Talk:Disco Demolition Night/Archive 1

Untitled comment
I changed some of the assumptions the author made regarding the cancellation of the second game. Having actually been at this event, I think I have a good perspective on what happened and why the second game was cancelled.

I was there myself and remember it fondly. The records were supposed to be brought to the park for a 98 cent admission. The ticket booth didn't know anything about the records and said it was, "just a 98 cent night". As a result, records of all genre littered the park and didn't start flying until Steve Dahl blew up the huge box of them in center field. He was driving around in an army jeep and dressed in fatigues. When the bomb went off it was LOUD! It was minutes later that I actually went on the field, put an unknown girl on my shoulders and walked around the infield. About ten minutes later, someone on the loudspeaker, (some say it was Bill Veck himself), said, "Please get off of the field, you are no longer on television." We all laughed and left when the police showed up with the dogs. I don't remember anyone being arrested or even confronting the authorities. It was good clean fun in those days. i also was there. yes it was fun. but there was plenty of arrests.not only did the police show up with dogs. they came on horses in full riot gear. hitting those who did not submit.you must not have stayed till the end.even before the police came, inhouse security tried to get those of us by the bonfires off the field with firehoses.they laid the chick on my shoulders to the ground. still all in all it was the most memerable time in my life. on my game ticket which i still have. before i went, i wrote on my ticket, riot day i guess i remember all of the fun. i am vito plioplys of chicago

Awesome. I was not there, I only saw it on TV. One question: Were there, or were there not, records being slung through the air like frisbees? I think that comment was already there, but I'm not 100% sure it was true. I only remember Piersall commenting about the "strange people" wandering around the stands. Wahkeenah 23:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Can we do something to stop the idiot who keeps putting up stuff about Jimi LaLumia & the Psychotic Frogs on the page? Can we block his IP or something?

Is there any way to block this page from being edited by non-logged in users? Every day this idiot keeps putting up crap about this stupid band nobody ever heard of! Ace-o-aces 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This was really getting out of handAce-o-aces 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Death To Disco" single was international news; this band appeared on the Don Imus TV show and the record was reported on in Billboard,Rolling Stone,Variety,the Daily News,Gig Magazine, England's Melody Maker,etc. The anti disco mentality did not exist until this record launched it and led to the events at the stadium a year or so later.You may call it vandalism,but i call it accuracy,as compared to your attempted re writing of history. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.198 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Actually, I'm not sure that Ace-o-aces minds the information being added to the article. However, it doesn't need to be the first information anyone reads (at least in the form you are adding).  I agree there are significant Psychotic Frogs hits on google, and their one album with Death to Disco appears on Allmusic...so they may meet WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion and an article of their own.  Perhaps both parties to this debate could discuss how to include some of the information regarding the esteemed Mr Lalumia here so we can return the page to regular status. --Syrthiss 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating that the band is significant for inclusion in wikipedia, but as Syrthiss said, I don't think this information belongs right at the beginning of the article. However, I think it is streaching things to say that ALL anti-disco feelings stemmed from this one song. Certainly rockers in general, and punks in particular took a disliking to disco right from the start.
 * None of the documentation on Disco Demolition Night I've seen makes referance to the Psychotic Frogs as an influence. It seems like the band was more significant in the local New-York Music scene, and might not have been all that well known in Chicago.

