Talk:...And Justice for All (album)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:...And Justice for All (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Et3rnal (talk · contribs) 22:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, feel free to leave a response below my comments with something like  Done to show you've addressed the issue(s). Or, if you're not sure about a certain comment, don't hesitate to leave a question. Et3rnal

I've done the review now, so I'll come back in a few days to see the progress. Placed on hold for 7 days. Et3rnal 00:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links
Background
  • "but the process was interrupted with a smattering of lucrative festival dates" – this sounds WP:NPOVish, and should be written in a more neutral and encyclopedic format. Instead of the current version, replace "smattering of lucrative" with something simple like "a substantial number of". Instead of reiterating the same point, I'll just quote the line that I think isn't writen in a neutral point-of-view and suggest a more adequate one throughout this review.
  • "preventing" → should be "that prevented", past tense.
  • "Hooker offered them significantly bigger deal" – replace "significantly" with "a", as it's straying into WP:NPOV, and should have an "a" anyway.
  • "quoting" → replace with "saying", as Hook isn't quoting anyone, it's his quote.
  • The last line sort of comes out of nowhere, from who did Hooker receive a negative response from for the investment.
I replaced "defended" with "explained", think that should do it.
 Done The other issues from this section are fulfilled.
Production and recording
  • "Rasmussen heard the demos" – Did he hear Clink's demos? Also could you elaborate on why he got fired.
 Done I've found this link, which fairly describes the recording process. Incorporated the Hetfield quote about why Clink had left.
Music
  • "The album is noted for its dry, sterile production." – This is written as if it's a universal view-point on the album's music, even though it's only suggested by Allmusic. Also, Allmusic only mention it as "dry", and so it's drifting into more WP:NPOV, in that you're including undue weight. I've modified it so it's quoted by Allmusic. Generally speaking though, this section is pretty well written.
Lyrics
  • "Many of the songs raise issues that are well beyond the violent retaliation of "Damage Inc." Concerns about environment ("Blackened"), corruption ("...And Justice for All"), and blacklisting and discrimination ("Shortest Straw") are emphasized with traditional existential themes. Death still lurks around every corner, as do worries about the ways in which institutions lead us to inauthentic lives." – This section is very well thought out, but the first sentence in bold doesn't really make much sense on its own, and so could be omitted. For the second sentence in bold, you could place quotes around it, if it's quoted in the supporting reference, instead of re-writing it all and to avoid WP:PLAGIARISM.
I believe we can put "their previous releases" instead of "Damage Inc." (song from previous album Master of Puppets)
 Done As for the second sentence, I cited the author and the book which contains the quote.
Commercial performance
  • I think this section could be expanded a bit, to include information about charts and sales outside of the United States. Try looking at some GA or FA articles to gain an idea of how to write an in depth commercial performance section.
 Done (partially) I've expanded this section with a few sentences, but it's hard to find numbers for sales outside US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вик Ретлхед (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For international charts, you can just give a brief summary on how it performed on charts it was most successful on outside of the US. Using the sites owned by Hung Medien (so the sources linked to each charting position), you can find information on when the album charted, how long it charted, whether it re-entered the charts ect. You don't have to find sales, though its worldwide sales would be a nice addition. I usually write a concise commentary on how the album performed, but there's loads of GAs and FAs that write excellent commercial performance sections. I'd recommend looking at GA or FA album articles that were released around the same time as this album for a good idea.
I found an information on this forum about the worldwide sales. It says it reports numbers from Billboard Magazine: 300 Best Selling Albums (Worldwide), but I can't find the original publishing. See No. 168 (13,400,000 worldwide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вик Ретлхед (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forums are a BIG no no when it comes to reliable sources, per WP:UGC, as it falls under the umbrella of self-published sources. As the page states "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Blogs are also deemed as unreliable, per WP:NEWSBLOG, though exceptions are given if the blog is hosted by a professional journalist(s). If you can't find a source stating how much the album sold worldwide then just leave it, it doesn't matter.
I see you've added some info to the commercial performance, I'll let you continue expanding it, unless you've finished. Et3rnal 17:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to put that into the article, I just thought we can try to find the original Billboard publishing. Mentioned that forum as a clue that can help in the search for a RS.
Ahh I understand, well I've tried manipulating Google search but haven't found the magazine or any reliable source with the album's worldwide figures. Might as well drop the search.
 Done Well, if that short paragraph meets the required expansion, I guess that would be that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Two extra lines (which isn't really a paragraph), not supported by any references isn't really gonna do; it should be between 4–5 lines. I'm not sure whether you actually took my advice on using other GAs and FAs as references for expanding the section. I should also mention, using words like "decent" should be avoided, as it's too colloquial.

Thanks for the advice, I looked at some George Harrison albums and think I can craft it a little more. But I have a question: How to avoid repeating the references about the certifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вик Ретлхед (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the certification table you can insert "certref=" and then put in a reference to the certification, like I've just done now. I re-arranged the wording and added in a bit more, but if you want to flesh it out even more then feel free to do so. Unless you're finished just let me know.
Actually, I think all the issues have been addressed now. So unless you have some extra content to add in or any changed to make, then I think it's done. Et3rnal 12:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-building that section, it looks way better now. If all topics are done, I think you can close out this review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Live performances
  • I've done some copy-editing, as well merging the lines, as personally I think fragmenting sentences like that look bad. I've also removed some original research, material not supported by a reference.
Awards and nominations
  • This entire section lacks sources. If you can't find any references for it, then you'll have to remove it.
 Done Found references.
References
  • I've gone through the references and have formatted them. You should avoid WP:SHOUT and writing the dates in the 'work' parameter. Always format magazine or newspaper sources as italics, so write them in the 'work' field. Checkout Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information.

