Talk:Lords of Chaos (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] LORDS

This was never meant to be a book about Black Metal as a genre. Hence the title "The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground". It is about the violence, people and the ideals or lack thereof surrounding Black Metal and not the development of the music itself. There is very little information about the development of BM as a musical genre, although, it is not for wiki to say Moynihan should have filled this void. Also, in this article the line "...it completely omits the developments of melodic black metal and melodic death metal that were well under way when book was first published..." is irrelevant, given that the book is not concerned (and was never made out to be) with BM as a genre as such. Excepting, maybe, the impacts on the genre made by certain events invloving participants in the BM scene. The article could include something about the statements made by Vark Vikernes concerning misinformation in LoC. These statements used to be on the old Burzum website www.burzum.com (now closed). I dont know if/where they are still available. PyrE 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I had found the statements that are allegedly by Vikernes on www.burzum.com. Currently they are linked under external links. They might be useful, but since Vikernes has written something completely different at www.burzum.org, one has to deal with them rather carefully. Regarding your point that LoC "is not concerned (and was never made out to be) with BM as a genre as such", it strongly suggests that Black Metal="Satanic Metal Underground", and this way it is perceived by the public. If you can read German, check out the two German reviews: Both take the book to be about "Black Metal". And Coogan's review is titled: "How Black is Black Metal?" Zara1709 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not really disagree about the book being about Black Metal. I disagree that the book was supposed to be about Black Metal and its development as a musical genre. Ofcourse, the book is going to have to establish (as it does) some sort of background regarding Black Metal. Although, I doubt Moynihan & Didrik Søderlind were trying to create a definitive and comprehensive guide to the development of BM, even if it has been stated otherwise. People say many things in reviews and such that are not necessarily correct. That is why I believe (imho) that some statements in the article show a misunderstanding as to the objective of this work. Maybe I get your point *Black Metal="Satanic Metal Underground"*, but it is not essentially correct. I think that LoC is more about the development of the Satanic/Heathen/Nationalist/etc ideals concerning people involved in the scene and its later escalation into violence and such. Not necessarily about the Black Metal scene in its entirety and its musical progression. Regardless of public perspective, should not this article establish what the book Lords of Chaos actually entails, rather than simply expressing assumed opinions. I do not think it is wrong to state in this article that the book is about Black Metal and its history, it is just not a musical history in particular. It is more than that (or less?). I guess people may be mistaken into believing this book is a comprehensive guide to BM. So I guess it may be important to express that it is not or atleast make this clear. I noticed the sentence I mentioned has been shortened. Interesting. Good work on finding those links btw, I should have a look. Anyway, I will get over this article now, it could do with some work and, alas, I have little time for such endeavors. PyrE 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention a line from the preface: "Black Metal has taken the fire and used it as fuel, the accelerant for an one way ride to hell." (LoC, XII)I think, this overloaded metaphor together with the quotes already in the article, can be used as evidence that Moynihan wants to portray the BM scene as some kind of "Satanic Metal Underground" from that arsons are committed. This might be true for the early BM scene in Norway, but it is definitely not true for Black Metal as whole. Zara1709 12:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think?

What do you think? I think better information can be gained by reading wikipedia than can be gained from reading this book. As a metalhead, I have the feeling that Moynihan is an outsider writing about something he doesn't really understand. Maybe he is catering to people who aren't familiar with metal, but it's to the detriment of the book's accuracy. I think he misses the point of some bands and even gets some information wrong. For example, he states "the Misfits mutated into Samhain...by 1988 the band had changed names again, to simply Danzig", which is totally false. The Misfits ended when Glenn Danzig left the band and formed Samhain, which later became Danzig. Furthermore, the Misfits reunited (without Danzig) in 1997, meaning that Danzig and The Misfits existed as separate bands at the time of the book's printing. Its one of many sloppy errors/hasty summaries in the book that make it frustrating to read.

  • There tends to be errors and incomplete information on wikipedia as well. Just take a look at the Mayhem page! I think one can learn more by reading interviews from that time period

I personally feel that this book has little information about black metal as music and is, (as is pointed out above) more about the crimes, specifically Varg Vikernes. I think we should perhaps point out that this book shows little grasp or interest in black metal as a genre.

