Talk:Grand Declaration of War

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Black Metal (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Black MetalWikipedia:WikiProject Black MetalTemplate:WikiProject Black MetalBlack Metal articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Fair use rationale for Image:Mayhem GrandDeclarationOfWar.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

Which parts of the lyrics are taken from his work? I have all of Nietzsche’s work here, but in the original German, and this album is so much of a pain in my arse that I don’t actually want to bother reading the lyrics. It would be great if someone else could elaborate on that, the article is pretty short and lacks information on the whole controversy. --217/83 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Mayhem did not use entire sections of the original text, they used small portions that, given their frequent occurrence, cannot be a coincidence. To be brief I will list some references in the title track:

First line of the lyrics is "Christendom religion of pity god of the sick", this clearly is reference to The Anti-christ section 7 in the common English translation.

The next three lines "We have discovered our way we know the road. We have found the way out of millennia of labyrinth. Beyond the north, beyond the ice, beyond death." is a rewording of lines from the first section of The Anti-christ.

The following two lines "There was a thunderstorm in our air, the nature, which we are, grew dark" is an exact line from section one of The Anti-Christ. --75.97.148.157 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I moved your signature to your message’s end, I hope you don’t mind (I normally wouldn’t edit others’ contributions to a talk page). If you could improve the article’s section mentioning Nietzsche, that would be great (I would add the footnotes for the German original version then). By the way, who wrote the common English translation? I have only read Nietzsche in German and sometimes managed to remember one or two sentences from some English translation but never cared enough to look that up. --217/83 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell the most often read English translation is done by R. J. Hollingdale. That's the translator on my copies as well as most of them at a local book store. --75.97.148.157 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --217/83 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for black metal

Well, we could start with Chad Bowar at About.com... here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (although I disagree with Bowar’s list, for various obvious reasons). I suggest the following consensus: “Black metal/extreme metal”, since I have shown this to be disputed (but I won’t start an edit war because of that). --217/83 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the rather vague term "extreme metal"? Also, as an aside, given the very specific pro-Satanism definition espoused by your source (I don't own a copy, and without a direct quote within the reference, I can't really comment), we wouldn't classify, say, Immortal or Enslaved as black metal bands? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you realise that "I suggest the following consensus" is not in fact seeking consensus? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just was about to add that I doubt you would agree since I only wrote that Wagner and Wilson stated it “perverted and turned inside out the black metal genre”, not that they call this “extreme metal”; then came the edit conflict. By “the very specific pro-Satanism definition espoused by your source”, you must have meant Metalion, not Wagner and Wilson (whom I mention for the “musical definition of Black Metal” which I consider to be absurd, as stated elsewhere). I quoted Faust of Emperor on the Mayhem and the Black Metal talk page (the former for the musical definition, the latter for the Satanism definition), and if you want, I can quote Arioch of Funeral Mist here as well although I am not tempted to do you any favour after all the “genre warrior” and “POV-pushing” bullshit there. And no, the traditional definition from the first and second wave wouldn’t allow classifying Immortal or Enslaved as Black Metal bands, but the bands themselves (both were respected by Euronymous) didn’t do that either (you must have heard about Viking Metal, a term coined by Enslaved, and maybe also about the Holocaust Metal term Immortal used for not being Satanic).

Considering the traditional definition only allows the Euronymous-era Mayhem to be classified as Black Metal, and people like Bowar thinking otherwise, “Black metal/extreme metal” somehow is a consensus, more than I would accept as a private person. --217/83 22:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly a number of issues to clear up here. Firstly, and perhaps, most importantly, if you find a reliable source calling this album "extreme metal", feel free to include it (I think it's superfluous, but there you go); if no such source is to be found, we can't include it. Secondly, consenus means what the various WP editors of this article have agreed to, not what you feel is a compromise. Finally, bands do not, nor ever have done, defined their own genre (at least from a WP perspective); that is done by professional journalists. Hence Immortal are clearly a black metal band, owing to the thousands of sources labelling them as such; "Holocaust Metal" just doesn't exist, in the say way that "razorgrind" doesn't. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had another definition of consensus in mind when I wrote my comment than you had, this can happen. And of course I do know that the band alone doesn’t decide how the music is to be classified (in that case, I would have had no problem with post-1994 Mayhem being called a Black Metal band, since the members still believe so); for example, I listen to Industrial and know about all those morons selling their technoid crap as Industrial (nothing against Techno as such), but these would be classified as such here because some so-called “reliable sources” swallow this money-making publicity crap; this also applies to so-called “professional journalists”, so I don’t trust them either. And now, please tell me whether you want me to add the Funeral Mist quote or not (you know where to find the Emperor quotes). --217/83 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I never claimed “Holocaust Metal” was an existing genre, I know it is a term only used for Immortal’s music (I wouldn’t say “Immortal is a Holocaust Metal band”, I don’t even use terms like “Blackened Death Metal” or “Symphonic Black Metal”), but the fact that a band doesn’t use call the own music Black Metal does somehow matter; this is how Pagan Metal and Viking Metal came up. --217/83 10:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation from members of Funeral Mist or Emperor wouldn't pass WP:RS, in the same way a quote from the band themselves wouldn't (for the purposes of the lead/infobox). There might be merit in including comments as part of a general controversy paragraph, but beware of violating WP:UNDUE. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By “please tell me whether you want me to add the Funeral Mist quote or not“, I meant “add to the talk page” since you don’t own the book (as I did with the Emperor quote, see above), not “add to the article”. --217/83 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Forget about that, just read the Devilry article I wrote. --217/83 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH as it applies to this article

*Claim 1: black metal must be Satanic. POV, but can clearly be sourced, and would be relevant to the black metal article.

~~Claim 2: not all current members of Mayhem are Satanists. Can be sourced, and would be relevant to the Mayhem article.~~

Claim 3: this album's status as a black metal record has been disputed, because of (sourced) claims 1 & 2 = WP:SYNTH. Unsourced, needs a reliable source specifically stating that this album's inclusion has been disputed by a notable authority (avoiding WP:UNDUE). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claim 1: black metal must be Satanic. POV, but can clearly be sourced, and would be relevant to the black metal article.
Claim 2: no current members of Mayhem are Satanists. Can be sourced, and would be relevant to the Mayhem article.
Claim 3: this album's status as a black metal record has been disputed, because of (sourced) claims 1 & 2 = WP:SYNTH. Unsourced, needs a reliable source specifically stating that this album's inclusion has been disputed by a notable authority (avoiding WP:UNDUE). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. No current member of Mayhem is a Satanist, as referenced in the Mayhem article; or does this apply to any member that joined in the last years? --217/83 07:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of the argument above, it is totally irrelevant - it's still SYNTH! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you pretend that your version of claim two was one of those leading to “SYNTH” (there is no need to repeat that it is), my correction is relevant in this context; there is a big difference between “not all […] members […] are Satanists” and “none of the members is a Satanist” (on this topic, read Talk:Black metal#Ideology, especially the Ford and MkM quotes). --217/83 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. The argument is identical. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to write that “[t]he argument is identical”, I can read the new version; and although the words aren’t the same, it’s like repeating “it's still SYNTH”. “Changed” would have been enough. --217/83 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]