Talk:Barenaked Ladies/Archive 1

Removed content

Removed this: It's a really mediocre White "Middle Canada" kinda band despite the somehow eye-catching and profane moniker. So, ironically it kinda gives away the sense of boredom, triviality saliant in middle-class Canadian society.

Remember, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. The above is opinion; if it can be properly attributed, it could perhaps become the kernel of a fact that the band evokes such opinions. --Brion 08:03 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Clear Channel's list of banned songs

I'd like to remove the paragraph on Clear Channel's purported List O' Banned Songs, as it is an urban legend. [1]

Thoughts? Nightsky 19:51, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

origin of the name

What are the origins of the name? Was it chosen to cause controversy, gain attention or did it just seem like a good idea at the time? Thryduulf 17:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is all heresay, but I heard that the band got it's name when it was playing a gig with another band and neither one of the band's had a name for itself. They decided to call themselves Barenaked Ladies, and the other band decided to call themselves Free Beer. That way the sign outside would read:

TONIGHT FEATURING FREE BEER AND BARENAKED LADIES

That of course is all rumor and urban legend. Muj0

This website would seem to give that story some credence [2]

Barenaked Ladies started when Steven Page and Ed Robertson got together in the late 80's. Ed was in a band at the time, and had promised that they would appear at a charity show. When the show organizers called him to make sure they were coming, he had forgotten all about it, and his band had broken up. He assured them that he would come, with his new band, Barenaked Ladies. The name was made up earlier, when Steve and Ed were far back at a boring concert, and making up fake band names. Ed then proceeded to call Steve and let him know that he'd signed them up to play. It was just going to be a one-time gig, but by chance it kept going, and became the actual band. This is the explanation given by the band themselves, and is included in their biography. Just wanted to clear that up. :) --Patteroast 10:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The official story, from both Ed and Steve (the only two members who in the band when the name was chosen, is as follows:

They both went to a Bob Dylan Concert at the Ex in Toronto. It was very boring so they started pretending they were old music critics to amuse each other with comments like 'and who could forget that old metal band from the 80's, Barenaked Ladies?'. The name was one of many they made up during the concert.

Unrelatedly, Ed had commited his band to a gig for the Second Harvest Food Bank at Nathan Phillips Square. Ed's band however broke up. He forgot about the gig until someone called to confirm his band would be there - in a panic he said 'yes, but the name of the band has changed to... Barenaked Ladies' (recalling the name from the recent Dylan concert). He then called Steve up and asked him if he wanted to be in Barenaked Ladies with him (Steve replied with something like 'You told them we were called that?'). They set up 3 rehersal times and missed them all. They pulled out of the battle of the bands and asked if they could just play while the other bands setup. They rehersed under the ramp at the Square with every song they could think of that they knew how to play, and that was the first BNL show. Thus, the name isn't intended to be sexist, or provocative or anything because no thought really went into it being their name. It was a spur of the moment decision. Afterwards, they kept the name with the naive reasoning that 'if we ever book a gig, people who liked us from the Second Harvest show will never be able to find us if we change our name'. The name has been explained in many interviews is just 'what you call it when you're little kids and you see a girl in a magazine or through a window. It's a remeniscance of youth - though I would suggest that this may have been an explaination derived after they decided it would be their name, or even after people starting asking about the name. TheHYPO 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Single?

BNL recorded the song "Grim Grimming Ghosts" (from the Haunted Mansion) for Disney, and it was featured on the collection "Disney's Music From The Park" (which also has an astounding rendition of Davy Crockett sung by Tim Curry. Swirsky 21:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Album

The statement on there being a new album 'hinted at' is incorrect now: they have confirmed it. In the iTunes originals they said they were aiming for it to be released at the end of summer '06.

Removals

Several removals:

Later that month, BNL was an opening act for Dave Matthews Band at a weekend-long festival at Randall's Island in New York City. -While perfectly true, there was nothing particularly special or historically important about this performance, it doesn't bear mention in the article any more than any other preformance.

all of which they performed at Camp Tamarack to a crowd of adoring 6 to 18 year-old youths during the Summer of 1990. - Similarly, this seems like a pretty trivial mention of one random show in discussion of Gordon when the show really has nothing to do with the album, and the band played many shows.

