Talk:Gorgoroth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Norway (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Black Metal (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of black metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Lord's Prayer[edit]

What's with that crap about the Lord's Prayer doing here? I'm cleaning that out.

Time Paradox[edit]

If the Poland incident takes place in February 2004, how is the threatening in 2002 "Shortly after"? SAlpsu 00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because he was charged in 2004, but the incident (that he was charged for) occured in 2002. --222.154.184.175 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Incident in Vatican City[edit]

You Guys hear about the time in Vatican City where they, like, Sacrificed Goats and got arrested? I saw it on VH1's Most Metal Moments.Animeguy99 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats the incident in poland. they did mention the pope in the segment on VH1 but it was not in vatican city. -alec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.252.75 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the video of the making of their "Carving A Giant" music video which is a re-creation of their concert in Poland, and KING claimed the crucifixions and goat heads were fake. Anyway, the video is @ http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?vid=193203, and the the actual music video is @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iHf8mkEHYE. --Datalyss 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Sellers (talkcontribs)

Links with Nambla[edit]

How is this relevant to the band? Sure this and a few odd links (Michael Jackson and the Catholic Encyclopedia) appear in their link listings but other than a humour factor I don't see why it should be included. Death666 14:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Upon further review, I removed the section. It is not an incident and other than someone stumbling onto the link section no one would know or care. It is clearly added for either shock or humour. Death666 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Category: Middle-Earth music and project Middle-earth[edit]

I fail to see in what notable way Gorgoroth reference Tolkien and his writings other than their name. Other artists in the extreme metal scene like Battlelore or Rivendell specifically cite Tolkien's works and base their songs on the Middle-earth universe. Gorgoroth, however, neither references Tolkien in their songs, which cling to the "classic" first wave of BM topics, nor in any interviews. The only linking element is their name, which, in my opinion, does not justify filing them under this category. This makes about as much sense as adding Shagrath of Dimmu Borgir just because he happened to have read LotR and to have taken the name of a minor character, albeit misspelled, as his pseudonym. To make a long rant short, I propose to remove Gorgoroth from the Middle-earth category because it's simply not justified. Vargher 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, now when you search for Gorgoroth it takes you straight to a small stub-type page that speaks briefly about a place inside a book by an author. Surely Gorgoroth have more notability then the the stub? How do we go about changing it so this page shows first with a small "If you where after the Area from LOTR please click here"?

CHSoarer 09:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats because the name of this article is called Gorgoroth (band). The other being Gorgoroth. Unfortunatly that article was made fist so got the proper name Youstolemyturtle 16:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed M-e tag and the page was moved. BTW, take also notice of the Cirith Gorgor article, I suppose it can be linked somehow from here. Súrendil 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed as well. I've removed the category tag. WP-ME should keep an unofficial list of things "named after stuff from Tolkien, but which have little or no real connection". Carcharoth 12:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Joey Jordison[edit]

I have talked to the band member Teloch and he does not know anything of Joey Jordison playing with Gorgoroth! Untill someone has got a better source than a band member Im taking his name out. 213.112.96.81 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Split[edit]

Infernus is not a former member, yet. In fact he is the only founding member left in the band so theoretically it should be he who gets the rights to the 'Gorgoroth' name. Bathory 08:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • While I personally agree that Infernus is entitled to the name (although I dislike the guy for promoting herd mentality), I deicided to make it NPOV. - Dark Prime 19:23, 27 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.243.90 (talk)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge A Sorcery Written in Blood into the parent article for Gorgoroth. WP:MUSIC indicates that "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable", and there is no stand-alone verification of notability for that one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If it has to be merged, then I suggest it should be merged into Pentagram instead, given that two of the demo songs were reused for that album, and it'd look tidier and more coherent than in this article. - Dark Prime, 06 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.245.85 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • All right. I'll change the tags accordingly. Of course, if independent sourcing can be found to verify stand-alone notability, I'll withdraw the proposal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content[edit]

I have removed subsections from Gorgoroth#Controversy describing criminal convictions, per Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. Please provide citations to reliable sources before including material such as this in an article. --Stormie (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Gorgoroth/The Force Gorgoroth[edit]

Apparently, the band has fragmented into two seperate bands now, one being Gorgoroth, and the other being The Force Gorgoroth[1]. Does anyone mind if I put this in rather than the seemingly outdated information regarding the status of the band?-—arf! 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

no, gaahl & king arent calling themself the force gorgoroth, that's just the official website address when they switched from gorgoroth.org to theforcegorgoroth.org a while ago, but since then infernus has registered his own at gorgoroth.info... but either way, they're both still calling themselves gorgoroth. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. Cheers :)—arf! 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i know i said otherwise as the result of the most up to date information that was public but i think that since the regain statement they are actually calling themselves "The Force Gorgoroth". their most recent bulletin clearly states that "THE FORCE GORGOROTH – Gaahl and King – are moving on to a new horizon and you will hear much more from them in the near future.", refers to gorgoroth's most recent tour without infernus and having been of "the force gorgoroth". i think its pretty clear. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were referring to themselves as "The Force" before the break up began; so until there is one definite answer, they are both called Gorgoroth. The record company would never allow another band to have such a similar name. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is weird: infernus' gorgoroth myspace account has disappeared and gaahl&king's gorgoroth has taken its place, and they are using the old website address of gorgoroth.org instead of theforcegorgoroth.org- well, i say we were naive to think that gaahl or king would give up without a fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.96.213 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Infernus`s laywer, Erik Rødsand, if the two others want to form a band, they have to take a name, that is not to "confusingly alike to" Gorgoroth. To use the name Gorgoroth at all, would be against the established practise of norwegian trademark law. Thus leading to that names such as "The Force Gorgoroth" and the like would be illegal. The decicions of wether Infernus is entitled to economic compensasion is still to be decided. [1] The Trademark Law (LOV 1961-03-03 nr 04: Lov om varemerker.) is available at lovdata.no, and according to § 2. (§ 2. Uten registrering oppnås enerett til et varemerke ved at merket innarbeides.), a trademark is without registration entitled to whomever who has worked for it, and made it publicly known first. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaahl and King are NOT former members[edit]

