Talk:Blood on the Dance Floor (band)

Protected double redirect

• Dahvie Vanity should point to this article. —Guanaco 07:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dahvie Vanity should be its own article. he's literally under investigation by the fbi. stop obfuscating public information about child predators 174.45.84.49 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, per consensus here and also precedent set at Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band)#Requested move 28 July 2018  — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Blood on the Dance Floor (band) → Blood on the Dance Floor (duo) – Not a band per WP:BANDDAB. The editor whose username is Z0 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom. bd2412 T 01:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a duo of electronic musicians. They play electronic musical instruments. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. WP:BANDDAB says "Use either '(band)' or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." It does not deprecate the use of "(band)" in these cases. Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the guidance on WP:BANDDAB says "Use either '(band)' or '(duo)' when the musical ensemble is a duet." Maybe we should remove the (duo) option as it adds nothing In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - a band makes it more imprecise because there could be 2 to an infinite number of members whereas duo shows there is only 2 members in the group. A band is defined as "a group of instrumentalists playing music of a specialized type". This music group is a duo of electronic musicians who are not instrumentalists (players of a musical instrument). In popular culture, a band is typically a group of 4-5 people who sing, play the guitar, drums, bass, etc. Calling a group of 2 musicians a band is simply inaccurate and improper although literally they could fit the scope. @Chubbles: @Dekimasu: @In ictu oculi: please consider reconsidering. Not only (duo) makes it easier to categorize music groups consisting of 2 members, it also distinguishes electronic music groups from regular music groups. The editor whose username is Z0 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1) To this point, I think everyone has been fairly accepting of the fact that you filed 30 individual move requests instead of a multimove. However, please understand that it's annoying to get over 30 page notifications for the same comment–and then getting 30 edit conflicts after you edit the comment with the ping in it. If the issues at hand are the same, please pick one talk page and have the rest of the discussion there.

2) There is nothing inaccurate or improper about calling a band with two members a band. Musical ensemble#Two parts: "Examples of two-member bands are Japandroids, Local H, Pet Shop Boys, Hella, Flight of the Conchords, Death from Above 1979, Francis Xavier, I Set My Friends On Fire, Middle Class Rut, The Pity Party, Little Fish, The White Stripes, Big Business, Two Gallants, Lightning Bolt, The Ting Tings, The Black Box Revelation, Satyricon, The Black Keys, Tenacious D, Simon and Garfunkel, Hall & Oates, Johnossi, The Pack A.D., Air Supply and Royal Blood. When electronic sequencers became widely available in the 1980s, this made it easier for two-member bands to add in musical elements that the two band members were not able to perform. Sequencers allowed bands to pre-program some elements of their performance, such as an electronic drum part and a synth-bass line. Two-member pop music bands such as Soft Cell, Blancmange, Yazoo and Erasure used pre-programmed sequencers." In fact, this shows why it is easier to have two-person bands when electronic music is involved. As Chubbles stated, electronic music is music made using electronic musical instruments. It isn't necessary to require a band to be analog.

3) The proposal referenced a particular naming convention, but the moves do not follow from that naming convention. Dekimasuよ! 08:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Reply to Dekimasu: I'm not saying a two-member band is incorrect but it's just less preferred compared to duo. Musical ensemble#Two parts says two-member rock and pop bands are relatively rare and they are mostly rock and pop groups not electronic music duos that are the subjects of these move discussions. Wikipedia's preference is usually the one most commonly used. Bands play musical instruments unlike electronic musicians who use digital audio workstation (DAW) to produce their music. DAW is not a musical instrument but a computer software. As for the naming convention, it did say to use either "(band)" or "(duo)" when the musical ensemble is a duet, as in duo for the duet and band for others. That precisely supports my argument so I'm not sure why you said "the moves do not follow from that naming convention". The editor whose username is Z0 08:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the discussion for the general issue of whether electronic duos are accurately described as bands seems to be coalescing at Talk:The Ghost (Faroese band). Chubbles (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Disambiguation#"band" preferred to "duo". Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sexual assault allegations edits

A few different editors (not me) made edits to the Blood on the Dance Floor (band)#Sexual assault allegations against Dahvie Vanity section - see this diff.

