Jump to content

Talk:Bad Religion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateBad Religion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 9, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Untitled

[edit]

It's nice to know peaople used the info I gave on THPS songs. The other songs used in video games were Them And Us, 10 in 2010, Inner Logic and Hear It which were used in Crazy Taxi also Punk rock song was exclusively added to Crazy Taxi3 along with the other songs from Crazy Taxi.

Anyway to be more specific You was in Proskater2 Big Bang was in the original Thug Social suicide was in Project 8 and we're only Gonna Die was in American Wasteland I know this because I own the games except for Crazy Taxi 3 which I looked up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.179.111 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Source for Greg Graffins athestic view point

[edit]

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Greg_Graffin I don't know how to add sources.

Not the best source, actually. It says "Graffin was asked by MAB". If we knew what MAB was and had a link to the actual interview itself, that would work. m13b 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct release date for 14th album

[edit]

Hey, just popped in to change the date of BR's 14th album release to the correct one. An article on Epitaph's website on January 17th(http://www.epitaph.com/news/news/2795) has said it was as such, and I would trust them over a 3rd party news source. Also went and edited the separate article for the album. SuperHiro 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Jesus

[edit]

I think it's worth putting a picture of the single American Jesus but I don't know where

new release date

[edit]

Bentley's interview on the BR podcast this week (#7 I think) states that the double album will likely get pushed to at least Feb 2007, because they aren't close to starting recording. 24.13.86.24 07:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Brooks has said on myspace that it's more likely to be late 07[reply]

XXXX in Music

[edit]

Oy. Instead of saying "See xxxx in music", why don't we just link xxxx in music to the year? With an article like this where there are lots of years mentioned, that "see" thing is a little ridiculous. -- Zoe

I agree, it's changed now. -- Delirium 04:45 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In keeping with some other music articles, I'm changing so the year itself links to xxxx in music. Something like "Against the Grain, released in 1990, blah blah." -- Delirium

Are you (Zoe) suggesting "XXX released XXX in 1995" with a piped link to the year in music, or to just link straight to the main year page? I would be against the piped link because readers will assume it is about the year in general, and I would be against the straight link to the main year page because... I dunno, it just seems more useful to link to the year in music. If someone is clicking on it, I'd think the main reason is to find out what else happened in music in that year, not who won Japanese Prime Minister elections or something. Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it and will adhere to the consensus, but that's my feelings. I agree it's unattractive, but I think clarity and ease of use are more important. Tokerboy 00:34 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
Well, the piping is pretty clear. No one will expect Bad Religion albums to be listed on the all-things-to-all-people year page, just the year-in-music page. Different question: Should the year in music pages link to the year pages? Should the year pages link to the year in music pages? If each year page had a link to the year in music page, then readers could see that, by golly, that Bad Religion album came out the same year Noriega was arrested before going on to the year in music, where they will find that Milli Vanilli was also arrested that year. Ortolan88
This only confirms my suspicion that Noriega was a member of both Milli Vanilli and Bad Religion. Tokerboy 03:52 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Intro

[edit]

Intro is completely wrong. Into the Unknown was not their debut album, and it did not sell well. On the contrary, it was enormously unpopular and directly led to the band breaking up, as it was psychadelic rock, which alienated the punk fans. Removing for now, I'll fix when I get some time. -- Delirium

Aah, I've been writing these based on allmusic.com, which is usually accurate but has a tendency to avoid saying much negative (I'm guessing because they make money off the "click here to buy" links). Tokerboy



In 1984 Greg Hetson of Circle Jerks fame replaced Gurewitz. This sentence doesn't make any sense. I think its trying to say that Hetson replaced Brett which isn't true, he was asked to record a song with the band, and just kind of stuck around. This is explained in the new BR dvd (which is really cool). The DC

Actually he did replace him when Brett went into rehab for his drug problem. He is credited on Back To The Known

