Talk:Death (metal band)

Spiritual Healing page rename?

I notice if you do a search for "spiritual healing" you're redirected to "Faith Healing". However, "Spiritual Healing" gets you to the album page. Would it make sense to rename the page as "Spiritual Healing (album)" or somehow alter the redirect page to a disambiguation one? These comments also added to the album discussion page. IainP (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

After a quick ask on the Help pages, I've instead added a note to the top of the "Faith healing" page. IainP (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Death EP

Citation or some proof of true existence needed. Otherwise, article should be deleted for irrelevance and no proof of existence. --Ryouga 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

never heard of it. Isn't mentioned in the liner notes of the death re-releases and Google shows no results. And it sounds terrible much like a joke to me. Delete it if you wish Spearhead 09:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for a little while and see if anyone knows something (they can post here or on my talk). If we get nothing, we'll dismiss it as non existent garbage, and then delete it. --Ryouga 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of such an EP released by Death. I have recently done some research and have even gone to the releases section of the Empty Words website: Releases. I have searched the list of releases and have found no proof of the Death EP. Therefore, I believe it is safe to say that this EP is non-existent, and must be removed. --Insineratehymn

John Hand

I found it interesting that, out of the blue, someone from the "Bay Area" (according to their IP address) edited the Death (band) page to re-write history re: John Hand. Suddenly Hand's contribution went from merely appearing in the Scream Bloody Gore album photos to 'co-writing 20 songs with Chuck and Chris'.

This flies in the face of every, single band biography available on the net. Every fan (or student of death metal) knows that John Hand did not record or play a single gig with Death. This is not meant as a slam against Hand, but simply the correct telling of history. Chuck often said that Hand got a 'great deal' out of his association with Death: namely, from being in the band 'two weeks' his face and name are forever associated with one of the pioneer death metal releases. The fact remains that Chuck played all guitar parts on that first Death album, and hence received the royalties and payments in perpetuity for that release.

I certainly wonder who it was from the San Francisco area that thought it quaint to sneak in and change what really happened after all these years...I'm not insinuating that it was John Hand himself, but if it was he could have the decency to come forth (finally) to dispute head-on what is accepted as the story of the band instead of (possibly) taking this back door approach...It would mean Hand challenging for the first time Chuck's contract with Combat in hopes of battling out royalties due - and that is a ridiculous notion because Hand was never due a single penny.

I don't know if this matters anymore because I have no clue when this was posted, but I went back and did some research about the "John Hand" situation. And discovered that Hand only contributed to the Scream Bloody Gore album photos. So the user above was right. I believe though that they should sight some resources so that if there is any question to whether the article is relevant or not, other people will be able to check and see for themselves.
Catherine Slaughter
XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual Healing

Isn't this where Death started being technical?

No. It started with Human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why yes it was Chuck had started to head in that direction, he actually said more than once that if he did not the haters would start to tear at Scream and the fact that alot of the riffs were easy to play

on the john hand matter, i wish eirc would stop thinking john wants money for his involvement with scream, nope the mems are good enough so stop trying to diminish what he did do

Painkiller

Did Chuck use additional effects to change his voice on that Judas Priest cover song ? I Mean, some parts aren't "growled", so you can hear harmonics in the voice at some moments, but did he use computer effects of something like that to sound more acute, or could he really sing like that ?

From what I'm aware of he could sing like that. He was originally going to be the vocalist for Control Denied but he wanted to focus more on guitar so he got another vocalist.

Actually, originally he wanted Ronnie James Dio, he never wanted to do vocals for Control Denied.

Consider Changing genre from Progressive Metal to Technical Death Metal &/or Melodic Death Metal

Death (band) - History

"22:25, 23 April 2007 Sn0wflake (Talk | contribs) m (16,376 bytes) (Let's settle for not using such arbitrary definitions. Death's style is quite complex, and has mostly used elements from both genres throughout their career.)"

---> Using "Progressive Metal" definition for this band is arbitrary aswell, that's the denomination you'll get after listening a couple(or more) prog-metal bands, not before that, and without that, you wouldn't even think to relate DEATH in any way with the term "progressive"; DEATH doesn't have a single one, clear prog rock influence (as a progrocker I can't find any in their music, and the album that is called the most "proggie" from them is very far from "prog" music). Most of prog-metal bands have a clear or very recognizable prog rock influence on their music, still, some prog-heads don't accept those bands that much as truly progressive, but that's most of times a fact of narrow-mind. Complex, melodic, doesn't make one band progressive, the term "technical" will fit better than "progressive" in many metal bands like this, and will clear the doubt for new people in the prog genre, and of course this will help to improve wikipedia, taking out the fan's or non-neutral oppinion from the articles of this online encyclopedia, thanks. –Progrocker7 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_metal#Technical_death_metal. And then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_metal#Progressive_death_metal.

