User talk:Violeance

Welcome!

Hello, Violeance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Khors (band) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the content you removed is supported by a reliable source. Especially with this particular genre, National Socialist black metal, there is a lot of contention and often times the artists make conflicting statements. Wikipedia has guidelines for what constitutes reliable sources. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with that guideline, along with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Chronicles of Chaos has been discussed by editors before and the consensus is that it meets the standards for reliability expected by Wikipedia. See this list where it is included as a reliable source. If you need help in understanding any of this, I'm happy to help you!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Khors (band), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear 3family6, As a long term metal music amateur and metal music researcher, I have to ask you, with all my confusion, in regard to your weird corrections: Why are you so badly driven to correct bands' pages (namely, Khors (band) this time) with incorrect information? Please, fix my assumption if this untrue, but I have a very strong feeling that you are personally not even familiar with the band's music and lyrics. Am I right? So what would be your purpose in here? As any other scientific researcher or writer, even if this is not your case (just my assumption), we both perfectly know that the: link you repeatedly provided is: 1.irrelevant (a poor, not proven assumption in one sentence, in a (rather poor to admit honestly) album review); 2. the review by this link is out-of-date (2005) - it is 15 years passed by; 3. R.I.P. to this website you refer to, as it doesn't work from 2015, so there is even anybody there to support or reject this false information. ! Furthermore, 4. this webzine states: "All opinions expressed in Chronicles of Chaos are opinions held at the time of writing by the individuals expressing them. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else, past or present." (!!!) However, in my humble opinion, you are keeping doing revisions of the bands pages not in favor of wiki audience, but rather in favor of yourself. As this time you simply used your 'privelege' of 'reverting right' as long time corrector, that doesn't seem neither fair, nor correct. Your reasoning and internal motives are absolutely unclear to me, would you, please, explain - why this exact band has become your 'target purpose' and what did they do to you? thank you very much in advance for your reply!

Violeance (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't singled out this particular band, I'm active on a lot of these pages. I made edits based on what specialists, who have published their work in reliable sources, have said. Perhaps Khors has changed their music and scene involvement since 2016, if you can provide a source demonstrating that, the shift can be mentioned in the article. Regarding the CoC reference, 1. it is very much relevant as this was a notable and reputable webzine which specialized in underground metal, 2. it was reliable for what the band put out at the time, 3. true, the site can no longer issue corrections, but it also isn't the only work that's mentioned that Khors was part of the NSBM scene, and others can dispute the label today, and 4. that is a standard disclaimer that is customary for any opinion or review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I will do Violeance (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Even with a brief reviewing of the internet sources, and in support of my strong believe (and I even could say knowledge) of the exact genre of Khors music, please, see the following links that obviously shows the absence of bands' members interest to the political issues, they were accused in by the link you were using as a source (was that written by Quentin Kalis by mistake, or for malicious purposes, hard to say at the moment). Please, note, that one from those sources found and provided to you, is dated by 2009, so, I have some doubts of your rapid idea of some changes from 2016. I will do my own research though. Therefore, at the moment, I would kindly ask you to correct your 'redo' of the band at first instance, especially in relation to the link the wrong idea of Khors genre came from. Violeance (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The links follow: www.metal-archives.com/bands/Khors/39230 accessed on 16.04.2020 Citing: "Khors is a Slavic god of the sun and light. Khors declares itself as a non-political band. In 2013 Khors had signed a contract with Svarga Music giving the label their exclusive rights for re-releasing the band’s first four albums. However Candlelight still is their label for upcoming releases" Violeance (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

