Talk:Varg Vikernes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is the article too long?[edit]

Is this individual really important enough to warrant such an in-depth article? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or this guy's publicist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It's bloated and too detailed.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. A Wikipedia article being detailed is a good thing, not mattering who its about. As long as the article remains unbiased, I see no problem with its size or detail. Nate Keller (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone clear this up?[edit]

"Vikernes was additionally found guilty in several cases of arson, one of which included Jørn Tunsberg of black metal band Hades Almighty." As I don't know what went on can someone state how this act of arson was connected to Tunsberg, as I very much doubt Tunsberg himself was set ablaze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Aryans[edit]

Why isn't there any mention of Varg's empirical analysis on UFO's and how he believes that extraterrestrial beings, from Atlatis and whatnot, put blue-eyed peeps on this Earth to keep things running as it should? Also can someone explain to me how Varg manages to tie together Odin and Norse Mythology in that extraterrestial story? (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That is strange, as Varg does not believe in ETs... (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Varg and NSBM[edit]

For the record, Varg was not a key organiser of NSBM and that site is false. From a semi-recent interview.

In the recent years there has been a great raise of so called NSBM (National Socialistic Black Metal) bands which base their ideology and music upon NS, Nazi, Pagan/Heathen and Aryan ideas. What is Your opinion about them?

I don't know much about this, but what I do know is that at least these guys have the guts to be different and politically incorrect, unlike the spineless poser-bands in the "Black Metal" scene. At least NSBM has a point other than the brain-dead "sex, drugs & rock'n'roll" attitude in the rest of the metal scene.

Also, I don't think he was responsible for the formation of the Swedish Heathen Front.

→saying that someone doing something stupid is to have "guts" is just like praising a murderer by having done something different than the brain-dead mass. (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that NSBM is "someone doing something stupid". The bands Varg refers to may be Nazi, Pagan, Aryan and politically incorrect, but his point is that they still have guts to be different no matter what people (more specifically, people like YOU) think about them. You should recognise that, but it seems that you can't. You can't even recognise when you're using poor grammar and capitalization... Also, I don't think anybody at all praises Varg Vikernes for being a murderer. They praise him for the music he made in Burzum.
Varg didn't start any of the Scandinavian Heathen Fronts although the media and the Norwegian intelligence service thinks so. He was at one point associated with the Norwegian Heathen Front but he stopped this when the media thought that he was the leader. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


This article focuses entirely too much on criminal charges and his early life, as well as attempts to pinpoint as many charges of "neo-Nazism" on him as possible (I think one or two [with proper source, not "he is mostly seen as" or "he is often associated with" nonsense] should suffice in the political area). To focus on whether or not his is a (neo-)Nazi, despite his outright rebuttal of this, for a paragraph and section, and then to not even mention once that he is environmentalist or anti-Capatalist/materialist (which would be positive to most people on here I think!) is not balanced. To only focus on controversy is unbalanced.

"Additionally, having been attached to a conspiracy of church arsons in Europe, filmmaker Sam Dunn (Metal: A Headbanger's Journey) has described Vikernes as "the most notorious metal musician of all time"[2]." does not fit in the opener. It is not really important, and should belong in "Publicity" section. It also does not even relate to its paragraphs topic sentence!

The picture is not recent, but is instead from the criminal trial.

Overuse of Lords of Chaos as a source. Just because it is a published work does not make it fact. So, if its use is necessary, I would suggest adding "according to" or something of this nature. I realize this has been done at some of the times, but not all. I also think that including a couple of Vikernes' complaints with LOC would help even it out, as well as checking if LOC clashes with anything Vikernes has said, and then stating these as source conflicting.

Very little on his writing. Seeing as that is his sole output as of now, I think this needs more focus. There is an entire page on Burzum, with the releases and such, but nothing referring to bibliography or essays. Yes, Burzum may be more well known than his writing (or not, I don't know/care), but I don't think how well something is known has anything to do with its presence in an article (after all, Wikipedia is here to allow others to learn things they did not known, IN BALANCE).

In short, the problem I see with the POV is that there is plenty of information about "Varg the Criminal" & "Varg the Musician", but nothing about "Varg the Academic", as well as the focus on politics, which tends to appear as people simply trying to prove to the reader he is in fact a Nazi, but is hiding it. If this was not the objective, there would be more focus on his other -isms I think. Alphaknave (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, once every few months someone comes along and disagrees with this article. The last time someone was of the opinion that Vikernes was a writer, and now he is even supposed to be an academic. As far as I know he doesn't even have the Norwegian equivalent of a college degree. This doesn't mean that he is uneducated. He writes fluent English, knows enough Latin to add some Latin quotes, which might actually impress some people, and probably he even speaks German and/or Russian. But - to be an academic, you need a little more than that. For the academic perspective, consider this; Vikernes writes:
"In the Scandinavian mythology we learn that the first human race was created when the gods gave the worms in the body of the giant a human form. The gods were not satisfied with this race, though, and Óðinn told Heimdallr to go to Middle Earth and improve mankind, by giving them the blood of the gods. He used the name Rígr ("ruler") and the first improved race was called the kin of Trell ("thrall"), and was made up of ugly and stupid black men, with dark hair and wrinkled skin. Óðinn was not satisfied with the result, and Heimdallr had to keep trying, to get a race worthy of Valhalla. After another failed attempt, the kin of Karl ("free men"), he finally succeeded in creating a human race worthy of Valhalla. This was the beautiful kin of Jarl ("earl"). This kin consisted of tall and fair men and women, with fair hair and fair eyes. They were wise and skilled in everything they did, and Rígr taught them the runes (secrets) of the gods. The creation of the youngest of these kins, Jarl's kin, took place on an island we today know as Atlantis." [1]
Read the Edda! You will not find Atlantis mentioned there, nor elsewhere in the few original sources on "Scandinavian mythology". This is rather the typical occultist speculation about Lost lands, calling this 'academic' would be like referring to Madame Blavatsky as a historian. And for the question why the racist interpretation of the Rigsthula, done by Vikernes here, is wrong - try to read a commented version of the Edda! I am going to remove the neutrality-questioned-tag and add the quote about the "nazi ghost" back in, rewriting those sentences only a little. I you still want to disagree and think that the contents of should be covered here, I suppose I have to put up a Requests for comment: Is the racist-occult speculation of Varg Vikernes notable in Wikipedia?
And also, concerning the question if Vikernes qualifies as a 'writer'. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, a personal homepage and one (or even several) self-published books would not be sufficient for that. The only reason why I have been soft on this question is that the whole topic is rather unpleasant and I didn't want to spend more time on it. Debunking extreme right ideology is not fun, and there would be really nicer things to do. On the other hand, though, someone has to do it... Zara1709 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You act as if this is your article, and not the subject's. I think we need more opinion than solely yours before the NPOV can be removed. As far as I know, you are not an administrator of Wikipedia and have no more authority on its contents than I or anyone else does. It is because you spend more time on here "[d]ebunking extreme right ideology" than anything else, that this article has a focus on "Nazi" matters than anything else, creating an unbalanced view of the subject, and a bias in the tone of writing. You are certainly not some expert on the subject, and are not the one who decides such matters. This should be a group effort. DON'T REMOVE THE NPOV AGAIN UNTIL OTHERS HAVE INPUT ON MY OPINIONS AS WELL. Jeeze, if I didn't know better (do I?) I'd think you were a Nazi, or some kind of corrupt politician, trying to funnel information the way you want.
Your argument on whether or not Mr. Vikernes is an acknowledged academic is against nothing. I never claimed he was one, nor will try to argue this point here ("writer" is suitable--he does write). I was using "Varg the Academic" in a so-to-speak tone. Whether or not people consider his writing accurate or not does change the fact that he has written them and that they should be listed as bibliography on here as well as given equal weight to all of his other output (i.e. music & activism/crime). To whether or not some of his claims are true in his writings, I am not making an argument, because this body of people obviously does not have proficient resources to make these claims (but if you read more, research more, old books and new, I think you will find that his information does connect--the problem you have is that he does not provide sources where you can easily research his claims). [On a side note: Do you speak Old Norse (or Norwegian or Icelandic, both very close to Old Norse)? This is very important when doing any interpretation of the Edda, since the translation can make all the difference. Have you ever considered interpreting the Edda on your own, with an open mind, and attempting a translation yourself? You should not need to rely on someone else's commentary. These commentaries will obviously not suggest racist things or the like, since the authors themselves will be looked upon as "Nazi occultists" just as Mr. Vikernes has been pinned down as. Looking at etymology the words in question are very important as well. But once again, this is only a side note, as the question to whether or not Mr. Vikernes' writing are indeed "true" (or following what you want to be true in this case) does not matter. His ideas can always be stated as "Mr. Vikernes writes..." or "According to Mr. Vikernes..." much in the same way this has been (partially) done with Lord of Chaos.] On the fact that Mr. Vikernes has not obtained a university degree on the material he writes on does not matter, as, once again, I was not claiming he is an academic, but only that he has written (appearantly controversial [this does not mean false]) things that need to be given equal weight in an article about him.
The first of my previously stated arguments seems to be fixed for the most obvious parts. Thank you. However, I am going to remove the first sentence of "Political Affiliation", as I see it as clear weasel wording. Focus still remains on his "Nazi" ideas however, even if you did include a bit more on others.
The second of my previously stated arguments (paragraph two) remained, but I moved it.
The third of my previously stated arguments (paragraph two) remains. I don't know what pictures are copyrighted or aren't, but I know the most recent of him are copyrighted to Audrey Ewell and Aaron Aites. So, to solve this problem, I have removed the picture entirely, until someone wishes to place a recent picture with all of Wikipedia's rules followed.
NPOV dispute remains until others discuss it, however long that takes. This page is the first result for Varg Vikernes in a Google search, and it is very important that it is accurate and balanced. Please allow others to discuss the situation, Zara1709. If you remove it again before my arguments are resolved, I will only place it back once again.Alphaknave (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For someone who wants to insist on doing thinks by policy you display a remarkable lack of knowledge on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. 1) Administrators don't have more power on the content of article then the standard user, they only have access to more technical features. In exchange the are required to be more wp:civil, which is the reason why I would never apply for adminship. If you want a comment from an admin, just say so, then I should be able to get one over here in no- time.
2) Whether a picture is copyrighted or not does not make a difference, when it is used under fair use. See: Wikipedia:Non-free content. This is debated on the image page. If you had checked that page, you would have known that this picture, that we use under Fair Use is copyrighted to a Norwegian TV station and not to "Audrey Ewell" or "Aaron Aites", whoever they are. Of course we could theoretically replace this image with a not-copyrighted one. We just need a volunteer for taking a picture of a convinced murderer.
3a) Vikernes notability as writer; Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are currently no reliable sources that even confirm that the contents of were indeed written by Vikernes. No reliable sources -> not notable. But whereas has not been noted at all by reliable sources (webforums don't count), Lords of Chaos has been used as source by Matthias Gardell and Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, actual academics who have written books on the topic. This is kind of a pity, because I suppose that Goodrick-Clarke would have come to a different conclusion if he had known the occultist stuff on
3b)Since there are not reliable sources that refer to, you can't come along an demand the inclusion of the contents of into the article according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." But a popular documentary on Heavy Metal is a reliable source, and deserves enough weight in the article to be used as reference at the top of it. It is not biased to mention in the tagline that he has been described as "the most notorious metal musician of all time", since most people will know him as that. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) suggests that the opening paragraph of an biography should give why "Why the person is significant", and Vikernes is clearly significant as a criminal and a metal musician, and not as a writer.
That should be enough for now. I am going to revert some of your edits ( I don't care whether we say verbatim that he " has been commonly labeled a Neo-Nazi," since the details of this are included anyway.) I could continue to explain the difference between an academic and an occultist later, if that is necessary, but I suppose you wouldn't understand it anyway. There is no need to treat the Edda like the Bible. It's not a Holy Book - except for some neopagans - but a collection of poems. Zara1709 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I got to take a little think back here. As I've heard recently, Atlantis is mentioned in the Edda, albeit only in the later Prose Edda. The earlier Poetic Edda does not include such a reference. At least that explains where Herman Wirth and others got the wild idea of Atlantis from. Of course, this doesn't change anything. Unless you want to belief that Odin and Atlantis stuff anyway, it far more likely that Snorri Sturluson just picked up some rumours about the Greek Atlantis here. Anyway, I will check what the Edda actually says in Lost continents if I ever find the time for it: But you don't need to be a Scandinavicist to see that something is wrong with such a statement:
"Well, I wouldn't use the term "Hyperboreans", but I guess that is irrelevant. Obviously I cannot say for sure, but it seems the Hyperboreans, to stick to Your term, came from Atlantis to Europe, when Atlantis was covered with ice, some 80.000 years ago. The ruins of Atlantis most likely lie under the ice of Antarctica (thus it sank into "a sea" of ice), and a natural disaster forced the Hyperboreans to move to other parts of the world (it must be a misprint, because Hyperborea was in the Arctic - ed.). Some places they settled in uninhabited lands, and some places they settled in parts of the world that were inhabited by other races. Some tribes were assimilated by larger populations of other races (like in America, some 10.000-20.000 years ago), others perished, and the only tribe that survived "unpolluted" was the one that ended up in Europe. This tribe is the origin of all the European (that is "white") peoples - and this is of course the tribe I am talking about when I say we all had the same language and religion in the past. " [2]
No matter whether you call them Hyperboreans or Atlanteans, there was no ancient tribe living 80000 years ago on some fancy lost continent before that one was deluged (or covered with ice in this case) and they migrated through the world to ultimately form the 'white' people, aside from those who were 'polluted' by interbreeding. I could now go on and argue that such nonsense is not even Neopaganism, but the racist-gnostic dualism of Ariosophy, but that is beside the point. After all, we don't have any source at all that would make the 'writings' of Vikernes on his homepage notable, not even your usual occultist webforum. This also goes for his 'interpretation' of Lords of the Rings, so I think I will shorten that passage when I get to rewrite the article, and that should be later today or sometime in the next week. I guess I start by removing the neutrality-tag. Zara1709 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest saying, "it far more likely that Snorri Sturluson just picked up some rumours about the Greek Atlantis here" to be more nonsensical than the idea that the Greeks and Germanics both had a legendary concept of "Atlantis", considering all European religions and societies share many attributes, despite being totally isolated from one another for the most part. (I mean, you think this is less likely than an Icelandic man in the 13th century randomly picking unique Greek legends and shoving them into his accounts of Germanic sagas for the hell of it? Geographically, they are very much separated, and I don't think he would have even been aware of this, let alone falsify his accounts of his own people's history. For that sake, we can assume all he writes is irrelevant, considering he might have spiced up his work with bits of other peoples tales and myths.)
Either way, I believe Vikernes was trying to give a theory concerning the legend's origin, as he did say, "Obviously I cannot say for sure...", since he assumed everyone knew he was merely speculating and trying to put pieces together from many sources. (Seems he often forgets to include that what he is saying is a hypothesis, on Internet published articles; luckily, his writing is more secure in his books (from what I've seen he actually uses citations :0 )). If Sturluson is to believed (and even if he isn't; Varg usually writes from a pan-European perspective), the legend of Atlantis was very much a part of the legends/mythology/tales (whatever you want to call them) of the Germanic peoples, and so an explanation of where the tale might have originated is certainly relevant to (neo-Germanic) Paganism. I think you misunderstand Vikernes' statement as a claim that there was a separate continent, somehow exempt from the geological history of plate tectonics. He was referring to the covering of Scandinavia by ice & glaciers (linking this to the "sinking" described in the Atlantis tale (such a detail can be lost after so long)) during the last glacial period ("...along the coast of Ultima Thule, ancient Norway..." from "Paganism: Part IX - The Ancient Democracy"; "Thule (Atlantis)" from "Paganism: Part XIII - Pagan Love"). Where do you think Norway's fjords came from! On another topic, I was watching a History Channel show that told of Europeans in the Americas at around the time he said, so I don't know how you missed this (that is, if you dispute this part of his theory), considering it was on TV!
I will not waste my breath of these subjects anymore (takes time from my own research, which I hope every Pagan does in their spare time), but I hope you stick to telling facts ABOUT VIKERNES (for example: He wrote these books: 1997 - Vargsmål, 2000 - Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse, 2001 - Guide To The Norse Gods And Their Names, 2002 - Irminsûl, etc--is therefore a "writer", just as much as Tolkien or J. K. Roweling are writers, and needs a bibliography section just as those writers have), instead of trying to "safeguard" neo-Paganism (a goal which you have made painfully clear). This is a biography, not a neo-Pagan information contest or Nazi protest zone or what have you. (Really... your Nazi-phobic phrases really get annoying after a while; how about some explanation on your claims that this topic of trying to finally explain Europeans' origins and similarities both language-wise and culturally, when so many did not communicate enough to transfer such similarities, is nothing but "the racist-gnostic dualism of Ariosophy"...) Remove the balanced tag; I just hope people don't take this article too seriously and go read about the man and what he writes on your own, free from prejudgment on That's all from me; I think I've put up a good fight.
P.S. I apologize if you or anyone find my sentences too long, too parenthesis-overburdened, or confusing, but I promise they all make sense. :)
Alphaknave (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
But I am sticking to the facts here: If the Edda was indeed written by people who once dwelled in Atlantis, wouldn't you then find a reference to Atlantis also in the older Edda and not only in the younger? Besides from that - wouldn't someone not have found the sunken continent using sonar in the meantime? And you develop obscure theories about a race going back 80'000 years, it doesn't matter id you add an "Obviously I cannot say for sure..." for good measure. Furthermore, you haven't read the Edda yourself, really, otherwise you would have already brought the whole argument "but Atlantis is mentioned in the Edda" earlier, wouldn't you. You wouldn't have needed to wait for me conceding that point. And I will even have to concede the that Vikernes is a writer, after all. Of course, wheras the Lord of the Rings, e.g., is literature, Vikerenes' writings are ideology, or, if you'd prefer the term, racist myths. And of course people are free to go to to look for themselves. They will find passages like this:
"The unhealthy children, the sick children, the weak or otherwise not ideal children were set out in the forest to be eaten by wolves. They didn't do this because they were poor, but because their natural religion dictated this.
And this is where the modern "Pagans" realizes that they perhaps are not "Pagans" after all, because they think this is a cruel custom. However, that is the Pagan philosophy of life: only let the healthy, the strong and even only the moral, the good and beautiful survive. Only Christians appreciates degenerated children, genetically defective creatures that should not be allowed to survive, grow up and reproduce in the first place, and by doing that destroy our genetic properties in the long run. Only Christians think quantity rather than quality. Only Christians think it is terrible to kill one individual rather than let this one individual infest a whole community with his or her (genetic) poison."
According to Vikernes, only an eugenic and racist pagan is a real pagan. I think that this is obvious from his 'writings'. Similar to all the other Neopagan movements, Vikernes claims that he is rediscovering an ancient religion, but unlike the Wiccans, etc.. Vikernes ancient religion is racist. Zara1709 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lords Of Chaos[edit]

