Jump to content

Talk:Arch Enemy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:c7e:3404:9d00:2cb3:fbae:e80e:e103 (talk) at 04:43, 28 September 2021 (→Controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Christopher Ammott illiterate?

An anonymous author wrote this in the article:

"In July, guitarist Christopher Amott temporarily left the band in order to focus on finishing his studies (which is interesting considering he is reported to be illiterate)"

(emphasis mine)

I commented this until (s)he or anyone else can give a reliable source for this, since I find this highly unlikely. Rbarreira 14:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very good guess that that's just vandalism. You may remove such dubious quotes inserted by anons at sight. --Sn0wflake 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Angela Gossow said in Kerrang issue 1084 "[Chris] just couldn't face the upcoming touring and promotion schedule... He never liked it, and I think he realised it was going to be a long time before he had any time to himself." So I changed the article. 13-days 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title of photo

The one partway down. Does it really need to say "the band Arch Enemy in 2004...."? The article is about Arch Enemy, there is already a photo of them further up the page and the punctuation in this title is all wrong anyway. My excuse for removing the name of the band from the title anyway! IainP (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it in the first place! However, I don't think it will do any harm. 13-days 14:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you should try single-handedly writing articles on bands nobody cares about instead of complaining over trivialities. Anyway, next time you want something changed, say it, it instead of criticizing my work. --Sn0wflake 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No need to say it, we changed it ourselves. Sorry you found it so offensive. 13-days 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... I did say it. I thought I best explain why I was making the change, so I did on here hence my original post. IainP (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a picture of the Arch Enemy logo. Definitely. Also Chris is not illiterate, he just once jokingly put that in his biography.

Someone needs to update the band photo. Fredrick Akesson is no longer in this band (and hasn't been for a while now), as Christopher Amott returned. It's also quite unsuitable that Akesson is the most visibly prominent person in the photo!

Rumors of Romantic Involvement

I removed the reference to rumors regarding Gossow's romantic link to Ammott. Not only is that rumor unverified and uncommon, there was a sexist tone to the notion that she was a good singer, despite this.


  • Not sure where I read it, but in an interview Michael said that they were indeed a couple, and that he didn't want to reveal it at the time. I'll try to find the link. Skeletor2112 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are a couple: it was never a case of rumour of romantic envolvement, they are together. Verification can be found in Metal Hammer magazine, 2004.

Cool. Could someone with access to that article insert that information, preferrably with out the disparaging tone? The Shrike 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liiva/Bass

This article is the only place I've heard that Michael Ammott actually played bass on Black Earth rather than Johan Liiva. Is there anywhere I could see Ammott's comments on the subject? Radagast1983 15:11, 18 May 2006

Live Apocalypse

This section seems to be advertising the DVD, does it really merit a section of its own? I suggesst removing this and adding it to the discography as a DVD section.

Category: Heavy metal bands with female lead singers

How about category Heavy metal bands with female lead singers? -- Panu 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanic God Creation?

I dunno if this has happened to anybody else, but while looking for songs by semi-fictional death metal band Dethklok on a file sharing program, I found a file marked as "Dethklok - Mechanic God Creation" with a length of six minutes. Now, I dunno if any of you actually watch the show/download any of the music, but most of the tracks fade out or end after a minute and a half or so. So the six minutes intrigued me. With a little digging, it turns out it's an Arch Enemy song.

...Okay, long story short. Mechanic God Creation is mislisted as a Dethklok song on filesharing proggies. I'm noting this. >.>

Stupid Question

Why is there a '(band)' at the end of the article name, when there's no need for disambiguation? It's plain stupid-K@ngiemeep! 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It once was just Arch Enemy... then somebody decided it shouldn't be and so it wasn't. Now I'll move it back and hopefully nobody will move it again. Also, keep in mind that using agression for no reason ("stupid idea", etc) is frowned upon on the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggesting that calling something stupid is a violation of WP:CIVIL is going a little overboard, especially when one considers the amount of edit warring and personal attacks that goes on unnoticed on WP. How could anyone take offense to a page title being referred to as stupid?-K@ngiemeep!
      • Who said "violation"? "Frowned upon", yes. Why make a pseudo-aggressive statement when you can simply ask "Why is the name like that? Is it ok to change it?". Whatever, this is not a discussion for an article Talk page. Your concern has been addressed. "You're welcome." --Sn0wflake 01:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What's the point in criticizing my remark if you know it wasn't meant to attack or cause tension? w/e, lets just drop the issue. Thanks for moving the page-K@ngiemeep! 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Point of order; Arch Enemy was not created from the ashes of Carcass. Arguably, Blackstar (Rising) was forme from the ashes of Carcass as it contained three ex members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.144.23.38 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ArchEnemy-DeadEyesSeeNoFuturej.jpg

Image:ArchEnemy-DeadEyesSeeNoFuturej.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

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 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackearthcover.jpg

Image:Blackearthcover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Burningbridgescover.jpg

Image:Burningbridgescover.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 Wikipedia articles 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 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backmasked Messages

If you reverse the song "Skeleton Dance" off of Doomsday Machine, there are a few backmasked messages, I can only make out one though, "Bleeding Forever." Anyone else care to give it a listen and share their thoughts? Thanks AgentHappyDay 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted as an associated band?