The intro paragraph states "The last Bad Religion album..." Shouldn't it be "latest?" They didn't break up. McFlynnTHM 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One tidbit from the intro paragraph that irked me slightly when I read it : "By 2002, Bad Religion had sold over 5 million albums worldwide,[4] and along with many of their contemporaries—such as The Offspring, Green Day, Rancid, NOFX and Social Distortion—they are one of the best-selling punk rock acts of all time." As much as I like these other bands, is this part (in bold characters) really necessary in an article about Bad Religion? It already says that they're ONE of the best-selling punk rock acts of all time, going on about who those other successful bands are seems unnecessary. Krimpov (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is unnecessary. I just fixed the sentence you pointed out. Bad Religion may have sold a lot of records, but calling them "one of the best-selling punk rock acts of all time" along with bands like The Offspring, Green Day or NOFX makes no sense, and the other thing is, is that Bad Religion is older than those bands. 198.91.126.58 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics for Bad Religions The Empire Strikes First

[edit]

If you're looking for the lyrics/songs off the Empire Strikes First, visit The Bad Religion Lyrics Page at http://www.chokingonreality.com/badreligion OR (soontobe) http://www.thebadreligionlyricspage.com The Bad Religion Lyrics Page was just put back online January 30th 2006 and will be available here from now on. They're the most complete set of lyrics for the new albums you'll find anywhere! (that we know of) :D ENJOY!

  • Shameless huckster much? -leigh 09:17, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

>>>edited by amanda&burt of thebadreligionlyricspage ;) Jan 31 2006\

my god this is the most blatant advertising i have ever seen and you would have to be reatrded not to relize that.not saying there bad links but i mean. user Eskater11

Copyvio

[edit]

Removed text: In his doctoral dissertation, "Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology," he concludes that there's "no conflict between evolutionary theory and religion on the one important condition that religion is essentially atheistic." One of his beliefs (and he is a man of deep faith), which must have helped him to arrive at his findings, is that naturalism is set to become a new and influential religion. Naturalism "is satisfying," Graffin has said, "because it is a teacher. Naturalism teaches one of the most important things in the world: there is only this life—so live wonderfully and meaningfully." And one of the keys to a wonderful and meaningful existence is living free of delusions, which all "bad religions"—traditional churches, political dogmas, conformist social codes—trade in. He also denies the existence of free will.

This paragraph is lifted practically word-for-word from Christianity Today. Linking to that article might well be appropriate, but cut-and-pasting it is not. --Calair 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Discussion separation

[edit]

OK, on this page we had the separate discussions above titled "XXXX in Music" and "Intro" as one discussion with no header. I separated the comments for these and added the titles. Just thought I should mention this because you can change it back if you want (and because I'm reorganising what's already been posted). Fantom 18:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bad Religion

[edit]

Couple of things - Brett and Jay had a severe fight, apparently blood was spilled. This is an edited version of the interview I had with Brian Baker, worth a read, you can catch it on theBRML archives. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Soundtrack to The Chase (1994 movie)

[edit]

"Two Babies in the Dark" was track #4. -- Sy / (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tim armstrong on the song 'television'

[edit]

have a listen to the song!!! does that sound like graffin during the verse?? of course not!! all verses are performed by tim from rancid. i think that qualifies a little higher than "backing vocals" seeing as he does more vocals than anyone else on that song. ~ alexwank

Faith Alone and Operation Rescue

[edit]

Since when were they released as singles? /Grillo 19:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Garden was Bad Religion's first single, I have thus removed all the "singles" above this one. For anything else, I'd love to see a source. /Grillo 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore

[edit]

BR are definatly not a hardcore punk band. Many classify them as pop-punk, although punk rock is the most common genre. However there are not a Hardcore band. Listen to any BR music, and compair to hardcore such as Black Flag or Throwdown.

Pop Punk? Thats a first, I completly disagree with you Bad Religion is a 'hardcore' band.

Bad Religion may have been "Hardcore" back in the days of "No Control" but now they're sorta poppy. Which is totally fine cuz I love 'em.

Bad Religion more or less invented the entire hardcore punk genre. Black Flag isn't hardcore punk to an audiophile, they're post-hardcore, but as usual society dumbs things down to just 10 or 20 genres, instead of the dozens or so that are out there. Anyway, yeah, I'll second that you're the first I've heard use the pop-punk label for Bad Religion. -Mask 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion a Post-Hardcore band?! I'm not a genre expert but I know that isn't right.

