Talk:Green Day/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Proper Criticism 2 Confused! 3 Explanation for removal of picture 4 Delisted as a good article 5 The instruments 6 Template 7 Citation Needed 8 PSP music videos 9 Alternative 10 Skatepunk 11 Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist 12 Jason White official? 13 Green Day simply are the best... 14 Mass grouping of sound samples 15 Skene! and Years 16 ---------- 17 Opening Paragraph 18 Origin 19 Semi-protection? 20 berkeley, oakland, pinole 21 Propositions 22 Location 23 Discography 24 Criticism 25 origin 26 First paragraph 27 Jason White section 28 Cigarettes and Vlanetines 29 Awards 29.1 Awards 29.1.1 1995 29.1.2 1998 29.1.3 2001 29.1.4 2005 29.1.5 2006 30 Rewrite 31 Photos 32 Musical Style 33 Criticism Citations 34 We need an admin...NOW!!! 35 Green Day's sales 36 closing time 37 American Idiot sales status 38 Origin of Band Name 39 Actual Criticism 40 Lead Section 41 Concerts 42 East Bay 43 Failed good article nomination 44 GD's sales 45 Fanboy bias

Proper Criticism

Why is there no proper criticism? Seems like the article was made by a bunch of you weirdo fans who dont go outside and go around insulting people.

~Neo Exelor

This band isnt good its songs are hurtful like American Idiot, All American Rejects are better < Heh. You silly emo Republicans.

You do know that they are American, therefore they were insulting themselves too. And second, dont take the song seriously, no one else does.

I'm very disappointed because you people are going with this band. I don't care if they've sold 10 billion records worldwide! They call themselves something that they're not! PUNK!!! You people are nuts because you're thinking this. A REAL punk band is Sex Pistols, Clash or MxPx. You get it right or don't speak at all! They're freaking POWERPOP!!!!!

--HappyBoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) MxPx? Yeah, that's pretty damn punk alright...

I must agree that this article needs a criticism section. Although I love Green Day to pieces, even more so after the release of American Idiot, which I think is the greatest mainstream rock album of our time, and as a fan I think this article needs to cover a broader spectrum in order to be taken seriously. In response to the criticism about them not being punk, I believe that Armstrong stated in an interview somewhere that he no longer considers Green Day punk, but more straight rock. I also recall reading an article in a local music magazine that had quotes from the frontman of the sex pistols trashing Green Day severely as not being punk. If anyone could find these two things somewhere on the internet as citations, they would be great for this article, I believe. Satchfan 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You bet MxPx is a Christian band and if you're bashing them because of that then you're predjudiced! Now referring to what Satchfan stated, that's good they consider themselves rock now. So why should it say punk on the page? And yes, Johnny Rotten of the first ever UK punk band, The Sex Pistols (formerly the Swankers), did bash Green Day on the radio for being a disgrace to punk as we know it. It's true what he says. Anyone who doesn't believe it is friggin crazy!

24.64.223.203 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

But yeah, he's right there should be a criticism area. 72.226.87.148 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They Used to be Punk. Now they're not. Simple. --AmyRoxYourSox 10:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If they're not punk now then why does it say that? OK I'll go with the Pop Punk Revival and Alternative but why should it say punk anymore?--24.64.223.203 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

But I think in Bullet in a Bible, Billie Joe said they were Punk Rock or something to that effect. Orfen 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well they're not!--24.64.223.203 08:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Define punk then. They undeniably began as punk, and their music has changed relatively little. Theplanetsaturn

You know what guys? I don't really give a crap anymore! You guys do whatever you want, I don't care!24.64.223.203 22:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Define punk? Try wiktionary. I've gone through the definition and sources and have dismantled any "evidence" showing Green Day as being punk. If you want to call them punk, then why not include Avril Lavigne? They're both marketted as being punk. And I'm tired of people saying they used to be punk. Personally, I don't think they ever were punk. But besides that, at the very least there should be a whole section, if not article, that deals with the great deal of controversey of Green Day being punk. Gold Stur 23:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We've pointed out the flaws in your arguments many times. The fact of the matter is that Green Day is widely classified as punk rock, and that's that. WesleyDodds 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't DEFINE punk. You just can't! What kind of stupid remark is that? And wesley, who are you talking to?24.64.223.203 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy<-------He's not so happy anymore.

HappyBoy: YOU can't define punk? But you have already definitively stated that Green Day is NOT punk. If YOU cannot define it what punk is, then what business do you have defining what it is NOT?Theplanetsaturn

Gold Stur: You don't think they were ever punk? That just shows to me that you don't understand what punk was in the early 90's. They played self described punk rock at a self described punk club to a self described punk audience. The scene at Gilman, will you also say that that was not punk? I guess you can if you want, but the fact is you'll be wrong. Regardless, as WesleyDodds says, Green Day is widely classified as punk. Definitions are formed by popular usage. Therefore, Green Day is punk. End of story.Theplanetsaturn

I'm just saying to take "punk rock" off because technically the new punk now is nothing like the original and is called Pop Punk.24.64.223.203 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Diffuted my claims? That's such an insult it's almost a personal attack. What happens to me and my arguments is that since I'm not the CEO of Viacom or National Amusements I don't have the authority to bring up commonly held punk principles and show that Green Day never pertained to any of them. Atleast I don't have to worry about anyone telling me to DIY and create a zine publically exposing Green Day as the frauds they are because I doubt that many Green Day fans even know there is a DIY culture in punk rock. Afterall, why DIY, or even T(hink)F(or)Y when that's what the people working at MTV and the big record companies get paid to do? And as for the scene in the 90s, it was small and slow. Green Day was not part of it either. Turning on MTV and seeing their music videos play, and worse yet, actually listening to their music alone, is proof enough that Green Day care nothing at all about punk, DIY, or any political or social issues in today's world. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, they just want that pay check from WMG and MTV. Thanks, but I don't need some fat, old, white CEO to tell me what punk is; teenage rebellion cashed in on. No, now that I think about, go ahead and call Green Day punk. If majority is truth, then Green Day, Hot Topic, blink-182, Good Charlotte, Avril Lavigne, they're all punk. We've rewritten history before, what's one more time, in the name of profit? I'm reluctant to tell anyone I'm punk, to wear my kutte, I'm even disgusted by the actual word "punk" itself. Punk is dead because we killed it. In the minds of everyone that isn't punk, punk is Green Day. So, go ahead and call Green Day punk. If we've been generous to expand the term this much in a decade, than soon we'll have punk rap. All you need are studs! Not only is punk dead, but it's been soldout. Filthy and disgusting and I wish for no part in it. Gold Stur 23:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

We already have punk-rap. It's called Rapcore. (Rap+Hardcore Punk).24.64.223.203 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

No band has ever been all punk, all the time. Ever. I honestly can't believe people are still here having this debate about Green Day not being punk. Every remotely successful punk band has failed at being punk, somehow. Every unsuccessful punk band has failed at being punk, somehow. The Ramones weren't political. The Clash and the Sex Pistols "sold out" (repeatedly). Anyone who's done the Warped Tour in the last 10 years "sold out". Punk can never do anything but fail. It's a fantastic catch-22. One of my favourites, actually. Longview is just as punk as I Wanna Be Sedated. American Idiot is just as punk as London Calling. Etc etc. Green Day are just as punk as anyone else. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

HappyBoy: Bear in mind that Green Day is not a thing that exists in a single moment. This is a band that has existed for nearly 17 years. While the definitions of punk have certainly evolved during this time, partially due to Green Day's influence, you still have to judge within context. Green Day formed as a punk band. They played punk music at punk clubs to fans that identified themselves as punks. On a site like Wikipedia, we are presenting an overview of the band. Not a description of what the band means simply to the here and now. Genre labels are a tricky thing for just this reason. You can throw about terms like "punk", "pop punk", "alternative", but these are all transitory by nature. If ten years from now, country western music sounds like the Sex Pistols, do we retroactively label the Sex Pistols as a country band?Theplanetsaturn

Gold Stur: You're position simply underscores your ignorance of history. Your perceptions of the early 90's punk scene are simply absurd. Furthermore, last I checked the underlying theme of punk was autonomy. While many Green Day fans may not be punk, you fail to show any reasonable argument as to why the definition (in regards to philosophy) does not apply to the band itself. You speak about Green Day fans failing to comprehend the "do it yourself" aspect of punk culture, but you ignore the obvious fact that the definition of FANS is not the discussion. Do you actually judge a band by who listens to them? Do you judge a person by the music they choose? You're reluctant to wear your jacket or tell people you're punk? A deep aspect of punk philosophy you seem to have ignored is to embrace what you like, do as you want, regardless of what other people think about it or you. You actually care what others might think of you? That they might apply the wrong musical preferences to you? Are you embarrassed? Ashamed? I'm sorry then. You're not punk.Theplanetsaturn

Fill me in on the history of 90s punk. And as I have said countless times before, Green Day being on MTV should be proof enough that they aren't punk. Gold Stur 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of resources available online or off that will help educate you on 90's punk. As for MTV? Since when was a presence on MTV or a lack of presence on MTV relevant when making this particular distinction? You are simply pointing to proof of the bands popularity. We already know that they are popular, but the reality is that popularity (or a lack thereof) does not define punk.Theplanetsaturn

You need us to educate you about the last decade and a half of punk music? Are you saying you have no more than a superficial knowledge of the topic you're trying to debate? I can't personally speak to MTV, but I've seen countless "real" punk bands on MuchMusic up here. Like I said though. Any band that gets major exposure like that has "failed". I'd count articles in major music publications (Rolling Stone, SPIN, etc) similarly. Y'know, bands like X, the Dead Kennedys, Fugazi... --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 00:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're so popular that that's why they're called pop-punk and not punk. rolloffle pwnt. Gold Stur 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold Stur: Sure. If you had bothered to read in context you would see that I have never argued against the label "pop punk". In fact, I have already pointed out that both punk and pop-punk are interchangeable dependent upon outside conditions, hence the describing word "transitory". Obviously, this applies to something as shifting as popularity. You should try reading next time, or at least comprehending. "rolloffle pwnt" indeed.Theplanetsaturn

I feel that just because a band is popular that doesn't mean they can't be punk. Being popular can help you spread your message to a wider audience while not being popular limits you to the select underground listeners that know your existense. I can understand how some people think that because a band is mainstream that means they aren't punk. But just because a band is mainstream doesn't mean that they have become what they set out to rebel against or destroy. If a punk band sacrifices it's message and sound for a mainstream audience then it has seriously failed. It comes down to the music itself, not who they are affiliated with. Orfen 04:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You all need to come back to the point: The point is that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so to have the Green Day article properly complete, it does need a criticism section. I think that is unanimous. However, what I don't agree with is people using this page as an excuse to bash Green Day. IF YOU DON'T LIKE A BAND, THEN DON'T LISTEN TO THEM, OR VISIT THEIR WIKIPEDIA PAGE. It's the easiest way around messes like this. All of you should just take five. For the record, I don't believe that Green Day were ever really a fully-fleged punk band. Their earlier stuff certainly had some elements of punk, but what you have to remember is that they've been around for the best part of 20 years, and in order to stay relevant, they had to change. Just my 2 cents....FPV F6 TYPHOON 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused!