To reinforce a point made previously -

although many may agree that Lords of Chaos by M. Moynihan & D. Søderlind is a great book, Varg has stated in a review he has written on that Lords Of Chaos is VERY factually inaccurate, to put it simply. I think it would be a good idea to avoid quoting information directly from this book on the Varg Vikernes wiki in the future. Please treat the information in this book (not only on Varg but the entire Norwegian black metal scene) as unauthoritive until you can find a good reference to back it up, and have checked Varg's word - quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative, provided they are from (this is because there are many false statements and interviews with "Varg Vikernes" on the internet).

Varg's review of Lords Of Chaos can be found here. Please check this page before you use information from Lords Of Chaos. You may also want to quote Varg's point of view on the information.

I have left the remaining statements from Lords Of Chaos on the Varg Vikernes wiki there. They are very neutral quotations so I believe they should stay. (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (Temple-of-Monkeys).

So somehow this review, or a potential autobiography, written by a controversial figure known for being a pathological liar and sociopath is somehow credible? I'll answer that one for you: No, it's not. In fact, it's far less credible than "Lords of Chaos". This is exactly the kind of situation that makes Wikipedia the unreliable source that it is: any information that is critical of a person, film, political theory, or whatever, is instantly claimed as "not a valid source" by all the die-hards that cannot view things objectively. I posted properly cited information from that book regarding Vikernes' belief in eugenics and was accused of libel. Unbelievable. I'm not going to bother re-entering my edit right now because I don't have time for this, but rest assured that this page is a mess and is full of bias by the handful of Vikernes "fans" and Nazi-sympathizers. I'm not signing this specifically because I do not want supporters of this psychopath to leak onto my un-used page that I don't even check. Keep this in mind: my opinion of the guy is that he is a murderous sociopath who lies for a living and obsessively attaches himself to a new ideology every couple of years. I would say that he does this to try and remain relevant, but honestly I think it's because he truly has no capability of independant thought and no intellectual strength. However, you won't see me include this in an edit because it would be a subjective edit and I do not make subjective edits on Wikipedia. You all should do the same, rather than turn on "attack mode" anytime someone introduces anything remotely critical of your idol, properly cited, that makes you unhappy. There is nothing more unbiased and improper to cite than statements made by someone on their own webpage regarding themselves that conflict with the recorded record. People who do not understand this, people who believe only what they want to believe, these people have no place editing on Wikipedia.
That's a fair point you raise. I don't know who you refer to when you mention being accused of libel, but if I offended you myself I would like to apologise.
What I'm trying to get across about Lords of Chaos is that all of the content in the book is original research by Moynihan and Søderlind, and there is no way to prove whether it's authorative unless a secondary reference is sourced. If the information in Lords of Chaos is correct, then a secondary reference will be able to back it up, and there won't be a problem. The review by Varg Vikernes is actually quite objective for the most part, and he speaks about a few of the factual inaccuracies in the book. I ask you to read it with an open mind, even if you don't agree with the views of Varg Vikernes.
This quote is directly from Wikipedia's reliable sources page - "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". Therefore, it's alright to use quotes by Vikernes about himself. Think about it, is it right to ignore information on Varg Vikernes from Vikernes himself in preference of information from a third party?
If one source says something about Vikernes, but Vikernes himself says something else, include both views. It's easy. If information from a source is proven to be inaccurate by other sources, then it should not be used. If you're unsure about a source or think the information may be considered libellious, then talk about it on this discussion page, that's what it's for.
To all users: please keep all edits balanced and neutral. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It is clear Temple-of-Monkeys has been brainwashed by The Count. I love it how he says;

" Please treat the information in this book (not only on Varg but the entire Norwegian black metal scene) as unauthoritive until you can find a good reference to back it up, and have checked Varg's word - quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative"

In other words, we're supposed to believe everything The Mighty Born-To-Be-White Count says, because "quotes from Varg himself are usually the most authorative". HAHHAHA clearly this sad sap has never attended university. Soldier on, kid! (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"What I'm trying to get across about Lords of Chaos is that all of the content in the book is original research by Moynihan and Søderlind, and there is no way to prove whether it's authorative unless a secondary reference is sourced" And who exactly has the "authority" you keep badgering about?? Varg Vikernes?? Did it cross your narrow-minded unicelular brain that perhaps, MAYBE, just maybe, Varg Vikernes could - I don't know - be lieing? I have read his review on the book (Lord of Chaos) and I'm amazed anybody could take him seriously with though such as:

"why do they give a Jew the opportunity to air his thoughts on this subject to begin with? Of all the people in Scandinavia why do Moynihan and Søderlind want you to sit down and listen to what this Jew has to say about this subject?" - Uhm jeezz, I don't know Varg. It's a little something called RESEARCH objective people do. Crazy as it sounds, it's pretty important shit. Out in the real world we don't just think stuff up like you do, we gotta have evidence and whatnot.

Keep the following extract in mind, it will be usefull in the one after:

"I am even accused of having read La Vey's "Satanic Bible". They even interview people about these guys and their philosophies as if they played a role in the so-called "Rise Of The Metal Underground". Now tell me; do they know if I have read books by these men or not? They could have asked me, of course, but instead they just assume I and everybody else have." - Varg is basically rightfully saying how anyone can assume you (or an entire population) have read something, when they could have in fact not read it. Varg 1 - Lord of Chaos Authors 0.


"I mentioned Venom and the fact that I never listened to their music. In fact the only person in the whole Black Metal scene in Norway who had listened to Venom was Aarseth (although he still claimed he liked them a lot I - luckily - never heard him play any of their records)." - Wait, stop the bus!. How exactly does Varg Vikernes know for a fact that out of "the WHOLE BLACK METAL SCENE IN NORWAY" the only one to have been exposed to VENOM was Øystein. I'm guessing he asked EVERYONE in the Black Metal Scene in Norway. It'd be interesting to see what the guys from Carpathian Forest have to say about that, or heck, even the guys in MAYHEM. How could they not have been exposed? if there were covers of Venom's "Black Metal", "Welcome to Hell" and "At War With Satan" LP's in Øystein's Helvete shop. There's a picture of it in PAGE 70 of the revised edition (2003) of Lord of Chaos. Varg -1 - Lord of Chaos Authors 2.

"verybody else in the scene either hated Venom or didn't even know who they were." - If EVERYBODY hated venom, how can at least one person not know who they are? Varg's clearly not big in logic. If some apples are red, at least one is green. If all apples are red, none could be green. And we're supposed to take as "authoritative" the diatrabe Varg spews? It's not even logical.

"As an example I can tell that the first time I even heard about them (Venom) was in 1991!" - Didn't Varg say up there he "never listened to their (Venom) music"? Maybe I'm "misinterpreting", "taking out of context", "misunderstanding" because of "malicious lies" made as a "result of ignorance" "extreme exaggerations", "and/or third-hand information at best" although I'm quoting straight of his page.

"Still they keep nagging about Venom throughout the book, and list them as some sort of origin to the whole movement and the ideas it was built upon." Clearly, Varg isn't too big on reading comprehension. The book doesn't list them as "origin of the whole movement" nor the "ideas it was built upon" in fact, the book mentions Venom using Satanic imagery for purely entertainment puposes, no different from a Kiss show or a horror movie.