Gaahl & King still own the name Gorgoroth. The way things are are that Gaahl & King have kicked Infernus out of the band, and the Norweigan patent office have said that they retain the rights to the name. It does not matter that Regain Records think otherwise and will continue their partnership with Infernus and not King and Gaahl because this is simply who they have chosen to continue working with as presumably they can't work with both now that both sides are at war. Infernus has dismissed the Patentstyret as being a bunch of beauracrats but they are the definitive authority over matters such as this. They have made their verdict and it is legal. The fact that Infernus has said he plans to appeal does not mean he has, and appealing against something is an altogether different matter to actually winning an appeal. Unless he wins his appeal, Gaahl and King remain the owners of the Gorgoroth name. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign it)

  • While this is partially true, it should be noted that one office determined Gaahl and King to own the name. Infernus still holds the copyright of the name. No official Government verdict has been handed down. Technically, there is a stand still and none of these three are 'out of the band' .. yet. It should be noted in the article that legal proceedings have begun between the parties and until those are solved, Infernus has NOT become a former member.

i don't think we can say that all 3 are still members, i think that gaahl and king should carry on being listed as the members as the patentstyret's decision is more meaningful than the fact that regain records will carry on making albums with him, and it is a legal decision. if it is overturned by a court decision then thats a higher authority than the patentstyret. to be honest, i think there will never be a right answer to this: "we have kicked him out of the band so we therefore are gorgoroth" vs "sole founding member and chief ideologist"... on a side note, not too sure about infernus' new line-up of death metal musicians...

I agree completely - the patent's decision is so far the most official and holds the most authority. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


  • The Gorgoroth name dispute is still not resolved. The Norwegian Patent Office still lists King's application as "Under behandling", which just means that it's been received and is being handled. Here's a link:

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200710859&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

Also, if you go here: https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Default.aspx

...and tick the box "Varemerke" (i.e. Trademark) and type "Gorgoroth" in the search field, you will see that King and Gaahl have also applied for a trademark on the name "The Force Gorgoroth":

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200715621&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200715620&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

Bulgakoff (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

not to start asshole-y arguments cos thats entirely unbeneficial to progress but the king ov hell application is meaningless as at the time the copyright was owned by infernus, and they now already have the copyright to that image because the patentstyret have said that they retain the copyright to the name and logo. as for the trademark on the force gorgoroth... welll, i guess that they want a back up plan if they do lose the gorgoroth name. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though the research you have done is undeniable, it's still not an official stand, and is original research. However, the links you provided are most interesting, and I think it'd make sense for me to say "watch this space". As the Patent has put the authority in Gaahl's hands, then changing the name to "The Force" isn't required just yet. But as I said, "watch this space"... ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

as i said they probably just want to be able to use the force gorgoroth in case they lose the rights to gorgoroth itself. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposing article revision with lineup - copied over from WikiProject Black Metal[edit]

I have decided to bring up this topic because I am sceptical over the decision to list Gaahl and King as the members based on a statement that was issued in December 2007. Allow me to paste here an extract from a post I made on their forums:

So, if I can comprehend the legal situation correctly:

King and Anders Odden apply for trademark in September 2007

Egil Horstad (Infernus' lawyer) warns King and Gaahl that the application was in violation of Norwegian trademark law and threatens legal action in October 2007

In December 2007, a week after Regain publicly announce their decision to side with Infernus, a statement is released saying that the Norwegian Patent Office have gone in favour of Gaahl and King.

So, I'm under the impression that after having read Horstad's letter, King did succeed in getting the trademark for Gorgoroth, but:

'§ 2. The exclusive right to a trademark may also be acquired without registration when the trademark is established by use.'

'§ 14. 7 it is liable to be confused with a trademark which someone else has started to use before the applicant, and the applicant was aware of this use when he filed his application for registration;'

Along with other sections of the act referred to in the infernus myspace blog link in this article, click 'older' to see the letter.

Patentstyret Trademark Act

Therefore, the application was considered an abrogation of the above conditions and hence illegal and so now it's going through the second office and the courts.

And if I'm correct, King and Gaahl released the statement to counter Regain's, and ensure that the masses (as exemplified by select users on youtube etc.) would ignore Infernus and flock to them.

To iterate, I am personally convinced that the article which prompted the listing of King and Gaahl as the current members really concerns itself with the possibility that the First Department of the Norwegian Patent Office gave their approval to King and Gaahl, not a court decision like King says. I believe that King is deceiving the public into thinking that a court case has closed the settlement for good in a bid to get them to ignore Infernus.