Looking thru recent revisions, I see that there are lots of reverts. I am finding it very hard to understand what the heck is being reverted! If you revert vandalism (if you have not yet, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism because many users have a false understanding of it) then that is fine, but if you just revert an edit because you don't like that someone removed something you added in, you really need to talk about it on the talk page first because else people might think that it is vandalism. All I know is that I was very confused when I looked at the history. WIKIPEEDIO 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for removal of picture

Someone changed the main picture on the article to one that was taken a long time ago (like in the 80's or early 90's). The band looks totally different now, meaning if we kept that new picture the information would be out of date. I reverted it and put the old picture back in. If you have a problem with this, please discuss your rationale below. Thanks, WIKIPEEDIO 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The recent pic that we have right now (and has been for quite some time) is good. Drdr1989 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. :) WIKIPEEDIO 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Delisted as a good article

I delisted this article for the follwoing reasons:

• This article is extremely light on inline references. Statements need to be substantiated with references and sources. for example: "Idiot was noted by critics as far more mature and musically eclectic than the latters and is often cited as their best work to date."
• Additonally, the tone is some spots is fannish.
• Also, the article is still riddled with opinions masquerading as fact. For example: "some observers were coming to the conclusion that the band was losing relevance, and a decline in popularity followed." OR "By this time, the members were starting their families, and it was becoming apparent that they were maturing as individuals and as a band." The second one is especially weird since BJA has been married for over a decade, and his oldest kid is 11. So, his family was already well underway. The statement needs clarification or substatiation with quotes or something.

The article is not so bad, actually, but doesn't meet good article criteria.--Esprit15d 17:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that; it reads pretty poorly to me, and I haven't read the whole article prior to today. There is a whole lot of cruft and trivia and unreferenced material in there. I haven't even got past the "Lookout" section and I'm feeling the urge to start chopping away. --Xinit 19:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree Jacknife737 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• This article might actually need a bit of cleanup! --Jordan Elder talk 16:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The instruments

So in the opening sentence we list all the band members along with their positions (i.e. "Billie Joe Armstrong (lead vocal, guitar)" ) And then, we have it again in the sidebox. I think we should only keep the one in the sidebox and drop the ones on the main article so that we could have the opening sentence like "Green Day is a California band consisting of Billie Joe Armstrong, Mike Dirnt and Trè Cool". It would be less awkward. WIKIPEEDIO 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Kokiri kid 07:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

Should it be colored green? Just for kicks hehehe... --Howard the Duck 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be cool!

--HappyBoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

Citation Needed

I have looked at the External Links on the article and have done searched some other sites and can't find anything to corroborate the statement that Green Day has sold over 60 million albums worldwide.--Geoffrey Gibson 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

--Well, if you add up all the total sales from each album (excluding Bullet in a Bible), it actually adds up to 24,253,000 albums sold. A table proving this:

Album Name	Copies Sold
1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours	55,000 units sold
Kerplunk!	680,000 units sold
Dookie	Ten million units sold
Insomniac	3 million units sold
nimrod.	2.1 million units sold
Warning:	One million units sold
International Superhits!	1.2 million units sold
Shenanigans	183,000 units sold
American Idiot	6.6 million units sold
Bullet in a Bible	Unknown
Total	24,818,000 units sold

All data is taken from each album's page. American Idiot's 6.6 million is counting the 1 million digital downloads. I couldn't find any album statistics for Bullet in a Bible. --BloodLinedBandLead 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I think that's only of the USA.

24.64.223.203 21:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Just look at the Green Day discography page. It says that they have in ecess of 53 million albums sold worldwide, exculding Bullet in a Bible. The statsistacs in the table above are just for the U.S. market only, not worldwide. Also, check out [1] for some partial info. on worldwide sales. --Scrumshus 09:39, 26 June (UTC)

Didn't Dookie sell closer to 13mill, and American Idiot about the same? --AmyRoxYourSox 10:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where'd you get those facts? See [2] for the sales status of Dookie. American Idiot has sold about 12.5 million records worldwide, not including singles. But if you include digital sales, American Idiot has sold about 13.5 million units worldwide. Quite the amount, there. Scrumshus 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PSP music videos

I've seen music videos from the album Bullet In A Bible for the PSP in stores like Best Buy and wI wanted to know if they have a UMD for American Idiot or if not, have plans for making one. - sasuke-kun27 14:42, 24 June 2006

American Idiot is an album and therefore has no visual content. Bullet in a Bible was a CD/DVD release. The UMD is of the DVD. --AmyRoxYourSox 10:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Can it be said that Green Day is alternative? AOL Radio has their All Green Day staiton listed under "alternative". Should they be classified as such?

I went into JB Hi Fi and they had Green Day listed as Punk Rock/Emo/Hardcore -_- I think alternative sounds okay but the current genre sounds good too. It was debated on before.. and I dont want this to turn into the My Chemical Romance talk page.Kokiri kid 05:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, its already Alternative Rock.220.238.60.161 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

an "alternative" to what? they're the most mainstream rock band there is. Joeyramoney 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a given that labels such as "alternative" or "modern rock" are mutable, and subsequently traditional definitions do not apply. This is particularly true when you consider that a band like Green Day exists beyond a single particular instance. When Green Day formed, it was as a definitively punk band. A few years later, they were alternative/modern rock. In all likelihood, they will someday be classic rock and even classical. Their popularity has helped reshape the traditional definitions. This has always been the case when elements of subculture are embraced by the masses. Genre labeling is a relatively useless practice anyway, as it primarily exists to serve the music industry. Applying a label or arguing over definitions of something so intangible is an exercise in futility, as there is no accurate or incorrect answer. Better to tilt at windmill shaped dragons.Theplanetsaturn

Genre classification usn't completely useless, and it doesn't exist primarily to serve the music industry, even if alternative is a vague grouping. In any case, Green Day takes a lot of influence from Husker Du and the Replacements, particularly their alternative-era material. They covered Husker Du's "Don't Want to Know if Your Are Lonely", after all, and "Only of You" from the first album sounds an awful lot like Husker Du's "Standing in the Rain". WesleyDodds 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If not the music industry, who does such classification primarily exist to serve? Not that I seek to alter the current classifications, mind you. I merely made my earlier point to illustrate the futility of arguing between such mutable labels.Theplanetsaturn

People who play music. To quote the great Marty McFly, "This is a blues riff in B . . ." Over the centuries familiar styles for various moods and occasions have developed so genres have been described in order to categorize them for a frame of reference.

That said, a lot of modern genre and subgenre labels to an extent are bullshit, since they tend to be initially described and propagated by journalists without really delinatng their characteristics. WesleyDodds 00:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For those of you born in 1980 or later... Alternative = modern rock. Period. This term has been used for decades. It is not really "alternative" to anything. That said, alternative is the earned classification this term since modern rock was, back in the day, alternative to mainstream rock. The name "alternative" just carried on, even though alternative is now in the mainstream (even though it is not classified as mainstream rock). Hope I didn't confuse you. And yes, Green Day is alternative, this shouldn't be under discussion. Drdr1989 06:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the infobox had green day listed as emo, so I took it off. Green Day is most certainyl NOT emo. Scrumshus 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Skatepunk

Green Day can also be considered a skatepunk band due to many of their song being used in skating competitions and on skateboarding video games. Jeromealden 85 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it for two reasons, A) this appears to be a made up genre and an article which I may put up for deletion as such, and b) it doesn't even fit into the definition discussed on the talk page for skatepunk which is "Music created by and/or for skaters". Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Green Day, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that category:Green Day singles shouldn't be merged into category:Green Day songs, as all the others except the ones listed have? Similarly for category:Green Day B-sides, any objection there?--Mike Selinker 08:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with changing it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason White official?

The line-up section of the article shows Jason White as an official member of Green Day. The article contradicts itself, with Jason White official in some places, and just a backing member in other places. --Jordan Elder talk 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked online and have never found anything about him being official. Even on the Jason White page. He has a quote saying something along the lines of the band being about the other 3. I can't find it anywhere that he is an official member. It doesn't say it anywhere. Orfen 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Before, the Line-up section of the Green Day article listed him as official. They changed it. --70.77.11.85 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Green Day simply are the best...

    Green Day is one of the most influencial punk bands ever. They have helped redefine and shape the punk scene. You cannot judge them unless you've listened to at least two different albums and/or posses a knowlege of the history they've created. If you have posted any criticizing comments I encourage (and even challenge) you to give them another chance. And if you have made a criticizing comment, only based on the information that the Wikipedia Encyclopedia has displayed, I am inclined to say that you have seriously misjudged one of the greatest bands that the world has ever known.
                                