Second Skin reverted these. I restored them, saying that they seemed to me to be improvements and I didn't understand the objection to them.

Second Skin re-reverted, saying "The section is fine how it is, as it simply relays the information stated in the sources. What you’re doing is changing it into this overly detailed (and relatively poorly written) he-said/she-said drama. Even if you had sources for all this, it still wouldn’t abide by the guideline for biographies for living persons."

I still can't see the basis behind the revert, or recognise this description of the edits.

Most of the changes seem to be simply increasing the clarity of existing content and making it better reflect the source - e.g. "Since 2009, at least 21 women have made sexual assault and rape allegations against Vanity" seems clearly better to me than "Vanity has had a long history of sexual assault and rape allegations by a large number of named accusers" - it replaces vague subjective terms like "long history" and "large number" with the exact facts given in the source.

The only new content is a single sentence mentioning the departures of Ecstasy and Von Monroe. This is sourced to a Huffington Post article already used as a source, seems to accurately reflect the source, and is clearly notable - in an article about a band, two members of that band leaving and making accusations about the lead singer is pretty clearly relevant. I can't see how it is any of overly-detailed, poorly-written, or unsourced?

Second Skin, could you be a bit clearer about what your problem with these edits is, as I can't see any part of them that seems to me to fit the description in your edit comment? TSP (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's because I still do not feel like speaking about ex-members and their experience with him does any help for the point it's trying to make. In fact it feels like high school drama, like "oh my god, can you please [band member] said this about [band member]???!!!??" it just doesn't feel as proffesionally as simplying relaying the info of his alleged long history of sexual misconduct. I do feel like a small mention of Jeffree Star and Ash Costella (people who weren't even in the group) is worth a mention to display that his actions has had an impact on individuals even outside his group. I also dont feel like the sentence "Since 2009, at least 21 women have made sexual assault and rape allegations against Vanity" is a good opener either. Putting a number on it like that just feels kind weird, especially since it could very well be a inaccurate number. There are articles like Harvey Weinstein that state "more than a dozen women have accused him sexual assault" and then it credits the author. That would be acceptable. Now that I think of it, I'll add your section back, and clarify that that's what the Huffington Post said, but I'll only add it as the second sentence instead of replacing the opening paragraph with such. Despite this I still don't feel like "Garrett McLaughlin and Jeremy Brian Griffis (known respectively as Garrett Ecstacy and Jayy Von Monroe) have both quit Blood On The Dance Floor and have described Vanity as a sexual predator" is a good addition either, the only thing I'd suggest is adding that to the sentence "..fellow" musicians such as New Years Day singer Ash Costello and Jeffree Star have spoken out about it" to say "...fellow musicians such as New Years Day singer Ash Costello and Jeffree Star, as well as former BOTDF members Jeremy Griffis and Garrett Ecstasy have spoken out about it" or something similar. Saying "they quit cuz he rapes kids" just feels a little too dramatic, almost like it's a sentence from some celebrity gossip magazine. Second Skin (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I added that portion in. I hope you understand I'm merely trying to make the section feel as professional as possible and have it abide by WP:BLP. I'm doing my best to make it avoid looking like those overly drama-fixated sections like the ones you find on almost any article for a metalcore band that played Warped Tour. It's important to me because outing a dangerous sexual predator is something I personally find mandatory, so having it well-documented on a article like this is important to me. And I want the presentation to look as far from he-said/she-said gossip as possible. Second Skin (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I can sympathise with the aim, but unfortunately the style you've adopted in trying to achieve it is one that vaguely alludes to facts in a way that makes everything very unclear, and the whole thing appear far less encyclopaedic than if you simply allowed the facts in the sources to be stated.

For example, "fellow musicians such as New Years Day singer Ash Costello and Jeffree Star have spoken out about it". Who are these people, what's the relevance of them "speaking out about it"? Are they just some random musicians who think that sexual assault is bad?