The band has also collaborated with singer Tom Jones for a track on his 1999 album Reload. And again, while this is true, it's one of many single track collaborations the band has had, and this one was not particularly notable as successful or special in a way that it needs to be mentioned in the notes on Stunt. TheHYPO 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. All to be removed? Lukasa 18:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding BNLFan53's addition: >>with his Rush cover band, Three Guys From Barrie

The name of that band sounds familiar, so I'm not saying I doubt the existance of that band - I recall it from somewhere, but is there a verification that that was the particular band that broke up around this show? I know Ed was in more than one band in his youth before BNL. Also, the band that broke up for this show wasn't specifically a Rush cover band, but an all-sorts-of-music cover band - I don't know if Ed ever was in a Rush-specific cover band. If this band was a Rush-only cover band, it sounds like it might not be the particular one that broke up at that time...

TheHYPO 08:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I also recognise the name, but without checking with the band somehow I can't verify it. You're correct about it being a generic cover band though: in the iTunes originals with Barenaked Ladies, Steve said that "Ed's band were all over the map...they played everything from Talking Heads, to Peter Gabriel, to Tears For Fears, and some...canadian classic rock" Lukasa 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I think that the "desperation Records" article should be put into the barenaked ladies article. What are you opinions?

Fair enough. -arctic gnome 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No refrences cited

This article seems to be decently written, but hardly any refrences are cited at all. This should probably be worked on. Shamrox 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but it's probably not an easy task. Much of the information comes from common knowledge of the fanbase, and other information is from live conversations with band members, concert banters, and other sources that aren't the kind of thing that is easily citable. Other info can come from articles someone read a long time ago about the band that they haven't had in their posession for a long time. Someone should probably go through the band's PSPS Bio and cite anything that is cited in there (though it should be noted that there are some typos and mis-infos in that book anyway so...)TheHYPO 17:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Two Guys And A Girl

I've seen an episode (S2E21, Prod#:2ABZ21, Orig. aired 19 May 99) of the show Two Guys And A Girl (Back when it was called "Two Guys, A Girl And A Pizza Place") with Barenaked Ladies singing between scenes. They weren't just singing about anything, but about the story of the episode. The Episode was even named "Two Guys, a Girl and Barenaked Ladies" More info here

CMCC?

Should the CMCC get its own article? It's not really an entity of Barenaked Ladies (eg: Desperation records is really just a 'name' that BNL uses to release its records while this CMCC is a seperate group of many artists that just happens to have Steve Page as it's main spokesperson (and I suspect as a key figure in forming the group). Anyone agree that it should get it's own article (and just have a reference in this article)?TheHYPO 17:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential website addition?

I'd like to suggest/submit that my site, Rock It Old School, be added to the site listing; It has a unique contribution of information (music and instrument information), and is a more complete/accurate listing of lyrics than the lyric site linked. It has also been noted by the band as being quality in these regards. However, I'm not going to be one to self-advertise by adding my own site; If anyone else feels that it is a valid link for inclusion, please add it ot the list, or feel free to discuss here if you're not sure. TheHYPO 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discography questions, rewrite...

First of all, can someone cite evidence (or at least a story behind) the following being noted as singles?

• "War On Drugs" - when was this released as a single? I simply can't imagine this happening.
• "It's Only Me" - was this actually released?
• "Alcohol" - I know there was a 6-song Stunt Sampler that this song was the title track on, but was this song ever actually intended as a single?
• "Govatsos Shuffle" - how was this a single?
• Rock spec. 1997-8 saw several releases of Brian Wilson 2000 and the live. I don't think it needs to be multi-listed. Just like Old Apartment was released as both BOAPS and RS within the 96-97 frame.
• "Grim Grinning Ghosts" - was this a single? What do we base this on?
• "Fight the Power" - I'm not sure about this one. Was it actually the single from that soundtrack?

I would also like to reshuffle the primary/secondary/live album distinction (if so, Holidays might be a secondary release, since they wrote only a small part of it). I think the releases should be split by the significance of release, not the type of content. IE: Rock Spec and Disc One should be primary, since they had major commercial releases, charted, had press releases, appearances and touring, etc.

As for secondary, I have a few hesitations about it.

• Shoebox EP, though titled 'EP', is pretty much a CD single. It's a 4 track including 2 versions of the title. I'd call it a single, and not necessarily include it as a release (no more than the current 'Easy EP' is really an EP).
• As You Like it is definately a secondary release,
• Barenaked On A Stick is definately a secondary.
• Is Barenaked 4 Hannukkah? It's really just a sampler repackaging for download. I'd say that a note about it on the BN4Holidays article is sufficient, and it's not really a secondary release. If it has to be mentioned in the article, I'd say under a seperate 'online repackaging' section with Everything Acoustic?