                                    ~Samantha

Influential punk? How about The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Blondie, Iggy and the Stooges, The MC5, Operation Ivy, The Buzzcocks, The Damned, New York Dolls, Subhumans, Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Minor Threat, The Minutemen, etc...

Your comment here seems to serve no purpose but to forward your own opinion. And your opinion seems to be limited by exposure. Theplanetsaturn

Yeah, well said. Who have Green Day influenced? And who is Samatha to say that they are so good?

All older bands. I can bet you that when Green Day is finally finished with their run then everyone will finally realize how great they are. Green Day is newer and I think people have a problem with letting go of the past and moving forward. These people label Green Day as posers because they come after something else and are helping revive a genre of music. Green Day is one of the most influential bands ever, and I don't ask you to like their music, just see that they are influential and accept that. Orfen 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, older like Operation Ivy, another Gilman band from the same era as Green Day. So, please show me where I stated that Green Day were NOT influential. Please show me where I labeled Green Day as posers. You cannot. I'm in the East Bay area and I spent a good deal of time at Gilman before and after Green Day arrived. I have nothing but respect for them as musicians. I have nothing but respect for the way they have managed their careers, so spare me the ridiculous "you disagreed so you don't like them" argument. Obviously, they are AN influential band. But only a fool fails to look past the bias of their fandom and recognize that modern popularity does not equate to being the MOST influential. To define something in that way ignores the history of the genre. Without many of the "older" bands, you do not have the sounds of the newer. Who is more influential? Green Day, or the bands that Green Day drew influence from themselves?Theplanetsaturn

I love Green Day to pieces, but dissagree with the statement. I thing they have definately influenced the newer generation of pop punk bands (such as Blink 182 and Sum 41) but I don't think thats enough to be classified as 'one of the most influential punk bands ever.' --AmyRoxYourSox 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass grouping of sound samples

Don't know where they came from, but some sound samples have taken place of the album covers I put next to each album. Shouldn't we have a sound sample section? Or maybe just group them together at the end? Scrumshus 00:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Skene! and Years

I'm the one who put in Skene! records as one of thier labels a few weeks ago... I dated it as 1987. I got a private amessage saying it was reverted because it was wrong, the PM said "Sweet Children EP came out in 1990".... I've come to correct it, as the SC EP came out in 1987, and it was Green Day... they were called Sweet Children in '86. So therefore the GD yearline should be corrected 1987-present, also.

I'm the one who posted on your user page. You're still wrong. Skene! formed in 1988. Do you have the first Green Day 7"? Look for the date. It's not a matter of debate. The album came out in 1990. End of story. Furthermore, while having two of the same members, Green Day and Sweet Children were not the same band. Green Day formed with John Kiffmeyer AFTER Isocracy folded. New Years eve of 87/88, I was at an Isocracy show. Green Day did not yet exist. Again, end of story. I posted this on your user page for a reason. It's the official information about the skene! records release. Here it is again:

"Green Day sweet children [7"] skene! records. #10 - 1990" theplanetsaturn

----------

I changed pop punk into pop punk revival...."Their success has influenced prominent pop punk revival bands like Sum 41, Good Charlotte and blink-182." Old pop punk is like The Buzzcocks and today's mainstream pop punk is something else...it's revival...

Opening Paragraph

I think the idea to not include the groups genre in the opening paragraph is stupid. To open the article with "Green Day is a band" sounds like something a child would say. Satchfan 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

beats having something innacurate in the intro which is the alternative since nobody can agree on what genre they are. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that was one reason I changed "band" to "musical group", but I don't know why it got changed back. "Band" just sounds... crap. I'm sorry, I can't think of any other way to put it. Satchfan 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Neither Oakland or Berkeley is accurate for listing of origin. In fact, as the band is composed (counting current and original members) of four people, point of origin is impossible to discern. The majority of members come from Rodeo. Kiffmeyer was from El Sobrante and I really have never known where Tre is from. Additionally, everyone involved in the group has moved several times. The first show was in San Pablo, but the band was known originally as a Berkeley band, due to it's Gilman presence. The most realistic listing for location is "East Bay" as this generalization the only thing that is truly accurate. Theplanetsaturn

Semi-protection?

Wth all these anonymous vandal edits its hard to get anything done with this article; most of our energy is spent fixing things. Overall the quality of the page has really plummeted in recent months. I suggest we place the page under semi-protection for a while. WesleyDodds 21:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --XXXtylerXXX 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

berkeley, oakland, pinole

Billie Joe says that Green Day is from Oakland.... However, in their earlier years, he always said Berkeley. Pinole may be the origin of the people, but the band really started out and gained popularity at 924 Gilman St. a club in west Berkeley near the Pyramid brewery, named after its address. They (probably) live in Oakland, so that seems legitimate though a little depressing, considering what Berkeley did for the band, but Pinole? hell no.

Like I said, East Bay in general. The band has no specific point of origin, regardless of what anyone, the band included, has claimed.

And no, they do not live in Oakland. They do not all live in the same city.

I don't know what it's like out in California, so I wouldn't know for sure, but maybe they just use Oakland since it's like a BIG city near where they're from. I would suggest putting Berkeley then, since it seems to have the most significance. Orfen 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oakland is only big in the geographic sense. It covers a large amount of land. As you say, Berkeley is signifigant, so it would make a certain amount of sense to list it as such. But then we will just continue with people reverting it as they are somehow CERTAIN of the indiscernable point of origin. Again, I would suggest East Bay. The common terminolgy used by residents for geographic location is: East Bay/South Bay/North Bay/San Francisco

I think California is way to general, East Bay helps narrow down the specific place where it is. Until we come to an agreement where that specific place is, I suggest East Bay then. Orfen 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

East Bay. It covers the towns where all of them lived.--XXXtylerXXX 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Propositions

Okay, i'll use this 'section' for any propositions on improoving the article. Lokking at the Red Hot Chili Peppers page, their album organizationi is better. I think we shoud divide the current 'album by album' section into 1:Formation and Lookout years (1989-1992) 2:Reprise and the 90s (1993-1999) and 3:The new millenium (2000-present) and oppositions or disagreements? Also, shouldn't there be a 'trivia' section? Scrumshus 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the layout you propose. However, trivia section are extremely frowned upon, because by their nature they are trival to the article as a whole. WesleyDodds 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, excellent. But wht do we do with some intersting inog about the band we can't put any where else? Maybe then we'll come up with a trivia section? Also does your agreement give me permission to carry out the layout idea? Scrumshus 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines say anything notable in a trivia section should be worked into the body of the article anyway, thus eliminating the need for a trivia section. WesleyDodds 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. So can I start my proposition, or do more people need to agree? Scrumshus 15:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should include that greenday have recently started copying Icarus Line's fashon of waring all black with red ties please se icarus lines article for more information--Ninandnirvana 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What? No. they wear black and red because it's the colors of american idiot. Ever see the album cover? I'm gonna start re-organizing the 'album' section, so if anyone has a problem, they better speak up now or never! Scrumshus 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if those are the albums colors it a little to close to be a coincidence this isnt even the best picture to show but look

http://www.brokenviolence.de/live/bilder/icarus30202.jpg http://www.warnermusic.com.tw/artists/gallery/318/03.jpg --Ninandnirvana 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also include that they stole the "hand grenade heart" from The Zeros. Gold Stur 06:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked and could not find imagery like this associated with the Zeros. Can you provide an example?Theplanetsaturn

[3] Song number 4. Just a mere coincidence decades later? I think not.Gold Stur 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you advocating the corporate notion of ownership over intangible concepts then? Actually, as the usage is not at cross purposes, even a corporation would not press that particular matter. You being the one to constantly harp against corporate mentality, your position here is pretty funny. The concept of a "hand grenade heart" is not so absurd that it is impossible to conceive of as a coincidence. It could be an intentional nod. It could be they (and whoever created the graphic for them) never heard of the song. It could be they used it with permission. When making accusations of theft, you should be prepared to offer up something a bit more tangible.Theplanetsaturn

Wow, and you say I don't listen to your arguements. Even if it's a coincidence, it should be stated in the article. Gold Stur 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to present an argument that consists of more than: "Look! It's copied!", then I'm more than willing to listen. So far, you're simply not selling me. I deal with plagiarism professionally, and this does not look like plagiarism to me. As for mentioning it in the article, ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? The burden of proof is on the accuser. Over up something more tangible than circumstantial evidence please. However, if you want to mention it in the article as trivia rather than an accusation of theft (allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions), I would agree with that.Theplanetsaturn

I was never saying to put it in as a accusation. I just wanted people to see that it MIGHT not have been original, because i am so tired of greenday "fans" who only listen to american idiot saying that they're the most original band on earth. Sorry for the rant but i was a huge greenday fan dookie/nimrod era and now they're fan bass kind of disgusts me--Ninandnirvana 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ninandnirvana: First, to make certain things are clear, I was addressing Gold Stur in regards to his accusations of Green Day plagiarizing the heart grenade concept. Secondly, in regards to your complaints about the current state of Green Day fandom, it's all relative. I was a fan of Isocracy, and never cared much for what I perceived as Kiffmeyers replacement band. I've been pretty disgusted with Green Day fans from the Dookie/nimrod era for over a decade now. Frankly, I fail to see the relevant difference between you and the fans that disgust you. Oh well, that's the way of the world. frankly, I'm well aware that I have an unreasonable bias and you should be aware that you obviously do as well. This Wikipedia page is not about your or my perceptions of the fans. If it was, believe me, I would unleash a torrent of hate on all of you. It's not about personal philosophies over what motivation the band might or might not have for their aesthetic and it's not about petty accusations of supposed plagiarism based on scant circumstantial evidence. If you have an agenda, create your own website. Leave this for relevant historical fact. Not unprovable theory.Theplanetsaturn