While I dont think Death were ever death metal and progressive at the same time, i disagree with them being called "progressive death metal" (see the talk page for chuck schuldiner). Death's early works were also very thrashy (deathrash), but theyre definitely death. However, when Chuck took the band in the progressive direction, they became less death metal (and they were never as heavy as the death metal bands coming out at that time). Prog metal isn't supposed to sound like prog rock...metal isn't supposed to sound like rock. Keep that in mind. Two different genres. As you're a "progrocker" yourself, I understand youre perhaps not going to understand. Deaths music wasnt nearly as technical as techdeath bands, but it definitely was progressive. See: talk page for chuck. Isilioth 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know much about Death metal do you? Progressive death metal, and technical death metal are the same thing. You even go as far as to say Death was not Death metal because they weren't as heavy as the other bands? Death was a pioneer in death metal, enough so that Chucks considered the father of death metal. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for answering, but I'm sorry, I don't need to read those, because I know all of that very much and of course have a well-formed discernment about music, indeed, I do respect Death's music and some metal music, and of course prog-metal bands who are really progressive basing their sound in metal obviously, but they are influenced by at least 1 or more recognizable prog rock bands, no doubt about that, and being really accurate that's the only way to be truly prog-metal and not just technical metal disguised of "prog", and by they way I never said metal is supposed to sound like rock, metal is metal. And how trustable is for you wikipedia in this kind of things?, I think many of the bands information here were done by fans, not experts in the genre, that's what makes it unbalanced, and to be only non-neutral, nor expert, fan's appreciation, nothing more.

And something else, Death are progressive like..? name at least 1 prog rock band (not metal nor prog-metal bands), it seems you won't be able to cite any because they haven't any prog root, since that's the only way to be accepted by the neutral point of view and the experience, of an expert of prog music as a real prog-metal band, I think that's the only trustable way or source in matters of prog.

Then "x" band is starting to be considered as progressive by FANS, not experts in prog, only fans of this "x" band, could you really trust them?, and if this band doesn't have any clear prog rock root, why to consider them progressive?, you see there's no single reason to do that; and why not just simply stay out of "prog" denomination and all this term involves? why to not just say it's complex metal instead?, thanks. –Progrocker7 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Progrocker7, again, please keep opinions to yourself. You are not the authority on Prog or any subject on this entire website. Your supposed well-formed discernment about music is useless here, as we simply repeat sources. Wikidan829 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not an expert in prog yourself, there is no room for original research here. Wikidan829 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

— I may not be the authority on prog in this site, yes, but I just cited how the term progressive metal really appeared and was accepted by the prog community -for your knowledge-, prog-heads are way more reliable than any internet source if you have noticed it this far (I really hope you'd). Repeating unreliable and not expert sources (you said MTV was a good source), is as bad as posting your own unbalanced oppinion, Wikidan829, and why do you say I'm not an expert in prog?? how could you possibly say that if you don't really know me??... Trust me, when it comes to prog I know what I'm talking about. –Progrocker7 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Progrocker7. I want you to please understand. This is not a personal issue. Like I said on the Tool discussion, I am not picky over genres. As a musician myself, my opinion is that genres are non-existent. By this I mean that a genre may change from song to song, from album to album, even within the same song! I personally do not like prog music. I know it when I hear it, and I do not like it. So why would I still call my favorite band "progressive rock"? For a favorite band, and for a genre I do not like, don't you think I would take this as an insult? The explanation is simple - that is what Wikipedia is about. We relay information and summarize it for the masses. This is not a place about opinions. If it were a place about opinions, I would happily go with the genre "art rock" and leave it at that(for Tool), no prog rock. But this is not the place for opinions.

Unfortunately, MTV is crap, I know this as well as you do, but they do have an authority over us individuals. They are media. They are a "reliable" source. I think this is what our disparity has to do with. Bands "have been called" progressive rock or progressive metal. ALTHOUGH we both disagree that it truly is progressive rock or progressive metal, that has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about relaying information, and nothing more. This is the best I can describe it. If MTV or some other interview moron called it Progressive Rock or Progressive Metal, then we relay the information. Straight up, no opinions or personal taste involved. That is what Wikipedia is about, whether you(or I) like it or not. Regards, Wikidan829 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Death is Technical Death Metal. When they got progressive, they still had the Death Metal styling, making them progressive death metal, or technical death metal. They were never just progressive, so progressive metal does not apply to them. MTV is not a reliable source. They try to redefine things. MTV would consider deathcore bands death metal, and many other mistakes. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think melodic death metal should be added. They're later stuff (sound perseverance for example) is definitely melodeath. he uses a higher pithched vocal style, melodic riffs et c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics slam against Paul Masvidal?

I removed the line commenting that The Philosopher was written as a "lyrical slam" as someone put it against Paul Masvidal because of an ambigious reference which is basically..

"Interestingly, the lyrics on ITP were quite angry, in contrast to the gore-oriented earlier albums and more spiritual later ones. The lyrics arose from Schuldiner's frustrations with the music industry, including lack of label promotion and legal altercations with Death manager Eric Greif (who produced Morbid Saint's Spectrum of Death) and various former bandmates."

If you can find a better reference add it back in but otherwise leave it.

