Talk:Nokturnal Mortum

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

message: 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)
thread_title: A sorry excuse for an article

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nokturnal Mortum Logo.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Major rewrite

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NSBM 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Still NSBM