So there. Is that the "authority" Temple-of-Monkeys was talking about? Seems to be as authoritative as the janitor calling the shots in a open heart surgery. I'd keep dissecting Varg's little review but as he'd say himself;

"There are better things to do in life than diving into such a pool of mud". (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC) "


So, it's April 2008 - has he been released? (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

googling, there seem to be rumours that he has, but no quotable confirmation.[3] I suppose it is likely he has been, since there would likely have been noise if parole had been postponed once more. dab (𒁳) 09:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest news says that vargs parole was denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

under the section about his release it states that "He was eligible for parole in April, 2008 but it is still unknown (to the public) whether he was released or not."

later on in the "escape attempts and expected release" section, it states "Varg Vikernes was denied parole again in June 2008, although he is allowed to leave Tromsø Prison for a short period of time to visit his family, including two children. He also owns a farm in Telemark, Norway" according to my knowledge of the Gregorian calendar: June is after april, so is the first sentence required anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Full name"[edit]

Though the Norwegian government may legally have the name for him as he originally changed it without middle names, it is notable that he himself has called himself Varg Qisling (or Kvisling, a family name of his related to the Quisling name which he has claimed means "from a noble linage", he went back & forth between "Q" & "Kv" I think because he once argued that "Q" was not a foreign character but an ancient rune at one point, maybe prompting this.) Buré (or Buri; his mother's maiden name and a figure from Norse creation folklore) Larssøn (I assume another family name, maybe his father is Lars, a traditional Nordic naming convention "Son of Lars".) Vikernes. (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Iraq, etc.[edit]

Yes, this is actually taken from the interview in LoC. The full quote is: "You grew up in the middle east?" - "Iraq, in Baghad. I went to school there for one year. My father was working for Saddam Hussein! They were developing a computer program to control the economy of Iraq." So just that you don't think this is fake. If you don't belief it, you'd only have to take a look at LoC yourself. Zara1709 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-stated the material without the strong objectivity. I suggest adding a secondary reference to back up the Iraq/Racism bit. See WP:BLP. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  12:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not a case for WP:BLP! All the words in ""s are actualy quotes from Vikernes or his mother as they are printed in Lords of Chaos. Vikernes has made strong attacks on the book in his review of it, but he does not deny that he has given the interview. [4] If he would like to deny that, he can always sue Feral House, that has published the book. I am very well able to evaluate the reliability of sources and I am trying to write a biography here. One thing important in a biography his the occupation of the parents of the person. It took me quite some effort to figure out who professions they had, and you are completely destroying the content if you change that to: "In the book, Vikernes reveals that both his mother and father had professional occupations during his childhood."... If you are concerned about this, drop a notice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Zara1709 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems rather one-sided just to use information from one source, especially since there is not guarantee that the information is 100% accurate – Even if it came from the mouth of Varg himself, there’s no guarantee that he was being sincere. While the source itself is reliable, other references should be used to back up the material. For example, The section claims “Varg’s father was working for Saddam Hussein! They were developing a computer program to control the economy of Iraq.", and states in a prose that insinuates the quote is actual fact. Unless there is a reliable source that actually verifies this, it’s merely one of Vikernes’ quotes. Should we state Vikernes interpretation of the events of Aarseth’s murder in the same way? If so, why didn’t the Norwegian court system see it that way? Thus, this article should use Varg’s quotes as references, but instead document what he said in its given context. This does not seem like a matter of BLP, it just seems like a general problem. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So it is theoretically possible that Vikernes has made up the stuff about the Nazi flag... But is there any reason why he should have done this? Of course, if you find a source that definitely says that there is no evidence of Vikernes expressing an admiration of Nazism (or better: of swastikas) before his imprisonment, then we would have to add both sources to the article. If you are concerned about this statement taken out of context, I can add half a sentence on that. And obviously, there have to some sentences 'in prose'. I can't just copy LoC, because that would constitute a copyright violation, apart from the point that a prose text with in-line quotes looks better. And, as you can see from the current article, both Vikernes and his mother confirm that he went to an Iraqi primary school for a year.Zara1709 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to take the concerns into account: In LoC 1998 (p.146) Vikernes is first asked "When did you interest in World War II Germany begin?" Vikernes replies among other that he was a skinhead when he was 15 or 16; this is not yet added to the article. Then Moynihan asks: "How does you mother feel about you racial views?" Vikernes reply ("my mother was actually afraid that I was going to come home with a black girl! She is very race concious." is already included in the article, he says a little more, but this is not really relevant, aside from "She could just as well be my friend instead of my mother," what I have taken to indicate a positive relation. Then Vikernes is asked: "How about your father?" Vikernes replies that he has "little contact." "They're divorced." "He was in the Navy." Then comes the stuff about the swastika flag, the the comments that hs mother was in business and very efficient. The next question is "You grew up in the middle east?", for that one, see above. Zara1709 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I would then recommend having an experienced editor look at the section, just for brief copy-edit. IMO, it's all little too quote heavy :p. I'm not going to deny the allegations that Vikernes may have been a Nazi at one point in time based on various articles of evidence, but this article should not blatantly state that his time in Iraq caused him to bcome 'race conscious'. It would be more appropriate (per WP:NPOV) to say "According to an interview in Loc, Vikernes claims...", only for the sake this article could always use another view.  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I admit, I don't have nearly 13000 mainspace edits, but I've already got over 3000... No, seriously, I actually used quotes that extensively because I wanted to be as close to the source as possible. And that his what the source says: "When did you become aware of racial matters?" - "When I was six years old I had a quarrel with a teacher, and I though 'You monkey!' I called the teacher a monkey in Iraqi elementary school. Of course, normally they'd hit the children right then and there, but they didn't dare to hit me because I was white." Since you have brought this up, I can replace 'primary school ' with 'elementary school' and remove the 'first'. Zara1709 (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend reading the styles of of a featured article, and attempt to emulate their style of writing. Quotes are fine, but when you introduce too many, then who is really writing the article? Also, the section in its current state introduces somewhat of a contradiction: Vikernes is married and has a fifteen-year old daughter (born 1993) and a son (born 2007).[9] According to an interview made in 2004, he said he was not married and there was no mention of a son (naturally).[10] If both sources are accurate, this implies he was married sometime after 2004 and before or in 2008. - the section first implies that the first source is not accurate, then attempts to state that both are possibly accurate. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  14:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the 2nd sentence about the marriage was added User:Alphaknave [5], with whom I have a disagreement about this article anyway. If we have any featured article about an extremist like Vikernes, please let me know. Also, feel free to search for any more sources about him. Zara1709 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find an FA status article for an extremest, unless you consider the former-FA, Che Guevara. Here's a FA for a musician, Maynard James Keenan. Here is also an article from blabbermouth, containing a letter from Varg's mother, and statement that claims he is married w/ two kids.[6]; here is an article that compares Varg to Charlie Manson.[7] I'll keep looking. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Reading the material on again I found better information on Vikernes family. The reason I asked whether we have a featured article about an extremist like Vikernes is - obviously - that people tend to be shocked by when they read about someone having a Swastika flag at home, etc. On the other hand, you cannot want to leave this information out, because that would amount to whitewashing. Especially in these cases of extremist/musicians. From the discussion on this talk page, there seem to be people who know Vikernes for his music and don't think that he is a racist. Well, sorry, read the homepage, he explicitly says that he is a racist. And then you have the interview in LoC where he says that his racism goes back to the incident in Iraq. You can't leave this stuff out, because this one of the explanations that have been brought forward for his later crimes, although SrM (and also LoC, which has this abstruse Wotanism thesis) hold that Vikernes moved to the extreme right only after the crimes. This is the point that Kevin Coogan makes in the review of Lords of Chaos that is reprinted on that wep page:
But should Odin take the rap for Vikernes' "Viking ethics"? LOC offers strong evidence that Vikernes, who came from a divorced family and was raised by his mother Lene Bore, was a fascist well before he became a metalhead. Vikernes reports that his mother "was actually afraid that I was going to come home with a black girl! She's very race-conscious...She could just as well be my friend as she is my mother."[8]
Actually this article is the only one to describe the ideological content of Lords of Chaos, and for this reason it also includes so much about things that aren't directly related to this, like Evola and industrial music. Coogans needs to put Moynihan's interpretation of the events in Norway into a larger context, so that it becomes somehow clear what he means if he classifies this as "counter-cultural fascism". But instead of just quoting Coogan to the extend that Vikernes comes from a political right family background, I though that it would be appropriate to give the actual lines from LoC. Hopefully I will be able to expand this article further, so that it actually discusses all 4 or 5 explanations why Vikernes murdered Euronymous... Zara1709 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Zara1709, just stop writing. We aren't questioning your ability to copy quotes from a book, what we're questioning is the accuracy of the book itself. I STRONGLY suggest you get your information from Varg's official website, rather than the book Lords Of Chaos. I don't want to personally attack you, but you've gone too far.

Varg himself has written a review of Lords of Chaos, and this is just part of his introduction:

I dare say the vast majority of all the statements made in this book are either misinterpretations; taken out of context; misunderstandings; malicious lies made by enemies; a result of ignorance; extreme exaggerations; and/or third-hand information at best. This includes the statements attributed to me!

Now what do you think about the factual accuracy of your stupid little book?!

Varg's LoC review can be found HERE and although its lengthy, in your case its well worth reading.

With regards to why Varg killed Euronymous read THIS. Everyone should read this set of articles before they decide to write on this page.

Attempting to "discuss all 4 or 5 explanations why Vikernes murdered Euronymous" when Varg has written an article with the ONE (single) true explanation in it is ridiculous, and would be pure speculation.

Now, ask yourself this question - who should you trust more when it comes to information about Varg Vikernes? A book written by a self-proclaimed Norwegian-American and his idiot sidekick, or the actual Varg Vikernes himself? Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


This guy murdered someone and the section on it strongly makes it out to seem like self-defense and really only tells skinhead-boy's lie side of the story. He was convicted of first-degree murder, not manslaughter or murder in self-defense. He went in there with a large knife, military gloves, and two alibis set up, and all of this was present in the trial and it is all documented in Lords of Chaos, which I am sure many here are familiar with by now. I'm not going to change it, but I suggest it be changed take out the clear pro-Blargh sentiment. He is a cold-blooded killer who literally stabbed his former friend in the back, even according to HIS side of the story. Lowest of the low. Fermentor (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Think about it for a second - Varg's account of the murder is the most accurate one, because Euronymous can't exactly give his side of the story, and Snorre was having a smoke outside while it happened. Also, there's no reason for Varg to lie about the murder, he's already been in prison for 14 years... its not like lying is going to get him out.

So who else do you suggest should give their account of the murder? ...Michael Moynihan? ...Didrik Søderlind? ...The Norwegian Media?

Who's gonna provide the most factually accurate account - a speculative book based on lies and hearsay, or Varg himself?

So, once again, I am suggesting to another Lords Of Chaos reader to read A Burzum Story: Part II - Euronymous in order to straighten their facts out.

In rebuttal to your argument, Varg did not intend to drive the 400-500km journey from Bergen to Oslo just to kill Euronymous, he went to return the record contract Euronymous had sent him. Snorre went to Oslo with Varg because at that time he was the session guitarist for Mayhem and had made up some new riffs that he wanted to show Euronymous. Varg intended to leave Snorre in Oslo, and to continue driving to Sarpsborg with a box of Burzum t-shirts to give to Metalion of 'Slayer' magazine. Your theory about Varg being a backstabber isn't true either, seeing as he only stabbed Euronymous in the left shoulder and the forehead.

Please keep your opinions to yourself, they DON'T belong on Wikipedia. Here's some advice - go and make a blog - then you'll be able to voice your opinion towards people who actually care. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep my opinions off the main page, but I sure as shit won't keep them to myself here, where all I see are people who strangely worship the ground this guy walks on. I'm not going to rant about this guy anymore, he's not worth the time, but get this straight: He was convicted, in a court of law, of murder. That is not opinion. That is fact. Think about that for a second. And your argument maintaining his innocence is ridiculously delusional. Get a grip on reality.Fermentor (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I never argued once that he's innocent. Do not claim that I said things that I didn't. Anyway, my point is that the article needs to remain balanced - it needs to cover the crimes from the views of those involved well as that of the police/media/public, etc. The fact that Varg is a murderer does not mean that he needs to be punished on Wikipedia. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos, etc.[edit]

I was busy with other topics in the meantime, but now, when I am probably going back to this one, there are some things I just have to say.

1) Lords of Chaos was used by the few academics who have written about Vikernes (Matthias Gardell, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke), was not.

2)Vikernes attacks Loc strongly in the rewiew on www.burzum org, but the rewiew on is quite different: [9] If you look a the two home pages themselves, you would come to the conclusion that www. is closer to be thr 'official' homepage of Vikernes, but there isn't any secondary source for it. All of these sources are more or less not reliable. We don't even have a reliable source that confirms the authenticity of

3) Even when Vikernes attacks LoC strongly in the review on, he doesn't deny having Moynihan given the interview. In fact, he complains that the authors were not even "asking for [his] side of the story." He says that some of his statements were edited or misattributed, but he isn't very specific which ones exactly, because he doesn't want to dive "into such a pool of mud." Really, some details would be nice. What I could say on this, though, after reading both LoC and is, that there are apparent ideological differences between Moynihan and Vikernes. From what I've read in LoC, I would say that the author who had the final word in its content was one of those Miguel Serrano-type adherents of Esoteric Nazism. Only that the book avoids to drop the name Serrano. But with Nazi Ufos and occult archetypes the ideological content of the book points into that direction. Vikernes, on the other hand, is more like an original Nazi paganist from the 1930s. He is explicitly racist (unlike Moynihan; LoC only includes a bad joke about Tom Araya "who isn't even remotely Aryan, but from a hispanic background" (sic)), he advocates an agrarian society and he even calls his ideology Odalism. I mean - why would he pick the same rune as the Nazi theorists of blood and soil? If you take these ideological differences into account, it's no surprise that Vikernes has a bad view of LoC. Moynihan brings in the pyromania motive because it fits his archetype line of argument. Too bad that Vikernes went through a lot of trouble during his trial to make clear that he wasn't a lunatic. If the person(s) responsible for LoC had just asked him on "pyromania" or just had the ability to report accurately about the trial, they would have seen that it doesn't fit this case. Of course, that would have denied them the whole Fire--Ragnarok--Rise-of-the-Odinic-Archetype story.