khors.info/en/band/interview/:128/, publishing date 4.01.09; accessed on 16.04.2020 Citing: "I was not interested in politics and always be this way thus it's extremely erroneous to note my previous band ASTROFAES as NSBM but I don't know it's present status. We have always been patriotically adjusted and we propagandized love to the Native Land, respect for ancestors and so on but one must not confuse it with inadequate political trends and organizations" Khorus Violeance (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 2016, that's the date that book was published that mentions the band being part of NSBM and white power music. Regarding the CoC review, CoC is quite neutral toward NSBM in its reviews and doesn't rate the albums based on like or dislike of the lyrics, so there's no evidence to suggest that Kalis was being malicious. And since the webzine specialized in undergound music and was very familiar with the Eastern European metal scene, and had a reputation of good repute, that judgement was not likely a mistake. Especially since 1) at least one other source, post-dating that review by seven years, mentions the band in connection with NSBM, and 2) the membership of and recording personnel for that band includes people from bands that are known for being NSBM indicates that this was a valid assessment. Metal Archives is not considered reliable because it, like Wikipedia, is user-generated content and not from staff (volunteer or paid) going through an editorial process. And honestly, that statement from the band sounds like a lot of statements from bands that are labeled NSBM, including bands that are/were really important to NSBM and are more politically explicit than Khors. It's also self-contradictory, since they claim to not be political but then go on about patriotism, propaganda, and love for ancestors, which are explicitly patriotic things. Certainly, though, that statement from the band can be included in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At first, please, let’s stick to the Primary topic of the Discussion - the Genre of the band, that was changed to the invalid, however, any of the comments from your reply will be considered. According to the history of the last changes of this page Khors (band) (from 12.04.2020 onward), corrections of any editors were reverted by a single editor . Since the primary goal of Wikipedia is the following: “ is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic”; and further, “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view” , so this must be this way. Therefore, you have to provide NEUTRAL knowledge to the topic, as an editor. This relates to the structure of the any Band’s page. The standard structure of the page sharply consists of: Infobox musical artist; the preamble (the very first paragraph available in important information), followed by other categories (history, present members, ex-members, discography, etc.). Thus, with any “witch hunts actions”, all kinds of assumptions and conjectures of private individuals, unverified rumors (even though you might consider the source your mentioned an undeniable truth, yet, this is very much arguable topic), malice, criticism, etc., please, remove it under the rubric “Critisism” or “Discussions”. So, would you, please, revise your corrections, starting from 12.04.2020. The genre of the Band must reflect the major and mainstream knowledge of the subject. Prove of the generally accepted band's genre will follow. Violeance (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Genre: Heathen dark metal, Black Metal; It combines elements of black metal, progressive metal, ambient music, doom, and to a lesser degree folk metal, producing something that is bleak, beautiful, and often mystical. Distancing themselves from the black metal label, Khors characterize the music as “heathen dark metal”. Perhaps that’s as good a shorthand description as any, since “dark metal” is so often used to describe music that doesn’t neatly fit anywhere else. {www.nocleansinging.com/2012/07/19/khors-wisdom-of-centuries/}; 2. Genre: Black Metal; Lyrical themes:Paganism, Mysticism, Ukrainian history, Nature. Source: {www.metal-archives.com/bands/Khors/39230}; 3. Ukrainian Heathen Black Metal scene. Source: {svarga.eu/en/khors}; 4. Black metal. Source: {www.metalstorm.net/bands/band.php?band_id=7007}. Violeance (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Violeance (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear 3family6, Since I did not receive any sufficient reply from you on the issue discussed (correction of your editor work on the band’s page Khors (band), in addition to the previous request to you – as to the last Editor of the Band’s page, – I just have to mention the following (without going into all particular details). Additionally, to the list of sources provided previously to you, I examined over 20 more reviews on this Metal band’s Genre already. I will not provide the whole list here (it is possible upon request), but to summarize my investigation.

Genre of the [Khors (Band)], according to the multiple reviews of the specialists from all over the world (eng, fr, it, span, ru, cz, fin) of the subject, is summarized (the list follows upon the frequency of the mentioning of the genre): 1. Black metal; 2. Melodic black metal; 3. Atmospheric black metal; 4. Pagan; 5. Heathen dark metal.

Several examples follow: 1) Mystical black metal, Atmospheric black metal, solid mid-tempo black metal; from Metal Forces; Sourse: {www.metalforcesmagazine.com/site/album-review-khors-night-falls-onto-the-fronts-of-ours}; 2) High quality Pagan / Black metal music recorded from the heart, with a portion of atmosphere and emotion; from Abyss 'zine; Source: {www.abysszine.com/recenze/2015050024-khors-night-falls-onto-the-fronts-of-ours} 3) Heathen dark metal; Stylistically KHORS blends a few of Metal’s sub-genres together nicely in to their own honest package. There are elements of black metal, death and doom metal and dark/extreme metal to name but a few, and it all blends together into a nicely polished evil sound; from Metal Temple; Source: {www.metal-temple.com/site/catalogues/entry/reviews/cd_3/k_2/khors-night-falls.htm}. 4) Black metal, heathen, pagan; from Metal Maniac; Source: {metal-maniac.com/khors-night-falls-onto-the-fronts-of-ours}.

