Talk:Caught in a Mosh

Their most famous song? Is there a source on that? I personally have never even heard of it, outside of the VH1 special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.149.104 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 July 2007

further expansion
There appears to have been a BBC special album by Anthrax put out by the same name:. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

sourcing and verifiability
I've reverted some of these edits by a second time, and I'll explain here. I have no problem with the expand template, although I now generally find it superfluous and somewhat garish in addition to the stub template. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 00:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the album cover and variable per the infobox song template itself, and the non-free content criteria.
 * I replaced the blank infobox variables; with them they encourage other editors to add what we do not know now, without them they are unknown and may never be filled.
 * I removed the specific March 22 release date, as the Amazon.com reference does not contain that information. If anyone has a reliable source for that specific information, then just replace the amazon citation there with yours.
 * The VH1 citation does not refer to this album as "Thrash metal", only as "Metal"; please don't replace it without verifiable and reliable sourcing for something different.
 * Again, with regard to the "Writer" variable and "Personnel" section, there is no sourcing for that information. While these may have been the band members at the time of release, (a) there is nothing citing that they collectively wrote the music for this song, and (b) can anyone cite that all of the band members performed in this song and that there were none missing or performing in addition?  I'll not remove that information for the time being as I don't doubt it's voracity, but it still needs to be cited.
 * For what it's worth, I don't like the section titling of "Personnel", and would prefer something more specific to the medium such as "Performers" or "Credits"; I'll not fight anybody over this, but think on its sense.


 * All this information can be found in the Among the Living article. That's where I found the info, and if you still challenge the truth behind that, take it up with the editors of that article who added that information.
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the information at Among the Living is referenced, save the Gold certification, so there are no references there to draw upon; what you found is uncited information, which may not be included in either article. As such, I've tagged that article duly, and reverted your edits here as unverifiable.  Remember, before you include any information into any article, especially when and if challenged, you have to make sure it can be attributed to a reliable, published source.  Not to make any assumptions or inferences: but read up on the relevant policies at Verifiability and Reliable sources if you have any questions or concerns.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to take it that far, going into that much detail about what's referenced and what's not, who's to say that the song's from Among the Living? Where's the reference that's it's a song by Anthrax? Where's proof that there's even a song called "Caught in a Mosh"?
 * ---Rock Soldier (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently, all of those concerns are already addressed by the sourcing in the article. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 23:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the only ones that are referenced are that it was ranked #29 on the 40 Greatest Metal Songs, that there was a cover of it on Guitar Hero 3, that it was released in 1987, that it is a metal song, and that it was released on Island Records. And my point is, isn't there a point where it just gets rediculous with the referencing? By these standards, can you even write a sentence without having to reference every single word of it? I can understand the need if it's a claim made by someone or a quote of what someone said, but when it's general known facts, should it really be so enforced?
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, while not cited, the information you asked about is in the listed sources; if somebody challenged it, I would add cites for them as well. As for whether everything needs to be sourced: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." That's policy.  Further, "[m]aterial challenged or likely to be challenged, [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source."  (a) If you're challenging the information as you mentioned, I'll be glad to add those specific citations.  (b) I self-challenge everything I write, and everything in articles I work on.  Without sourcing and citations, Wikipedia is just another webpage that might be true; with them, it's a reliable third-party encyclopedic resource.  There is no point at which it's rediculous [sic] to cite reference where you got the information if it's unclear or likely to be challenged; and when it is, we the editors/contributors must be at the ready and willing to verify the voracity of the information we're providing—or remove it if lacking. That being said, unless you can provide reliable sourcing for the information we discussed above and below (single status, label, specific contributing artists and writers, and recording date (afaict)), I'll revert/remove it until such time as it can be.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And somehow, having wikipedia be "another webpage that might be true" is so much worse than having wikipedia be a webpage with information sourced to "another web page that might be true"?
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

has provided an additional reliable source with the All Music Guide. I've formatted and applied those citations, and removed the rest of the uncited information. However, the source of http://www.edbrill.com/ is not reliable, and has been removed duly. Following, I'll list the some possibly contentious edits and my rationales for others' benefit. If User:Rock Soldier (or anybody else) has any questions or contentions about the edits made, please let me know here and I'll do my best to explain. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, this has not been reliably proven to be a single; as such, I replaced the Infobox Song template.
 * User:Rock Soldier cited the writing credits of this album to the All Music Guide; however, it does not corroborate that claim. I have removed the writing credits for now.  I similarly removed the Producer credits.
 * I have replaced Fontana Island in favor of Island Records based upon the Amazon.com source.
 * I wasn't aware of the apropos WikiProject's MoS for such, so for the sake of continuity I don't have any objections to the changed subdivision. I also thank User:Rock Soldier for knowing that "Jon Zazula" is actually Johny Zazula; I've redirected the former to the latter since a few other articles were redlinked there as well (probably also citing the AMG).  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

single?
Without any sourcing, is contending this is a single ; if anybody can, please provide reliable sourcing for this assertion. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I based this off of the Singles section of the Anthrax discography page. If you want sourcing for the verifiability for that, I suggest you take it up with the editors of that page.
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, particularly since that indicated article lacks any sources of its own. Unless you or anybody else has verifiable sources for this, I'll edit it back to the last attributable version.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it means that much to you, why don't you just go ahead and remove it from the Anthrax discography page while you're at it?
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