  • I've just updated the paragraph on the book's reception, highlighting the fact that the views expressed by Moynihan, his emphasis on extreme instances, etc. are seen as highly controversial in the bm scene. Let me know if it sounds alright. Can't think of a good username 00:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreeJmm6f488 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

I find this rather impolite, not to say annoying. There I spend hours writing this article, and then User:Cyrus XIII just tags it "disputed" and doesn't even take the 10 minutes to specify that on this talk page. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute clearly states: The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. This is a controversial topic, and I can assure that I strongly oppose Moynihans extreme right perspective. I had originally indented to go through with this controversy, but if other editors don't even specify their concerns, this is fruitless. Seriously, I don't see what the concern of User:Cyrus XIII is. Zara1709 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not post here, because my edit summaries were quite comprehensive already. And despite some recent improvements, the article still bears a judgmental slant towards its subject throughout. This could be mended if the contents and controversy were to be divided into strictly separate section, with the lead merely alluding to the controversy discussed below. On a side note, if you find yourself arbitrarily opposed towards the book's author, your should probably not be editing here (see Wikipedia:Neutrality). Cyrus XIII 14:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your problem. Is there a Wikipedia policy that says that articles about about a book need to have separate sections for Contents and for Criticism? If there is, let me know, but with this book that is rather difficult, because the Contents are the reason for the Criticism. The "thesis" or "conclusion" or whatever of that book is extreme right propaganda, just look at the quotes, he uses the word extreme rightists himself: "If Black Metalers and extreme rightists could agree..." Many Black Metalers who are not extreme rightists are going to disagree with that. Saying that this book is extreme right propaganda is not "judgmental slant" , the phrase "extreme rightists" is used be one of the authors himself. And of course oppose this viewpoint. I can't tolerate the torching of churches or murder any more than any law-abiding citizen could. And I haven't even added the part where the book suggests that extreme-right activist should assault political leaders like the RAF did. Zara1709 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cyrus XIII. Could you explain paragraph by paragraph what points or sentences you are disputing. If it is the wording of certain sentences or phrases, perhaps if we talk it through, we can come to a consensus. That Michael Moynihan is an extreme rightist isn't really controversial, Moynihan has stated it himself. That this book is extreme-rightist propaganda is however open to dispute. I do however agree with Zara that this book is in fact extreme-right propaganda. Yes, this is not the Protocols of Zion. It may not be extremist frothing, but Moynihan's political beliefs do define his whole view of the founding of Black Metal. If certain instances of a one sided point of view within this article could be citied then we could fix them. However, just saying that the neutrality of this article is disputed doesn't help fix the problem if a problem is to be found. Jmm6f488 01:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't so much take issue with what the article has to say about the book, rather how its done. Wikipedia is a neutral, descriptive publication, we do not criticize other publications, we may simply echo common criticisms towards them in designated Criticism or Controversy sections. The current revision of the article however has bits of explicit criticism of the book and its author spread across every section. For example, it is rather suggestive than descriptive to finish the lead paragraph with a quote instead of merely informing the reader of the existence of notable criticism. Same goes for pointing out supposed discrepancies between the book's mission statement (of sorts) and what it, in that light, fails to mention, only two sentences into a section that is supposed to just summarize contents.
Note that on a personal level, I share Zara1709's profound dislike of extreme rightist views, yet as an editor, I feel compelled to demand a more level headed, descriptive treatment of the article's subject, that does not constantly get ahead of itself when it comes to criticism. Incidentally, our articles on prominent examples of far-right propaganda, such as the aforementioned Protocols of Zion or Mein Kampf, do just that. - Cyrus XIII 05:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
With the way Moynihan uses the word "extreme rightists" himself, I'd say that it is purely descriptive to call him that. I don't get it: Protocols of Zion or Mein Kampf, do just what?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: "is an antisemitic text that purports to describe a Jewish plot to achieve world domination"
Mein Kampf: "an exposition of Hitler's political ideology of Nazism."
Of course, for many readers it should be a Tautology to say the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are antisemitic or that Mein Kampf is about Nazism; Now, I don't know if you have read Lords of Chaos (btw. the German edition is different from the English one). To say that Moynihan is: "extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout [the book]" is quite exact. If necessary, I can give you some fitting quotes. Zara1709 15:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No disagreement forthcoming, so I partly reverted the lead. To say that Moynihan's "fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout [the book]" is an accurate description of the contents. If Moyihan's views are that of a rightists or extreme rightist can be left open. Zara1709 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It's still just an opinion and as such does not belong into the article lead, especially not in any fashion that speaks directly through the respective source and as such serves as an extension to aforementioned opinion. That the book received criticism based on its approach towards the subject and Moynihan's leanings are sober facts. Again, everything else that could be said against the publication belongs into the Criticism section. The Contents section has now been rewritten in a more descriptive fashion, removing the occasional jabs at omissions on part of the authors and the excessive quoting near the end. - Cyrus XIII 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not an opinion

Again, Cyrus XIII, I have to ask whether you have actually read the book. There obviously is a "not so hidden subcurrent" of right-wing extremism in there. This is not the opinion of some of the reviewers, but an accurate description of its contents. Here are two more quotes from Lords of Chaos (1998):

