Talk:Varg Vikernes/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."
 * 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, 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"
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)