I think maybe Primary, secondary for things like Barenaked On A Stick, As You Like It; and 'online releases' for itunes, the EPs and I think all the tour lives can be summed up with "Most Shows from all major tours since 2004" with a barenakedladies.com link. It's tough because, though I think iTunes is a notable release due to its exclusive recordings an interviews, I wouldn't call Everything Acoustic or HannukahEP even secondary releases. Tertiary at best, since they are just repackages. Perhaps even less significant than single releases, which we don't list here - at least not physical singles)

Thoughts? TheHYPO 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If Grim Grinning Ghosts was released as a single, I'd love to buy it - I've been looking for a good copy for a while. -MBlume 23:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (dramafreak an bn.net if you remember that far back)

• The addition of information on their Jello-O "Wiggle" commercial? I LOVE that ad!

user: studio60onthesunsetstrip

References. Let's get using them.

I'm planning on going through three or more sources: Behind The Music, a significant lengthed interview with Ed spanning their entire careers, and the iTunes Originals audio. In the meantime, I have added a references holding area at the bottom of the page. To reference something, here's the format: fact...fact...fact<ref>the citation</ref>

That's all you need to do. Here's the format for, say, citing a podcast - something that would be handy for BNL. see Template:Cite_podcast for usage instructions - note the required and optional tags:
{{cite podcast
| url =
| title =
| website =
| host=
| date =
| accessdate =
| accessyear =
}}

Others BNL articles might make use of: Template:Cite_web (for websites), Template:Cite press release, Template:Cite video (for TV episodes or video), Template:Cite email, Template:Cite book (such as PSPS).

All citations are listed here: Category:Citation_templates If you want to add citations to another BNL article (or any article), you should add a references section at the bottom of articles (just before the external links). All you need to put down is the following. The references will automatically be listed in it: ==References==

TheHYPO 08:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Labels?

Technically, The band's first album on Sire was Gordon was it not? Would this not put them on Sire starting 1992? I know the band was still pumping out Yellow Tapes past new years 1992 - so shouldn't they be on Page Pubs through 92? Anyone know what "John King Artist Consultants" actually is? What they did for the band etc.? TheHYPO 18:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Singles

I find it odd that the Barenaked Ladies tables at the bottom of all BNL-related articles list the singles which have official releases and videos, whereas the previous_single/this_single/next_single tables listed on the single pages oft include singles which are not listed in the before mentioned table, and do not even have articles.

Which seems the more logical course of action -- adding articles for those singles and adding them to the BNL table, or removing them from the timeline and correcting the order? JPG-GR 05:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people have different ideas of what qualifies a single. "A" had a radio promo released but never had a video and didn't have much of a release. "Alcohol" was the title track of an album promo disc but also never had a video. The article for Stunt indicates that it was a moderate radio hit, so that implies to me that someone remembers it being a radio single, but it wasn't a high profile one and I suspect it has been forgotten (assuming the statement about the radio single is accurate). It's pretty hard to confirm things from that period. Similarly, there IS a radio promo for It's Only Me from Disc One, but it was never "promoted" as a single so whether is counts as a single is up in the air. TheHYPO 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, either way, it would be nice to have consistency in the two navigation boxes. JPG-GR 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree but I don't have an opinion as to which one should 'reign'. It's not the only problem. Other problem include album chrono boxes - right now Barelaked Nadies is on the chronology (I forget where - before Everything to Everyone I think) even though it's a DVD, not a CD and contains no real original material (other than commentary). I wouldn't put it there, but someone did and because wiki has no guideline defining exactly what should in the chrono (I'd say only major album releases, but others could argue it...), it's not easy to deal with. TheHYPO 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the -album- chronology stuff in the various infoboxes, which basically involved removing both Barelaked Nadies (not an album, a DVD) and iTunes Originals (not an album, an... edition of iTunes originals hehe). As for the singles... that's still tough to say. At this point, I'm inclined to prefer -neither- of the current lists, but more a version in the middle (for instance, I would count both FFTFT and TLTL from Maroon, but not A) JPG-GR 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think FFFT or TLTL are debatable. Both had radio singles and music videos. Both are clearly singles. I don't know which list you have that lacks one of those singles... TheHYPO 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The list at the bottom of the BNL page. And, this just proves the point about these lists needing some serious work. JPG-GR 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For me, a good general rule would be "if there's a video, it's a single," but then you have to ask about both LiaDT and TTWF, which I don't think I'd count either. There's no simple rule, I supose. JPG-GR 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Both were singles unquestionably. You're the first person I've ever heard question one of those. If a song got a video, it's almost unquestionably a single. TTWF was a single, but possibly only in Canada. Lovers was definately a single. It's on Disc One, a singles-only collection. The iffy ones. Unless you added it, I see both FFFT and TLTL on the list on this page so I'm not sure why you say it's not there unless it wasn't there before and you've added it. Questionable singles are non-video songs. Celebrity was a UK single. Maybe Katie was supposedly a Canadian Single. For You had a radio single. 'A' did too. Million dollars never had a video but it had two or three UK singles and possibly North American ones... it's all debatable. TheHYPO 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding me. I'm -not- saying that those two singles are questionable. I noticed they were missing because I was going through the list of what -I- thought would be the notable ones, and those ones stood out like sore thumbs as missing. And, currently, neither FFFT or TLTL are listed in the table at the bottom, nor have they been. (Template:Barenaked Ladies) I'd add them, but for the life of me, I'm not sure which of them came first anymore. JPG-GR 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, they don't have articles written on them yet, which may be why they are lacking. JPG-GR 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OH, you mean that table. I think you answered your own question. I assumed you were referring to the 'discography' section of the site. Yes, the template has only existing song pages. "Single" might be a mistitling, but I believe the point is to collect all the pages on BNL songs that exist on wikipedia, though I didn't make the template. TLTL came first, but I wouldn't bother adding it until someone makes a page for the songs. They are likely to thus add the page themselves after making it. TheHYPO 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

