Talk:Green Day/Archive 3

Grocery Store Clerk Sues Green Day

Paul McPike filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Green Day claiming that he wrote the song "American Idiot" almost 15 years ago. He alleges that he performed the song at a high school and a recording of the song made it into the hands of Green Day. McPike is currently seeking a share of the album's profits. U.S. Magistrate Judge John Cooney attempted to dismiss the case last week, but is expected to allow McPike to file an amended lawsuit, with additional evidence.

Kinda hard to believe considering that there are clear references to modern events in the song. If it was written 15 years ago, surely it would reference to 15 year old events? Anyway, this guy just sounds dumb. He's trying to say that 15 years ago while the trio were on tour he performed the song at his highschool, they just happened to be at his high school when he performed it, they then stole a copy of the music while they were there, and then waited 15 years to change the words up a bit and make an entire album based around the song.

new album?

When Green day are going to make a new album? I know that Green Day are always late on albums, so would we wait until 2008

They are in the process of making a new one now. They were starting new material in March or May or something of 2006 and they are starting on the record now. I think they're going through demos and stuff. I wouldn't expect it until 2007 but I have seen on a website message board (very unreliable yes, but just pointing it out) Christmas 2006, however I see this very unlikely.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually just recently it was released that they were in the studio with U2 for the single they're doing; a remake of a song by the Skids. After the promotion of that single, Green Day will be back in the studio again. They're taking small breaks from time to time to do some promotion and events here and there.--Jude 05:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed citation

Let me know what's up with the removal of the citation. Here's where I got it from: [1] WesleyDodds 09:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the article myself before I edited, but in my haste I missed the part where it stated: "the new trio became immediate Gilman favorites", and instead saw the immediate following statement: "the band's popularity began to swell, and that proved an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the staunchly insular Gilman crowd.". Seeing the second but not the first, I assumed it was misread intially, instead, I was the one who misread. My apologies for my erroneous suggestion that the citation was inaccurate with the source. I won't delete it again.

However, sourced or not, it's not an accurate statement. I was present for most of the early Gilman shows, and Green Day was quite popular long before Tre joined. This was partially due to the popularity of Kiffmeyer's former band, Isocracy, and partially due to the merits of Green Day itself.Theplanetsaturn

I'll say again, sourced or not, it's not an accurate statement and should be removed. Green Day was quite popular at Gilman before Tre joined, regardless of an offhanded comment by an interviewer offered without any credible support. Isocracy was a very popular Gilman band. Because of this, the new endeavors of the former band members drew much attention from the regulars of the club. To further support this, Larry Livermore interviewed Billie Joe a few years ago and asked some questions about the Kiffmeyer days. In regards to this topic, here is the relevant quote: LL: "Starting to get a lot of fans, too, at least on the grass roots, underground punk scene..."

To which Billie responds: "Yeah. And John was responsible for a lot of that. He did handle booking the shows and all that. And it was time where we weren't feeling so self-conscious anymore, where we were getting more respect from the punk scene."

It can't really have been both ways. Success within the punk scene (including Gilman) came to the band before Tre joined, and Kiffmeyer was an integral part of that.Theplanetsaturn

Then if there will be no dialog, and subsequently no objections, I will remove the offending statement.Theplanetsaturn

about their love for fans

ok i just watched south park episode about downloading music and such and how bands are in it for money(some) well i mean for american idiot billie got into fights with his wife cause he was always working on it and mike got divorced cause of same reason. this shows me that they actually really care about their music and they love their fans so much that making the album means more than their wives. i probably sound dumb but hey i really respect them for that, really shocked me when i first found out about it.

This has what to do with the article? Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

Archive #2

Isn't about time for another archive? This one's getting hard to scroll through and find updates. Can someone archive this page? I don't know how. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

Done  Orfen ^{User Talk} 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullet in a Bible

Why isnt Bullet in a Bible under the discography. It was there before, and then removed. I later added it again, and its gooone now ... whats happening ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 September 2006

Because it's a live album, and as the header says, that section is only for studio albums. - Blah3 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a Live section to the Discography. Discography's should contain all album releases, not a select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.163.10 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2006

There is an entire article devoted to this, Green Day discography, which is linked from Green Day's article. The small discography section in this article is just a quick overview of their studio releases. - Blah3 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did Green Day get its name???

??????

Nope on VH1 Billie Himself claims that He was high on weed, and originally it was a song called Green Day about being high, and there drummer Before Tre Cool had it on his jacket so the name just stuck. Billy claims its the worst band name in rock and roll

being kids who smoke too much pot. --Jude 01:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It says it under Formation and Lookout! years in the article. "Allegedly, they chose the name after a marijuana slang reference..."  Orfen ^{User Talk} 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "Green Day" supposedly came from an episode of Sesame Street, and was said by Ernie of Ernie & Bert, hence Ernie being on the back cover of Dookie. The phrase was used amongst Berkely teens to describe an entire day spent smoking pot. Acording to original drummer Al Sobrante durring a radio appearance on KLAX in 1989 (which is available on bootleg), he wrote "Green Day" on his jacket. Then, he and Armstrong and Dirnt decided that it would make a better band name than "Sweet Chidren". The band name was also changed to avoid confusion with fellow Gilman St. scene band "Sweet Baby". I have added this information to this the main artice many times only to have it deleted and replaced with false information. - Insomniac186

Before the bands formation, there is no evidence that the phrase was commonly used by "Berkeley teens". In your last edit, you also state that "they released their first EP, 1,000 Hours, but not before changing their name to Green Day". That's false information. The very first show they performed together was as Green Day.Theplanetsaturn

Proof that John Kiffmeyer was in the band when they were called "Sweet Children" lies here: http://www.greenday.net/basement/livermore.html. This is an interview with Larry Livermore, founder of Lookout! Records. Read the first two questions. Then about how Green Day got their name is at this link: http://www.greendayauthority.com/TheBand/didjaknow.php?section=general. This is the quote from that page (including original grammar): The real origin of the name Green Day. Ernie from Sesamy Street said the frase Green Day in one of the shows and it kinda was funny for the guys smoking pot and all. So it became an inside joke with Green Day meaning a pot-filled wasted day. Then came the song Green Day and also Al Sobrante wrote Green Day on the back of his jacket and it kinda caught on from there and they decided to use it as their band's name - Insomniac186

Misinformation. Isocracy had not even broken up at the time Larry cites (the last show I attended was New Years eve, 1988), and Kiffmeyer was not working with both bands concurrently. In regards to your second link, you're pointing to a source that spells Kiffmeyer as "Kiftmeyer" and "phrase" as "frase". Not exactly a reliable source. And this "proof" simply mentions that the term was an inside joke (which I have long ago agreed with as a possibility), not a city wide popular term. Regardless, the article already covers this as it reads currently.Theplanetsaturn

No. Green Day describes an entire day spent blazing.

