Talk:Crosses (band)

Witch house as genre
I see a lot of users removing sourced information about Crosses playing witch house music and starting edit wars, but what I don't see are any reasons for why this should be removed. Anyone care to elaborate? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that they simply don't agree with the source, based on this edit from a while ago and the continued removal of it. Same thing was happening on the Crosses (EP) article also. HrZ (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because the source is the opinion of a 3rd party stating Crosses is a witch house band, and not anything from the band or directly-related industry peoples. Also, witch house itself is a disputed genre believed by many to be marketing nonsense (of which the aforementioned source is believed to play a role in generating), and . Were it that my opinion mattered, I'd say Crosses is more closely related to trip hop than anything else. As my opinion does not in fact matter, I've left in this ridiculous genre tag and will leave it to more qualified and level-headed persons to sort out. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With that comment, I can safely assume you are unaware of wikipedia policies? Sources must be third party and independent of the subject (not the band themselves). Pitchfork Media is considered a reliable source, it states witch house so there is no reason to remove. If you do have a problem with it and think it is unreliable, report the source here. HrZ (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My take on it is that the probability of Crosses being a witch-house band is highly unlikely for several reasons. First and foremost, they sound nothing like a witch-house band. After listening to several of their songs I feel practically no witch-house influence there. No shoegaze-style drowned out vocals or walls of noise, no dark or gothic overtones, and little sampling. Secondly, the probability of a big-timer like Chino jumping onto the witch-house fad which essentially started in 2009 are slim to none. Finally, there is a real witch-house band called †‡†(Pronounced Ritualz). The probability that Pitchfork got the two mixed up seems very high to me. I don't know Wikipedia policies, but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. --9mystere9 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you said, pretty much falls under WP:OR. Everything needs to attributed to a reliable source for verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true." Wither or not they sound like a witch-house band (in your opinion) is irrelevant. The source states witch-house so there is no reason for it not to be included. If they have been mixed up with another band (which I doubt), you would need to prove that. HrZ (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What would I need to get from Pitchfork to prove that it was a slip-up? Does it have to be a published admission or changing of article in question, or would an email work? --9mystere9 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either the article would have to change or they post a new article correcting themselves. Either way, it has to be published so everyone can check it. HrZ (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issue is much larger than that since other reliable sources see Crosses as witch house such as The New Zealand Herald and Forbes—the latter of which even acknowledges that the term originated as a joke, but has legitimate applications today. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I understand the breakdown of what happened. Pitchfork posted that Crosses was witch-house on August 2nd. Later the same day Lopez made an amused post to his tumblr, which all parties involved interpreted as affirmation that that's what crosses identifies itself as. Meanwhile, Chino just doesn't care enough to mess with petty genre classifications. Oh well, I guess Crosses stays witch-house. --9mystere9 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I upon further investigation I can't leave this alone. WP:IRS states that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." That said, the Pitchfork article cites an Altered Zones article which gives a rather dodgy description of the band's music(And coincidentally mentioning †‡† AKA Ritualz during the article.) The listed author of the Altered Zones article is "Altered Zones." When I clicked the about page for Altered Zones, it states, "Altered Zones is an international collective of music bloggers that unites 15 autonomous sites." So wouldn't the veracity of the statement "Crosses is a witch-house band" be equal to the reliability of the least reliable music blogger of those that contribute to Altered Zones? WP:IRS also states "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Of the sources above, Forbes openly admits that Crosses sounds nothing like witch-house. As for The New Zealand Herald, the article is in the "Opinion" section rather than "Entertainment." This is probably related to the fact that they call Crosses 'dubsteppy'. Not sure if there are other articles claiming them to be witch-house, but the whole thing appears to have popped out of thin air on August 2nd with the Altered Zones/Pitchfork article. The first mention the band made of the genre "witch-house" was as previously stated on Lopez's tumblr the day the article was published. --9mystere9 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, a correction: Ric Leichtung, writer of the blog "International Tapes" is the one who wrote that Altered Zones article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9mystere9 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I find your criticisms to both of the articles I have provided to be invalid. Where in the Forbes article does it openly admit that Crosses "sounds nothing like witch-house"?? The author actually states that Crosses "bears more of a resemblance" to Deftones, which isn't to discredit witch house entirely. And as for your claim about The New Zealand Herald, I fail to see how what section this article is under holds any weight. A band's genre is entirely determined by how its music is received by music critics—a reception is an opinion of one person. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A genre is not defined by critics, it is defined by the techniques (within the music) that qualify it as being part of the genre. I've brought this question to a music professor at S.U., he brought up the fact that many music journalists have little knowledge of the defining characteristics of the music that they criticize. Pitchfork has had numerous problems with this, Google their credibility issues. Drag (a.k.a. witch house) is defined by the dragged beat scheme (and vocal samples) inherent within the music, it has been since it was used as a technique in some screwed and chopped hip-hop in 2005. It was embraced by post-shoegaze/industrial musicians in 2006. The beat is the only aspect which defines music as drag (witch house). If you need help understanding it, I can put you in touch with the musician known as Nattymari (of Kreayshawn mixtape fame) his real name is Daffyd McKahary, he's a former writer/music reviewer for New Times (L.A.) and a blogger for Mishka, he is considered the foremost historian of drag music within the Witch House/Drag scene. Baku Shad-do (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I know nothing of witch house and will not even pretend that I do. Wither or not Crosses is a witch house band is not the issue, read Wikipedia policy WP:V: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement [...] No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." Can sources be provided that state that are or are not? The answer is yes. There are three sources, considered to be reliable, that state they are witch house. What you are saying may be perfectly true (like I said, I know nothing of the genre), but can you provide reliable sources that state specifically that Crosses are not witch house? Providing sources stating what witch house is doesn't help with your arguement unless they are talking specifically about Crosses, detailing why they are not witch house. Stating they do not fit the genre, wrongfully labelled as witch house without a reliable source to back it up won't help you because of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which must be adhered to). You mentioned in the ANI an "entire forum where all the artists from the genre converse." However, forums are not considered reliable sources per WP:USERG. Giving contact information doesn't help either, anyone who reads a Wikipedia article must be able to check the sources themselves. Are you wanting to including someone's contact information in the article?


