This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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 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

I do agree the band has developed a more melodic sound over the years. Still, it nothing to be compared with like Dimmu Borgir or the like. Therefore I think it should be noted that they play Black metal with melodic influences, rather than to say they play Melodic black metal, period. Resilldoux (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you say it, I agree with you. It would be fair to say the band has melodic ELEMENTS not influences. Also they do not use keyboards or synthesizers or wt ever there called :P. So lets change back to just black metal because its still very extreme and lives up to the standard, I do not see see melodic influences very important so I'll move it down a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.212.116 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, elements, that the right word. =) Resilldoux (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do use keyboards/ synths, though. Think of the intro to At The Heart of Winter or the middle section of Beyond The North Waves. Though they don't use it as a lead instrument. - Tulloch Gorum from Lesmahagow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.83 (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the band isn't satanic, nor do they "espouse Satanism", what's up with the Pure Holocaust album cover (which features an inverted cross and an inverted pentagram). That kinda tells me that they're kinda... satanic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.173.152 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted crosses can (and often) simply mean hostility towards christianity. What the inverted pentagram represents I'm sure you can read about on this website.80.202.209.162 (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would clear up some sentences, and make the page look a little neater. Some more POV statements were reworded, and some information was corrected/cited. --Ryouga 05:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an awful lot of red links towards the bottom of the page, how do you suggest we deal with this? HAIL IMMORTAL! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple; you either create the article or you remove the brackets. Scarian^Talk 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, I guess. I suppose I was hoping for something more interesting or something. lol, idk. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..in when the band was formed, which technically is 1989 because the band 'Amputation' basically merged into Immortal, because every band member of the group then was also in Immortal once it was formed. Okram 09 (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also noting i made an addition of the band starting as Old Funeral, and Amputation, because both bands merged into Immortal. though you will notice that it is apparent that Old Funeral attempted to continue, though split up shortly after. the reason i am merging Old funeral with immortal is because it was the original band basically until the band's name changed. the old funeral page is still there as well, though i suggest a full merge into the immortal page. 58.168.71.201 (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it says 'The band was formed by Abbath Doom Occulta after his previous band, Amputation did not lift off' but i thought it was actually Demonaz who formed Amputation. i thought that abbath started old funeral, demonaz joined afterwards, then left to start amputation, then abbath left old funeral to join amputation, then immortal came from that. some possible citations: http://www.rockdetector.com/officialbio,4324.sm and http://www.blackmetal.com/cgi-bin/gold/category.cgi?item=NB66120CD&type=store&category=search. but obviously i'm not claiming to be an expert, or definitely right :D. --Gpmuscillo (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of opinionated stuff with no citations, like for instance "They are often noted as having created their own niche in black metal which has guaranteed them a spot on the list of the best bands in the history of the genre. Several classic albums such as Pure Holocaust, Battles In The North, At The Heart Of Winter and Sons Of Northern Darkness also help to solidify their status". Someone should flag the article as ... well as something. I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.209.162 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put some templates on the top of the article to reflect its poor state.80.202.209.162 (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it appears unfounded after a long dissapearance they were able to headline Wacken... something that a notewoirthy band could only really do after such an absence. cyclonis12

I removed all statements without citations, most of which was biased, if anyone has a problem with that, you can revert to a previous version or rewrite it. Terminxman (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the unfounded statements about church burnings and stuff has been (thankfully) removed, shouldn't we remove the neutrality part from the tag? MammonI.Dumah (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Appearance section needs some tidying up before removing the neutrality tag ("over the top", "infamous music video", etc). Either some sources supporting those words, or replacement of those words with less non-neutral language. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these issues. While I think some of these may be circumveneted by changing the wording, I think the rest of the text (about the album cover, music video) refers to their status as a meme. While I think this can be proven quite easily, I'm not sure what constitutes a good citation about memes. MammonI.Dumah (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is this section mostly ridiculous? Also, I don't see the notability. If anything it's only worth a short mention that the band writes a lot in their lyrics about a fictional ice kingdom called Blashyrkh. Not a whole section, though. Navnløs (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was merged here from its own separate article, which was completely unsourced and non-notable. I threw on the Unreferenced Section tag, but I see no reason for there to be a section, maybe just a sentence (a sourced sentence). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel article with large section about Blashyrkh can be found here. --Sigwald (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see enough there for maybe 3 sentences:

Immortal's lyrics are based on an overall theme, a realm called "Blashyrkh", which is said to be "demon-and-battle-filled".^[1] The idea for Blashyrkh came about from Demonaz and Abbath's feelings of isolation living in Bergen. They created Blashyrkh to mirror those feelings, basing it on Norway, including "winter landscapes", "the woods, the mountains, the darkness, the fog", and "glacial valleys".^[2]