No lyrics written by Death would ever be a driect slam of someone they might have had more meaning to Chuck like that but they were directed at a large group becuase that is how his music was written. Songs such as "The Philosopher" are talking about people who think they are smart and know everything but in realality know nothing about what they are talking about that is true. However lyrics can be interpeted in many ways so do not put anything on the page about lyrical meanings. For further proof of how lyrics can be interpeted differently look up the PMRC and how they didn't understand the song "Under the Knife" by Twisted Sister. Metalocalypse 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)MetalocalypseMetalocalypse 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the posting below. I agree with you in a general sense Metalocalypse, but Chuck admitted in interviews, etc. at the time that ITP contained personal slams on at least two folks - his former manager (half the album) and Masvidal (The Philosopher), who has always been into eastern philosophy and is openly gay but during the Human tour had not 'come out yet' (and neither had Reinert, who is also openly gay and came out during the late 90s). This needs to be encyclopedic, which isn't necessarily flattering about those we edit about. However, Chuck did state in interviews for Symbolic that his experience writing for ITP was important to him personally since it got out a lot of frustration. This isn't about censorship but about writing what we find to be accurate. Best, A Sniper 10:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"but Chuck admitted in interviews" - again A Sniper, if Chuck admitted in interviews why is it that all you can produce is a comment from someone claiming to be Eric Grief? And I would assume you also have some evidence for claiming both Paul and Sean are gay? If you don't I'd suggest removing your comments. Wikipedia is increasingly growing in credibility with the information it provides and hence what we write should not be based on second hand information or rumors. I quote from directly below this box, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Final Thoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, the issue is whether Schuldiner wrote The Philosopher about Masvidal, not the sexual preferences of former band members. A Sniper 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More about Masvidal lyrical reference on ITP...

I've changed the reference to a better one and added back the Masvidal mention. Sorry but historical revisionism has no place at Wikipedia. Anyone in the know about Schuldiner & Death are aware that 'The Philosopher' is about Masvidal. Ex-manager Greif mentions it at the usually-accurate Blabbermouth (run by former Schuldiner fan/friend Borivoj Krgin):

"Chuck told me himself on the phone (in 1993), at a time when we were in the midst of a lawsuit over business stuff, that he had written The Philosopher about Paul and "half" his new album (I.T.P.) about me. I'm not proud of this, but it is a fact nevertheless. There is a lot of anger on that record, lyrically, but that represented the way things were back then. Chuck himself, in an interview I saw on YouTube (re: the release of Symbolic), said that he got out a lot of anger writing those I.T.P. lyrics, so it did serve a purpose. ERIC"

This should end the debate. A Sniper

Fair use rationale for Image:Individual Thought patterns.jpg

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to ITP album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Fair use rationale for Image:Live in LA death.jpg

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to Live in LA album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Fair use rationale for Image:Live in Eindhoven death.jpg

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to Live in Eindhoven album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Fair use rationale for Image:TheSoundOfPerseverance.jpg

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to The Sound of Perseverance album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Logo.png

I, as former Manager of Death at the time Chuck drew his more streamlined band logo (prior to the release of Human), have given a fair use rationale for use of it, including the fact that we allowed anyone and everyone to duplicate it (as long as it was not involved in commercial gain), and I hereby remove the warning. Griffyguy

If anyone needs a reference for Kam Lee designing the original logo, it can be found here: http://www.voicesfromthedarkside.de/interviews/kamlee.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durandal1717 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

this link doesn't work - besides, I am sure that Laurent or any of the VftD guys would say that Kam Lee's word alone on the subject of the band Death wouldn't necessarily be considered a reliable, objective source. Perhaps adding something like "Kam Lee has made the claim that...", but you'd need a decent link. A Sniper (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death2

Perhaps you could come to this page before making your sweeping edits and rather non-good faith statements against the regular editors who do our best to keep this page accurate and NPOV. Best, A Sniper 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

All FUR templates finished for remaining Death covers that were under threat. I thereby blanked all the warnings. A Sniper 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fate The Best Of Death.jpg

Image:Fate The Best Of Death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Live in Eindhoven death.jpg

Image:Live in Eindhoven death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Live in LA death.jpg

Image:Live in LA death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantas?

I made a search for the word mantas and I was directed here. If it is a previous band, than why does it direct here? Anyway, mantas are a item woven by native tribesmen in the amazon and I wanted to see what the wikipedia article on them said. Oh well. Contralya (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantas was originally the name of the band before they became Death and if what you mentioned can be notable enough that it can be verified with reliable sources then we could create a Mantas dablink that directs there or vice versa. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh I don't think they even have an article on what Contralya is talking about. I went to the Manta (disambiguation) page. They talk about quite a few things that deal with the name Manta and Mantas, but not any item woven in the Amazon. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of coarse, there must be a Mantas (clothing) (or w.e it is) article to begin with. That's why I said if it is notable enough for inclusion with sources, etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the user brings up one thought. Maybe "Mantas" shouldn't be a redirect to this page. Maybe it should redirect to the disambig page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I happened to just redirect it now, as it makes sense because it could be the plural for the clothing and who would happen to know the earlier name of Death, so it's just natural to redirect it to the Manta (disambiguation) page instead because they have a mention of their earlier name there anyway. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Single-purpose account Jackmantas

I regret that the above user appears to be trolling articles I've contributed to and making blanking attempts, deletions, and whatever else. This appears to be based on malicious intent (for want of any other explanation) and not on verifiability, good faith or interest in the article topics. Sooner or later this user will work his/her way from the Chuck Schuldiner article over to this page. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Progressive death metal

should not be included in genres as it is a redirect of Technical death metal which is also a listed genre.

