Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:59, 1 January 2012

Darkthrone's views on Satanism

Re: Your question about Darkthrone's current views on Satanism

During the erly days (about 1991–1994) Darkthrone hardly did eny interviews. The interviews they did do at the time seem to be tung-in-cheek and I find it very hard to take everything they say seriously (see this 1994 interview for example, which cracks me up). I think a lot of BM interviews from that time wer tung-in-cheek—to be taken with a pinch of salt—yet meny folk take them 100% seriously. Fenriz indeed identified himself as a Satanist at this time, but he had his own ideology and has never spoken about it much.

In a 1999 interview for Legion magazine, when askt "Are you still a Satanist?" Fenriz replied: "You always have this thing with you. But it might not be so strong now. It depends on if it is the biggest thing in your life". I'm not sure if Nocturno was ever a Satanist but I know he doesn't call himself one now. He sayd in a 1998 interview for Scream magazine #44: "And Satanism, well, it was something one would play around with, but you do get more rational as time goes by". In a 2001 interview for the Friends of Devils zine #12 he sayd: "For us, black metal is neither political or religious. It's just a way to express the really dark side of Mankind". In a 2002 interview for The Metal Observer : "For me Black Metal isn't about religion. It isn't about Satan or anything like that ... You can call us a fighter against religion. We are really anti-religious people". I'm fairly sure Fenriz doesn't call himself a Satanist today either. ~Asarlaí 04:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The interview you linked to does indeed not seem to be 100% serious. I am especially interested in interviews done after 2000, which you mentioned while referring to Nocturno Culto. I second your thought about Fenriz, I think he is too much of a Heavy Metal guy to care about Satanism now (still would like to see him being asked about that in a more recent interview, done after, say, 2006, therefore after the change towards more Punk and Heavy Metal influences). And I actually can’t recall Nocturno Culto ever actively promoting Satanism in early interviews nor distancing himself, so I can agree here as well. --217/83 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Satanism, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I considered these little corrections and additional sources to be a minor edit, but thank you for telling me it is seen otherwise here. --217/83 12:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, generally addition (or removal) of any content, uncontroversial or not, shouldn't be marked as minor. Your edit was actually relatively substantial. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

References

You are responsible for adding a reference when you add a fact or item to an article. If someone removes it as unreferenced, then you add the reference when you put it back. Otherwise, it will just be removed again until you do so correctly. Nobody else has to do it for you. The burden is on the editor wishing to add a fact or item to the article. So please learn how to cite your sources. Otherwise, you are just making unnecessary work for other editors, since you are the one with the knowledge of the subject or fact. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have to “learn how to cite”, just look at my other edits. I left a comment, referring to Root’s site and loads of online reviews; I consider this to be enough for a release, I would have added a footnote otherwise. --217/83 17:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When somebody requests citation, it means they want a footnote, not an edit summary. This is an article about a living person. Everything should be cited. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Show me one article with a footnote for every sound recording. --217/83 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is never a good argument. I'm not saying every recording needs citation, but guest appearances should be verifiable. Regular appearances with the subject's own band obviously don't need to be cited, the guest appearances should be. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If you write that “verything should be cited”, the conclusion would be to have a footnote behind every book, album, et cetera; that has nothing to do with invalid comparisons. And the guest appearance (many of these aren’t cited either, by the way) I added is easily verifiable through the Root homepage. --217/83 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Genre changes

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Mayhem (band), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Malconfort (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You don’t have to tell me about the neutral point of view. I know both about this rule, about the need for sources and what Black Metal is about (see my edits there), but maybe I should have sourced that specific change. And what do you mean by “some edits”? Which ones besides Mayhem (where I obviously disagree)? --217/83 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adam Darski. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlike DingirXul, I have tried to discuss the edits, warned them several times etc. Your comment on the article’s talk page makes me doubt you understand what the conflict is about. --217/83 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mayhem

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mayhem (band), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you even taken a look at my edit? I improved several footnotes (among them, an imprecise magazine reference), I added a reference for the controversy surrounding the band after 1995, I corrected the genre information (it is obvious to anyone knowing about Black Metal and Mayhem that Mayhem is no Black Metal band anymore), and you actually pretend my edit “did not appear to be constructive“? --217/83 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is far from obvious, and entirely your POV. You have made no attempt to discuss your changes to the genre field on the article talk page, despite your edits being reverted by multiple editors. You have made no attempt to provide any sources to substantiate your claims; a user review from Sputnik (which obviously fails WP:RS in an edit summary(!) is nowhere near enough to overturn consensus. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Obvious to people who take a look at the edit, see the obvious corrections (like the footnotes) or who have knowledge about content, ideology etc. which this subculture is about. And this is not entirely my point of view, otherwise I wouldn’t have edited the article. But I will bring the topic to the talk page. --217/83 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A swift Google reveals plenty of sources describing post-1995 Mayhem as "black metal". A whole stack of Terrorizer tends to agree. And I'm talking about sources that pass WP:RS, not webzines. The "footnote" you added about the band's "trueness" being questioned is an obvious piece of POV-pushing that has no place on WP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And the footnote I added is a master thesis on Folk Metal (but not only about that subgenre), which reflects the questioning as an external view but doesn’t express the author’s own one. --217/83 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, a master's thesis fails WP:RS, quite obviously, unless it's been published by a independent third-party. Secondly, you still have failed to justify the content's inclusion - it remains POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had thought a thesis (as a work thought to have a scientific background) was considered to be reliable here (aren’t the universities considered to be the publishers, and supposed to be independent, as scientific institutions?). And the second part should be obvious, since it is known that post-1995 Mayhem is a controversial topic in the scene. --217/83 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A master's thesis would certainly not be reliable. The University is a self-published source. If the material were published elsewhere by a an independent, third-party source, preferably in print, then it would pass WP:RS. Not quite sure where you get the idea that a thesis on folk metal would have a scientific background though! What a bizarre claim. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, having checked WP:RS, the party line is: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", which rules out almost all of them, as it's impossible to demonstrate scholarly oversight. I have my master's thesis in the other room (genetics rather than folk metal, admittedly) but I'd never think of citing it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don’t know what people learn at the universities in your country (this is not meant to be xenophobic), but in Germany from where I am currently arguing with you, they learn scientific research according to which theses and other works are to be written (or at least that’s how it is supposed to be). That given, is it that hard to get what thoughts lay behind my use of that reference? --217/83 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(Start indent again) People in my country, and indeed all others, can study science subjects or arts subjects (that is obviously an over-simplification, but basically true). A study of a music genre is clearly far from anything "scientific" in any real sense; I don't regard "sociology" as a science! I may be a pedant, but then I am a science teacher ;-) What is the falsifiable hypothesis etc. as Popper would say. As to your use of the source, yes, I know why you included it - it's a source that happens, at least in the context you used it in, to support your own personal POV. Its pseudo-academic nature may have made it look appealing, but essentially what you need is a number of sources discussing this controversy in order to establish some kind of notability. What is said on the Internet messageboards by more-underground-than-thou kvltists does not amount to a mention on WP. You need some detailed discussion in the music press, not obscure theses. Otherwise including statements such as the one you added is a WP:NPOV violation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)