Talk:Beherit

Introduction
In case there anybody watching this article besides this MrMoustacheMM, they may have noticed the latest edits. Besides the article history, there was a discussion which I think should be read to better understand the context (of course this requires reading the whole discussion and not just parts of it). To keep this on one page, I copied it here (see following section).--185.42.112.78 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion copied from user talk:185.42.112.78
Please discuss your proposed changes to Beherit at Talk:Beherit, and allow discussion to take place before making them again. Many of your changes are not properly supported by reliable sources, or are not supported by independent third party sources (which constitutes original research). Changes such as referring to someone by a nickname instead of their name are not necessary. Justifications for edits such as "This edit makes perfect sense since the Swedes, Finns and Greeks had not that few bands either, and there were quite a few from other countries, too. The Norwegians drew more attention though, of course." are not in any way acceptable, and clearly show you are editing based on your own opinion, not reporting what reliable secondary sources say. There may be one or two useful edits in your massive changes, but I'm not taking a lot of time to sort through and keep those few useful edits. Propose your edits on the talk page, and we can figure out which edits are actually worth keeping. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is so stupid that actually none of your comments deserves a reply, but I’ll do it anyway.
 * You claimed those were “generally unsourced changes” despite the fact that I did name reliable sources (Since when are an established Syriac dictionary and an interview with the band themselves no reliable sources? Don’t tell me you undid them just because I mentioned the titles but not the page number or whatever!), which is obviously either a lie or a proof that you didn’t look at the changes properly. On the contrary, the claim that the band’s name was a Syriac name for Satan (You don’t know anything about Syriac, Mandaic or other forms of Aramaic or any other Semitic languages, do you?) is again unreferenced (You don’t own The Satanic Bible [most obvious source for LaVey’s claim], do you?) whereas I could even prove the band took it from LaVey’s Satanic Bible (here you go, ignorant), as are quite a few other passages for which I added “citation needed” tags. What about these parts, which really are not sourced?
 * “rv changes to style”; what is wrong with you? Album titles are to be written in italics as far as I know, and none of the other style edits were wrong either (in the Syriac name context, it is correct to use italics for a foreign word Beherit).
 * You claimed that “[c]hanges such as referring to someone by a nickname instead of their name are not necessary”. Well, it is general knowledge that in black metal, people are rather known by the names they adopt as artists than those they were given by their parents. Therefore, I have done nothing wrong here.
 * “Justifications for edits such as ‘This edit makes perfect sense since the Swedes, Finns and Greeks had not that few bands either, and there were quite a few from other countries, too. The Norwegians drew more attention though, of course.’ are not in any way acceptable, and clearly show you are editing based on your own opinion, not reporting what reliable secondary sources say.” This is utter nonsense. This does not “clearly show” that I am editing based on my own opinion, but on the contrary, your comment shows that you obviously don’t have a clue. The claim that most bands were Norwegian is obviously wrong, easily disproved by the mere existence of all those other bands around (Swedes: Marduk, Abruptum, Dissection, Nifelheim, and so on; Finns: Beherit [obviously], Archgoat, Impaled Nazarene, Barathrum, and so on; Greeks: Rotting Christ, Necromantia, Varathron, Thou Art Lord, and so on; Germany: Desaster, Eminenz, Ungod, and so on; and I am just mentioning some notable bands here, omitting lots of others, many of them not really notable anyway), and if you deny or don’t know that, then you don’t know anything about the topic and should do the world the favour to get lost; it is obviously wrong that most bands were from Norway, and I remember an interview with Faust, who was the drummer of a Norwegian band called Emperor back then, and one statement of his was something like: ‘The Finns have about fifty black metal bands more than we Norwegians do, but ours are better.’ That was in Hammer of Damnation fanzine if I remember correctly, and it found its way on the internet once or twice, but I can’t find it there anymore. The point is, if you are obviously that ignorant, don’t for fuck’s sake accuse me (or anyone else for that matter) of “clearly” basing my edits on my own opinion. Okay, I may not have referenced that sentence, but considering the facts, are you surprised that I didn’t think it was necessary, which your idiotic comments here and as parts of the article history certainly weren’t?
 * “There may be one or two useful edits in your massive changes, but I'm not taking a lot of time to sort through and keep those few useful edits.” This explains a lot. Take your time to analyse edits (if you can, which I seriously doubt considering your comments so far) or just stop your sabotage.
 * “Propose your edits on the talk page, and we can figure out which edits are actually worth keeping.” After all that rubbish of ours, I have considerable difficulties to take that sentence seriously (nor any other comment of yours). --185.42.112.78 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, please read WP:CIVIL. You'll find editors are much more willing to work collaboratively with you if you don't insult them constantly (and Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; see WP:CONSENSUS). As it stands, I'll still reply here.
