Talk:Chinese Democracy/Archive 1

Recent Leaks
I don't want to make the edit myself because I know wikipedia doesn't like people talking about themselves, however the blurb about the recent leaks having nobody coming forward needs to be fixed. My stunt with the offering of thousands of dollars and then leaking several songs is a legitimate piece of information that should be included in this article.Mistersaintlaurent 10:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

- dude i fixed the page for you.look under leaks in the article.i just registered in chinesedemocracy.com.my name is AsakuraHao.Btw,thanks for the leaks and get some rest if you have to. [User:AsakuraHao2004|AsakuraHao2004]]

- My God MSL! I read your story at Roses of Velvet, and there is only one word I can think of to describe it: EPIC. You've done more than your fair share of work in getting us these leaks, and you have mine, and everyone else's complete gratitude. --24.250.126.23 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

- How can you have an article on Chinese Democracy without talking about my money offer that led to 4 songs?Mistersaintlaurent 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the article then. Bucketheader 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

- MSL, i did put it in, the money thing that is.but when i did,an hour or so later someone edited it out.this money bit can still be found the main GNR wiki, under CD.Thats if its still there, well it was yest.Ill re edit the artice for you then. -AsakuraHao2004

Reverted previous edit
I've reverted the previous edit, because the "Use Your Illusion"-era refers to both UYI1 and UYI2, not just to UYI1, which is only half the era. Soothing R  09:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Since a clean version of IRS has now been leaked and so has Better...i edited it.

- Got rid of "supposed" release dates. No point in putting them up until there is a press release.

- Added that the song "Silkworms" will not be on the album, and referenced this to a recent interview with band member Dizzy Reed.

- I fixed the paragraph speculating about songs that will be on the album by removing "Silkworms", since that was contradicted by the following paragraph. Random89 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In March 2006, the band regrouped at the home of Axl Rose to record a cover of the Faith No More song 'Be Aggressive' for inclusion on the soundtrack for the upcoming Texas Chainsaw Massacre prequel

What's the source for that??
 * There isn't one, so delete it.

Longest article?
Is this the longest Wikipedia article on an album yet-to-be released?
 * I guess so, but the most albums that still have to be released don't take ten years to go through the production stage ;). —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NIN is synth-pop?
Under the "Sound" subheading, the article refers to Nine Inch Nails as synth-pop. NIN is industrial rock, which sounds nothing like synth-pop. Is the new sound similar to NIN or synth-pop? Berserkeley 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming
It is quite likely that by the time the album is released the name of the album could be an actual fact rather than a political oxymoron. --mitrebox 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Press release
Axl Rose and producers said there would probably be no warning when the album (CD)hits the shops. Although the producer gave a hint which has made people believe the 21st.

21st of wat month, has this been superseeded or is this new info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.162.190 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

'If at all'
Could anyone considering changing the second sentence from 'When the album is finally released' to 'When, if at all, the album is finally released' please not! It seems pretty obvious that it will actually be released reasonably soon. While I'm here could I also suggest we agree on a genre, because that seems to be changed at least once a week. I think we should just leave it as Hard rock. Tangerine 03 12:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It **does not** seem pretty obvious the album is coming soon. i know you people love Axl, but give up the dream. Until it actually does come, let's assume it's not coming. -Hoshq


 * Don't be stupid, if the "$13 million" estimate is even remotely correct, then the album will have to be released just to avoid bankruptcy. And if it doesn't get released, then what will Axl do? He's been working on it for so long that his name will become a joke, or at least more so than it already is.

Well, Axl can't live forever. In worst case, for those who'd like to see it out soon, his heirs will prolly release it. You just have to wait some 50 years, don't worry :P ( this was in no way meant to comment on Axls life expectancy, only to define, that hes prolly gonna die sooner or later, and then therell be nothin stoppin this album comin out, so in theory, it WILL be released)

"It seems pretty obvious that it will actually be released reasonably soon"....

Whoever wrote this - did you just become a fan of Axl Rose LAST WEEK? If you read quotes from him and the band, they have been saying "we are 99% done musically and 80% done vocally...it will be out in 6 months or so" for...eight years now. It is not pretty obvious that it will actually be released.

"Oh but, the album is finished recording and its being mixed"....

Ok, Use Your Illusion took a year and a half to record and a year to mix. Chinese Democracy took 10 years to record and....how long to mix? You get my point.