  • about Slayer: "-despite his last name, there is nothing remotely "Aryan" about led singer Tom Araya, who in fact comes from a Hispanic South American background" (p. 30)
  • about a Norwegian right-wing 'activist' Tom Kimmo Eiternes: "This vision of the enemy might predispose him to take his actions one step further, from harassing immigrants to Baader-Meinhof style urban guerilla warfare directed at leading power figures." (p. 318)

The reason Neopaganism isn't even mentioned in the article currently is that the quote on this was removed:

""Satanism and the heathenism from which it ultimately descends are themselves the products of the archetypes and differentiated psyches of nations and peoples, and they therefore spring from the same “occult” or mystical sources as nationalism itself. Nationalism is the political manifestation of a folk’s unconscious; heathenism/Satanism is the spiritual manifestation." (p. 329&330) Zara1709 19:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph of This Article

This is seems to be the opening version favored by Cyrus:

Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground is a book by Michael Moynihan and Didrik Søderlind. It gives a history of the early Norwegian Black Metal scene, with a focus on the string of church burnings and murders that occurred in the country around 1993. The book has been criticized for its approach towards its controversial subject matter and the political leanings of author Moynihan.

This seems to be the opening version favored by Zara1709:

Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground is a book by Michael Moynihan and Didrik Søderlind. It gives a history of the early Norwegian Black Metal scene, with a focus on the string of church burnings and murders that occurred in the country around 1993. Moynihan's "fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout [the book]"

I bolded the difference between the two. I think if we go paragraph by paragraph like this, with everyone explaining there reasoning we can come to an agreement over wording that would be acceptable to everyone. Jmm6f488 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the disagreement is on a fundamental level. Kevin Coogan has writen: "Yet what really makes the book fascinating is that its main author, Michael Moynihan, is himself an extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout LOC." [2] I have read this book throughoutly and I would say that this and the rest of Coogans' article are a good summary of Lords of Chaos. User:Cyrus XIII on the other hand insists that this is just the POV of Coogan. But I completely fail to understand the problem that Cyrus has. If someone speaks about someone else as not being Aryan, then this is racist. If someone suggest an assault on political leaders, the he is an extremist. This is part of the contents of the book! Of course, there are also some others contents that need to be mentioned, but I haven't gotten around to that yet because I have to deal with this discussion. Zara1709 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you make of the contents of the book personally is not relevant to the article (as per Wikipedia:No original research), neither is your obviously strong opinion regarding the book and its author (Wikipedia:Neutrality). Please refrain from turning your contributions to this page into an the-ends-justify-the-means anti-nazism witch hunt. All that would achieve is damaging Wikipedia's pursuit of being a neutral publication. The article's current revision offers the reader a strictly descriptive account of the books contents and the critical reaction to it by the press, all that without turning this encyclopedia into an outlet for far-right propaganda. - Cyrus XIII 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You are violating WP:NOT here. Wikipedia is not censored. THIS BOOK HAS EXTREME RIGHT CONTENT. (sry for caps, but you are obviously not getting this.) I am only attempting a "strictly descriptive account of the books contents." Stop trying to use Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to get this out of the article. To say that, "The book has been criticized for its approach towards its controversial subject matter and the political leanings of author Moynihan." is a dangerous understatement. This would be like saying: "Mein Kampf has been criticized for the authors attitude towards the Jews."
I am going to improve the wording of my last version to take into account the neutrality concerns, but if something is right wing propaganda, I need to be allowed to write this. Zara1709 12:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Again, it is not up to you to determine whether the book supports right-wing ideologies or just depicts them. Cherry-picking quotes to fuel your POV and subsequently misrepresenting sources like the review by Die Tageszeitung (which actually recommends the read and merely uses the poison cabinet metaphor as a catchy opener), does hardly strengthen your position, neither do knee-jerk reverts that re-insert uncited information (WP:V), badly formatted and redundant citations (WP:CS) and excessive external linking (WP:EL/WP:NOT). On top of that, censorship concerns may very well arise with regards to your removal of vital information, such as positive press reactions towards the publication and the announcement that it will spawn a motion picture. - Cyrus XIII 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that you can read German, so I don't need to translate this: Die tageszeitung writes: "Und obwohl ich Moynihan die Tantiemen nicht gönne, bleibt mein Urteil: das spannendste Sachbuch seit dem Alten Testament." Since when is the Old Testament a "Sachbuch". Irony, anyone? This ambiguous statement hints: If you are into violence, you might find this book almost as interesting as the Old Testament. Now, you are not going to believe me, but I was going to add this back in: "The book has received wide praise for providing a pioneering account of the subgenre, and for its unique content." I only was going to add that this praise is almost always accompanied by a heavy critique of Moynihan's right wing connections.
Now stop throwing policies at me at random and respond to the points I have raised:
  1. Is there any policy that states that you need to have different sections for "Contents" and "Criticism"?
  2. If a book includes right-wing statements, why should an editor not be allowed to write this in an article?
  3. Do you agree that the statements if have quoted qualify as right-wing, or do you want me to expand those quotes?
  4. Have you actually read the book?

