Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Confusing talk page

This talk page has multiple topics relating to the discussion of rap rock, and how it may relate to the Red Hot Chili Peppers Darky65 (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been discussed multiple times (even in the thread above this one, I think) that rap rock will not be included in the infobox – this does not mean that they are not rap rock, nor does it mean that they aren't rap rock simply because it's not included in the infobox. All other genres of the band are discussed in Musical style. Spebi 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

minor edit needed (reference 72)

I wanted to read the article about their Holywood Hall of Fame star, but the link given [1] isn't working. I searched the same website it is meant to be at, and found the article here: [2] Now as I don't have the rights to edit the article (and wouldn't risk messing up with it anyway) I'll leave it to someone who'll know what to do. castiboy (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Regarding the use or is and are in the name of the band... I checked with several style guides and grammar websites online, and they nearly universally agree that "are" is the correct usage. Consider:

• [3] "Generally, band names and musical groups take singular or plural verbs depending on the form of their names: "The Mamas and the Papas were one of the best groups of the 70s" and "Metallica is my favorite band."
• [4] "Note that some collective nouns always take plural verbs." This one seems to apply.
• [5] "With certain customary exceptions (such as sports teams), plural titles of works of art, organizations, or countries take the singular verb. The United States is a very influential country. Tales from the Crypt was a popular program. (but) The Kansas City Chiefs are undefeated. " Again, shows that American english is hardle in agreement on this. A rock band shares more in common with a sports team than a nation or a TV show.
• [6] "Follow the rules of subject-verb agreement when using the proper names of athletic teams and musical bands or groups: The Seattle Mariners are on the road. The Seattle Storm is an event sponsor. The Beatles were wonderful at the old Seattle Center Coliseum and so were the Rolling Stones. The Who is still terrific.". In other words, if the word is plural, the verb is plural. If the word is singular, the verb is singular.

How many more style guides do I need to quote? In American English, for musical acts and sports teams only, if the collective name is plural the verb is plural. That's it. Now, can we change it back to ARE, since we pretty much came to a consensus on this MONTHS ago? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since a consensus has been reached already, I would make that clear to disagreeing editors and link to the discussion. If they continue to change it to "is", I would consider it vandalism. Timmeh! 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about one text page up. And I wouldn't jump to vandalism accusations at all. This is a confusing issue, and MANY people make such changes when they trip over the article, and change the word to "is" out of genuine desire to fix it. We can assume good faith and not jump straight to vandalism accusations. Now, if people edit-war over it, it would certainly be grounds for a WP:3RR block, however... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant. But anyway, I think we should put up an edit notice saying something along the lines of "DO NOT CHANGE THIS TO 'IS'. A CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE CONCERNING THIS ISSUE" or something like that. We should leave a kind explanatory message if a certain editor has changed it once. If they change it after this with no explanation, it would be considered vandalism, at least IMHO. Timmeh! 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to improve grammar (even if again consensus you aren't aware of) is not vandalism. I wouldn't object to a commented notice at the top of the article though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just realized something. We're agreeing that the sentence should say "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are" based on the assumption that the name refers to the band members;however, it doesn't. The band's official name is "Red Hot Chili Peppers", not "The Red Hot Chili Peppers". "Red Hot Chili Peppers" could then only refer to the food. This is different from a band whose name refers to its members, for example The Beatles, in which "The" is part of the official name. Therefore, it would be grammatically correct to have "Red Hot Chili Peppers is..." An example would be this article, the title of which is "Red Hot Chili Peppers Sue Showtime", NOT "The Red Hot Chili Peppers Sue Showtime". Putting "the" in front of the name would therefore even be grammatically incorrect. Can anyone concur? Timmeh! 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no not at all. In both American and British english, for CERTAIN collective entities like sports teams and musical acts, there is always subject-verb agreement between the name of the group and the verb EVEN if the article refers to the group as a single unit. Thus "The Who is" and "The Beatles are"; "The Utah Jazz is" and "The New York Yankees are". This is an exception to the usual rule (For example, you would ALWAYS say "General Motors is" and not "General Motors are".) Its hard to pin down an exact, consise way to state this exception, but most style guides (which, as with all lexicons, are descriptive and not proscriptive or prescriptive with regards to proper English usage) concur that in this case, the use of "are" is appropriate even when refering to the Red Hot Chili Peppers as a unit and not as individuals, even if the standard rule for dealing with collective nouns says the opposite. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Give Lockage Away Give Lockage Away Give Lockage Away Now

This article needs locking, too much vandalism going on Titan50 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's vandalism to the intro I can't remove. Anybody? Mcboozerilla (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here, vandalism says "go to wowomg.com", but can't be removed; doesn't show up when you click "edit this page". - 10:11am Atlantic Time, May 20 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.255.236 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the locking. Multiple times, someone changes "1983 - present" to "1983 - 2008" or "1983 - present (hiatus)" or a combination of both. Unless I'm wrong here, it should be left "1983 - present". Burnedthru 00:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be 1983-present because they are still in a band regardless of the hiatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grt05 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of new album?