One (or two?) videos of BNL appeared in the install CD of Mac OS ...maybe 9 or 8.5, along with QuickTime. Did anyone remember that? It'll be interesting to write on the article? --Alessandro De Rossi

• An encyclopedia isn't really the place for trivia. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yea, that's actually how I first discovered them. Old Apartment came with my first Mac, an LCII. Later when I upgraded to a beige desktop G3, I found the One Week music video on the install disk. Good times.Funkbomb 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BnL

Is there really any evidence that the band's name is "often" abbreviated as "BnL" as opposed to "BNL"? JPG-GR 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd change it to 'occasionally', but a belt buckle sold at the current tour had the lowercase n —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Singular v. Plural?

I hae a problem with the latest revisions from "They" to "It". I know it may likely be gramatically more correct, but it just doesn't sound right in terms of what's being described. The band doesn't have humourous banter. The members do. I think at least part of the 'Its' have to be reverted TheHYPO 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barenaked Planet

I saw this advertised during their live show last friday; BNL seems very eco-friendly, perhaps this deserves a little more attention in the article. A side slide show was saying that they use bio-diesel for their tour buses and that the entire show is using green energy. http://www.reverbrock.org/barenakedplanet/ That's what comes up on Google. Lovok 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done TheHYPO 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Yellow Tape"

Listening to BnL's "iTunes Originals" which intersplices interviews with Ed and Steve with rerecorded specials, Steve states explicitly that the Yellow Tape was the first indie album to go *gold*, not platinum. I'm changing it accordingly until someone verifies otherwise. Funkbomb 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're right, you're. This isn't America, it's Canada. Gold is 50k, platinum is 100k. That said, I've only ever heard Yellow tape cited as being the first indie to go gold (50k) in Canada; but if none had ever gone gold, even if the tape went platinum later, it would still be the first to go gold. I see some pages on yahoo that mention platinum, but they all seem to be pretty much ripped from the same wiki page and other similar articles, so I'm not sure if there's a source on platinum or not yet. TheHYPO 07:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, wouldn't it seem reasonable to change it to gold, with the statistic at 50K? this is a verifiable source.Funkbomb 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use concerns

Tomorrow after work I will remove the fair use image gallery of album covers at the bottom of the article, as it is not allowed by the WP:NONFREE policy. Also, we need to garner consensus and choose three or four songs to sample from the band, and they need to be integrated into the article, not clumped together at the end. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're mean. --74.14.32.156 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not my intention to be mean; however, these sorts of changes are happening on many articles due to this policy. If the fair use problems are not worked out, someone else will just come along and remove the samples altogether. ➪HiDrNick! 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites?

a) Canadian Music Creators Coalition Website is not a fan site, so I see no reason why it is being deleted, and you haven't explained any reason to delete it. It's a musician rights group which the band (steven in particular) have had a hand in forming, and the group is mentioned in the article b) barenaked.net is virutally official. It's the most populated, up to date and relevant message board, including the official message board which is really no longer supported. The band has, in the past, included .net, and mysd.org along side the "official" board on their site, without distinguishing them as lesser fan boards.