writer
has edited that the band itself is credited with writing this song, citing this link. I can't find anything explicit stating such, and will remove the credit and erroneous citation unless somebody can. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you take a look, it clearly lists it right on the page. It has that table, and under the "composer" column, next to "Caught in a Mosh", it says "Anthrax". Composer pretty much means writer, but if that's not specific enough for you, we could edit the infobox so that it says nothing in the writer column and has it listed as composer instead.
 * --Rock Soldier (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

genre
I've now reverted twice for his changing of the specified genre of this song. The user is only changing the fact w/o changing the citation; the VH1 source does not corroborate a genre of "thrash metal". If anybody has a reliable source for such a change, please either provide it here, or in the article itself. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this is reliable, but http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/album.php?album_id=170&band_id=35&bandname=Anthrax


 * Although, it should be fairly obvious this song is thrash metal.


 * RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into whether that source is reliable now, but you didn't cite it when re-introducing your claim. I've re-added your information and included this citation; I've also temporarily added a comment as I'm investigating your source.  As for that which is "fairly obvious", Wikipedia policy requires that "all material [...] be attributable to a reliable, published source."  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RandySavageFTW is changing "metal" to read "heavy metal" in conflict with the cited source. VH1 refers to the song as "metal" and it's original research to assume they meant "heavy metal". Please do not revert again w/o a reliable source for a new specificity. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Might as well have a source that says this is a song as well.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We do. Do you take issue with my implementation of the verifiability and reliable sourcing policies? They are requisite, do you realize?  What you're doing is having the article say one fact, while attributing it to a source that says another; I'm confused as to why you find this appropriate for this encyclopedic article.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me: What the hell's the difference between "metal" and "heavy metal?"

You don't need a source for every damn thing said.

Seems like you're owning this article...

RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, I would ask VH1 as they're making the statement. On the contrary, per the English Wikipedia policy on verifiability, "[m]aterial challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Lastly, I appreciate your assumption of ill faith and accusation of ownership. However, I am actually implementing en.Wikipedia policies and procedures with regard to original research, reliable sourcing, and verifiability.  If you take issue with those tenants, please bring them up thusly; edit warring against those same will not change their implementation by myself or others.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit warring
Please remove unreliable, unsourced, POV information from the article. Do not remove reliably sourced information to push a POV. See the appropriate policies and guidelines at Reliable sources, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view. The information twice removed is (a) cited to a reliable source, (b) verifiable, and (c) neutrally represents a significant view fairly, proportionately and without bias. Whether anybody thinks or feels any given way about the material preseented in the article, those are tenants of the English Wikipedia, and abidement is compulsory and expected. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is fuckin' hilarious.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate you take it that way, I'm quite serious in my explanations and continued implementations. Please do not revert reliable sourced information to push a POV.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout you add "rock" as well, since metal's a sub-genre of rock?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be original research on my part since I have no reliable sources to cite for that information. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But metal's a sub-genre of rock. How's it not rock?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying one thing or another; all I'm effectively saying is that "VH1 says this is metal." I'm not going to interpret that one way or another by assuming what they meant (as that's original research), I'm just going to use the information verbatim and cite it.  We include it to maintain a neutral point of view by "representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." In the grand scheme of things, not critical: but including VH1's categorization of this song as quote "metal" provides the reader with a better and more comprehensive understanding of this topic and its place in the world.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a source that says it's thrash. There's no need for "metal," which isn't even a genre (heavy metal is the actual name, but your owning of the article fucks that up,too). Both rock and heavy metal or none at all.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Says you. On the other hand, VH1 referes to the song as "metal.  I heartily recommend you refer to policies and guidelines instead of making ultimatums.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I heartily recommend you stop owning this article.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of implementing policies and guidelines in this article does not constitute owning this article; were that the case, I would be "owning" every article I edit. Please, again, do not continue pushing your personal point-of-view upon this article.  Continuing on, I intend to redirect this article to Among the Living, unless anybody has reliable input to bolster its notability as discussed below.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RandySavage is right. Aside from that, you are also a comple idiot Pd Thor. VH1 says they are metal=thrash metal...

Dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.177.240 (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. VH1 says "metal" as cited in the article, arguing against that is nonsensical.  Please do not degenerate to personal attacks on the English Wikipedia, that can and will result in a ban.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you see any fucking article in wikipedia about a metal song, you will never see just "metal", you will always see a sub-genre (e.g. Heavy Metal, Thrash, Death) So stay the fuck out and stop editing the fucking article pd_THOR --203.115.131.73 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from being egregiously incivil, you haven't proffered any encyclopedic reason not to include the reliable POV of the VH1 citation. Please cease denigrating other contributors and instead read up on the policies and guidelines I'm bringing to bear.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

notability
I brought up my concern about this article's notability at the talk page here; I only received one reply (and no dissentions) opining that this page should be merged into Among the Living. I think I agree, but want to bring it up for discussion before doing anything about it. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the discussion page regarding the notability of music (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)), three editors have concurred supporting a merge of this article into Among the Living. A few editors aside from myself have edited here and, if so inclined, should make their input known if they dissent with the emerging consensus. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)