 * You named a couple of sources, without really providing much to go on. One included a website, which was good. The rest were meaningless: "A Compendious Syriac Dictionary or the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon". OK, what are those? Publisher, author/editor(s), date of publishing, etc? Do they specifically mention how Beherit, the band, incorrectly attribute the word? Or are you just performing original research, claiming that it is incorrect based on your own research? Those are the only two instances in which you included "sources". Your claim that "most of the dominant bands in the scene were from Norway" (emphasis mine, to highlight your change) is completely unsourced.
 * Changes in style: You changed the use of "is" to "are", "was" to "were", "categorized" to "categorised", and so on, without a good reason to do so. The style currently existing in the article should not be changed unless there is good reason. See WP:RETAIN. I'm also not sure why you capitalised "Drawing down the Moon", as it doesn't appear to be a proper noun (and if it is, then "Down" should also be capitalised; however, Drawing down the Moon (ritual) doesn't show "down" capitalised, so I concluded that "Drawing" should not be either).
 * Yes, band members often go by pseudonyms. It might be reasonable to use those instead of the members' actual names, but this should be discussed on the talk page first.
 * "your comment shows that you obviously don’t have a clue" – While this isn't true in my case (I'm well-aware of the history of the scene, which country's bands were dominant, etc), the point is that some readers might in fact not have a clue whether this is true or not. Thus, we need reliable sources supporting opinionated claims such as which country's bands were "dominant".
 * Your addition of various Citation Needed tags was worthwhile. Please feel free to re-add those. Same with italicising album titles. However, it's not unreasonable for me to revert your wholesale changes to remove unsourced, undiscussed changes. In the future, I suggest making several edits: one or more for content addition/removal/changes, and one or more for less problematic edits, like adding Citation Needed tags.
 * I recommend learning how to edit on Wikipedia rather than getting angry at me for reverting changes that had a whole host of problems. WP:V explains that information needs to be sourced; WP:RS explains what constitutes a reliable source; WP:OR explains what original research is and how to avoid it. Taking a look through these policies and guidelines; they can be quite helpful in making better edits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “First off, please read WP:CIVIL. You'll find editors are much more willing to work collaboratively with you if you don't insult them constantly […].“ First off, read that yourself (I still can’t be accustomed to people seeing other behaviour as uncivil and not noticing theirs is); I contribute to the explanation of a word’s origin, referring to dictionaries used by scholars versed in Aramaic (I might even be one of those or at least know such people personally [but still have been “losing my religion”, to quote a great R.E.M. song, during this annoying conflict, unfitting a scholar discussion], but that doesn’t matter here), and you claim my edits were “generally unsourced changes”, and comments like “clearly show you are editing based on your own opinion” (you don’t know anything about my opinion on anything so don’t write such rubbish) are not exactly the epitome of civility. You are in no good position to tell anybody about civility or insults, sir/madam (your user name implies the first but that’s no proof for anything, of course). “There may be one or two useful edits in your massive changes, but I'm not taking a lot of time to sort through and keep those few useful edits” seems to roughly translate to ‘I am too lazy too look at edits I do not understand and will undo anything unless it totally pleases me’ or something along these lines. You are less constructive than a bulldozer and no more civil than I am; I may have called you a moron, but you definitely provoked that one, and there are more ways to be ‘uncivil’ than using terms like that one, including your behaviour. If you don’t understand that, you are definitely unfit for collaborative efforts (yes, this is an allusion to “and Wikipedia is a collaborative effort”).
 * “You named a couple of sources”; yes, but still you dared claim I did “generally unsourced changes”, giving me a good reason to assume you are quite a moron (otherwise you must be a hypocrite, a prick, a saboteur or something along similar; in any case, you do yourself no favour). I do acknowledge the “without really providing much to go on” and may refer to an older sentence of mine: “Don’t tell me you undid them just because I mentioned the titles but not the page number or whatever!” As written above, the Compendious Syriac Dictionary and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon are used by scholars, and are you really surprised that I doubt your motives and intellect if you restore an unreferenced version when somebody offers some insight? How many people listening to or at least knowing that band speak Syriac or Mandaic? I might add further information on that, which you asked for (“Publisher, author/editor(s), date of publishing, etc”) in the near future but you don’t really make me want to. “Do they specifically mention how Beherit, the band, incorrectly attribute the word?” No, they don’t; it’s not really what you would expect from these either, would you? “Or are you just performing original research, claiming that it is incorrect based on your own research?” What I did was refer to what these have to say about the root BHR ‘shine’ (that’s also where the Hebrew בָּהִיר comes from [as in Bahir, a Jewish mystical work, considered to be one of the first Kabbalistic ones]), and I assumed people on a project that would like to be an encyclopædia would rather believe a dictionary than some anonymous person on the internet. I was in no way implying that the Compendious Syriac Dictionary and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon were referring to the band but offering the definitely needed information about Aramaic. “Those are the only two instances in which you included "sources". Your claim that "most of the dominant bands in the scene were from Norway" (emphasis mine, to highlight your change) is completely unsourced.” Okay, but still the claim that most bands were from Norway remains wrong, full stop.