"If released" is more accurate. Wikipedia goes for accuracy. "When released" is optimistic fan-speak. Period.

Also, this "Axl has to release the album or he'll go broke" argument is nonsense. The fact that he falls ass backwards into money is the whole reason he has been able to avoid releasing it for so long. The cost was $13 million in 2005. Its probably closer to $20 million by now.

He's made $20 million just from the last couple of years of touring. Its change in his piggy bank.

Again, "If released" it is!
 * Just to emphasize what has already be said: ""If released" is more accurate. Wikipedia goes for accuracy. "When released" is optimistic fan-speak. Period." —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is "If released" more accurate? Do you think the band have been recording for years to not release the album? "When released" is more appropriate because it's an album which is intended to be released. On Metallica's ninth studio album, it doesn't say "If released this will be the first studio album by Metallica released on Warner Bros. Records" just because it's Chinese Democracy doesn't mean it should be treated differently to any other upcoming album. Bucketheader 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "If" released is more accurate because, again, there is no evidence that they intend to release it. Axl has recorded hundreds of songs in the last 10 years. Surely they were all 'intended' to be released. But, they have not been released. They have given dozens of time frames for the release of the album as well as a long-since-passed tentative release date. Axl even said "It is this year" in September of 2006 at the MTV Video Awards (so don't blame the manager, Axl said it himself) and the year went without the album. The passage of time has rendered all of their announcements meaningless.

If Evel Knievel said he was going to perform a certain stunt jump and proceeded to fail to perform it the first time, gave another performance date, didn't do it, said 'next Spring' and still didn't do it and it went on like that for eight years...sooner or later it would be "if he jumps", not "when he jumps" despite his repeated personal assertions that "he will jump". Only his overly optimistic die-hard sheep fans would continue insisting "he will jump...someday...he said so...so we see no reason why he wouldn't".

Concerning your question, "why should Chinese Democracy's release be treated differently than, say, Metallica's forthcoming 9th studio album?" Metallica have released 8 studio albums. They have made good each and every time. They have never gone longer than 3 years without a studio release. Even if their albums are delayed, they are delayed by a fraction of the time that this project has been delayed over the years. They have not 'intended' to release an album for 8 years. Their new album, according to Lars, will be out next Spring/Summer. If the Spring/Summer of 2015 comes around and album #9 still isn't released and they are still insisting that it will come out "someday", we will change Metallica's album #9 Wikipedia entry to "if released...", fair enough?

For Chinese Democracy, "If released" is more accurate. "When released" is unrealistic, overly-optimistic fan-speak.
 * Chinese Democracy is an upcoming album and wikipedia should assume it will be released, "if released" makes no sense. And as for your statement ""If" released is more accurate because, again, there is no evidence that they intend to release it." - give me a some evidence that it won't be released. Bucketheader 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just gave you plenty of evidence. "It is this year" from Axl at the 2006 Video Awards, the passing of the March 6th 2007 tentative date as well as every last comment in the media from the band concerning a time-frame for release. "We hope to announce a release date in the next few months" is what Axl said in 2004. Dizzy and Tommy both said "Summer of 2003" and that they were "99% done musically and 80% done vocally". It is now more than halfway through 2007 and there is no further news. Their word is not credible. After being lead on for eight years, it is reasonable to assume at this point that they have no intention to release it. See my Evel Knievel analogy above.

Until there is an official release date from the band in concert with their record label, "If released" it is.

By the way, provide me with some evidence that it WILL be released...I just provided you with plenty of evidence that it won't be. As far as I'm concerned, any 'progress update' from the band is as meaningless as their Rolling Stone story in 2000 when they said it would be released that Summer. They were talking about "I.R.S.", "The Blues" and "Madagascar" way back then. How is their saying "soon" in 2007 any different than when they said "soon" in 2000? Because you happen to think so? That doesn't count for accuracy. That's an optimistic fan's opinion. Again, read my Evel Knievel analogy.
 * A delay in the release date is no reason to think the album will neber be released. If you want to bring up quotes from band members, here's some; "I'm not working on all this to keep it buried" - Axl Rose, "It'll come out, but I don't know of soon is the word." - Axl Rose. "If released" will not be introduced into the article at all, please stop adding it. And sign your posts in future. Bucketheader 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your quotes from Axl prove my point - just because he says he's "not working on all this to keep it buried" doesn't make it so. He has recorded hundreds of songs in the last ten years. How many have been released? He has worked on all of this and he has kept it buried. Whether he chooses to put it out is now a question of "if", not "when".