Agreed, but I have addded Progressive metal to the genres as this side of the band needs to be adressed. And sign your comments. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of sources" tag

To User:A Sniper:
Hi. Almost the whole article is totally unsourced and is almost completely unverifiable. Do not understand it as an offence, but that is just a fact and the readers should be informed about it. There are some sources in the infobox, in the lead section and also in the "Memebers" section, but the Biography - the main body of the article is just simply unsourced except for one single sentence. See for example Slayer or Metallica to have a picture about how a sourced article looks like. Almost every sentence should have an inline citation. On the other hand, I did not read the sources. If the sources cover the text in the article, just add the inline citations to the text (just like in Slayer or Metallica)! And the problem will be fixed! But if there are no inline citations, the reader does not know what is sourced and what not. So if there are sources, just use them as inline citations:

Use this once for each source:
<ref name="NAME (for example BlahBlah1)">{{cite web
| url = http://???
| publisher =
| title =
| author =
| accessdate = YYYY-MM-DD
}}</ref>
And then use the source again with:
<ref name="NAME (for example BlahBlah1)" />
Cheers :) --  LYKANTROP  20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. However, since most of the unreferenced sections come directly from the source already listed (emptywords.org), the citations are both irrelevant and unnecessary. I do take your point that citations would support the accuracy, but on the other hand no user has come forward to challenge any of the information that has now been on the page for at least two years. If you have particular concerns over a specific sentence or paragraph, then discuss it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right. But still I mean, an addition of one inline citation to the end of each paragraph (if it has only one source) would make it much more transparent and easily verifiable. And in the end it would also look sourced. And you could also fix the small unsourced things and add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations, cause it is a well written article in my opinion.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are capable of discussing things instead of running crying to Elizabeth Bathory, et al. The only reason I left my reasons for editing on your talk page instead of this page is because you left messages on my talk page. Forgive me if I haven't mastered every nuance of Wikipedia. Since you haven't obeyed the prohibition on edit warring, I think you've called the kettle black by complaining to Bathory and others about my leaving you messages on your talk page instead of here, which as far as I know, is an unwritten etiquette matter, as opposed to edit warring, which is a stated policy. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're close to getting blocked. Regular editors are civil to each other. We do not attack the person - we focus on the edits. We reach consensus. I'm sure others are advising you to get yourself an account if you're serious... A Sniper (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am close to getting blocked, that is your unjust doing. You have repeatedly provoked me by your edit warring and accusations of vandalism. No one can take that lying down. And anyway, your passive aggression toward me is far worse than anything I have said to you. Instead of engaging me in a discussion about the validity of my edits, you have just reverted them dictatorially or libeled me to your fellow sysadmins. And even now, you're accusing me of a lack of seriousness? How dare you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The fake Death tour of Europe

In my opinion there doesn't need to be too much information on the two roadies that went on the tour of Europe with bassist Terry Butler and drummer Bill Andrews. Mentioning their names is by far enough weight to the story - anything else is undue. Butler and Andrews had no legal authority to undertake the tour (as Schuldiner was the proprietor of 'Death', as mentioned in almost every biography) and they were sacked from the band upon their return home. Therefore, biographical or incidental information on the two roadies is irrelevant. They literally did the tour as 'players' at the last minute, and due exclusively to their proximity to Butler and Andrews due to being band roadies. By the way: these two folks once had their own articles, but these were deleted due to a lack of notoriety. That they were once members of a defunct band is trivia and unconnected. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

fascist. Skulduggery88 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I like faces?  ;) A Sniper (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand your comment, misspelling corrected months after the fact or not  ;) A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

too bad. 86.128.164.43 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

concentrate on the article and editing - don't focus on editors and calling them names. A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Chuck's statement about 'death metal'

An online fanzine had an interview with Chuck in which, true to Chuck's nature, he stated that he didn't feel that he should take the credit for the term 'death metal'. This was Chuck being humble and modest. the user has tried to use the reference to show that, actually, the band Death were NOT death metal. The edits have been reverted. I have used the adverb 'modestly' as any reader can gather this from the reference itself - that Chuck was not wanting to lay claim to a title that has been internationally bestowed on him and one that made him feel uncomfortable yet proud. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If "any reader can gather this from the reference itself," your adverb need not be added. Also, how do you know how Schuldiner felt? Do you have a quote from him saying that he felt "uncomfortable yet proud"? No? Then back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

use of such terms as back off are unacceptable. if you have a problem with an edit, then edit. I would also again suggest that you get yourself an account, as well as read up on proper citation and use of tildes, etc. for talk pages. A Sniper (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"use of such terms as back off are unacceptable." Stay cool, man! Also, I love how the only part of my comment you address is my injunction to you. That's wonderful.

"if you have a problem with an edit, then edit" I do, but then you instantly revert them, don't you?

Please don't talk to me about "proper citation." You don't even know how to use commas.

What I am referring to isn't your use of language - it is the proper use of Wikipedia for leaving a message on a talk page. If you check your talk page, you'll see that a 'bot' has left you a message

to this effect. A Sniper (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Death was certainly a death metal band. lulz, you're new at this aren't ya? Chuck didn't take the credit. By your logic the only death metal band is Possessed then. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Schuldiner's tenure with Death

"Schuldiner was the only member to remain in the band from start to end (although even he was not ever-present)." This statement is self-contradictory. If he was not ever-present, then he was not the only member to remain in the band from start to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

good call. A Sniper (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need any approbation from you.

This lack of good faith, directed at an editor, is not acceptable. Focus on the edits, not the editor. A Sniper (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you call it a lack of good faith doesn't make it so. (And anyone with half-open eyes can see through your attempt to frame your b.s. argument that I'm a vandal in "good faith"/"bad faith" language. It's not going to fly, so, to quote yourself, "stop it.") Also, why don't you practice what you preach? Accusing me of bad faith is clearly an attack directed at me. Not only that, but as a lawyer, you should know that accusing someone of bad faith is pretty much one of the worst things you can do. I am rightfully outraged.

