Talk:Varg Vikernes

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)

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)

RfC about self-published works

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Bibliography" section on Varg Vikernes include self-published works, or does that infringe on WP:PROMOTIONAL/WP:SPS? ili (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Include all works Does not infringe on WP:SPS, per WP:ABOUTSELF, and WP:PROMO is never a valid reason to omit self-published or self-released material from lists of works. Omitting these entries misleads the reader into believing the subject's output is less than it actually is. Lists of works are exactly the sort of thing that an encyclopedia is expected to be comprehensive about. ili (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Not sure - summoned by feedback request service. How long a list are we talking about? If it's a handful, and they are notable enough to have gotten media coverage, then it seems OK. If it's dozens of items, perhaps include them but collapse the list so it doesn't take over the article. See what I did here Michael Tobias#Selected works I'd have to see the end result to give a better answer. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Probably include As far as just an unbiased listing of written works, WP:PROMO is only a consideration if these works do not meet notability standards, but it seems like a handful of the sources in this article do mention his writings on paganism, politics, and roleplaying games so even that would be a tricky case to make. Oeqtte^[t] 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. That's what bibliographies are for. Mariolovr (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it should include all important works by Vikernes. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Varg Vikernes the Rapper?

All these years he was living a lie. Varg is capable of spitting hot fire all this time. Petercage9 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ummmm..... source????? 188.30.78.71 (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

why do my edits keep getting reversed

I edited the opening paragraph to mention his ambient and dungeon synth work and it was removed 2A00:23C6:B682:F301:98F4:E058:6A2E:60CF (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)