Most of the issues have been addressed. It's just the commercial performance section which needs a slight expansion. Et3rnal 14:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's done then, congrats on your first GA. Et3rnal 13:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concept Album[edit]

As the title implies, I am wondering whether ...And Justice for All is a concept album or not. Feel free to comment below.98.246.84.7 (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

The "and" in the title should be sapelled in small letter case accordin to the english capitalisation guidelines which are written in wikipedia, which insists that prepositions which are not first word of the title should be written in small letter case, and the "..." at the beginning of the album indicates that what comes after it is a continuation of longer sentence. 83.26.231.240 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles, the first and last word should be capitalised. "..." is not a word, the first word is "and". Thus it should be capitalised. The1337gamer (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic guide to progressive metal[edit]

  • According to AllMusic, progressive metal at the time was "fairly underground (although such Metallica albums as And Justice for All were as dense and layered as prog albums)". I think this sentence will better suit the progressive metal article. The Allmusic source is discussing the genre, not this album, thus making the reference more appropriate there.
  • gave way to weirdly produced progressive metal on 1988's ...And Justice for All" is used as a source to support that the album "features progressive metal music". Unless the entire sentence is provided, this can be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. Moreover, without the entire article from Google Books, this information can't be verified, not to say it could be written out of context.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough[edit]

In order to prevent further vandalism with the continual addition of uncited genre progressive metal, I have added a warning message to the genre field about the genre.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again[edit]

Hi. Just to inform you that I removed your sentence that Popoff argued the album "is more progressive metal than thrash" because that is almost the same as "is more aligned with progressive metal than thrash". That constitutes close paraphrasing, which may led the article to losing its GA status (that's why I've re-written the "Lyrics" section). However, I used the source for describing the music, in order to be all inclusive. As for the genre debate, it think any further discussion about it in the first paragraph of the music section will be disrupting the article in order to make a point. To avoid edit warring, I'll ask you to use the talk page, where we can reach a consensus about the topic. By the way, if you want to be of any help, you can try to merge the quote boxes to the text. The article already reads like a quotefarm.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm so add quotation marks? Rather than removing it altogether to favor another point of view? The genre debate was discussed a while ago (you do remember what resulted in that, right?). It's your change again, to revise the genres, so why should the burden be on me to initiate another discussion? There's a journalist that actually says it's more one genre than the other; McIver doesn't say "core elements" but "enough elements of thrash", and then uses "extreme metal", so where does he stand? I don't think Azerrad is speaking "metaphorically" (what's the metaphor?). And if you think IGN "staff members" is a credible source, I suggest you explain why you're tagging Kid Vinil as unreliable. You've removed Popoff's argument as well as this bit, so I'm sensing an agenda here to diminish a particular point of view. And the idea for those quoteboxes came from OK Computer (which was promoted to FA with those quoteboxes). This article wont lose it with them. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Literally speaking, Azzerad calls it "meta-metal", while Reynolds calls in "thresh metal", genres that unfortunately don't exist, so they are clearly metaphorically speaking. Popoff's quote is not an analysis of the music, is repeating with other authors, is making the article hard and boring to read (the section is about the music, not just about the genre), not to mention it disrupts the section to to illustrate a point. And how is OK Computer related to the theme? (read WP:OSE) Explanation about Kid Vinil bellow.
What are they a metaphor for? Certainly not thrash metal, right? ("meta" means its an abstract, in this case of "trash", so it's not really "thrash" is his point) The Knowles and IGN sources aren't analysis on the music either, so why didn't you remove them if that's your threshold for inclusion? Popoff is actually commenting on something we've been discussing--two different point of views that are established in that section by the cited sources. Hell of a bit to remove from the article. Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Vinil quotation[edit]

Hey, while reading this, I noted several interesting things. Here are some highlights:

  • "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (in other words, Vinil's is less valuable than the other writers)
  • "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." (in other words, Google Translate is not allowed, nor your own translation of his quote)--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but is an unknown author from an entertainment website like IGN of equal quality or relevance as Kid Vinil? And no, the word used is "preferred over", not "prohibited". Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, stick to the theme (the section is titled "Kid Vinil quotation"). If you don't have valid argument why Vinil should stay, I will remove him because you clearly copied the quote from Google Translate. As for IGN, that is not self-published source. It is authorized by "IGN Music" (see at the top of the page), or in other words the staff of the website. As for IGN Music being relevant, yes, way more relevant than Vinil. And this talk page is not the venue for discussing IGN's relevancy. If you want to discuss that topic, please take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did stick to the "theme" ("English sources of equal quality and relevance") And I didn't suggest IGN Music is self-published (where did I do that). I suggested it's not as relevant because the writer(s) aren't identified. Vinil is a musician and journalist. No where in your guideline cited does it say Google Translate isn't allowed ("preferred over" not "prohibited") Dan56 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:SOURCE) It's a book on rock music, published by a respectable publishing house, written by a relevant writer, rather than an entertainment website ranking of Metallica albums by a staff who isn't identified. You brought up the "less valuable" argument, so I'm indulging it, and now you say this isn't the venue? Unlike you, I think both should be included. Dan56 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The authors are IGN staff members, comprende? Kid Vinil is a former musician who became journalist. If his book was important at all, it would be surely translated in English by now. And even the author isn't someone notable. Haven't seen him being used somewhere else on Wikipedia, nor some English journals or newspapers published something about him.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty Anglocentric thing to say. And so you're saying Vinil is a journalist? Okay then. I haven't seen "IGN staff members" (or "IGN Music") mentioned in any English journals or newspaper. Dan56 (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki article about him says he "is singer, radio broadcaster, composer and journalist", but not a music critic. And you call "Ediouro Publicações" a respectable publishing house? It doesn't even have an article on English Wikipedia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom is a Wikipedia article the threshold? BTW, you reintroduced your changes which effectively reversed my other improvements to what you called a quotefarm. Are you more interested in what's best for the article or just removing as much mentions of "progressive" as you possibly can? Dan56 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make a request for a third opinion to stave off this reverting madness. Dan56 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what happened to assuming good faith? I'm just challenging the Vinil reference. Either way, if it stays (which I strongly oppose), it should have less value than the English authors. Like Piero Scaruffi, he should be used only if there isn't enough third-party coverage. In this case, there are far more comprehensive books by other respectable critics.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions by Dan56[edit]