Whereas the version you reverted said: "Musicians Ash Costello (of New Years Day) and Jeffree Star state they observed Dahvie engage in questionable or illegal sexual behavior during a 2012 tour." Vastly clearer, vastly more specific, vastly less "he said/she said".

I'm sorry, but I think the version you reverted from is superior in every way to the version you reverted to; I don't think it bears any of the problems you describe, and I'm unclear what your attachment to this particular version of the wording is. More generally, I think it's bad Wikipedia practice to wholesale revert the edits of multiple editors without specific objections to each one.

I'm going to restore the version you reverted, as I think it was simply far better-phrased and clearer than what is there at the moment. If you have specific objections to parts of it, maybe you could make edits to address them directly, rather than working through reverts? TSP (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Still active

I have added citations for sources several times on the page and it has not been kept on the page. Also, I want to make it clear that I have no conflict of interest surrounding the page, I am still a college student and I have no employment history with anyone outside of food chains. These citations include public music listed on Spotify by the band. I'm not aware of Wikipedia's policy on things like Spotify, but the music is made by the band and they promote it on their social media pages, so I'm confused as to why that doesn't count as a source. I'm also confused as to why the edit for "The Most Vivid Nightmares" continues to be corrected to "Vivid Nightmares". Please do your own research before editing a page back to its original content. I am trying to keep people updated on this band and it's really irritating to get important information removed. The band is still active and anyone who does a simple Google search will know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeninferno (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I moved this discussion from my talk page.

@Jeninferno: Strictly speaking, you have not added sources several times. You added a primary source here. Granted, you could have done so before you created this account. I have no way of knowing that. We have to take your word that The Most Vivid Nightmares is Dahvie Vanity, as that is not in the "source". We have to take your word that, despite having a completely different name, this is still Blood on the Dance Floor (which is the only reason I can assume that you are changing the state of the band to the present tense and removing the end date for the band's activity). What a good source would shows is that Blood on the Dance Floor changed its name to either one of these side-projects. Until you can do that, the general opinion is that this band has dissolved.

As for policies on sources like Spotify, it's what we call a WP:PRIMARY source and it's permitted in as far as claiming something exists, but it does not answer any of the questions it raises.

As for demanding that anyone do research, the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In other words, if you want to include something, source it reliably with WP:SECONDARY sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And I just checked the article. You claim that I'm also confused as to why the edit for "The Most Vivid Nightmares" continues to be corrected to "Vivid Nightmares", yet I don't see that in the current state of the article.

Also, can you address the concern that the only article you have edited to date is this one. Do you have an association with the band, or one of its (former) members, or are you just a super-fan? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Walter, I do not like to repeat myself. I have told you that I have no affiliation to the band. I am a college student. I am too young to have had any association with this band. I have never been employed or associated with any companies outside of food chains. Please do not make me repeat this again. I am also not a super-fan. In fact, I'm not a fan of the band at all. I was as a child but am not anymore. I simply see that the Wikipedia page is in total disarray and does not have as much information on it as it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeninferno (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where you wrote that you have no association with the band. By the time I was a college student, I did have associations with bands, so it's not uncommon and there is no indication of your age so I did not know your age. WP:SPAs are always treated with caution. Thank you for attempting to add to the disarray of Wikipedia. As I wrote, your sources do not support anything that you're claiming and based on what you have shown, there is no continuity to this band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in the media connects the Most Vivid Nightmares as being the same band as Blood on the Dance Floor. Zero. Please stop pretending that BotDF is still active. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. It seems like any other band that folds and then a member starts up a new band (or a one-member "project"). The new instance is not a continuation of the old. Sometimes bands fold for legal reasons (the record label wanted more music with unreasonable terms) and other times they fold for logistical reasons (the founding members are all gone and they do not want the name to continue). We cannot apply original research here or in any article on Wikipedia, so Jeninferno, please find sources to support your claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)