Talk:Sol Invictus (band)

message: I'm adding the following information here which was removed from the main article:
In June 2011 Sol Invictus announced the end of their partnership both with Cold Spring Records and musician Andrew King, whose controversial remarks in an interview the band felt "uncomfortable" with.Band's statement on facebook.com. The explanatory sentence The rest of the band have felt uncomfortable regarding some of his outside endeavours and pronouncements, which we were not previously aware of and which have recently come to light. was deleted after a few days."Andrew King and 'Traditionalism'" on whomakesthenazis.com
Both informations are FACT (for example, look at the Cold Spring website, Sol Invictus' releases have been pulled from the catalogue and shop except for one compilation which CS had released as a label), devoid of tendencies of any direction and the sources cite the persons involved in their own words.
Toilard and Bloodofox both deleted this passage, the latter stating "A personal blog is indeed a "dubious" source (it's a blog) and, similarly, Facebook posts are not welcome on Wikipedia either."
(Bloodofox is wrong here - the mentioned Facebook source is not a single "post", it is run by the mentioned artist himself. And the aforementioned "personal blog" is run by a collective.)
In this case, almost the complete controversy passage could be deleted as well as it cites heavily a) from a personal Website and b) from Facebook either. But this hasn't been done by Toilard and Bloodofox. Why? Also, long passages do not cite any sources at all. Again, this has not been questioned by both people. Why?
My impression is the mentioned deletion by Toilard and Bloodofox has an underlying tendency. Of course they're both invited to prove me wrong.--Robert Kerber (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ignore your dubious insinuations here ("underlying tendency") in favor of blandly pointing you to Wikipedia's referencing polices on self-published sources: Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. Yes, it does give every appearance of an anonymous, personal blog, just as any other, whether typed by the hands of one or many. The Facebook post may be usable, since it's about the band itself and just reporting what the band said, but if it's only notable enough to be mentioned in a Facebook, yes, post by the band, then notability appears to be nil. For what it's worth, the article does need a total rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard Wikipedia an information source and not a lonely hearts club for exchanging sympathies or antipathies - this is just to say that I'm not interested in getting personal. I simply try to keep certain entries up to date. (Can't do this for all entries so I concentrate on the ones which interest me.) And I find it odd that similar pieces of information are accepted here and rejected there. My point: Is it possible to find a consensus concerning the information on parting ways of the band with Cold Spring Records and former band member Andrew King? The beginning of the Cold Spring co-operation is mentioned in the article, why shouldn't the parting be? And again, the joining of a band member is worth a note, why isn't the departure? The reference sources are there, the facts are evident (Sol deleted from CS shop as mentioned, King absent from present line-up), and you probably won't find any information closer to the subject than infos given by the artist himself. Also, it is still in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF--Robert Kerber (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted mention of Cold Spring Records and Andrew King partnership ending

message: Interesting that it refers to that song as being from the album of the same name; of course, that's actually a re-recording of a Death In June song from when Wakeford was involved, from the album Burial. Someone should rewrite/rephrase this. 71.23.141.223 (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of the West 

message: The blog http://www.whomakesthenazis.com appears not to be a reliable source per Wikipedia policy. From WP:SPS:
: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
Especially given the WP:BLP aspects, if alternative sources cannot be found for the material sourced from it, it should be deleted. —Ashley Y 23:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of www.whomakesthenazis.com