I was listening to the notes on the 2004 special edition reissue of One Kill Wonder and found that Michael done the solo on Bloodletting. Do you think that is strong enough to let The Haunted be considered an associated act (also for other reasons)? NaotoATG 08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Earth album does not appear when I search for it

I'm a noob so I don't know how to do this, but I noticed when you type Black Earth in search, nothing about it being an Arch Enemy album appears. That is, unless you type Black Earth (album) but that is kind of annoying. Someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentkro (talk • contribs) 02:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It takes you to a disambiguation oage, where lots of pages related to 'Black Earth' are listed. The Arch Enemy album is listed. J Milburn 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next album:

I can't find the myspace bulletin, but there was a bulletin posted either from the band's page or from Angella Gossow's page that stated that they would be releasing a new album made up of 12 old songs that they've re-recorded with 'Gossow on vocals. The bulletin went on to say that they (the band) want people to be able to hear what they sound like now, the "old" songs that they still play at concerts but with their second singer..

Pure Fucking Metal

The amount of tshirts that they have sold that say this on the back and the fact that it has been on their merch stand forever should be mentioned I would have hoped, it is an iconic tshirt in metal. Need a source I suppose for the wiki nazis....

Anyone else have them on myspace and see that bulletin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaruyache (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation album page need writing

I just added the compilation album Manifesto of Arch Enemy to the discography section.. but I have yet to write the page or do anything else. Someone else want to step up and do it? Links: http://www.amazon.com/Manifesto-Arch-Enemy/dp/B001R1DKQC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1242699127&sr=8-1
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=115541 Zaruyache (talk)

Anarchism?

Does anybody have a repuatable source for this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.44.224 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album count inconsistency

The amount of albums released (9) is inconsistent with the count in the text (saying War Eternal is the tenth release), probably because The Root of All Evil is counted as an album in the text, but as a compilation on the discography page. I'm not sure which is more accurate here; The Root of All Evil contains re-recordings that are noticeably different. 46.5.98.151 (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alissa photo?

Can someone add a new photo with Alissa fronting please? Mark Coatsworth (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Arch Enemy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Content of article needs to cite sources, but article has great discography and infobox. - cgilbert(talk

Substituted at 18:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arch Enemy. 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.

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) 13:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arch Enemy. 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.

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) 07:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only seven former members and one touring member, a lot of the information there can already be found at the main article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wow, this is an old discussion. Per 4TheWynne, and the sourcing isn’t strong in the article either. ~SML • TP 22:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – thanks, guys. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There appears to be a dispute around the controversy section. It is cited and to my eyes correct as far as the citations suggest, however it is being regularly deleted or amended. The most recent removal threatens "report to the authorities" for slander. Which bit is incorrect? 86.11.166.223 (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the last removal was due to "social media not being cite-worthy", I feel that this is some sort of PR damage control by the band, management or over-zealous fans. Plenty of other band wiki entries have controversy sections. It may be time to protect this page from potential damage? 212.186.231.202 (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised to see the photographer copyright controversy from the end of 2018 was not included on this page, or the page for Alissa White-Gluz. Has there been any discussion about this? Earfetish1 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added before. The only account of this supposed controversy is from the attention-seeker photographer himself, therefore unnacceptable per WP:RS. Fbergo (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22arch+enemy%22+photographer none of these 2.5 million results are reputable? I can see several sources that would be determined as reputable according to WP:RS in the top ten results. It's like the most significant thing about them. For comparison, Dead Eyes See No Future gets less than 50k results. Earfetish1 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
: : I was a little surprised that this wasn't in the article to be honest. I remember this from a couple of years back, and "controversy" would be the right word. The photographer and others in the business had one view, the band and some fans had another. Two different points of view, both strongly defended... Seems pretty controversial to me. I'm not sure how having an opinion on an event (that you are involved in) is attention-seeking - it seems to me that if that is applied here, it should be applied to pretty much anything. Also there are independent sources who reported on it. https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/photographer-becomes-arch-enemy-for-going-after-copyright-offenders-359112

2A02:C7E:3404:9D00:2CB3:FBAE:E80E:E103 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arch_Enemy&oldid=1046936484"