Talk:Green Day

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; /Genre disputes;

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; /Genre disputes;

Green Day has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 30, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 24, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 1, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 24, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Biography: Musicians GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

Green Day has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 31, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 30, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 24, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 1, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 24, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Biography: Musicians GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

Template loop detected: Talk:Green Day/header

shit was a genre created to stop boredom.. Punk has changed a lot over the years. The Clash changed their style. The Slits.. lots of bands did. Green day are punk. They start from punk roots, have punk influences,live the punk lifestyle,and DO play punk music. Songs like :Longview,welcome to paradise,geek stink breath,take back,minority,platypus,st jimmy. ARE punk. Also most of their other songs are with just a bit of melodic edge to it. Green Days music is a LOT similar to the Ramones. If Ramones is considered punk so should be green day. Green day became very popular during American Idiot. Many punk band idols and band have said" punk is undefinable" it will definitely change over time otherwise it wouldve already died out by now. Green Day just set a new standard for punk during American Idiot,(as they did with the release of dookie) The Clash- became one of the worlds popular bands after the release of London Callling. Clash was still considered punk...

Point being- green day is a punk band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhead13 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Album - American punk with some pop thrown in.

Kerplank - The same

Dookie - Pop punk

Insomniac - Pop punk too.Get over it

Nimrod - Pop punk with some hard rock and some POP ballads(good riddance)

Warning - Pop without a question.

American Idiot - alternative rock with pop punk (american idiot , st.jimmy) and pop-rock(wake me up when...).

i don't see nothing punk rock in Green Day all their years. And also Green Day never was punk.They just make people understand that there is more than just their pop punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkpop101 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so I would say but I think people generalize a lot when referring to musical genres. I for one wouldn't know a dark metal band from a black metal if asked. Also greenday fans tend to get mad when you categorize them as *pop*-punk, but seriously, they are on mtv all the time, so they must per definition be quite *popular* for a punk band. Lastly, who said pop-punk was bad? =) Foreeye 16:10 15 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.99.84 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion forum. Please limit your discussion to things relevant to this article, not just chatter about the band. The question of genre has been pretty much decided, and your own opinions of the genre aren't even very relevant. --Cheeser1 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rock

The genre box should say Pop Rock because they have done pop rock songs such as "When I Come Around" and "86" and it shouldn't say Alternative Rock because they ard one of the biggest rock bands in the world. James P Twomey 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the songs that you listed fall under the pop punk category (which is already listed as a genre), rather then pop rock.Jacknife737 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"86" is pop rock, not pop punk. Listen to most of GREEN DAY SMELLS singles on Insomniac or Dookie and compare it to them. Also, most of Warning and American Idiot is pop rock. And they are not alternative rock, they're probably the biggest rock band in the world.James P Twomey 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, just saying that those songs are pop rock, doesn't necessarily make them so. I think that you'll have to source pop rock to have it included within the article. The band certainly has pop influences, but i strongly disagree with the claim that they are pop rock. Also i don't understand your claim that they shouldn't be considered alternative rock, because "they're probably the biggest rock bands in the world", many other bands such as Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins are immensely popular and are also considered to be alternative rock. Jacknife737 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nirvana is considered alternative rock and they are one of the most popular and well known rock bands around.. disappearing one. 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

iF YOU WOULD ACTually listen to some ramones songs. you would know that green day is quite similar to them. If ramones is musically considered punk. then green day should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.9.86 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you look closely,punk rock, is listed as one of the bands genres Jacknife737 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tryed changing this earlier, but was sent a message saying not to by some pissed off fan. I think it's fine that punk rock is listed as one of their genres, but maybe is shouldn't be the very first genre described as their sound in the article. the way wikipedia works is that in the info box, it lists the genres a band is by first to last; first genre meaning thats what they play the most, and the last genre being what they play not so much. therefore, i feel its appropriate to change the order of their genres listed, so that Pop-punk is first before punk rock. I think it's pretty obvious that Green Day is loads more pop-punk then they are punk rock. -JamesK —Preceding unsigned comment added by James K (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of Green Day and I was not pissed off. When you changed the genre order in the infobox, you did not explain your edit and you didn't bring it up on the talk page. You also didn't respond to my message asking you why you changed the order. I had no idea why you changed the order and therefore reverted it because I felt it was pointless. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes - ~~~~. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^╦ѦᴌҜ/_{ᴐʘᵰ╦яﺇß$}) 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the genres and their orders is good as of now. No need to change it for the moment. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dead skin on trial

What does that mean?--69.113.129.244 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's along the lines of 'beating a dead horse,' i.e. a pointless examination, but i could be wrong. why are you asking on the talk page, btw? songmeanings.com is a good place for this. :) 67.64.119.116 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know a friend asked me that question and when i told him i didn't know he told to ask it here.--69.113.129.244 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he woz stoopid init —Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiffmeyer versus Al Sobrante

Unlike Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt, Kiffmeyer does not typically use his alias. I believe the article should reflect the name commonly used by the performer professionally, rather than an occasionally used nickname.Theplanetsaturn 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's credited as John on 39/smooth, so I'd agree. Hoponpop69 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if no one objects, later today I'm gonna change the article to mention him as his birth name. Hoponpop69 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New link I added...