Thus, I would kindly ask you revise your corrections on this Band page, as was requested by me upper in this talk. Thank you very much in advance! Violeance (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply on the elaboration of the point, provided by User:3family6 of adding the new adjustment to the nsbm topic (vague source in regard to this page, weak linking in the source provided).

“ 14:32, 15 April 2020‎ 3family6 talk contribs‎ 8,226 bytes +1,231‎ some more sourcing The band is known for its involvement in the Ukrainian National Socialist black metal and white power music scenes. The link you refer here: Dyck, Kirsten (2016). Reichsrock: The International Web of White-Power and Neo-Nazi Hate Music. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-8135-7472-1.

Firstly, Following the link we see only one mentioning of Band’s name, literally, one sentence that follows: “Other key groups have included Munruthel, White Load, Drudh, Nachtigall (German for nightingale), and Khors (named for the god of the sun in Slavic mythology)”. However, there is NO reference by the author on this exact sentence. She does provide references on the previous statement and following statement. But there is NO Reference on this exact statement you refer to. Therefore, again, it cannot be used as a reliable knowledge like source.

Secondly, the very first review of the book in the relevant to the author Journal: “Although Dyck’s arguments here have a degree of plausibility, her examples remain rather broad, making her assertion that mainstream music and mainstream ideology supply the scaffolding for the white power music web less convincing than it might otherwise be. This lack of clarity is partly due to murky terminology (what is mainstream music and mainstream ideology, and what is its’ structure? How does the author define race—a pseudoscientific term to begin with—or racism, terms that she does not include in the otherwise excellent index of her book?). <…> Mainly though, the lack of clarity is due to the fact that Dyck is not specific about the theoretical frameworks or the political theory that informs her inferences, or her conclusions about the ways mainstream ideology and music influence or give rise to white-power ideology and music. Without a theoretical foundation, it is hard for the reader to determine if Dyck’s conclusions are the result of her scientific investigation or rather of her own liberal political beliefs.” Source: Christiane K. Alsop et al., Book Review: Reichsrock: The International Web of White-Power and Neo-Nazi Hate Music; p.133; in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal; Volume 11 Issue 3 Global Approaches to Atrocity Prevention: Theory, Practice, and the State of the Field Article 14 3-2018 {scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1548&context=gsp}, accessed on 17.04.2020.

Thus, again, this is very vague mentioning (assumption – biased) by the author of the book; this idea might be supported a) by the absence of the reference in regard to Khors (band) only one insignificant, brief, non-specific mentioning in the book; b) review of the book from the theme-related journal (pointing out the absence of clear base of the author to do some statements), I provided above. Violeance (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made some edits that I think better reflect the balance present in the various sources. You have a valid point about weighting the opinion of sources - Wikipedia has a policy about maintaining neutrality, and part of that is ensuring that due weight is given to sources. Of the sources you provided, Metal Forces is excellent in terms of reliability. I didn't see any issues with the Czech webzine either, since they have an editorial staff. Re Kristin Dyck, if you notice, the criticism wasn't about their inclusion of certain bands or not, it was more that some terms were not defined and their attempt to connect these bands into a more mainstream apparatus that was criticized for not being clearly demonstrated. A quick websearch shows that Khors is often identified as being part of the NSBM scene. here (this source is reliable), here (probably also reliable), and then this website with more questionable reliability: here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

