Talk:Varg Vikernes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Odalism

Regarding this series of edits:

It is not appropriate to present his religious views in detail, or as being biographically significant, unless reliable sources establish context. Using excessive quotes from primary sources is not appropriate, and the last thing we need is yet another fringe youtuber hagiography. Please discuss here, based on sources, before restoring again. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The more I go over this, the more troubling it gets. Pages and pages of obscure interviews artfully cherry-picked to present the most palatable, least offensive possible interpretation of his views. An obscure interview hosted on his own site has been used for an entire paragraph of his rambling trying to imply that he's not really a neo-Nazi... This is an interview in which he praises neo-Nazi black metal as having the guts to be different and politically incorrect, and calls regular black-metal "spineless poser-bands". This interview also explains that he stopped playing metal because it was "negro music" and that metal-heads were acting like "white niggers". Using a source for its most flattering, most evasive content is cherry-picking. This is pretty bad. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The article has long had a problem with fan-introduced bias, much like many other musician articles. All we can do is work to eliminate it. I'm sure we could say something like "Vikernes resists being labeled as a neo-nazi in interviews posted on his site" but that should be the extent of it. We should write about him according to the preponderance of neutral sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the reductions but one has to keep WP:BLP in mind. The subject does not agree with his characterizations in media, so if he claims slander, then Wikipedia has to note those sorts of disputes even if they're not covered by secondary sources -- and even if he's written very questionable things suggesting the contrary. ILTP (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The problems is that he is prolific, and even a superficial glance at his output indicates that his statements are not self-consistent. Not every detail belongs, and the way to decide is through independent sources. He contradicts himself a lot, and relying on editors to deciding which of his comments or rebuttals belongs is dubious. That's the problem with the article, it's a collection of editor-selected samples. We need to summarize reliable, independent sources. A brief summary of his own rebuttal when it's necessary for BLP is all that is acceptable, but that line isn't always obvious either.

Per WP:BLPCRIME, he is no longer merely accused of these crimes, was convicted of them. Wikipedia accepts these verdicts unless reliable sources provide a strong reason to doubt them. His own blog-posts or a random interview with a fanzine twenty years ago, are not sufficient for us to cast doubt on this verdict. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, there are many, many reliable, independent sources which clearly and unambiguously explain Vikernes's long-term connection to racism, anti-semitism, neo-Nazism, etc. and the main reason any of these sources are even talking about him at all is because of these extremist views. Any edit which downplays this connection based on only his own vaguely alluded to blog posts or videos would be a deep mistake that violates NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a place for whitewashing against sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many reliable, independent sources which clearly and ambiguously explain controversial details about any artist you can imagine. We can allude to such controversies in the lead but we can't shove labels like "neo-Nazi" when such affiliations are not explicitly endorsed by the subject. He's also been accused of Satanic worship many times, but you're curiously not as concerned with that detail of his mythology. Your edits are the equivalent of "he's a neo-Nazi but he denies it" which is absolutely a BLP issue. The objective truth is that "neo-Nazism" is just one of the labels that have been advanced toward him. ilil (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This smacks of false equivalence. "Controversial details" reads like a publicist's euphemism. No, we both know the facts here. Many reliable sources explicitly link him to neo-Nazism. If you can find a truly reliable source refuting this, so be it, but his tepid and inconsistent rejection of these labels does not cancel out these many reliable sources which support them. It's one of the labels that have been advanced towards him for a reason, and if you do not know the reason, I invite you to read the article's reliable sources instead of fanzines and youtube channels. I do not know why you feel a need to downplay this sourced information, but Wikipedia isn't the place for hagiography of WP:FRINGE ideologues. Grayfell (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"If you can find a truly reliable source refuting this, so be it" -- Uhhh, Vikernes himself?? He is the most authoritative source on what he believes himself to be. Just as an FYI: I'm not a fan of his, I don't care for his music, and I have a very "meh" view of his politics. My point is simply to not sensationalize the topic. If his views are really controversial, then the encyclopedic thing to do is to summarize what he believes, as in, from the horse's mouth. Not by including a claim in which he said something about Muslims and Jews that a single Rolling Stoner writer deemed inflammatory. ilil (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, an arbitrary sample of a handful of obscure interviews and vlogs, cherry-picked for the most flattering bits and totally ignoring the other bits, is not "the most authoritative source" for how Wikipedia describes his views. This isn't how WP:RS works, this isn't how WP:BLP works, and it never has been. Rolling Stone is a reliable news outlet, and Vikernes is, at best, a WP:PRIMARY source. If you can find a good summary of him presenting his position, summarize his position with attributions and in accordance with due weight. As I said, whatever he's said to defend or promote himself doesn't cancel out reliable sources. Reliable sources clearly demonstrate that he was actively involved with the Heathen Front for years, to the point that his PO box in prison was the group's mailing address. We don't fill articles with pseudointellectual blather and incoherent mysticism just because an old dude put out a vlog one time, and we don't allow people to spin their personal history when it contradicts reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Apart from your mistaken interpretation of BLP, I agree 100%. Bottom line: we can't write "Vikernes endorses Nazism" unless he comes out as a Nazi. The best we can do is some variation of "Vikernes is widely reported as a Nazi". And the more sources we can find calling him a Nazi, the more justification we have to cite his books and blogposts so that readers can see for themselves what he actually says about the issues. That's not whitewashing or fan-writing, it's just covering the topic comprehensively. ilil (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(addendum) I've just perused the RS article and, wow, you lifted the sentence verbatim. "...has endorsed neo-Nazi views and contains rants against Muslims and Jews. " And the author doesn't elaborate what's exactly said in those rants. This is "clearly and ambiguously"? ilil (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You've only perused the source after you reverted the content it supported? Are you serious? Are you acting in good faith to improve the article, or are you here to improve Vikernes's image? We have multiple sources linking him to Nazism. So why would this source be obligated to elaborate on rants against Muslims and Jew? There is no expectation that a reputable outlet would repeat garbage like that, and just as importantly... why would that matter? A reliable source says something. We are not in the business of making sure sources cite sources which cite sources which cite sources until we, personally as editors, are satisfied that they have meet our own exacting standards. The source has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and mentions something which is, in context, completely unsurprising.