Again, Wikipedia goes for accuracy. Not optimism from die-hard fans. Would you care to explain why Axl's word is any different from my Evel Knievel analogy?


 * Anon, a quick search finds more verifiable sources that discuss the album as a future album than sources that say the album will not be released. Please stop edit warring, and work towards building a consensus. Constantly reverting other users edits will not get the article changed to what you want it to say. Also please sign your posts.  Quar te t  21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Claiming the album will not be released is speculation, something we don't include in wikipedia. As Quartet just said, there are more verifiable sources that suggest it will be released. Has anyone connected to the band ever said the album won't be released? No. But they have, on numerous occasions said it will be. Bucketheader 21:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming the album won't be released is speculation? Ok, well, claiming the album will be released is speculation as well at this point.

Their stance has been "there are a few finishing touches left and we hope to release it in a few months" for eight years now.

Of course Axl and the band are claiming the album will "eventually" be released. They've had a tour to promote for the last 6 years that has been called the "Chinese Democracy World Tour". Again, will someone please challenge my Evel Knievel analogy? I don't need to sign my posts. You don't need to be logged in to edit Wikipedia and it doesn't make my stance any less valid.

I like how you're saying "work towards building a consensus". To you, that means "agree with me or you're wrong". "Edit warring" to you means 'making changes that I personally disagree with'. I made a valid point that nobody has challenged yet. All they say is "sign your posts". They don't challenge my arguments. Read them, challenge them, and I'll read what you have to say.
 * Yes you do need to sign your posts, it doesn't matter if you're logged in or not! For the same reasons as above, 'if released' will not be put into the article. Bucketheader 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

68.4.117.222, your disruptive edits are now bordering on vandalism. Wikipedia is a consensus among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. Insistence on an eccentric position (yours in this case), with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. Your edit warring and disruption of Wikipedia is not working towards a consensus. A number of editors have now reverted your original research edit to this article, and from my viewpoint you've failed to adequately explain your stance on this issue with reliable sources. Please note that users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring.  Quar te t  19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have responded to every argument made and no one has responded to my arguments. I have responded to the argument "they have spent too much money to not release it", "they say it's coming out", "sources cite it as an 'upcoming album'". No one has responded to my arguments. It is no more accurate to say "it is coming out eventually" than it is to say "it may or may not come out". The only sources saying "it is coming out eventually" are online music stores who time and time again allow pre-orders and then cancel when the "tentative dates" (that, coincidentally, they make up on their own without sources, yet you cite them) fail to be met. That is a "reliable source"?

My "reliable source" is that, for eight years now, Axl Rose and his band have said one thing and done another. My "reliable source" is that, according to their own record label, the album has not been turned in, there is no formal contract to release the album and there is certainly no official release date. There's your reliable source that it "may or may not" come out.

If you disagree with my Evel Knievel analogy, please explain why. I find it amusing that no one has taken that argument on yet. If I'm so 'eccentric' and 'unreasonable', at least tell me why that analogy is so out of left field. It makes perfect sense to me.

I won't change it back to "if", but I still wish someone would attempt to respond to my argument.

3 days later and no response...what a surprise.
 * No offense intended, but your "argument" is assinine. If Brian Wilson put "Smile" out after 40 years, Chinese Democracy will come out. There's no precedent for an album with as much money and time sunk into it to go unreleased. It's clearly "When", not "If" - even a casual music fan would come to that conclusion, and a casual search shows the majority of press on the subject talking about the project as a future release - not as a project that has been abandoned. This looks like POV pushing, possibly by a disgruntled fan of the band. And as others have noted, learn sign your posts - it makes it easier read this jumbled mess. 74.113.214.124 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main point to be taken into account here is the different sources we have. We can find lots of sources saying that the album will be released at some point. Find one reliable source saying that the album will not be released, and then yes, it should be 'if'. But unless a source can be found, the idea that it might not be released is speculation, which doesn't have a place here. So, it should be 'when'. Tangerine 03 09:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken/Any Given Sunday
Removed "Broken" from the rumoured titles, as it has supposedly been confirmed. Also mentioned in the leaks section that "Any Given Sunday" is just an unused track from the Use Your Illusion sessions.