I don't see much more than that being notable. I don't think this qualifies as "fair-use" of lyrics, especially since those lyrics don't support the sentence they claim to be (nowhere in those lyrics is there a mention of anything eternal, nor snow and frost). The rest of this section doesn't sound encyclopedic, seems to be original research, and generally seems non-notable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. Also, what you wrote is perfect I think. I'm all for that being added in and the previous crap being deleted. Sounds much more encyclopedic. Navnløs (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Before more edits are made about Blashyrkh, they should be brought up here and discussed first. eta: Go figure. There was already info on Blashyrkh-lyrics in the article. I replaced that with my sourced sentences. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Navnløs (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Immortal (band)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Allmusic":

• From Motörhead: Erlewine, Stephen. "Motörhead Biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 11 February 2007. Motörhead wasn't punk rock ... but they were the first metal band to harness that energy and, in the process, they created speed metal and thrash metal.
• From Tsjuder: Rivadavia, Eduardo. "Tsjuder–Biography". Allmusic. Macrovision. Retrieved 2009-02-04.
• From Heavy metal subgenres: "Doom metal". Allmusic. Retrieved 2008-07-21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All three genres in the infobox are sourced. If other editors believe that certain genres should not be included in the infobox, bring it up here and discuss it. Do not just start warring over the genres again. This is unproductive and will simply be reverted to the current, sourced state. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I looked at the history and many people kept changing it that it had admin protection on full. Besides, people only call them black metal. Even metal-archives only call them black metal. Just because they're sourced doesn't mean they should stay like that. The compromised genre has always been black metal. They only began as a death metal band. They had thrash on only few stuff. But they're more known black metal. Even with all metal sites calling them nothing but black metal, it's true that it should remain black metal. Because those genres have led to edit wars a lot. Black metal will be the consensus anyways. Since the band aren't necessarily death/thrash just cause it's sourced. I could find many sources saying slipknot were thrash/death/black metal and add it to the genre infobox with no consensus, but it'll lead to edit wars and we obviously know that's not true about slipknot's genre. Immortal were more recgonized as black metal. I'll add a music style section or whatever...

Stgw (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Archives can’t be trusted (e. g.: user generated content and false information), see de:Diskussion:Corrupted#Bearbeitungen. And if people call Immortal a Black Metal band, that is because of their early albums (I am not that familiar with their later output). Please add a music style section but do not remove genres from the lead. I don’t even agree with people calling Immortal a Black Metal band (the band themselves stated they don’t play Black Metal because they have nothing to do with Satanism), but I know removing it won’t lead to anything. --217/83 10:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and it also explains why the neutrality of the article's disputed

Stgw (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the source says that only their EARLY DEMO RECORDINGs were death metal, but that's not enough to add in the infobox. Otherwise then because of Korn's song Jingle Balls, we have to add death metal to their infobox for one song they made. Or we'll have to add punk rock to A7X's genre cause of their song "Streets". But demo recordings aren't enough. Also, those thrash sources only say one album is thrash metal. And it says At the Heart of Winter was thrash metal, not All Shall Fall. Read the reviews. But then again one album isn't enough, it's not like we're adding dubstep to korn because of path of totality or something. Once they make more death metal/thrash then we can add it.

Stgw (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is enough. Or would you deny Darkthrone played Death Metal because it’s just demo recordings and one album? Don’t know about A7X and Korn. --217/83 10:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Please indent your comments for future reference) I have reverted your removal of these genres, do not remove them again until this discussion is complete. You making a comment here does not make consensus. If you continue to remove these reliably sourced genres, I will bring it up at WP:ANI.

I've got more to say, but am busy currently. In the meantime, do not remove those sourced genres until the discussion is finished (ie more than one person has replied, and a discussion had). I have also removed that new section you created, as most of the information is already included (in more detail) in the History section (which is also much more well-written than your section was). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cause that the musical style basically explains their style, I decided to source the genre since it barely sourced black metal. I think black metal is the only suitable genre. But it is sourced they formed in 1989. But we can improve sections with expansions. Even if genres are sourced, you also should seek consensus, that's what they did with the black dahlia m urder and cradle of filth. The band only have been known for black metal.

Stgw (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Darkthrone are known for their Black Metal albums (and some journalists and fans seem to ignore the band’s evolution) but that doesn’t mean we deny the rest of their history. --217/83 10:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept the new formation year plus source.

The genres are sourced and until you showed up, consensus agreed with what was there. The whole point of this discussion is to gain a new consensus if needed. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted it, and began discussion here. Again, do not make any changes until this discussion is finished. I have requested that the article be protected from editing until this discussion is resolved.