In summary: We are dealing with an extremist underground here. Expect lies and treachery everywhere! Unless someone here has a direct connection to one of the participants, we will never be able to sort out what part of LoC is edited and which one isn't. So I think it's fair if I go by the secondary sources - and they all refer to LoC. Zara1709 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1) Just because academics have used Lords of Chaos in their writings doesn't mean in ANY way that Lords of Chaos is authorative. This works the same way for The academics you mention probably don't know about because they have limited their research to written publications, they can't see past the ends of their noses, or any reason like that. All it suggests is that those academics are much more gullible than most by believing what Lords of Chaos says.
2) There is a lot of evidence that is Burzum's official homepage, if you bother to read any of the articles. It is clear that the administrators have written contact with Varg in prison. They are the first site to release statements from Varg, as well as pictures, news, etc. The fact that they released his prison mailing address at one point points quite strongly towards this. There is even a SCANNED copy of a letter under The Lords of Lies: Part II, sent to Varg from an unnamed member of a band which Old Funeral played a gig with. He talks to Varg about Euronymous and why he had to kill him. This letter was released to the public by Varg to show the true reason as to why he killed Euronymous, and that the theories created by the media are wrong. There are also many other articles which show that this is the official site, including the 'Bard's Tale' articles, and the articles on Paganism. These are personal interests of Varg, and no other Burzum 'fansite' has anything like these.
If you take an objective point of view, the information that Varg provides on regarding black metal is far more logical and normal than the idiotic theories Moynihan discusses in Lords of Chaos. Also, the information that Varg gives ties in very well with other accounts of the early Black Metal scene, given by bands such as Darkthrone, etc. The outrageous story provided by Moynihan is so crazy, I don't understand how you can't realise that its pure fiction. is not associated with Varg at all. Varg has made a few written statements through towards the administrators of this site, asking them to stop what they are doing and remove all of the 'information' on their site from the internet. There is an example of one of these statements here. This is an unofficial site which was created after Varg had a falling out with Rainer, the admin of when it used to be Varg's official site. Rainer sold the website to the new owners without Varg's consent and the new version of was created. They have even released an open letter to Varg as to why they continue to defy his wishes and keep running the site, which I'm sure you have probably read. The small amount of information on this site is mostly false. I suppose you would need a secondary source to prove that, say, www.metallica.comis Metallica's official website as well?
3) Using Lords of Chaos as a source is going to allow Moynihan's ideological bias to pollute the information on Wikipedia. From what I believe, Vikernes did give an interview to Moynihan, but this doesn't mean that the interview was included - even in part - in Lords of Chaos. There is no way to know what is right and what is wrong, unless we talk to Varg himself. Therefore, it would be unwise to use any of this information. And anyway, Varg isn't against Lords of Chaos because of his ideological differences with Moynihan, he's against it because of its factual inaccuracies and over-hyping of the early Black Metal scene. Even Darkthrone said in an interview that Lords of Chaos is just hype.
To conclude - Anybody could write a book and have it published, but this does not mean that its authorative. For all you know, I could be writing a biography on you, right now! It's clear that I know nothing about you, but that wouldn't stop me from writing anything I like. It doesn't matter anyway - as long as the publishers like what I write, they'll publish it. That shoots down the theory that because Lords of Chaos is a book that you bought from a shop; its contents are true. Lords of Chaos falls into exactly the same category as the Norwegian media when it comes to black metal - mostly lies and conjecture made up to sell copies and make people think that the early Black Metal scene was very extreme.
As far as sources go, it would be far more wise to assume that is official - juat as it claims to be - and to use that site for information. Also, the video documentary 'Satan Rides The Media' by Torstein Grude is very good too, and Varg gives this a positive review here on Varg says that although the documentary has a few flaws, its content is good. In the review, Varg says:
Torstein Grude was no an expert in this field. He didn't claim to be an expert either, like many do. Like I said, he interviewed a lot of Black Metal people and got to know this milieu pretty well, and being a "malicious bastard", I just have to mention that he also talked to the Norwegian co-writer of "Lords Of Chaos", and concluded that this guy had no clue whatsoever, so he didn't bother to interview him and include him in the film.
There are some conclusions and assertions in this film that I disagreed with and some things are outright wrong, but all in all Torstein Grude did a good job and as far as I remember this documentary is rather good. He is indeed far more knowledgeable and trustworthy than everybody else that has tried to unveil the secrets of this milieu, not least compared to self-proclaimed experts on the subject, like the useless writers of "Lords Of Chaos", "Djevelen Danser" and "Lucifer Rising". He had to keep in mind that this film had to be accepted by TV, though, so perhaps he was more critical towards some of the people involved than he really wanted to, but I have to stress that this is just speculations. I don't know any of this for sure, I just choose to believe so because he is a professional and a clever person. He knew what he had to do to get it on the air.
There is also a new documentary on Norwegian Black Metal being produced called 'Until The Light Takes Us' and this will cover Varg Vikernes in depth, with video interviews from inside his prison. This will probably be the most authorative source of all, but until it comes out we will have to wait. I have seen a very short clip from this documentary on YouTube, of Varg in his cell talking about the drug addicts within the prison. Its most definitely Varg in the clip - no lies there.
Just because Varg is an 'underground extremist' does not mean we should expect lies and treachery. And, by no way should we allow any 'lies and treachery' to leak onto Wikipedia.
Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Please respect all sources. I believe Vikernes is writing an auto-biography (or has already) and I'm sure that will clear a lot up when ever it is published. Alphaknave (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again: Writer?[edit]

This is just obscene. I don't deny that Vikernes has written pamphlets Germanic neopaganism. However, the sources I got only mention this marginally. The article in the collection by Kaplan only says: "vakr Vikernes has been busy promoting his odinist and National Socialist philosphy from behind bars..." 1 sentence - as opposed to about one paragraph about Vikernes involvment in the Black Metal scene, and this article brings this under the category of 'poltical activism', too and not of 'writing'. Goodrick-Clarke includes two paragraphs on the BM scene, one on Vikernes musical activities and the church arsons and one on Vikernes' ideology. There you can read: " He [Vikernes] has also written a book Vargsmal, underlining his role as chieftain of the Norwegian heathen front." he brings this under the category of political activism, too. Gardell only quotes once from Vargsmal, the part about the grave desecration, he doesn't mention Vikernes 'writings' any further. Coogan doesn't deal with Vikernes' writings at all, neither does Satan rides the Media, if I remember correctly.

So, in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially Wikipedia:undue weight, it would be misleading to say that he is a writer. Of course, why should it put up with this? After all, this article also includes a section on his musical equipment for which there is no reliable, secondary source. Well, there is a difference here. If someone his a fan of Vikernes' music then there is not much that I personally can say against that, other than to point out that the music is made by a convicted arsonist and murder with explicitly racist view; however, if someone is a fan of Vikernes' explicitly racist writings, then this gives me the impression that that someone is a racist, too. You might be saying: "So what, personal views are not the issue here," and that would be correct. An editors personal views are not of interest, as long as the edits stay within wp:NPOV and Wikipedia's other policies. But to say that Vikernes is a writer is at least misleading according to wp:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. " The only reliable sources we've got don't discuss his writing outside of Vikernes political views. This means that we could probably say that he's a 'political activist', but not that he is a writer. And actually, personal views are an issue here; I don't like racists and I don't need to be soft on people that I don't like. Zara1709 (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his book "Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse" is about mythology, not racism. you can find order info, isbn number, and number of pages here[Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse]. Since you have a history of seeing the word "writer" and not actually looking through the sources I'll go ahead and list it here. ISBN: 91-973819-0-X You are just ignoring the absolute fact that he not only writes, but has a published book. I know you don't like him, neither do I really, but a man who writes and publishes his writings (esp. a book) is a writer by occupation. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR PUNISHMENT! we are not going to ignore the fact that he is a righter becuase you ASSUME that ALL of his writings are racist (and ONLY about racism). Technically he's also a song writer, and the mythology book making him non fiction writer as well. you just hate him and don't want him to seem literate. Put it isn't NPOV. "He's mean, so I don't want people to think of him for his writings or music, just being racist and a murderer," but there's nothing you can do... he is a writer, he is a musician, he is an activist, he is a song writer, and he will be given credit on this page for ALL his works (not just ones YOU don't think are important enough to vandalize). I am not trolling, I'm stating facts and editing with the sources stated for everything. I will seek others to begin the process blocking you from editing if your trolling persist. If you don't like the FACT that he is a writer then I suggest you start looking at other articles. Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't include a "zara hates him" clause. and that's all you have.

I don’t see a murder, musician, writer, or even a Norwegian. I see a biographical article about the guy and I want the info complete. Zara, there was another group of people that hated a particular viewpoint and tried to censor most writings done about this view (sometimes to the point of directly burning the books) and I think you two would get along. Their called Nazi and your censoring vandalism would make them smile (while you‘re at it you might want to try to have all of his books burned, then One might not be able to call him a writer). But until that day I must stay with wikipedia’s NPOV. I have enough info to call him a writer and list his writings. You may provide sources to counter this info, but until then I will continueHe’s a writer, if you don’t like that then go obsess over a different article. I will not tolerate your vandalism for much longer before I start looking for others (who may be willing to ACTUALLY BE NEUTRAL) to stop this vandalism. Take the time to look over the sources and consider what wikipedia’s policy and guidelines actually are. And see if being racist means (to wikipedia‘s policy) is a reason for slander and omissions. (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you are talking about the book that Vikernes advertises on his homepage as follows:
"So, I say that unfortunately my work as a writer is known because of "Vargsmål". However, the only other book I have had published this far is "Germansk Mytologi Og Verdensanskuelse" (Teutonic Mythology And Worldview), written (in 1998) in Norwegian, so it has not been read by that many people. I called it "Teutonic" rather than "Scandinavian" solely to provoke the politically correct "intellectuals" in Norway, who seem to regret the fact that the Germans ("those horrible Nazis") share our religious and cultural traditions. The problem with publishing a book in Norwegian is that I am so boycotted in Norway that any form of distribution will always be hopeless, and even libraries refused to take it, and if they did, they often refused to let people borrow it (!?). A student I talked to in 2003 in Tønsberg told me the librarian let her borrow it only after she had assured her that it was for an essay she wrote in context with her university education and that she was old enough not to be influenced by it. Apparently we have a political censorship in the public libraries in Norway. (How very "democratic".) There is in other words no wonder that I am not well-known for writing about mythology... It should come to no surprise to anybody that the media in Norway has ignored this book completely, so I don't think many Norwegians even know it exists." (
1)He himself admits that he is not known as a writer. 2) He specifically comments on the political content of the book. ("those horrible Nazis").
And since the Norwegian edition is linked as a pdf on the hompage, I checked it out. It includes sentences like this one:
"Hevnen som vi ser forherliget i de islandske sagaene er ikke uttrykk for germansk ånd, men snarere uttrykk for forfall i den germanske ånd. Når vi vet at en overveldene stor del av den islandske befolkning er helt eller delvis av keltisk opprinnelse (rundt 90% visstnok) kommer årsaken til denne ugermanske tendensen klarere frem. Kelterne, som ble brakt til Island som treller, er såkalte kortskaller (brachycephale), i motsetning til oss germanere som er langskaller (dolichocephale)." (p.110)
Unfortunately I don't speak enough Norwegian to make out the exact meaning of this sentences, but talking about Craniometry in a book that is supposed to deal with "Teutonic Mythology And Worldview" is highly suspicious. Or do you want to argue that Vikernes is a biological anthropologist, too? Zara1709 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I did an ip check for the three ips involved:,,; All are AOL and point to the same address, 20166 Dulles, VA, as does the ip., that vandalised my talk page 2 months ago. diff 1, diff 2. I don't need to put up with this. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, create an user account, otherwise I'll just continue to handle this as vandalism. Zara1709 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is a college library computer, I don't know, nor care, what others have done on wikipedia with the computers here. Second, I'm in MS, not VA. Third, none of this as anything to do with the fact that you are a habitual vandalizer! I will continue to keep the article as is. PERIOD. (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this is what I wanted. Zara has kept my constructive edits and changed the wording from "wrote several pamphlets" to "authored several writings", I agree that mythology mentioned is covered (at least in Varg's case) with "neopaganism" and I thank Zara for keeping the edits we could reach an agreement on. As far as the things you mention. His writings do seem to be that of an atheist (a religious one albeit) but the sources are... well, inconclusive, more info will surface after he has served his time. As for composer, I've always defined a composer as someone who writes in musical notation for publication, which I have reason to think Varg is such. So with that I thank zara and apologize for the warring. Next time I'll discuss the problem first, once again I'm sorry. As far ass the ip check, the computers in this school are unable to go to several sites (or download from some) due to everyone acting like idiots (I can't download "home of the underdog" because of this) so If someone did say that about your mother I stand by that it wasn't me. I will take everyone's advice and create an account the next time I decide to edit. I consider the problem resolved, once again sorry for my newbie-ness, and thank you for compromising zara, I would like to make one statement about wikipedia, their needs to be guidelines on what an occupation is define as far as wikipedia is concerned, or maybe I just didn't see it. well, goodbye everybody. (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Zara, the fact that Vikernes is a "convicted arsonist and murder with explicitly racist view" is completely irrelevant to his music. And also, what Vikernes has written about is irrelevant to the fact that he is a writer or not. Now, according to, one of the definitions for 'writer' is a person who commits his or her thoughts, ideas, etc., to writing: an expert letter writer. Therefore, I believe that it would be fine to mention that Vikernes is a writer. Face it, his book Vargsmal is available to be bought online. He is as much a writer as any other person who has authored a printed publication. Vikernes stated on

If You by any chance wish to read anything written by me in the future You will have to wait for my books to be published (possibly under a pseudonym…) by individuals who will make sure my copyrights are respected.