 * You keep stating that Pitchfork has been found to post errors yet you have yet to provide a source saying that article is wrong. If you really consider Pitchfork to be unreliable, or that article in particular, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and you will get an answer on it's reliability. That or the other two sources posted by Fezmar9. If you still have a problem with this, we can take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard or seek out a third opinion from an unenvolved editor. So, can you provide reliable sources stating Crosses are not witch house and post them here? It might also benefit you to read WP:UNDUE also. HrZ (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside opinion: Just in case editors here aren't watching the WP:ANI discussion about Baku Sahd-do's removal of this genre, myself and a few others have commented that the removal does not seem to be in accordance with our policies on verifiability, and that there appears to be nothing wrong with re-adding it. Of course, if Baku Shad-do should like to present alternative positions based on reliable sources, those can also be done; if there is a genuine dispute with regards to this genre labelling in reliable sources, then we should probably keep it out of the info box and include both positions in text (infoboxes are really only good for uncontested information). Alternatively, if Baku Shad-do wants to argue that the reference does not meet WP:RS, that's fine too; WP:RSN is probably the best place to pursue that. I'll be watching the article to make sure no more edit warring occurs on this (or other points); feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if admin intervention is needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the issue here is that verifiability and truth can contradict one another even in the face of common sense. This situation is a bit like going to apple and seeing a picture of an orange on the page. It's pretty apparent from a common sense standpoint that oranges are not apples. However, that image may still be reliably sourced (for example, an image file mix-up on a news site that fails to be caught). There are many industry-related sites out there that do not apply the Witch House label to Crosses (and Crosses does not seem to apply that label to themselves either), but since they do not specifically say "Crosses is not a Witch House group" and since the original sources have not retracted their statement (akin to my metaphorical orange image people not correcting their mistake or issuing a retraction saying "that was not the correct image for an apple, sorry for the misunderstanding") Wikipedia policy forces us to keep what could very well be erroneous information and present it as if it were fact, leaving us insisting that our apple is an orange...which both makes us look a bit foolish and causes my head to hurt when trying to explain it. Does this make any sense? I'm not feeling particularly eloquent today.


 * In the end, though, I'm not sure how this can really be settled. Some sources state Crosses is Witch House, some do not. If a source states something that isn't supported by other sources yet is also not refuted by other sources, do we include it or not? Amity Lane (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source says something that is unrefuted by any other reliable source, assuming it is otherwise relevant, we include it. If two reliable sources say conflicting things, assuming it is otherwise relevant, we report the conflict.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as to how to "report the conflict" in terms of tagging a genre. There's not really a facility for that that I'm aware of. Also, I did find a couple sources that do refute the Witch House label but as they're more of those blog-that's-also-a-news-music-site-hybrid-thing similar to Pitchfork I'm unsure as to whether or not they can be considered reliable: here and here. Also, do we consider omission a refutation (in other words, if a site fails to categorize their music as Witch House does that infer that they are not, in fact, Witch House?) Amity Lane (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "tagging a genre"? The answer to your last question is no (we don't infer from silence).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new paragraph
Ok, so I think this whole witch house debate has dragged on for too long now. I've done a lot more research since last commenting here, and this is what I've come up with:

"The musical style of Crosses is often referred to as   or witch house.  However, Carson O'Shoney of Consequence of Sound and Daniel Brockman of The Boston Phoenix note that Crosses only shares a resemblance to witch house in aesthetics and imagery, and not the group's actual music.  O'Shoney said Crosses' witch house influence is, 'noticeable just by looking at the tracklist—every song has at least one † in it. The name of the band is †††. The name of the EP is †. Everything about the EP points to witch house—until you listen to the actual music.' The group's decision to use this imagery stems from Chino Moreno's interest in the art and mystique around religion. Moreno however also said, 'I didn't want people to think we are a religious band, a satanic band or that we are a witch-house band. It's difficult using a religious symbol, but at the same time, I think in an artistic way, it can totally go somewhere else and I think we are kind of walking that line.'"

I think it accurately states that there are those who consider Deftones a witch house band, while there are those who disagree, while also including the band's comment on the whole thing. It could either be tacked on to the lead or the start of a new section entirely. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the AlternativePress source shows some weird/humorous image of Chino Moreno that says "Chino Moreno has a witch house band" posted by Shaun Lopez on Tumblr that may of started a lot of this debate. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having this as some sort of separate section, and I think what you've put together is some very good work. There's been some attention to this "genre controversy" from outside of Wikipedia, so given the above discussion and the myriad sources provided from all sides I personally think adding your proposed bit in its own section would be a good addition (it may not settle the debate but it certainly adds information to the article). What to title said section, though..."Witch House controversy"? "Genre dispute"? Something along those lines I suppose. Amity Lane (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it needs a new section. As proposed, it would just be a new paragraph. It shouldn't be given that kind of prominence. It's about the genre more than about the band itself and it should be tailored accordingly. Also, off-Wikipedia "attention" is irrelevant to any decision made here. Finally, no matter what is done, please avoid the use of the word "controversy".--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word controversy shouldn't be used since none of the sources provided mention any controversy. If someone wants to help me dig up some published sources on what genre(s) Crosses is referred to as outside of witch house, and if the proposed wording is supported by everyone, then I think we should insert this paragraph into the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your proposed paragraph at the top looks okay to me. I don't see why anything more needs to be added (the Deftones thing).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice the first sentence has the placeholder of . I was hoping to whip something out about witch house, see how it was received, and go from there. I feel that a paragraph largely denouncing Crosses as being witch house begs the question: "Then what are they?" So other genres should be mentioned as well. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it in layers and get the first part done before discussing anything more? And, as Amity said earlier, thanks for your work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV recommends just calling the section "Genre" (rather than using "dispute" or "controversy") if you want a section title. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

✅. I've added the paragraph to the article. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit dumb, but I should've looked earlier at the article structure (or lack of it). It doesn't make sense to me that the new material should go into the lead, which is now way out of proportion to the body. How about removing the subsection under History (I've never understood a section with only one subsection) and adding a section called Genre or Style and putting the material there?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone disagree with the removal of ambient rock from the infobox? As far as I am aware, there is no source for it. HrZ (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Electronic is discussed in the article, but ambient is not. There shouldn't be something in the infobox that isn't covered in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a quick look to see if there was any articles that state ambient, and the closest I found is this NME article http://www.nme.com/news/deftones/58394, though it is making a comparison between Crosses and Deftones. Apart from that, not much else apart from Blogger sites. HrZ (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

††† vs Crosses
According to MOS:TM:

Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used:
 * avoid: Macy*s, skate., [ yellow tail ], Se7en, Alien3, Toys Я Us
 * instead, use: Macy's, Skate, Yellow Tail, Seven, Alien 3, Toys "R" Us

So, ††† can be used in the lead, but because the symbols aren't actually pronounced and are purely used for decoration (unlike !!! where the symbols are actually pronounced), the rest of the article including the title must remain as Crosses according to the guideline. There also may be technical issues that arise when using a symbol instead of a character in the article title, per WP:TSC. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crosses (band). 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/20130209013147/http://lineup.lollapaloozacl.com/ to http://lineup.lollapaloozacl.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065636/http://www.teamdeftones.com/2014/03/crosses-to-release-record-store-day.html to http://www.teamdeftones.com/2014/03/crosses-to-release-record-store-day.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120714174053/http://ology.com/app.php/post/39965/deftones-singer-chino-moreno-unveils-new-side-project-crosses- to http://ology.com/app.php/post/39965/deftones-singer-chino-moreno-unveils-new-side-project-crosses-

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) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Daggers vs Crosses
Currently the dagger symbol, † (U+2020), is being used, but it should be the Latin cross, ✝ (U+271D). Boywonder92 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. The band's twitter uses the dagger symbol. Boywonder92 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)