Talk:Seek & Destroy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Tagged[edit]

Tagged article per my comment on the Metallica talk page:

You should be aware that Songfacts is not a reliable source. Neither is 4horsemensite, which seems to be a fansite. Same for encycmet. And baseballist. And none of the sources used satisfy notability from what I can see. Rehevkor ✉ 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Encymet" has a good editor, with 2 staff helpful, perhaps "4horsemens" is less confident but not a community page, only 6 employees and "basseball list" I do not know, just coming from Media.com. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are just fansites with no editorial oversight, and not reliable sources. Rehevkor ✉ 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to add {{Verify credibility}}, or {{Verify source}} next to the sources you think are problematic, because as its stand, there are plenty of reliable sources cited by this article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be best to remove them, fanites cannot be used as sources, I tagged it with an overall template to allow people to address the issue without destroying the article. As for the refimprove tag, "Writing and inspiration" and "Live performance" sections are mostly unsourced, and what sources used are fansites and Songfacts (both unreliable, Songfacts is user generated). There's no point tagging these individually because they're inherently unreliable, reliable sources need to be removed, unless you're disputing that they're unreliable? Rehevkor ✉ 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is my preference to use the header maintenance tag in this case. If you with to tag unsourced statements and unreliable sources then you are free to do so, but this this case it would substantially effect the readability of the article. Beyond that, these issues cannot simply be ignored. Rehevkor ✉ 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use specific tags so specific issues can be addressed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly, how is EncycMet reliable now? Cite GW (relaible) sure but how can you claim a fan site is reliable? I'm tagging specific issues at your request, they are issues and shouldn't just be ignored. What is the reason to keep such a source in place? Rehevkor ✉ 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the full quote of Kirk Hammett hosted on the site, sourced to Guitar World. A sourced quote doesn't become unreliable depending on where it's hosted. From WP:RS: How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. and particularly WP:RS#Quotations (which allows for secondary sources, provided they cite the original source). You blindly tag it as "unreliable" without even checking what the source is or says. Encyclopedia Metallica would not be a reliable source for critical commentary, but that's not what is happening here. What is sourced is that Kirk Hammett fucked up, which can be clearly heard at that 3:47/3:48 moment on the original recording. So please stop blindly adding tags, and analyze what's going on. Encyclopedia Metallica has the full quote, they sourced it, and is thus reliable for that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. How do you know the quote is accurate to what was published by GW, how can it be verified? I can make up any quote and put it on a website and attribute to any old magazine, how does that make it "correct"? It probably is correct, but we just don't know. Fan sites are inherently unreliable sources. No editorial oversight, essentially self published sources. The GW issue should be sourced, an unreliable source cannot be used as an interim, nor does it make an unreliable source reliable, claiming otherwise is a logical fallacy. Rehevkor ✉ 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll source GW when I get the full citation information (page, article title, author, etc...) which I should get by the end of the day. In the meantime, this is fine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would assume the section of WP:RS you linked would presume the secondary source to be reliable too. Rehevkor ✉ 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it is for the use we are making of it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Is it not a fan site, a self published source? Rehevkor ✉ 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not forbid self-published sources, or fan sources. What it forbids is the use of their opinions and ideas, or their original material. For instance, if Enc. Met. make a review of "Seek & Destroy", saying that it's the 28th best Metallica song of all time, we could not cite Enc. Met. to claim that S&D is the 28th best Metallica song of all time. This is not what is going on here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes it does. WP:SPS: "self-published media<>are largely not acceptable", there are exceptions when it is published by "by an established expert". This is not the case. What you seem to be referring to is differential between 1st, 2nd and 3rd sources, but that presumes all sources to be reliable to begin with. But anyhoo, cite GW and there's no problem anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 17:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword "largely". Largely does not mean "always". See above post for examples of acceptable uses. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When it is written by "by an established expert". This is not the case. Fan sources are forbidden. Rehevkor ✉ 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sources aren't forbidden. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you base this on, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Rehevkor ✉ 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I have to say on the subject. The original source (GW) must be cited in this case, and you say this will happen; no problem then. Yay! Etc. I have tried to track down the article itself without much luck, all I could find that it probably was the October '91 issue, GW's own archives only seem to be up to '08. Rehevkor ✉ 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Exclusionist Wikipedia Editors[edit]

If you are one of the wikipedia editors who is an express exclusionist, hanging around these Metallica albums may not be for you. This article Seek & Destroy, is riddled with crap about bad citations. I understand wikipedia has a strict policy that relies on authentic verifiable sources, but for those exclusionist editors who don't know anything about metallica, essentially all the facts on here are true. If you have ever been to a metallica concert, you will know that they DID play Seek And Destroy. Because barely a day passes they don't play that song. If you have ever listened to Live Shit: Binge & Purge and listened to Seek And Destroy, then you know you had to sit through 8 minutes of James walking through the crowd singing with friends. Sorry to pull you out, but any of you exclusionist editors out there really need to understand your topic before butchering it with a hacksaw. Maelstromlusby (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a random rant there. "I understand wikipedia has a strict policy that relies on authentic verifiable sources", then what's the problem? It's a policy, a strict one, that Wikipedia relies on. Can't just ignore that. We cannot verify people's personal experience(s). Rehevkor ✉ 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

Per WP:SUBCAT I don't think we need this to be in the category Thrash Metal Songs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a message at your talk. I am awaiting your next course of action before I enter the debate. Naturally if I see that you are issuing warnings to me and stopping short of delivering those messages to other users involved in the dispute then there will be no discussion from me here, only at WP:ANI. I'll keep watch of developments. Dumfounded watsD (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has reverted, and has given another example. I could go either way on this, I'm not married to the idea one way or another. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Metallica songs are non-Thrash. Osterrich (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you are on to something here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]