Forgive me, but I tried earlier to ignore that ur recent changes here have included removal of content mentioning "progressive metal". ([1], [2], [3], [4] (where you say readers don't want to see reasserting genre claims, yet in the next edit...), [5], before asserting this. And this misleading quote is still there, missing the fact that the writer is speaking strictly about the one song rather than the album. As for better sources or more comprehensive books, the same should be said about the IGN source (how often do we even come across that as a reviewer or source for moderately important album articles?) And if you're going to question Vinil, why haven't you done the same for Knowles (according to his article, he's a writer and blogger on primarily on comic books and pop culture). Dan56 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for my edits required by Dan56:

  • The Allmusic article is about progressive metal, which de facto is more suitable in the article progressive metal (and has been transferred there as explained in the summary).
  • The cite from Robert Dimery is obviously cherrypicked and out of context since you haven't provided the full quote. It's like turning "Martin Popoff argued that it is more progressive metal than thrash metal" to "Martin Popoff argued that it is...thrash metal". Moreover, I consulted you for that edit [6], so I don't know why are you raising this issue.
  • I noticed your cute analysis about the album's genre. I assume that you accidentally forgot to mention Knowles and the critic from Classic Rock, who also said something related to the topic. That's why I've listed McIver, but you're obviously giving more weight to authors that suit your own point of view.
  • Here's something to think about: Is it better to list Вик Ретлхед, Dan56, and 30 more Wikipedians by name as authors of this article, or is it better to say that the article was written by the Wikipedia community? Same goes for IGN; Why to list the entire IGN Music staff by names when they could just write "by IGN Music".
Christopher Knowles fulfills the three criteria for a reliable source: the book has been used in other Wiki-articles as reliable source, is published by respectable publishing house and the writer is related to pop music. On the other hand, there is a chance that your translation could contain mistakes, which is why "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones". This is a GA article and you shouldn't incorporate your own translations (or machine translations). If you can't find a translation published by reliable sources, the best solution will be to drop it.
  • I changed the genres because progressive metal is based on two sources, of which the first is unreliable. Kid Vinil is redundant since there are other writers who wrote trustworthy books in English, and for the better or worse, their books are available to check, unlike Vinil's, which I assume you've cherrypicked his quote (again).

A question by Vic Rattlehead[edit]

While digging through the article's history, I've found an interesting edit by my fellow colleague: this. It seems that Dan56 was the one who incorporated the "progressive metal" thing at first place. You wondered if I was "interested in what's best for the article", but forgot that it was me who brought the article to GA status. Apart from those edits (all about the music→specifically the genre), you have done nothing to improve the article's quality, so I guess you can say that question to yourself. By the way, my question is: Why are you progressively ruining the article by adding references that only talk about the genre and nothing else?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've continued to bring it up in your attempt to give prominence to "thrash metal" (you've done the same, how else find that IGN Music source?). And because if you look through the article's history around the time you started editing this article, you'd notice disruptive IPs continuously adding they're unsourced genre changes, and me reverting, while also trying to find better sources to prevent that. Dan56 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

IMO, the Kid Vinil quote should be removed. There is no need to dig that deep and use such weak sources when more reliable sources are readily available. I also think that citing too many authors to prove a genre dispute is hurting the article. IMO, Dan's research method is fundamentally flawed. He tends to cherry-pick google for sources that say what he already wants to write, which is the opposite of how good researching should work. You should read the reliable sources and report what they write, not synthesize multiple poor-quality sources to support your personal opinion. If you google enough, you can source just about any claim, but what we should be writing is what the high-quality reliable sources say, not what any source that agrees with us says. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking and disruptive editing in order to illustrate point by Dan56[edit]