Obviously, this shows that Vikernes intends to possibly write more books in the future as well, further supporting the generally accepted idea that he is a writer.
Things like this just make it even more obvious that you are most definitely against Varg Vikernes himself, and that your own personal viewpoints are 'leaking' onto this article. You need to put your views on racists - and other matters - aside when you write here. I can't believe you claim to maintain a NPOV, when you say things like "I don't like racists".
By the way - Varg is not a national socialist. On he has stated:

What makes me different from the "nazis" are basically three things; unlike them I am not socialistic (not even on a national level), I am not materialistic and I believe in (the ancient Scandinavian!) democracy.

It would be unwise to call Varg a national socialist from now on. If you do, it will just prove that you are willing to ignore the facts.
Also, I will be adding sources for the Equipment section as soon as possible. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a statement concerning the newly added line: "Later he became a prominent organizer for the Heathen Front and authored several writings on Germanic neopaganism that were only received within the neo-völkisch movements." This is simply untrue (and not cited) about his books "only received within the neo-völkisch movements". Perhaps "primarily received"? Even then, there is no specific source for this information and sounds construed based on assumption that only people involved in "neo-voelkisch movements" (whatever those are) have ever been interested in his books. I'd say this part should be removed completely, because it seems more likely that those interested in black metal and know him from Burzum are more likely to read his works than those restricted to certain movements.
I see that this line has been added, and it states that he has "authored several writings". So, we can say he has "authored several writings" but he is not defined as a "writer"? How is this? As far as I know, "author (of books)" is the same as a "writer"? No? Seems the reason this keeps popping up is because of the obviousness of the matter.
Seems the only reason "writer" has been lacking from the article is because of only one person who keeps close tabs on this article. I speak of course of Zara1709. I do not understand why an article should reflect one person's point of view and not the majority's after it has been thoroughly discussed and concluded that he is in fact a "writer". So, I ask all others who agree that the majority of intelligent arguments for the inclusion of "writer" to be listed under occupation should be concluded as the final word on this matter, since Wikipedia was formed primarily to allow more than one editor and to not allow one person control over the flow of information. Strangely, this is exactly what we have here: control of information. So, I suggest we include "writer" and treat the oppositional voice in context and of proper weight.
I have changed the particular items I mention above. Please voice support or opposition in a reasonable discussion. Alphaknave (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I had already expressed my impression that some people here have difficulties of distinguishing between writing something and being a writer by occupation. Mentioning "writer" in the occupation field would give the impression that he would be a professional writer, (like Fiction) which he is not. I even obtained a third opinion on this: [10]. And stop complaining about 'censorship', i.e. that I would force my views through here. You should be able to understand perfectly well that Wikipedia is not a free web space for fan pages. So regardless of whether there are 1 or 4 fans of this guy here doesn't really matter. Zara1709 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
To explain the sentence about the Neo-völkisch movements: This is what Goodrick-Clarke writes about Vikernes activities: "While in jail, Vikernes began to formulate his national heathen ideology using materials from Norse mythology combined with racism and occult National Socialism. These essays were published in various underground publications and in Filosofem, a neo-Nazi magazine published by Vidar von Herske, ..."(Black Sun, p. 204) We could probably replace "neo-völkisch movements" with "neo-Nazi underground", if you'd prefer that. This is what one of the few academic sources has to say on Vikernes. Zara1709 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "A writer is anyone who creates a written work, although the word usually designates those who write creatively or professionally, as well as those who have written in many different forms."
Cite the quote from Goodrick-Clarke. Alphaknave (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't get it: If we say write in the occupation field that would give a casual reader the impression that he would be notable as a professional writer, which he is definitely not. This would give undue weight to a perception of a minority (only that this minority appearsin the majority on this talk page), since Vikernes is known as a musician, criminal and political activist - to the general public in that order; Check the articles on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin (those were the first 4 I could think of): Everyone of them was a writer in the technical sense that he wrote something, but none of them is listed with the occupation of a writer, because their political activities are far more notable. Zara1709 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually tend to agree with Zara here (wow!). If the well-known historical figures she listed aren't 'writers', then Varg is in the same category really. To resolve this issue, I think that Varg should not have 'writer' listed as an occupation, because he does not write books for a living, et cetera. Vargsmal is the only proper book he has written, from what I know. However - the article should mention that during his imprisonment, Varg has written various articles, pamphlets for the NHF and so forth, and of course Vargsmal. This is one of the main activities that he has pursued within prison and needs to be elaborated on more anyway. I could write a section on this if you want. The NHF is not neo-nazi underground, if that's who Zara refers to when she mentions "neo-völkisch movements", btw... Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


Once again, somebody has decided to 'expand' the section on the murder of Euronymous by discussing several motives. This is fine, but claiming that the motive is "unclear" when Vikernes has clearly stated the motive on his website is ridiculous. On his website Vikernes even discusses the incorrect motives, created by the media, misinformed authors, and so forth. In A Burzum Story: Part II - Euronymous, Vikernes discusses/covers these motives:

• Power struggle between leaders of the underground metal scene/Satanic circle/Black Metal Inner Circle or whatever else you/authors/the media refer to it as
• Financial issues with Euronymous and/or Deathlike Silence Productions
• Euronymous closing his record shop Helvete, where most of the early Burzum albums were sold.
• A girl(friend).

I am going to have to rewrite this section of the article so it is more balanced and less anti-Vikernes. Discussing all these motives and then ignoring that Vikernes has written about the real motive in-depth is almost disgusting. You can't just ignore facts to suit your interpretation/opinions of a subject.

I would also like to question where Kevin Coogan got his sources for his idea of the motive, when he says "...Vikernes, with the dynamite that was found in his possession after the arrest, intended to "destroy an Oslo-based punk anti-fascist squat called Blitz House [and concludes:] Vikernes may have felt that he had no choice but to kill Euronymous before bombing Blitz House because 'the Communist' would almost certainly have opposed such an act." Vikernes doesn't discuss Blitz or Blitz House on his website as a motive at all, and I can't find any interviews with Euronymous on Blitz either. Sounds like a crazy load of crap to me... Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your problem. The quote that "the murder has been 'variously described as a power struggle between rival leaders of the Sartanic circle, a conflict over a girl's affection, or a dispute over a record contract,'" is sourced to a work edited by an academic - and it is worded completely neutral. Kevin Coogan's explanation is merely summarized; Coogan himself is a journalist, but he wrote a 600+ page book on Neo-Nazism (a biography of Francis Parker Yockey) that was highly praised by academics like Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, who wrote the foreword. With our standard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, these two sources are certainly more reliable than Vikernes himself, who might be attempting to obscure the events or his involvement in them. Obviously, under that guideline, Vikernes homepage would fall under the category of extremist sources. This doesn't mean that we mustn't use it, and if you consider it hat important, you might as well add one or two more sentences about Vikernes motive based on his homepage, but don't take out the more reliable ones. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think calling Vikernes' homepage "extremist" has nothing to do with this, and to assume that Vikernes lies, whereas people who are just submitting their theories with no real understanding or evidence to back up their claims (such as a name of a girl or any sort of background here? I mean come on! This is just speculation at best! There is no specific evidence to support any of these, at least described in here.) However obviously biased against him such a statement is (reminds me of such assumptions that all Muslims are "terrorists"), this can be easily solved by including all sources on the subject and then stating who said them. I think it is rather ridiculous that some "academics" who are "experts" on "Neo-Nazism" should be presented (considering an expertise on Nazism does not make you any more qualified to make a theory as to why Varg killed him, unless you happen to have more information on the event than anyone, such as the police, judges, etc), but the opinion/story/explanation of the person who actually did the act should not. Just write who says the explanation/opinion and follow it by their opinion. Simple. Non-biased. Unless you can see some bias in this somehow? I am seriously trying to understand your point-of-view. Alphaknave (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll start with a (obviously politically biased, unauthorative, unreliable and extreme) quote from Vikernes:

It has been kind of interesting to see how some people have felt a need to make up stories regarding the why I ended up killing Euronymous. It is sad to see that people make up stories just because the truth is uncomfortable to them.

That's about all that needs to be said... Vikernes has had the same story since the murder in 1993, although the media claims it has changed several times. The thing is, Vikernes has nothing at all to gain by 'obscuring' any events, he'd already been in prison for 10 years when he wrote that article. Vikernes wrote that article so that intelligent readers could find out his account of the murder without any speculation on motives from so-called "reliable sources", and form their own opinion on the events. Vikernes does not influence the reader's opinions at all, except in claiming that Euronymous was an idiot and that the media is unreliable and left-wing. The whole point of is that the reader is presented with the facts straight from Vikernes himself, and that the reader is encouraged to form their own opinions. The thing is, the books you cite as being 'reliable sources' seem to be full of opinions and speculation whereas is just pure facts, intended to disspell the speculation and rumours.
To cut to the chase, my problem is not with the quotes themselves, my problem lies with the fact that you claim that the motive for the murder is completely unclear, even though Vikernes has elaborated on the motive himself in a very neutral manner. Also, the quote from K. Coogan is just speculation, and this quote is not used appropriately for Wikipedia. I never had a problem with the quote that "the murder has been 'variously described as a power struggle between rival leaders of the Sartanic circle, a conflict over a girl's affection, or a dispute over a record contract,'" because yes, it is neutral. I did not say I had a problem specifically with this quote. Only K. Coogan's quote, if you had read my message properly the first time.
By the way, the "extremist sources" argument is actually irrelevant here. Sure, Vikernes is a bit of a political extremist, but his opinions on politics and religion are in no way related to the motive of the murder itself. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add this as well, a quote from the reliable sources page: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". Therefore, it would be right to include Vikernes as a source for an article on himself, but not for a subject such as Heathenism or anti-semitism for example. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding misinformation in this article: I would like to mention to the author(s) of this article that Varg Vikernes was never convicted of burning any stave churches. He was in fact found not guilty of having kindled the one and only stave church he was ever accused of having kindled (Fantoft Stave Church), and the churches he was found guilty of having kindled were all normal churches. Further; his daughter was born in 1992, not 1993 as stated in this article. She was born in July 1992 actually (Cancer). When it comes to his childhood and background, I cannot understand why you write anything at all when all you think you know is, pardon my french, a load of crap from Lords of Chaos(LoC). The information in LoC can at best be described as highly dubious, not least considering the fact that Vikernes himself has stated, in at least one article on, that it is not trustworthy whatsoever. Please stick to the facts. Oh, and by the way; it you want to write an article about a person, and you lack the information you need to do so, why don´t you simply ask that person for information? I don´t think he will bite you or anything... and he is after all still alive. Besides; why would Varg Vikernes lie about his childhood if you asked him about it? When it comes to the slaying of Aarseth, there are a few sources you can contact if you want accurate information. If you don´t trust Vikernes himself, why don´t you simply ask Snorre Westwold Ruch, living in Trondheim (Norway), playing in a band called Thorns? To my knowledge he can actually not only confirm the (in "black metal Norway" well-known) theory that Vikernes killed Aarseth solely because Aarseth planned to murder him, but he can even confirm Vikernes´ own claim that Vikernes knew about Aarseth´s plans before he killed him. It was namely Snorre W. Ruch who let Vikernes listen in when Aaarseth told Ruch about his plans for Vikernes (source; Vikernes´ own article called Euronymous, on Why speculate when you can have the facts? When it comes to the explosives and assumed plans by Vikernes to blow up the so-called Blitz house, this apparently stems from a joke made by Vikernes´ in court (as if that´s a good place to make such jokes...) when asked by the prosecutor why he had that much explosives at home. In reality Vikernes was a paranoid nationalist, rabidly anti-NATO and anti-American and obsessed with the idea that the Norwegians could and should defend their own country if attacked. He was too paranoid to own any legal arms and explosives (if we are paranoid nationalists with no trust whatsoever in the government we don´t want to be registered as gun-owners and potential partisans do we? :-o), so he aquired illegal arms and explosives. To be used in the defence of Norway in case of an American or (according to him) a less likely Soviet invasion. When it comes to the authenticity-question of the Vikernes-articles on I don´t get it; why is LoC any more credible as a source than is? Vikernes started writing for in the first place because he wanted to shut up gossipers, like the writers of LoC and the guys behind and other dubious websites. If in doubt, just ask him or the man behind (his address is: Why do you automatically listen to what somebody (Michael Moynihan and Didrik Söderlind) is saying about a person they don´t know, rather than listen to the man himself? Maybe you don´t want the facts, but instead write whatever suits you best? What is your political agenda? Is that fair to those who genuinly want to find out about Varg Vikernes? I don´t think so. When it comes to the pseudonym he used, The Count (no. Greven), I know that he never used the Norwegian version of this name himself. Apparently only those who didn´t know him (and Aarseth) used it. He only used the English version of the name as a pseudonym for use on the Burzum albums only. To my knowledge, and as I recal it from some interview, he has stated something like "you can know whether a person knows me or not by their use of the Greven-name. If they know me, they don´t use it. If they don´t know me, they use it." With regards from Expert on the subject, November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Expansion[edit]

As someone who has read everything that there is from the academic literature on Vikernes (as far as I am aware of it), I am honestly amazed by the unfounded claims that are made on this discussion page. I mean, quote: "Varg Vikernes was never convicted of burning any stave churches." ?? In Gardell's Gods of the Blood, you can read:

"To the public, Varg Vikernes of Burzum, currently serving a Norwegian maximum sentence of twenty-one years for stabbing Euronymous to to death and for three counts of arson, has come to personify the underground shift toward violent direct action." (p. 306)

edit: Ok, on reading the Ip comment again I realize that it was only about the Stave churches. Well, why the polemics then?