Please don't yell at me for this but I added a link to the Green Day Idiot Club, I know there is already a link to greenday.net, the 'fansite' but the IC is a 'fanclub' and it is the 'official fanclub'. Please say if you think this is incorrect. --The cheese master 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet in a Bible

Why is Bullet in a Bible not listed under discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.147.110 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because only the studio albums should be listed there. This is standard for every band who has a seperate discography page. Hoponpop69 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info on album

Here's some new info on the album, work it out on the article the best you can. It's from the newest edition of Rolling Stone. scan Xihix 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Chunks

He should be listed under one of the "touring musicians" sections (I presume former, since I don't think he's been working with them recently). Can anybody track down a source? (Not that the other entries are really properly sourced either...) --Cheeser1 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section here, I'll note, for discussing the inclusion of this former touring musician. As an alternative to repeatedly removing verified information from the article. --Cheeser1 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [1]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[2] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shenanigans

Why does everyone seem to keep forgeting this album? It's a real album released in 2001-2002. Google it if you don't believe me. picklefishman Nov. 3, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking why it's not in the discography, it's because it's a compilation. Zazaban 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day vs. Sweet Children

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. Please stop ignoring a reliable source.Hoponpop69 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever heard of Berkeley? That's closer. As far as the rest, I am not ignoring a reliable source. That should be clear as I have always kept the basics of Livermores story in my edit of the actual page. I am arguing against the inclusion of specific information not relevant to the article. Based upon one individual interview. Livermore claims a specific origin for the band. Nothing in my edit contradicts his retelling. I just left out the unnecessary, and frankly somewhat preposterous aspects of his retelling. The more detailed aspects of the interview are linked within the article and we don't require those details here.Theplanetsaturn 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all when did he say this Oakland thing, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.[3]

Secondly what you are doing is deleting sourced content, based on your own original research. The interview with Larry appears to be a reliable source. You are claiming that he is lying because you know first hand that GD and SC where two different bands, and based on that removing source content. You are using original research to justify your edit.

What part of my edit to the page was unnecessary or proposterious? Here is what it reads:

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show in front of five people at a party. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."

The only thing in there that seems like it might be unnecessary is the Shea Stadium quote, and that was there before I edited it. Hoponpop69 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the majority of preposterous information was not included by you either. However, I still contend some of the information in your edit is unnecessary. I'm in favor of leaving out how many people were allegedly at the show and what the show was for. This material can be readily found within the cited interview. And I wish you would stop using the word "lying". It's a loaded word that is a bit strong for this scenario. I think Livermore was exaggerating. At least in my mind, the word lying carries the suggestion of malicious intent.

In answer to your question: The quote about coming from Oakland is one commonly pulled during point of origin disputes for the band. During a well documented show, Billie apparently claimed the band was originally from Oakland. I'm simply using it as an example of how just because a person makes a claim it is not automatically valid. We're talking about a topic that is not well documented and is subject to unreliable memories and personal interpretation. We have exactly ONE source on this. Livermore. Not a member of the band, mind you. Just Livermore. I believe his basic recollection should be included in the article, but I don't think it and it alone, should be used as the definitive reference for the history of the band on Wikipedia. The version of the article I edited does not contradict his information or remove it as a source. It simply takes the elements out of the main article. This is wholly independent of my personal knowledge or anything that can be construed as original research.