Release Rumour
Removed the rumour that the album will be released on 12-12-06. Unless there are direct-quotes from reliable sources (i.e., Axl Rose himself, or the band's management), no 'possible release dates' should be posted. - Cig

The distributor for Sunrise Records sent the manager sheets of stapled red paper and among these pages, the release date of the Guns N' Roses album was revealed as Tuesday, July 10, 2007. Therefore, the new Guns N' Roses album will be released and I think it's time for Axl to put his money where his mouth is. The new Guns N' ROSES album will be released in two months. The album is completed, so it's only a matter of time.

JCH

It says on Virgin megastores website that it'll be released on 17th September: http://www.virginmegastores.co.uk/icat/preordersmusic Should this be added? Munci 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Bucketheader 18:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC

I think this is a case of "I'll believe it when I see it". I've heard enough of delay after delay. It's time for AXL to put up or shut up. He needs to stop procrastinating and release the album. I want to hear the album and it needs to be released. September? It should have been released back in 1994 instead of the Spaghetti Incident.

Recording date
I don't think Guns N' Roses started recording this album in 1994 because their original members Slash and Duff McKagan were still in the band at that time. They didn't leave the band until 1996. Read part of Chinese_Democracy. Screamin&#39; Johnny 04:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter what you "think" (no offense intended, but it's the truth). Wikipedia only wants information that is verifiable, so don't go changing dates to something you "think" is correct. You don't have all your info correct anyways - Duff didn't quit until August of 1997. And according to this article in the New York Times, Axl began recording in 1994.. Thanks Yankees76 07:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ah but the album recorded in 1994 wasnt chinese democracy, that was a seperate album which wen all the orignal members left, was scrapped and turned into a chinese democracy, i dnt belive any of the songs created in thoses sessions still exists.--77.97.136.18 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, but as per WP:VERIFY the threshold for inclusion of material to Wikipedia is verifiablity. If you can find a reliable source that says all of this, then we're on to something. Until then the starting year of recording is 1994. Yankees76 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

where is your sources that the recording started in 1994? if we should have proof then you should have it too. all you have is one article as a "source". thats questionable at best. oh and once again, you don't own wikipedia so you can stop giving people attitudes. thanks for deleting my other contribution but you're still a (personal attack removed). deleteing things to make yourself look better won't change that. 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Actually I removed a personal attack - and I was nice enough not to tag your talk page with a warning for it. However I will now for the one above since you insist on attacking other editors. Continue this type of behaviour and you'll end up blocked. Also with regards to tabbing the New York Times as a "questionable source" - please review again Wikipedia's policy onverifiability and the guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Times is a credible published source with a reliable publication process. You're more than welcome to introduce a source that states the album began at a different date - however saying that you "think" or you "beleive" something to be a fact is considered original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Yankees76 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

if the recording started in 1994 then why does it have a song called "this i love", stating it was recorded in 1993? its on the wiki article. its kind of conflicting. it can't be both dates.

Although the article says recording started in 1994, that's wrong; hey started recording Chinese Democracy in 1997 but there's no point changing it as it'll be reverted. Anyway, 'This I Love' was recorded during Use Your llusion sessions but might be on Chinese Democracy. 'November Rain' was first recorded in 1983, before Guns N' Roses even existed but that was still on Use Your Illusion I. Bucketheader 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah i question the sources used for the recording date. but hey what ever. personally, since i watched vh1 behind the music, and they stated it was 1997, i believe its 1997. i'll look for a source that says this.

this article here says the project has been around since 1995 not 1994. http://www.areuonsomething.com/features_democracy.html

Crownofworms 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

now that we don't know what date it was started(since we have atleast 3 dates that are thought to be the date they began the album), should we just change the begining date to a question mark?Crownofworms 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the source for the date beside "This I Love" - it's a fan site that is loaded with speculation, and would certainly not pass as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Since the NY Times article has been quoted for other "facts" about this record (such as the $13 million dollar recording cost), I find it amusing that you're challenging a recording date that is pulled from the same article. --Yankees76 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hey isn't it possible for the new york times to make mistakes sometimes? i mean everyone screws up sometimes.Crownofworms 22:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