Generally it is possible that academics get facts wrong, too, and actually I am quite critical of Gardell's evaluation of a certain another point, but that is a different issue and we can trust Gardell to get this basic fact right. Academics have much higher standards than your usual (anonymous´) web page or even the media. If you write something on your homepage that is no true, nothing particular will happen (unless it's important enough for someone to sue you) and when the media gets something wrong, generally the most they do is to apologize. If you get facts wrong as a historian or social scientist, your academic reputation is ruined. This is why at Wikipedia, with our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources we value academic sources the highest. And since the editors who apparently would intend to disagree here have at least been civil enough NOT to start and edit war, let me add a little more explanation. I hold that, according to the guideline reliable sources, academic works (scholarship) are to be rang above journalism (news organizations) and both are to be ranked above web pages like (Self-published sources, if not Extremist and fringe sources). This means, that the books by Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell the most reliable sources, followed by the Encyclopedia of White Power (which we can discuss in detail when this should become necessary). As journalist with a good academic reputation (albeit for a different work) Coogan is in my opinion on the the same level as the Encyclopedia. Below that there are the various documentaries, newspaper articles and that like; than there is Lords of Chaos, which is problematic. It can be considered journalism and includes a lot of information about the topic, but the authors (Moynihan's predominantly) viewpoints make it very difficult to evaluate. But even below that, then there is

if you disagree with this evaluation of the sources, we would need to discuss this here, of course. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline (not a policy) and there is some room to maneuver. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and not negotiable. If we have a disagreement between the sources - which we have here a lot - there is no reason NOT to mention all the different opinions. This is why I not only added the statement that Vikernes was a skinhead (probably even a National Socialist one), but also added the material from LoC according to which he only had short hair and admired the Germans while hating the British and Americans. If one of the not-so-reliable source says something that it not mentioned at all (neither positively nor negatively) in the academic sources, there is no reason NOT to add it. This is why I added the Baghdad story and this is also why the stuff about Vikernes equipment can stay.

So much for the sources; You will have seen that I flagged a few sections with 'expand-section'. I think I should be able to do that in a few days. Especially I want to apologise to User:Superfopp for interrupting him. However, with you first edit you lost some information that might be considered important; that Vikernes recorded two albums while in prison and Jørn Tunsberg was involved in one of the church arsons. (diff) Naturally I will acknowledge that the material of the article could be organised better, and I appreciate the effort to do so, but I personally consider it important to keep such detailed information in the article. Zara1709 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New entry 20. nov 2008

What good is it to trust a book that was (apparently) based solely on the sources you find less reliable? What good is it to trust Goodrick-Clarke and Gardell when their sources are Lords of Chaos and the internet? I mean; Mein Kampf was published too, but does that make it any more reliable as a source about the German pre-WWII situation? Is the content of a book true only because it was written in a published book? When it comes to the Encyclopedia of White Power there are some other factors to consider too, like the ethnicity of the author. If you trust a Jew like Kaplan to tell the truth about "nazis", would you trust a "nazi" to tell the truth about a controversial, left-wing extremist Jew too? Further, Kaplan obviously has his facts wrong; from what I recall (it has been a while since I last read it) he didn´t even get the basic facts right when it comes to the release dates of the Burzum albums. When he fails to read off the back of an album that it was released this or that date, how can we trust his other work to be any better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another new entry 20. nov 2008

I don´t know about Gooodrick-Clarke, but I know Gardell has his own political agenda, just like Moynihan and Söderlind by the way, so I wouldn´t trust him as a source about Vikernes at all. Finally, I can add that I would like to see what you have to say about the suggestion that you simply communicate with the man himself. Why not? Is it fair to him not to let him have his say about these horrible accusations? Or maybe he is invisible, dead and/or living on another plane? but I don´t think so....

'Political activist'[edit]

Since there appears to be the need to discuss whether we want to say that Vikernes is a political activist: If you look at this talk page, there was a lot of discussion whether we should say that Vikernes was a writer. Although technically he wrote some things, to say that he is a writer by occupation would be seriously misleading. His 'writings' are only mentioned in the secondary literature insofar, as they constitute a part of his political activities. This is why I included 'political activist' in the lead, and I don't see any reason to change that. Zara1709 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Added life after prison portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed as unreferenced. Twri (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent claims of death[edit]

A Norwegian newspaper [11] (in Norwegian) reported that someone got shot to death and this particular someone had been suspected of assaulting Varg Vikernes while in prison. This article does not state that the victim of the crime was Vikernes himself and the facts confirm this. Vikernes and the victim in the story are of different ages (37 versus 38-39), served different sentences (21 years vs. 10 years) at different times (1994 onwards vs. 1995 onwards), were released at different times (2009 vs. 2000) et cetera.

Varg Vikernes is not dead, please stop making edits about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maraz (talkcontribs) 06:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Temple-of-Monkeys again[edit]

So there is a new interview with Vikernes, where he apparently denies some of his former terrorist and far-right activities. For Temple-of-Monkeys this interview apparently invalidates the previous academic research - why else would he remove the references to academic literature. Let's take a look at the interview: Vikernes doesn't deny that he has been involved with the Heathen Front, what he does say is: "Det er bare tull at jeg har startet rasistiske propagandagrupper." This would all boil down to the question whether Vikernes considers the Heath Front a racist propaganda group. Considering that they themselves denied being racist (they said they are nothing but "Germanic heathens"), it pretty likely that Vikernes simply wants to say here that the Heathen Front was not a racist propaganda group. And just because the Dagbladet only mentions: "Mediene spekulerte den gang i om han planla å sprenge Nidarosdomen," this doesn't mean that Coogan, who mentions that Vikernes had stated that the explosives were "intended to blow up Blitz House, the radical leftist and anarchist enclave in Oslo", is false. So it seems that I'm faced with the task of restoring those references, and write a coherent article using the old and new references. And, of course, I'll have to deal with Temple-of-Monkeys' possible objections. ...Zara1709 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first point as it could be a possibility, but I am very weary of Coogan's work as I haven't been able to find any reliable secondary sources to prove that Blitz house was being targeted by Vikernes (just hundreds of articles with the same exact quote). Anyway, after the Dagbladet article mentions media speculation of whether Vikernes was planning to blow up Nidarosdomen, Vikernes comments:

Tull og tøys. Jeg hadde skaffet meg dette for å kunne forsvare Norge hvis vi ble angrepet noen gang. Under den kalde krigen var det USA og Sovjetunionen som kunne finne på å angripe oss. Vi har ingen grunn til å stole på verken regjering, kongefamilien eller Forsvaret på grunn av det som skjedde sist gang vi ble angrepet. Vi er overlatt til oss selv, sier han.

Vikernes also states on his homepage that "I did other things in my life too (like prepare for partisan warfare in case of a US invasion of Norway...)" which backs up what he said in Dagbladet, and he said this in 2004. This means that he's had the same reason for keeping explosives for at least the last five years. This is why I removed the section on Blitz house - it just doesn't stand up as there is slightly more evidence against it than for it at the moment.
Don't forget, debating can solve conflicts. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, after another read of the interview in Dagbladet, there is an issue here which needs to be cleared up urgently. This is an excerpt from the interview:

I løpet av disse åra har han blitt koblet til nynazistiske og rasistiske miljøer.

- Jeg har aldri stiftet eller vært medlem av slike organisasjoner. Eneste organisasjonen jeg er medlem av, er Riksmålsforbundet.

Which translates directly to:

During these years he has been linked to neo-Nazi and racist groups.

- I have never formed or been a member of such organizations. The only organization I am a member of, is Riksmålsforbundet.

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Vikernes explicitly states that he has never formed or been a member of such organisations. Also, he states that the only organisation he is a member of is Riksmålforbundet, which according to Wikipedia is 'The Society for the Preservation of Traditional Standard Norwegian'. Therefore, saying that Vikernes formed, is a member of, or has been a member of the Norsk Hedensk Front or the Allgermanische Heidnische Front would be highly contentious and may be considered libellious. According to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, it should be removed immediately.
The thing which must be considered is that authors such as Gardell and Goodrick-Clarke may have retrieved their information on this subject from an unreliable source, and just because it is part of a printed publication does not make it correct. People make mistakes. And besides - I'm fairly sure that Vikernes would not have had the resources to form and run such organisations from inside prison, even if his minders allowed him to do so.
I await your reply. We really need to solve this. Thanks Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the political affiliations section again, to a version similar to my previous one, however this time I have added information on why Vikernes has been linked to the formation of the NHF and relevant information on his associations with them. It turns out that Antifa had libelliously claimed that Vikernes was the leader of the NHF and this may have been taken as true by the authors you reference, even though it was factually inaccurate. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New album!! 2009[edit]

Varg Vikernes' official (Burzum) website states that a new album is underway, and even links a Norwegian news article, which includes an interview with Vikernes. Perhaps this should be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably more to do with Burzum than Varg Vikernes but I'll add it when more information is released (if somebody else doesn't do it first). EDIT: Sweet. It's already done. Temple-of-Monkeys (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

nice quotation......[edit]

found a nice quotation from him:

"The modern man has lost his connection to the soil of his forefathers. The modern man's connection to his forefathers and the gods of his blood is lost too. He travels all across the Earth as a creature with no roots anywhere. He no longer grows his own food, he no longer catches his own fish or meat, he no longer milks the cows or collects eggs, berries, nuts, fruit and sea shells from nature. He no longer builds his own home or buries his own kin. He has lost his respect for nature, for his fatherland and for his kin, but he has gained nothing. The soul of the modern man is dead. He has lost almost everything.' Varg Vikernes -- (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)robert

Thank you for sharing; he does make some interesting points there, but wikipedia's talk pages are not necessarily purposed to just share some "cool quotes". Is there any way that this quote could be applied to wikipedia notably? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 22:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Please bear with me, but what are the standards that wikipedia has for that word? As far as I'm aware, he only wrote a bunch of blogs for his site. (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism, Conspiracy Theories[edit]

This article up until now fails to mention his constant insane ramblings about "Jews", the "Jew-Press", etc., that are standards in the völkisch canon. Some examples currently proclaimed on his website:

As if that isn't enough they go on by interviewing a Dr. Michael Rothstein, a Jew by the way, in general terms on the subject of UFOs and the link to National Socialism. Again I can point at their odd choice of sources; why do they give a Jew the opportunity to air his thoughts on this subject to begin with? Of all the people in Scandinavia why do Moynihan and Søderlind want you to sit down and listen to what this Jew has to say about this subject? Do they expect this Jew to have anything positive or indeed insightful to say regarding our mythology?

In the start of the book they ridicule me for my allegedly paranoid conspiracy theories, claiming it is ludicrous to believe the Jews run many important establishments in Norway when there are so few of them in Norway. Well, why would we need many Jews in Norway for them to pull the strings in our society when we have people like Søderlind, with a Jewish philosophy of life, who are more than willing to carry out their work for them? He is even a member of the ultra-Jewish International Humanist and Ethical Union in Norway, which even has a Jewish leader, so he is working for them whether he likes it or not - whether he understands it or not. All Church of Satan members, all members of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, all O.T.O. members, all Freemasons, all Christians, all Communists and so forth are all working for the Jews. They can ridicule me for my so-called paranoid conspiracy theories as much as they want, but it sounds pretty dumb when the people who ridicule me for this are themselves actively working for Jews and for Jewish ideologies and philosophies, like Søderlind is - and possibly Moynihan as well.

To the authors of this book I can only say it's embarrassing to see how you regurgitate the lies of the police and media. Perhaps now you understand how I can call people like you unknowing (?) or ignorant minions of the Jews?

There are several characters named Varg Vikernes in Norway. One is the demonized, alienated, pilloried and ostracized bugbear denounced by the Jew-press and the so-called judicial system in Norway. He is not real, he never was real and never will be real, but he is loosely based on a real 19-year-old who in 1993 publicly expressed his anger at a modern world gone mad. The sick modern world moved on, deeper into Hell on a road paved with good intentions, but Varg Vikernes froze in time and was forced to live on in the fixed and fictional reality created by the dregs in the Jew-press and the "Norwegian inquisition".

What makes the modern democracy so despicable is first and foremost the fact that today anybody can vote, regardless of their loyalties, origin, lawfulness, intellectual capacity, health and general demeanour, as long as they are at least 18 years old. There are no quality tests. Even morally bankrupt drug dealers, serial rapists, incurable pedophiles, vile sadists, disgusting homosexuals, sharebrokers and all the other degenerates and criminals of our societies are allowed to vote! Muslims, Jews, Freemasons and Christians, who all hate Europe and see us, our European nations and cultures as inferior and primitive, are allowed to vote! Utterly simple-minded individuals, who barely know what culture is, are allowed to vote! Even aliens who didn't even care enough for their own nations to stay home are allowed to vote! All that these individuals need in order to influence the course of our nations is to be at least 18 years old.