 * “Changes in style: You changed the use of "is" to "are", "was" to "were", "categorized" to "categorised", and so on, without a good reason to do so.” I write in British English (which I prefer to US English for various reasons I don’t see the need to explain) and changed these simply because I am used to write that way. I was not expecting this to be a ‘reason’ for a conflict. “The style currently existing in the article should not be changed unless there is good reason. See WP:RETAIN.” Well, I named my reason (a good one to me, but that is my personal usage/habit and I won’t start a feud for that one). “I'm also not sure why you capitalised "Drawing down the Moon", as it doesn't appear to be a proper noun (and if it is, then "Down" should also be capitalised; however, Drawing down the Moon (ritual) doesn't show "down" capitalised, so I concluded that "Drawing" should not be either).” A mistake of mine, obviously.
 * “Yes, band members often go by pseudonyms. It might be reasonable to use those instead of the members' actual names, but this should be discussed on the talk page first.” Same as above: I might do so in the near future but you don’t really make me want to. But if we come to that point, I’d prefer to have that whole conversation copied and pasted, especially because I don’t know for how long they can remain on IP address-related talk pages without being deleted, and the context is obviously important.
 * “‘your comment shows that you obviously don’t have a clue’ – While this isn't true in my case (I'm well-aware of the history of the scene, which country's bands were dominant, etc), the point is that some readers might in fact not have a clue whether this is true or not. Thus, we need reliable sources supporting opinionated claims such as which country's bands were ‘dominant’.” Well, if you undo my edits and write that they “clearly show you are editing based on your own opinion” (again, you don’t know anything about my opinion on anything so don’t write such rubbish), restoring a version that falsely claims most black metal bands were Norwegian (the only interpretation according to which this is the case is the one according to which Beherit are not black metal because they were not theistic but LaVeyan), you don’t give the impression that you know anything about the topic (the existence of all those non-Norwegian bands is not my damn opinion but a historical fact, regardless of whether you or I consider them to be black metal bands or not), nor that you can even think clearly, to use that word abused by yourself. Note that my reply only names bands from the three countries named before (Finland, Greece [both known for totally ‘un-Norwegian’ music styles established before other bands than Mayhem arose] and Sweden) and Germany, and only some of the most notable artists (objectively, not necessarily reflecting my personal tastes [I might as well despise all that music and just have blundered into that because a band used the name Beherit, but you can’t know that and it’s none of your business either]), and the black metal article mentions the Greek style as a part of the instrumentation section, lots of non-Norwegians before what is generally called the second wave (including quite a few names mentioned above, although all of these were also part of that second wave and therefore prove the Norwegians were not that much of a majority back then), and there is even a section titled The second wave outside Norway which you should look at before replying (I didn’t name Cradle of Filth because I didn’t want to refer to a local scene having just one notable black metal [or somehow black metal-related, depending on one’s interpretation] band at that time, and they were only an accepted part of the scene in the beginning and I didn’t want to discuss about them instead of what really matters here), and it doesn’t even mention US bands that were around already (Profanatica, Demoncy, Grand Belial’s Key [not acting as anti-Semitic idiots back then], Black Funeral [Michael W. Ford acting as a Nazi idiot back then] and others who are mentioned in the article), though it’s undeniable all of them were less relevant than the European second wave bands. Again, none of this is an opinion of mine, this knowledge even a part of this project I tried to contribute to. Which makes your “clearly show you are editing based on your own opinion” sentence even more ridiculous, and your claim this was not true and that you were “well-aware of the history of the scene, which country's bands were dominant, etc” not exactly credible. Before you come up with such stupid assumptions (You have no basis for those; to give a similarly stupid example, would you like me to read into your user name that you like Hitler, or ‘Super’ Mario for that matter? I don’t think so, but this was just an intentionally absurd example; I guess you rather took it from the Nirvana song, which I really liked, by the way, just as the related comic strip drawn by Kurt Cobain himself.), you should rather remedy an article that claims most bands were Norwegians since you claim to at least be aware that “some readers might in fact not have a clue”; ‘your’ version will still tell them this was the case whereas I tried to somehow rectify that part. The point about the need for sources is valid though, although this project has a disgustingly twisted understanding of the term ‘reliable’ (whoever wrote those guidelines probably never looked that up in a dictionary). I guess I should explain this, referring to the guidelines themselves: “‘News reporting’ from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).” Well, do I really have to explain the problems