all i'm saying is if i find a source that is directly related to the band is verifiable then we should go with that. the new york times is a respectable source but they're not strictly for guns and roses so they wouldn't go the extra mile for making sure all the facts are correct. for the time being maybe we should go with 1994 temporaryly but i've heard from every other source that it wasn't 1994. i wish the official site would be more specific with the facts on the album so this debate could end already.Crownofworms 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you've read the article from the Times - it looks like the writer conducted extensive interviews with Tom Zutaut. I have not seen another reliable source (only fan sites, blogs and other less-than-reliable homemade websites) that says anything definitive - and when I've asked for something from some of the editors above, I only get "I don't beleive" and other personal opinion, which is mostly based on rumours. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. --Yankees76 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article says recording started in 1994 that would mean Slash, Gilby Clarke, Matt Sorum & Duff McKagan should be in the article's credit section. Would anyone object to this? Bucketheader 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the recording date back to 1994, and added a recent source. Also, Time Off, a magazine from Australia recently (July 2007) printed an interview with Duff McKagan, and when asked about Chinese Democracy, he stated "Honestly, you probably know more about it than I do — I'd bet money that you do. That was the record we started working on in 1994, but that band was so splintered at that point that nothing got started." I think this conclusively supports Yankees76's assertion that sessions for this album first started in 1994. -- Quar te t  20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

it proves they recorded together, but it doesn't prove the recording for chinese democracy started then. it could have been an another album. i heard axl scrapped the songs from those sections. Dedman88three 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Dedman88three 19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Present a source which states recording started in 1997 and it can go in the article. (And I'm removing your personal attacks.) Funeral 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Silkworms
I'm dropping Silkworms, because unless there is a link that is verifiable as Sanctuary or Geffen Records 100% then Silkworms is still off of the tracklisting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.4.60 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Silkworms WON'T be on the album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.170 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Chinese Democracy should redirect to the album
I think Chinese Democracy with the D capitalized should redirect to the album instead of the Chinese democracy movement because when a second word is capitalized it always means that it's a title of something so it's more likely that when someone searches for Chinese Democracy that they're looking for the album article. Chinese democracy should still redirect to the Chinese democracy movement though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megadeth186 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this leaked??
I know there are several torrent sites that have albums labeled "Chinese Democracy - Guns N' Roses" and they have the same track listing. I'm not going to download it but has anyone else? Real? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.195.219 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

No, the whole album hasn't leaked. The tracks T.W.A.T, IRS, Catcher In The Rye, Better, and a small part of Chinese Democracy (song) have leaked. It's likely that the album labelled Chinese Democracy on torrent sites is just a compilation of these leaks mixed with live performances of songs which may appear on this album. Bucketheader 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bumblefoot interview
Ron Thal didn't say the mixing was completed on April 2nd. He was misquoted by a magazine. Here is a link to the interview if anyone would like to hear what he really said. http://maximumthreshold.podomatic.com/ or you can listen to the other interviews at http://maximumthreshold.net also on the Maximum Threshold website you can post in the http://maximumthreshold.net/forum forum about Bumblefoot in the "interviews" section. Here is the link to the show, it will automatically download for you; http://maximumthreshold.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-04-02T06_24_53-07_00.mp3. Please go there and report your comments. You will have to register on the site, but it only takes a minute and is very fast, no need to worry about recieving an email from the site.

Bumblefoot did an excellent job of covering the tour and what he expected and discussed the recording process between he and Axl. He stated that he has laid down over 100 solo tracks for the record and it is almost finished being mix. He also said that he has been working on bringing the "sleeziness" back to the music the way the "Appetite for Destruction" record sounded. He also stated that he would do solos and call Axl and have him listen to them. That is interesting, especially at a long distance. --Domonic Rini 11:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It really ought to say "if released"
They've been saying it's coming for years, but until it actually comes it really ought to say "if released," not "when released." In the sidebar, the release year ought to say "Unreleased," not "2007," or "2006" as it said last year or "2005" as it said the year before. Yes, we want it to come, but until/if it does, there is no reliability that it will, and as time stretches on the credibility of those making it diminishes to non-existence. Hoshq 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should say "TBA" in the infobox under release year, however, whenever i edit it to say that it is always reverted by someonw who thinks it's coming out in September because "all major retailers" say so, even though they've been guessing release dates for years. Bucketheader 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Retailers genereally fail to meet Wikipedia reliable source criteria anyways. Yankees76 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