I heard a rumor the new album is due to be out in May 2009 and titled Powerfunk. Any confirmations? -andy 78.51.113.221 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering Anthony gave an interview about 3 weeks ago that said they are on hiatus and haven't even started to come up with new material, I highly doubt it. Burnedthru 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By The Way and Hiatus

Yesterday I added "Mini Epic" to the new songs played at Hyde Park, but that got removed. Why? That was the third new song played at the shows along with "Leverage of Space" and "Rolling Sly Stone" was it removed simply because it was not featured on the Hyde Park CD? Also, on my hiatus update, I said that the minimum one year would be up in August which is true. Ever since that god damn interview with RS everyone acts as though the hiatus started this May when it instead started at the end of Stadium Arcadium tour. I understand that sentence being removed, but could we make it a little more clear that the hiatus began at the end of the tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.182.188 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

It failed, however, because of Navarro's different style to match the critical acclaim of Blood Sugar Sex Magik and sold fewer than half the copies of its predecessor. Shortly afterwards, Navarro was fired from the band due to creative differences.

I think a citation is needed to prove that it was Navarro's "different style" that led to its poor critical acclaim, rather than any other factor. I also find the sentence a bit awkward. It could be rearranged to read "Because of Navarro's different style, it failed to match the critical acclaim..." - that reads a bit better, I feel. Estesark (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of Won Grammy Awards

I just noticed that at the end of the introduction, it states that the band won sixty nine Grammy Awards, but when I looked at the Awards and Honors section it states (with a citation) that the band has won seventy Grammy Awards. So which is it? Tsurugi (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sixty nine? Seventy? Lol, they've won seven. Burnedthru 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed those typos. :) Thank for the correction! Tsurugi (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro says 6 Grammys. Towards the bottom, it says 7, but only lists 6. The article on RHCP awards says they've only won 4. Someone want to fix that? 128.227.127.2 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fetus Kiedis

Could someone look at Antony's page please, there's an edit saying he's also know as "Fetus Kiedis." This just doesn't sound right. I did delete it but it's back again. Many thanks 86.29.226.104 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go take a look now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. GlassCobra 14:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

name of the band

since they covered robert johnsons they're red hot on their 1991 album Blood Sugar Sex Magik is it possible that they have taken their name from the song? probably they once said it in an interview, if someone knows about this i would like to know it and it could be integrated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.229.212 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Politics

Is it necessary to have a "politics" section on the band when it only contains one sentence, and doesn't seem to be relevant to the main point of the article? Metsfanmax (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the main point of the article? To describe the band. I think that those two sentences are important. Maybe it could be placed somewhere else, though. Burnedthru 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Breakup??

Well, I did see that according to some people here, they have broken up just because most of them have a disagreement about the lenght of their hiatus, and i really thik its wrong to jump into a conclusion already, even if it where true, you shouldn't put it yet, you should wait for them to oficially publish their breakup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancho449 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing definite been put out there that hasn't been contradicted. It's been implied by 'sources' that the break would be for a year, but it isn't apparent when this year started. Chad Smith has claimed in an interview that there is a plan in mind over a certain time period, but John Frusciante was asked about this in another interview and claimed there were 'absolutely no plans to do anything' and they were on 'indefinite hiatus'. The interview with John was by Music Radar, but I don't know about Chad. It would be wrong of us to speculate on what that means, other than to say that John's statements were not stretched or manipulated since it was a recorded interview and not on paper. I wouldn't necessarily say to put this in the article though. Sky83 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Years active 1983-present

They are on hiatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Instrument of Torture?

RHCP was used as an instrument of torture by the US Government against Gitmo inmate and Osama bin Ladin associate Abu Zubaydah. The Chili Peppers were played at high volume for an extended period of time until Zubaydah broke. Source: NY Times, 9-10-2006, "At a Secret Interrogation, Dispute Flared Over Tactics" by David Johnston[7]. Where should we put this? 131.96.47.8 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's not really relevant to the band itself. Burnedthru 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting, though. I guess it depends on the song... -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually find that quite interesting as well! Although I agree that it's probably not especially notable to the band. Sky83 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

lol..idiots..it was a joke..you see..the guy was trying to be funny.

MusiCares MAP Fund benefit concert

I have removed this addition, since it was unsourced and appeared to delete existing information, feel free to add it back with a citation and without deleting other sections/sentences. Thank you. Sky83 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Best band? Don't think so

The article mentions they are widely considered to be the best band of all time. This completely disregards the fact that the beatles, for instance, have sold close to a billion albums and the rolling stones have influenced rock infinitely more times than the red hot chili peppers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.244.134 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)