Talk:Marduk (band)

Norsecore
Well, Marduk is often identified as "norsecore" not black metal... Sooo?

--- "Marduk is a Swedish black metal/norsecore band. (Marduk are often labelled as norsecore, but it is debatable whether norsecore is a real genre or merely a derogatory term.)"

I'm taking out the Norsecore references. People call Lamb of God metalcore, but that doesn't mean it requires observing on a Wiki page.

Death/Black Metal
I think Death Metal should be added along with Black Metal describing the bands sound, especially for their first album, which essentially was considered a Death Metal album. (JanderVK 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Those Of Unlight
i dont know why the cover for "those of unlight" is in the article twice, so for now i'm going to remove the second picture and replace it with Opus Nocturne's cover. Miles 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

SVG Logo
I made and uploaded (marduk.sv) an svg version of the logo but it won't display correctly for some reason. So if someone wants to get it to work and use it, feel free. image:marduk.svg (image:marduk.svg)

Logo/vocalist images
Due to an apparent consensus at Template talk:Infobox Musical artist not to (mis)use the name field of an infobox for band logos, the Marduk logo was recently removed from the article entirely. Given the band's consistent use of the artwork for well over 15 years, I have re-uploaded the image with proper fair use rationale and transparency. It currently occupies the image field in the infobox, the photograph of Marduk's latest vocalist having been moved to the Band members section. I will leave it entirely to this article's more regular contributors to put the Mortuus shot back into the infobox (and move the logo to, say, the Discography section), whatever you guys deem more appropriate to visually identify the the band. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the one who put the Mortuus shot in the infobox in the first place (I think I did not removed the logo then), but I think that the current situation is fairly sensible, and better than before. +1 for me for your proposal ;-) Hervegirod (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the "name" field of the infobox is for a free or fair use picture of the artist, not their logo. I've removed the logo for now, but if you feel it's notable enough then it should be re-added within the article body with some kind of referenced discussion of its significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated before in various edit summaries, the caption of the image already sufficiently addresses the question of notability (as per the "reasonably familiar" bit of WP:LOGOS). As for placement, the precise "purpose" of the image field in the absence of a comprehensive, free photo of the band, or elaboration on the logo that would be too extensive to go into caption has never been fully discussed. The current usage is pragmatic, as it provides the infobox with a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being and is well in line with our policies and guidelines. Also, you might want to catch up on WP:BRD. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a comprehensive, free photo of the band is unavailable, then you can make the case for a fair-use photo in its place. That's one of the reasons that fair-use policies exist, for those situations. It's not appropriate to stick the logo in that field simply because no one has put in the effort to procure a free or fair-use photo. If the logo is indeed notable and worthy of discussion, then fine, keep it in the article body so that it can be commented on and some referenced, meaningful content can develop around it. But its purpose in the article shouldn't be just to have "a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for the statement that the "Img" field is for a free or fair-use image of the artist, and not a logo, is Template:Infobox Musical artist: "An image of the act (my emphasis), sufficiently clear for display at 220 pixels' width." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * > But its purpose in the article shouldn't be just to have "a recognizable bit of imagery for the time being." Ideally not, but infoboxes in general have their image fields for exactly that purpose. And are you aware of the fact, that in practice, no case for a fair use image of an active (and I use the term broadly) artist or band can be made, as these are routinely dismissed as "replaceable"? This leaves us with several articles (such as this one) without an image in their infobox, due to plain bureaucracy, instead of being pragmatic, interpreting "image of the act" more broadly and in turn providing readers with more consistency across as many types of articles as possible. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My take on that is that images are, in most cases, not essential to articles. Yes, they usually make articles better, and provide a visual identification to the reader, but in the case of musical acts or biographies of living persons they are not intrinsically essential to an understanding of the topic. Hence the rather stringent restrictions on the use of non-free images in such articles. I'm saying, basically, that an article does not, simply on merit of its existence, need an image in its infobox. That's why we generally only allow free images to be used in the case of active artists. Anyway I fail to see how a logo is an "image of the act" by any stretch of the imagination. "The act" in this case is the people in the band, not some bit of artwork they associate with their products. The image of the singer which is lower down in the article is much more a picture of "the act" than a logo is. I know that this article is a work in progress and is still very small, but the litmus test for this is: does looking at the logo in the infobox give me a better understanding of what Marduk is, either as a complement to the article's text or without it? The answer in my case is no. In fact, even in its current state within the article body it isn't giving me a better understanding of Marduk, due to the fact that the body of the article itself doesn't contain much information about them. In an article this small (basically an opening paragraph, a discography, and a list of members), which has so much further to grow, does having or not having the logo make or break the quality of the article? I certainly don't think so. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and no content of any kind has developed around the logo, so I'm removing it on the basis that it doesn't add anything informative to the article and therefore fails the following criteria at this time:
 * WP:NFC: "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." - without any referenced commentary, there's no indication that the image has any encyclopedic value.
 * WP:LOGO: " "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." - If the Marduk logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons need to be discussed in the article using referenced commentary, ie. in a section about the band's visual or artistic style. If no such commentary is present (as in this case), it creates the impression that the logo's use is promotional (or decorative, which is essentially the same thing).
 * WP:LOGO: "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo." --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're dodging my arguments. Again quoting WP:LOGOS: "Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar", that familiarity resulting from the consistent association of the image in question with the band. Further discussion is desirable but not essential to merit inclusion. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with that assertion, as I think that some kind of referenced critical commentary is essential to merit inclusion. Not that the guideline you're quoting says "only when", not "if", and that that is only part of the sentence. As a compromise I've moved it back down into the article body, as the infobox definitely isn't the place for it. The purpose of the "Img" field is for a free or fair use image of the artist. See Template:Infobox Musical artist: "an image of the act". I'm assuming good faith and giving another chance for some referenced discussion to be added. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that the logo shown states that it has been used since their "Fuck Me Jesus" demo. This isn't true; the "Fuck Me Jesus" MCD was a reissue of a demo tape from the late-1990's, which used a different logo. Plus, the first album (Dark Endless) clearly has a different logo than what is shown. (look closely and you'll see a lot of differences- the "demon head" on top, most noticably).