It certainly does now. But that's hardly the point, is it?Theplanetsaturn 19:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard (or might read) years ago that the name comes from the Bruce Sterling short story 'Green Days in Brunei'. May be a folk-etymology though.

Genre

The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true, but do we need a disclaimer in the genre listing of the main page? Supposedly, a consensus has already been met, plus we have the criticism section that covers this dispute in detail. I've removed the disclaimer for now, as it seems terribly redundant, and the standard practice with this issue has been to discuss it on the talk page first. Furthermore, there are specific instructions on this page regarding the genre listing. "Green Day's genres: Pop Punk, Punk Rock, and Alternative Rock have been decided upon through community concensus. Any changes to the genre list will be reverted."Theplanetsaturn

The thing is at this point both punk rock and pop punk are repeatedly cited in the article as genres applied to Green Day, particularly in the lead section. Thus its kind of ridiculous to debate their application in this article. WesleyDodds 22:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is in noway redundant, as you say "The fact that the genre of "punk" is disputed is certainly true"... I don't know a single punk who thinks Green Day are a "punk rock band"... and even artists lower down in the article, debate it too... other bands who have genre disputes such as; Cradle of Filth and HIM have the word "debated" in their genre box, as Green Day is in a similar situation, so should they.

Also, I'm going to put "pop punk" above "punk rock (debated)" in the genre listing, as that is the order you claim was decided upon by "consenus" although, Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy. - Deathrocker 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been said previously, Green Day began as a self described punk band playing at a self described punk club attended by self described punks. We have a criticism section that covers this fully, and the genre listing has been decided upon by consensus. If you want to contest it, do so here first. I really don't care what order you put them in. It's not important. And the "community concensus" was not my addition to this page. I merely point it out for you.

I've linked the debated section to the apropriate part of the article. Whether Green Day claimed that they were "punk" is irrelevant, the style of music they were playing was not what is described in the punk rock genre box... if you read the supposed concensus section it says Green Day began as a pop punk band... anyway that discussion is for another part of the talkpage. As I showed with the other band examples that have debated genre classifications, a "debated" note is needed... it may also stop people removing certain genres fully, so it puts it on a NPOV stance. - Deathrocker 07:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

First you say that you don't know a single punk who thinks Green Day are a "punk rock band", yet you dismiss context and perception when it does not suit you. At Gilman, in 1989, I knew lots of punks who considered Green Day punk. Does there music really qualify now? I would argue it does not. That's why we have multiple listings. As for the "consensus not applying to the debated tag", read the entirety of this section. Currently, consensus is not to include it. You feel differently, make your case here.Theplanetsaturn

"Gilman" "punks", sorry but that in itself is very debatable. There was no result as part of concensus not to include the tag. My case has been stated here, clearly... you however, after agreeing that their classification is debatable have not put up a reasonable case as to why it shouldn't be include. - Deathrocker 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry, but the term punk in regards to Gilman is not debatable. For you to suggest otherwise merely shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about. That's understandable. You weren't likely there. As for making my case, I already have. Yes, the classification is debatable. No, we do not need a tag stating as such. The problem is that bands do not exist in a single moment of time. The band was punk when it began 17 years ago. The classification is an uncomfortable fit at best now. The fact that multiple genres are listed implies that the genre is both debatable and open to interpretation. The fact that we cover this clearly in the criticism section exacerbates the redundancy. It is unnecessary to include the tag.

Right now, the majority of people who have chimed in on this disagree with the use of the tag. If the majority shifts, I am more than happy to honor that decision. TheplanetsaturnTheplanetsaturn

It certainly is debatable, as the bands who are part of the movement are debated as to whether they're punk or not. For you to suggest other wise, shows that you don't actually know what you are talking about. That's understandable, you weren't likely part of the movement in 1977 when punk rock was around.

"The band was punk when it began 17 years ago."

In your POV, perhaps. Though that certainly isn't a view shared globally or within the punk scene. Infact I'm tallying up the "genre dispute" section and so far MORE people have said "no, Green Day are not a punk rock band", than otherwise. - 07:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My "POV" is based on first hand experience. Yours? Frankly, I think the band began to drift away from the description of "punk" after Kiffmeyer left the band. He really was a driving force behind it, and when you listen to his work with Isocracy, far more punk than what Green Day evolved into. The early Green Day shows=punk. You can disagree if you like, but I was there. Where were you? I'm not holding this up as proof for inclusion of the genre. I'm happy to let consensus determine this. If the consensus shifts, I'll abide it. Though I do think that it will be an instance of rewritten history, which is unfortunate form an encyclopedic view. For the record, I would not call the band "punk" currently. Doesn't mean they never were. Edited becuase I misread your comment. That's on me, sorry. However, Tilt? Jawbreaker? Corrupted Morals? Plaid Retina? Not punk? You got to be kidding.Theplanetsaturn

"Concensus" results was incorrect

As shown here on the genre dispute page; the number of people who out right stated one way or another in regards to their genre. Are as follows;

As of 25 September 2006

• 28 - Not punk rock; another genre instead.
• 12 - Neutral, some are of the opinion that they have released material in both punk rock & pop punk styles or other.
• 6 - Punk rock

Thus, having Green Day's genre as "punk rock" is not concensus at all, infact it goes against it, so it should be removed in acordance to concensus. - Deathrocker 09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your tally is flawed. In your "not punk" category, you have: "I personally consider Green Day to be 'pop punk', a perfectly acceptable and widely used term. user:Jacknife737"

While here we have the same user from this talk page: "How is Green Day clearly more 'pop-rock' then 'pop-punk'? Some songs on warning do lean towards the 'folk/punk' side, however I think that they identify themselves as 'punks', and that is the term that most accuratly descirbes the majority of their music. Jacknife737 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The there's this one: "I agree Green Day are certainly not 'pop rock'. Punk or Pop Punk are the best terms to describe their music. Someone should change that first paragraph. -Unsigned"

For that matter, you didn't include me, and I thought my opinion was quite obvious.