  • In his attempt to find authors that oppose the term "thrash metal", editor Dan56 cherrypicked the quote by Michael Azzerad that "Thrash is too demeaning a term" (evidence), obviously forgetting to write way more interesting information from the same source. For example, Azzerad did intriguing analysis about Metallica's influence on American youth and rock and roll, but Dan decided that some ridiculous issue about the genre was more important.
  • While obviously striving to suggest that there was some kind of debate between critics about the album's genre, Dan56 cherrypicked another quote by Stagno that the album was "rooted in the thrash metal genre" (evidence), overlooking at more important information.
  • Dan56 cherrypicked a quote from Martin Popoff (evidence) about "progressive metal versus thrash metal", again overlooking at some quality analysis about the music on the album.
  • The editor included a cite by Kid Vinil from a book that barely has a page about Metallica (evidence). Again, the intention is clearly to prove a point that suits his personal belief.
  • As pointed in my question, Dan56 decided to edit this page not because he is interested in improving the content, but because of another reason. When at least 15 other editors by now have disagreed with him, Dan56 didn't seek a consensus, but decided to make disruptive edits to illustrate a point, so he could justify his change.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't listen to Metallica brah brah, and honestly it's been my suspicion of IPs like these to defend this issue, and I've had the same suspicions about you, since it's been a while since that linked discussion, yet you've brought the genre thing up again. Not just based on Vinil. 1) Popoff explicitly says it's more progressive metal than thrash (so we have an expert, a metal journalist source, that might put this to rest, since it is what we're reverting each other over, right?) 2) Vinil calls it "um dos (one of the) discos (discs) clássicos (classic) da tendência (the trend) do metal progressivo (progressive metal)". 3) Lepage: "either a prog-metal masterpiece or the Hindenburg of bloat. 4) Wall said that most of the album to his dismay had "slabs of prog-metal". 5) Azerrad said that it shouldn't be described as "thrash". Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I assume is the basis for thrash in the infobox: 1) Stagno's quote, which clearly supports it 2) the anonymous writers of IGN Music's staff 3) McIver, who merely says it has thrash "elements" on what is a "progressive album" (which you omitted) 4) Knowles: "thrash concept to its logical conclusion" (wait!, he's not saying it's thrash explicitly--a "concept", and what is "its logical conclusion"?, and this line is cherry-picked from a this sentence and page that doesn't discuss the album at all) Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quote by Mick Wall is original research since you can't prove it exist on Google Books, nor you can point a certain page from that book. Mark Lepage assumes it is progressive metal because he says "or progressive metal". The quote by Kid Vinil is not reliable. I assume if you search hard enough on Google, you might find some critic from Congo who agrees with your point of view. The quotes by Popoff, Stagno and Azzerad are cherrypicked, as I explained above. The quote by Knowles is not cherrypicked since it's the only sentence in the book referring to this album. Anything else to ask?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its a print source! What does a url to GoogleBooks have anything to do with anything that's said at WP:OR? Werent you the one who actually added it or at least used it? And you're having fun saying "cherry-picking" ("means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.) So how does it relate to what ur talking about? And please stop citing WP:POINT like this discussion never took place. Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tell me on which page can I find that quote? Unlike you, I had that book and I used true references in the "Background" section. You are cherry-picking because you select information without including other more noteworthy figures from the same sources you cite.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you tell me what "contradictory or significant qualifying information" is being omitted here? Are you saying I fabricated the quote and falsely attributed it to Wall's book? Dan56 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Why don't you tell me on which page I can find that quote?" (that means cite a page from the book). I explained everything above so there's no need to repeat myself.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, isn't the page number included in the citation? Dan56 (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page 10 is referring to the "Background" section. The cite in the critical reception is not on that page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
K, just Googled the quote, and found this, p. 296. Dan56 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the history to see who added the Wall source (since I don't remember doing it), and found that you originally added the Wall quote. I realize that was a while ago, but why have you been disputing it now? Dan56 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point a guideline which says I can't question references that were added while ago?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but dont be too quick to call it original research or cherry-picking if you don't yourself remember where that was in the book. Dan56 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've written: "The quote by Mick Wall is original research since [or "if"] you can't prove it exist on Google Books, nor you can point a certain page from that book."--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the Katherine Turman quote, it was you who wrote the sentence in its current form.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current form is the correct form (as my edit summary then explained--the source didn't verify any "often" implication). We were in the middle of reverting one another back and forth, so I let it slide and did the next best thing--rewrite accurately even though it was selected (in either form) out of a larger sentence with "qualifying information". (WP:Cherry-picking) Dan56 (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you bringing this topic to the table since there is nothing wrong with it?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the Kid Vinil book a reliable source?[edit]

Is this removed source reliable? Dan56 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinil, Kid (2008). Almanaque Do Rock (in Portuguese). Ediouro Publicações. p. 214. ISBN 85-00-02145-4.