MTV

If it's necessary to say that the interview is an ezine or fanzine or Metal-Rules.com interview, then it is also proper to note in the text that the "pioneering" remark in the first sentence of the article comes from MTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For your information, you shouldn't focus on the editor, but instead the edit. Directing your thoughts towards me is not the way things are done here. I don't care if MTV is listed, but YOU should familiarize yourself with the proper way to leave talk page messages, and how to sign them so that the bots don't have to do it for you. A Sniper (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you do care, because you reverted that edit previously. Also, why, under this heading, are you speaking to me directly? My comment about MTV was not directed at you in particular.

Previous poster, please sign your posts with four tildes. As far as adding that MTV states this, isn't that a superflous comment being that there are atleast 4 other sources linked stating the same thing, just using different words? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources reliability

Response to A Sniper edit from 15:33, 28 October 2008: emptywords.org/, Metal Rules, aom.dead-inside.org(altars of metal) are not reliable - they fail under WP:SPS. These sources are useless for wikipedia. I don't know about thehighhat.com (I did't check it properly). One pretty bold statement is sourced by a reference called "ibid" - what should this stay for? I am not deleting the unreliable sources only because I don't want to be a pain in the ass here.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A regularly updated eZine, with reliable references, is not self-publishing. Nor is the internationally-known European metal magazine Aardshok. Nor is the emptywords.org official Death site, which luckily catalogs almost every Death-related article ever published and is an invaluable cache of reliable sources. And Ibid is referencing shorthand for Ibidem, which refers to the previous reference - so, if you don't like that either, simply re-state the previous reference since it is (probably) what was being referred to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the Ibid. use. Instead I took the lazy way and re-listed the same reference. If you want to take the extra two minutes to set up a single publication reference (so that the footnote number is re-used), please go ahead, since it now has two separate number references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that one page is the official (I didn't see that before) but it would be great if you could provide sources for those statements about the other sources. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ref - I'm getting more lazy as time goes by. As for the other refs, Wikipedia policy on self-publishing really refers to folks who publish their own book, and then reference it. It doesn't imply that ongoing eZines =, no matter who publishes them, are part of the self-publishing edict. Just because one person sets up a website, conducts interviews and then puts them on the net doesn't mean we cannot use that as a source. It depends on the site itself, even if this is a subjective issue on the part of editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Another death

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/arts/music/15rubi.html What about these guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.96.83 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there are other 'Death' bands out there. However, this band seems notable to me. You can create the article as Death (rock band) or something along those lines, though before you do this, please read WP:BAND. If you do happen to create it and it doesn't get deleted, I will add a hatnote at the top of the page here. FireCrystal (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind this now. It looks like the band's link was found as Death (punk band) and added at the top of the page. FireCrystal (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Using Associated Content as a source

I'm bringing this uh, "debate" to the talk page. Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Associated Content.2C gettin.27 paid to spam and Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. Associated Content fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. Dom Coccaro does not appear to be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The genre already includes three citations, so this really shouldn't be an issue. APK straight up now tell me 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Coccaro quote is removed. However, the reason there are a number of references is that an editor insisted that the genre was inaccurate to describe the band, hence several references to support the claim. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Then what was the point of reverting my edit? I'm removing the reference. APK straight up now tell me 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted for the very reason I mentioned - the more citations to bolster the genre reference, the better. However, there are enough to easily trump any attempt at removing the inclusion of the genre so it makes little difference whether it is removed. A Sniper (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tech death issue

User:A Sniper and I have been have a disagreement over the use of certain sources on this page to support statements that Death are a tech death band. The problem is that neither of the first two sources explicitly state that this band is a tech death band within the body of the articals. The third, BNR metal, is a clearly unreliable resources, run by one man, as can be seen hear. The first of the three sources, from empty words, does have the term in its title, but the reliability of said website is qurstionable at best. 75.159.22.63 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, IP user: this is your opinion but that doesn't make it so. The fact other editors besides me have reverted your edit shows that your opinion is simply your opinion. I also find your negative view of emptywords undermines your own credibility, since it is the official Death repository of international articles and bona fide references. A Sniper (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just beacause you view it as a reliable, dosn't make it so. See that works both ways. And its not my opinion, if you check both articles, it is clear that neither states that Death is a technical death band in thier body's. Unless you can come up with a statement from either one that clearly says "Death is a tech death band" neither can be used to prove said statement. If you can find a reliable , third party source, that clearly states the statement you are trying to support, I would have no problem with you adding it. But you can't so its a moot point. I suggest you check you jog your memory at WP:R. As for the issue of each sites reliablity, BNR Metal is fan run site which anyone who has every read the guidline should know has no place on Wikipedia. As for empty words, it is neither an third party or impartial source, so its use on wikipedia is questionable at best.75.159.22.63 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Purging demo articles

There is a move afoot right now to delete the pages of the Possessed and Death demos. Please take the time to add some references as to their notability. Many thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

COI

A significant contributer to this article, User:A Sniper, claims a close connection to the band: "I am the copyright owner of this demo & cover, as successor-in-interest to Charles M. Schuldiner and grant use)".[2] Over the next few weeks, I'll be going through this article to try to clean up any problems, firmly establish neutrality and reference as much as possible. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Show some good faith instead of attacking an editor based on no more evidence than someone you do not know making a flippant remark in an edit memo for which you cannot verify, for an article I knew was already deleted - I knew you'd go for this bait, since you've been trolling through all of these demo articles without making a single constructive edit (you haven't actually written anything yourself, really). Time for an ANI for you? I thought we'd been civil, but I knew you'd eventually become somewhat obsessed with my edits and follow me around. A Sniper (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My above statement is not meant as an attack on SummerPhD - I was just shocked. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Live in Japan released canceled.