TheHYPO 05:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I've restored the links. ➪HiDrNick! 07:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Looking at the genre listing in the infobox, I think their music is more indie rock than alt rock... what do you think? BNLfan53 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "who gives a... something" There is no scientific way to determine genre of an artist. You can use the band's own interviews to claim they're geek rock. You can use Reprise's claim that they're Pop Rock, you can use allmusic's claim that they're indie rock (or whatever - I'm not using real examples). All in All, you can look at Box Set and claim Salsa, look at One Week and claim Hip Hop, look at Gordon and claim folk, look at E2E and claim rock.

Is Indie Rock a genre? Does it mean any Rock done by an indie artist? or does it have a specific sound? if so, what sound, and does BNL's music fit into it? all of it? the last album? one song on the last album? Is it College Rock? What is that? Rock that College kids listen to? Then I guess Metallica is College Rock too. According to the college rock article, it's simply the name for Alt Rock before the name Alt Rock was invented. And what is Alternative? I've always hated the term Alternative because it's thrown around so loosely. What in 1990 was considered Alternative Rock (as opposed to Classic Rock?) is now pretty much the standard rock sound...

You will never be able to settle an argument has to what genre a band (particularly as diverse as BNL) fits in, because few bands fit in any specific genre without exception. I hate the whole concept of "genre" in a musical artist box because of this. In my opinion, it should say Pop. Period. At most, maybe Pop/Rock. Any other genres are superfluous, arbitrary, and arguable. TheHYPO 20:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why there's "college rock" and "alternative rock" together in the genre box right now. Isn't the term "college rock" refer to the bands in the 80's before there was a word "Alternative rock" in the 90's??

It's really hard to label a genre to a band that plays various kinds of stuff. I agree with TheHYPO that the term "Alternative rock" is used too often for too many bands, but that's what the music industry done to the bands that they found it hard to label the genre since 1990's and BNL is one of them, I guess. I think Alternative Rock and Pop/Rock would fairly fit to describe this band. davidmj926 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best way to cover all the things they've really been called. I don't believe they are comedy rock. They've never written songs where every other line is a punchline like Weird Al. I don't think they have a single song like that. One joke in a song isn't comedy rock. If noone disputes soon, I'll go down to alternapoprock TheHYPO 16:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I Support this conclusion (just my two cents). JPG-GR 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ballad of Gordon

I trashed the paragraph on this PSA because I felt that a PSA from 1990 bears little historical important in the careers of the 20 year old band. While I'd argue that some of the recent notes are just as trivial, their recentness bears mentioning until they are a bit more outdated. TheHYPO 06:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Stance on music copying?

On the site http://www.musicunited.org/3_artists.html , there is the quote: "When the Gap went online, T-shirts didn't become free." that is attributed to the Barenaked Ladies.

I understand that the site MusicUnited.org is very pro-RIAA, but nonetheless, did BNL say this? Either it's a fake-quote, or it runs contrary to BNL's opinion of RIAA. I think that this seeming contradiction should be documented. At any rate, more information about this would be appreciated. -- Eptin 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The band is made up of 5 members; it's not necessarily true that all 5 have identical opinions, and the site doesn't happen to quote which member said what they have quoted. It's also quite possible the quote is taken out of context. It's not clear.

I've heard Ed Robertson comment "I have no problem with people stealing music.... as long as they steal everything they want... gas, pants, cars"; so obviously he is, at least in part, not fine with his music being mass downloaded. But you also have to factor in time. People's opinions can change over time. From my personal understanding of the group's general opinion, is that they don't have a problem with you copying your music for the car, for your ipod, your cell phone, whatever... or making your friend a copy to try and get them hooked. I think the more ambiguous issue is release group stuff where 100,000 people are getting their music free because a release group has put their music on torrent sites and whatnot. I don't claim to know what they think, tho. That's just how it seems from interviews I've seen. TheHYPO 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are citations needed?