Support
  • I don't see a reason not to use it at the moment. From what I can tell, it appears to be a reliable source. My disclaimer is that I'm assuming that the book does in fact call the album "classic" (which, from what I can tell from the comments below, is what the source is intended to support...please correct me if I'm wrong, as the opening for this RfC doesn't explain what exactly the book is intended to support), as I don't read Portuguese. Per WP:NOENG, non-English sources are acceptable if there isn't an English source that says the same thing. I would support using it for now. However, if an English source of comparable reliability can be found that also calls the album "classic", it should either replace or be used in addition to this book. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Per WP:NOENG: "Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". This would seem to be pretty cut-and-dry. Because there are several English sources available, this Portuguese source should be avoided per policy. MTV's Chris Harris calls it a "classic album", in English. FTR, yesterday Dan canvassed MrMoustacheMM, and two other editors with this request. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • WP:RSN would be a better forum for this question. I might have asked whether it's a necessary source, which seems to be a major component of the debate. Just because something is a reliable source doesn't mean that we're obligated to list it in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer it to be in the "Critical reception" section, since the writer calls it a "classic". The other editor in the debate questioned its reliability instead though. Dan56 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will cite the guideline again: "Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". There are plenty of books written by professional authors which refer to the topic and are already included in the article, thus making the book by Vinil redundant. Furthermore, Dan56 included it with clear intention to illustrate a point, which is harming the article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You removed it on the basis that it was unreliable. It would be fair to say then that the IGN Music bit is redundant considering the plenty of books written by professional authors that are in that section. Vinil, a published journalist mind you, calls it a classic of the progressive metal trend, so don't you think this isn't at all relevant commentary for the album's legacy/reception? BTW, you started this "progressive" vs. "thrash" nonsense and done what you're now accusing me (Talk:...And_Justice_for_All_(album)/Archive_3#POV_dispute). Like I said there, perhaps we could stick to commenting on the content instead of each other? Also, using this ("creating landmark albums including") to cite "Katherine Turman of The Village Voice called it a 'landmark' album" might be a better example of cherry-picking, but I'm not removing it. Dan56 (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is this dude talking about??? I thought we were discussing Kid Vinil, not Glenn Pillsbury (which was removed by the way).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, we all know how you two feel about the issue. Let's allow other people to comment before the RfC becomes unwieldy with back-and-forth exchanges between two opinionated editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the source in and of itself is reliable, at least Wikipedia's standards. However, it being in Portuguese and not English is a serious concern. After all, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Portuguese one. If one can find a reliable English translation, cite that as a reference instead. For the time being, omit it until a translation can be found. Just my opinion. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMoustacheMM: If you type "...And Justice for All Metallica classic" or "landmark" on Google, you'll find plenty of sources supporting that claim. There has been a quote by Katherine Turman who called it a landmark album, but I have removed it per Dan's request. My word is, you don't have to use references on foreign language for such purpose: see Noisecreep (celebrated landmark anniversaries this year for both the ‘Kill ‘Em All’ and ‘…And Justice for All’ albums), Guitar World (With such landmark albums as Master of Puppets, ...And Justice for All) or Los Angeles Times (its landmark "... And Justice for All" album). Regards.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm, you should have removed that bit from Turman because it had been cherry-picked from a larger sentence in an article that says nothing about this album, so keeping it wouldn't have been inappropriate. In response to MrMoustacheMM's question, the Vinil source called it a classic "of the progressive metal trend". Dan56 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan56: Ok, so long as the source actually says that (again, I don't read Portuguese).
Вик Ретлхед: I'm not interested in searching google for anything. I'm just here to put in my opinion on whether this is a reliable source, not to say whether English sources exist that support the same claim. If they do, they should be used. If they don't, then this source can be used. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for the comment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

What am I disputing: "while Michael Azerrad viewed its music as more of an abstraction of metal that cannot be appropriately described as thrash" is paraphrased from Michael Azzerad's quote "Thrash is too demeaning a term for this metametal" available here.

Why am I disputing this? The editor who incorporated this obviously overlooked other more significant or qualifying information from the same source, or in other words, he cherry-picked that quote. Furthermore, this cite is picked in order to illustrate a point that the six authors who place the album under the thrash metal umbrella are wrong, thus making the section tedious and dull to read. The same author, Azzerad, wrote other interesting things, such as the lyrical content of the album, or Metallica's appealing to "white-suburban-male psyche". Instead, we're presented a section that contradicts what the community calls "good research", and the reader is given selected information that support the opinion of one editor (the definition of biased editing).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is not "other more significant or qualifying information", it's "contradictory or significant qualifying information" (WP:Cherry-picking). There aren't six authors who place it under some "thrash metal umbrella", but two (Stagno, IGN Music). And I didn't "selectively [present] one point of view from a source that actually includes both". That's the only point of view Azzerad expresses with respect to the album's genre; in other words, he doesn't qualify that quote you brought up with anything else, otherwise you prolly would have added it. (btw, I cited him here as well: "with very fast tempos and few verse-chorus structures.[13]". And no one's preventing you from using anything else Azzerad says in his review.) Dan56 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your alibi, you are clearly disrupting the section by adding only information that fit you opinion. That is severely breaking two principles of WP:NPOV, in this case "the good research" and "due and undue weight", by searching for authors who defend your personal belief and giving prominence only to them. The result is imposing a certain and biased point of view to the reader.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9_9 What does a vague accusation and a priggish spiel add to this post you opened? Am I supposed to respond to this or are you trying to impress others who drop by with a moralistic response to the big, bad Dan56? All I did in my previous comment was accurately reiterate the guideline you've been bludgeoning me to death with as it relates to the quote you picked out. Dan56 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've said nothing about your moral or behavior. I've just listed the guidelines you've neglected, which resulted with the article losing its neutrality. Please keep in mind that this is a NPOV dispute, not a chat between two editors. Since you've refused to work on compromise, I think it's the best to allow a third party to resolve this issue.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knowles[edit]