Otherwise, there is the separate issue of the marijuana origin for the name. I don't think your source on that is strong and suggest we leave it as "allegedly".Theplanetsaturn 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna ask for a mediation.Hoponpop69 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that we could work this out ourselves, as we did in the past. It shouldn't be that difficult to come to a mutually agreeable choice of wording within the article that satisfies both of our preferences. You don't appear to be willing to do this and instead are allowing this to be a larger debate than is necessary. Fine. If it's that important to you to include every minutiae of information in the actual body of the article, go for it. I will reiterate a final time in the hopes that you will see the logic of my position: I am not suggesting the inclusion of information that contradicts the statement by Livermore. I am not suggesting the deletion of the source, so it remains accessible to anyone who wants to read the detailed recollection by Livermore himself. I simply do not believe that the main body of the article needs to include Livermores personal and unsupported history of the band as definitive fact. We need to have the basics (how he was impressed by their performance, and on those merits agreed to work with them), and that's really it. Because that's the only thing he can speak on definitivly. Why HE acted the way HE did in regards to the bands personal history.Theplanetsaturn 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll try to find some common ground before asking for a mediation, how does this sound:

""Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 the band recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."Hoponpop69 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good start. I edited it a bit. Let me know what you think

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play at a very small show early in the bands career. Livermore was impressed by the performance. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Subsequently, Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 the group recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. According to Livermore, Mike, Bille and John changed the name of Sweet Children to Green Day shortly before the albums release in order to avoid confusion with another local band by the name of name Sweet Baby. Allegedly, the name Green Day was chosen to reflect the groups fondness for marijuana."Theplanetsaturn 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: "Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 they recorded their first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, the band dropped the name Sweet Children, according to Livermore this was done in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby. The band changed their name to Green Day, allegedly due to their fondness of marijuana."Hoponpop69 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works well enough for me. Thanks.Theplanetsaturn 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRIof3KnpBA Hoponpop69 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If you want to make edits that reflect this interview, I won't alter it. It's still innaccurate, but if that's the history the band is going to purport, what can you do? However, it does seem to clarify that the band was called Green Day at the time of the show in the mountains, and in fact never did any "official" shows as anything other than Green Day. So I guess the link supports different points of both our positions. Thanks for drawing my attention to this.Theplanetsaturn 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxboro Hot Tubs

A Nwe band called Foxboro Hot Tubs has posted some songs in their site, and it's rumoured (and pretty obvios, specially for the voice) that this is another Green Day "Hidden Side project" (Like The Network, before American Idiot)

This hasn't been confirmed, but it's almost a fact that Green Day is somehow related to this band 200.59.44.237 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to verify this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lookouts

Should we include Tre Cool's pre-Green Day band "The Lookouts" in associated acts? It seems pretty major to the band because members of The Lookouts helped them produce their early albums and are apparently are large enough for an article... what do you say? BobHiggs (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lookoutgd.jpg

Image:Lookoutgd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

A free image of the entire band would be very welcome. I just removed a no source image and moved up the Mike Dint one to replace it, but that's a poor substitute for showing the whole band. Superm401 - Talk 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC) green day is known as one of the worst bands to come from california and has many organizations that advicates the burning of crosses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.248.45 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shit was a genre created to stop boredom.. Punk has changed a lot over the years. The Clash changed their style. The Slits.. lots of bands did. Green day are punk. They start from punk roots, have punk influences,live the punk lifestyle,and DO play punk music. Songs like :Longview,welcome to paradise,geek stink breath,take back,minority,platypus,st jimmy. ARE punk. Also most of their other songs are with just a bit of melodic edge to it. Green Days music is a LOT similar to the Ramones. If Ramones is considered punk so should be green day. Green day became very popular during American Idiot. Many punk band idols and band have said" punk is undefinable" it will definitely change over time otherwise it wouldve already died out by now. Green Day just set a new standard for punk during American Idiot,(as they did with the release of dookie) The Clash- became one of the worlds popular bands after the release of London Callling. Clash was still considered punk...

Point being- green day is a punk band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarhead13 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Album - American punk with some pop thrown in.

Kerplank - The same

Dookie - Pop punk

Insomniac - Pop punk too.Get over it

Nimrod - Pop punk with some hard rock and some POP ballads(good riddance)

Warning - Pop without a question.

American Idiot - alternative rock with pop punk (american idiot , st.jimmy) and pop-rock(wake me up when...).

i don't see nothing punk rock in Green Day all their years. And also Green Day never was punk.They just make people understand that there is more than just their pop punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkpop101 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so I would say but I think people generalize a lot when referring to musical genres. I for one wouldn't know a dark metal band from a black metal if asked. Also greenday fans tend to get mad when you categorize them as *pop*-punk, but seriously, they are on mtv all the time, so they must per definition be quite *popular* for a punk band. Lastly, who said pop-punk was bad? =) Foreeye 16:10 15 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.99.84 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion forum. Please limit your discussion to things relevant to this article, not just chatter about the band. The question of genre has been pretty much decided, and your own opinions of the genre aren't even very relevant. --Cheeser1 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Rock