It seems every other sentence in this article needs a citation. Is everything really that unbelievable? (NOTE: This is User:BNLfan53, but I can't log on because someone disabled cookies) 199.126.186.147 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with unbelievability. It's simply wikipedia policy that requires citation of facts to be encyclopedic. TheHYPO 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every sentence has to have a source. It's against Wikipedia's policy completely. I know you people mean well but this page really needs fixing. If you can't find sources for certain sentences or paragraphs, then you have to remove them completely. Good luck. Writer1400

I believe the technicality of the situation is that facts do not have to be removed until someone disputes their accuracy. But it should still be cited. Someone sitting around with their bio (PSPS) would make quick work of most of the fact tags pre-01. I just don't have the time right now. TheHYPO 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation issues

I've cited a good number of facts in this article already. The problem is that an entire paragraph will be cited from the same TV interview (Distinguished Artists, which was a thorough hour long interview), so I've cited at end of paragraph. I think you're being unnecessarily stingy by putting a tag after every sentance. I believe that citing the end of paragraph (previously, I had cited the first three paragraphs of the "origin" section at the end of the third paragraph). Citing [1] after every sentance is going to make reading the article distracting and unweildy. Proper citation format does not require every sentance to be cited either, as far as I know. The problem is that there is no way to indicate what a citation encompasses, but I am clarifying here that most of the citations at end of paragraphs cover the entire paragraph.

My problem with the wikipedia citation system is that it permits me to put Distinguished Artists and Behind The Music as "general references" if I wanted, which would just bullet point them at the end of the article, indicating that they were both used throughout the article. But if I did that, someone would come along and start tagging every little fact, since you wouldn't know what came from those programs or not. So now there's going to be about 100 citations for each program on each little fact that comes from it? TheHYPO 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Re: Writer1400 - TV shows are perfectly valid sources for wikipedia. How do you know VH1's behind the music is a real show? I don't know what to tell you other than: Behind the Music (or if you have a problem with the other source, Distinguished Artists). There is nothing in wikiguidelines that suggests sources must be viewable online. On the contrary, it would be against wikipolicy for me to link to any video clip, as those clips would be most likely in copyright violation (hence, youtube is not a valid source for wikipedia). Only if the original producers put the clips online would it be linkable. Under your theory, I would not allowed to cite Public Stunts, Private Stories, the band's written biography, unless someone had put the text online (infringing copyright) so you could verify it without finding the book. That's not how wikipedia works.

Contrary to your statement, I could use one source to cite an entire page if it were appropriate (for example, I could cite a book as a source for an article on that book, or a biography for an article on a person and if there were no other sources available, there is nothing in wikipolicy prohibiting that.) Nevertheless, I haven't used one source in this article. If anything, I've used two; I haven't cited the whole article with it. Just facts that are in it. Two hour-long bios on the band are going to cover a lot of facts about the band, and since they are TV shows, it's going to the same general kind of facts that are covered in a written encyclopedia article (ie: this article); BTM covers most of the band's history up to Maroon, while Distinguished artists really just talked about the origin, and a few brief periods in between as part if its interview. I'm not saying I don't think other sources should ever be added; I'm just saying that until that happens, you can't say that a source is cited for too much, as long as that information comes from that source. TheHYPO 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you are arguing with what Wikipedia wants. You can use one great source for most of a page, yes but you can't use a tv special as a source unless it's for only a few small bits on information because if you are going to use it for alot of information, you would have to post a video link to prove to readers that it's real but you can't post video links. Do you understand why it's a bad idea now?

Well, i've tried reasoning with you. Now, I am reporting you to the admins. You obviously just want to make this a fansite, you don't care at all about facts or making this page neutral and you are just ignoring the rules of Wikipedia. Writer1400

I don't see what your justification is? Should I go delete the entire x-files article? Most of it is based on information sourced from episodes that have no video link. Please LINK ME to a wikipedia policy that says TV programs are not reliable sources. Please read WP:CONV#Citation guidelines point 2: In cases where the editor reads the original source, he or she should cite to the original source, and may, but need not include a convenience link. In this case, the convenience link is not a source. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be GOOD to have one, if one were available, but just because the show is not online does not mean it is forbidden as a source, or else most books would be prevented as sources on wikipedia.