I think the band deserves its own page. I see Mr LaLumia now has his own page on wikipedia (which needs some cleaning up and formatting BTW).
 * I would agree to the bands inclusion on this page as part of a discussion of the overall anti-disco movement. However, I just feel that to point to the song as the sole origin of all anti-disco feeling may be a case of East Coast media bias (i.e. a local New York act gets more coverage because it's in the same city as so many media HQs)Ace-o-aces 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I also now see that this same user has been making multiple edits to the wiki for Punk Rock. These also keep getting reverted, which makes me wonder just how significant the Psychotic Frogs where (although Johnny Thunder, a significant figure in Punk Rock was associated with the band, which might support claims of significance) Ace-o-aces 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been among the editors reverting endless interjections of Jimi Lalumia into the Punk Rock article, in spite of a consensus on the talk page (with no dissenting opinions) that Lalumia was not nearly significant enough to be included on the short list of important figures in the early NY punk scene. Johnny Thunders was a significant figure, and evidently there's a live recording of Thunders playing guitar behind Lalumia on a couple of songs.  At best, Lalumia counts as an obscure footnote to Thunder's career.  On his own, he evidently had a minor local anti-disco hit, but the claim that he somehow singlehandedly instigated an anti-disco backlash is preposterous.  Unless he had some direct participation in "Disco Demolition Night," I really doubt he should be mentioned.  The poster's persistent vandalism of the Punk Rock page (where he or she has not been willing to respond on the talk page) certainly is reason to be suspicious.  BTfromLA 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a punk. >:( Wahkeenah 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On further review of the matter, I don't this LaLumia belongs on this page. If he's not significant enough for inclusion on the Punk rock page, then he's definantly not significant enough for this page, which is tangenataly related at best. Ace-o-aces 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

protection / unprotection
I unprotected the article again. Honestly, the vandalism isn't extensive enough for either FP or SP. 2-3 edits a day just isn't enough, no matter how annoying the anon is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm going to have to agree with Woohookitty on this. Unless semiprotection becomes the norm for all articles I have a hard time justifing applying it in this case, except when the anon is actively vandalizing the page.  I have sympathy for the frustration of seeing him do it again and again. --Syrthiss 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just what is your definition of "actively" vandalizing? He is doing this every day. He keeps putting info about this band right at the beginning of the article where it obviously doesn't belong. To me, that is vandalism, and that is active! Not to mention that, for very little additional effort he could just start a new entry on the band. I don't know much about Punk bands, but it might qualify for its own article. Ace-o-aces 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Active vandalization is users who are constantly watching the page and re-reverting minutes or seconds after you put it back, or making multiple little edits inserting their vandalism in a short time period (10 minutes). Both of those would easily be counterable with a block on the account, AOL or not.  If instead we had lots of vandalism from several users / IP's in a short period of time then semi protection or full protection would be applied so we could get a handle on fixing the vandalism.  My understanding of the protection policy is that this case doesn't apply.  I also agree that the anon should create an article about the band by itself if they feel it should be included...but my assumption of good faith is beginning to run out, and I feel they are indeed just vandalizing. --Syrthiss 15:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon reading the separate policy page at WP:SEMI, I'm going to agree with User:Curps and revert my statement above regarding this page being semi-protected. I'm sure we can set it back to normal editing in a day or so. Sorry for the confusion. --Syrthiss 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeebus! Do we have to protect the talk page now too? I've worked on controversal political topics on wikipedia with less vandalism. Ace-o-aces 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Image
Anybody know where I can find a good image for this page that is in the publi domain? Ace-o-aces 14:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't, but they deleted the other one seemingly without even giving anyone a chance of licensing it properly. Wahkeenah 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are quite a few images out on the web from a google image search (some that retain their AP credits). What was wrong with the image that was there, it wasn't tagged freeuse? --Syrthiss 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I found it last year. I thought it was public domain, but I couldn't find it agiain to confirm. Ace-o-aces 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The point being, some wiki busybody took it upon themselves to clobber it without giving whoever posted it a chance to properly label it. Wahkeenah 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Insane coholips"
What the hell is a coholip? I'm assuming something derogatory, like hooligan, or hippie, or bum, but I don't know. Maybe alcoholic? Could someone fix this? Pimlottc 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That was an obscure, uncited reference that someone had tried to comment out but didn't quite get the syntax right. I have now fixed it. d:) Wahkeenah 13:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