Hi, if anyone is wondering why I removed the Live in Japan release from the discography, it is because the release is canceled <http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=148406>.69.110.78.11 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for band name Death

I added the reason why Chuck named the band Death and added a citation.69.110.78.11 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Genre edits in lead

I noticed some fighting in the lead about Death's genre and decided to add this discussion here if anyone wants to talk about it. As far as I'm concerned Death, while definitely influential to metal music as a whole. played in the style of death metal, and hundreds of sources could be easily found to support that. Even if Schuldiner described them as something else, that doesn't really matter. Plenty of musicians say they play all kinds of different things, including made up genres. Lemmy from Motorhead says they play "rock 'n' roll" and refuses any other labels. Doesn't change what they actually play, which in this case is death metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My original reason for having what is there now - writing metal but linking it specifically to death metal - was that it could be more general in the lede, but for those who click through, they could pinpoint the specific genre. There is of course the argument to be madethat Chuck grew as a musician, lyricist & songwriter, and that the DEATH of Symbolic and The Sound of Perseverance was beyond the death metal of his earlier work, but actually that wasn't my motivation for why it is the way it is. I did mention Chuck's quote only to accentuate that he viewed his music overall as being metal, for the reasons that he didn't want to claim ownership of the genre name and also as he saw what he was doing as just an extension of the brutality of the bands that came before him. However, I would certainly not argue that Chuck and DEATH wasn't death metal - I just felt, in the lede, that I wanted to be a generalist :) Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you put it that way, I really have no problems with that whatsoever. Especially since their later albums were a lot more prog metal. If anyone else does have a problem they can talk about it here. PS It's nice to hear from you, Sniper. It's been a long time. Hope all is well. Navnløs (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback?

Per this

• 1. Edit 1
  • 1a.It reads like there was genrewarring which led to editors overemphasizing every single source they could find. Even if it wasn't there are actual issues with it
  • 1b.MOS:LEAD - It is supposed to be a summary. Things not in the body are not supposed to be in the lead. Emphasis is not supposed to be given to some points and not others. It is simply too long of a paragraph that is just a quote farm. An easy fix would be to summarize that paragraph and let a new "Legacy" section do all the heavy lifting. Note that "Legacy" sections are common enough in Featured Articles. See: Slayer. This article is nowhere close to an FA or eve a GA even though all of the information is available to get it improved.
  • 1c. An argument could be made regarding neutrality and peacockyness. I would prefer not to make that argument since I agree with everything the paragraph says.
• 2. Edit 2
  • 2a. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Although it might not have been the intent, it reads as a promotional piece.
  • 2b. It was not from the band and doesn't deserve prominence over any other given write up, book, tribute, documentary, etc about the band.
  • 2c. WP:Section caps
• 3. Edit 3
  • 3a. WP:SEEALSO states "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" Chuck Schuldiner and Control Denied already linked already linked.
  • 3b. I did make a mistake and use "," instead of "–". However, there is also no need to have two links after a bullet point.

Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinions. Yes indeed there were originally some genre issues with editors but in the end it was finished by consensus. Use of the bona fide secondary sources to establish how the 'metal world' have viewed the band was the ultimate goal, which also aids the casual, unacquainted reader. If you'd like to make individual edits and see if we can continue that consensus, great. If you think it is a quote farm, work with whatr is there - don't wholesale purge. Neutrality? Demonstrate. Peacockyness? Silly. If you think it is a "promotional piece", again: write something better. Edit. Do not purge. RE: The Iranian fellow, this also was a back & forth between editors, and also sustained some vandalism. I don't particularly think it is vital to the narrative other than to demonstrate the far-reaching impact of the band. As for issues such as the "See Also", I can concur with your points. In other words, please take this slowly - let us digest your edits. You've already been bold, and you've been reverted. Now let's talk through each change... Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They aren't opinions. They are guidelines. Do you understand the difference?

And I didn't wholesale purge. When you are done reading the guidelines, notice that I moved the entire thing into its own section. None of the quotes were removed. Did you read the edit history wrong?

No, it is not neutral. It reads like a fan page. A two line summary would do the trick just as well since those quotes are given too much prominence in the lead. Notice that I say lead since they are perfectly fine in their own section (where I put them). SO I have now tagged this to be checked for neutrality if you think that it looks fine as is. One of us is wrong.

And for the Iranian section, it got a wikilink in the See also section. Since you do not think it is vital I assume you are OK with self reverting before I do it for you?

Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously if you've added the neutrality tag and have stated that it reads like a fan page, your intention is to purge. How about re-writing it? How about adding sources that conflict with what is there, bolstering your claims? We'll see if there are any folks who share your concern over the article since you just managed to slam our year of work in a couple of throwaway remarks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No. My intent was to add it into a legacy section. That is what I did. For the lead, something as simple as "Death is an influential band" in the first paragraph per WP:BEGINNING and then maybe a second paragraph discussing sales and even genre. But genre is not the most important thing.