And finally, I'm just curious; are there any actual facts I've now cited from those programs that you think are false? Or are you just arguing for the sake of principle? TheHYPO 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this situation

If you are going to keep these sources, then there are some things that should really be removed. These are things that I find should really be removed until more sources are found. I think you should find this reasonable. Here's the list:

It says Tyler Stewart thinks Andy was never happy or whatever it was, that he was replaced as percussionist. This is very suspicious. I've been a huge fan for years and this information seems very odd epsically from what I've seen in all the interviews they've done. It needs to be removed.

If your going to use the tv specials as sources, at the very least, don't use direct quotes. There are things in there that you've quoted Steve and Ed as saying exactly. This is not a good idea. They need to be removed.

I'm going to remove these things, then there won't be as much of a problem. Although other sources are needed soon. Writer1400 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You brought this issue to Wikipedia editor assitance, and even a wikipedia administrator agreed that there's nothing wrong with these sources, nor do you have the right to dictate what you think is "acceptable" facts to be cited from them, or facts that are unacceptable. I don't see any reason to remove reference to a direct quote from Tyler in this program. Here is a wav file of the quote in question, since you disbelieve it (context: andy leaving the band). Obviously, this can't go into the article as a source, but it should appease you.

As for your complaint about direct quotes, in fact, can you point out ANY direct quotes that are using in the article which are cited from those sources you seem to dispise? The only one I find is Ed's calling Bob Dylan's concert "horrible" and "lame". If you want audio of this quote, I'd be happy to provide it if it will get you off this silly case. I see no other direct quotes sourced from any band member in the cited sections (I just did a Find of the entire article for quotation marks and other than the Dylan references, I get only song titles and proper names.) There are two paraphrases where the phrase "Steve has said that..." are used, but this is not direct quoting, and are not cited from the sources you are complaining about. Please be more specific, and on a side note, I implore you to learn the proper way of signing your comments so that users who wish to find your user or user-talk pages can do so easier. TheHYPO 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you have already unilterally deleted them. I'm just giving you a heads up that I'm putting some of them back in. You have no basis for disputing them. They are cited, and they go towards fact or state of mind of the band at those issues. I do agree about the Ships and Dip one, which was unnecessary to quote, but the point of the quote, why S&D3 is named "3" should be mentioned to explain it to those who are unaware. There's a difference between good faith removal of quotes, and petty blanking of the article. If your opinion is that exact quotes should be avoided (which I disagree as a general statement), you should replace the quotes with paraphrases, (eg: replace Steve's "I can't believe you told them that" with something like 'Page was shocked that Robertson had given them that name'). A proper editor won't blank information just because he thinks the exact quote shouldn't be used. And I have agreed that a couple of quotes you blanked should have been removed (but replaced with explainatory information). I do it for different reasons than you though. You claim its because you don't like the sources cited. I left the Ships and Dip quote off because it was full of jokes and hard to understand the real information which has been explained better in other interviews; I left Steve's quote about the band name out because I realized that the quote was just Ed or Steve paraphrasing what Steve originally said years earlier, and that isn't a true quote of what he said in 1989, as the article implied. There is nothing wrong with the sources that should kill the other quotes, however. TheHYPO 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as the two tags stay up at the top of the page. At least it's better than it was before. Writer1400 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New images

There's nothing wrong with the images themselves or the right to use them in the article, but I'm wondering if there's a good reason to put the modern member images into the article. There is a modern group photo at the top of the article, and it kind of feels like a 2005 photo of Ed or Steve in the section talking about 1989 is out of place, and the images of Tyler and Kevin are thrown in in sections that have nothing to do with them specifically. Should we just put images in for the sake of images? I could easily upload another modern performance image (mine to upload free of copyright) of all 5 members for the "modern" section of the article so we don't have to scatter random headshots around the article. I tried putting proper time-based group images in the article once but some image-tyrant deleted the music video caps as non-fair use. I might look at uploading them again with better fair use tags later. In the meantime, I think the headshots seem out of place/time TheHYPO (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images are not allowed in articles about living people or existing entities (such as a band which is still together). Please see the nonfree content criteria, specifically #1 on replaceability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Seraphimblade. I appreciate it. Writer1400 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Seraphimblade's issue - the deleted image of the band from the Yoko Ono video includes Andy. Andy is no longer with the band, therefore, the band in the image is "no longer together", and getting a free image of them together today would be extremely difficult. Neither comment addresses the issue of having 2005 images of band members sitting in the 1988 section. This is besides the point of a low-res single frame from a 3 minute music video not diminishing the copyright of that music video in any way. Noone is gonna download this frame and think "now I don't need to buy the band's DVD to see the music video."