This is just from one quick check in the talk page. You don't seem to have counted all statements thoroughly or accurately. Please take a closer look if you're going to try to make this argument.Theplanetsaturn

You haven't stated your opinion on the genre disputes page (where the concensus was compiled from), and its not entirely clear; while you have made it your mission to defend Green Day as some sort of "punk gods", you have also said they have pop punk music.. feel free to go and put your opinion on there in the apropriate section.

When Jacknife737 made a clear statement in regards to which genre he felt they belonged in he said "I personally consider Green Day to be 'pop punk', a perfectly acceptable and widely used term.".. he did not say that he "considers their genre to be punk rock"....

The "unsigned" quote you are refering to, does not feature in the "Not Punk Rock" section - Deathrocker 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the comment about what is or not is in the "Not Punk Rock" section was referring to the first example. The second one is simply absent from your tally. Obviously it belongs in the "Punk rock" section. Sorry if that was unclear.

For the record, I have no idea where the original consensus comes from and have been trying to find it. The claim comes from long before my time at Wikipedia. Theplanetsaturn

Deathrocker wrote: "while you have made it your mission to defend Green Day as some sort of "punk gods"... Whatever. I've made it clear that I feel they once belonged to the punk category, now I feel they do not. What that makes them now I could not say, as I haven't actually listened to anything since their first major album. Despite your repeated accusations of fandom, I don't actually care for their music. But having participated in their history, I prefer to see it represented accurately. It's funny, on this same page I've been accused of dismissing Green Day's validity because I can (supposedly) only appreciate older bands, and also for being a Green Day fanboy. Which is it? Guess all it matters is who I'm disagreeing with at the moment.Theplanetsaturn

Deathrocker, I can understand where you are coming from, and I know you and I have generally seen eye-to-eye on discussions on the heavy metal music talk page, but I feel you are letting your own personal bias get in the way of evaluating this article. There are a number of sources that link Green Day to a revival of punk rock in the mid-1990s. They have been called punk or pop punk by a variety of music publications, including major ones like Rolling Stone, SPIN, and NME, just to name a few. Their sound has been compared to certain punk bands, and they have claimed bands such as the Ramones, Clash, Dead Kennedys, Husker Du, the Replacements, and Operation Ivy as influences. Hell, they played Ramones songs at that band's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. They emerged from the Gilman Street scene in Berkeley, an unequivocal punk venue (I work at a college radio station near there, and so I generally look up the band lineups for my fellow DJs so they know who's touring. And what do I see about 95% of the time? Punk rock bands). This is the place were Jello Biafra got assaulted back around 1995 for being a "sellout". Do I like Green Day? Yes; back in high school they were my favorite band. But that doesn't mean I like everything they do or view them unobjectively. I'm also quite familiar with the history of rock music, particularly punk, post-punk and alternative rock, so I'm able to view them in the greater scheme of thing. I've also read a great deal of material on the band in order to work on this article, and nothing I've seen has ever debated the band's genre classification aside from comments by John Lydon, Steve Diggle, and Lee Ranaldo and Thurston Moore. That's about it. Unless you can cite a source or twelve that states Green Day should not be classified as punk, then I feel you have little argument. WesleyDodds 10:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel this debate was renewed when American Idiot was released because the fact of their popularity. By looking through the comments left by people in the "not punk-rock" section I feel that there are some not even valid because of the fact that they are also basing it on looks and other things like that. We are not debating clothing style but musical genre. Green Day I feel is punk rock. Their music is punk rock. If you want to debate that they don't dress or act punk then start another debate. But I don't think we should bring personal feelings or opinions into this sort of debate. I don't think we should have people saying "Oh, well, I hate them so they don't deserve to be punk rock." or "Well, their not any of those old bands so they're not punk rock." Well I feel that people should listen to the music and read criticism from acurate sources and then we can have a proper debate because anything I've ever seen in websites, heard from people or the band is that they're punk rock. I truly feel there is nothing to debate here because it has come to agreement through community consensus. Maybe the results were incorrect but a lot of sources also call them punk rock and it has not been fought until now. Basically though, I think that we all need to step back, listen to the music and influences and then we can come to a proper agreement because it's the music that determines their genre and not how they act or dress.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 20:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The most balanced way to look at it is the same way you would look at The Offspring or the Ramones. Look at the Clash even, or Blink 182. Is Splinter punk? No. It's Blink's latest self-titled punk? No. Is American Idiot punk? No. Were any of the eighties stuff by the Ramones and Clash punk? No. It was good, I love Ramones songs like Merry Christmas (I Don't Wanna Fight Tonight) and Pet Semetary, but they lack the speed and energy of Judy Is A Punk and Blitzkrieg Bop. As a reaction to complex, progressive rock, punk rock is by nature simple, chaotic and requires relatively little talent. It naturally appeals to younger, inexperienced bands when they start out for this reason, and also because it is fast and energetic. The Offspring started out like this in their early albums, including self-titled and Ignition. Blink 182 were similar with their Buddha demo. However, as these bands got older, they got more experienced and wanted to play more complex material. Also, they got older and the energetic rush of punk rock didn't appeal to them anymore. The first Green Day albums qualified as this. Their latest ones don't. All I hear in American Idiot is a steady rock beat, maybe not quite like Queens of the Stone Age's 'Songs for the Deaf,' but definately a lot slower than, say, The Distillers' 'Coral Fang' or NOFX's 'War on Errorism,' or Pennywise's 'The Fuse.' Do I like Green Day? No. They're not my brand of music, but I would still say their early stuff at the very least qualified as pop punk, because it was fast and energetic and chaotic, but as they have grown older they have slowed down and changed their tastes. I would call them today a rock band with a punk background that they have been leaving behind for the past few years. I think what makes this all so contreversial is the MTV connection Green Day have, and because of their image as 'Sell Outs.' Fans of the punk bands that have rejected commercial success to stay true to their roots resent bands that have changed their image into something more acceptable and mainstream and who then go around claiming that they are punk. It means a guy who likes Operation Ivy will tell someone he likes punk and the avergae dolt will say 'So you like Green Day then?' So you get alot of people who are into punk, and they don't want to be associated with Green Day. Just remember, kids, that we have to have a nuetral POV. (Justinboden86 00:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