Zara1709 13:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of a certain ambiguity within that Old Testament remark, but I'll rather leave it to readers to interpret it (WP:OR).

  1. WP:NPOV, especially the passage about article structure.
  2. The book deals with extremists and their ideologies and the article has at no time failed to mention that.
  3. Given your previous record of selective quoting, I'll pass on that. We have comprehensive outside sources on the book and they suffice to classify its contents and potential agenda. Given these references...
  4. ...I would not even have to have read the book, in order to productively contribute to this article.

- Cyrus XIII 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In German

You both speak German so here is the Wikipedia page in German maybe it can give you some hints. I would help but you would have to translate the entire page for me ;) :

Das Buch Lords of Chaos (englische Ausgabe ISBN 0-922915-48-2; deutsche Ausgabe ISBN 3-936878-00-5) erzählt die Geschichte der okkulten Rockmusik mit Schwerpunkt auf Black Metal. Die Autoren sind Michael Moynihan von der Band „Blood Axis“ und Didrik Søderlind, Journalist der Zeitschrift „Playboy“ in Norwegen. Das Buch erschien erstmals 1998 in englischer Sprache, 2003 wurde die deutsche Ausgabe veröffentlicht. Analog zum erscheinen der deutschen Version erschien ein CD-Sampler mit Liedern der im Buch erwähnten Künstler.

„Lords of Chaos“ ist knapp 400 Seiten stark und enthält viele Gespräche mit unter anderem Hendrik Möbus, Varg Vikernes oder Ihsahn. Es werden die Geschehnisse um die Kirchenbrände bzw. die Morde in den frühen 90er Jahren, welche die Black-Metal-Szene in die Schlagzeilen brachten, beleuchtet. Weiterhin gibt das Buch Auskunft über den Einfluss von Okkultismus und Satanismus auf Rock- und Metal-Musik.


Es wurde beim Erscheinen sehr kontrovers diskutiert, sowohl in der deutschen Presse als auch in szenespezifischen Zeitschriften. Dies hängt unter anderem mit den Verstrickungen von Michael Moynihan in die rechte bis rechtsextremistische Szene zusammen. Auch die teilweise deutliche Bewunderung des Autors für seine Gesprächspartner tat ihr Übriges dazu, eine Kontroverse zu entfachen.

Die Compilation umfasst, neben den im Buch genannten Bands der norwegischen und schwedischen Black-Metal-Szene, mehrere Künstler aus dem okkultistischen und satanistischen Umfeld, wie Aleister Crowley und Anton Szandor LaVey. Auch Vertreter, die das Okkulte eher am Rande streifen, wie Robert Johnson, wurden aufgenommen.


Weblinks

Jmm6f488 14:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I do know enough German to know what Kontroverse means in the article, so maybe this article can give a good approach. Jmm6f488 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the English article already uses both of the outside sources presented in the German one and the latter otherwise fails to name any references for its content. Looking to other Wikipedia versions rarely helps in content disputes. - Cyrus XIII 14:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desire to crush Christianity

Let me provide another quote from the book:

"The signs of Christianity's influence on western culture are everywhere. God is regularly invoked in the speeches of the politicians, and references to his name flow throughout the streams of secular society. God is impossible to avoid. It is thus not surprising that those who proclaim themselves "fists in the face of God" (to borrow a phrase from Fenriz of Darkthrone), would end up attacking society as a whole. It is also in their desire to crush Christianity they should adopt faith - real or symbolic- in other deities and demons. Spirituality is innate to the human psyche, and has a way of rearing its head even in the most rational and atheistic people. The same person who rids himself of one theology may well harbor a desire for a new faith - one full of mighty and unforgiving gods, capable of smashing away the ruins of the old. Black Metal provides all of this. Whether it is centered on Satanic or heathen symbolism matter not. In both instances the iconography and the music fuse together into an odium theologicum directed at the faith and lifestyle of the status quo. It is essentially intolerant, uncompromising, and absolutist in its worldview." (Lords of Chaos, First edition, p.301)

Now, I will paraphrase this and add it to the article. That the book includes this statement is fact and can't possible be POV. Whereas I get the impression that Moynihan himself desires to crush Christianity, this would not go into the article, but that he interprets Black Metal as "essentially intolerant, uncompromising, and absolutist in its worldview" has to go in there. And don't tell me that this is prohibited by wp:neutrality. Zara1709 14:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the deleted content