Alright, the burden was on Dan56 to initiate this discussion, but never-mind, I have the honor of starting it. So, my comrade is questioning this author and his book as sources that should not be used in the article. I this edit [7] he claims that the book doesn't mentions the album at all, but quite contradictory, he wrote a quote where Knowles indeed mentions the album "Having taken the thrash concept to its logical conclusion with 1988's And Justice for All, Metallica". Regardless, Metallica's biography in Rolling Stone says exactly the same thing. So my point is, don't waste your energy on removing Knowles, because I'll be forced to include Rolling Stone's Albums Guide cite, and good luck removing that sir.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Christopher Knowles is absolutely a reliable and high-quality source. Dan wants the source removed because it contradicts his POV, which he is pushing at all costs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry? The popular culture and comics blogger? Yet you don't mind Вик Ретлхед removing Michael Azerrad's quote? Dan56 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Dan56: How could I have possibly cherry-picked the quote since it's the only sentence in the book referring to this album?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what "cherry-picking" means? Dan56 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen pal, I've read that essay a hundred times and I don't see the point in answering your pointless questions. If you want to make some suggestion that lead towards building consensus, be my guest.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to Вик Ретлхед. Are you going to get a consensus to remove Azzerad's quote? Otherwise he's no less a reliable and high-quality source than Knowles. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Dan56: Azzerad is already used two times as a source→I didn't remove him. I just removed his quote which I strongly believe is less valuable than calling the compositions "a marvel of precisely channeled aggression" or saying the album features fast tempos and unusual song-structures. You've picked the least notable aspect of his review, in order to justify your intention of removing thrash metal from the side-bar.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) I precisely said "remove Azzerad's quote", not "remove Azzerad". b) I've never opposed having "thrash" in the infobox provided there be reliable sources citing it in the article, which there have been. c) You still need consensus to remove it. Simply citing your opinion--that's it's not relevant--isn't enough. And you continue to ignore the fact that I added "fast tempos and few chorus..." and cited him for that in #Music, so stop accusing me and stick to the content. BTW, I also added "a marvel of..." in #Critical reception, so I don't get your point--there's no policy that says I cant use Azzerad's analysis of the music because he's already cited elsewhere in the article. You've been gradually editing out and watering down any commentary related to progressive metal (or not thrash), including the removal of Azzerad's bit, pushing down Popoff's analysis and qualifying it with some BS line about "in this context", and giving prominence to Stagno, McIver, Knowles, and IGN, in your quest to make a case for "thrash metal" to be ahead of "progressive metal" in the infobox. Just admit it. But hey, if you want your prose to flow like a train going off the tracks... Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bet you would. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being a bull-dozer, Dan. You are obviously a potentially talented editor; you just need to be less controlling, and you need to learn how to properly paraphrase. FTR, I don't dislike you; I dislike your control freak nature and your disrespect for author's copyrights. Stop bullying random IPs that add genres to undeveloped articles, you are not always right to revert. Not everything on Wikipedia needs a source immediately. Your articles are riddled with plagarisms that you aren't at all concerned about, so stop being a hypocrite by requiring sourcing perfection regarding genres. What more do you want, thrash and prog are both listed, and you are absolutely not going to succeed in removing thrash, so stop wasting so much time POV pushingGabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, look at this. You've added a genre based on a fake source, (Allmusic's Steve Huey nowhere in his review calls the album "progressive metal" record→WP:GWAR) and later secured a quote by Azzerad just to make sure no one touches the genre. Furthermore, he picked some ridiculous cite by Dimery from a middle of "who-knows-what he was speaking about" sentence to cement the genre issue for eternity.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, so you plagiarize and use fake sources? Really? You need to stop before someone stops you. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you preferred this over this? Figures. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit is genre trimming, the second edit is plagiarism. Figures.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there plagiarism here? I know English is your second language, but seriously. Where? Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant original research, sorry, my bad. But the more important thing, are you aware that you've slapped in the face over 20 editors (IPs and registered) with warning notes for no reason? You own them an apology, big time.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The level-1 warning is pretty clear, appropriate, and quite friendly and welcoming. You say it like I bitch-slapped 20 ppl LOL. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind?[edit]

Hey Walter Görlitz, Quebec99, Jim1138, GabeMc, Вик Ретлхед? Do any of you mind if this material is added to the article? I'd gladly remove it if someone gave a reasonable, civil objection. Dan56 (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mind, per WP:UNDUE, because the only reason that you want to add the text-string and phrases like it is to cast doubt on the album as a thrash metal release. You are POV pushing, Dan. The album is thrash with elements of prog metal. Let both genres stand and stop wasting everyone's time lest you find yourself with a topic ban from genre editing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan56? Would you mind these authors:

Вик Ретлхед, I support the addition of any or all of the above quotes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan should learn when to stop. Now I have good basis to challenge that Popoff quote of his, since the same author, Popoff, published something else in 2004.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote box[edit]

I have re-introduced the proper "quote box" markup, which improves wp:accessibility by (1) splitting two distinct quotes into two boxes (2) uses the correct css classes ("quotebox") which can be parsed by a screen reader. thank you for helping. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I requested page protection[edit]

Due to persistent vandalism, and continual addition of the unsourced genre progressive metal, I requested this page to be protected temporarily. What do you guys think?-Teh Thrasher (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request like that should be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Retrohead (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already did it via Twinkle.-Teh Thrasher (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the FA[edit]

Awesome albumn deserves FA status.--Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 07:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

"Originally released on one vinyl disc, the album was quickly re-released as a double album without additional tracks. "

Does this really mean that the exact same tracks were spread across two disks instead of one? Why would they do that? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One editor changed this to 'including additional tracks' (which seems more likely), and another editor has changed it back. Which is right? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is right. All commercial vinyl releases were on double vinyl : at 65 minutes AJFA would have sounded terrible on single vinyl. There was a black-sleeve promo pressed on single vinyl in the UK which is I think where the confusion has come from. I have edited the page to reflect that this was only ever sold as a double vinyl.213.123.54.70 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Bryn[reply]

Genre[edit]

Now, it is pretty obvious that ...And Justice for All is a "progressive" metal album because it is metal, and it is musically progressive. However, that does not mean it belongs to the genre "progressive metal". Many people have stated that as per Wikipedia policy, there need to be reliable sources that state that the album is "progressive metal". Metal can be progressive without being "progressive metal", pop can be progressive without being "progressive pop". Reliable sources are needed to place "progressive metal" into the genre box. Now, I have not been an active part in this discussion until now. If anyone would, please list all sources for "progressive metal" below. Knockknock48 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prog thrash[edit]