While I am aware that it has been argued that the Norwegian Patent Office has given authority to King and Gaahl, and hence they should be listed as the current members, one could also argue that due to the conditions from the Patenstyret Trademark Act I listed above, this was done in an illicit and illegal manner and hence this authority is dubious.

Therefore, I think the current revision of the Gorgoroth article is inappropriately biased and hence for the time being requires further revision in order to ensure NPOV.

Dark Prime (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As of now, the current member list is correct. Until all legal matters are resolved, when that time will be is unknown, the article will be a hard one to ensure complete NPOV. Undeath (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I feel that it is not neccessarily correct because the trademark was arguably acquired illegitimately, and Gaahl and King are possibly being given more credence than they deserve. I propose that both line ups should be listed on the page, while in the introduction it should be stressed that there is a legal dispute and there should be a comprehensive section on the legal dispute within the article. Dark Prime (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As a disinterested observer who has not even heard of the band till now, it seems to me that the inclusion of this King and Gaahl as the band members has a reliable source for verifiability: the Norwegian Patent Office. Does the contention that this recognition is illicit, illegal and dubious has a reliable source for verifiability or would that be original research? --Bardin (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This link (in the infernus myspace blog link in this article, click 'older' to see the letter), which refers to a letter (from October 2007) by attorney Egil Horstad from Vogt & Wiig, where he warned Gaahl and King that the latter's application for the trademark back in September 2007 violated some terms from the Patenstyret trademark act. I will admit I have done original research to see if these claims were reliably cited, but at the same time I did this research based on material provided by Infernus: done in the same fashion as King and Gaahl and hence I feel for the time being Infernus should deserve as much credence as them. Because of not only this original research but also the news article relating to Infernus (e.g. employing trademark expert Kate Lohren) as well as the fact that his Gorgoroth site is still intact, I feel the current revision of the Gorgoroth wikipedia article is supporting the apparent misconception that 'the case is closed' - as according to King in the wake of a statement referring to the approval of the first dept. of the Patent Office that was released a week after Regain Records decided to side with Infernus. Dark Prime (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardin, how the hell did you not ever hear of Gorgoroth? Lol. Thatz funny.Undeath (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this discussion be better at Talk:Gorgoroth? This page is good for drawing attention to article-specific discussions that could use further opinions, but not for actually having them. Having discussions here limits it more to WikiProject members rather than other editors who may be interested, and you can't really make article-specific edits based upon a consensus here. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy the discussion over to Talk:Gorgoroth then. I just felt that since this project was possibly becoming an assertive body then it would be ideal to take matters here. Dark Prime (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I was gonna' reply over on the black metal project page, but it's been moved here, so I'll do so here. Not to sound arrogant, but I've been watching the Gorgoroth article for a while, and been doing most of the work cleaning up the Infernus controvosy - I'm certain though that it should remain how it is - the patent office has vouched in favour of Gaahl and King, and Infernus is simply taking the case back to court to see if he can get the decision overturned, which it doesn't look like he's going to. So officially, Gaahl and King are Gorgoroth - Infernus is just trying to appeal the decision to the courts. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You use the phrase 'back to court'. Do you have any evidence which says that this has indeed already been in court? And what makes you think the decision's certainly not going to be overturned? I think the authority of the Patent Office alone - which was done on a potentially illegal basis - is not enough. Dark Prime (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Infernus has indeed been to court with it yet, or if he is still preparing to. Even if they do overturn their decision, the fact remains that the band at the moment is Gaahl and King; and it seems to be agreed upon by other websitesThe Haunted Angel 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but those sites have based the information off the statement that was released a week after the Regain one, as well as statements by King where he says that the entire case is closed and Infernus has lost for good. The statement in question refers to dubious authority. Because the name had been established in use for some time by Infernus, those clauses in the Trademark Act are potentially a conflicting authority. Dark Prime (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I get what you're saying - but even if Infernus is planning on trying to get the decision over turned, for the moment the official line up is Gaahl and King. At a later date, it's quite possible that the name Gorgoroth will belong to Infernus; but until that is decided, we're going to have to list the members as they are now. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Take Infernus off of the main members section. He was booted out thus is not a member anymore. Even if he owns the trademark, which is iffy, he is not in the band thus not a member. Undeath (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Along with the arguments I've made so far: just because they are using the name etc. does not necessarily mean they are the legitimate entity. After all, Infernus' lineup is active with QPAST, plus they have the support of Regain Records. It's like saying that Mussolini's RSI between 1943-45 was the legitimate government of Italy because he said he 'deposed the King'. You don't boot out a founding member when he's got plenty of fight left. Dark Prime (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The trademark situation has NOT been before the courts at all, that is a fact. King simply handed in an application which was accepted by the Patent Office's first department - it is NOT a decision made by the courts. Infernus has appealed this decision to the Patent Office, and will also be taking King/Gaahl to court, since they were aware that their application was illegal, seeing as how Infernus had already established the band name by use when King applied. 129.177.166.2 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have completely revised the article with regards to the name dispute. I also got rid of some bits that striked me as pointless or devoid of context. All this for a band that I had not heard of until it was brought to my attention on the wikipedia black metal talk page. It seems to me that the issue is clearly far from resolved and that to suggest otherwise would be misleading. There are two distinct entities currently operating under the same name and this article should reflect that regardless of how anyone feels about who is in the right, be it legally, morally or whatever. This is wikipedia and all we're supposed to be doing is report about things as they have happened or are still happening based on reliable sources for verifiability. We do not judge whether a decision by a government office is correct or not. If Infernus and Regain Records are still using the Gorgoroth name despite this decision, then that simply means that there still exists two Gorgoroths and this article should reflect that as a matter of accuracy until the issue gets resolved somehow. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Until we have actually reached a consensus on the matter, I do not think we should be editing the articles. I am going to revert them back until we have reached an agreement - I do not wish for an edit war, so let's leave it as it was until we actually decide on what is going on. Now, onto the discussion itself - the article does reflect that there is another band called Gorgoroth which is under the control of Infernus and Regain Records; however, as the Patent Office has decided in favour of Gaahl and King, then we must assume that they are the officialy members, as the Patent Office holds more authority than the record company. If the courts themselves make a decision regarding the matter, then we will change it to reflect that, but until then, Gaahl and King are the members. There's a reason that Infernus is trying to get the decision overturned: because the decision at the moment is that Gaahl and King are the members - Infernus is going to attempt to have the decision appealed, as shown in this quote from his website:

Infernus' former colleagues did not accept the offer that was made on March 4, 2008. His attorney will therefore, on March 14, 2008, appeal the Norwegian Patent Office's initial decision, and also commence legal proceedings in order to have the matter handled by the courts. If everything goes as planned the case could go before the courts in June this year. Infernus is considering not only taking the band name conflict before the courts, but also the matter of certain allegations and untruths propagated about him.

Therefore, Gaahl and King are the members at the moment, although it is very liable to change. Until then, the original article layout should remain. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I still feel that the Patent's decision is potentially illegitimate on the grounds that it was not Gaahl and King who established use of the band name, and also that Infernus still retains his Gorgoroth site. Again, the clauses are a conflicting authority. Dark Prime (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But whether individual editors of the Wikipedia articles feels that it is illegitimate doesn't give us the right to say who the band is - if it was illegitimate, then the courts would have intervened already. The decision could well be overturned at a later date - as it's menat to be going to court next month, it could be some time very soon - but until that date, we have to go with the decision of the highest power of authority - the Nowegian Patent Office. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Bardin's revised article was excellent work - it was unbiased and provided a good overview on the dispute. As it is now, King and Gaahl claim one thing and Infernus and Regain Records claim something else. BOTH are currently using the band name 'Gorgoroth'; King and Gaahl because their trademark application was accepted by the Patent Office's first department; Infernus because he's already established the band name by use and therefore claims he has the legal right to the trademark, as seen in §2 in the law quoted by Dark Prime earlier in this talk page. It is not for any of us to say which of these views are indeed correct; that will be settled when Infernus' Patent Office appeal has been handled by the appeals department, and when the case has been to court. Until then, the Wikipedia article should be inpartial and unbiased, as was Bardin's revision. Bulgakoff (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I can see where you're coming from, I am certain that trying to interperate the current status when nothing official has been released is pure original reasearch. Currently, the Norwegian Patent Office, the highest legal power that has appeared so far, has decided in favour of Gaahl and King. As I said, the decision could change when it goes to court, but the Patent Office has decided - even Infernus' website can attest to that. Infernus is trying to get the decision changed; not alter the outcome of the court case. The first case has ended, with the NPO deciding in favour of Gaahl and King, and now Infernus is trying to have said decision overturned. For the moment at least, Gaahl and King are Gorgoroth - although the current version of the page does mention quite clearly that Infernus also has a band called Gorgoroth, who the members are, and that he is trying to appeal the courts' decision. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No decision has been made by any court. The Patent Office (or, to call it by its proper English name, The Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO)), is not a court. It is a government authority organized under the Ministry of Trade and industry, which handles trademark applications and patent applications, among other things. Just wanted to make that clear. Bulgakoff (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My mistake - messed up my wording a bit there. However, the point remains that the NIPO is the highest form of legal authority in the matter so far. When the courts get involved the matter could change, but until then, the NIPO's decision stands. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Pure original research? I only did some to verify what had already been released. Dark Prime (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But again, what has been released is that Gaahl and King are the owners of the name Gorgorth, and Infernus is going to appeal, implying that officially, the owners are Gaahl and King, but he wants that decision to be changed. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What has been released is that the first dept. of the Patent Office have approved. And it is still challengeable. I still think we should have kept Bardin's revision; the current one makes it look like G&K are the absolute owners. Dark Prime (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's challengeable, and this version clearly states that Infernus plans to challenge it - until it's been challenged and the decision is over turned, Gaahl and King are the owners. The article is liable to change in the future, most certainly, but until then, we can't change it to the other version when it's been announced by the NIPO that the owners of the name are Gaahl and King. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would their announcement render us unable to change it? Infernus' website would have been shut down by now. Dark Prime (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume the reason Infernus' site isn't shut down is due to the fact that it clearly states that he plans to appeal the decision, therefore acknowledging that, for the moment at least, Gaahl and King are Gorgoroth. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I must say that I really do not care for my revision to be reverted, The Haunted Angel. I am not a vandal and my contribution was fairly substantial. It took me a couple of hours at the very least to go through all those Blabbermouth articles, made myself familiar with this issue and worked on this article. What I did was improved this article and I did this by removing the original research, adding citations to each and every sentence surrounding this name dispute and painting a more accurate picture of the controversy. I find it insulting that you would revert my hard work in favor of an indisputably poorer version that lacks citations and verifiability. Why? Because you do not feel that anyone should be editing the article until we have reached a consensus on the matter? I'm sorry but where exactly is this reflected on wikipedia's policy? Where does it states that an article should not be edited by anyone until a consensus has been arrived? You are treating your personal viewpoint as policy and that is not right. Your behavior suggests ownership over this article and to revert a clearly superior revision in favor of a poorer version of this article speaks ill of your intent. Quite frankly, I would like an apology.