One question I have to you personally, 3family6, if I may: if your neighbor or even relative would kill someone, may I call you a killer then, may I demand you to be put into the prison for this too? My apologies, but I would really like to hear your answer for my better understanding of your position. That's just a primary reaction after I did check the links you sent to support reliability of the (most likely mistaken) conclusions of nsbm genre. Especially, the second link, ox-fanzine.de, is a disaster, disaster of how much trash the Internet may stand, publish and keep. Really, I am aware that this part of my respond is an emotional one, but how else it might be, after reading such rubbish stuff: "<...> have nothing to offer apart from children's black metal and "atmospheric" bombast shit. They would be laughed at in hell. Black Metal Nazis have the same problem as their Bonehead colleagues: they can only make bad music. But they're also bad people". Facepalm. Is it really may be called a review of the music album? The whole 'review' didn't contain anything of the actual music. It is that badly ridiculous that even funny. But this it not funny. However, this is a perfect example of a pure hate and the author's desire to condemn and stigmatize the band for his malicious purposes, and to denigrate the Artists and their work. So, with all my respect to your work and advanced approach of the editor here, if that's really "maybe reliable" source? I have doubts then, that you are not biased by yourself with the hidden motives to desecrate the band. I do hope it is not this way though. Coming back to the topic. Thank you for the corrections you've made. However, it is not enough was made, from a bigger perspective of all the research and info that was recently examined. As I was pointing out earlier, this "genre" discussion point, you are personally fighing for, shall be moved to the novel rubric: "critics" or "duscusions" or any other similar title. And Infobox also shall be revised. My strong believe, as of a human being and a social sciences/anthropological researcher, is that each single person shall be protected from the persecution on the base of his(her) race, nation, religion, gender, place of living, social position, etc. The same applies to Artists.

Violeance (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your serial killer argument is disingenuous because in this case you have musicians from bands known to be NSBM who are then playing in a different band. I don't know if ox-fanzine is reliable, however, it's not very different from many of the sources you have provided. This sound very much like a case of just not liking what some sources say. This isn't about "persecution" - when you are a Nazi, you won't be treated very kindly. And that analogy is sound because some of the members of the band have been clearly far-right nationalist in the past, even if they have tried to be less politically explicit since.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As I may conclude from what you say, User:3family6: "This isn't about "persecution" - when you are a Nazi"- or whoever you personally wouldn't like by your stereotypes in thinking next time - "you won't be treated very kindly.", sounds like a nazi speech from your mouth. Also, to my great regret, I do not see any presumption of innocence, but the other way around. As to the point 'who was playing within what bands in the past', it doesn't make members of the any band the other people as they are. And their actual points of view, person by person, you could learn from nobody, but them (from the interviews, etc), of what they speak about, of how they act, and what they play. The violation of the people rights is a crime. So, unfortunately, I cannot be sure any more of your neutral position in editions, as Wikipedia requests Violeance (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Neutral point of view" is defined in a particular way on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV). The gist of it is that edits should be based on the facts and opinions presented by reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia itself is not supposed to editorialize on what those sources say - editorialization must be based on sources. Yes, statements from the subjects themselves, if the subject is a person or human-made group of some kind, can, and should, be used, but they should be analyzed by outside sources. Not me and you, reliable published works.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, It must reflect the real picture with a neutral tone. Please, also consider the following policy, you must be aware of, Biographies_of_living_persons#cite_note-ZeroInformation-2 states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. <…> Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. <…> Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. And another important note to the topic: “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements». Neutral_point_of_view. Violeance (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad that we have reached a compromise

It appears we've reached a compromise. I'm glad!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Constant reverting of all other editors work - unfortunately, this is not a comprise from your side.

Although, this is the actual true the Band’s article might need more revisions and up-to-date information in regard to the artist’s activity, members, etc., it was not possible yet. As if to look through the last weeks Band's page history of the editing, all the corrections are not by any other editors except yours, all other editors corrections were reverted by you, User:3family6. So, from the time 12, April, - after your first edit of this particular page, 3 different editors corrections were reverted by “the only” editor. If to follow your link you are insisting and keep bringing back the rumor labling, it is clear that this is NS BM article - the article you are working on hardly, and then, you by all means promote and “advertise” it on the account of the other pages, also, with your irrelevant linking. I may only guess of what advantages and benefits you gain from this.