The irony of the example of OpIvy compared to Green Day is, of course the close ties, comparable backgrounds and history the two bands have together. In general, I don't disagree with your assessment. I said much the same thing in this ongoing debate some time ago. Ultimately, we're dealing with a band that has existed for the better part of two decades. No one genre description will cover them properly. Which is why the genre listing contains multiple descriptions. And that really, should be the end of the argument.Theplanetsaturn 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

.

pop-punk dude. It's pretty much that simple. I own all their cds expect kerplunk and it all fits under pop-punk, even american idiot which is leaning a little more towards alt rock, but the powerchords (staple of the punk genre) are still there, so it is still punk. Maybe you could call american idiot post-punk, but I don't think so. When you think about it, punk has an incredible variety of sound. It isn't as constricted in its sub-genres as say, metal is. So as long as it uses powerchords and has simple melodies it is generally punk of some sort. And punk CAN be slow. It's not ALL fast. For example the Clash, lots of their music was actually slow. But today, in general they are considered a punk band. A big part of being punk is the attitude and Green Day definitely have it. Their music, in my opinion resembles that of the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Just listen to them both and then Green Day and you'll see it is all the same style. Any Green Day song from any album could be a song on one of those records. They are a punk band.

New Insomniac sales figures

[2] Whoa. Insomniac was more sucessful than American Idiot. Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

According to that, Insomniac sold over 7 million copies. American Idiot has sold 8.6 million in the United States. Not counting digital copies. Yes, it's a lot more than on the current Insomniac article but American Idiot was more successful than Insomniac.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To judge with any accuracy, you need to look at sales during comparable periods of time after initial release.Theplanetsaturn

That seems more than a little off. What does RIAA have the album certified at? WesleyDodds 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Says 4x Platinum on the Insomniac article. American Idiot says 8x Platinum in the article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just used the searchable gold/platinum database at www.riaa.com, and it has American Idiot at 5 million and Insomniac still at 2 million WesleyDodds 03:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these sales figures need to be sourced. Not the ones you found, but the total number of sales is constantly changed without the source being changed. Also the American Idiot sales are off comparaed to the www.riaa.com ones too.  Orfen ^{User Talk} 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I thought American Idiot sold 6 million copies in the US digital included. Now it's 8 million without! I'd like that to be true, but you need actual sources. Yes, the RIAA is way off, (they didn't upgrade AC/DC's sales until 3 years ago) but we need a source to verify the 8x platinum in the U.S. I'll look, but you gotta too. Anyways, I just thougth people should stop calling Insomniac "not reviving Green Day's sales to the Dookie level. It was pretty darn close in my opinion. In the US. Worldwide, Dookie definetly has INsomniac beat, with 20 million copies sold. [3] Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑

At the time Insomniac wasn't a big seller, which is the important thing. WesleyDodds 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And while RIAA may take forever to certify records, they're the most offical source on the matter. Real sales are always somewhere between the numbers offered by SoundScan (counts all records sold, excluding store without scanners and online purchases) and RIAA (counts all copies shipped, whether or not they have sold). WesleyDodds 10:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

good article nominee

Okay, if this article failed at being a featured article twice, we should start at a lower standard. I'm nominating this article for a good article.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Why was the gallery discography removed? It looks cleaner, displays all info., plus many Good or Featured Bands have layouts like this. I'm putting the gallery back.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to change it because there is currently a bug in the gallery script that prevents the "ref" tags from showing up. So none of the citations were showing up in the notes section. Plus use of images like that isn't fair use. WesleyDodds 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that the refs weren't bringing me to the links. That's 'cause of the gallery? Jeez, I hope they fix that bug soon. Could we use a discography like the one in Led Zeppelin?, becasue the one right now looks really crummy and boring. Or would that be violating fair use too? But why would it be violationg fair use? There are hundreds of band articles with album covers in them. Including this one! Could you please elaborate? I'm still not totally used to this "fair-use", "copyright" stuff.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason the use of album covers violates fair use is that as copyrighted images, they can only be included if the image is being talked about to illustrate a point. Album articles fulfill this inherently, but putting a bunch of album covers in a band's article without commentary doesn't. An example of how to go about this is Elliott Smith, a more recent music Featured Article. It had all its album covers removed from the article (expect for the last one, since it is being commented upon) in order to fulfill Featured Article guidelines. WesleyDodds 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

This article definitely needs a picture in order for it to become a good article. DJJJ 20:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

there was a great one, but I don't nkow why it was deleted.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about greendayk.jpg, it was deleted for being a copyright violation. See this. --Wildnox 23:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a commercial image and put it up. The image is being changed way too much anyway. Hello2112 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

1. Well written? Fail

2. Factually accurate? Fail

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? OK

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail

Additional comments :

• The lead section doesn't comply with the guideline/criteria of GA.
• Image:Green-Day-(American-Idiot)-logo.png, Image:Bille joe armstrong, from 1991.jpg, Image:Kingforaday.jpg, Image:Metalhamergd.jpg, Image:Wakemeuppromoshot.jpg don't comply with the fair use criteria of wikipedia and are thus not complying with the GA criterion.
• Section The New Millennium (2000–Present) has a NPOV tone and doesn't have enough citations and also needs a copyediting.

Lincher 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

What happened to the protection of this articel? Already people are vandalising it. I had to fix and edit having th band as "Green Gay". Already.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Removing trivia at 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Reason: irrelevant information, lack of encyclopedic (I hope I got the spelling right) value. We are trying to make a good article here. --Alexignatiou

I agree with this. I think it will also help reduce vandalism and false information.--Jude 07:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

emo

Can't they be consider emo?

No. WesleyDodds 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

We need a reason as to why they should be considered emo, since nothing would place them in that genre. Emo is an outgrowth of hardcore punk that has can range in sound from something akin to Fugazi to your modern emo bands like the Used. Lots of octave chords, emotional catharsis, relatively complex song structures, that sort of thing. Green Day however has more in common with first-wave punk bands, and emerged from the East Bay pop-punk scene. WesleyDodds

Hall Of Fame

When?