The genre box should say Pop Rock because they have done pop rock songs such as "When I Come Around" and "86" and it shouldn't say Alternative Rock because they ard one of the biggest rock bands in the world. James P Twomey 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the songs that you listed fall under the pop punk category (which is already listed as a genre), rather then pop rock.Jacknife737 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"86" is pop rock, not pop punk. Listen to most of GREEN DAY SMELLS singles on Insomniac or Dookie and compare it to them. Also, most of Warning and American Idiot is pop rock. And they are not alternative rock, they're probably the biggest rock band in the world.James P Twomey 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, just saying that those songs are pop rock, doesn't necessarily make them so. I think that you'll have to source pop rock to have it included within the article. The band certainly has pop influences, but i strongly disagree with the claim that they are pop rock. Also i don't understand your claim that they shouldn't be considered alternative rock, because "they're probably the biggest rock bands in the world", many other bands such as Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins are immensely popular and are also considered to be alternative rock. Jacknife737 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nirvana is considered alternative rock and they are one of the most popular and well known rock bands around.. disappearing one. 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

iF YOU WOULD ACTually listen to some ramones songs. you would know that green day is quite similar to them. If ramones is musically considered punk. then green day should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.9.86 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you look closely,punk rock, is listed as one of the bands genres Jacknife737 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tryed changing this earlier, but was sent a message saying not to by some pissed off fan. I think it's fine that punk rock is listed as one of their genres, but maybe is shouldn't be the very first genre described as their sound in the article. the way wikipedia works is that in the info box, it lists the genres a band is by first to last; first genre meaning thats what they play the most, and the last genre being what they play not so much. therefore, i feel its appropriate to change the order of their genres listed, so that Pop-punk is first before punk rock. I think it's pretty obvious that Green Day is loads more pop-punk then they are punk rock. -JamesK —Preceding unsigned comment added by James K (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of Green Day and I was not pissed off. When you changed the genre order in the infobox, you did not explain your edit and you didn't bring it up on the talk page. You also didn't respond to my message asking you why you changed the order. I had no idea why you changed the order and therefore reverted it because I felt it was pointless. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes - ~~~~. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^╦ѦᴌҜ/_{ᴐʘᵰ╦яﺇß$}) 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the genres and their orders is good as of now. No need to change it for the moment. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dead skin on trial

What does that mean?--69.113.129.244 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's along the lines of 'beating a dead horse,' i.e. a pointless examination, but i could be wrong. why are you asking on the talk page, btw? songmeanings.com is a good place for this. :) 67.64.119.116 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know a friend asked me that question and when i told him i didn't know he told to ask it here.--69.113.129.244 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he woz stoopid init —Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiffmeyer versus Al Sobrante

Unlike Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt, Kiffmeyer does not typically use his alias. I believe the article should reflect the name commonly used by the performer professionally, rather than an occasionally used nickname.Theplanetsaturn 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's credited as John on 39/smooth, so I'd agree. Hoponpop69 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if no one objects, later today I'm gonna change the article to mention him as his birth name. Hoponpop69 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New link I added...

Please don't yell at me for this but I added a link to the Green Day Idiot Club, I know there is already a link to greenday.net, the 'fansite' but the IC is a 'fanclub' and it is the 'official fanclub'. Please say if you think this is incorrect. --The cheese master 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet in a Bible

Why is Bullet in a Bible not listed under discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.147.110 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because only the studio albums should be listed there. This is standard for every band who has a seperate discography page. Hoponpop69 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New info on album

Here's some new info on the album, work it out on the article the best you can. It's from the newest edition of Rolling Stone. scan Xihix 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Chunks

He should be listed under one of the "touring musicians" sections (I presume former, since I don't think he's been working with them recently). Can anybody track down a source? (Not that the other entries are really properly sourced either...) --Cheeser1 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section here, I'll note, for discussing the inclusion of this former touring musician. As an alternative to repeatedly removing verified information from the article. --Cheeser1 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [4]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[5] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shenanigans

Why does everyone seem to keep forgeting this album? It's a real album released in 2001-2002. Google it if you don't believe me. picklefishman Nov. 3, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking why it's not in the discography, it's because it's a compilation. Zazaban 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day vs. Sweet Children

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. Please stop ignoring a reliable source.Hoponpop69 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever heard of Berkeley? That's closer. As far as the rest, I am not ignoring a reliable source. That should be clear as I have always kept the basics of Livermores story in my edit of the actual page. I am arguing against the inclusion of specific information not relevant to the article. Based upon one individual interview. Livermore claims a specific origin for the band. Nothing in my edit contradicts his retelling. I just left out the unnecessary, and frankly somewhat preposterous aspects of his retelling. The more detailed aspects of the interview are linked within the article and we don't require those details here.Theplanetsaturn 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all when did he say this Oakland thing, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.[6]