Hardcore is the most confusing genre in terms of defining whether a band is hardcore. According to some people hardcore was more or less invented when Bad Brains' drummer would play the drums faster than usual so they could finish songs earlier. Perhaps their first album was hardcore. Bad Religion are probably more specifically melodic punk rock, but punk rock, certainly not pop-punk. Just because they may be "lighter" than some punk bands because of their melodies, doesn't mean they are pop-punk. --Jabso 07:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to me, hardcore was invented when a bunch of people bought and heard the album GI by Germs. Personal opinion, for talk page distribution only so I won't argue my point much, but just go listen to GI and then tell me it's not hardcore, from 1980. :) Eaglizard 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Religion is hard to classify, because some of Mr Brett's songs are borderline pop-punk, yet the material before 1986 is hardcore.
Pre 86 stuff is not really that Hardcore, and some of Mr Bretts stuff is a lot harder than, say, The New America or I love my computer. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melodic Hardcore is probably a reasonable term for it. Anyhow, they were not melodic in the first couple of albums. How could Hell Be Any Worse? is most definately hardcore.--Reverend Distopia 11:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Early bad religion is most certainly hardcore punk. There IS a difference between Hardcore...and hardcore punk. Hardcore punk at it's beginnings didn't have to be heavy and thick necessarily. Bad religion's early stuff sounds like hardcore punk and their latter stuff is certainly influenced by it. If you think otherwise, Listen to "Were Only Gonna Die" and tell me that isn't hardcore punk. If you look back you'll realize that just because they don't sound like what you think hardcore punk is now, doesn't mean it didn't happen. They've been a band for 27/28 years now. (Thefirstterm (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, completely wrong! As a genre of music, "hardcore" is always Hardcore Punk. Many think that hardcore is a type of metal, but for those who know things about punk, that's stupid. --Revilal90 (talk) 15:40, 19 fFebruary 2011 (UTC)

anyone who actually believes this band is hardcore has to be deaf. this band is mostly pop punk, as for the guy who said bad religion started hardcore, don't be clueless. how can a band that sounds pop punk start hardcore? go listen to germs, d.o.a and many more to see who started it. the sex pistols sound more hardcore punk than bad religion. 81.101.205.95 (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That I'm deaf just because I view Bad Religion as a hardcore band is slanderous. Just because people think, believe or call Bad Religion hardcore punk doesn't mean it's not correct. Listen to their early material like their first EP, How Could Hell Be Any Worse, Suffer or No Control for example. Also, it doesn't matter who started hardcore punk or pop punk. Hell, when Bad Religion formed in 1979, there was no such thing as a genre called pop punk, and I view bands like Blink-182, Green Day, The Offspring, New Found Glory and similar bands more pop punk than Bad Religion. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:9499:FCCE:75A0:D561 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

live at the palladium

[edit]

the link in the current events section about the Live at the Palladium DVD goes to some British band's DVD, not Bad Religion's. Somebody should fix that, but not me. :)

I removed the link. m13b 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new page for Live at the Palladium (Bad Religion) m13b 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years

[edit]
I deleted this from the section on the band's early years because it deals specifically with Greg Graffin and talks about his dissertation which he only published a couple of years ago.
Greg Graffin, the band's frontman, holds a Master's degree in geology from UCLA and a Ph.D. in biology from Cornell University. Graffin's dissertation for Cornell was a comprehensive study of how modern scientists view theism and religion, and how their own religious beliefs, if any, affect their study and work. He has since published it for fans of the band.
This might be ok if we start headings doing minor descriptions of the band members, but as of now, I don't see any headings where this would really be appropriate. Leaving it here for someone to put it in a better spot.Reverend Distopia11:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New page for the discography

[edit]

I have moved the discography to a new page, Bad Religion discography, since this article is now holding up too much information. I'll just leave the studio albums in this article for now. Hope you editors don't mind about this. Alex 101 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOFX - Stranger than Fishin'/Fiction

[edit]

Apart from the title, the two songs don't really have all that much in common. Article makes it sound as if they do. m13b 13:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tributes and Influences

[edit]

