Talk:Secret Chiefs 3

Citations

I removed the "citations needed". This isn't exactly a scholarly article, so I hardly think citations are really required. Besides which, everything on this page can be easily confirmed on the label website. Perhaps I'm out of line here, if so I hope older and wiser heads will correct me. Matheson 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

google test

Hmm, google test is quite surprising. I almost vfd'd it. -- Natalinasmpf 20:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Persian and other Arabian music

"Persian and other Arabian music"?? What does that mean? Persians are not Arabs.. Did the writer mean Middle Eastern music or something? Real ignorance..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.30.244 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 1 January 2007

"Ishraqiyun borrowing heavily from Turkish music" WTF!!! It's the turkish who borrow heavily from the Persian, Bulgarian, Armenian, Kurdish, Greek and other folks' music! Wikipedia is full of turkic crappy propaganda! Stop it, you embarass yourselves, neo-turkists or whatever you call yourselves. Persians are not turks, neither the Bulgarians, neither the Sumerians! And yes, "Turkic" is LINGUISTICAL classification, not ethnical!

Wahid Azal

Do NOT remove the name of Wahid Azal from the list of influences on the Secret Chiefs3. If you have a problem with including his name, go talk to Trey Spruance yourself and he'll tell you. And the article removed was a political decision on the part of the wikipedia editors. It will be back up again soon SecretChiefs3 03:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article was removed because it violated Wikipedia policy regarding notability and biographies of living persons, among other things. It certainly may be recreated with sufficient content and citations at some time in the future. As of right now, however, there is nothing to justify an internal link to an article on a non-notable person. Wyatt Riot 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was taken out because it was a purely political decision dictated by Wahid Azal's enemies to the Wikipedia editors, since we all know who butters the bread of the Wikipedia editors here - and not because of any notability issues, which is just a red-tape excuse having nothing to do with reality. In any case your removal of his name from the Secret Chiefs 3 article here also reveals your motives. Why are you even tampering with this article when you are in no position to be doing so? You are always welcome to come over to the Web of Mimicry http://www.webofmimicry.com/ (SC3 boards) to find out for yourself the kind of notability Wahid Azal does have with SC3 and its international fan-base. His name is being put back in the list of influences for SC3. You have offered no valid reason as to why you have removed his name from the list of influences in this specific article, hence putting you in violation of the ToS. If you take it out again you need to give an explanation, otherwise you yourself are in violation of the ToS. If you have a problem with that, or wish to question 'notability', you are always welcome to directly contact Trey Spruance himself (who leads SC3) - and which this article is actually about - as well as the webmasters of both the SC3 website and the Web of Mimicry for verification SecretChiefs3 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against including a mention of Azal in this article. The issue at hand is that you did not provide sufficient references and proof of his notability to warrant an article on Azal himself (and, since we do not create internal links to articles on non-notable subjects, I removed the link). This was not a "political decision", it was a decision to remove an article based on official Wikipedia policy. You can read them for yourself:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Citing sources

These are basic rules that apply to all articles about living persons. They are intended to protect the integrity of Wikipedia itself, and also to provide a legal backing in case an individual would take offense at criticism about him or her. If Wikipedia were sued for libel, for instance, Jimmy Wales can't tell the court to go talk with Trey Spruance or some webmasters; he has to be able to point to point to previously-published information showing that this site was simply documenting information published elsewhere (which is essentially what Wikipedia is about) and that sources were clearly referenced within the article.

I know that you're new around here, but another Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith on behalf of other editors. We have just as much of a "position" to be editing this article as you, as editors and (as many of us are) fans of SC3. I've also added welcome message on your user talk page with some more links. Wyatt Riot 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is pure, utter nonsense and the decision was clearly politically motivated. The original article on Azal provided citations to Azal's published works; proof of his notability in the occult community; his notability in being the most prominent and public anti-Bahai critic; citations to influences, etc. All the basic rules above were adhered to, and to the letter, which is more than one can say for many other articles presently on wikipedia which have not been deleted. I am happy to resubmit the original article in full again for your edification in order to prove the clear political motivations involved (and dare one say, personal malice) smokescreening under Wikipedia guidelines. Now this is an article on the Secret Chiefs 3 which included Azal's name in the list of influences. The name was removed by you until I put it back in. You have not offered any explanation as to why you did it here. None. This demonstrates and reinforces the allegation for malice and political motivation involved for deleting the other article-- clearly! It also shows that certain Wikipedia editors are suspiciously monitoring and inordinately interested in any/every article that mentions him by name. Eminently this falls within the orbit of violations of Wikipedia's ToS SecretChiefs3 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki conspiracy lawl Zopwx2 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious business. -Lemike 08:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested to me elsewhere that user SecretChiefs3 might in fact be Wahid Azal. If you want to see the kind of arguments he gets involved in, have a look on usenet group talk.religion.bahai PaulHammond (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of SC3

This article seems too heavy into the use of this band's acronym. Though meant to reduce the feeling of redundancy, it seems too lax. Would it be more appropriate to selectively reduce the number of instances in which the band's name must appear and generally use their full name? --Pixel Eater (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree wholeheartedly. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Book of Souls release fall 2011?