I still can't accept it that some of my previous work was deleted, without me being given to opportunity to respond to the concerns. Flag it with [ [original research?]] or [[citation needed]], but don't delete it. But it guess if have to. Thus I am forced to spend several more hours on on this, restoring the deleted parts and writing in an even more neutral tone. I will go paragraph by paragraph, so that there is enough time to take every singe sentence to the talk page: 1) The first thing it did was to add the mentioning of "heathenism" back in that had been removed with the one quote previously and to reassess this article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism. This time I assessed it low- instead of mid-importance. This book is the best example I know that connects Neopaganism (or "heathenism") with right-wing ideology. Zara1709 01:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lords of Chaos.jpg

Image:Lords of Chaos.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 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

Uh, what the hell is wrong with the references on the bottom of the page? Right now none of the links to references even work on the page. Someone needs to fix that. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class

I think the class of this article is above start class now. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Next edit war

user:Bloodofox has given me two reverts so far... so I think it is appropriate to expect an escalation into a full out edit war: First, wp:NPOV would mandate the inclusion of Hellhammers comment: "I don’t give a crap if the fans are white, black, green, yellow, or blue. For me music and politics don’t go hand in hand."(ThyDoom.com) since this is contrary to the interview in LoC. If you need a quote; NPOV means: "The inclusion of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We have here a situation in which a book reports someone to have made an racist statement. the very same person has later made an anti-racist statement. This is significant, and I don't see why this should be original research: Similarly, if I have person A who has a certain theory and Person B, who has a similar theory it is not OR to state this. It is not OR to state that Moynihan has a similar idea of the collective unconscious to that of Serrano, especially if I have a source that says: "Moynihan has found resonance with selected elements of ideas espoused by fanatics ... (long list of them) ... and Miguel Serrano." Do you want to say that it is original research to say that Moynihan has taken elements of ideas from Serrano? I was going to rework that anyway, but I don't want to have another edit war at this stupid article. Zara1709 (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Zara. The text you've added ([3]):
Similar to Miguel Serrano<ref>For Serrano, see: Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun, p. 179; That Moynihan is attracted to the works of Miguel Serrano is mentioned in Gardell, Gods of the Blood, p.303</ref> and other proponents of Esoteric Nazism, he links archetypes and the collective unconscious to occult or mystical sources:
As you can see, I've tagged similar in bold, which the entire statement hinges on. OK, who says it's similar? Reference? If not for "similar", the text after it would have no purpose here. The problem here it is your opinion and not that of either of the references you've provided that this "similarity" exists, subsequently this is original research and probably also WP:SYNTH. For some reason, you didn't connect it with Jung's 1936 "Wotan" essay rather than Serrano, which is the obvious candidate (if I remember correctly, the book even talks about the essay, though it's been close to a decade since I read it - does it say anything about Serrano?).
Before you get too crazy about this Serrano-Moynihan link elsewhere, keep in mind Gardell doesn't provide further information about Moynihan's supposed interest in Serrano's beliefs (whatever they are in this case) and the rest of the group he mentions too. So, unless you can find Moynihan talking about how he's fond of Serrano, it's just Gardell's opinion and must be attributed as that ("According to Gardell..").
About the interview with Hellhammer. Here is what the text said that I removed:
The satanic metal biography, Lords of Chaos, which has been criticized for inaccurate information and statements, quotes Jan Axel Blomberg (Hellhammer) as saying, "I'll put it this way, we don't like black people here. Black metal is for white people. … I'm pretty convinced that there are differences between races as well as everything else. I think that like animals, some races are more…you know, like a cat is much more intelligent than a bird or a cow, or even a dog, and I think that's also the case with different races." Contradicting these racial statements, Blomberg said in a 2004 interview, "I don’t give a crap if the fans are white, black, green, yellow, or blue. For me music and politics don’t go hand in hand."[20].
The text I removed implied that the comments by Hellhammer were fabrications or misquotes but Hellhammer does not say this (if he does in some source, it should be added). Now, here is the 2004 interview with Hellhammer (the old link is dead): [4] Here is the exchange:
Q: And finally the last question: A couple of days ago I came across an article dwelling up on the racial question in connection with Extreme Metal. The author came to the conclusion that the metal world is for the whites only; thus, it is inherently superior to ethnic minorities and he also states that they, meaning the minorities, are initially classified as inferior both musically and racially. Now, thinking about the present day scenes, do you share that opinion; that is do you believe that metal is superior to any other genre? And another question is how do you feel about non-white fans of black metal, for example?
A: "As long as the music is good I don’t think any genre of music is superior to another. I don’t give a crap if the fans are white, black green yellow or blue. For me music and politics don’t go hand in hand."