-- (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Donations for Haiti[edit]

Anyone dig up sources for this ? The original press release from the label seems gone. zubrowka74 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A Google search on the terms "Varg Vikernes" and "Haiti" yields a number of articles. I don't think the absence of the original press release (I looked for it on the Wayback Machine with no success) should preclude this from being mentioned in our article. __meco (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

.. and a double headed dildo ..[edit]

uhm, what is so important about this "double headed dildo" part of the text? What has this to do with the ammunition / weaponry stuff at all? Ie. is this relevant in the context of the findings? (fwolf) -- (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the editor was too ignorant to realise that the inherent homophobia of his attempt to suggest that Vikernes is queer makes him as bad as any racist. It'll never cease to amaze me how people can go on and on about Vikernes or racism in general to purport to be clever only to demonstrate that they themselves are homophobic or misogynist simpletons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Under occupations in the infobox it says "Murderer, Arsonist". While he indeed was both a murderer and an arsonist, doesn't putting it under "Occupations" imply he worked in those "fields"? As in, that they were jobs he worked in? I think it can lead to some confusion. Opinions? Sentient Planet (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is obvious vandalism by editors more concerned by their POV than by veracity or exactitude of the information. Should be corrected unless it's specified somewhere that Wikipedia considers "murder" as an "occupation". zubrowka74 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is Varg[edit]

Anyone got an idea ? Google map, gps location, or anything similar. Lets find him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Current name unknown[edit]

Just for the record, he changed his name again (both first and last names) a couple of years ago ( Apparently his new name bears no resemblance to Varg Vikernes and is "French sounding". Obviously the article title must remain as it is since that's what he's known as, but perhaps it should be mentioned that it's not his actual legal name? (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

uh yeah, changing the article title to "a name sort of french-sounding" won't really work. Nor will mentioning something that vague in the article at all. So until there is a verifiable, reliable source saying explicitly "he legally changed his name to John Doe" nothing happens here.Tao2911 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He's changed his name to Louis Cachet. It was relatively easy to cross reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? Then name your reference here, or edit the article using a footnote, instead of writing “[i]t was relatively easy to cross reference” (totally needless comment)! --217/83 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

this is his blog where he said he's married to a french woman.He also claims on that he's working with Marie Cochet(possibly his wife) on an amateur documentary.Edit * this one :! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talkcontribs) 13:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure you mean Cachet, not Cochet? A film my Marie Cachet and Vikernes is mentioned on his site. And according to this interview, she is his wife. He added links to her site very often lately. --217/83 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes,i've meant Cachet.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talkcontribs) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
How do we know it's his blog and not some copycat ? The site looks pretty amateur and Vikernes already has to publish his texts. Looks like an unreliable source to me. zubrowka74 17:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Good point,and you might be right.But consider the following: thulean perspective is attached to ancestral cult ,which is attached to .He uses his name in comments and some posts are signed with "V.V." .Also ancestralcult is focused on the work and interests of his and his wife's.i know what i've brought up is pretty weak but why would he attach a blog which is a copycat to that site ? And the ideas expressed there are terrible,and enough to compromise him,if that wasn't what he believes in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talkcontribs) 22:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn’t look at the site, but I agree; he has the Burzum site. --217/83 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Upon further research, the site might be legit. The couple seems to maintain several blogs and at least two of them link to "Thulean perspective", namely Marie Cachet's and the film project blog. If it's an imposture, it's an elaborate one. zubrowka74 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it still doesn't show that he's changed his name. The main Burzum site still uses "Varg Vikernes" pretty unambiguously. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to TV 2 (Norway) he has changed his name to Louis Cachet. Should the article be changed? (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Year of activity's beginning[edit]

I corrected the year of Varg's musical activity beginning, changing it from 1987 to 1988, because I looked for some source texts and I found no pages that say Varg started to play in 1987; so I read his official biography in the site, and I read he started to make music between 1988 and '89. I also wrote the search text in the category Year of activity to avoid another doubts or mistakes.

Arrest article[edit]

While his recent arrest has been added already, this article has a bit of extra info about him. Yes I know it's in french but I'm sure there's an english version somewhere. Other than this I can translate. (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC used this article :

Yeah, the BBC seems more neutral but the french one has more gossip tidbits : Marie Cachet being being pregnant of a 4rth child, the oldest kid being homeschooled and the whole family not really incorporating very well with the rest of the village. zubrowka74 19:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The BBC is neutral simply because they paraphrased almost the entire Wiki article. Some news agency. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation of the name Varg Vikernes[edit]

It seems that the pronounciation of the name Varg Vikernes given in IPA is from Eastern Norwegian, but Vikernes is from Bergen. Shouldn’t there be (also) a pronounciation guide for this name in his native language? There are no retroflex sounds in the Bergen language as far as I know.

Maybe something like [ˈʋɑʁɡ ˈʋiːkɛʁneːs]. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I suggest merging Burzum into this article. It is a one man musical project. There are no other members. We don't have separate pages for Madonna (entertainer) and Madonna Louise Ciccone. Why should it be the same for Varg Vikernes? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose Burzum is too relevant to not have its own article. In addition, Vikernes has worked in other projects, including Mayhem. Gothbag (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Influential and authentic band such as Burzum should have an article of its own. Although Vikernes is its founder, as Gothbag pointed, he worked with other bands.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per Gothbag. --Jorm (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion one way or another but if they're not going to be merged then they need to cross-reference each other on both pages (you know what I'm saying, with a subsection about each other and a link to each other on each page). I don't know, is this vote decided and one could therefore go ahead with cross referencing the two? makeswell (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per Gothbag. And also the Madonna argument doesn't stand. "Madonna" is a stage name, "Burzum" is not. Varg Vikernes is not his real name anyhow, this would be analogous to your example. zubrowka74 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would you merge Ozzy Osbourne and Black Sabbath or Michael Jackson with the Jackson Five? Even Bruce Springsteen, Prince and Jimi Hendrix have their own bands that are freestanding articles here on Wikipedia (The E Street Band, The Revolution (band) and The Jimi Hendrix Experience, respectively). Number of members is completely irrelevant in my opinion. (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gothbag. Burzum is notable enough to have its own article. It would be as meaningless and ineffective as merging Nine Inch Nails to Trent Reznor article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


The criticisms of Mythic Fantasy Role-playing Game being "overly complex" and "racist" come from biased sources. In fact, the Dangerous Minds article quotes the MetalSucks source. MetalSucks writers often publish unfair critical articles on Vikernes; it is not a neutral website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


What's Louis Cachet's height, if even approximate? --KpoT (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no official source that has this but comparing him standing next to his UAZ, he looks to be approximately 185-190cm. (6'1"-6'3") (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Varg ´s Youtube Channel[edit]

It should be included in the wiki just to highlight what the man is doing currently. Its pretty easy to find. The channels name is ThuleanPerspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomSidious (talkcontribs) 03:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually already mentioned in the main body of the article. 2601:8C:4102:1210:DB6:186F:FCE0:7644 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi navbox[edit]

@Psychedelia: Just to follow up on this edit rationale, David Bowie also famously expressed sympathy for fascism. As far as I know, he could be considered a Neo-Nazi idol as well. But that wouldn't merit {{fascism footer}} to appear at the bottom of his page.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Varg Vikernes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

White Nationalist category[edit]

Responding to this message left on my talk page:

I see you have an interest in many articles of this nature. You've edited the article extensively, there are numerous sources describing him as a Neo-Nazi, White Nationalist. If you want the article to look like the article on Rational Wiki, force me to spend more time on this article. Because I'll find the God Damn sources and rewrite the whole damn thing. Or you can leave the CAT in there and stop trying to whitewash a Nazi's article. Dave Dial (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Read: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't care what you do to the article so long as it's within reason of WP:BLP and other policies. However, if you have plans to "rewrite" the entire page then I strongly suggest you consult this talk page first and voice your concerns. I'm not a fan of Vikernes nor his music but the article already appears pretty comprehensive to me. It covers most, if not all of his criticisms, and also includes what he believes in his own words. (I presume you'd want to add a thousand superfluous quotes from random blogs deeming him a Neo-Nazi.)

As for the category, "white nationalist" is a potentially defamatory label, and WP:BLPREMOVE clearly states that "conjectural interpretation of a source" must be removed. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've spent maybe 10 minutes looking and have found several sources stating the subject of this article is a Neo-Nazi & White Nationalist. Both already are cited in the article. The Encyclopedia of White Power by Jeffrey Kaplan & Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke are two. If you wish to make further changes, or make other BLP claims, do so on the talk page first. You've already surpassed 3RR today. Dave Dial (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
But do any use the term "white nationalist"? The phrase does not appear in the article, thus it's OR for Wikipedia to state that he is one.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes they do, which you would know if you read the God Damn sources before making BLP claims that aren't relevant. For fucks sake, the whole reason this asshat has an article is because he's a Neo-Nazi white nationalist. Dave Dial (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
But you haven't quoted any of the sources directly, nor pointed to specific pages where I (and, more importantly, the reader) can actually see. WP:VERIFY: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Also, Vikernes' notability derives from Burzum and from murdering Euronymous. He would not have an article if he was just some "Neo-Nazi white nationalist". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


I have locked the page - post on other revenant pages (or RfC) get extra opinions and sources please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Can Evidence be Cited?[edit]

Is there any actual evidence that Varg Vikernes actually burnt any churches. The media mentions that evidence exists, but fails to actually provide the evidence. "There is evidence that the cow jumped over the moon, no examples provided" isn't actually evidence in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:D082:7001:F4B7:47D7:80E3:5FF5 (talkcontribs)

You can cite WP:Reliable sources describing the evidence, but not primary sources such as court and police documents. If the media says Vikernes burned churches, then that's what Wikipedia summarizes for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Regarding this series of edits:

It is not appropriate to present his religious views in detail, or as being biographically significant, unless reliable sources establish context. Using excessive quotes from primary sources is not appropriate, and the last thing we need is yet another fringe youtuber hagiography. Please discuss here, based on sources, before restoring again. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The more I go over this, the more troubling it gets. Pages and pages of obscure interviews artfully cherry-picked to present the most palatable, least offensive possible interpretation of his views. An obscure interview hosted on his own site has been used for an entire paragraph of his rambling trying to imply that he's not really a neo-Nazi... This is an interview in which he praises neo-Nazi black metal as having the guts to be different and politically incorrect, and calls regular black-metal "spineless poser-bands". This interview also explains that he stopped playing metal because it was "negro music" and that metal-heads were acting like "white niggers". Using a source for its most flattering, most evasive content is cherry-picking. This is pretty bad. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The article has long had a problem with fan-introduced bias, much like many other musician articles. All we can do is work to eliminate it. I'm sure we could say something like "Vikernes resists being labeled as a neo-nazi in interviews posted on his site" but that should be the extent of it. We should write about him according to the preponderance of neutral sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the reductions but one has to keep WP:BLP in mind. The subject does not agree with his characterizations in media, so if he claims slander, then Wikipedia has to note those sorts of disputes even if they're not covered by secondary sources -- and even if he's written very questionable things suggesting the contrary. ILTP (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The problems is that he is prolific, and even a superficial glance at his output indicates that his statements are not self-consistent. Not every detail belongs, and the way to decide is through independent sources. He contradicts himself a lot, and relying on editors to deciding which of his comments or rebuttals belongs is dubious. That's the problem with the article, it's a collection of editor-selected samples. We need to summarize reliable, independent sources. A brief summary of his own rebuttal when it's necessary for BLP is all that is acceptable, but that line isn't always obvious either.
Per WP:BLPCRIME, he is no longer merely accused of these crimes, was convicted of them. Wikipedia accepts these verdicts unless reliable sources provide a strong reason to doubt them. His own blog-posts or a random interview with a fanzine twenty years ago, are not sufficient for us to cast doubt on this verdict. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, there are many, many reliable, independent sources which clearly and unambiguously explain Vikernes's long-term connection to racism, anti-semitism, neo-Nazism, etc. and the main reason any of these sources are even talking about him at all is because of these extremist views. Any edit which downplays this connection based on only his own vaguely alluded to blog posts or videos would be a deep mistake that violates NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a place for whitewashing against sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There are many reliable, independent sources which clearly and ambiguously explain controversial details about any artist you can imagine. We can allude to such controversies in the lead but we can't shove labels like "neo-Nazi" when such affiliations are not explicitly endorsed by the subject. He's also been accused of Satanic worship many times, but you're curiously not as concerned with that detail of his mythology. Your edits are the equivalent of "he's a neo-Nazi but he denies it" which is absolutely a BLP issue. The objective truth is that "neo-Nazism" is just one of the labels that have been advanced toward him. ilil (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This smacks of false equivalence. "Controversial details" reads like a publicist's euphemism. No, we both know the facts here. Many reliable sources explicitly link him to neo-Nazism. If you can find a truly reliable source refuting this, so be it, but his tepid and inconsistent rejection of these labels does not cancel out these many reliable sources which support them. It's one of the labels that have been advanced towards him for a reason, and if you do not know the reason, I invite you to read the article's reliable sources instead of fanzines and youtube channels. I do not know why you feel a need to downplay this sourced information, but Wikipedia isn't the place for hagiography of WP:FRINGE ideologues. Grayfell (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
"If you can find a truly reliable source refuting this, so be it" -- Uhhh, Vikernes himself?? He is the most authoritative source on what he believes himself to be. Just as an FYI: I'm not a fan of his, I don't care for his music, and I have a very "meh" view of his politics. My point is simply to not sensationalize the topic. If his views are really controversial, then the encyclopedic thing to do is to summarize what he believes, as in, from the horse's mouth. Not by including a claim in which he said something about Muslims and Jews that a single Rolling Stoner writer deemed inflammatory. ilil (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No, an arbitrary sample of a handful of obscure interviews and vlogs, cherry-picked for the most flattering bits and totally ignoring the other bits, is not "the most authoritative source" for how Wikipedia describes his views. This isn't how WP:RS works, this isn't how WP:BLP works, and it never has been. Rolling Stone is a reliable news outlet, and Vikernes is, at best, a WP:PRIMARY source. If you can find a good summary of him presenting his position, summarize his position with attributions and in accordance with due weight. As I said, whatever he's said to defend or promote himself doesn't cancel out reliable sources. Reliable sources clearly demonstrate that he was actively involved with the Heathen Front for years, to the point that his PO box in prison was the group's mailing address. We don't fill articles with pseudointellectual blather and incoherent mysticism just because an old dude put out a vlog one time, and we don't allow people to spin their personal history when it contradicts reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Apart from your mistaken interpretation of BLP, I agree 100%. Bottom line: we can't write "Vikernes endorses Nazism" unless he comes out as a Nazi. The best we can do is some variation of "Vikernes is widely reported as a Nazi". And the more sources we can find calling him a Nazi, the more justification we have to cite his books and blogposts so that readers can see for themselves what he actually says about the issues. That's not whitewashing or fan-writing, it's just covering the topic comprehensively. ilil (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(addendum) I've just perused the RS article and, wow, you lifted the sentence verbatim. "...has endorsed neo-Nazi views and contains rants against Muslims and Jews. " And the author doesn't elaborate what's exactly said in those rants. This is "clearly and ambiguously"? ilil (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You've only perused the source after you reverted the content it supported? Are you serious? Are you acting in good faith to improve the article, or are you here to improve Vikernes's image? We have multiple sources linking him to Nazism. So why would this source be obligated to elaborate on rants against Muslims and Jew? There is no expectation that a reputable outlet would repeat garbage like that, and just as importantly... why would that matter? A reliable source says something. We are not in the business of making sure sources cite sources which cite sources which cite sources until we, personally as editors, are satisfied that they have meet our own exacting standards. The source has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and mentions something which is, in context, completely unsurprising.
How about this from CNN: "The most prominent example is Norwegian black metal artist Varg Vikernes, former bassist for the band Mayhem, who was a key player in both black metal and the neo-Nazi movement."[12]
The ideas he has been spreading, for decades, have been consistent with neo-Nazism. His refutation of the label itself is noteworthy. It's insufficient to whitewash the article, however. It's not difficult to find primary examples of this in his prolific social media rambling. He is open in his contempt for a grand Jewish conspiracy and "questions" the Holocaust, and has repeatedly advocated for race hygiene. Combine that with the Heathen Front, are you honestly surprised that sources are documenting this connection? Why would we imply that these sources are wrong by couching this in WP:WEASEL words like "Widely reported"?
If you want specific examples, Rationalwiki has some choice cuts. Here's the first one:
"Some Europeans are a bit "polluted genetically", so to speak, and have brown eyes for instance, that is something that can be solved by a few generations of race hygiene."
It's trivially easy to find more on his sites or in interviews. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neo-Nazi associations aside, Euronymous and Mayhem doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph when they're the first things mentioned in the third. ilil (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit of 18 Mar 2019[edit]