So how about you stop assuming. Read the edit history then read my comments. I have no sources to contradict what is presented since I agree with what is there. I simply don't agree with the presentation. If you spend a year doing something and something is wrong: Expect others to fix it. This isn't your page. So how about you try to get this above "B" class if it is so important to you. As I said earlier (Did you chose to ignore it?): The info is there to get to GA. So time to work on MoS.

But if you again fail to respond to the guidelines and policy based reasoning I am going to revert. You have had ample time and not provided any reasoning inline with the standards.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The tags sat there and nobody lifted a finger. I disagree with the tags but will endeavor to remove all the genre stuff in the lede that you rightfully pointed out was as a result of some edit warring a year back - give me a few days. However, there is no merit to your neutrality issue but if you want to bring in an admin to decide, please go ahead. We who have been working on this page for years do out best to use decent secondary sources and take the matter of NPOV very seriously. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No one lifted a finger and that means there is still a dispute. As I mentioned on my talk page, I would love to actually work on fixing it. Would you mind rereading my comments now that some time has passed and address my concerns? Me finding sources have nothing to do with the dispute.Cptnono (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And actually fixing the article is better than edit warring over tags. POV check is still requested and the LEAD needs to be rewritten as discussed above. After some work is done then it will be a good idea to remove the tags.

Alternatively, I can do the rewrite but last time I tried something there was a rollback that threw the baby out with the bathwater. Would you trust me to try again or are we getting into an ownership issue?Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed one of the tags (see the summary for an explanation) since I believe it could assist in some AGFing.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not have an ownership issue - I have an overkill issue. I felt that your original edit (that started this, at least in my mind) was too drastic. The lede did not have to be diminished to that degree. However, upon reflection - and in the spirit of working together constructively - I trust you to work on it. If I get around to it, I'll have a go (if you haven't already). Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your last edit. Would you mind going a bit further and sticking the quotes in the new "Legacy" section. A summary for those quotes. Keep in mind that a source is not needed (if it is not a direct quote) in the lead per the Manual of Style. Is there a better way to summarize the band's influence on the scene without relying on the opinion of a those music critics?

Also, I assume you are sick of dealing with genre warring and this is not meant to be part of that. But I found a decent source that mentions Chuck's disdain for being pigeon holed (I still consider it death metal even if he wanted to expand on it). See pg 164 for a direct quote. I don;t know how something like this could be worked in but overall I wanted to point out the source. I was going to add a line a week ago from the book but realized someone had already had it covered (about Spiritual Healing's melodic guitar).

You did not seem averse to removing the book section so I will now be doing it. It is again going in the "See also" section so that it isn't completely lost.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed I'll work on the lede and add your quote. However, I'm not entirely opposed to keeping music critic quotes in the lede. I believe that, with all the genre warring that has happened, that some authoritative reliable sources clears the air. My main point is to boldly establish, from the start, the importance of the band in the general scheme of metal, and for the death metal genre in particular, despiute Chuck's own humble pronouncements. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that you can say that without the quotes. Say the band did "x,y, z" and leave the quotes for the body. You can summarize the quotes without cherrypicking the quote that we might like. It will make the lead more readable and will make the article better. Summary is the key to the lead, not quotes. Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Book

Just a reminder:

• 2. Edit 2
  • 2a. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Although it might not have been the intent, it reads as a promotional piece.
  • 2b. It was not from the band and doesn't deserve prominence over any other given write up, book, tribute, documentary, etc about the band.

Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• but it doesnt mean to remove it all , we can edit it. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it does. The book doesn't seem that important. But even if it does deserve some mention it should not be a subsection of the Logo section and it does not even deserve to be a subsection anywhere. I am going to move it for now but still believe it should be removed altogether. The most it deserves in my opinion is a link in the See also section.Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• I dont know why chuck's words about the book doesnt seem importan to you, also check this video tribute to Chuck Schuldiner , Eric Grief (Death Manager) talks about how Chuck loved the book and was so proud of it. I personally bought the book from Jane Schuldiner via emptywords.org so I think it deserve to have a small section or at least subsection. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it over burdens the article with something of relatively little importance in the overall history of the band. The fact that it gets any mention at all already gives the book more prominence than it might deserve.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• As an editor Chuck's words on official site and reliable source from blabbermouth are enought to establish the notability of the book for me, Its important for every band when a book is written about them, so I think a sub section below the logo would be proper, your thoughts please. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Symbolic - The Ultimate Death Tribute

Should we add this DVD in the "Video albums" section? It was filmed in 2007 in Quebec City and released as a DVD in 2010. Feature many official Death musicians (except of course, Chuck). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunge (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No - it is merely a tribute, and only features a couple of ex-members. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DEATH IS NOT JAZZ FUSION

Marrow of the earth - Opeth Heritage - Opeth

Jazz fusion

Death=death metal and tech-death. They sound nothing soothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

new Mantas release

Should the new Mantas compilation be added to the compilation albums section? It is coming out in June. http://www.relapse.com/mantas-preorder 69.225.82.64 (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My two cents is that it should indeed be added to this article, unless someone starts a Mantas page. Mantas is eseentially Death anyway, as the line-up was the same within the two weeks between the name change from Mantas to Death. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mantas foundation date

This post on Facebook mentions 1982 as the year Mantas was founded. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151590396423662&set=pb.396088683661.-2207520000.1363847387&type=3&theater Should the info in the article be changed? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No - it is incorrect. Chuck & Rick didn't even meet each other for the first time until the end of 1982 (Rozz states this in the liner notes to Relapse's Mantas CD). Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Year Death was dissolved?