How about this from CNN: "The most prominent example is Norwegian black metal artist Varg Vikernes, former bassist for the band Mayhem, who was a key player in both black metal and the neo-Nazi movement."[1]

The ideas he has been spreading, for decades, have been consistent with neo-Nazism. His refutation of the label itself is noteworthy. It's insufficient to whitewash the article, however. It's not difficult to find primary examples of this in his prolific social media rambling. He is open in his contempt for a grand Jewish conspiracy and "questions" the Holocaust, and has repeatedly advocated for race hygiene. Combine that with the Heathen Front, are you honestly surprised that sources are documenting this connection? Why would we imply that these sources are wrong by couching this in WP:WEASEL words like "Widely reported"?

If you want specific examples, Rationalwiki has some choice cuts. Here's the first one:

"Some Europeans are a bit "polluted genetically", so to speak, and have brown eyes for instance, that is something that can be solved by a few generations of race hygiene."

It's trivially easy to find more on his sites or in interviews. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Neo-Nazi associations aside, Euronymous and Mayhem doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph when they're the first things mentioned in the third. ilil (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Varg is on BitChute now

Since YouTube keeps deleting his subsequent channels, he's decided to remain exclusively on BitChute under the original ThuleanPerspective name. It should probably be mentioned/linked to somewhere in the body of the article/infobox/external links. 2601:8C:4500:4680:C064:74BF:C57D:3C82 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Context Matters (continued)

Continuing on from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grayfell#Context_Matters

"It is noteworthy because a small number of sources have discussed it. The outlet which reviewed it is, apparently, considered reliable for attributed reviews." Then cite those other sources, instead of "just" the review? Would that not be the best course of action as you said "Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping people sell products." Yet, that review, as you also said "provides context for a product this person is attempting to sell." Therefore, you would probably be best served to also include those other reliable sources to clarify the context within which the review is being mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.86.41 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are currently two sources for this obscure product, which are already cited. The purpose of articles is to provide context according to reliable sources. If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so. If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"There are currently two sources for this obscure product, which are already cited." I am guessing this is what you meant by: "It is noteworthy because a small number of sources have discussed it." I thought you meant that there were other sources, not related to consumer response, in regard to criticisms of his product; such as a journalistic article.