I also would point out that while "non-replacability" is listed on that policy page, It does NOT say "Nonfree images are not allowed in articles about living people or existing entities". Where is the wikipedia policy on this? I see in the talk page for that policy page that there is an unsettled debate about whether actors in their roles qualify in the actor's article. If this is a debatable issue, I would argue that a band in their music videos is a performance and work of art that would at least be debatable under the same debate as actors in their films. It does not seem to be policy that I can find. I'd appreciate a link to it. Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been the implementation of that policy, as images of living people or existing entities are by definition replaceable (by, well, taking a picture of that person or entity). That doesn't mean the free image will be ideal, nor must it be—only adequate. Free images may never be replaced by nonfree ones. And do remember not all policy is written, actual practice is what defines policy's scope. As to whoever Andy is, it's sufficient to state he was a band member. If he's still alive, a free image could be taken of him too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that if the band wasn't together, it would be acceptable to use a fair use image, but if a member has left the band, it is NOT acceptable to use a fair use image of them together. The difference seems trivial to me. TheHYPO (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

TheHYPO, what you are failing to mention is that you DO have a free image of Andy that's in Andy's own wikipedia article. It might be from 2002 but it's still a picture of Andy. If you want to put up a picture of Andy, put that picture up. Writer1400 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See, here's a free image of Andy right here.

Andy Creeggan performing with The Brothers Creeggan in London, Ontario, Canada in 2002

Also, for clarification, even if this particular band broke up tomorrow, nonfree images would not be acceptable, because free ones are already available. A free image of the missing member has also been provided, as above, so that replaces any need for a nonfree image of him. Same with a living person—if free images are available, a nonfree could not be used even if the person had passed away. It is only when no free images exist and it would be impossible to create one that a nonfree image is irreplaceable. (And even that does not automatically make it acceptable.) This is a free-content project, the use of nonfree media is tightly and deliberately restricted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The image does not show his appearance when he was with the band, which makes it arguably not a useful image for showing Andy Creeggan, as performing with Barenaked Ladies - which is the topic of the article. Andy Creeggan, as a Barenaked Lady, is Andy Creeggan from 1988-1995. That's like saying a fan photo of Ricky Martin today should suffice in an article on Menudo. Either way, since there is, as I said, apparently some non-consensus on whether an actor's screen work should be unusuable in the actor's article, I would argue that the same ought to apply for a band appearing in their notable "acting" roles, ie: music videos. But I don't really care about putting music videos up per-sé. I just think that while putting a copyright image of Tom Hanks in his article from a movie he made in 2006 when there are free images around is one thing, but it should not prohibit use of an image of Tom Hanks in Big, to show what he looked like 20 years ago at the start of his Career, and similarly, I argue that it is fair use to show what a band look liked at the start of its career, when each member looked notably different, and the band had a different lineup, than to say "no, since we can show what each member looks like in a headshot from 2005, nothing more is illustrated by showing them together in 1988. I think Wikipedia's whole image policy is a crock anyway, since I uploaded dozens of images in the last two years with proper Fair Use rationale only to have people arbitrarily decide on a new policy requiring more rationale and giving me 5 days to edit new fair use templates manually onto every image I'd uploaded so I can add that the images were low-res which became something that needed to be pointed out in the fair use commentary. Long story short, wikipedia lost dozens of 50-year-old stills from classic game shows which noone would ever have complained about just because of a policy that's over protective. Similarly, one low-res frame from a music video, which is already available over the net in the song/music video's own article, is never going to replace the usefulness and destroy the copyright of a high res music video. The policy is overprotective, and while I don't blame you for citing it, I blame... someone... for robbing wikipedia of harmless images. TheHYPO (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I use the term "nonfree". :) Use of the images in question you state would undoubtedly be fair use, in that they would clearly and obviously pass United States fair-use law. However, your "villain" in this scenario, who acted "arbitrarily", was the Wikimedia Foundation, which was alarmed by the profusion of nonfree material on what is and is supposed to be a free-content project. Our image policy is deliberately far, far stricter than the law. The Foundation states that use of nonfree material must be "minimal". Stating "We'll use it whenever the law allows and it's somewhat useful" would be maximal use. Nonfree images are to be used only when essential, and an image of a person from ten or twenty years later whose appearance has not radically or drastically changed through something besides the normal aging process is a perfectly good replacement for an older one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)