I believe the Tributes and Influences section is rather unwieldy. It's length requires a new format for digestion. I suggest perhaps parsing it differently into multiple sections or having some sort of subsection scheme. Also, it does not really seem like prose, but rather a collection of short statements that would probably be better suited to a list. My 2cents (if I had the time to do it, I would). Ardent†alk∈ 08:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot. Could probably be cleaned up a tad more, but I think it's on the right track. -m13b 15:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, took it out of list form again and put it back as PPs, but with more connecting thoughts between them to make better paragraphs out of the subjects. Does it work? m13b 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Unknown

[edit]

I have a hard time keeping the current phrasing about Into the Unknown as being "disowned" by the band when it appears in their discography on their official website. Yes, they don't play anything off of it live in concert and generally have bad feelings towards it (as can be seen in the interviews at the end of the Live at the Palladium DVD, but it doesn't ring true anymore as written. Thoughts? m13b 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics and ideology section

[edit]

This facet of the band seemed relatively ignored, so I tried to add some emphasis to it. m13b 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do & Ideas

[edit]

Been working on this article, and there are a few more things I have in mind to add/change.

  • Get a good reference to go with the Suffer saving the scene bit.
  • Add a small intro paragraph to the Collaborations and guest musicians section. I know there's an article out there in which either Greg or Jay talks about putting people who drop by their studio "to work". I just wish I could find it again... Found it!
  • Does anyone really care what Sum 41's lead singer's favorite Bad Religion album is? Really? Chopped out as trivia.
  • I really want to chop the entire Musical similarities section, but so far, I've been able to restrain myself. Just don't see it as all that important for an encyclopedia entry.
  • Should Soundtracks become one section, making video game and movie each subsections? done
  • Probably a lot more that slips my mind right now.

Any more thoughts? m13b 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good item here on Atlantic's website about the influence Todd Rundgren which sounds quite pivotal, actually. Bubba hotep 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like a good way to really beef up the anemic Post-Gurewitz section. I like The New America and all, but never would have thought that much could be written about it.  ;) m13b 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most of them liked working with Todd very much. unfortunately my olny proof is anecdotal. I had made a mock "think different" ad using a picture of Graffin along with Todd in t he studio for New America, and on the New AMerica tour was passing it around band members to get it signed, several of them, added derogatory comments about Todd on it. Unfortunately i gave it to a friend so I couldnt scan it in to share. but there must be some otehr evidence of there feelings towards him. Ucscottb4u 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interview I saw with Greg that talked about the chemistry. He said something to the effect that Todd had a reputation of being difficult, but so did Greg. I'll see if I can rediscover that. (I need a secretary or something.) m13b 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
im getting my friend to scan the photo in so i can share it. will post when availableUcscottb4u 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might this link work for the Suffer quote? [1] I'd rather have a direct link to either a Flipside or Maximum Rock 'n Roll article declaring this, but haven't been able to find that. m13b 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think you are likely to find a direct link, and if they had made that up im sure they would have gotten called on it sooner, go with itUcscottb4u 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more it gums up my head. Gonna take a break from it for a while. m13b 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping block - Thoughts on a big restructuring

[edit]

The following sections all just look like pure trivia to me. Check out today's featured article for Nirvana. None of these sections even exist in that article.

  • 3.3 Covers
  • 3.4 Musical similarities
  • 3.5 Soundtracks

Then, the pieces of section "3.1 Influence" could be incorporated into the "2.1 Early career" section. Bits of "3.2 Collaborations and guest musicians" could also be placed individually into the history according to when each thing happened.

Various extraneous entries (tonguesofdestruction.com?) in External Links could go too, IMHO. Any thoughts? This is a major restructure, so it should get some review before being attempted. m13b 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Links, that could be cut down to the official site, one fan site (probably The Bad Religion Page), maybe the lyrics site, and then reviews or articles about them, but it definetly doesnt need like 5 different fan sites.Ucscottb4u 20:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the New Album section and Current events can be combined. Ucscottb4u 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and took the liberty of doing it, as well as chopping external links. Trivia about the Dropkick Murphys and all that other news removed. m13b 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the Lineup Section on the side. Might it be a better idea to list former members under current members in the top box and jsut make sure each album has the right line up on those pages? Ucscottb4u 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As is, it's a good way to illustrate the many lineup changes (which should be stressed more in the intro). Then again, all of the collab/guest musician stuff should probably be moved to individual album pages too. Tough one. m13b 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR reordering - All Trivia Sections Cut

[edit]

Might lose some support on this move, but I think it helps a lot. As indicated previously, I wanted to chop out a bunch of sections. These bits either should be placed on individual album pages (which I will do shortly) or cut completely due to lack of relevance/references. Other than that, the influences were moved to Early Career.