  • As far as this issue is concerned, I feel that you are all wasting your time arguing about the validity or reliability of the decision by the Norwegian Patent Office. I repeat that this is wikipedia and we are not supposed to pass judgments on this decision. The fact remains that there have been since October last year two distinct entities operating under the same name of Gorgoroth. This article does not reflect that. It clearly states that Infernus is a former member of the band. That is a blatantly non-neutral point of view. It is not up to anyone here to suggest that the Norwegian Patent Office has made the right or correct decision. To suggest that this decision has resolved the issue and that there now exists one official band by that name is nothing short of misleading. As long as there are two entities known by that name, wikipedia should reflect that because it would be highly deceptive and grossly inaccurate to indicate otherwise. Let the readers decide for themselves. You accuse others of original research, The Haunted Angel, but you are also resorting to original research yourself. You are exercising your own personal viewpoint in deciding that some decision by some government body has left one side with the stronger or only claim to being the official line-up. In essence, you are saying that your interpretation is right while the interpretation of others are wrong. I repeat: it is not up to us to decide what is right or not. Leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. --Bardin (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One other point: the claim of rightful ownership as decided by the patent office comes from a statement released by Gaahl and King. There has not actually been any statement released by the patent office. We are not privy to any of the documents lodged or released by the patent office. All we have is a statement from Gaahl and King. That is all. The revision that I made accurately reflects this. The article at present does not. --Bardin (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Just something I noticed that really should be corrected. The current version of the article contains the following paragraph (bold types are mine): "Despite Regain Records' decision that Infernus owns the name, on December 19, 2007, it was announced that authorities in the Norwegian Patent Office determined legally that Gaahl and King ov Hell "retain the rightful ownership and use of the name and logo, now and in the future." The two have decided to not work with Regain Records in future due to their act of disloyalty in declaring Infernus as the owner of the name before a legal decision was reached." Reading this, it looks like the Norwegian Patent Office have actually released a statement saying that Gaahl and King have the rightful ownership "now and in the future". This is NOT correct! The Norwegian Patent Office have only registered and accepted King's application for the Gorgoroth trademark - nothing else. That King and Gaahl retain the ownership now and in the future is nothing but their own interpretation of the situation, which they of course want everyone else to believe as well. It should be clearly specified in the article that the above quote is NOT a statement by the Patent Office, but rather a statement of King and Gaahl's. Since it is not possible to edit the article at this point, I thought I should mention it here. Bulgakoff (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This has now been corrected in the revised article, and is therefore no longer an issue. Bulgakoff (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Bardin, please assumed good faith with what I did. My reverting your edit was in no way bad faith, and it was in no way me trying to show ownership - the point I was trying to make was thus: You and Dark Prime feel you are right with the newer version, and Undead Warrior and I feel we are right with this version - no one person has the right to demand that their version of the page stay due to them believing that they are right, otherwise we will be drawn out into an edit war. The reason I changed it back to the old version was because it was the version that was up before this conflict arose, and we shouldn't go changing it until a consensus is reached. I could just as easilly change it back now for the same reasons you change it to your version, but the last thing I want is to be drawn into an edit war here. What I did was only to try to keep an edit war from developing, so I do feel a certain resentment at you reverting back to your version without discussing it first on the talk page. I would have been happy to revert back to your version if we'd reached an agreement, but instead I will cease editing the article in the point that I was making to ensure an edit war does not persist - although your article does hold a certain neutrality, which is at least one good thing. I never once accused you of being a vandal either, Bardin - it wasn't the end of the world me reverting your edit, it's very easy to revert back, as Dark Prime has done, it's always saved in Wikipedia's database, so please try to keep cool and assume good faith in future. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not revert the article back to my version. Someone else did. You ask me to assume good faith but where was the good faith extended to me and my revision? You did not revert an edit war or vandalism. What you did was revert something that anyone else would recognise and accept as an improvement of the article. You cannot argue that my revision is not more accurate, more neutral and more verifiable than the version I replaced it with. You say that no one person has the right to demand that their version of the page stay and yet you did precisely that when you made the initial revert to my revision. You not only demanded but went right on ahead and reverted the article back to your version even though your version lacks the amount of verifiability, accuracy and neutrality that my revision offers. You said that you were trying to ensure an edit war did not persist and yet an edit war was precisely what happened after you reverted my revision. An edit war with some anonymous IP address that certainly would not had taken place if my more neutral revision had not been reverted in the first place. You say that we should not change the article until a consensus is reached but that is not a policy or guideline of wikipedia. It is only your own personal preference and nothing more. No, it was not the end of the world for you to revert my edit but it is quite frustrating nonetheless to see one's effort go to waste. Let me repeat myself here: what you did was revert something that anyone else would recognise and accept as an improvement of the article. I am sorry to say this but such an action does suggest that you either have some ownership issue with this article or that you possess a non-neutral point of view over the dispute. --Bardin (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that you did not revert it back, so you have my apologies there. But let me again make it clear, I was reverting back to how it was until a consensus was reached - it was temporary. No, I cannot argue that your version was not more accurate, more neutral and more verifiable than the version you replaced it with - but I was not intending to keep it this way permanantly: as I said, I wasn't changing it back because I felt I was right, but instead to try and stop people from changing it to the version they felt was right constantly. If the article was like this to begin with, and I wanted it to be changed to how it was, then I would have discussed it thoroughly and not change it to have my view until a consensus was reached. Perhaps that idea isn't in Wikipedia's rules - but if it avoided everyone changing it to suit their own style then perhaps it'd be for the best. This discussion however, looks as if it's going to a bad place, so I feel it's best we leave it as it is now before unnessescary arguments arise. Apologies if I came off showing traits of either WP:OWN or WP:ABF, it was not intentional. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New(ish) review[edit]