Why is this speculation necessary?--Jude 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the user needs to clarify what they mean. At first I thought that the user thought that Green Day was already in the Hall of Fame, however I can also see how it can be speculative.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think user means  when will green day be in the hall of fame.

If that is what you mean, then right now no one knows. Green Day is still going strong with a new album coming out eventually, so I'm not sure if it'll be anytime soon.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, bands get inducted after their careers are well established and consequently have already climaxed. Isn't that how it works? I honestly don't think Green Day will be in the HoF anytime soon. It's kind of a kiss of death (though, there are exceptions).--Jude 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame article here on Wikipedia says: "Currently, groups or individuals are qualified for induction 25 years after the release of their first record." So Green Day still has a while considering 39/Smooth was released in 1990. So the earliest they could be considered for nomanation is in 2015. But it sure does seem like a kiss of death since most bands after 25 years are just about done.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 17:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the reason there's a 25 year limit. If no-one remembers you after 25 years, you don't deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Last time I checked, I owned at least one album by nearly all of the inductees, and entire discographies of some. In 2015, when music trends have changed and we have a new generation of popular music artists dominating the charts, then we'll know if they deserve to be inducted. --Switch 09:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Gun

Sources, please. I've googled, and there's no mention of this. I'm reverting the edit.--Jude 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

SOURCE: a meeting with Billie Joe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YesMapRadio (talk • contribs) .

as funny as that is, it doesn't count as a source.--Jude 12:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: please see WP:NOR for the rules.--Jude 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs to be taken off ASAP because of it's lack of proper sources. As it is right now, it looks just like a rumor, not a fact. Even if it is true, you can't just start posting stuff and letting readers believe it's true without proof of confirmation. --Scatteredbomb 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't even believe that this is true. It possibly could but it is not on the official website and I don't think Green Day is going back to a nimrod. sound. I don't have anything to support my claims but I just do believe this is a rumor. Since there has been no information to even suggest that Green Day is even recording the album right now I would say it's just a rumor and no where even true. I know that Green Day will be recording soon (if not now) but January seems too early for a new album. As far as I know they aren't even done going through demos and stuff for the new album.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i agree entirely. I didn't believe it because that would mean they would need to be near completed with the album, and on it's way to mastering and production if it was to be out by January. Last we heard the band was working on demo's, then they picked up with the U2 collaboration, so who knows how much of their time was spent on that.--Scatteredbomb 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I know it hasn't been confirmed, I am just guessing but if Rob Cavallo is producing again then he probably wouldn't have had time to be get out a new album for Green Day by January because he was working on The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance. But yeah, since they got this U2 collaboration it won't probably be until close to the release of that they'll start getting into the studio for a new album.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys see it that way, because I concur whole-heartedly. The song titles weren't even very "green day." I nominated the "Tommy Gun (Green Day Album)" articles for deletion as well. The minute this "information" gets confirmed, it can go back up, but I'm willing to bet it will never be confirmed because Green Day are still in the demo process, they haven't even started creating the album.--Jude 04:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've had to revert several articles relating to green day, and the actual Tommy Gun (firearm) article. Is there anything we can do about this? Also, I'm a newbie, so I don't know how to nominate articles for deletion ( other than speedy ) so could someone please help us out by nominating Tommy Gun (Green Day album) for deletion?--Jude 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I proposed deletion on the article. I left an explaination on the talk page.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion on this article again, as it has been recreated and still without a source just like the last time it was created. There is no reliable official source that says that this is the next Green Day album, so that is why I proposed deletion so to not spread rumors or create hoaxes.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I had it on my watch list, but it didn't show up, probably because it was a re-creation. Is there a process to have it removed completely so there is a ban it being re-created?--Jude 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an admin can recreate the page after deletion with a special boilerplate and then protect it. --Wildnox 03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a complete newbie, so I'm not sure, but wouldn't that protect the article FROM deletion? Is there a wiki article on this, I tried searching, but I'm not very good at that either :-S. Sorry guys, I'm not much help.--Jude 03:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a way to block an article from creation, however, I don't feel that the article should be blocked because what if it turns out to be true? I mean, I'm sure they have a way to unblock an article but it has only been created twice so I wouldn't say it's much of a problem, but I think something needs to be done about it. I don't know, the blocking from creation almost seems too drastic. Yeah, it's most likely a hoax but I don't know. A page block almost seems too drastic, maybe you should bring it up with an admin?  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has been moved to an AfD located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Gun (Green Day album). Please express all your thoughts about the article there.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reissues

I've recently seen the two first albums in a few shops, does this mean they've already been re-issued? If so the article should be updated, but I'm not that good at finding stuff out.Kokiri kid 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Through a quick search I wasn't able to find anything stating the albums were reissued recently. I found some stuff about a reissue happening in 2003 or 2004, however, the rights were rescinded in 2005. The suggestion I can give is to check on the albums to see who the label is and if it is not Lookout! Records, then I would say that it has been reissued, if not then maybe the store is just misinformed and they just have some copies.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have proof of the reissues, but I'll have to work to find it. It's in my personal journal ( the link is ) and it's a list of albums to be released and on what dates. I remember this news because it made the value of my originals skyrocket. I'll find it and post the information here.--Jude 11:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the link I had before, but I did find this [4]. And now that there's a date, I can do more research. If you guys find anymore evidence, please leave it here!--Jude 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that's enough evidence but I think it would be best to find something else. You would think the albums would eventually be reissued, so I'll check some more to see if I can find something else.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The CD's will be reissued on December 19th on Green Day's current label, Reprise. Billboard.com Article --Scatteredbomb 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that information, I have added it to the article.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just recently read they'd be pushed back to the 9th of January [5] So I'm changing the date.--Jude 20:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can anyone find a good picture of green day? DeeJayJayJay 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

green_day_kerrang_1106.jpg') here is one. 82.45.22.96 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

http://wallpapers.diq.ru/wallpapers/84/Green_Day.jpg This one is good

Graffiti

I removed some graffiti left by the user User:Darktrax577, and left him/her a warning on his/her user page. Davi 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed graffiti as well, although I forgot to look at who left it. 198.212.224.1 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BADLY NEEDED PHOTOS