If you want to see the page before I chopped it just click here.

Thanks, m13b 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Intro

[edit]

Now when I re-run the peerreviewer script, it tells me the intro is too long. (I can't win!) Here's an alternative intro if the current one is indeed deemed too long.

Bad Religion is a hardcore punk/punk rock band formed in Southern California in 1980 by Jay Bentley, Greg Graffin, Brett Gurewitz and Jay Ziskrout. This band is often credited for leading the revival of punk rock during the late 1980s, as well as influencing a large number of other punk and rock musicians throughout their career.

They are known for their socially conscious lyrics and the ability to express their ideology with the use of metaphor, an advanced vocabulary and vocal harmonies known as the "oozin aahs". Bad Religion songs deal with matters of personal as well as political responsibility, and despite the band's moniker, deal more with freedom than atheism.

The band has gone through a large number of personnel changes throughout its history, singer/songwriter Greg Graffin being the sole consistent member. The lineup departure with the largest impact occurred when Brett Gurewitz, Bad Religion's other main songwriter, left in 1994. Gurewitz rejoined the band eight years later, and Bad Religion continues to record new material and tour for its fans around the world.

Thanks, m13b 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80-85

[edit]

When I was going to add a reference about 80-85, I wasn't so sure which section to put it, so I put it on the 1986-1992 section, since the compilation was released in 1991. Let me know whether you want me to move it to the 1980-1985 section or not. Alex 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine where it is. I reworded the paragraph a little. m13b 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album Covers

[edit]

Is there a way that we can link the album covers and booklets in the CD case, or is that copyright vio. Let me know on my user talk page. I don't mind scanning them and putting them in. Phreakuency 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any way it wouldn't violate copyright. Additionally, I don't really think it's altogether necessary at all. m13b 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as the booklets would be unneeded and crowdy, the covers are definitely a good addition to the article, and are covered by faire use if they are of low resolution.SidiLemine 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)---[reply]

What to do about "fan" statements

[edit]

"Their next album The Empire Strikes First was released in June 2004. Both albums are widely regarded by fans and critics as a return to form for the band, as opposed to their time on Atlantic."

Lines like this, I feel, should be removed. They're not citable, and state opinion, not fact. Anyone disagree? m13b 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've gone ahead and removed it. It's not cited to anyone, and also not true---some fans regard these albums as a "return to form", while others think they represent a continuation of the post-Grey-Race downhill slide. --Delirium 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 71.98.93.97 editing "Early career and hiatus (1980-1985)"

[edit]

Don't add obvious punk influences to a sentence that starts "Outside of the punk scene". Also, if you're going to add stuff, be sure you reference it. m13b 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

musician dictionary?

[edit]

Used to be listed in External Links. Why is it gone?

I think it should be there considering BR is their featured band, and their dictionary is so long.

In the fee weeks I've been on there, "The Answer" has been edited much faster than ever before. Its awesome. [http://www.musiciandictionary.com/wiki/Bad_Religion http://www.musiciandictionary.com/wiki/Bad_Religion]


Caredemption 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Item #12 would apply, for starters, I should think: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Probably #1, #2 and #3 as well. Regards, CiaranG 18:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. The prose doesn't flow very well and it oisn't structured very well. Several paraghraphs come off as being a bunch of random points just thrown together in sentence form, ie. "The band has gone through a large number of personnel changes throughout its history, singer/songwriter Greg Graffin being the sole consistent member. The lineup departure with the largest impact occurred when Brett Gurewitz, Bad Religion's other main songwriter, left in 1994; he rejoined the band in 2001."
2. Factually accurate?: Weak Fail. Makes several unsourced statements, but the history of the group seems well-sourced.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Seems to have good coverage of the subject
4. Neutral point of view?: Fail Several unsourced statements that are taken as POV, eg. "This band is often credited for leading the revival of punk rock during the late 1980s, as well as influencing a large number of other punk and rock musicians throughout their career." That statement needs sources
5. Article stability? As far as I can tell, yes. Pass.
6. Images?: Fail. None of them have fair-use rationale