According to history of your editing, and your belonging to Christians (New Covenant Baptist) User:3family6, you do your war against specific genres of metal music with the deliberate harm intentions. Well, you are not novel here: “Controversies over heavy metal are seen as social reactions to perceived deviance: starting with targeting metal music as one of the threatening genres in the 1980s at the national level in the USA, and continuing presently with a censorship by Christian authorities, and political repression and societal stigmatization in Islamic countries” (Hjelm, 2011:7,8,13, journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/PMH/article/view/14426). However, this is not that time anymore, and Wikipedia is not the place.

So I repeat again, as was repeating in this dialog several times: a) “the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. Biographies_of_living_persons#cite_note-ZeroInformation-2 b) “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements». Neutral_point_of_view c) “Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit”. Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops Violeance (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The page was temporarily semi-protected by another editor because of the disruptive editing that was occurring - so, that means that other editors believe that the edits by these IP and brand new accounts were inappropriate. This has nothing to do with a personal vendetta - take a look at the Viking metal article, for instance, which deals extensively with bands whose members are hostile to my faith. I was one of the primary editors involved in getting that article to featured status. This isn't just rumor - there are sources that explicitly call this band NSBM. There are others like Horna who are consistently identified with the right-wing scene and who have been protested, yet I haven't found a source calling them NSBM and so I didn't add that label. If you want to have the label discussed, you can open a request for comment on Talk:Khors (band). This link will show you how to do that: Wikipedia:RFCST. This will bring attention to the issue from other editors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR applies to you as well

3RR applies to both of us - you are edit warring as well. Please comment on the RfC instead of edit warring.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead of an article should summarize the entire article

According to Wikipedia guidelines on the lead section of articles, the lead should summarize the entire article. In the case of Khors, some sources claim that it's NSBM, others say that it's apolitical, and the band disputes the NSBM label. This is all mentioned in the article, with sources. Thus, the lead should mention this, fairly and neutrally. The guidelines on living persons does NOT say that controversial and contentious statements should not be made in articles. What it says is that these need to be supported by independent reliable sources and presented neutrally.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:3family6, I am afraid you are falling again in an editing war in regard to labeling metal bands NS and expanding this info all over every section on relevant pages. I would kindly remind you of the warning you already have concerning your reverting and editing work on Black metal bands’ pages User_talk:3family6#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion and accusing bands in NS linking, that violates WP:BLP .

To the Khors page, Controversy section was invented on the band's page as a possible consensus during Rtf Consensus topic opening Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force#Consensus_needed_regarding_National_Socialist_black_metal_artists. Existence of Controversy section itself on Khors’ page is under the big question, however, it was kept to respect a minor mentioning in a few internet pages, while discussion is going. However, you do not follow the rules. The majority of participated editors at the Consensus page state the similar point of view as I provided on the talk page User_talk:Violeance#Disruptive_editing such as: 1. " When doubt, don't label. In this case, the labelling is a very strong and nasty accusation, and it inevitably flows to the band members. So the particularly strong requirements & cautions of WP:BLP apply". 2. “If a band calls itself NSBM then it can be called NSBM, absent a reliable source consensus that the band is not. Otherwise, such labels should be avoided in Wikipedia's voice”. 3. “This is due to fact that labelling the band to the NSBM groups, means that you accuse members of the band in neo-nazism, and for such accusations, you need very strong basic of such evidence occurred”. 4. “WP:BLP is an issue with involuntary labeling - National socialism itself is not value-free and is widely despised. Care should be taken that people are not unjustly painted with such a term.” 5. “One technique worth using for ambiguous bands, or bands with past or present affiliations with NSBM characters but without respective lyrical themes, would be to state that the band "have been accused" of NSBM, or use similar phrasing”.

The majority of articles about Khors band have nothing to do with linking the band with NS or any other political issues; it would be possible to provide over 50-70 external sources, if that is an issue. In contrast – a few sources with mentioning of some “political involvement”. Conclusion from this: accusing band in being NS is a MINOR point from the whole scope of articles about the band, not mentioning it is extremely controversial, the sources provided are under the serious question of validity. Additionally, a special WP:RFC might be an option (if that’s worth it), as the links provided are either poorly written, poorly (or none) sourced, controversial, unproven and rather pointless (one link is very poor quality, the second has a completely different topic and “target”), show fleeting mention or don't provide any reasoning, so barely could a basis to open such issue on Wiki page at all (Link by link analytics may follow).