Please add data about Erik Hagstedt
His nickname means Legion (demons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:7800:910E:88B:F6ED:9358 (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

National-socialist?
The current text identify the band as National Socialist (i.e. Nazi), but with no references. The band itself deny this: http://www.metalblast.net/interviews/in-the-serpents-nest-an-interview-with-marduk/ A re-formulation of the lede seems in order. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Oakland Metro Operahouse released a statement claiming they could find no evidence that the band was "white supremacist, nationalists or anti-immigrant", but they were forced to cancel the event because of the threat of violence by Antifa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.30.208 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence about the Oakland Metro Operahouse said something else than the source entirely. I changed it to express what was written in this source. Hervegirod (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They semi-support Monarchy by not condemning it, they know about the issue and they have chosen to abstain from the dialogue. They do support Christianity because they adore the Swedish flag as it is, with a cross. We should use the same colours with a slightly different way, there are solutions. They support lyrics, not action. Marduk NEVER supported change in Sweden. They have the same age as my grandmother and the same minds. Inert and frozen. Just words and no action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:7800:910E:88B:F6ED:9358 (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Christian Nazi controversy
In Poland, most Nazi parties support Christianity. Thus things are easier for the pro-EU anti-Nazi Behemoth in Poland. Marduk is anti-EU and pro-Nazi/hard right (but not loudly). Some but not all Swedish Nazis support paganism. The huge controversy is that isn't necessarily the only opinion within their circles. Some are strictly Christian. That is a huge controversy for Marduk. Not all politically hard right Swedes are pagan. Some are hard core Christians also! In politics, it's more important a ramification of one's action than the action itself. Morgan Steinmeyer Håkansson (the brain and heart of Marduk) doesn't act in a beneficial way towards Satan, Satanism, paganism and scientific anti-christianity. In politics the thinker is supposed to sacrifice a secondary ramification, for the main goal, which in this case is Satan, Satanism, paganism, acceptance of atheistic and antichristian knowledge from the major universities which focus on actual science like physics (religion and books aren't immediately correct if their quotations aren't testable thoroughly).

Oakland incident/tour is outdated
The current 3 paragraphs of prose contain 1 paragraph that describes an incident where Marduk was blocked by an "antifascist organization". The article would be clearer and more potent if it directly labeled the organization as Antifa, or as the "Anti-Fascist Action Bay Area group", as they are identified in this article, http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/marduk-guitarist-comments-on-oakland-concert-cancelation-due-to-bands-use-of-nazi-imagery/. This incident could use more information, perhaps a "controversy" section. Also, I'm going to update the information on their current tour. SamaelBeThouMyAlly (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)