Hellhammer does not address the Lords of Chaos statement and his answer doesn't contradict the Lords of Chaos comment either. Anything beyond that is where speculation comes in: maybe he's just become more media smart since his youth, maybe he's more tolerant, maybe he's racist, maybe he is, maybe he's got a duck on his head - all three equates to speculation without source. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to rewrite the part on Serrano anyway, but I can't do that with you reverting me here. The other point is more import. If you are concerned about OR in the case of Hellhammer, you could simply have placed a fact-tag behind the sentence: "The satanic metal biography, Lords of Chaos, which has been criticized for inaccurate information and statements." Removing the whole quote is disruptive and gives the impression that you are trying to push this article into a certain direction. If according to LoC a musician with a certain prominence was a racist, but other statements of the same musician indicate otherwise, it is a violation of wp:NPOV and probably even of wp:Blp not to include this. If someone was to add that he was a racist based on LoC, you'd have a BLP controversy. Of course, we could as well include both sided of this at Jan Axel Blomberg. But before that I think I need to insist that you acknowledge that that the inclusion of both sides is mandated by wp:NPOV (and that the removal of both sides is not an acceptable solution.) Zara1709 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you please clarify which "direction" I am "trying to push this article"? The problem is there aren't "two sides" to this, they both mesh relatively well. You can quote both sides next to one another but they don't necessarily contradict nor does he address his previous statement here. I would, however, be surprised to hear if he didn't elsewhere and that is what would be helpful here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are to sides to it. LoC gives the impression that Hellhammer was a racist of some sort, whereas another (later) interview with Hellhammer gives the impression that he is an anti-racist. of course, one possible reason is that Hellhammer has changed his opinion; but the other possible reason is that LoC is inaccurate. In removing this point, YOU are making LoC appear more accurate. Furthermore, by removing the link to Esoteric Nazism and Serrano, and by toning down the Critique of Coogan, you are pushing in a direction that downplays the political opinions of Moynihan. He is not your average "extreme rightist", but he has taken "elemts of ideas" from such people as Charles Manson, Julius Evola und Miguel Serrano. You are not getting around this. I am assuming got faith on you side, but I do get the impression that somehow you are not willing to accept it that Moynihans political and religious views have to be localized somewhere in the precincts of Esoteric Nazism. I mean, you have read the passage I referred to from Gardell yourself. If you own the book, why didn't you write something about his attraction to Serrano... probably because you consider him "everyone's favorite nut"? I am just honest when I say that I get the impression here that you are pushing a certain POV. Of course, you might also get that impression from me, but frankly, I don't care. I think that I can sustain my views in a fair and civil discussion; but to get such a discussion I need to know your rationale for removing the the quotes from the Hellhammer-Interviews, because concers about OR would not justify a full removal; Also, why did you remove this passage: TV evangelist Bob Larson stated that he and Moynihan were "poles apart spiritually and philosophically", but that he respected the book as an "exhaustive resource regarding the seamy and Satanic side of pop music and culture"? I can't see why this should not be included. Zara1709 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not remove anything regarding the Bob Larsen quote. It's still there as it should be.
Second, Serrano has nothing to do with this book. If he does, reference someone claiming it rather than your own questionable connection. Your own opinion is invalid in the article body, Wikipedia is not the place for personal Wikipedia editor theories (WP:NPOV).
This is exactly what Gardell states:
Pragmatically oriented, Moynihan has found resonance with selected elements of ideas espoused by fanatics and revolutionaries involved in divergent extreme milieus, as reflected in his attraction to Charles Manson, Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi, Michael Bakunin, Julius Evola, James Mason, and Miguel Serrano.
Again, as Gardell provides no further references, this is his opinion and ought to be referenced as such. I don't know what Moynihan has said about al-Qadhdhafi or Miguel Serrano but it probably wasn't "that guy is so right!"
Third, would you mind explaining why you insist on inserting Coogan's criticism in every section rather than just the reception area? It's mentioned in the introduction and the criticism section, that is well enough for any book. What is your motivation for mentioning Coogan's criticism in three sections rather than handling it on par with Varg's or even the fact that the book won the Firecracker reward?
If you really want my opinion about the book - not that it factors into any of my edits here - I'm not a fan of Jung, I largely agree with Gardell, and I don't care for sensationalism or insertion of unattributed opinion into articles. Like Gardell, I don't think Moynihan falls under the head of "esoteric Nazism" - you're going to have to find a better descriptor. Obviously, I am not a fan of Serrano either. I shouldn't have to state any of these things - I make an effort for my edits to be extremely neutral, concise, accurate, and, hopefully, neat. I expect the same of you.
The best way to approach the funny metal quote with Hellhammer is to let the reader make up their own mind. Take the two quotes and place them together something like this:
In Lords of Chaos, Hellhammer is quoted as saying "..." In 2004, when asked "..." he responded with "...."