Well, it's nice to know you don't hate me, seeing as how I've never been a Green Day fan, Dookie era or not. And as for the handgrenade heart, it should atleast be in some trivia or sidenote. Not saying that we need to say it was stolen; it's hard to prove that with the relatively unkknown status of the Zeros. Gold Stur 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How could I hate you after all our good times together? Yeah, I fully agree with it as trivia or a sidenote.Theplanetsaturn

Location

For the time being I have set the location as just being California and left HTML notes there that it should not be changed until discussed here since there is a constantly ongoing edit war over their location. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, as I stated above, I believe that East Bay, California is an appropriate location. California gives us a general area and East Bay helps refine the location some more. Since we can't agree on an exact city, this will help make the location more exact. Orfen 04:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I agree. As I have already stated a couple of times on this talk page, a specific location is impossible to define. I could accept Berkeley for relevance, but even that would not truly be accurate. We could say San Pablo for the location of the first show, or El Sobrante for the mailing address on the first album. Any and all of these would be accurate to a degree. East Bay covers all of it.Theplanetsaturn

Discography

I have reverted the discography back to the standard links format since turning it into a gallery seems to be both unecessary and also has a large number of images which slow page load time noticeably. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are also present at the main discography article at Green Day discography. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I revamped the discography. Many other featured article bands had this formaat, such as The Beatles. Scrumshus 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

A criticism section has recently popped up. I'm not sure if I like the idea of a criticism section. I think more should be in there before making a criticism section besides the fact that people think Green Day is sellouts because of American Idiot. Orfen 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Critism should be there. Gold Stur 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be worked into the article at appropriate sections, like during the Dookie period and so forth. A separate section is unneccessary. WesleyDodds 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems a lot more appropriate. Spread out and not just a big section. Orfen 03:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While a criticism section has some merits, it should be limited to relevant facts, while the debatable points should be left for teh discussion page. Neither Johnny Lydon or Steve Diggle are the arbiters of punk, and their opinions are not conclusive or particularly relevant. This is particularly the case when you consider the dance club popularity of mid to late eighties stadium playing Public Image Ltd. and car commercial selling Buzzcocks. At best, their arguments can be labeled as hypocritical.Theplanetsaturn

Admit it, you just don't want any criticism of Green Day. These are sourced, and if you continue to delete it, I can always ask an administrator what they think.... Gold Stur 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You're still not reading well. Note that I specifically stated that I agree with a criticism section. This puts me as the only person in this section to agree with you. You claim that I don't want criticism? Read AGAIN. Take the time to think about what you are reading. A sourced opinion is NOT automatically valid or necessary simply because it is sourced. Go ahead and accuse me of the same petty biased attitude you are exhibiting. I will continue to support you with your statement that there are elements of the punk community that feel Green Day is not being true to the punk scene. However, I will also continue to delete irrelevant opinion based and easily debatable nonsense that simply repeats an already stated position. You want to run to an administrator? Do so now. i assure you that I have every intention of continuing to delete unnecessary information in the article. Go ahead and tattle. It's right in line with the behavior you have previously exhibited.Theplanetsaturn

You say you support criticism and that "there are elements of the punk community that feel Green Day is not being true to the punk scene." I find that quote most amusing because certainly Steve Diggle and Johnny Rotten fit right into those punk elements that say Green Day aren't being true to the punk scene. It's disgusting that all these Green Day fans don't care about anything, any sources, anything that anyone says, anything that disagrees with Green Day. And don't tell me that you support the criticism section, you don't. You're deleting the sourced material because you know that in a few days, someone new to this will come by, see that the material there is unsourced, and remove it. Whose opinions and statements do I need on here? You're argument to have those statements removed is so scanty that if we were to follow it, we may as well remove ALL statements by ANYONE in all the Wikipedia articles. There is a great deal of controversy as to wether or not Green Day's punk or not, and these quotes, by veteran punk rockers show that the controversy exists, and it's not just made up by bored teenagers that know how to use a computer. I mean gawd damn, the archived punk disputes are 19,500+ words long. There is debate. There is criticism. You just don't want to hear it. Gold Stur 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I could really care less what motivation you wish to apply to me. I disagree with the need for quotes from sources whose knowledge and motivation is debatable. If someone deletes what remains, either you or I can re-add it. Let's look at the quote from Diggle: "I didn't have a clue who they were". Yeah, that's a great endorsement for credibility of opinion. Your stance baffles me. You rail against the idea that Green Day is punk, and you cite corporate sponsorship as a major cause. But both these supposed "veteran punk rockers" have well documented history equally eliminates them from fitting your definition. As I stated, neither Lydon or Diggle is the arbiter of punk. A mass of vocal fans IS relevant and DOES qualify as a source to back up the existing position you hold. The version I edited is all encompassing, and you even note that fact. Lydon and Diggle fit into those elements and reiteration through deification is unnecessary. As you say, the archived punk disputes are 19,500+ words long. There is debate. There is criticism. And we do NOT need irrelevant quotes from bitter hypocrites to support your position.Theplanetsaturn

I'm the hypocrite? Who calls Green Day punk? MTV, Fuse, WMG, all the big corporations. Johnny Rotten and Steve Diggle are less hypocritical sources than those big companies. Gold Stur 02:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, please take the time to read AND comprehend. I clearly did not call YOU a hypocrite. I'm talking about Lydon and Diggle. As for MTV and the like, they call many things punk, Sex Pistols and the Buzzcocks included. Does this mean the neither band is punk? If they did not play Green Day videos would Green Day suddenly become punk? You need to accept the fact that MTV has no power of what is or is not punk.Theplanetsaturn

What side are you even on? Gold Stur 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked this was not an issue about "sides". My position is quite clear. I support a criticism section in the Green Day article and I support the clearly accurate allegation that there is a dispute in regards to Green Day's status as "punk". I hold the dispute itself as pointless and silly, and I base my stance on this from experience rather than an arbitrary viewpoint endorsed by MTV or modern punk culture. But I do not believe my personal opinion in this matter is relevant enough to remove the section or the argument. I do not believe my individual opinion is relevant enough to be included within the article itself. And equally I do not hold clearly biased and unfounded accusations from band members with a debatable history as relevant either. Therefore I eliminated the debatable and unnecessary aspects of your entry, and left in the important and relevant content.Theplanetsaturn

I just think that there is not enough criticism to form a full section. However, I feel that it should be spread out by the albums that they are related to. With only about 2 sentences, there isn't enough relevant information. I am not saying criticism shouldn't be in the article, I'm just saying there isn't enough to form it's own section. I like the criticism... all views should be there, but I don't feel there is enough criticism to form it's own section, and there is plenty of room in the article for criticism. And Gold Stur, I am a fan of Green Day, and I like the criticism... just I feel it shouldn't have it's own section. Orfen 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If we leave the section, more valid criticism may be added. If we remove it, we may discourage further legitimate criticism.Theplanetsaturn

Maybe add an html note or something? I just feel that the criticism now seems like a reason to voice some opinions and just show how people don't like the new album. I think you can fit that into the New Millenium section nicely. If there was more in the section I would be all for the criticism section, but right now I think it can be put into the article without sacrificing the message and it still being able to flow. Orfen 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Let me be the first to be bold and suggest that we get rid of the section and give it its own article! Something like Criticism of Green Day. Gold Stur 06:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If that happens then there should at least be a link on the main page.Theplanetsaturn

Now you're just pushing your POV. WesleyDodds 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you specify who you are talking to?Theplanetsaturn

Gold Stur, who suggests making an entire page devoted to criticism of Green Day. WesleyDodds 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Punx hating punks, how cute. Gold Stur 02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't enough criticism to make a whole article (because we can't even make a whole section). I just suggest you let it go Gold Stur. You've stated your opinion. The criticism section is there, you should be happy. And if you want your own article for criticism, how about trying to expand the section first. If you only have two sentences in your Criticism article then it will probably be deleted pretty quickly. Orfen 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a pretty thorough listing of articles about Green Day: [4]. Virtually all of them refer to Green Day as a punk rock band. I also must mention that Michael Azerrad's book Our Band Could Be Your Life, about bands of the underground punk/alternative scene of the 1980s including Black Flag, Minor Threat, the Minutemen, and Husker Du, refers to Green Day in the afterword discussing the underground after Nirvana's breakthrough in a sentence that states "Berkeley's Lookout Records prospered as well; Green Day, one of their leading bands, brought the sounds of early English punk rock to the masses twenty-five years after the fact".(pg. 496) If the argument is that Green Day doesn't play punk rock, then mass consenus refutes that point. Anyone can argue against anything, after all. People may argue that Green Day isn't "punk" (and this article can certainly mention that), but it's widely accepted that they are, particularly by people knowledgable about the history, sound, principles, and aesthetics of the music genre. There's a reason comparisons to the Ramones, The Clash, The Jam, Buzzcocks, and Husker Du come up in describing the band's music. Green Day is a punk rock band, end of story. WesleyDodds 09:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

origin

Ok.... I'm one of the people who has taken part in this debate as to where Green Day is from... I've been insisting that Berkeley be listed, but I think the suggestion of East Bay is good enough. However, I disagree that people refer to South Bay/East Bay/North Bay/San Francisco..... I've lived there, in the East Bay, in Berkeley, and at least Berkeleyans/Berkeleyites say East Bay/South Bay/Marin or Napa depending on which direction (for North Bay)/The City. People refer to SF as the city, just as New Yorkers refer to Manhattan as The City.