I found this. It should bring some help. Undeath (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it on the gorgoroth.info forums. Although I suppose one could mention what King says, at the same time I feel there's other sources to contest some of the things he has to say. Dark Prime (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think, that since he is so adament(sp?) on it being his trademark now, that the decision is final and the band is his now. But, we'll see soon enough. Undeath (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shall I list other dubious things he's said and done - starting off with 'thinking it would be easy as that, to get it trademarked to himself as his own personal belonging ad infinitum', when it was arguably illegal? If the decision was indeed final then Infernus wouldn't be appealing (which King himself even acknowledges when he mentions the Kate Lohren demands) and his website would have been shut down. I'm not fooled by what is potentially propaganda to dishearten Infernus supporters and I know how Patenstyrett works. Above all, this is only one source - the same source which released the statement (and it was not released by the Patent Office themselves) that came out shortly after the Regain one. (Dark Prime) 90.196.92.177 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please sign in. It's better than signing your name in (). I'm just stating, there are a good many sights that say that Gorgoroth belongs to Gaahl and King. Undeath (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to present them, unless you'd like me to present my arguments first. Dark Prime (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Y'see, now even that interviews states that Gaahl and Infernus are the oweners of the name - even by the interviewers themselves, not just King. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You have to account for the fact that regardless of what opinions the interviewers might have, it might be in their interests to remain professional and to not be confrontational. You also have to question how much the interviewers might know themselves - I doubt they are any more privy to official documents released by the Patent Office etc. than we are. Dark Prime (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You do make a good point, I suppose we'll have to wait until Infernus decides to take this to court to see how it all goes ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


This is the version I tried so hard the create and was banned MANY times for creating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.203.157 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted King from the member list on the new live CD. Regain Records details show that Infernus recorded Guitars AND Bass. Not Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.203.157 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't call him Queen, it just makes you look like an immature idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.150.25 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. He's a Queen, so I shall call him that.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.200.26 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seperate articles for each Gorgoroth incarnation?[edit]

This article is becoming cluttered with its representations of both Gorgoroth fronts. Rather than having to specify which front is being mentioned, or using "(Gaahl-fronted version)" or "(Infernus-fronted version)," why not just create a separate page for Infernus' Gorgoroth, and just find appropriate titles for both bands' articles. It would make things a lot easier and less cluttered. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • So what would be included in which article, then? The whole history of the band up until Gaahl joined in 1998 is not applicable for the Gaahl/King version of the band, as they were not part of it. Since Gaahl and King temporarily have been granted copyright ownership of the logo and band name which Infernus created/chose back in 1992, should they then be considered the "real" Gorgoroth, as opposed to Infernus' version being "Infernus' Gorgoroth"? The most correct thing, IMO, will be to keep it as it is for now, and not create separate articles. When the case has hit the courts there will eventually be a final decision on who will get the name, and then the "losing" version can either be mentioned as a footnote in this article and/or get its own article with the name that version then chooses to call itself. Bulgakoff (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the situation should be left as it is until the court case is resolved, which it should be within a couple of months or so. After that, we'll decide what to do. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Infernus' Gorgoroth Myspace[edit]

I put http://www.myspace.com/160310525 instead of http://www.myspace.com/gorgorothinfernus9, because this is the one which appears in the Gorgoroth Infernus Website (http://www.gorgoroth.info) and the owner of the gorgorothinfernus9 states that "THIS PAGE IS NOT RUN BY INFERNUS, NOR BY ANY OF HIS CLOSE AFFILIATES." Thanks.--190.84.102.27 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Image?[edit]

I think there should be something written about the image of Gorgoroth. Their extensive use of corpse paint, theatrical stage shows, and notoriety in Norway, etc.