And there you have it. As a heads up, some people would be justified with taking concern with even this. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the other quote was only moved within the article, I apolgize; And finally you admit that the full removal of the Hellhammaer quote was unjustified; That only leaves two more questions: the OR that you alleged concerning the "collective unconscious" and the emphasis on Coogan. But I actually wonder whether I need to put up with this stuff. I just compared Gardell to Coogan, and I must say that the journalist Coogan evaluates Moynihan and LoC more correctly; Gardell at least gets it right that Vikernes is not a Satanist, but a "heathen" but he doesn't take any deeper look into LoC. Coogan actually summarized the thesis in LoC: "The book, however, suggests that the events in Norway reflect a growing tendency among alienated youth from Miami to Moscow, who are now allegedly blending black metal, Satanism, and currents of fascism into a culturally explosive Molotov cocktail." The Coogan debunks it: "LOC also dwells on the activity of otherwise highly obscure fascist propagandists with no direct ties to black metal who are nevertheless trying to recruit its followers into their cause. It even adopts a far right spin on Jungian theory when it suggests that Vikernes may have tapped into an anti-Christian racial/cultural archetype that is allegedly still aglow in the Norwegian collective unconscious. The book also profiles racist killers with no known ties to black metal, such as the Florida youth clique called the Lords of Chaos."
Gardell, on the other hand ,is misquoting Coogan. Coogan did not write unspecifally that Moynihan is an "extreme rightist", he wrote about Lords of Chaos:"Yet what really makes the book fascinating is that its main author, Michael Moynihan, is himself an extreme rightist whose fusion of politics and aesthetic violence shapes a not-so-hidden sub current that runs throughout LOC."
He continues, that, however LoC neither is s not "a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term". "Nor does Moynihan himself fit easily into the more conventional definitions of fascism." Gardell is correct when he writes "It all boils down to a question of semantics and definitions", but he is wrong when he implies that Coogan's article did not take this into account.
Gardell's work here is sleazy (at least when it comes to Moynihan). He completely pushes aside Coogans article with one incomplete quotation. And Gardell isn't just yout average journalist, but a Professor at an University who shouldn't make such an error. If there are any scientific journals on this topic, this should be interesting enough so that I could publish a paper about this. Of course, writing a scientific paper requires quite some effort; on the other hand I wouldn't put up with that ridiculous interpretation of the policy on "Original research" and I would probably get more recognition out of it. Zara1709 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Zara, with all due respect, please put those opinions into that paper. You seem to have all sorts of theories about this book - please put them there and only put referenced statements here. No, I did not say the deletion was unjustified - I've justified my deletion above in favor of my recommendation if it's to stay. The "collective unconscious" statements is your own research, that's not good here. If you find a reference directly stating the comparison, please go for it, in the mean time, I fail to see how it's not just more than more Jung. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't "have all sorts of theories about this book"; I've read it front to back and back to front again, and it is in its way more extreme than the 'writing' of Vikernes. (It is not as racist and anti-Semitic, though.) Coogan is correct when he writes: "LOC is best characterized as a palimpsest with the author's own political ideology at work just’ below the surface of a text ostensibly devoted solely to analyzing an extremist musical sub-culture." The ideology is just below the surface; I would be able to write an article that drags the ideology into the light of the public, but I cannot do that when other editors are picky about original research and disruptive with a delete first, discuss later attitude. I have used my daily three reverts anyway, probably I'll explain tomorrow why the quote from page 307 of LoC should be included, too. Zara1709 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am very "picky about original research" - I can't stress to anyone editing or reading Wikipedia that they must be to get anything worthwhile out of it. No source? Delete it. "Aggressively", per official policy. WP:OR is not optional. It sounds to me like you're blatantly attempting to insert your beliefs into this article. Whatever it is you're trying to "expose", you're better off doing it on some other medium than Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So, because a reader must get anything worthwhile out of this article, we must not include the information that Moynihan has a similar theory of the "collective unconscious" as Serrano. You style of editing is disruptive. If you are concerned that the connection between Moynihan and Serrano was OR, thann you can use the OR tag. You have said: "Whatever it is you're trying to "expose", you're better off doing it on some other medium than Wikipedia." I am not trying to expose anything but the facts: "LOC is best characterized as a palimpsest with the author's own political ideology at work just’ below the surface of a text ostensibly devoted solely to analyzing an extremist musical sub-culture." Your are claiming only to be enforcing the policies of WP "Aggressively". You might simply have an understanding of wp:civil according to which is is is civil to delete anything suspicious, but to me you appear to be using WP's policies as a phony excuse for covering up an extreme rightist ideology. Zara1709 (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please spare me the "covering up an extreme rightist ideology" attempt at character assassination. Just because I insist on neutrality doesn't mean I'm a Nazi or even a sympathizer. I'm not and I find attempts at characterizing me as such offensive and in poor taste. The criticism is there. You may see yourself as the super hero here, but all you're doing is pushing what is original research when you start posting unsourced claims of unsourced "similarity" monologues and then there's these blatantly POV unsourced "facts" that we're apparently supposed to just take for granted without a reference. Check the link I posted, the "aggressively" is a policy quote. If you think this policy is "disruption", take it up with someone else. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed II