"If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so." I don't particularly as the other works by Vikernes mentioned are either sociopolitical or theopolitical in nature. Can a tabletop role-playing game be considered literary work? Perhaps, it would be best left mentioned in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes#Works?

"If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck." Come now, we are all friends here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C70:DE00:C50B:DA62:FF40:2E53 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of Metal Sucks review for an RPG book

What is the reason for using a website that covers music news and music reviews as a citation for an RPG book? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Greyfell: Nice job Accusing me of edit warring while simultaneously edit warring. You made the first revert here. You need to explain your position in order to restore the text. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the status quo, per WP:BRD. There is also already a discussion of this in the section above from a few days ago. The burden is on you to gain consensus for changes.

I do not see any particular problem with a review from this site. It is reliable for metal and for related forms of media, and it is reviewed in this context. Even the few sources which mention it and aren't metalsucks say it's a racist joke or a self-indulgent hobby of his. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hagiography, so if we're going to mention this at all, we are not obligated to pretend it's something it's not (i.e. good). Providing context is part of what this article should do. As I've already said, in the section just above this one: The purpose of articles is to provide context according to reliable sources. If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so. If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If the only RS is Metal Sucks, then it doesn't belong. If an argument was open, I'd argue against MS being an RS even for it's focus topic. 52.124.92.11 (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

PO Box

This line doesn't make any sense:

... In addition, the organization's listed address was the same PO box Vikernes used in prison, which the authors conclude "actually strengthens the Heathen Front's assertion that Vikernes is not the leader: it would be very hard for him to do an effective job at it."

I've read this part of the book, so I know what the author's were getting at, but this is a very poor way to summarize a minor point. What conclusion are readers supposed to come to? It would be very hard for him to do an effective job of what? The paragraph fails to explain this enough for it to make any sense at all.

Further, the follow paragraph of the source specifically explains that Vikerness "launched" the Allgermanische Heidnische Front as "a more widely encompassing branch of the Heathen Front". So even this source very clearly supports that Vikernes was a leader and founder of the Heathen Front. Again, the source is not disputing that Vikerness was a leader of the Heathen Front, so it cannot be used to imply this.

We have multiple sources saying he was a leader of this group, and we already give an adequate rebuttal of that description with attribution. Cherry-picking to soften this appears to be whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this appears to be an attempt at whitewashing and softening his image. We should be relying on secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"said" vs. "alleged"

@Greyfell: per WP:BLPPUBLIC

• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

Vikernes is alleged by two sources to have associated with neo-Nazi skinheads as an adolescent. Vikernes has denied those allegations, per Lords of Chaos. Please stop changing the word "alleged" to "said" in that line. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Vikernes is not a reliable source for this. Those sources are more reliable than he is by a mile. Reliable sources said something, and he refuted it. The article explains this in neutral language. See WP:CLAIM. Wikipedia articles should not use weasel words to insinuate that multiple reliable sources are incorrect just because they say something that some editors find unflattering. Further, as the article already explains, he, himself openly embraced Nazism for a time, so this is merely a comment from sources about his early life. This detail is neither extraordinary, nor particularly surprising, so you will need to be much, much more clear before claiming this is a BLP issue. Grayfell (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. "allege" is not a weasel word. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Try harder, please. Per MOS:ALLEGED, is is an expression of doubt. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's a proven fact then it would have been stated in Wikipedia's voice without in-text attribution. The sources themselves are not very high quality if they present no evidence or argument for Vikernes' association with skinhead movements. ilil (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Varg has a Twitter account

Under the username, GandalftheWhi19. Perhaps this can be added under external links, and/or the infobox somewhere. 2601:8C:4581:1150:8C82:4C33:86FF:8D40 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Huge bias in article