What year was Death dissolved? This section [3] has it at about 2001,though the last time the band actually released new material was in 1998, according to [4]. Should live albums count as the band being active or should 1999 be the ending date for the final line-up in the musicians section? ThanksDavid O. Johnson (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think 2001 is the proper date and used almost universally as the end of the band. Despite Chuck turning his attention to the Control Denied project by 1999, his cancer diagnosis changed things, and the next two years were dominated not by his music career but fighting the losing battle against his disease. There is no way to know if Chuck would have recorded another Death album if he had lived, and since he continued to surround himself with the same bunch of musicians in both projects, it is fair to say that Death had not been formally dissolved at the time Chuck failed to recover from his last treatments before he died. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chuck did mention in an interview that he had riffs for another Death album. "A: Provided Control Denied does as well, and you still feel Death is holding you back will you ever lay Death to rest? No pun intended... A: (laughs) It could possibly happen sure. I've got material written for Death beyond this album, you know, riffs and stuff on tape. So, who knows. There could definitely be another Death album somewhere in the future." [5] Since I've heard the 4 leaked Control Denied songs before, I really wonder what those Death songs sound like. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Recommend merging Scott Clendenin article with Death (metal band). Quis separabit? 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Somewhat Oppose Support Merge - I'm not sure yet if he is or isn't notable on his own, I recommend placing a {{notability}} tag on his article and giving people some time to provide more sources and text to flesh out his standalone notability before pushing for a merger. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC) - Clendenin's article has been tagged for over 3 months and there is no improvement on it, it is still the barest of stubs. I think it's okay to merge now. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Merge - As written, the article lacks sufficient assertion and independent RS of notability. Agree with tagging to draw other editors who may be able to find and add more sourcing or agree with Merge. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger completed. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Death is not melodic death metal

Just because some journalist said that they went "melodic death metal" on their latest records without going into detail about said statement doesn't qualify it as a "reliable source" to apply Death such genre tag, ask any fan or just another journalist and they'll tell you Death went into a more progressive style. To whoever is making the undo, read my justification before undoing whatever I corrected and try forming a counterargument, it makes you look like an ignorant. Death has never been considered a melodic death metal band nor has it properties akin to said genre. Just because it might have influenced certain melodic death metal bands it doesn't mean they were. However, since Human, Death showed a tendency into applying actual progressive elements, all this culminating with The Sound of Perseverance. Listen to any well-known melodeath band and tell me if there's any similarities between At the Gates/Edge of Sanity/In Flames/Arch Enemy and Death. --2800:2121:2000:EDB:3989:C269:1E17:882B (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong, a respected journalist, writing for a respected publication, is considered a reliable source, and if we were to remove this genre just because of your wishes it would be in conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Furthermore, please don't resort to name calling, you're much less likely to get your way if you do. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Said journalist didn't make a point on why Death was "melodic death metal" and said journalist can also be wrong. It's not my wishes, it's well known consensus. I added links to RateYourMusic where hundreds of users weigh on Death's genre status, but it was ignored. Here's AllMusic, Metal Storm and Sputnikmusic making emphasis on their progressive evolution.

Blabbermouth stating their progressive direction started with Human.

And yes, even Loudwire states Death started developing such style with Spiritual Healing. 2800:2121:2000:EDB:34EE:E434:D93:27C7 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sputnik and Metal Storm are both unreliable sources and a source saying they became more progressive doesn't make any difference to the reliability of a source saying they became more melodic death metal. Also, the reason that the Rate Your Music source would have been disregarded is because it too is an unreliable source. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Three reliable sources: AllMusic, Blabbermouth and Loudwire themselves describing Death's progressive evolution vs. some Loudwire journalist incorrectly stating that Death turned into a "melodic death metal" band without making a point. So what's it gonna be? 200.70.48.144 (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We are keeping the page as it was because that is what the sources support, otherwise it would not have a neutral point of view. Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are keeping the page as it is because even if I explained and provided various sources stating the opposite, which I already did, you would undo at your discretion because reasons. That Loudwire article didn't even explain how Death was melodeath, so far I haven't seen album reviews from a respected music website calling them "melodic death metal". Meanwhile, I provided articles and album reviews that all agree and explain (even the ones you consider unreliable) that Death had merged their technical death metal sound with progressive metal. Isn't that enough to include progressive metal in their genre descriptor? 200.70.48.144 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided disproved melodic death metal, it just added that they also went more progressive, because of your sources we can include progressive metal, and it would be better fitting of the guidelines to remove tech death in that case because tech death is a derivative of prog and death metal, which would both already be included. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Melodic death metal

Vague disagreement on this. I personally don’t think this should be in the infobox, so let’s discuss. ~SML TP 00:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

whatculture.com/music/death-ranking-all-7-studio-albumsloudwire.com/best-songs-by-band-death/ Here's two very reliable sources stating that, at one point in their career, they played melodic death metal. I think it's pretty hard for anybody to believe that The Sound of Perseverance isn't a melo death album, because it like sounds like a more progressive Heartwork-era Carcass, and Symbolic is also very melodic in places, and the sources back this up. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well if that’s the case, then I suggest you try to protecte it somehow. ~SML TP 14:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)