Maybe about how they have a very common black metal looks with the paint, upside crosses and arm bands? I don't know. I just see the pictures and there's no text explaining why they look the way they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.112.230 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't think we need any of these. Their imagery just boils down to black metal convention, and I think this article can do without taking the sensationalist angle that the media do. The Krakow controversy as well as Gaahl's and Infernus' convictions are already accounted for in the biography. Dark Prime (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes needed[edit]

The band split controversy section has to be rewritten, as the court has ruled that what Gaahl and King from October 2007 did was NOT Gorgoroth. The section must focus on Infernus' work, while Gaahl and King have to be accounted for elsewhere. Dark Prime (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Dark Prime (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we may have gone a little too far here, because I can bet that Gaahl and King will surely appeal the decision... thus making the legal battle longer ;) Plus we should not use the same "jargon" as the judiciary language, but simply state the facts: Gaahl and King fired Infernus and trademarked the name Gorgoroth. Infernus put the case on court and won; by this decision King and Gaahl did not have (or loose) the rights to use the name Gorgoroth anymore. Instead of something like that, I read "In October 2007, Infernus announced on the band's official Myspace page that Gaahl and King had decided to leave Gorgoroth", which is clearly POV (it's the point of view of Infernus only, not Gaahl's or King's point of view, and also I think it is not exactly the point of view of the court. I'm pretty sure that "The court states that King ov Hell and Gaahl excluded themselves from the band Gorgoroth when they tried to fire Infernus in October 2007" is from Infernus, not the court (this is on the new Gorgoroth page). Using only the Infernus Gorgoroth website to entirely change the content of the article is only taking one point of view. Please note that I'm not taking sides here, and even I don't question the reality of the court decision. Hervegirod (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Since Gaahl and King's "firing" of Infernus (a view which is certainly NPOV now, Hervegirod) was deemed invalid and has been acknowledged by Gaahl and King themselves (and they also will be coming up with a new band name), I have worded it correctly. Dark Prime (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I still don't believe it's NPOV to claim that Gaahl & King physically left the band in 2007 though, or that the firing never took place. A court case can challenge and overturn the legality of a decision, but it cannot rewrite history. In my opinion, this is more NPOV: "In October 2007, Gaahl and King fired (or attempted to fire) Infernus from the band; however the latter portrayed it as a 'split' with himself on one side and Gaahl and King on the other. The matter was finally resolved in March 2009 when it was clarified in a court case that Infernus 'cannot be excluded from Gorgoroth, unless he himself choses to quit', declaring Gaahl & King's previous actions invalid. The two have ostensibly relinquished their claim to the name: 'Gaahl and King wish Infernus the best of luck using the banner of Gorgoroth on his art.'" or something along the lines of that. Although Infernus IS unquestionably the victor (at least in the matter of who in the eyes of the law gets to use the name), both sides' arguments must be portrayed fairly, as it is Wikipedia's job to list the facts from both sides, without comment. Also, as Hervegirod stated, Infernus' site is his own words, which is not a reliable source. If you read King & Gaahl's myspace, they tell a more moderate version of events. It is likely that Infernus has exaggerated the extent of his victory and King & Gaahl understated. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Gaahl and King may have used the name Gorgoroth and they can say that they fired Infernus, but the consensus is that they were not Gorgoroth and that upon "firing" Infernus they were excluding themselves as dictated by the law of that time. And their statement is not that inconsistent with Infernus' either; what remains now is how much they have to pay Infernus if anything at all in compensation. Dark Prime (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether John Doe from off the street says that they didn't fire him, they say they did, so it must be taken into account- at the very least, the conflicting points of view should be acknowledged. Otherwise, this isn't wikipedia, but an Infernus support website. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have adjusted the first paragraph of the section. Dark Prime (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The court's decision means that Gaahl and King used the band name illegally from October 2007, and that "Infernus' version" of Gorgoroth has been the only legal version since that time. Dark Prime's latest rewrite looks good to me. Bulgakoff (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gpmuscillo. What consensus ? Plus "a court verdict was announced(...)Gaahl and King had excluded themselves from Gorgoroth upon attempting to remove the founding member." is coming from the new Gorgoroth site ONLY (all sources are quoting the same source). Wikipedia states that Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. This is not the case if we use only Infernus Point of View. Again, I'm not challenging the result of the judgment, but I'm challenging this sentence: "Gaahl and King had excluded themselves from Gorgoroth upon attempting to remove the founding member". It is only coming from Infernus (clearly primary source, and not neutral). King / Gaahl statement about the same judgment is very different: Regarding the recent court case over the use of the name GORGOROTH, Gaahl and King confirm that parts of the verdict have been decided and went in favor of Infernus. This is only a partial verdict on the case. Because of the complexity of this case, there will be further court hearings and the final verdict will be announced within a few weeks. "The judge came to the conclusion that it is impossible to kick out an original member even if he doesn't contribute musically or lyrically. The judge also states that one can't kick an original member out of a band even if that member performs actions which are viewed as disrespectful towards promoters, session members and other working partners. Were is the "Gaahl and King had excluded themselves from Gorgoroth" ? One last thing: I'm not pro Gaahl / King (nor pro Infernus) here, I saw Gaahl / King more that once on stage since the dispute, but I would have done the same with Infernus if he had toured during these times. Hervegirod (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6517787&ei=8ty3SfjvOIHasAO0wYj3AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6517787%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DGAnd Gaahl and King did mention that it was impossible to kick out the founding member. Dark Prime (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, but again this is completely different as "Gaahl and King had excluded themselves from Gorgoroth upon attempting to remove the founding member". Excluded themselves ? It is only on Infernus Gorgoroth website. Hervegirod (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
NRK translation: The Court states that Infernus was not excluded by Gaahl and King, but that the two must be considered to have signed up out of the band.
Also, Gaahl's and King's use of Gorgoroth post-October 2007 did not satisfy this: § 8. Even though a registered trademark is liable to be confused with a sign which has an earlier right, it shall be allowed to co-exist validly with the latter, provided the application for registration was filed in good faith and the holder of the earlier right has knowingly tolerated the use of the later trademark in this country for five consecutive years from the date of registration Dark Prime (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
You clearly mark a point here (the NHK article does NOT seem to reuse the new Gorgoroth website), although I don't understand how a court can rule on this case on anything else that the trademark ;) Hervegirod (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
one last thing: there's clearly a problem for the 2007-2008 period. Infernus did not perform during these times nor released any new material. If we absolutely have to remove Gaahl / King from the band during this period (but were will we put them, as they toured extensively during these two years, performed and were booked under the name Gorgoroth), I think it would be better in that case to simply put "on hold" for the "original" band. - put by Hervegirod (talk)
Infernus was using the time to work on QPAST instead of performing live, and he was also responsible for the release of Live in Grieghallen. Among the main reasons I made the Gorgoroth name dispute article was because as you mentioned, Gaahl and King toured extensively and it needs to be accounted somewhere. One of the sections accounts for their line-up. Dark Prime (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
But there still is a judgment pending for Live in Grieghallen. It's not even sure that it will be recognized by court as a valid Gorgoroth album. Hervegirod (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. But I don't think it's appropriate to put the band as "on hold" because that would imply they've done nothing throughout that time, when they've been rehearsing and working on QPAST in places such as Tomas Asklund's Monolith studio in Sweden. However, I understand I am at fault here for not including this information (mentioned in a myspace blog of Infernus' in May 2008 as well as a press statement in August 2008) in this article. I will do somepoint. Dark Prime (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not at ease with this band which has not toured nor issued new material since 2007, but I know we can do nothing about it - and put it "on hold" would be a bit extreme, I agree, so you did the best you could. The situation will be clearer after the release of QPAST this year. Hervegirod (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A copy of the judgement[edit]