GnR said it's out in 2007, so it should say that, whether they are notorious for bad release dates or not, wiki should still show what they say, not POV editorials. Maurauth 23:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When did they say this? Bucketheader 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they said it was going to be out on the 6th of March... - Brooza 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No they/he didn't, read the letter again. Bucketheader 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The letter originally offered a release date of Mar. 6, but then they changed it. Really, what's so hard with understanding the idea that it's "unreleased"? That's the only real fact we have. Hoshq 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at many other articles that are of films / books / CDs that are to be released in the future, they have the year as the release. Maurauth 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the facts you'll see there is no release date. Bucketheader 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I look at this, saying '2007' could turn out to be untrue, whereas saying 'TBA' is correct no matter how you look at it. There is no official release date, therefore it is still 'To Be Advised'. However I do think it should be 'when released', as there is no reliable source saying that it will not be released and plenty saying that it will. Tangerine 03 10:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh I suppose that's an okay third option: when released and to be announced. Maurauth 11:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maurauth, that is exactly what i have been putting into the article, do you even read peoples contributions before removing them and adding your own nonsense? Bucketheader 12:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're reverting it to 'if released' and 'unreleased'. When released and TBA would probably be a better middle-ground solution. (No need to insult me either, I thought you gave up on that last time after vandalising my user page). Maurauth 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No i don't , at least read my contributions in future. The person who edits it to say "if released" and "unreleased" is User:Hoshq. Bucketheader 12:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least one of the times you did, maybe it was conflicting and you didn't fix it after.  Maurauth  (...)

No, i have never put "unreleased" into the article, or "if released". You're welcome to look at the edit history of 'Chinese Democracy (album), if you'd like to verify that you're incorrect.
 * I think you'll find you're wrong there, but it's nothing to do with the discussion, so stop talking about it.  Maurauth  (...)

No i won't stop, and you are wrong; you're just an ignorant vandal. Here,, i changed "unreleased" to "TBA". Here,, i changed "If released" to "when released". In the future, when you try to start an argument at least know what you are arguing about. If you look above, you'll see that you agreed that my edits are correct. End of discussion. Bucketheader 15:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're the ignorant vandal, insulting me on my talk page, and writing things on my userpage, also following me from article to article reverting my edits. You have at least once reverted one of my edits, and then it was left as if released. Now, the discussion is over, if you want to talk about it use your talk page. Stop wasting the space on this page.  Maurauth  (...) 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Small Text

"If The World" & "Prostitute"
Why are these two songs in the table "Confirmed for Chinese Democracy"? The source is "Set List Picture" but that's not a source for them being on the album, just that they were options for the North American tour. Rocket Queen is on that setlist but that's not confirmed for Chinese Democracy. Also, "If The World" probably isn't the songs full title, "Welcome to the Jungle" is just called "Jungle" on the setlist, If The World is probably just an abbreviation of the songs full title. If The World & Prostitute should be in the confirmed titles table. Bucketheader 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of that table is original research - I've tagged it as such so that other editors can look for sources. Yankees76 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for The Blues, TWAT, & Better. Bucketheader 19:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, those songs are pretty much common knowledge as being on the ablum. It's some of the other songs listed that don't have sources. Yankees76 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Catcher In The Rye should be removed from the list, i've found no source about that being on the album. Also, "Rumored titles from Chinese Democracy sessions" should definitely be removed, as it's all speculation. Bucketheader 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. --Yankees76 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the table now, the only problem now is the sources for Madagascar, IRS & Sorry. Madagascar & IRS are almost certain to be on the album but there isn't a source for that, and Sebastian Bach isn't the best source for what will be on a Guns N' Roses album. Bucketheader 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There must be articles where industry writers quote Bach. Yankees76 23:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Bucketheader 23:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so, the site looks alot like Pitchforkmedia. See what others think too - after all Wikipedia is a consensus right? Yankees76 19:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alan Niven
added the following unsourced statement to the article(diff). I removed it and left a message on his talk page. If you can find a source, please add it.