Okay, if anyone listens to 'Minority' on bullet in a bible, during the instrumental parts, billi joe says to the crowd: "We're Green Day from Oaklnad california and I just wanna say that england is now the officila home of Green Day from now on." that last part is just a crowd-pleaser, but according to him, Green Day is from Oakland. And I think he would know. Scrumshus

I've lived in the East Bay for over three decades. South Bay/East Bay/North Bay/San Francisco is fairly widely used. In fact, I don't know why you're disagreeing as for the most part you follow up your disagreement with an agreement. Yes, it's not 100% universal. Some people in different parts of the Bay Area refer to sections slightly differently (the City/San Fran/SF/San Francisco/ect). But the differences in this instance are not enough to matter, and not in the realm that it affects the point of origin anyway. As far as Billies' claims, Billie says alot of things. Often he contradicts himself on purpose. He can claim that Green Day is from the moon and it will not alter reality. Facts are facts, and while members of Green Day may have lived in Oakland at one point, the band did not form there. There first show was not there. There first rehearsal was not there. The address on the first album was to El Sobrante because that is where Kiffmeyer (who was very much the frontman for the band at the time) lived. The first show was in San Pablo. They are most known for performances in Berkeley (from that era). The members come from all over the Bay Area. Yes, Billie does know. But that does not mean he's telling the truth.Theplanetsaturn

I agree with putting in East Bay as the origin, however, I have always hear Billie say Oakland, California. It sort of sounds a little better too... I just can't hear them saying "we're Green Day from East Bay, California" or something. But I've always heard Oakland from Billie, but I suggest we put East Bay as the origin to not keep the loacation so general. Orfen 02:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"East Bay, California" makes it sound like one city in itself, and being from San Francisco sounds really akward. Is some form of "Bay Area" too vague? Does it have to be in [city], [State] form?--71.198.65.8 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Dedan

First paragraph

Shouldn't we start the article by saying Greenday are a rock trio, because by saying rock, we are not totally specifying the genre. DavidJJJ 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this up before, people seem to agree with me, but it keeps getting reverted anyway. All articles on rock bands specificy genre in the first sentence, and it there's more than one genre that can be applied, the default choice generally is the primary genre, ie pop, jazz, country, etc. instead of the more cumbersome subgenres (in the case of this page, rock). WesleyDodds 10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason White section

Under the backing members sub-section, I added a paragraph about Jason White and his role in the band. I thought it was appropriate as he has a long history with the band and helped them out in studio and concert. There was almost no mention of him previously, and it fits in well with the article. Scrumshus 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although, What you wrote about his involvement with Pinhead Gunpowder was completely wrong. It's since been corrected. 74.118.16.92 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cigarettes and Vlanetines

Under the 'Other Projects' section, shoulnd't there be a paragraph about Green Day's mysterious stolen album Cigarettes and Valentines?. I mean, it was never released, so I guess it classifies as an 'other project', and we could work in rumors about the band re-doing the album after securing thier popularity with American Idiot. Any oppositions or commetns? Scrumshus 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned before in the New Millenium section, and they have stated they will not be redoing the album. I don't feel Cigarattes and Valentines is not as important as the American Idiot movie or the Network. Sure, it was a stolen album, but all artists have dropped ideas and have moved on. It's just a discarded idea now. Besides, there isn't much more to be said, and I don't feel it needs it's own section, it flows nicely where it is. Orfen 03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Awards

I was searching some outdated wikipedia mirror sites when I found one the mirrored the article back when it was a Good Article. [5] I looked thru and saw it had an awards section, which means that this article used to have an awards section. I was thinking of putting it up. Here's what I came up with:

Awards

1995

Grammy Awards of 1995

1. Alternative Music Performance (Dookie)

1998

5th annual Kerrang! Rock Awards

1. Best Live Performance (nimrod.)

MTV Video Music Awards

1. Best Alternative Video (Good Riddance)

2001

California Music Awards

1. Outstanding Album (Warning:)
2. Outstanding Punk Rock/Ska Album
3. Outstanding Group
4. Outstanding Male Vocalist
5. Outstanding Bassist
6. Outstanding Drummer
7. Outstanding Songwriter (Billie Joe Armstrong)
8. Outstanding Artist

8th annual Kerrang! Rock Awards

1. Classic Songwriter (Warning:)

2005

Grammy Awards of 2005

1. Best Rock Album (]]American Idiot (album)|american Idiot]])

12th annual Kerrang! Rock Awards

1. Best Band on the Planet (American Idiot)
2. Best Live Act

MTV Video Music Awards [6]

1. Video of the year (Boulevard of Broken Dreams)
2. Viewer's Choice
3. Best Rock Video
4. Best Group Video
5. Best Direction
6. Best Editing
7. Best Cinematography
8. (Nominated) Best Art Direction

MuchMusic Video Awards

1. (Nominated) Best International Video - Group" (American Idiot and Boulevard Of Broken Dreams).
2. People’s Choice: Favourite International Group - (Boulevard Of Broken Dreams)

2006

Grammy Awards of 2006

1. Record of the Year (Boulevard of Broken Dreams)

People's Choice Awards

1. Favorite Group

Nickelodeon's Kids Choice Awards

1. Favorite Musical Group
2. Favorite Song (Wake Me Up When September Ends)

Should we add it to the article? It would be helpful if we wanted to make it a Good Article again. Scrumshus 03:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick look at some feature band articles, and they don't seem to have lists of awards. Looks like all major awards are mentioned in the prose of the article rather than listed. WesleyDodds 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So what your'e saying is that we should fit in the awards to certain albums into the album's mini-section instead of one big list? That could work. I'll go ahead and work in the album's awards with each respective ablum. Scrumshus 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the original source, now we know it's legit. [7] Scrumshus 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Oky, I re-wrote the first paragraph in Green Day's "History" section, but it was reverted. I'm re-re-writing it, because right now, the section is choppy and the dates are out of place. Here's my rewrite:

-At the age of twelve, Tré Cool became a member of the band The Lookouts. Their album "One Planet One People," released in 1986, attracted some attention, and Tré began performing at an early age at the Berkeley, California punk-rock all-ages venue 924 Gilman Street. In 1986, Billie Joe Armstrong (aged 14) and Mike Dirnt (also aged 14) formed Sweet Children, with Armstrong on lead vocals and guitar and Dirnt on bass and backing vocals. Despite rumor to the contrary, John Kiffmeyer (also known as Al Sobrante) was not a part of this endeavor. Their first show was on October 17, 1988, at Rod's Hickory Pit in Vallejo, California where Armstrong's mother was working.

In 1989, Kiffmeyer's band Isocracy broke up. Kiffmeyer sought out Armstrong and Dirnt to form Sweet Children , while other members went on to forSamiam. Laurence Livermore, who played guitar for the Lookouts, also ran the Berkeley independent label Lookout! Records, and immediately offered Sweet Children a deal. The band, he said, played like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium"^[1] The first Sweet Children show was played at Contra Costa College in San Pablo where Kiffmeyer attended as a journalism student. In early 1989 they recorded their first EP, "1,000 Hours," and then decided, weeks before the EP release, to change their name to Green Day, slang in the San Francisco area for a day spent smoking marijuana. The band were joint-smokers since puberty and even Billie Joe was supplying the high school; he was nicknamed "Two Dollar Bill". It is widely reported that when the boys went to their high school principal to say that they were dropping out to become a full-time band the principal observed that "would be a green day in hell" before they amounted to anything. The record came out, with the cover changed at the last minute to reflect the new name, in April 1989.

In 1990, I.R.S. Records attempted to recruit Green Day, but the band made it clear that they were loyal to Lookout! Records and that I.R.S. was a "cheesy" and "washed up" label^[2]. In mid-1990, shortly after the band's first tour, John Kiffmeyer left the band to attend college in Arcata, California. Green Day released two more EPs that year: Slappy, Sweet Children, the latter of which included some older songs for the Minneapolis, Minnesota indie label Skene! Records, as well as what was planned as thier debut album on Lookout!, 39/Smooth. Instead, in 1991, 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours the band's first full-length album, was released. The album fused 39/Smooth as well as the tracks from Slappy and 1,000 Hours, as well as combining the title that would seem nonsensical if one had not heard of Green Day's early EP releases. By this time the Lookouts had become mostly inactive, and Tré Cool, now 17 and living in Berkeley, began playing with Green Day, after Armstrong and Dirnt were introduced to his drumming via Livermore's reference, and the fact that Kiffmeyer recomended Cool, who was his drumming intsructor.

In January 1991, Green Day wrote and recorded their second album, Kerplunk!, the first featuring Tré Cool on drums, releasing it on Lookout! Records in 1992. Touring through 1992 and 1993,their tour even expanded to Europe, surprising for an album released on an independent label. The album, quoted as Tré "really, really" liking it, sold about 650,000 units in the U.S., which was considered quite a large amount for the independent punk scene in 1992. It eventually topped 2 million albums sold worldwide. The booklet of Kerplunk! features a completely fictional 'diary entry' by the fictional Laurie L. entitled "My Adventure with Green Day". It can be found in its entireity here. The album featured fan favorites such as 2000 Light Years Away, and an early version of Green Day's upcoming hit-single Welcome to Paradise. Dominated Love Slave was the album's sixth track, an infamously sported Tré Cool on vocals, as well as the music being entirely written by himself, unusual for a Green Day song.-

It flows much beter than the current section. Is it okay if I work this section in instad of the current one? It has all of the information + more. It's my current goal to make Green Day into a Good Article and this step is necessary. Scrumshus 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Kiffmeyer was never in Sweet Children. Kiffmeyer was not Tre's "drumming instructor", "Green Day" was never a Bay Area term for smoking pot, or if it was, it was not widespread enough to be significant.

Beyond the historical innacuracies, you have introduced some very poor structure. Look at this sentence as an example: "By this time the Lookouts had become mostly inactive, and Tré Cool, now 17 and living in Berkeley, began playing with Green Day, after Armstrong and Dirnt were introduced to his drumming via Livermore's reference, and the fact that Kiffmeyer recomended Cool, who was his drumming intsructor."