Thus, as a Consensus, Controversy section was provided, however, User:3family6, you are coming back to Edit Warring and constantly adding the new paragraphs that already take significant part of the article itself that is another violation of Wikipedia policy and rules, for example Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance. This, again, bring me to the idea of your personal interest to paint the band with such strong (especially if wrong) accusation. Why? Other issues of violating Wiki policy have been pointed out excessively several times already. So, please, again, consider that according to the Wikipedia policy, Biographies_of_living_persons#cite_note-ZeroInformation-2 states that “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable- should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. <…> Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. <…> Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. And another important note to the topic: “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements». Neutral_point_of_view.

So, I would kindly ask you, undo all your newly invented changes concerning NSBM labeling to the version at the moment you read my request. Otherwise, I will have to undo those changes in order to remove again contentious material according to Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy WP:3RRNO item #7 Violeance (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can show that the vast majority of reliable sources contend that the band isn't NSBM, that would be great.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

All my edit did was replicate what is in the article body in the lead. Khors has been labeled as NSBM. The band admits that when they contest that they aren't NSBM. That's fair. It doesn't give an unqualified label. And the lead of an article is supposed to summarize the article body. I've contacted Mungo Kitsch for them to intermediate if they wish to.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, User:3family6, you again twist things upside down. Obviously, special work to dig hard in google to find how to accuse band(s), no matter of how poor quality some articles are, - that what is happening. Yet, can't get it, what is your personal reason behind? The other 50-70 sources never open this issue as there is no issue. I could provide them for sure, the question is why, as they are openly published in the Internet. So, I would kindly ask you to drop such pointless requests, since this topic was already disscussed here: User_talk:Violeance#Disruptive_editing. All the info needed was already provided in other discussion. What is possible to do - is to open Rfc on such "sources", for instance, the new one provided: Beanbag, André (2009). . As I do have huge doubts about value of such "articles". Violeance (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the reliability of particular sources, the reliable sources noticeboard would be the place to go. I can already pretty much tell you that Chronicles of Chaos and especially the book source will be considered reliable. Invisible Oranges will be as well, since it was founded by someone from Stylus. Abyss Zine and Ox Fanzine are more debateable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's a question about how to neutrally summarize the article in the lead, the neutral point of view noticeboard would be the place to go.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to draw the attention of the Administation board, User:EdJohnston, since from their decision the RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force#Consensus_needed_regarding_National_Socialist_black_metal_artists was opened. To the Khors, Controversy section was invented on the band's page as a possible consensus during RfC Consensus discussions. However, the pages suffer again from the attacks of User:3family6, despite the other (and major) opinions from the Rfc, that is can be seen from history of this page , and I assume also others. Violeance (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe my edits reflect the consensus of the RfC. If I've made an error I will concede.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, read the Consensus page carefully, as many Editors state full 1. absence of such serious accusations and painting bands and its members, according to Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, 2. some others point to Controversy sentence. There were definetelly no any points to duplicate wrong info and strong accusation of minor poor sources (this is a matter of articles from those sources, all argumentation is above). Not mentioning you are not supposed User:3family6 to attack Black metal bands' pages again with NSBM labelling, according to the warning, before the final Consensus agreed. Violeance (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Redirects.

http://www.khors.info/en/band/interview/:136/ redirects to www.khors.info. I'm not sure if you are partially internet illiterate or are being intentionally obtuse and disengenuous. As you can see on the talk page, I was not the only person to see that link when it was still live. Please see WP:KDL again - dead links (that is, links that used to work and no longer work) are considered reliable sources, because they were verifiable at one point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) See the definition of Link rot: "Link rot (also called link death, link breaking, or reference rot) is the phenomenon of hyperlinks tending over time to cease to point to their originally targeted file, web page, or server due to that resource being relocated or becoming permanently unavailable."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read that section at full several times, WP:KDL, "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past", this is not about this case, I guess that's about a many-many years long term links (that went through eyes of many editors) that were published on wiki as external sources, many of them go dead at some point, so Editors have a possibility to replace them. Didn't catch it myself. Violeance (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)