with generally trusting established media? “News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.” If you can’t guess that one after what I wrote about the first quote, you are lost. “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” I really appreciate that sentence about non-neutral content sometimes being better. “Questionable and self-published sources”; well, that is quite a questionable headline which you could read as if both were the same bag of bones. “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.” Well, good fanzines are done by people who do not write to earn money but because they are interested in the topic (which doesn’t exclude critical articles), and the possible lack of editorial oversight does surely not make them any less trustworthy (except for the orthography maybe). “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason 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.” I do understand the reason, of course, but the problem is that this one could easily be used to exclude even the best self-published media. “"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.” My comment about writing to earn money can easily be applied to quite a few of these professional journalists; referring to second wave black metal, pretty much all established media portraited the Norwegians either as lunatics, retards, Nazis, all of these together, or anything similar, and it can easily be proven how they ignored facts and made up their own rubbish instead of delivering information about that specific scene. You rather got reliable information from fanzines than from the professional journalists. “Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.” Well, I think I explained why zines are sometimes the most reliiable things you could get your hands on. To end this paragraph: I read something about “verifiability not truth” as a rule for this project somewhere. I think it is obvious (at least it should be, but conversations like this one make me doubt it is) why this is problematic.
 * “Your addition of various Citation Needed tags was worthwhile.” I acknowledge that at least you are not unfair on that point. “Please feel free to re-add those. Same with italicising album titles.” To quote myself: “I might do so in the near future but you don’t really make me want to.” “However, it's not unreasonable for me to revert your wholesale changes to remove unsourced, undiscussed changes.” To me, it is; would you like to see all of your corrections being undone by somebody seeming not to know anything about the related topics (the band, black metal, The Satanic Bible and, of course, Aramaic) coming across with unfounded assumptions (which definitely are insulting/uncivil) and other rubbish because they do not agree with a part of them? I don’t think so but I can’t know you wouldn’t (even if you reply you wouldn’t it still might not be serious, I never could tell). “In the future, I suggest making several edits: one or more for content addition/removal/changes, and one or more for less problematic edits, like adding Citation Needed tags.” In the future, I suggest you take a closer look at edits and maybe gather some information before you undo constructive contributions.
 * “I recommend learning how to edit on Wikipedia rather than getting angry at me for reverting changes that had a whole host of problems.” I recommend you learn how to edit and communicate without moronic assumptions, the total undoing of useful contributions and all that instead of telling me what to do without noticing the splinter in your own eye. “WP:V explains that information needs to be sourced; WP:RS explains what constitutes a reliable source; WP:OR explains what original research is and how to avoid it. Taking a look through these policies and guidelines; they can be quite helpful in making better edits.” Thanks for the links (no sarcasm here [really]), I might read them later; work on your way of editing/communicating though, for any uncivil remark of mine is merely a reply to such behaviour and does not come out of the void. --185.42.112.78 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I got partway through your second paragraph, and since you won't stop being directly insulting, ignoring WP:CIVIL, I'm done here. If you continue to add unsourced and poorly-sourced information, original research, and so on, I will revert it (and if you continue to add it after that, I can start a case at WP:ANI). If you provide proper sources that actually discuss the changes you make, and avoid adding unsourced information and original research, I will leave it. While it's true that the Beherit article is in need of improvement, changes that add unsourced information and original research are not improvements. If you want to start a discussion on any of these points at Talk:Beherit, please feel free to do so. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Future changes?
Is there anybody watching this article besides this MrMoustacheMM who dares to falsely claim my changes were “generally unfounded” (which is obviously wrong although I might add further information on the Compendious Syriac Dictionary and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) and to write some ridiculous assumptions on what they (although the user name suggest a male user I can’t know that and I don’t care either) believe to be my own opinion about which they don’t know anything, but fails to see that they are rude by doing so and that any uncivil remark of mine is merely a reply to such behaviour and does not come out of the void (see User talk:185.42.112.78 and then please read the whole discussion and not just parts of it)?