On May 28, 2007, Guns n' Roses manager Alan Niven had announced in a press release to the disapointment of many fans that Chineese Democracy would never be released. Mr. Niven was quoted as saying:

"Let me first start off by thanking the fans for all of their support throughout the years. Without the love and support of Guns fans, nothing would have been possible. Secondly, I would like to thank Guns n' Roses for giving us two decades of legendary music. Axl Rose's vision, dedication, and leadership have taken the Guns from an obscure band out of L.A. to the one of the greatest rock bands in history. It is with great sadness that I announce that the Chineese Democracy project has been cancelled, and the album will not be released. Axl and the gang have put 15 years of blood, sweat, and tears into this project; to put it bluntly, they worked their asses off. However, despite all of the hard work, and the tremendous talent of Axl Rose, the band has come to the decision that the album will not be released. The decision to not release the album was not one that was made lightly. During the final editing of the album, it was realised that Chinese Democracy could not match the creative and musical qualiy of Appetite For Destruction and the Use Your Illusion albums. It is one of the most difficult things in the world for an artist to admit defeat, and I give Axl all of the credit in the world for having the guts to take action rather then sit idly by and let an album be released that is anything but perfect. Axl has made it clear to myself, to the rest of the band, and now to the rest of the world that nothing is more important then preserving the legacy of Guns n' Roses. Guns fans have come to expect, and deserve nothing less then the very best. Be advised that Guns n' Roses are comitted to completing the Chinese Democracy world tour, and none of the dates will be affected by this announcement. Once again, I apologize for this sad news. I truly believe that the fans will understand that this was done with their best interest at heart. Thank you."


 * – Se bi  ~ 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, there is a quite a lot of unsourced rubbish being added to the article. I can't really revert it much, or risk WP:3RR, but if others could help by removing the unsourced content and contacting the users on their talk pages as to why it was removed. Thank you, – Se bi  ~ 08:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you don't have to look much further than the GnR page... "The band fired their manager, Alan Niven, in May 1991, replacing him with Doug Goldstein." First rule of a good hoax; research. -- Xinit 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I think it is wrong that it is described as the "long overdue" album because technically the only release date the band has ever given out was TENTATIVE and was march of 2007 which means it is not that long overdue. Just because the album has been in production for 13 years doesnt mean that it is overdue because Axl has only admitted to the album existing. All the other release dates were unofficial and were given out by others who did not have Axls consent. It should read "Chinese Democracy is the long awaited..." not "long overdue" for the reasons listed above.

The album was originally scheduled for, or before, 31 December 1999; just because the only public "release date" issued was the tentative date of March 6 doesn't mean that was the band's only targeted release date. Bucketheader 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The album was NEVER scheduled for that time. The bands target release date not being met does NOT mean the album is overdue. Perhaps it is overdue in the bands mind but not in the General publics mind who are the people who will read this article. Therefore it is long awaited.

I agree the opening paragraph should say "long-awaited", however, to say the album isn't perceived as long-delayed in the publics mind is probably the stupidest thing i've ever heard; Axl, GN'R & Chinese Democracy are all seen as a joke because the delayed-ness (that's a word) of this album. Guns N' Roses began recording Chinese Democracy in 1997, Geffen Records gave them 2 years to hand in the album- they didn't, subsequently Live Era was released to make up for no new album, it was the same with the greatest hits album. I honestly can't believe someone has just said Chinese Democracy isn't overdue... Bucketheader 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Chinese Democracy by Kitty & the Kowalskis?
Kitty & the Kowalskis released their own Chinese Democracy album in 2006, why isn't that mentioned under 'Title conflicts'? Doofuz 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Catcher in the Rye
Why would adding this be considered "vanadalism"? There are no 'valid' sources indicating what will for sure be on or not on, let alone any of these sources cited in the article. Until other valid sources are included for the other songs, removing CITR would violate wikipedia's editing codes and not to mention fair contibution rules relating to not taking one contributors 'opinions' as valid and factual over anothers.
 * Firstly, adding CITR would violate wikipedia's guidelines - it's never been confirmed for the album.
 * Source for "The Blues", "There was a Time", "Better".
 * If I remember correctly, Axl confirmed "I.R.S." will be on the album during his interview with Eddie Trunk in May 2006.
 * Source for "Sorry".
 * Now show me a source to show "Catcher in the Rye" will be on the album. Funeral 00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, nobody knows if it'll be on the album or not. The same goes with all the other tracks listed here. All the citations on this page are questionable. One thing is for sure thought, Catcher In The Rye is not a "rumoured" title of a recorded track. It is a "fact" that it exists. Second, why are you the authority and gestapo on this project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.100.107 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How are the citations questionable? Axl Rose said his favourite songs on the album are "The Blues", "There was a Time" and "Better" in an interview - do you think that's questionable? Sebastian Bach is one of Rose's closest friends and has toured with the band, he's confirmed numerous times that "Sorry" will be on the album - do you find that questionable too? Funeral 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Amount of demos
There is only 1 version of "Chinese Democracy" and 1 version of "Madagascar". Both were leaked earlier this year, allegedly by Mister Saint Laurent. Stop changing this. Funeral 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-I have a legit studio demo of The Blues recorded prior to 2006 and contains overdubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymiles (talk • contribs) 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From the article - "The 'demo' column indicates whether an unfinished version of the song has been leaked to the public".
 * The number of demos section in the table is only for versions which have leaked and are widely available. Funeral 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-That does not make sense. Whether or not it is widely available or difficult to find, it is still an available demo, therefore there is more than one studio demo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymiles (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Demos are 'hoarded' by people - it's a fact. Just because one person has some, doesn't mean they have leaked to the public. Funeral 14:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can Verify Raymiles's Statement,as I have Two Studio Demos Of The Blues as well. One Recent, and one Also Prior to 2006.