"LOC is best characterized as a palimpsest with the author's own political ideology at work just’ below the surface of a text ostensibly devoted solely to analyzing an extremist musical sub-culture." The current revision of the article brings this in only as the Critique of Kevin Cogan, whereas it is in fact an accurate summary of the book. Zara1709 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Coogan's opinion. This is apparently also your opinion. That's great. However, that doesn't mean we base the article around it, we just cite Coogan's opinion as that - his opinion - and move on. Wikipedia is neutral. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, WP is neutral; I put it to you that Lords of Chaos is in fact a work with an ideology just below the surface of the text. Since you claim to be seriously concerned about wp:neutrality, I should expect you to take my concern seriously. Zara1709 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This "ideology" "just below the surface" business is your opinion. WP:NPOV dictates that we do not state opinion as fact. Coogan's criticism is presented in the article. What more do you want? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the "ideology just below the surface" is fact. You can't summarize it any better. Now stop repeating NPOV,NPOV,NPOV and discuss the content. Find me an actual error on Coogan's article, for example. Zara1709 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is the guiding light here. Whatever this is mysterious "ideology" is, it doesn't matter either way - again, neutrality dictates we don't pass editor opinion off as unattributed fact. "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles." I'm not here to critique Coogan's article, though it's easy enough. Unsourced claims like "rumored" accounts of arson are dubious at best and the guy is either ignorant of the Industrial Culture Handbook or he's intentionally leaving out left-wing bands like Test Dept from his industrial music overview in favor of mentions of SPK eating sheep brains and P. Orridge's early performance art with Cosey. Anyway, again, it doesn't matter what I think of Coogan's work - he wrote about it, we write what he said in the appropriate section, next reference please. This is how one builds an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So what statement by Coogan contradicts the book you mention? Unless you are willing to take into account the possibility that Coogan's view is factually correct, we are not moving forward. Coogan's article is the only available source that analyses the book. I have read Lords of Chaos throughoutly and I consider Coogans analysis to be factually correct. As long as the article does not use Coogan as a reliable source (meaning in the contents section) it is biased and violates wp:NPOV. Zara1709 (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Using Coogan's criticism as a basis for the article is absurd and nonsensical. All of the opinions, reviews, and criticisms regarding of the book go are in the criticism section. The article makes no judgment about the book as it stands. Lack of judgment is neutrality. We are not here to present a book through someone's lens and call it a day. The book does not present itself as providing a nefarious ideology just below the surface, therefore we do not state that it provides a nefarious ideology brimming just below the surface. If someone says the book has a nefarious ideology brimming just below the surface, then we put it in the criticism section with the reference that says it. I am describing rudimentary editing. If you are not aware of this by now... :bloodofox: (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by judgement? If I was to summarize the book myself, saying that LoC tries to give the impression that unconnected crimes around the world announce the resurgence of an Odinic Archetype which will finally lead to some sort of Ragnarök, you would claim that I need a source for it or it would be OR.On the other hand, if I just quoted or paraphrased Coogan: "The book, however, suggests that the events in Norway reflect a growing tendency among alienated youth from Miami to Moscow, who are now allegedly blending black metal, Satanism, and currents of fascism into a culturally explosive Molotov cocktail.To buttress its thesis, LOC points to metalheads turned murderers, including "Belfagor" from the Swedish Satanic band Nefandus, who attacked a black man in a self-described "niggerhunt"; Bard Eithun ("Faust") from the Norwegian group Emperor, who murdered a gay man that sought to seduce him; and Jon Nodveidt from the Swedish group Dissection, who butchered an Algerian immigrant. LOC even devotes an entire chapter to an obscure two-man German band called Absurd, who coldly executed an annoying fellow high school student . Although the members of Absurd are self-pro-claimed Nazis and Vikernes fans, even they reported that they committed the crime for personal, not political, motives.LOC also dwells on the activity of otherwise highly obscure fascist propagandists with no direct ties to black metal", then wyou would claim that this would violated the NPOV. Either you have a fallacious understanding of wp:NPOV, or you are using this strategy as a measure to keep anyone who wants to give the ideological content of the book in Catch-22 Situation. Zara1709 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "nefarious", but this is obviously a report biased in favour of its object. I mean, how biased do you need to be to turn a depressing crime rampage of a handful of misfit youths into a "Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground"? There is only so much debate in this. Bloodofox has used the same tactics at Talk:Michael Moynihan (journalist). The result is an article riddled with footnotes and the occasional "he denied all allegations", but the attentive reader will still get the picture. It is probably too much to ask boo for cooperation sufficient to turn this into anything resembling coherent prose, but the information is all in there. dab (𒁳) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)