Where exactly does it say that? The quoted page (http://www.webofmimicry.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=88) merely says that the album should've been released last fall (2010). So far, I haven't heard of a new release date. --Fibbo (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Information about sub-bands

The article's been recently deprived of all information concerning "Satellite bands", a very important part of today's identity of SC3 and definitely a unique trait of the band. The reason behind the cancellation of those contents was that the band is allegedly too marginal to deserve such a comprehensive wikipedia entry. I personally don't agree: first of all, the band is quite well-known around the web (see the number of ratings on https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/secret_chiefs_3 ); secondly, information about band members and musical genres is essential for every artist, from the more celebrated to the more obsure one. SC3 has a complex structure of sub-bands with different members covering different musical styles: that's the reason why a level of detail is required which is a bit more deep than most other bands. A few days after my restoration of the complete article, the information was cancelled again, this time arguing that most information is unsourced. That's definitely a legitimate critique, but if one agrees with the importance of showcasing a comprehensive description of the Satellite Bands substructure one should also make his best to make it more complete and well-referenced. Removing information is not an option: the best viable way is in my opinion specifying what information is unsourced with the [citation needed] mark and work together with other users in order to provide it with the most appropriate references. Since I have no intention to press the issue further, and believe that keeping on playing a "delete/restore" game'd be pretty much useless, I encourage users to express their opinion and discuss the theme before taking other actions. I'm sure that a most satisfying solution can be found for both sides of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.123.200 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The given reasons were because the section is unsourced and sources are needed to take the article in that direction, both valid concerns. I would love to see a fleshed-out section on the Satellite bands, just as I would love to see sections on the multi-instrumentalist talents of Trey and others, a history of the band through albums and members, and an expanded section about their musical and philosophical influences. The problem is, sources don't seem to exist on these topics, and we rely on sources to tell us what's important about the subject. I have reverted again, and per WP:BURDEN this level of detail should not be restored until we have reliable, third-party sources. SC3 are one of my favorite bands and I would love to see them get mainstream coverage—though it often seems like they avoid it—but until we have at least reliable independent coverage, we'll have to keep the article rather short. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the deleted section on the satellite bands, to which I personally added several citations in the beginning of 2012. I found one unsourced paragraph in the section ("Fans have speculated that all songs by Secret Chiefs 3 bearing the "Book T" prefix [...] are the work of UR [..]"). I restored the section with the exception of that paragraph and ask you to review again and tell me where specifically you find sources lacking. By the way, the reasoning behind the original removal of the section ("borderline notability of the band") is not valid in my opinion. As argued by OP the complex structure and philosophy behind the band warrants a more detailed approach in the article. --Fibbo (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't outright reverted, but I did remove the Discogs, Web of Mimicry store, and podcast links. Discogs is user-maintained and not a reliable source. The WoM store is both primary and commercial, so similarly unreliable and unusable. (I have also removed some other sources for the same reasons.) The Sittingnow Podcast is considered primary, so we can't use it for crystal ball claims about an unreleased album. The Westword blog/interview is also a primary source but it's being used to support non-exceptional claims about their current and past musical interests, so it can stay as long as that continues, though we can't let it guide the article. That leaves AllMusic, which is a reliable source, but I'm not sure how much we can pull from it, not to mention the fact that we shouldn't allow a single reliable source to guide the article. I don't think we have to worry about notability concerns, as SC3 meets at least criteria 4-6 of WP:BAND. We just need to find additional reliable sources—if they exist—to support these claims and to show us where the depth of detail needs to be. I agree that that everything about the band warrants more detail, but we need to write the article around the sources. To use a (ridiculous) example: if all we had were dozens of sources all about the robes SC3 often wear playing live, then that is primarily what this article would be about, not their satellite bands or philosophy or instruments. Your and my opinion of what's important doesn't matter, only reliable sources do. Now as I said earlier, I haven't outright reverted, but the article will have to be cut down if there aren't any reliable sources out there. I'll try to find some time to do this soon, but I didn't want to do it before you had time to look for additional sources. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed most of the section. I saved what I could and incorporated it at the beginning of the section. Hopefully some sources turn up eventually and we can begin to fill it out. Woodroar (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits

When I see large chunks of text edited, restored, deleted it tends to catch my eye. I personally don't add material to, or create an article with few or no references. Adding a 'citation needed' after every unsourced statement seems pretty useless and actually doesn't accomplish anything except make an article look like it consists of someone's own opinion or possibly fabricated. Don't write it if you can't cite a reference to back up you think the article should say. If you can't reference something, then don't write it. It's wimpy to write something and then assume some other editor is somehow going to come along and research the unsourced statements that you have written.

Another Musician,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)