I'm sorry. I don't see your version being an improvement over the existing one.Theplanetsaturn

Who wrote the comment directly after my rewrite? Green Day IS a reference to a da ysmoking pot al day. It even says that in the current article! And I said that Tré was Kiffmeyer's instructor, not vice-versa. I do admit I need to work out the kinks, but tit simply conatins more info than the current article, and the dates are in order, which was the main reason for the rewrite. Now, to work out the kinks, I need suggestions on what to change. So what should I change? Scrumshus 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite that it's a reference to smoking cannabis? HawkerTyphoon 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Scrumshus: I wrote the comment after your rewrite. Tre was definitely not Kiffmeyers instructor, as Kiffmeyer has already been a drummer for years in Isocracy before Green Day formed. That notion is more ludicrous than the one I thought you were originally suggesting. Green Day is not a Bay Area wide reference to smoking pot all day, regardless of what the current article states. As far as suggestions, I see no real reason to make the changes you are suggesting.Theplanetsaturn

I'll take a stab at rewriting/fixing the article this weekend, once I get some proper sources. WesleyDodds 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, man. You guys are forgetting I havne't even been on Wikipedia for 2 months. Scrumshus 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos

If there is one problem with this article it is the photos. THe only photos aer album covers. I put in an early shot of the band to go along with 'Formation and Lookout Years'. I think we should place a photo of each band members face much like they do in The Beatles (which is a featured article) and maybe throw in like one or two album covers. PLus, I put the album covers in the Discograpy section, so we can totally replaces them with images of the band or concert photos, or posters or something. Maybe magazine covers. I think this srticle used to have magazine covers. I'll try to find some. There are simply too much photos. It distracts the article from the actual content. I'm replacing some and getting rid of some. Scrumshus 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Musical Style

I was reading why Green Day's featured article nomination failed. A suggestion was "Most of the article is in the 'history' section. Maybe add a 'Musical Style' or 'Lyrics' section." So I did. I also inmprted som enew song samples, because there weren't enough. I added Good Riddance, Warning, Prosthetic Head, minority, and android. Edit it all you want, but don't delete it. I worked VERY hard on it. Any suggestions to improve it are welcome. I am also going to add a "See also" section, beacuse virtually every other article has it and this one doesn't. Scrumshus 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll write the musical style section. WesleyDodds 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Citations

I think we should include some citations for the criticism, because then it could be considered original research. Most of the criticism doesn't seem like it's based on fact though, but is based more on opinion. Orfen 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We need an admin...NOW!!!

I was browsing Wikipedia when I came Just Friends (2005 film) WTF? Not only have I never heard of "just Friends" This is just the green day page with a reworked first sentence and some faulty links! Talk about your vandalsim! I SERIOUSLY think an admin should get down here and delete that piece of plagurised crap. NOW! Scrumshus 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Green Day's sales

Can someone cite those sales figures in the first paragraph? I have no idea where those numbers come from, and it's essential that we cite them. WesleyDodds 12:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they got it from the Green Day Discovergraphy page. It states the same info. there with a source I believe. Orfen 05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The link on the Discography page doesn't seem to work anymore. WesleyDodds 11:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The site is under some contruction, but you'll see once it's back up. Also, check out the table above in the 'Citation Needed' section of this talk page. Scrumshus 13:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looke this [8] this link says that American IDiot has sold 8 million copies in the U.S., as well as 4 million digital albums, and 22 million copies worldwide. I think this is completely made up from an unreiabel source. Any other views? Scrumshus 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

About Insomniac's sales status, it is now confrimed [9] that the album has sold over 3 million copies in the US, instead of the previous figure of 2 million, bringing it's worldwide status to 9 million. So much for being a low-selling follow up! Scrumshus 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

closing time

what album is closing time on? cause i cant find it

Closing Time is by Semisonic not Green Day, the album is called feeling strangely fine BradK 10:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

American Idiot sales status

WOW! According to this link: [10] Metatraffic reports that Green Day sold almost 8 million copies of American Idiot in the US alone! Time for the riaa to catch-up... Scrumshus 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Band Name

While it's been established (I refer here to the wikipage for Billie Joe Armstrong) that the name Green Day signified among the bandmembers a day which they spent completely stoned on cannabis, no reference has ever been made in any wikipage of which I am aware as to the origin of the expression Green Day itself.

This precludes, as so often the case, a United States readership with US-specific knowledge - in this case, that a day the President spends outside on the White House lawn or "green", generally receiving guests and/or the media, is called a green day.

--Nuttyskin 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha! [11] I found it. A Green Day is a day smoking pot and doing little else. Scrumshus 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this term defined on RealPlayer when listening to Green Day music. I know it's not a reliable source, but just pointing it out. Orfen 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe they mentioned the pot reference on their Behind the Music episode. WesleyDodds 05:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also known them to claim it means nothing.--Theplanetsaturn

Here's another reference. [12] This is total proof that a 'green day' is a day smoking pot. I'm putting it into the article. Scrumshus 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your examples of "proof" is that none of these refereneces show any indication of the term having existed as slang BEFORE Green Day formed. Therefore they do not support the argument of name origin. I'm taking it back out of the article.Theplanetsaturn

I doubt Green Day could bring a term into use. I know what you're saying how it doesn't say when the term was created or whatever, but I always sort of figured it was pretty well known since I had first learned it. I bet it has to be somewhere on the Internet. Orfen 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking into consideration Green Day's popularity, I have no doubt they could introduce a new term. All slang must come form somewhere, after all. Furthermore, pre-Green Day I never heard the term used in this manner, and I was in the East Bay (Rodeo, El Sob) and a regular at Gilman during the late eighties. The terminology was simply not wide spread enough to be considered "East Bay slang" that predates the formation of the band. If the term meant what it is alleged to, I have little doubt that this was an insular definition, used by only a handful of people. Now, I won't hold this up as definitive evidence, as it is obviously not documented. But at Contra Costa College, after the melodramatic splintering of Isocracy, when Kiffmeyer told me the name of the new band, I asked him what it meant. His answer was very clear. "Nothing. Why should it have to mean anything?"Theplanetsaturn

Here's another reference for you, [13] I'm telling you guys, it's a day smoking pot! Scrumshus 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more evidence for you guys: [14] Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

This "evidence" fails for the exact same reason your previous examples did. Furthermore, the majority of your examples are all user submitted, or they contain contradictory origins for the name.Theplanetsaturn

Well at least I have "evidence" Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

But not anything compelling, substantial or frankly, particularly relevant. If you want to support your belief with proof, it must come from a source other than another user submitted explanation for the bands name. And it must show that the term is what inspired the bands name, rather than the opposite. I could create a website right now that states with certainty that Green Day's name is a reference to colorblindness, but would that make it true? If "green day" were indeed a common bay area reference for pot smoking, there would likely be more definitive evidence. As I said, I'm willing to accept that the name may have been a reference to terminology used privately by a small handful of people, but it was not commonly used within the East Bay Area previous to the bands existence.Theplanetsaturn

Whether we all agree if the term was used before or after Green Day came into existence I still believe it should be mentioned in the article because it is still a sort of known fact so I believe it should stated in some sort of way. Orfen 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article that the name is allegedly a marijuana reference. I conceded from the onset that the name MIGHT have been in reference to pot smoking slang used by a handful of individuals. What I removed, is that the name is derived from "East Bay slang for smoking pot all day". That's what Scrumshus is trying to reintroduce. It is unsupported and erroneous. And last I checked, popular myth does not make for reality, no matter how popular said myth might be. Theplanetsaturn

Look, [15] here's another reference. I say we use one of my, like six references caompared to Theplantesaturn's zero. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

So now you submit a fan made questionnaire as evidence? Sorry. Still doesn't work. It's simply not a legitimate reference. Furthermore, exactly WHAT would I be supplying reference for? That "green day" ISN'T a bay area wide reference for pot smoking that preexisted the band? I'm supposed to find a reference for a negative now? This isn't a debate. You're making an assertion and subsequently, the burden of proof is upon YOU. Nothing you have provided is either reasonable or compelling. Sorry that bothers you, but that's the reality of it.Theplanetsaturn

As long as it's mentioned then I'm satisfied. Yes, I agree if it was listed as an "East Bay slang for smoking pot all day" then there needs to be references but as long as the term is mentioned then I am fine with it. Orfen 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actual Criticism

Look, if this artice is gonna have a criticism section, we need some ACTUAL criticism with sources, not some sentence that appears to be original research. I'll look for sources, but I'm deleting the section until someone posts a great resource with someone actually critisizing Green Day, okay?Scrumshus 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be sources or else it is original research. It has been stated before that we should keep it but no one has still not found any sources. I feel these need to be found or the whole thing should be deleted. Orfen 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A SPIN magazine article from 1995 that you can find online details criticism of selling out, and goes into detail about the whole "86" meaning. Also, there's an interview clip I've seen a couple of times on Vh1 with Sonic Youth where Lee Ranaldo says "No punk band has ever had a platinum record. Green Day is not a punk band" (which is a completely ridiculous comment, but it counts as criticism). Of course I'm of the mind that such criticism should be worked into the appropriate areas of the prose, and not in a separate section. WesleyDodds 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the criticism should be spread out through the article too because making an entirely new section doesn't seem to be needed. If there was a lot more then maybe, but if it is worked in then it is still stated but then it doesn't look like "hey, we want to say some things that might not sound encyclopedic." Orfen 21:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, the same way I did with the band's awards. I'll try to work some criticism into the Insomniac paragraph. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

Lead Section

Okay, I was reading the Black Flag (band) article, which is a Good Article, and I realized that the lead for this article doesn't meet the criteria if we want to make this o Good or Featured Article. Specifically:

1. The lead for this article is too short and we shouldn't include that Dookie and American Idiot were certified diamond and quintuple platinum. We should focus more on the band's prominent influence on Good Charlotte and blink-182 intead of just saying 'Green Day has influenced these bands". We have a sales figure, which is good, but we need to include why the band is notable, and we could tie that into thier pop-punk influence and legacy. A practice rewrite could look like:

Green Day is an American musical trio from California, consisting of Billie Joe Armstrong (guitar, lead vocals), Mike Dirnt (bass guitar, backing vocals) and Tré Cool (drums, backing vocals). The band's sound has evolved from thier early, stripped-down punk rock to include genres such as harcore punk, hard rock, (best indentified on thier on their muscialy varied 5th nimrod.) mainstream rock, ska, and a cross-genre that some described as "punk folk",^[3]while mainly sticking to thier formula of punk pop which gained them worldwide recognition. The music and style of the band contributed signifgantly to the growing esteem on alterntaive rock and helped to define the muisc of the 1990s.