What happened? Somehow, all of the other bands have great photos and we have but one. Try using the band's website or something. I just don't understand that other band articles can use photos from thier wwebsites but Green Day can't. With some photos, this articel just might make it   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BB--Jude 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what happened is that they were copyright violations or not fair use. Something to that effect, that's why there is no picture currently.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just put up a new picture, it's actually my picture. I took a picture of a picture, so I don't think that's violating any copyright laws. They did it on the page for The All American Rejects, and that pic has been there for a while. DavyJonesGSB

I think it might still be since the original photo was taken by someone else. Until another one can be found I'd say use it because we haven't been able to find one for a while now.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why can't you change the size of the image? It's a bit hard to see all three members in my opinon. In the infobox, when you change the number of pixels under "Img size" it does nothing. Any help?   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture on now is terrible. There must be a better picture whih isn't protected. --James P Twomey 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I began to start re-imagizing the article. It looks much better now with an album cover or two and some live images.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks ALOT better now Scrumshus, great images. Only problem is, I don't really know if the Ramones tribute album cover is necessary. Other than that, great! I'm going to renominate this for good article. DavyJonesGSB

Thanx, but i think more resources are still needed   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims about sales must be verifiable

I'd like to have the fact of 30 milions of copies sold well documented, I know RIAA is a little bit sloppy, but the ammount of units sold by Green Day isn't justifed anywhere in the article, so I reverte d it to 22 millions of copies, according to RIAA, which is maybe not the most accurate, but at least VERIFIABLE source. Broken soul 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Broken soul (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Sources were provided, you deleted them in this edit: [6].  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No! I checked them out and there wasn't anything relevant mentioned in them! Broken soul 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or do you mean it's mentioned within this book? Then specify chapter and page, just to sound reasonable, because without it, I don't feel convinced at all Broken soul 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you scroll down in the second citation it says 3.5 million digital albums sold. Then if you add the numbers in Green Day discography up it adds up to 66 million with various citations on there. Most RIAA and another citation for American Idiot. These two numbers of digital downloads and regular sales adds (since the digital downloads are not included) up to 69.5 million. Also it says 50 million sales in the first source.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Other Projects section moved?

Same as title. It was verifiable, useful and interesting info that could help the article.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was the idiot who decided to blank the page?

Come on, that's really not that clever. I had to go back to the older edit and paste it back here. So please don't blank it again. DavyJonesGSB 13:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Image Size

I was trying to change the size of the main image, as it was hard to spot all three members of the band, and it has become ridiculously large. And now no matter how many times I try to change the size to a reasonable one, it does not change. Please, someone with a better knowledge of editing images revert the edit. Sorry. DavyJonesGSB 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

prettier discography

Main article: Green Day discography

Album information
	1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours Released: April 1990 (North America) U.S. sales: 585,000 Label: Lookout Records	Singles Released No singles released
	Kerplunk! Released: January 7 1992 (North America) U.S. sales: 700,000 Label: Lookout Records	Singles Released No singles released
	Dookie Released: February 1 1994 (North America) U.S. sales: 10 million Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released "Longview" "Basket Case" "Welcome to Paradise" "When I Come Around"
	Insomniac Released: October 10 1995 (North America) U.S. sales: 7 million Label: 'Reprise Records	Singles Released "Geek Stink Breath" "Stuck With Me" "Brain Stew/Jaded" "Walking Contradiction"
	nimrod. Released: October 14 1997 (North America) U.S. sales: 2 million Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released "Hitchin' a Ride" "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)" "Redundant" "Nice Guys Finish Last"
	Warning: Released: October 3 2001 (North America) U.S. sales: 500,000 Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released "Minority" "Warning" "Waiting" "macy's Day Parade"
	American Idiot Released: September 21 2004 (North America) U.S. sales: 5 million Label: Reprise Records	Singles Released "American Idiot" "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" "Holiday" "Wake Me Up When September Ends" "Jesus of Suburbia"

Made this discography table. Looks better than the current one, but is awfully similar to the one on their own discography page. Whattya think?   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is great, much better than the current one, more complex with the album covers, but simple and easy to read. I suggest you place it on the article. DavyJonesGSB 2:26 26, December 2006 (UTC)

It's good. I made a little edit to it, which I think that's what you were trying to achieve. I italicized the No singles released. Otherwise it just said "No singles released. I would say add it, it looks very nice.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Very good, this is what I'd recommend for a pass:

1. Create an introduction to the 'Other Projects' main article.
2. Fair use rationales for the 'God...', 'American Idiot' and 'Happy Family' album covers.

Wiki-newbie 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, by introduction to that article is to simply take the main points of that article and write them out as well as introducing the main article. A reader does not want to click on another article to get some basic facts. It's like a giant 'See also' section. Take The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Production Design as an example of my own work. Wiki-newbie 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the introduction. I think it follows what is done in that example pretty well. I am not quite sure how to add Fair Use rationales. But I finished the introduction which I think is done pretty well.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Wiki-newbie, I think we're ready to take this off hold (or whatever I should say, on hold, off hold, sounds right), we've got the introduction and the fair use rationale. This article is starting to rise from the ashes in my opinion. DavyJonesGSB 23:56 26 December 2006 (UTC)

well, DavyJonesgsb, the template states that the article must be on hold for a minimum of 2 days to ensure the correct edits are made, and some more additions to the article woulnd't hurt either. I think four days would make sure the article really showcases GA features and requirements   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Sorry. Speaking of additional edits, earlier I was editing quite a few grammar/spelling errors that I had never noticed. DavyJonesGSB 2:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So, would everyone agree the correct changes have been made to satisfy the hold? The article looks nice and and intro gives it some class, and all images have their rationales. I would re-post my discography, but we can't because there are free alternatives such as having no album artowrk there. :( the atricle still loox fantastic, tho.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Riddance

If Good Riddance was a hit, how come it never got a Grammy nod?--Kingforaday1620 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tons of classic bands (Led Zeppelin) have never won a Grammy. It's all a scam to make money.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Who wins the grammys is quite dependent upon who's record company has the most money to pass around and who's record company is wanting to promo their band. It really is a joke.

