Talk:Nokturnal Mortum

Untitled

This article looks like ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.157.211 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know this band or the Vrolok who's playing guitars, but I'd like more info as to where he got the name, as the only other mention of it I know is from a horror story from the early 1930s, and I'd like to know where the American writer Robert E. Howard got it

"Neo-Folk beliefs"?

What exactly is "Neo-Folk beliefs"? If you're refering to some Neo-Folk artist's flirtation or theme with Fascist imagery (DIJ, Current 93, Luftwaffe etc.), theres a difference between the flirtation within the Neo-Folk scene and the blatant Nazi support of Nokturnal Mortum. There is no specific political, philosophical, or theological ideology in Neo-Folk music as a whole, if there is even any at all in indiviual artists. JanderVK

Since no one had anything to back this claim up, I'm deleting it. JanderVK —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no reference to the fact that they used to have a few swastikas in their logo? Don't know if it was for shock or if they really are nazi sympathizers. But it is a bit odd that this isn't mentioned. Come on, we love our black metal for the controversy ;) Soyweiser (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Swastika and Kolovrat are ancient pagan Slavic symbols - not nessesarily NS. Nokturnal Mortum do have references to Jews in the lyrics in a negative context and pro-white lyrics (the latter which shouldn't be classed as recist at all) but I do not believe them to be an NSBM band - they dont even class themselves as that. They are more a pro-white Symphonic Folk/Black Metal band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.236 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The only people who would insist that there is a difference between "nazi" and "pro-white" (or in fact, the only people who would use the latter term) are themselves Nazis who don't like the label. Tough luck. If the shoe fits, wear it.

P.S. Love how you refer to lyrics like "If they weren't burnt those 60 years ago they should be burnt today" as "references to Jews in a negative context".

If you don't see the contradiction in calling slavs nazis when more slavs were exterminated by the nazis than jews, then I can't help you.--Львівське (говорити) 07:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A sorry excuse for an article

Who the hell wrote this article? It's one paragraph with an ironic, and indignant rant as an introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nokturnal Mortum Logo.jpg

Image:Nokturnal Mortum Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I've started trying to do a comprehansive rewrite for this page, as at present it's a complete mess. I'll have to come back later to do some more work on it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NSBM

While we have the interview to confirm they self-apply this term, and googling NSBM and any combination of the band's name or "Ukrainian NSBM" and so forth confirm that they are clearly pegged in this genre...I've been doing research lately and I have a hunch that the Ukrainian nationalist ideology "social-nationalism" (a brand of left-wing nationalism, not nazism) is being mistranslated and its syntax reversed into "national-socialism". If anyone can find a good Ukrainian or Russian language source, or interview, it would be much appreciated. I'm going to dig around. If I'm right about this, Nokturnal Mortum and the other Ukrainian NSBM bands could technically make up a new genre of "SNBM", hah --Львівське (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this is just speculation. A significant number of their songs have blatantly NS lyrics, especially on Nechrist and Mirovozzrenie/Weltanschauung. At any rate, such "SNBM" is just WP:OR at this point... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I realize that. My query was rather, while in at least one interview they said verbatim that they were NSBM, I'm wondering if in Ukrainian interview that they are actually saying social-nationalist. They're Kharkivites and that's also where the SN ultra-right Patriot group is located so there's probably a connection there.--Львівське (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Doesn't matter too much for this article, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally, just something that was on my mind that could potentially disambiguate the conflict I'm seeing about this band's lyrical content on other sites. Speaking of NSBM though, as you've probably seen in the history, a user is constantly blanking the sourced NSBM reference in 'genre' on the infobox. What's your take on this before it becomes an edit war?--Львівське (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have operated alongside the user in question for some time, and I generally trust his judgement. The problem with the whole metal scene is that there are a load of purported 'genres' out there, and WP:GENREWARRIORs love to try and insert these into the wikipedia. Generally the only backing for these come from non-notable artists themselves and never from a legitimately reliable source. I personally feel that this is a different situation. I reverted additions of NSBM until the sources were provided, after which I let it be. I'm sure Baz has good reasons for his removal here, but I think that the discussion should be brought here and not degrade into edit-warring. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I ceded putting NSBM in the lede and as the first genre listed, I don't however think it should be omitted. NSBM has an article, clearly it is notable enough for mention as a secondary genre.--Львівське (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Find a secondary source that passes WP:RS or leave it out. For what it's worth I basically agree with you, but it is a contentious label that definitely needs immaculate sourcing; webzines most definitely don't cut it. You're going to need either a commercially printed, third party magazine or paper, or a website (such as Allmusic, About.com or similar) that has had their content printed commercially by a third party to pass. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This does pass RS, "primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements"--Львівське (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, which this is not - hence your point is utterly irrelevant. We never, ever, use a band's description of their own music genre for articles. Ever. We use professional music journalists. Not webzines. Not blogs. And never the band themselves. otherwise, we'd have Leng T'Che as "razorgrind", Summoning as "Tolkien metal", Cradle of Filth as "heavy funk", Macabre as "murder metal" etc etc etc. Find a print secondary source or desist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be you own POV and not in line with the actual RS guidelines. What part of "They play the same style of music as [us]: national socialistic Black Metal" is not a "straightforward, descriptive statement"? Apparently it absolutely is not in your eyes, but using this talk page to explain why something so blatantly obvious and in line with wikipedia guidelines is being removed by you, we could perhaps come to an understand of what has so far been disruptive editing on your part--Львівське (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No. My POV doesn't come into this. You are asserting that the band play National Socialist black metal as a genre (which is different from being a black metal band whose members may or may not hold NS views). This is very obviously a contentious claim (for another relevant policy, see WP:BLP). Interviews on webzines cannot pass WP:RS, so may not be used. Continued additions may need a WP:BLP intervention. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not holding that argument, the band it, when they clearly define it as their "style of music". It is an RS by every measure of rules here, you just don't seem to like it.--Львівське (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

[Removing indent] I cannot state this more plainly than this: we do not ever use band's descriptions of their own genre for Wikipedia articles. Simple as. You want to add a link to the interview under an ideology section or similar, it'll still be contentious (as the website is hugely dodgy) but you could possibly make it stand if phrased neautrally enough. However, as far as genres and infoboxes go, primary sources (i.e. the band!) must never be used. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is this royal "we" you keep referring to? Again, more of your own personal rules and not real standards--Львівське (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While the query started an AfD on this article, no one seems to have had - so far- any real objection to the source. As noted by some, the same source is used throughout the article as it stands now.1 --Львівське (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a webzine, so obviouly it fails WP:RS. The article doesn't require deleting and I'll comment on that later but your repeated addition of contentious source material is at this point definitely constituting edit-warring. I'm going to keep the discussion here for the time being to avoid further moderator intervention, but this at this point essentially needs taking to a WP:BLP forum. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Still NSBM

This band is still NSBM. They only say they no longer actively sing about holocausting jews and africans, and instead focus on pagan slavic themes, but they have NEVER distanced themselves from or jumped off the nazi bm wave. They are still active in the scene and supports tons of nazi venues and so on. No, they no longer use swastikas, that means nothing when they at the same time make cd's that comes with a candle meant to be burned containing the star of david and hammer and sickle (the theory of "judeo bolshevism" which they obviously still hate. And they have in numerous comments still defended their "fight for the heritage" (nice words for still hating races). Oportunism does NOT equal being not-nazi. 85.225.97.154 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)