Green Day is widely credited, along with fellow California bands The Offspring and Rancid, with reviving mainstream interest in and popularizing punk rock in the United States during the mid 1990s.^[4][5] Thier success has strongly inspired several prominent punk-pop bands such as Good Charlotte, blink-182, and Sum 41.^[5] Good Charlotte's Joel Madden has stated "Dookie changed my life. It made me want to start Good Charlotte. ... Right after that record came out, we were like, 'We have to start a band in our garage right now and play shows ... like Green Day."^[5]

Green Day was and is still one of the best-selling popular musical acts of the 90s and 2000s. In the U.S. alone, they sold 25 million albums and had two Top Ten singles, one of them being a Top 5 single. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries worldwide, and the band has sold about 55 million albums worldwide, making them the biggest punk band of all time.^[6] The band is no stranger to the Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks, in which they are second to only the Red Hot Chili Peppers for most number ones, currently with eight. They are also second the to the Chili Peppers in that they have 39 total weeks at number one on that chart, with the Chili Peppers at 72. Green Day currently has three Grammy Awards under thier belt for Alternative Album for thier breakthrough major-label debut Dookie, Grammy Award for Best Rock Album for American Idiot, and the coveted Record of the Year for Boulevard of Broken Dreams, as well as winning many industry and fan-based awards.

Edit this intro all you want, it is just an idea of what a good or featured lead should look like. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

That is a good intro. I think maybe we should use it, but it probably needs to be edited and all that but this article does need a clean up and it has been looking better everyday (except when there is vandalism of course). So I'm glad you actually tried to do something. But I'm all for a new intro. Anything to help the article. Orfen 03:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, Orfen. All we need is a couple of more people to aproove of the new lead and in it goes! Also, I got the dirt on Green Day's digital status. In addition, to sellingn a million digital American Idiot copies, they have also sold 3.5 million songs [16], pushing thier total world sales to 58 million. Nice! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

I'm not too keen on the the whole bit about genres in the first paragraph. It's really unnecessary for an introduction (and potentially confusing), and hard to cite. I actually like the lead section as it is now. The Good Charolette quote works well, though. WesleyDodds 05:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that in The Beatles, they mention genre diversities and that's a featured article. But, yeah, I'll work in the Good Charlotee quote and maybe add a sentence regarding their sales and awards. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

Concerts

Shouldn't we include a section about Green Day's live performances? Maybe get a posititve concert review online and use it as a reference, and write about live staples and what generally happens? We could go much farther into the Milton Keyes concert that was filmed for Bullet in a Bible. It couldn't hurt to use it to make this article into a Good Article. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

If anything I think it should be in the Bullet in a Bible article. Since their live performances changed with each album it would be hard to say. But I think this article should be for more about the band and their music instead of live performances. Orfen 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. But shouldn't we include a little bit of live staples and such? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 21:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

East Bay

I changed the route of "East Bay" in the origin to go directly to the East Bay page, instead of the disambiguation. Stonesour025 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure they're from Easy Bay? During "Minority" on Bullet in a Bible he says hey're from Oakland. BNLfan53 16:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oakland is part of the East Bay area. Besides, both Billie and Mike grew up in Rodeo (which is also part of the East Bay area).Theplanetsaturn

Failed good article nomination

I haven't even read the entire article, but honestly, it was reading pretty well so far. But there is no way this article can be promoted, because it has massive image issues.

• Image:Normal gd014cb.jpg - no source information
• Image:Greendayold.jpg - disputed liscencing
• Image:Trecoolphoto.jpg - no source information or fair use rationale
• Image:Dirnt.jpg - no source information or fair use rationale
• Image:Wakemeuppromoshot.jpg - no fair use rationale
• Image:Aimovie.jpg - improperly tagged, and actually should be deleted
• Additionally, many of the album covers don't have fair use rationales.

Great work so far, but more work needed.--Esprit15d 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I worked on the Mike Dirnt photo, and gave Tre Cool's photo a fair use rationale. We're on our way! Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

GD's sales

Apparently, some people think that Green Day has sold 36 million albums in the US and 81 million albums worldwide, while linking their reference to my original reference that stated they had sold 50 miilion. Unlesss you guys actually references to these statistics, GD's sales is 26 million in the US, 56.5 worldwide, and 60 million worldwide if digital sales are counted. Okay? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

Fanboy bias

It would seem that a fan of the group (Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs) is attempting to turn the criticism section into a John Lydon & Steve Diggle criticism section.

Here he ads a POV comment before a quote Lydon made about the band.

"[John Lydon]], former front man of both the 70's punk band the Sex Pistols and the more dance club oriented 80's pop band, PiL, criticized the bands claim to the the genre based upon their appearance and his limited personal knowledge of their background, rather than the style of music itself."

First of all; PiL are a postpunk act, second, who are you to say Lydon is basing his opinions on their appearance alone, and that he has a limited personal knowledge of their background?... that is not fact, that is clearly your POV it has no place in an encyclopedia article.

In regards to another quote; Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs) calls Steve Diggle of the Buzzcocks "an ignorant"[17] and ads a snide comment before his quote on his heroes; "Steve Diggle attempts to define them, but unfortunately does not substantiate his opinion"... again, clear POV, leave it up to the reader to decide whether Diggle's opinion on your favourite band is substantial or not. I attempted to message this user about it, but no reply and he persists. - Deathrocker 06:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Any argument you might make goes right out the door as soon as you level the tired "fanboy" charge. You want to discuss the edit, I'll happily discuss it. But if you want to pick a fight, I'll just ignore you and continue reverting the page as appropriate. Now, I have argued for the existence of the criticism page and I have have readded it when others have deleted it. Your charge of fanboy is simply revealing your inability to discuss this rationally. And where (as you claim on my talk page) exactly did I use the term "ignorant" in regards to Diggle? I honestly have no recollection of this. Please cite the exact location.

Frankly, I think your own bias is making it difficult for you to process what is actually being said. In regards to PiL, do you actually believe that PiL is NOT more of a dance club band then the Sex Pistols? That's what I wrote, that's what your arguing against. Even, the Wikipedia entry for PiL lists them as "alternative dance". You really should go back and read without your automatic bias that anyone who rewrites a paragraph is contesting your position. Does Lydon discuss the quality or style of their music? Or does he instead focus on the background and appearance?

While it the relevance of the Iggy Pop fact is debatable, every other aspect I have written or rewritten is not. Which by the way, includes the opening paragraph of the talk page as well. Clearly the work of a "fanboy") I obviously did not say that Lydon based his opinions on appearance alone. And in regards to his "limited personal knowledge", he exposes this when he makes arguments based upon their background without offering up any examples or facts himself. And by the way, Diggle does NOT substantiate his opinion. He does not offer proof or evidence in any way. This is clear fact. The entirety of his statement in this regard is: "they're not punk."

That IS insubstantial. Regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. In fact, as it stands, Diggles comment is nothing more than POV itself, and subsequently, by your own logic, has no place in an encyclopedic article, regardless of any deification you are participating in yourself.

As for the message to me, try some patience. I was in the process of responding. You waited a whopping 16 minutes between posting on my talk page and posting here that I failed to reply? Relax already.Theplanetsaturn

Deathrocker wrote: "you personally attacked Diggle by branding him as "an ignorant"[1] is unacceptable"

Ahhh I see now where you took offense with the label "ignorant". You need to understand that some words have multiple meanings based on context, and this was clearly not "ignorant" in the insulting manner, but instead "ignorant" as in "unaware". Let's look at the relevant section of my statement: "...ignorant of their identity (Diggle)."

I hope now you understand the difference. But please, stop looking for insult where non is leveled. Diggle was "ignorant" of the bands identity. He said so himself. Fact.

PiL are a postpunk band, read their article on them and postpunk. You called Diggle "ignorant" in the diff provided above. And regarding Lydon's quote, you said exactly that ;

"[John Lydon]], former front man of both the 70's punk band the Sex Pistols and the more dance club oriented 80's pop band, PiL, criticized the bands claim to the the genre based upon their appearance and his limited personal knowledge of their background, rather than the style of music itself."

You brought that into the article, nobody else.. that is your POV edit. Diggle is one of Green Day's biggest influences, and a prominent person in the original punk movement... his comment on the band is relevant. You have in no way shape or form proved that the tripe which you added (as shown above) was anything but POV bias against the artists comments. Also the Iggy Pop insinuation you keep adding, is irrelevant, unless you can find a direct quote from Iggy Pop himself stating an opinion that he thinks the band are "punk", then feel free to add it, instead of inventing something that doesn't exist. Not everybody who he has colaborated with plays punk music, as I attempted to show you earlier using David Bowie as an example.

And as for the "fanboy" claim; your edits on Wikipedia seem to revolve around removing anything a hardcore Green Day fan wouldn't like to read about the band[18]... a while ago you even attempted to blank Lydon and Diggle's quote entirely, when an another user added it [19] it approaches a hagiography attempt. - Deathrocker

So... I brought up the topic of appearance and Lydon's personal knowledge? Seems like Lydon does that himself: "They didn't earn their wings to do that and if they were true punk they wouldn't look anything like they do."

Yup. He sure did. And not once does he address the bands MUSIC. Please, take the time to read and process the section you are trying to edit.

Unless you or someone else can contest the validity of the edit I provided with a degree of reason, it stands. I did make alterations to the Iggy Pop reference so that my intent is clearer (something already clarified for you personally, that you seem to be unable to absorb), but nothing else you have objected to is tangible enough to discredit my fairly neutral statements.Theplanetsaturn

"Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk. They're not, they're plonk and they're bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are phony."