I saw there was a dispute on whether the album is progressive metal and whether Loudwire is a reliable source. I think the source is okay, but I can't find where does it say the album is progressive metal? The author says that "Metallica’s plan to evolve into the outer reaches of technical thrash metal reached an apex with …And Justice for All" (second paragraph) and "[The band] stopped trying to be the masters of prog-thrash" in the last paragraph. Interpreting prog-thrash as progressive metal is a bit of an improvisation, if that's the correct part. Pinging DannyMusicEditor and Robvanvee for opinion.--Retrohead (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's really just the same IP removing the genre & source. Personally, I agree with the inclusion of progressive (prog) if the source is acceptable for a F.A. Robvanvee 16:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also couldn't find "progressive metal" definitively mentioned in the source – if that's the case, and another source can't be found that is just as reliable, then the genre should be removed. I think the confusion over whether the Loudwire article is a reliable source had to do with the content, not the website – the IP also identified that the article didn't mention the genre and called it an "unreliable source", which is fair enough. Just because it's from Loudwire, doesn't mean it should just automatically be used. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ...And Justice for All (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Justice for All Box Set Contents?[edit]

When The AJFA Box Set releases, can the Metallica Community either Update the track Listings for all Metallica box sets or have a separate wiki page for the box sets in the Metallica Box set Section

Thanks Ethan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.188.198 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, title did NOT come from the Al Pacino film?[edit]

The article says it came from the Pledge of Allegiance. Well, of course, but the presence of the ellipses at the start of both titles almost certainly means that they instead got it from the 1979 Al Pacino movie of the same name. The themes dovetail very closely as well.

Would we need an official quote from a member of Metallica to avoid having this reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John DiFool2 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add it to the article, we need a reliable source. That could be a quote from Metallica or some other reliable source (like a band biography, article in a publication like Rolling Stone, etc). Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

release date: August or September?[edit]

According to the RIAA, this album was released 25 August 1988. But according to Metallica, it was released 6 September 1988. Which is the more authoritative source? Sixsevenfive (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging involved accounts to discuss the release date here: @Sixsevenfive, GinsuVictim, FlightTime, DannyMusicEditor, 4TheWynne, Jasoninrapid, and Sagaby65:. At first glance, this seems to be a question of which source we should trust more. Beyond recognizing the frequent conflict over small details on many music-related pages on Wikipedia, I'm unfamiliar with how sourcing is usually handled in this context, so I'm simply seeing if we can come to an agreement here.
Also, this post has relevant content User_talk:FlightTime#A_message_from_GinsuVictim. Airplaneman ✈ 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the question because it seemed to me that both sources were about equally authoritative. Yes, presumably Metallica has good information about when their album was released; but on the other hand, recording release dates and other significant milestones is what the RIAA does, so presumably they have a reason for their date. That said, the posters linked from FlightTime's page add more weight to the September release date. Sixsevenfive (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Reddit user pointed out to me that September 5, 1988 was Labor Day. Metallica.com just added a new Timeline page, which shows September 6, 1988 as the release date, while the album page shows September 5, 1988. User:GinsuVictim 20:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: AllMusic lists September 6, 1988. dannymusiceditor oops 20:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am less and less inclined to trust Metallica as an authoritative source here. Their website lists three separate release dates for this album: their History page says "August 1988"; their ...And Justice For All page says "5 September 1988"; and their Band Timeline page says "September 6, 1988". I think that we ought to wait for them to achieve some internal consistency before we refer to them in this instance. Sixsevenfive (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sixsevenfive, there have been several consistency issues across the board (among other things) with the band's website, so I don't think it just applies in this instance. I think we should just stick with the status quo until we find something more solid. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in another source. In the 2013 publication Guitar World Presents Metallica: 30 Years of the World's Greatest Heavy Metal Band, the article 'Encyclopedia Metallica' (pp. 6-15) includes the following (p. 12): "...And Justice for All went Platinum within three months of its release on September 6, 1988, and climbed all the way to Number Six on the Billboard album chart." Sixsevenfive (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of not keeping status quo. It should be changed to September 6. Allmusic and Guitar World are more preferred sources than the band's primary website in most cases anyway. dannymusiceditor oops 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the September 5, 1988, date mentioned elsewhere: I believe albums used to be released on Mondays in Europe. Hence September 5th (Monday) and September 6th (Tuesday) being listed. Also, the new website's page for the album now says September 6th (not 5th) [8]. So I think the band now has internal consistency on this question. Not sure what to make of the RIAA. Is that maybe when they received their copy? August 25th was a Thursday, so it makes no logical sense.Sonderweg (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with everyone who wants to change it. We should probably source it with something besides their own website, though (and as it turns out, we have a few of those available). dannymusiceditor oops 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The band's website certainly doesn't have internal consistency at this point. As I mentioned in my comment above: Their website lists three separate release dates for this album: their History page says "August 1988"; their ...And Justice For All page says "September 06, 1988"; and their Band Timeline page says "September 7, 1988". Note that they have changed the latter two dates since that previous comment. Which just muddies the water even further. I'm not saying a September date is incorrect. Rather, I'm observing that Metallica.com is not at all internally consistent and not a reliable source in this instance. Sixsevenfive (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what action are we taking, then...? dannymusiceditor oops 02:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat as Sixsevenfive in that I don't necessarily think a September release date is incorrect, and I think that the band's website needs to be completely ignored here. If a large majority of the sources say September 6, then I'm not against changing it (on the same date, thirty years later...). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stylisation of title[edit]