This article is written in such a way to demonize his political beliefs and character as a person, if the article is to remain neutral and unbiased, then the comments regarding his stance in the murder should be removed from the introduction, as he is most famously known as a musician and writer. There are already bits within the article going into detail about his self-defense inspired murder of Euronymous. Furthermore, having it at the beginning only intensifies the passive aggressive slandering of the individual. Lastly, Varg isn't far right, and has disavowed all of it in his videos. He is a pagan and a primitivist. Please remove the false label of him being on the far right, as his political stances do not correlate at all with what far right politics adhere to

Pupuce2020 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the "far-right" tidbit is worded in a POV fashion. "Convicted murderer" should not be in the opening sentence because it's redundant and not what Vikernes is primarily known for in more scholarly (i.e. not sensationalist) sources. Put simply, if he wasn't already famous as a black metal musician, then no one would've ever heard of his crimes. However, I believe that the lead should mention that Vikernes argued unsuccessfully for a voluntary manslaughter charge per WP:BALASPS and because it's worthwhile to note that he believes that he was wrongfully charged. ili (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy is neutral. Intentionally downplaying information is non-neutral. Sources repeatedly and consistently emphasize these details as important, defining traits, so the article will reflect them as well. Reflecting sources is how Wikipedia preserves NPOV. The significance of his opinions will still need reliable, independent sources, and will need to b proportionate to other sources. Perhaps we will have to take this to a noticeboard again. Grayfell (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder, the majority of the article is discussing his criminal activity, murdering, prison sentence, church arson, etc. The lead should reflect the body of the article in almost all cases. Grayfell (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. We must remain neutral and inform the reader right up front about his criminal record including arson and murder. Note that Pupuce2020 has been blocked for whitewashing the biography of neo-fascist hate-monger Gavin McInnes, and Pupuce2020 has performed similar edits on Peste Noire, removing the Nazi connection. Here we see another example of whitewashing hate. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: The first paragraph already mentions that he was convicted of arson and murder. I feel the issue is whether it's appropriate to introduce him as a "convicted murderer" as an aside to being a musician. How many times do we have to say that he was convicted of murder? I feel as though some people may not be happy until the lead consists of just "Varg Vikernes is a murderer who was convicted of murderer for killing Euronymous and went to jail for murder" and that anything less would be "whitewashing". And if we're really going to be impartial under these prescriptions, then the first sentence should simply state that he is a criminal, since it's also been well-documented that he was convicted of arson and inciting racial hatred.

MOS:LEAD: Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. [...] Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

ili (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Per many reliable sources, Vikernes is a semi-prominent figure in the far-right. His opinions are still very extreme, very fringe, very racist, and mostly consistent across decades. His occasional disavowal of neo-Nazism in isolation doesn't change his frequent support for neo-Nazi ideas. Further, how sources have discussed his politics is what matters, and sources don't take his disavowal all that seriously. To imply otherwise would be misleading and non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that we should identify him as extreme, racist, and fringe if this were an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedia. Just the facts, please. It's infinitely preferable to summarize what he believes in his own words than to rely on sensationalist sources that will use every word ending in "-ist" ever without actually quoting him on anything. AFAIK, he does not consider himself "far-right", and that's enough to justify that we shouldn't definitively state that he is. Ultimately these terms are loaded and subjective. He's supplied plenty other rope to hang himself with. ili (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is specifically built on independent sources. We do not prioritize people's own words, because we are not a platform for public relations. Therefore it doesn't particularly matter what he "considers himself" beyond basic BLP issues. What matters is reliable sources. We summarize sources, and those sources document his extremist, fringe, far-right statements. His word-games and attempts to blur definitions to his own ends are treated by reliable sources as mostly irrelevant. "Just the facts" means just the facts as documented by reliable sources. In this case, as in most cases, that also means independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, the reason that much of this article focuses on non-musical matters is because the relevant information on his music is reserved for the Burzum article. ili (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the article too long?

Is this individual really important enough to warrant such an in-depth article? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or this guy's publicist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.42.219 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It's bloated and too detailed.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. A Wikipedia article being detailed is a good thing, not mattering who its about. As long as the article remains unbiased, I see no problem with its size or detail. Nate Keller (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)