Page reworking

Last night I bought the new Green Day biography Nobody Likes You and I'm going to be using it to work on the page for the next few days. If there's anything in particular you want me to work on or if you have questions about my edits, please post them here. Additionally, in order to get the article up to guidelines, I'd really suggest the intro say "Green Day is an American rock band". I think we're past genre debates now, and all the genres Green Day is listed under are subgenres of rock music anyway. WesleyDodds 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would agree with the rock part. That can statisfy everyone. It's really hard to say that Green Day is not a rock band.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that genre disputes are common on most of the pages, if rock doesn't work, I would try to find a number of cited sources and look for a genre. Then just revert the angry fanboys like crazy.Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to choose something ambiguous like "rock" since it's always in such dispute either what kind of punk they are or if they're even punk at all. piper108 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats the one un-disputed genre that Green Day is classifyed. ROCK. And in the biography, try to find the origin of the band's name, because appparently, we all know it, but there's no source. Nice buy   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The only explanation offered is that it comes from the song of the same name. It is mentioned a number of times how they hate their name. WesleyDodds 05:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Weren't sources for the name provided before? And also, as Darthgriz98 said, we could do a sourced method. Perhaps something like they used for the My Chemical Romance article. Add the main genre and then add a link to the section with every subgenre sourced, so if something needs to be added it has to have a reliable source. They did this for every song article and album article as well.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 05:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to go that route with the genres. It's pretty settled at this point, aside for the occasional person who comes along claiming Green Day aren't punk for whatever reason. I've already cited their connection to the revival of punk rock in the lead section a long time ago. Funny thing is all the sources from that period who criticize Green Day never say they believe Green Day aren't punk, rather that they think they sold out. WesleyDodds 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Well done. Keep up the good work. Wiki-newbie 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yes!!!!! Finally! Now I can say i signifigantly contributed to a GA!! Thanx! Good work people!   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

YES! WOOHOOO! This article used to be so horrible and vandalized all the time and now it's a GA! YAY!! The Guy Who Nominated This For A Good Article 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

86

Is 86 about them not being able to go back to Gilman Street or a one night stand that Billie had?--69.113.131.124 22:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The title refers to Gilman. 86'd is a common term for banishment.Theplanetsaturn 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the confusion comes from the similar title to "80", which was about his future wife. WesleyDodds 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite simple!!!

Pop punk is a sub-genre of punk characterized by bare-bones stripped down simplistic instrumentation (huh, I believe Green Day has that), softer more melodic and catchy melodies than other styles of punk (also Green Day) and a lack of strong political ethic even if politics are approached minimally or peripherally (also green day, huh, we seem to be noticing a trend). Also, its worthy to note that since Green Day's very very first album they have been claiming to be pop punk, and nothing more or less. I think the evidence is rather damning. Pop punk it is. Quite frankly, why that would even be disputed is beyond me. It seems rather obvious to someone who actually knows a lick about music. Anyway, I changed the page to reflect this. DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK TO ROCK. Rock is way too broad of a term. You might as well call Lamb of God or Black Flag simply rock. Too broad. It doesn't help to clarify anything for people who need clarification. 12.156.166.47 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Punk Rocker

Ok, clearly there are going to be angry fan boys getting all up in a row about Green Day being classified as pop punk. Lets not bow to the fan boys, please! Just revert if they feel the need to change it and hopefully eventually they will give up. Green Day has always been a pop punk band, and they themselves have always admitted as much. They have all the characteristics of pop punk, and its pointless to even debate such a thing, since you might as well be debating whether or not to classify slayer as thrash metal. To anyone who knows a lick about music, it's painfully obvious.

The Pop-punk classification is already specified under genre in the infobox. Your revert is redundant and unnecessary.Theplanetsaturn 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's necessary to classify them as a rock band first and then go into subgenres like pop punk because the general reader may or may not have a proper frame of reference. WesleyDodds 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What about them being 'punk'? Ethanjp

Also covered under genre in the infobox.Theplanetsaturn 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know i meant because they have never said they are punk and they have always insisted on themselves being pop punk and people put them down as punk anyway Ethanjp

Frankly, I've always known them to designate themselves as a band, and not really care so much about genre labels. Do you have a source of the band declaring themsleves as pop-punk and pup-punk alone?Theplanetsaturn 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always heard them say strictly "punk rock". I have also heard "rock". However, that is the only thing I have heard from the band themselves.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the idea of labelling them as rock to be redundant, since we can be rather assured that pop-punk is a subgenre of rock. You might as well call Cradle of Filth rock. It's just as redundant. The point of wikipedia is to provide accurate and as specific as possible information. Just because a bunch of fanboys can't agree on the flipping genre, doesn't take away from the fact that it is the job of this site to provide ACCURATE information, NOT popular information. I won't revert it again, because every time I do, someone just reverts it back. Do take it in to consideration though.

You're missing the point. Of course we want to mention that Green Day is pop punk, punk rock, etc. But they are also a rock band, since those are all subgenres of rock. Furthermore, Wikipedia is intended towards the general reader, meaning we want the entries to be comprehensive yet accessible. Fact of the matter is, not everyone knows what pop punk is, or punk rock for that matter. Thus articles start out with as basic information as possible ("Green Day is a rock band consisting of Billie Joe, Mike Dirnt, and Tre Cool . . .") while carefully introducing more specific information as the article proceeds. It's just simple accessibility. Hell, it's a Wiki guideline to start entries so straightforwardly. WesleyDodds 10:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And again, since you seem to have ignored it: The Pop-punk classification is already specified (first and foremost, in fact)under genre in the infobox. That covers your need for accurate and specific information.Theplanetsaturn 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone besides me think its redundant to say that people might not know what pop-punk is, and thus we should classify them as simply as possible? If they are to stupid to know what pop-punk is (anybody with even slight music knowledge can infer that), then surely they could just wiki the term and find out? Why don't you just say they are pop-punk at the top of the page, for the sake of being specific? Knowledge should always be specific, not broad. A rock is a rock, but don't call an amathyst merely a rock. A mop is so much more than a 'household item'. Red is much more than just a light wavelength. The point I'm making is, rock does not in any way sum Green Day up. Anybody with half a brain who is looking up Green Day knows they are a rock band. If they are looking up Green Day, they obviously want to know more beyond that. Also, yes pop-punk is listed as a genre, but not everybody immediately looks over in that direction. Many people unfamiliar with wiki usually just read the articles and don't notice the side information.