Grayfell removed a link to "Thulean Perspective" from the article, but the Infobox still contains two external links to the actual site. Not sure if this is OK or not--Quisqualis (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Do reliable, independent sources define him as a youtuber? In general, infoboxes are used to summarize basic detail, but his youtube activity is only basic to the extent it is documented by reliable sources as a defining trait. The number of subscribers is not sufficient for this, especially since he is also a musician. Right now, the only mention of youtube in the article are sourced to his own youtube channel, which is a problem. If this cannot be supported as a defining characteristic, the youtuber infobox module should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
He shouldn't be presented here as a "youtuber" unless secondary sources have named him as a notable youtube presence. His personal videos can be used for citing basic facts he claims about himself, but that's it. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam categories[edit]

This person is in two categories: Category:Critics of Islam and Category:Opposition to Islam in Europe, but the article body mentions Islam briefly in only one sentence towards the very end where it says "Vikernes was instead charged by French authorities with inciting racial hatred against Jews and Muslims." Can somebody expand on this? Islam seems to be quite far down the list on this individual's focus, certainly less so than Christianity and Judaism. I mean, it makes sense that Michel Houellebecq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are in these categories as they have authored anti-Islamic books and their public image is centered on that, but is this persons "contribution" significant enough to warrant being in those categories? Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Varg is on BitChute now[edit]

Since YouTube keeps deleting his subsequent channels, he's decided to remain exclusively on BitChute under the original ThuleanPerspective name. It should probably be mentioned/linked to somewhere in the body of the article/infobox/external links. 2601:8C:4500:4680:C064:74BF:C57D:3C82 (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Context Matters (continued)[edit]

Continuing on from:

"It is noteworthy because a small number of sources have discussed it. The outlet which reviewed it is, apparently, considered reliable for attributed reviews." Then cite those other sources, instead of "just" the review? Would that not be the best course of action as you said "Wikipedia isn't a platform for helping people sell products." Yet, that review, as you also said "provides context for a product this person is attempting to sell." Therefore, you would probably be best served to also include those other reliable sources to clarify the context within which the review is being mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are currently two sources for this obscure product, which are already cited. The purpose of articles is to provide context according to reliable sources. If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so. If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"There are currently two sources for this obscure product, which are already cited." I am guessing this is what you meant by: "It is noteworthy because a small number of sources have discussed it." I thought you meant that there were other sources, not related to consumer response, in regard to criticisms of his product; such as a journalistic article.
"If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so." I don't particularly as the other works by Vikernes mentioned are either sociopolitical or theopolitical in nature. Can a tabletop role-playing game be considered literary work? Perhaps, it would be best left mentioned in:
"If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck." Come now, we are all friends here. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C70:DE00:C50B:DA62:FF40:2E53 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of Metal Sucks review for an RPG book[edit]

What is the reason for using a website that covers music news and music reviews as a citation for an RPG book? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Greyfell: Nice job Accusing me of edit warring while simultaneously edit warring. You made the first revert here. You need to explain your position in order to restore the text. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the status quo, per WP:BRD. There is also already a discussion of this in the section above from a few days ago. The burden is on you to gain consensus for changes.
I do not see any particular problem with a review from this site. It is reliable for metal and for related forms of media, and it is reviewed in this context. Even the few sources which mention it and aren't metalsucks say it's a racist joke or a self-indulgent hobby of his. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hagiography, so if we're going to mention this at all, we are not obligated to pretend it's something it's not (i.e. good). Providing context is part of what this article should do. As I've already said, in the section just above this one: The purpose of articles is to provide context according to reliable sources. If you do not think this RPG belongs at all, say so. If, however, you just don't like that it got a bad review, tough luck. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If the only RS is Metal Sucks, then it doesn't belong. If an argument was open, I'd argue against MS being an RS even for it's focus topic. (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

PO Box[edit]

This line doesn't make any sense:

... In addition, the organization's listed address was the same PO box Vikernes used in prison, which the authors conclude "actually strengthens the Heathen Front's assertion that Vikernes is not the leader: it would be very hard for him to do an effective job at it."

I've read this part of the book, so I know what the author's were getting at, but this is a very poor way to summarize a minor point. What conclusion are readers supposed to come to? It would be very hard for him to do an effective job of what? The paragraph fails to explain this enough for it to make any sense at all.

Further, the follow paragraph of the source specifically explains that Vikerness "launched" the Allgermanische Heidnische Front as "a more widely encompassing branch of the Heathen Front". So even this source very clearly supports that Vikernes was a leader and founder of the Heathen Front. Again, the source is not disputing that Vikerness was a leader of the Heathen Front, so it cannot be used to imply this.

We have multiple sources saying he was a leader of this group, and we already give an adequate rebuttal of that description with attribution. Cherry-picking to soften this appears to be whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this appears to be an attempt at whitewashing and softening his image. We should be relying on secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"said" vs. "alleged"[edit]

@Greyfell: per WP:BLPPUBLIC

  • Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

Vikernes is alleged by two sources to have associated with neo-Nazi skinheads as an adolescent. Vikernes has denied those allegations, per Lords of Chaos. Please stop changing the word "alleged" to "said" in that line. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Vikernes is not a reliable source for this. Those sources are more reliable than he is by a mile. Reliable sources said something, and he refuted it. The article explains this in neutral language. See WP:CLAIM. Wikipedia articles should not use weasel words to insinuate that multiple reliable sources are incorrect just because they say something that some editors find unflattering. Further, as the article already explains, he, himself openly embraced Nazism for a time, so this is merely a comment from sources about his early life. This detail is neither extraordinary, nor particularly surprising, so you will need to be much, much more clear before claiming this is a BLP issue. Grayfell (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, no. "allege" is not a weasel word. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Try harder, please. Per MOS:ALLEGED, is is an expression of doubt. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's a proven fact then it would have been stated in Wikipedia's voice without in-text attribution. The sources themselves are not very high quality if they present no evidence or argument for Vikernes' association with skinhead movements. ilil (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Varg has a Twitter account[edit]

Under the username, GandalftheWhi19. Perhaps this can be added under external links, and/or the infobox somewhere. 2601:8C:4581:1150:8C82:4C33:86FF:8D40 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Huge bias in article[edit]

This article is written in such a way to demonize his political beliefs and character as a person, if the article is to remain neutral and unbiased, then the comments regarding his stance in the murder should be removed from the introduction, as he is most famously known as a musician and writer. There are already bits within the article going into detail about his self-defense inspired murder of Euronymous. Furthermore, having it at the beginning only intensifies the passive aggressive slandering of the individual. Lastly, Varg isn't far right, and has disavowed all of it in his videos. He is a pagan and a primitivist. Please remove the false label of him being on the far right, as his political stances do not correlate at all with what far right politics adhere to

Pupuce2020 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the "far-right" tidbit is worded in a POV fashion. "Convicted murderer" should not be in the opening sentence because it's redundant and not what Vikernes is primarily known for in more scholarly (i.e. not sensationalist) sources. Put simply, if he wasn't already famous as a black metal musician, then no one would've ever heard of his crimes. However, I believe that the lead should mention that Vikernes argued unsuccessfully for a voluntary manslaughter charge per WP:BALASPS and because it's worthwhile to note that he believes that he was wrongfully charged. ili (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Accuracy is neutral. Intentionally downplaying information is non-neutral. Sources repeatedly and consistently emphasize these details as important, defining traits, so the article will reflect them as well. Reflecting sources is how Wikipedia preserves NPOV. The significance of his opinions will still need reliable, independent sources, and will need to b proportionate to other sources. Perhaps we will have to take this to a noticeboard again. Grayfell (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
As a reminder, the majority of the article is discussing his criminal activity, murdering, prison sentence, church arson, etc. The lead should reflect the body of the article in almost all cases. Grayfell (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell. We must remain neutral and inform the reader right up front about his criminal record including arson and murder. Note that Pupuce2020 has been blocked for whitewashing the biography of neo-fascist hate-monger Gavin McInnes, and Pupuce2020 has performed similar edits on Peste Noire, removing the Nazi connection. Here we see another example of whitewashing hate. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Binksternet: The first paragraph already mentions that he was convicted of arson and murder. I feel the issue is whether it's appropriate to introduce him as a "convicted murderer" as an aside to being a musician. How many times do we have to say that he was convicted of murder? I feel as though some people may not be happy until the lead consists of just "Varg Vikernes is a murderer who was convicted of murderer for killing Euronymous and went to jail for murder" and that anything less would be "whitewashing". And if we're really going to be impartial under these prescriptions, then the first sentence should simply state that he is a criminal, since it's also been well-documented that he was convicted of arson and inciting racial hatred.
MOS:LEAD: Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. [...] Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
ili (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Per many reliable sources, Vikernes is a semi-prominent figure in the far-right. His opinions are still very extreme, very fringe, very racist, and mostly consistent across decades. His occasional disavowal of neo-Nazism in isolation doesn't change his frequent support for neo-Nazi ideas. Further, how sources have discussed his politics is what matters, and sources don't take his disavowal all that seriously. To imply otherwise would be misleading and non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that we should identify him as extreme, racist, and fringe if this were an opinion piece rather than an encyclopedia. Just the facts, please. It's infinitely preferable to summarize what he believes in his own words than to rely on sensationalist sources that will use every word ending in "-ist" ever without actually quoting him on anything. AFAIK, he does not consider himself "far-right", and that's enough to justify that we shouldn't definitively state that he is. Ultimately these terms are loaded and subjective. He's supplied plenty other rope to hang himself with. ili (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is specifically built on independent sources. We do not prioritize people's own words, because we are not a platform for public relations. Therefore it doesn't particularly matter what he "considers himself" beyond basic BLP issues. What matters is reliable sources. We summarize sources, and those sources document his extremist, fringe, far-right statements. His word-games and attempts to blur definitions to his own ends are treated by reliable sources as mostly irrelevant. "Just the facts" means just the facts as documented by reliable sources. In this case, as in most cases, that also means independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record, the reason that much of this article focuses on non-musical matters is because the relevant information on his music is reserved for the Burzum article. ili (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about self-published works[edit]

There is a consensus to include self-published works in the "Bibliography" section; and consensus that doing so does not infringe on WP:PROMO or WP:SPS. (non-admin closure) - Ryk72 talk 01:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


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

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

Varg Vikernes the Rapper?[edit]

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