Re: [9]...

you might as well just shorten it to "Justice", which I don't agree with, and I don't see how reading the full title each time in prose is distracting

How distracted you are is of course personal, but ellipsis in titles is a stylisation - which is to say it's non-standard, like writing a title in ALL CAPS. We don't usually preserve stylisation in prose - in video game articles, for example, we sometimes put the full stylised title in a footnote but don't use it throughout the article, as in Nights into Dreams (aka NiGHTS into Dreams...). I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is just an example of how it can be done. Removing ellipsis is my vote. Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This is the sort of thing that is generally removed from prose to help readability. See an example in something like fun. - note how they’re not opening sentences with the name over and over again. I’d recommend either trimming the ellipses and/or adding more pronouns in the mix. (“The album”, “the release”, “it”, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely lean towards the latter if the preference is to reduce the amount of times the full title can be seen in the prose – I'd just prefer not to have two different versions of the title, personally, particularly when it isn't an issue of capitalisation (like you've used as an example) or anything like that. 4TheWynne (talk • contributions) 21:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not use artificial substitutions (the release, the album, etc) for reasons I explain in this essay.
Honestly, if I were king of the world, I'd just write "And Justice for All (stylized with ellipsis as ...And Justice for All)" in the first sentence and ignore the ellipsis afterwards. Popcornduff (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought I recalled you having an objection to that. But still, there’s other ways around it. 5 of the first 6 paragraphs start with the album title. That’s excessive. If other subjects aren’t being introduced, the subject doesn’t need to be restated so much. (For example, just start the sentence with “Recording sessions began...”) Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, as you know, I'm all for deleting whatever doesn't have to be there, and God knows how many redundant variations on "for the film", "for the album" etc I delete every day. But sooner or later we have to use the name and then we're back to our argument... Popcornduff (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, and indeed, and I agree with your approach overall. I just thought trimming it’s use would help get 4theWynn onboard a bit more. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album was released on September 7th, not August 25th[edit]

Both Spotify and Metallica's official website state so Epitaph1 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe Edition[edit]

This article includes no information on the 2018 Deluxe Edition. The issue is being discussed here. Charles Essie (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Charles Essie just added this section to ...And Justice For All, please let me know if this is up to standard. I understand the "collapsed" parameter has been deprecated on Wikipedia, so it feels a bit lengthy, but it is accurate. --D1119 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"although its dry mix and nearly inaudible bass was criticized"[edit]

Shouldn't this be "were", not "was"? I understand the mix and bass are conceptually part of one thing, but grammatically they are two separate items. 2601:184:4080:9FD0:10D7:F30D:9E18:6FE7 (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...And Justice for All is the first Metallica album to feature bassist Jason Newsted"[edit]

Since Newsted is not actually in the mix, I don't think it makes any sense to say that the album "features" him. I believe the point of this sentence is simply to note this is the full length album with Newsted in the band, so perhaps this sentence could be reworded along the lines of "...And Justice for All was the first full length metallica album released after bassist Jason Newsted joined the band..." or something along those lines. Yilloslime (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsted had really recorded bass lines, it's only not audible. That's why you are right. EduKor (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone rewrite the article without the bias fanboy hero worship? This album WAS NOT well received upon its release[edit]

I remember it was kind of a let down after puppets and it was mixed reviews at best among critics and fans. This article written by someone who clearly worships a statue of Metallica every day makes it sound like it was well received by cherry picking reviews, like referencing Rolling Stone contemporary review which are known to be lazy and uncritical compared to their reviews that coincide with the release which was more critical.

It’s just not accurate or truthful. Also, it keeps repeating that the album is complex with depth and how everyone praised them for that… that’s not how I remember it. Complexity in itself is not a virtue. Anyone can make a complex album. Justice was seen as self-indulgent and needlessly complex. Hence them simplifying their music on the black album. 174.243.181.3 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Live Is To Die[edit]

Hi there,

I am not sure, if I would call "To Live Is To Die" "Instrumental", since there are spoken words in it. But more importantly: if I search for "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world", I always find this to be a quote from a Paul Gerhardt, 1607-1676. So, Cliff Burton is named author, but is it really his text?

Best wishes,--77.23.92.171 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Live Is To Die quote[edit]

The article originally said that the line "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world" was written by German poet Paul Gerhardt. The claim was sourced to the book "To Live Is to Die: The Life and Death of Metallica's Cliff Burton", however I could find no such claim in the book. Furthermore, a look around the internet shows that the Paul Gerhardt claim is widespread, but I could find no place where anyone ever found an actual verified source in any actual Gerhardt work. This claim should therefore be put in the category of misattributed quote, until proven otherwise.

I've replaced the quote's source with the film Excalibur, where the quote unquestionably appears, spoken by Merlin. AutobioGraphix (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over release date[edit]

The page has been fully protected for 4 days due to edit warring. Rather than edit warring, please discuss the sources, develop consensus, and seek help resolving the dispute if needed. Getting a third opinion may be helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 8 September 2023[edit]

The release date for this album is incorrect. "Change August 25, 1988 to September 7, 1988." However, it's correctly listed in their discography. Source is from the official site of the band: https://www.metallica.com/releases/albums/and-justice-for-all-album.html 2600:1700:7960:2C00:F442:9269:8034:5BD3 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA trumps band's official website SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done We admins won't be granting an edit request to implement the very thing the page was protected due to an edit war over. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:...And_Justice_for_All_(album)/Archive_4&oldid=1179270228"