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

Sorry, but I have to fail this article because I do not think it is well-written enough for it to be a Good Article. Please take a couple of days to reread the prose a few times, and make some appropriate changes before renominating it. -- Scorpion 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What happened to this article? It states opinion as fact and contains far too many choppy sentences... m13b 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing that happens to lots of contemporary musician articles: too much editing by fans, too few available reliable secondary sources (especially well-researched ones written by legitimate musicologists or historians), and too few people other than fans interested in editing the article. --Delirium (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Quit putting it back. It doesn't belong here. m13b 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Untitled Rock Show "Remaster"

[edit]

On that one episode of Stevens Untitled Rock Show, Bad Religion was featurd at the Warped Tour induction of the rock and roll hall of fame at the clash exibit. On that episode they said they were going to remaster and re-release Into the Unknown. Theres Nothing on the bad religion arcticle or Into the Unknown's article about this. Should there be?? And does anyone have more info on this??Jimmypop1994 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they didn't. Jay said something to the effect that they would only re-master it, if someone in the band was strapped for cash or something. However, as he often does when asked questions like, "Do you see yourself doing this is X amount of years?" say that he doesn't really know. That is not a go-ahead to edit the article saying that they are going to re-release the album though.Blackbird 1565 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Blackbird_1565[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BadReligionHowCouldHellBeAnyWorse.jpg

[edit]

Image:BadReligionHowCouldHellBeAnyWorse.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith edit by 70.92.81.54

[edit]

Can anyone confirm or deny the most recent edit that changed the name of the promoter to John Smith? Google can't provide any information that I can find, but I'm suspecting vandalism, but a source would be really really helpful. Lithron (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That whole paragraph was vandalism, actually (the old name was someone's high school teacher). Pfalstad (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Good Article

[edit]

Only registered users can nominate articles for WP:GA, so i've removed the article from the list since it was nominated by an IP on the 24th. By the way, those fact tags need to go if someones is serioud about making this a GA. Check out WP:GA? for the good article criteria.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bassist belief

[edit]

i read on some site someone had posted the bassist believes in god, its relevant to the article in the religion part we could note that he is theist

- THRICE 34

Then you must provide a source. Also, please use "~~~~" to sign your name (or use the signature button above this window - tenth button from the left, next to the red circle). This way your signature is timed and dated, so we know when you posted it, and thus people won't respond to year-old threads. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater II

[edit]

Yo dudes!

I missed a little bit about the song 'You' being used in the videogame 'Tony Hawk's Pro Skater II' I didn't know where to put it in as I don't want to mess it up.

I really do not think the video game section is necassary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.160.185 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Kind regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebut (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary either, but I left it and simply moved it down to the bottom of the page. It certainly shouldn't be before their history. Tedder (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I removed most of the external links. Too many of them were fansites, spam, etc. I chose to leave thebrpage.com, since it is (apparently) the definitive fan page for Bad Religion. If anyone disagrees with my decisins, please speak up- but make sure you understand WP:EL. Tedder (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Digital Boy

[edit]

The intro states that "...rose to fame with their 1994 major-label release Stranger Than Fiction, which produced their well-known hit singles "21st Century (Digital Boy)...". It is true that the _single_ for 21st century was released with STF, but the song was actually released on Generator, just not as a single. It may be worth noting that the STF version is a re-release. Fourpole (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally released on Against the Grain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.88.206 (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views

[edit]

I think the "Religion" section is a bit too detailed. The lengthy quotations of Graffin should by moved to the article about Greg Graffin. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band Members

[edit]

I removed 80-85 from the band members timeline (at 12 Nov 1991). It's a compilation with no new material recorded for it so it adds nothing to the member history. Casinote (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dissent of Man

