Talk:Ghost (Swedish band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Metal (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.


Does anyone else think that calling these guys psychedelic rock is a stretch? I think progressive rock is more appropriate. Xfansd (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, really. For Ghost: they do apply psychedelic rock more so than progressive rock in some areas of this album. As you already know with Ghost is that they apply 70's/80's progressive rock/metal, straight-up heavy metal from the same period, and doom metal from Pentagram, especially. But I think that psychedelic rock is a more suitable description of them than for progressive rock. panicpack121 14:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Technically there's nothing progressive about Ghost, the band uses traditional rock song structures. Psychedelic rock is closer to the truth, the band itself acknowledged the fact by covering The Beatles. I think "Heavy metal, doom metal, psychedelic rock" is an appropriate genre description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Feels more like Pseudo-Satanic Scooby-Doo rock to me. Fits within its own genre, rather than those mentioned above- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This band identifies themselves as "heavy rock", not "heavy metal". -- (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
It is completely irrelevant how the band identifies themselves, only how they are identified in suitable sources Duncan3dc (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What on EARTH are "suitable sources"...?! Of COURSE it's relevant how a band sees themselves - I'd have said that was the most relevant thing of all!
But, I may have only heard them 3 times, but 'heavy/doom metal' - don't make me LAUGH! Black Sabbath is heavy metal, Mötorhead are heavy metal, Deep Purple are sometimes classified as heavy metal - this lot...?! You've GOTTA be KIDDING me! Psychedelic rock...?! Well, that to me is the same as stoner rock and that's bands like Hawkwind and Ozric Tentacles - and do they sound like either...?! Er, no.
Prog...?! Well, prog's come a long way since bands like Yes (who I can't stand) but they don't sound like modern prog either.
To me, from what I've heard, they sound like just another run-of-the-mill pop/rock outfit, good at what they do but nothing innovative or noteworthy.
"What on EARTH are "suitable sources"...?!" - see WP:RS. Also read the Wikipedia policy WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Hope this clarifies things a bit. HrZ (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't hear any prog in Ghost's sound. That being said, I think they should be straight heavy metal, because they have the same style as the founders of the genre (black Sabbath) TheHeavyMetalThunder (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Come on, this is pretty clearly members of Subdivision, Repugnant, and In Solitude. In particular, the vocalist is obviously Tobias Forge. Shouldn't this be mentioned? I don't think it's up to Wikipedia to keep a bands' identity secret. (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to make sure it's factually correct, though. As long as you find a source to back it up, feel free to add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Member breakdown[edit]

The article states how many Nameless Ghouls there are, but since they're anonymous, the article stops there because there's no way to tell them apart. Except there is. Each of the Nameless Ghouls has the five elemental symbols on his (or her) cloak, with one symbol highlighted in particular as a sort of individual marker. I've added that fact to the article but I expect it to be deleted like 99% of all anonymous edits. Source:

Furthermore, here's the breakdown, in the top-to-bottom order they're displayed in.

  • Lead guitar - Fire (up triangle)
  • Bass guitar - Water (down triangle)
  • Keyboard - Air (up striped triangle)
  • Drums - Earth (down striped triangle)
  • Rhythm guitar - Ether (L-shaped glyph)

Problem is, I haven't seen this typed up anywhere on the internet. Is it original research? Or do photos like the following count as adequate citations?

I didn't find one that shows the drummer's symbol, but his must be the remaining one of the five.

If anyone agrees that this information is valuable and meets Wikipedia's standards (and knows how to type it up in such a manner), feel free to add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a problem as there is a reliable source saying that the Ghouls represent those elements. I did however remove the source you added because it does not qualify as reliable and went ahead and added images of the elements next to their respective instrumentalists. Xfansd (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At their show in Malmö Sweden 25th February 2016, Papa Emeritus III presented the band members "names" or rather their elements. However, during the presentation he said that the guitarists elements had been changed to Greek symbols. Where the lead guitar, previously Fire, now is named Alpha and Rhythm guitar, previously Ether now is named Omega. Maybe should be changed, I however don't have any sources other than me attending the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Band name[edit]

Other than in the USA, they are known as Ghost B.C. in Brazil as well. I think a more defined research could tell where else the band is known like that. It can't be in only two countries. -- (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

They're known as Ghost B.C. in the UK, too.

Source for genre?[edit]

Ghost is classified as "Doom metal" on this page, but I can't find a source for it other than sites that have gotten their source from here. Ghost seems to have too much of an "upbeat" sound to really be classified as "doom metal". At least half of Ghost's songs have a way more poppy sound than Doom metal is known (or described) to have. They definitely have "doom" influence, but they're definitely not actual "doom metal" if you seriously look at everything they've done. They're lyrics rarely talk about despair or self harm, like doom is known to. So... what do people think? (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NME and Loudwire called them doom metal, sourced in the Music section. Unless you are a respected music critic, your evaluation is irrelevant. In regard to the source you added, the subject of the article (in this case a member of the band) claiming what type of music they play is helpful to the article to give how they view their own work, but it is not a reliable source we use for their genre as it is self serving. Xfansd (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I cited an interview in the "Music" section of the article (From, in which a Nameless Ghoul specifically states that their style is a merge of pop music and death metal, and added it in the "Genre" part in the band's information template. The Pop music and Death Metal adds were removed. I don't understand how that wouldn't be considered valid if a member of the band was the one to specifically state it. (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It is exactly because it is from a member that it does not count as a reliable source for genres because it is unduly self serving. Wikipedia does not follow what the subject of an article wants. For example, two years ago a member of X Japan Tweeted that they did not want to be called heavy metal but instead simply a "rock band" and specifically pointed out Wikipedia. However, after numerous edits to their article (that resulted in the page being protected), nothing was changed in the end because numerous sources called them metal. As I stated above, it is nice to know what a member thinks hence it is ok to have in the body where it can be explained, but is not to be used to add to the infobox. Xfansd (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense because if you actually read that Self Source link that you directed us to says that self-sources like that ARE allowed, not that they AREN'T. It specifies things that aren't allowed, but claims to musical genre from the artist themselves for their source of sound is not one of them. So with that, their claim to what they are is just as valid a source as an actual expert on the subject. And I don't really understand how a "noted music critic" is anymore valid as a source than some guy in his basement, unless they can be proven to have some type of degree in musical critique. KetchupRevenge (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It says, quote; "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources[...] so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving..." Saying your own band is a mix of pop music and death metal, which are probably the two genres furthest from each other, to appeal to the widest possible demographic is unduly self-serving. Additionally, it says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." and we have third-party sources on their music making a self-source needless. The guy in a basement's critique would not be acceptable unless he previously established himself in the field by being "published by reliable third-party publications". My "music critic" comment was directed at the above ip after they gave their own thoughts on the music thinking it would justify changes, when odds are they were not published before. Xfansd (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed reffed text[edit]

"Many people have this concept of Ghost as being like a complete inversion of the church, whereas what we've actually done is just taken the church and painted a moustache on it [laughs]. We're basically doing the same thing that they have been for aeons; we're saying the same thing, just without a filter – the basic content is more or less the same."[1]

In May 2013 one member admitted "More and more we tend to just say it, because it causes way more trouble not saying it. Like locally, at home, that is. We live in a quite small city, under 40,000 people, and people know, and if you start lying to them in the face, it just gets worse. So it's our little secret together with everyone at home -- for house peace."[2]


Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just removed text out of identities[edit]

I just removed the text that names an individual as a "nameless ghoul". It was sourced to a database very much like Wikipedia and is therefore not reliable. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)