If they are unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia to somehow miss the giant outlined box on the side, what makes you think they can figure out how to click the little pop-punk link to go to the pop-punk page? They are a rock band. The sub genre (one of them) is pop-punk. It's really quite succinct as is, and the general listing avoids the inevitable genre war. This is a highly contentious issue, with each side rolling their eyes in disgust at the other for being to stupid to realize what they consider obvious. The way it is now covers the majority of opinions without resorting to yet another revert war, and (whether simplified or not) is accurate.Theplanetsaturn 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Awards section

Is the new awards sectioin nessecsry? we already have the seperate album / song awards worked into their own sections, and it makes the article a bit redundant.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. It does seem rather redundant, the important awards are listed and the appropriate articles have the awards on them.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The network

Will the network come out with another cd?--Kingforaday1620 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a discussion for The Network page.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Same band.--Kingforaday1620 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

but this still doesn't relate to the green day article, and had more prominince in The Network article,   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

american idiot

Why does he say "don't want to be an american idiot" he just say don't want to be bush it means the same.--69.113.131.124 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The song is about way more than G.W. dude. And please stop posting inane questions.

2000 light years away

what's a malakite?--Kingforaday1620 23:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's some kind of moodstone. Please only post questions relating to the article itself on this talk page. WesleyDodds 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

popularising punk rock

I noticed that the "punk rock" genres have been changing recently to "pop punk", and while I'm not arguing with it, I am arguing that in the article it should say that they popularised "punk rock"[7] for the following reason:

Through their "pop punk" music, more people were interested in the punk culture and dug deeper to find punk rock bands, and that is how they popularised the INTEREST in punk rock.

The sentence states:

"As a result, Green Day was widely credited, along with fellow California punk bands The Offspring and Rancid, with reviving mainstream interest in and popularizing punk rock in the United States."

No one said they were punk rock in that sentence. I'll change it back every time someone else changes it unless there's a good argument for it. So bring it here if you've got one.--Jude 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources both mention Green Day as punk rock. The sentence is phrased that way so people don't start complaining. WesleyDodds 02:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I said the sentence was phrased correctly, which is the whole point of the post: to make people stop taking out the "punk rock" portion of the sentence, not to complain.--Jude 05:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana introduced punk and alternative rock to the mainstream three years before Green Day reached any kind of international fame. If anyone deserves the title it's them. Even Billie Joe said that green day could not be where they were without Nirvana. If someone could find the source for that, it would be great.

Criticism

does the part in the criticism section referring to noel gallaghers problems belong?

This claim can be seen as ironic as Gallagher himself faced problems when it became apparent that the Oasis single, "Shakermaker", had used the melody from "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". Gallagher's unlicensed use led to Oasis being successfully sued. A similar case happened to him in 1994, when members of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, successfully sued him on the basis that a substantial part of the melody of Oasis's, "Whatever", was taken from their song "How Sweet to be an Idiot".

This has nothing to do with Green Day, or anything relating to it   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it WesleyDodds 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no citation for the Gallagher section whatsoever, and truthfully, I think that it should be cited as it is a sharp blow to Gallagher's reputation if it is not true... Please find the citation or I will delete the statements... 71.72.254.135 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

closing time

Do they sing that ^^?--69.113.131.124 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not that I know of, maybe as a cover.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Semisonic plays that song, it is just often mistook for green day. ;)   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just heard this today and the guy singing sounds nothing like Billie, Mike, or Tre. So why do people thing that they it then?--Kingforaday1620 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Singles Released

Should we add a "singles released" section to the discography? James P Twomey 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that it is used in some featured articles such as Rush and Sex Pistols. So I would say that yes, we should add one.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but those bands have a far smaller singles catalog than Green Day, and plus, it works just fine with the seperate discography section, like other featured bands like Nirvana, Weird Al (which even has its own singles page), and Duran Duran, all of which have song catalogs more comparable to the size of Green day's.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The full discography section for Rush however is quite larger than Green Day's. If you check the length if we added the Green Day singles it still probably would not compare.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As an added comment, I think that the Nirvana page needs to have at least a slight summary of their discography instead of just a link, so that is why their section is not as big, they just have the length.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock first genre ?

Green Day are pop punk with some punk rock songs.Please let pop punk first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.63.235.157 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

All genres are listed and all of their genres are covered. As long as that is the fact then there is no need to change.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk rock is listed first because pop punk is a subgenre of punk, thus the hirearchy goes from broadest to more specific. WesleyDodds 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and since pop punk is a subgenre of punk, couldn't it be said that it is both?--JJ

Dookie sales

Souldn't it mention Dookie as 69th best selling album?Thesnoo 20:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Somebody has mercilessly vandalized this page and im too lazy too fix itThesnoo 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

songs in popular media

couldn't this be considered trivia? I think these facts should be worked into thier body paragraphs so we can avoid using trivia, which prohibits this article from being a FA.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even quite sure if this section quite contributes to the article anyways so not even sure if they should be added into the main paragraphs. I am not saying it shouldn't be added, just that I'm not even know if it should. We can add it but I'm just saying I don't think it contributes to much.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made into its on article. For example on the metallica page there was a huge trivia section related to metallica references or songs in popular media, so I made it into the article Metallica in the media as to not interrupt with the normal article.

Vandalism

i noticed there's a lot of vandalism on this page. can someone protect it? oh, and i noticed that these two IP addresses seem to be the ones vandalizing lately: 212.32.89.47 and 82.11.205.182 Greendayrox 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

there is too much vandalism to this article right now so will a administrator please protect this yuckfoo 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed someone's recent edit about the "New Album". --Scatteredbomb 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Still Punk?

Green Days generes are still Punk? I thought they were going to be put as alternative? Not Pop Punk Or Punk Rock?- Migospia 09:09, February 14 2007 (UTC)

They began as a pop-punk band but now they're just pop-rock.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerpin taxt (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2007

lead citations

didn'd dookie sell 20 mil. worldwide? the sales figures in thef irst paragrph are for thier US riaa certifications. im gonna change is to "sold X many of copies in the US alone to reflect the data change.   scrumshus ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)