since forming in 1988." Trascendence (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You really do intend to drag this on don't you? You have proven you can quote at least one link, but you will have to quote the rest you have posted to show how they support your statement aswell. Also, is it simply a collection of one-off comments such as the above? Or are there some that actually explain why they aren't nu metal also? HrZ (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious enough, most of the sources you brought to support nu metal consists of swift statements exactly like this one. Trascendence (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of a parenthetical reference that I mentioned above. This source literally only contains a single word in passing that supports your position. Are there any sources that actually elaborate on why Deftones isn't nu-metal? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you have an entire article: [22] check it out bro! Trascendence (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you're suggesting that this entire article discusses Deftones' genre, you'd be mistaken. It's really only the end that discusses genre. Second, if you're suggesting that this article says Deftones aren't nu-metal, you're also mistaken, namely with this quote: "'We have the typical aggro machismo thing, the heavier riffage,' says Delgado. 'But we also achieve the opposite side of that. We're always trying to juxtapose different things to make it fun. And I feel like we've gotten really good at it. We've always thought that even though we're in a metal or hard-rock band or whatever you want to call it, we still want to be teachable, and not be stuck." — Aggro is often used interchangably with numetal as supported by the lead of the nu metal article. I think what Delgado is saying here is that they're still a nu-metal band at a foundational level, but they're trying to push the boundaries of what that can sound like by bringing in new influences and styles. Third, we really shouldn't be using the band's opinion on what its genre is. They might be trying to achieve a certain sound, but it could sound totally different to everyone else. For example, Black Sabbath is widely regarded as a heavy metal band. But the band absolutely hated that label for most of their career. They always though they were playing a doom rock. And finally, in response to your other comment above, over the course of this discussion, the three of us (Hrz, WesleyDodds and I) have clearly demonstrated that Deftones are widely believed to be a nu-metal band. If you want to make a claim contrary to popular belief, you're going to need some very quality sources that support your theory very explicitly. For example, it's a widely held belief that the Earth is a sphere. If you want to make a claim to the contrary, namely that the earth is some other shape, you're going to need a very exceptional source to back up your claim. You don't need an exceptional source for the widely held belief. Fezmar9 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

“I thought we really separated ourselves from that nu-metal thing with White Pony [the band’s third record in 2001],” he (Delgado) says. “I think we’re way beyond any of that; a lot of those types of bands, for the most part not too many of them are around. We’re still growing and making records." I think is clear enough. Trascendence (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Curious enough, most of the sources you brought to support nu metal consists of swift statements exactly like this one." Included in the article are three published sources (which are prefered, as pointed out to in previous discussions), two of which are specific to nu metal (Brave Nu World and Nu-metal: The Next Generation of Rock & Punk). All support that Deftones fall under nu metal. Why should we give undue weight to a collection of one-off comments that don't appear to go into much depth? As pointed out by Fezmar9, we really shouldn't be using the band's own opinion. It really should be based on third-party sources. HrZ (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There's some voids there, namely my sources still outweights yours, your sources are books about "nu metal" not about "Deftones" (that only mention Deftones in one or two lines, while not elaborating about why they are, it's okay if you edit the nu metal article with that, though) My source is not a self declaration/published source on wikipedia's own terms, it's a proffesional article by a third party that contains an interview with a member of Deftones. Trascendence (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How's things going over here? Can I be of assistance? Any update on the discussion? — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"your sources are books about "nu metal" not about "Deftones"" Seeing as this discussion is about Deftones being nu metal, and Deftones are included in books about the genre, the books have more weight that the sources you have provided (which, again, either don't support your statement OR are just one-off comments with no further explanation). Third-party or not, it is still the band's opinion and not the work of the writer. @ΛΧΣ there has been more discussion, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere, any comments would be helpful. HrZ (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

pretty much this stills in the same place that it was two months ago. To Hrz: 1- my sources still outweight yours. 2- you keep saying that some sources don't support my point, but still not tell wich ones. 3- You can't use your own criteria to determine what is reliable and what not, wikipedia has it's standards and an article by a third party is reliable. Trascendence (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion won't go anywhere unless other voices get involved. And personally, at this point it's hard for me to assume good faith of Trascendence, who time after time refuses to acknowledge the numerous flaws we have pointed out in his arguments and sources (as evidenced most recently in the comment above). Any outside viewpoints are greatly welcomed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a better idea: why don't you specify wich are "these flaws" in my sources that your guys talk so much about. Trascendence (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I will seek some additional outside views to help on the matter. Additionally, I think it's a good idea to set up a page somewhere and put there the sources alongside the useful information that could be extratced from there. Something like this may help. Then you can easily evaluate and discuss what each one of the sources say, separately... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)