Also, regardless of if it has leaked or not,it is still a demo that is available by a Mere upload to the internet.
 * If there is a "mere upload to the internet" one day, then it can be added. But the table is only for demos which have leaked to the public - not someone on Wikipedia pretending to have songs. Funeral 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy versions
I changed the number of demos of Chinese Democracy from 1 to 2, and it was changed back, I have 2 clearly different versions of this song, and they are both GNR as far as I can tell, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.169.48 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant that you have 2 versions (even though you don't - you're just trying to troll) the table only shows the amount of demos which have leaked to the public and are easily accessible to the masses. Funeral 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well sir, both versions are on youtube I believe, but I am not sure about the first demo I have, youtube is a popular video website if you didn't know. I am not a troll. I have many folders of several Chinese Democracy demo tracks and leaks I have got all around the internet, such as mp3 sites, and p2p torrents. If you like, I could email you both of the Chinese Democracy versions I have, I would be happy to.

contact me at sweersa@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.169.48 (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'd like to apologise for calling you a troll - the table is often changed by anons and newly registered users who try to change the table by pretending they have demos. However, I've been following the Chinese Democracy saga for a long time and there are a lot of fake songs passed off as demos - sometimes soundboards are remastered to studio-like quality or sometimes a fan with protools will remix a demo. As far as I'm aware, only one version of the title track has leaked. Anyway, post the youtube links on here or E-mail me the mp3s if you want, but I doubt it's a new studio demo Funeral 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how the wikipedia contact works, so I'll talk here. This is one of the two Chinese Democracy demos I have, someone posted it a while back on youtube. http://youtube.com/watch?v=dLeGwjG4RNc Please excuse the odd man in that video. Is this the demo of Chinese Democracy you see as legitimate? If so, I almost for sure have another one, I can't find it on youtube, so i'll have to make my own video of it and post it there, I am sure I can find some good pics of GNR and AXL to go along with it. Please let me know what you think, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweersa (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished uploading this, here you go. http://youtube.com/watch?v=I_B18Ojimpc Enjoy! And please let me know what you think. I believe its either an older demo or possibly a good live recording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.169.48 (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The second one is a remastered live version from the 2002 tour. You can hear crowd noise at some points throughout the the song and at the end of it. Funeral 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Axl's voice sounds more like himself in that live remastered version in my opinion. I remember hearing the cheers at the end of that song, but I wasn't sure if it was added by the studio. It makes sense now that it actually is a live version. Thanks again for your time. On another note, have any demos or parks of the song Prostitute been leaked? In one of the several collections of Chinese Democracy songs I have downloaded and collected, I have one named Prostitute (with no vocals only instruments)that sounds pretty good actually, it has the GNR sound, but I am not sure if its legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.169.48 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These are all the leaked demos:
 * "Catcher in the Rye", "There Was a Time", "I.R.S.". Recorded in 1999.
 * "Better", "There Was a Time" and "I.R.S.". All leaked by Eddie Trunk, recorded between 2000-'04.
 * "Better". From the Harley Davidson commercial.
 * "Madagascar", "The Blues", "Chinese Democracy", "I.R.S.", "There Was a Time". All leaked this year, allegedly by Mister Saint Laurent.  Funeral 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)