Where does that mention your heroes image? that isn't the emphasis of both of his quotes... he later brought up their Hot Topic image, but that wasn't the focus of his entire quote. You don't need to provide a little commentary of your POV on how you interperate his comments, they can stand by themselves and let the readers interpret it themselves .. you presumed, without any proof at all, with your bias; claiming Lydon is unaware of who are probably the biggest rock band in the world at the moment are. Now that sounds more like ignorance on your part.

I've contested it, and shown how your edits are blatantly POV and you even leveled insults at one of the commenting artists in an edit summary, as well as factual inacuracies on what PiL are. It clearly doesn't stand up to any policies regarding encyclopedic edits or the official NPOV policy on your part.

"my fairly neutral statements", be serious please. - Deathrocker 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing yourself into circles. The fact that Lydon himself only offered two different sources for his negative opinion of Green Day is on record. When you boil down his argument, he clearly states his opinion that the band lacks the background to label themselves punk without (his opinion, limited or otherwise), and then he criticizes the bands appearance. He is not (as shown in this example) criticizing their music (which last I checked, was what a band was about) but rather their image in general. It is not an insult to say that he is doing what he is doing, no matter how you try and spin. I'll remove the distinction of "limited", to avoid any further allegations of presupposition. However, based on the limited argument he uses to support his opinion, it is a justifiable interpretation. In regards to PiL, I have already clarified this matter. PiL is listed as dance music in it's Wikipedia entry, and even you have balked at contesting the ACTUAL statement I made, which is that PiL is MORE dance club oriented THAN the Sex Pistols. And I never said Lydon was "unaware", as you suggest. I claimed his knowledge was "limited". Again, words have multiple meanings. Learn to interpret them properly. As for me insulting anyone. Nope. That is simply your own bias showing. You want to believe the worst, and you're willing to twist the very language and destroy all sense of context to create a scenario where you have not overreacted. I'm sorry, but unless you have anything credible to add, your opinions lack merit and are not worth consideration.

Look for a fight elsewhere. You have a problem, take it up with someone in authority. You're obviously far too emotional to discuss this reasonably.Theplanetsaturn

I don't see how I'm "arguing myself in circles". I've been straight to the point on the issues with your version from the very start; which was extreme POV from a hardcore fan perspective before the artists comments. My argument hasn't changed.

How do you know this isn't a comment on the band's music?;

"Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk. They're not, they're plonk and they're bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are phony."

Part of the band is obviously their music, correct? So its common sense that if Lydon is commenting on the genre of music they play, (incase you didn't realise punk, which Lydon mentions, is a genre of music) then he is passing comment on the validity of their music... however, I wouldn't put that before his quote in the article, because people can make up their own minds based on the artists quote alone.

On the subject of PiL, in your variation of the article you claimed they were a "pop orientated dance band" or something to that affect... the group play postpunk (check their article, the very first genre mentioned) and their musical approach is pretty much experimental, I don't see how that qualifies as a "pop orientated dance band". - Deathrocker 16:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the guy who can't discern something as simple as the meaning of the term "ignorant", so it seems safe to say that relying upon your historically poor comprehension skills is not the wisest course of action. You continue to rail against my referring to PiL as more dance club oriented that the Sex Pistols (what I actually said, rather than your continued attempts to pretend otherwise) despite the fact that it is a wholly accurate comment. You justify this with the argument that of the two genres listed on their page, only one of them is alternative dance? Because, y'know, it should list dance in both genres for me to be able to make the comment I did? Ludicrous and without merit. The reason you are arguing yourself into circles is two fold. One you're to immature to discuss this civilly, and instead have resorted to antagonistic behavior from the onset. Two, your grasp of the English language is clearly tenuous. Or, to be more specific, you are clearly "ignorant" over how the concept of context is applied to scenarios such as these.

If you actually hold that Lydon is commenting on the quality of music rather than the social and political environment that the band came to being in, your comprehension must take another hit. His statements are not open to interpretation as he qualifies them quite clearly HIMSELF. He gives his reasons for his opinions and he never once specifies anything about the music. My edit only comments on what he actually said, despite your fictionalization. It is not POV to to specify the key points of a quote, no matter how much you dislike it.Theplanetsaturn

Punk is a form of music. You seem unable to comprehend this, Lydon comments on whether or not a band (you know, people who play music) are punk, thus he is commenting on the form of music they play.

If you continue to add your extreme fan slanted POV bias before the quotes, then an extreme anti-Green Day POV will be needed with it to even it out... if you are not mature enough to leave it on an even NPOV keel where the comments are left to stand for themselves. - Deathrocker 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed a class, punk is also a social movement. In this regard, Lydon comments specifically on the originality of the band ("they're bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are phony."), the social and political pressure he experienced that he feels is absent from their past ("They didn't earn their wings to do that") and the appearance of the band ("if they were true punk they wouldn't look anything like they do"). He justifies his opinions with arguments that have nothing to do with music. And considering he goes out of his way to detail his reasoning without ever mentioning the bands music, your argument that music is implicit is irrational at best.Theplanetsaturn

Lydon was refering to a musical band and commented on the genre in his first quote "Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk"... PUNK is a form of music. If he said "Don't try to tell me Billie Joe and Mike Dirnt belong to the punk subculture", then you may have an argument, but that isn't what he said... you are adding your own bias spin on it.

He feels that the band are trying to immitate what punk rock music was, and even the themes in the songs (in this case, millionairs Green Day, complaining about the American government), when he is commenting on the image later in the second quote; you have to understand that bands like the Pistols and Lydon in particular wrapped themselves in basically garbage and DIY'd second hand clothing; its not like the Green Day's and Good Charlotte's where they have an all-star team of fashion gurus to advise them on expensive clothing and stage wear from Hot Topic and the like. - Deathrocker 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Lydon himself qualified his criticism. He specified multiple times that he was referring to the bands place in punk subculture and omitted any comment on the music itself. Despite your allegations, I am avoiding making any inference here and am instead looking at what he literally claimed, in context. Let's look at the title of the source:

"The former Sex Pistols front man says the US trio are a watered down version of the true punk ethos according to contactmusic."

Even the header of the article specifies that Lydon was talking about the "true punk ethos". The claims I made were not POV. I was taking the statements and the source itself in context. Your own bias has prevented you from accepting this.

As for the rest of your statements: I understand where Lydon is coming from, and this is why I initially called his knowledge limited. Green Day did not begin as millionaires after all. They are not a pre-fabricated boy band manufactured by a record label. They began as a self described punk band living in poverty playing (primarily) at a self described punk club to a self described punk audience at a time and in a region where individuals that looked and dressed as they did were regularly assaulted by the local populace and harassed by the police. The band may be quite popular now, but when discussing them from a historical perspective (as Lydon clearly was) it is important to remember that they have existed as a band for the greater part of two decades. Where was "Hot Topic and the like" in 1989? I know where it was in the mid seventies. It was Vivienne Westwood.Theplanetsaturn

Just remove the section. The most consistent criticism I've seen of the band is punks considering them sellouts. And that can be added to the Dookie section. WesleyDodds 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood the use of ignorant, Deathrocker. As Theplanetsaturn said, stating someone is ignorant is not an insult necessarily. Diggle stated that he was ignorant of who Green Day were. However, calling someone a fanboy (deserved or undeserved) is usually taken as an insult, so please keep it civil.

That said, if we feel there's a need for a criticism section, could we please keep it as criticism, and not a "Criticism and rebuttal" section? I realize not everyone will agree with the criticisms, but this isn't really the place to defend the band, as defending them is fairly POV. The whole reason for the criticism section, as far as I can see, is to show areas in which not everyone agrees about Green Day. - Blah3 08:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, the quotes made by the musician's don't need little POV comments before them, adding one sided opinion on the comments... it would be like a non-Green Day fan coming in and saying "John Lydon outed the truth about Green Day "....", his well thought out opinion rings true, and it is clear that Green Day are faux-punks."

The comments that Lydon and Diggle made can be left to stand alone for people to decide for themselves, without the snide as you said "rebutal" attemps. At the present moment, my version of the section neither has pro, nor anti-Green Day spins before the artists quotes; its straight down the middle NPOV perspective. - Deathrocker 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As is my own edit. You're just to biased and trigger happy to see it. Go back and read without your prejudice.Theplanetsaturn

I don't think providing a counterpoint to criticism is an invalid aspect of the section. however, we can remove the Iggy Pop section. The rest is factual, despite Deathrockers hysterical reaction.Theplanetsaturn

I would have to say just delte the criticism section and add it inside the article where we are able to provide counterpoints and not just have a section. It will seem more organized because there doesn't seem to be enough criticism to make a section. Just add something like this in the Dookie section: "After the success of Dookie the underground punk scene considered Green Day sell-outs. This can be due to signing to a major label." and then add something for American Idiot: "Due to the immense success of American Idiot the criticism of Green Day being sell-outs has been revived." Then list whatever sources or quotes and whatever reasons. It is the same thing but can be spaced out and made part of the article instead of a new section. It seems unnecessary for a section so I say just add it into the article somehow like I stated above.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently bought a book compiling Guitar World articles about alternative and punk rock. So there's interviews with the Sex Pistols, Ramones, Clash, Black Flag, Green Day, and so forth. A couple of items of note: int the Sex Pistols interview (from 1996, during their reunion tour) Rotten and Jones briefly discuss Green Day. Jones mentions he thinks Billie Joe Armstrong is a funny guy, but both Pistols concur that they find Green Day "poppy". Green Day (from a 1996 interview as well) on the other hand completely insults people like Rotten and Henry Rollins for complaining about their success. They also mention that the Sex Pistols asked them to open their reunion tour, which they said no to. WesleyDodds 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically the Pistols and Rollins complain about Green Day's success and Green Day insults them in return? I must confess, I've never understood why success is deemed a negative. Do you know what the justification for the criticism was?Theplanetsaturn

Green Day article's reprinted here: [20] WesleyDodds 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)