Unfortunately in Norwegian only : [2]. I'm still amazed by the In addition, the Court found that Infernus, as founder of the band, in this case could not be excluded. Then Gaahl and King must are regarded as expelled (or having expelled themselves) of the band. The story is full of bands which fired founding members, so? Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Live In Grieghallen[edit]

I don't think this is directly related to the Gorgoroth name dispute, because:

  • it seems that Gaahl and King were not aware / did not agree of the distribution of the live stuff, leading to a dispute on if this album could legally be distributed. It could have happened even without the band split.
  • further, King's bass parts were erased and replaced by Infernus (not Gaahls part). As for any live recording, musicians who participated in the recording have a say on whether the result could be used / distributed, except if there was an agreement before on its distribution (which was maybe the case, but it will be determined by the court). Hervegirod (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, when it was announced that the album distribution was halted, Gaahl and King were reffered to as the "copyright holders", implying that the dispute bore some relevance. To be honest, I'm not familiar with laws pertaining to live recordings concerning the participation of musicians, just studio ones. Dark Prime (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think your last edit on this part of the text was small but OK !! Hervegirod (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gorgoroth Line Up History[edit]

At the moment i think the line up history is taking up too much space. What do people think about turining it into a collapsable list? It would help to clear things up a bit at the bottom of the page and make it easier to read. Check my talk page for what a collapsable list of the line up history would look like (it might need a little editing) Pyro Stick (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll second your proposal, I definitely understand what you mean. I'm unable to do this right now though, so I'll do it later unless anyone else can do it now. Dark Prime (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Be sure to find a way to retain the boxes though. Dark Prime (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's funny, if you look in your talk page, you will see that my proposal goes into the same direction ;) In fact the table was the primary reason for my (faulty) adding of these br tags Hervegirod (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Im not that good with all the wiki code so i dont know how to keep the boxes. Ill just make the initial edit right now then and someone can improve on it later and add in the boxes. Pyro Stick (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I learned while trying. It is not so difficult... when you have finally found a way to do it ;) Hervegirod (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done! I've just incorporated this into the line-up history for Belphegor, which I took from here a few days ago. Dark Prime (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beginning[edit]

Is there a reason why this compliation cd hasnt been added to Gorgoroth's discography? Just thought i would ask before adding it myself. Pyro Stick Haud Yer Wheesht! 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a bootleg/unofficial release. :P Dark Prime (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Just as well i didnt buy it then. But it looks like quite a good compilation. I still think it should be added to the discograhpy as long as its made clear that is a bootleg/unofficial release. Pyro Stick Haud Yer Wheesht! 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is, if we did that, there would be gallons of entries we'd be listing. I don't know if wikipedia policy allows for inclusion of bootlegs. The band themselves certainly haven't expressed their endorsement, nor have other sites (such as Metal Archives) listed them. Dark Prime (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is fairly clear... we don't list bootlegs unless they have recieved significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Real names[edit]

So does the information of Pest or Tormentor's real names exist anywhere? I believe these need to be added to the article as well as their respective articles as well. • GunMetal Angel 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoest[edit]

Hoest is still part of touring line up in 2013 Hammer Open Air tiipou (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.6517787
  2. ^ http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19610303-004.html