[edit]

I think it's time to consolidate the info in the page-long section on their latest album, and come up with a section more similar to those for previous albums. It's out now. We don't really need day-by-day updates on member's twitter messages about the upcoming album, etc. 98.200.232.212 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography incomplete

[edit]

I stumbled across a BR cd that does not appear in this article. Although it appears to be an official BR release, it is very obscure, and the fact that it is entitled "Limited Edition CD" is kind of confusing. Anyway, here is some evidence to back up my claim: http://www.amazon.com/Limited-CD-Bad-Religion/dp/B000COHIFE http://goodbadunknown.blogspot.com/2007/07/unknown-bad-religion-limited-edition-cd.html

I'm listening to it right now, and it sounds legitimate. --Special:Contributions/ (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I'll claim the above post. --SCooley138 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quitting of Jay Ziskrout

[edit]

The article claims that Jay Ziskrout left during the recording of "How could hell be any worse?". I think this is wrong. In his book "Anarchist Evolution", Greg Graffin states: "Whatever was fresh and original about Bad Religion was gone by 1983 and the release of Into the Unknown. The album also essentially broke up the band, since Jay walked out of a rehearsal for the album and didn't come back to the band until 1986." (See page 88)

--178.167.254.93 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)daMax[reply]

Actually, even the cited article states that Jay quit the band during the recording of Into the Unknown. So? Will somebody edit the article or will I have to do that by myself? --95.45.72.200 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC) daMax[reply]

NOFX, Rancid and The Offspring as "associated acts"?

[edit]

How exactly are Bad Religion associated with NOFX, Rancid and The Offspring? I thought the term "associated acts" is supposed to be only bands that featured at least one member from another band and no members of Bad Religion have ever been members of NOFX, Rancid or The Offspring just because those bands were all signed to Brett's label Epitaph. 172.56.16.17 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted massive deletion

[edit]

An anonymous user deleted much of the article, mostly without giving adequate edit summary (his summaries included "bleh", "rm more shit", "nothing here sounded important" etc.) While I don't oppose removing poorly sourced and/or unimportant material from the article, I feel that such massive pruning should not be done before reaching consensus among the editors. Therefore, I reverted the changes. Let's discuss if anything is to be deleted. Nazgul02 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Bad Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary band members?

[edit]

Anyone given thought to include people like Steve Port (Polar Bear Club drummer) that filled in on tour while Brooks was away for his mother's funeral? I can dig up relevant details on that instance. Here's an article that mentions it.Are there any other documented instances of temporary members?

Asking as its looking like Brook's replacement may be announced soon. Either way, contact me if it's worth me adding the info. Syracusepunk (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish, but according to Brian Baker, Jamie Miller is their new drummer: [2] [3]. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:55B2:6783:E29B:C1AE (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1979 or 1980

[edit]

The formed date has repeatedly been changed from 1980 to 1979. I've changed it back to 1980 like three times, but kept getting reverted. The band members have claimed in interviews that Bad Religion didn't exist until 1980. They also did a 30th anniversary tour in 2010. Just because Jay Bentley said the band formed in 1979 doesn't mean it's accurate. In that same source in this article, he said "no one can remember exactly", which indicates that the band hadn't existed until at least 1980. Here are some sources where the band said they've been around since 1980:

http://www.thebrpage.net/media/item.asp?itemID=43

http://www.thebrpage.net/media/item.asp?itemID=551

http://www.thebrpage.net/media/item.asp?itemID=60

http://www.thebrpage.net/media/item.asp?itemID=112

Bad Religion's official website also says they formed in 1980: http://www.badreligion.com/legacy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDA9:8610:7D6D:9155:4F94:B1F8 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the cited reference clearly indicates it as 1979, and the article text goes into more detail about that. They're welcome to place it whenever they like, of course, but unless there's references saying that they didn't in fact start playing together in 1979, I think that's the best supported date. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because you removed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced. If you feel the correct year is 1980, go ahead and change it, but also add a (better) source. Nazgul02 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bad Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bad Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bad Religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bad_Religion&oldid=1205599653"