Well, I don’t feel particularly motivated to still offer some insight, not even to restore the parts that allegedly posed no problems for the aforementioned user (the addition of tags and italicising of album titles). What I did was add some information on the name and Syriac. I edited the German article though, in two steps (adding data from the aforementioned works and others refering to the name Beherit and information from the dictionary usually abbreviated as Gesenius); if anyone cares they are free to copy from there as long as they state that in their summary (except the Gesenius and some of LaVey’s works [I used German and French translations that could be found online], all sources are written in English, and you still have access to the article’s history and my explanation on the other talk page), but I don’t know if I’m going to help, for reasons stated above and on the aforementioned talk page. --185.42.112.78 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rehash
Dude, what a discussion. Some comments, please read the whole thing before this becomes a dispute like the one above: I think it was better to open a new section for these comments. --Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg, formerly active using the static IP adress 132.187.3.26. 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * MrMoustacheMM, you do not know shit about the user′s opinion (just as they don′t know about yours, nor do I about any Wikipedian′s), so don′t be surprised by certain reactions. (And don′t even think of reporting me for using the s-word, which also applies to me in this same sentence and is nothing personal against you or any other user. If I had written ″anything″ insttead, it would still be the same sentence except for one word you might find offensive.)
 * Anybody with some knowledge about these things can tell you that the scene back then was far more international than the article suggests, so the comment about the edit making perfect sense is justified. The older version was not more justified than 185.42.112.78′s since there is no reference for a Norwegian majority.
 * The changes were more supported and less original research than you claim (and than the rest of the article was). 185.42.112.78 did, unlike anybody else, add a reference for the claim that the band′s name was Syriac (the 1991 the interview from Liquid of Life), though the dictionary references (″See e. g. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary or the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon″) may have been insufficient. Claiming the edit was "generally unsourced changes" and restore unreferenced stuff at the same time, you should not be surprised if a contributor who did bring reference (though sometimes not precise enough) is pissed off and reacts as pissed off people do, nor if people react to your ″read WP:CIVIL″ comment by ″read that yourself″, ″not exactly the epitome of civility. You are in no good position to tell anybody about civility or insults″, ″unfounded assumptions (which definitely are insulting/uncivil)″ or ″work on your way of editing/communicating though, for any uncivil remark of mine is merely a reply to such behaviour and does not come out of the void″ (quoted because you admit you stopped reading before the end of the last post). Especially if you undo whole edits (also including improvement of typography) and depict their version as a disimprovement or worsening (which the impression you may leave, but not the truth).
 * I am not a Syriacist or whatever, but I did a quick online search for A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. It was written by Robert Payne Smith, the German article calls the Latin version his magnum opus. The English version was done by his daughter. So this is a dictionary by a notable scholar. Its age does not pose a problem, does it? You can find it on Google Books, and also lots of books quoting it.
 * I also did a quick online search for Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. This is a dictionary project (info) with several books published (list), several of these authors are obviously notable: Joseph Fitzmyer, Michael Sokoloff, so are other contributors: Ze'ev Ben-Haim, Menaḥem Cohen (must be this guy), some others for sure, I did not check every name. Again, Google Books has lots of results. Theres is a book called Aramaic in Its Historical and Linguistic Setting which features quite a few of this project′s contributors (including one about the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) but also other authors (I trust you can find the table of content yourself), by Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, a scholar publisher.
 * I may add that hardly anybody speaks or understands Syriac (or generally Aramaic), and it is pretty unlikely that they listen to black metal and contribute to this project, so we should appreciate this rather than shoo them away.
 * Thus, we may assume none of these dictionaries name the band, but they are references when it comes to Syriac. This is valuable (and, by the way, was not reverted in the German Beherit article [edits linked to by 185.42.112.78 in the post below your last one], where it is better referenced than here). By the way, it was mentioned that these are ″dictionaries used by scholars versed in Aramaic″.
 * You wrote you ″got partway through your second paragraph″, so apparently you didn′t read the whole of their last answer. I suggest you do. Certain other changes (style) were explained in a reflecting way (″A mistake of mine, obviously″, ″The point about the need for sources is valid though″, ″I acknowledge that at least you are not unfair on that point″, ″Thanks for the links (no sarcasm here [really])″). but according to your last comment you stopped reading before reaching those paragraphs.
 * The sentence about Hitler, Mario and Nirvana is ″just an intentionally absurd example″ showing how short of knowledge we are when assuming anything about another user (you on their alleged opinion, they [in this ″intentionally absurd example″] on your name). But you stopped reading before anyway.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beherit. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813184705/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/finland/rovaniemi/beherit to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/finland/rovaniemi/beherit
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130101224/http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews/beherit/ to http://www.anus.com/metal/about/interviews/beherit

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)