I notice you keep referring to metal archives as if that is somehow relevant. Metal archives is not a reliable source, and frankly I don't care what it says over there.

I have no idea about the various bands you mentioned above. I know nothing about Korn, or Slipknot, or A7X, so referring to them is pointless. Let's concentrate on this band's article, not other articles about other unrelated bands.

I actually don't disagree with removing death metal, as even the article says it was only their demos that were death metal, but another editor believed we should keep death metal in the infobox, and that was the consensus reached (so I have already sought consensus, as you suggested above, and until now, that was the consensus reached).

Instead of constantly trying to revert to your version, wait until this discussion has had more input from other editors. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help calm down the disputes with "death metal", given that it's a controversial addition, could it be worth changing the genre to this: Death metal (early), black metal (mid to recent), thrash metal (recent). — Richard BB 06:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at changes in February the genre warring was extreme that it got full protected. It says that only they were thrash in 1998 whee the heart of winter was released. Demos don't really affect genres if they were in the early years and were made extremely rare. At least until the talk is done we can put what Richard says

Stgw (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] I like how it looks now. I think this is a reasonable compromise; we show all three, but declare "death metal" to specifically refer to their early (demo) material, and putting it last in the list doesn't make it as prominent as the other two genres.

I also notice that the one user who caused all the disruptive editing in the first place has just been banned for sockpuppetry. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to official site it's 1990. Some sources claim that Amputation renamed into Immortal, so Immortal founded in 1989. Others say that Amputation <> Immortal. Finally, Varg noted that even 1990 is fake and Immortal founded later (link). I think it's not correct to consider one date as only one true, we should mention all different opinions. --Sigwald (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their official site says 1990 was the release date of their first demo here. Allmusic also agrees with 1990 here. Varg may claim differently, but is he a reliable source for this information (I notice he doesn't say when they actually formed)? (I would say no, he is not.) The current given source here only obliquely claims 1989 – it gives a vague "in the late 80s" and gives a participation date of 1989–1991 for Tunsberg. Can you provide some reliable sources supporting both "Some sources claim that Amputation renamed into Immortal, so Immortal founded in 1989." and "Others say that Amputation <> Immortal."? If anyone has access to books like Lords of Chaos or old zines from the day, and if they give a start date for the band, that would be useful as well. Currently I'm leaning towards 1990 based on both the official site and Allmusic. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 sources for "Amputation renamed into Immortal" in russian article, but in fact they are not very reliable. And i can't find origin of this information in english right now. By the way musicmight bio has 2 dates - 1990 (in the text) and 1991 (in the header). --Sigwald (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The old Immortal homepage’s biography mentioned that Abbath and Demonaz "created Immortal in the autumn of 1990. They had both been involved in the Norwegian metal scene for a couple of years, Abbath in Old Funeral and Demonaz in Amputation. […] The original line-up of Immortal featured two other persons. Guitarist Jorn Inge Tunsberg (now in Hades Almighty) had played in the previous band Amputation. So had the very first drummer of the group, Gedda (also known as Armagedda), who was the best drummer they've had until present skinbeater Horgh entered the scene in 1996." Same for the list of members. They also mention 1990 as their foundation date in this interview. I can’t recall any interview claiming Amputation renamed into Immortal, or that Immortal were not founded in 1990 (I am sure I could find more on that topic looking through old zine interviews).

By the way, don’t forget Varg Vikernes talks a lot of bullshit (see e. g. Talk:Euronymous#Lies by Vikernes and my last edit). --217/83 21:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Varg is member of early norwegian scene, so his words have some weight. It can be lie, but we have no right to judge it. --Sigwald (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of his being an early member of that scene, we can't just take his word at face value. His own writings have no editorial oversight and aren't fact-checked, and so his writings aren't a reliable source. We may have no right to judge it, but we have no obligation to use it either. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of summary: Allmusic - 1990, musicmight - 1990 in text, old official site - 1990, this interview - 1990. I think that's enough, so i'll change foundation year back to 1990. --Sigwald (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Varg, Immortal started using this name in 1991: [1] (In Bergen the guys in Amputation and Old Funeral formed a new band in 1991, called Immortal). Heepman1997 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Immortal (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090628045255/http://www.immortalofficial.com:80/oldnews.html to http://www.immortalofficial.com/oldnews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While he wasn't noted on the Official website recently, he was never official fired or quit the band. He most likely wasn't noted because he is the most recent of the members in the band. He has been in several bands at the same time through out the years. So where did he or the band official state he was out? Devilmanozzy (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immortal (band). 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:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68sW316qP?url=http://www.immortalofficial.com/blog/?page_id=184 to http://www.immortalofficial.com/blog/?page_id=184

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject has the same form as a whole. Jokes are great but we shouldn't undermine the common form.