comma
OK guys, does the comma go inside or outside the quotes? Ace-o-aces 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I interpret the Manual of Style, commas go inside of quoted passages and outside of so-called "scare quotes", or titles of things (like this example), and the usage in this article would seem to fall into the latter category. Wahkeenah 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what happens when disco haters unite
The whole point was supposedly to show how much disco sucks, but in the end it proved that disco haters are manic and destructive. Now, electronic music (house,hip-hop,neo-disco) is bigger than ever.
 * What it proved more than anything was the impact of the uncontrolled use of controlled substances. Wahkeenah 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the main disco article and discussion page the reasons behind the anti disco movement as discussed in detail. Your supposition would be true if the majority of disco haters were blowing up records. The reasons the other genres are successful is that they fixed the flaws of disco updated it etc. Some elements of the genres you cite are quite destructive in tone and lyrics(See gansta rap). And a genre you did not mention but was partially influenced by disco known as techno is quite “manic” 69.114.117.103 06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * That's a little outside the scope of the article. What happened that night was a park filled with inebriates who caused a near-riot, thanks to an ill-advised promotion that Mike Veeck is still trying to live down. Wahkeenah 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Inebriates was a major player that night but if that was all there were to it there might not have Wikipedia article on it, most histories of disco music would not mention it and the event would not still 27 years later be a subject of heated messageboard debate 69.114.117.103 06:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * If it weren't for the near-riot and the cancellation of the game, there would be no mention of it. Wahkeenah 11:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While that is true if it was not for the social/cultural controversy surrounding disco the incident at most would be a trivia question like the far more violent Ten Cent Beer Night. I have to give you it would be a Wikipidea article 69.114.117.103 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * Only a much less-covered one. Wahkeenah 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced?
There are references, embedded within the text. Is the "unreferenced" tag still needed? Wahkeenah 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Michael Clarke Duncan the answer is yes. While he is cited the claim that he was on the field is not. Just find a place he is quoted as saying he was there or at minimum a reputable fan website that makes the claim 69.114.117.103 04:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * I'm referring to the tag in general. I have no clue whether the Duncan story is true or not. But if there's a specific issue in an article, normally that one item would be tagged with the brace-brace-fact-brace-brace tag rather than the entire article. If there are lots of issues, maybe that's a different story. Wahkeenah 06:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the brace-brace-fact-brace-brace to the middle of the sentence to hopefully clear up any confusion 69.114.117.103 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * My question is why the BANNER is still there. Whoever posted it, what is their specific issue? Wahkeenah 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The specific issue is that a cite is needed for the claim that Mr. Duncan was on that field that night. If I missed it somehow point it out to me. If you have a place to put the banner or a better way of explaining the need for a cite for the claim be my guest and edit it. 69.114.117.103 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * I just wondered if there were any other issues. Wahkeenah 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not for me 69.114.117.103 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

The Video from the DDN
Where I can find video from this events? I saw it in some documentary film about disco and I want to watch it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.71.254 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

End of the Disco Era
Why was the line in the event and results section that the events triggered the decline in the popularity disco music taken out? I used the same cite as the one in the disco article. A Disco Demolition Night article that does not mention the role this event had on the music scene is like an article about disco not discussing Saturday Night Fever. 69.114.117.103 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * This event had no role in the end of the disco era, although it had a lasting effect on Mike Veeck. Wahkeenah 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look closely at that citation, you'll see they're just being funny. Disco was already winding down as a phenomenon. It continued into 1981 or so. Wahkeenah 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well disco did not die that night it still lives is influential and everybody screws up the YMCA these days. But the perception that that night was the end of disco still persists . There is very good reason for that perception. Look at the billboard charts in 1979 from January to July. I would guess if memory serves me that 80% of it was disco. That summer I remember Donna Summer having several hits on the charts. The last few months of that year if I am not totally senile it would less than half and maybe a lot less. 1980 would see several disco hits but it was far from the dominant music it had been. Throughout most of the 1980's you could not use the word disco to promote "dance" music. Why that fear?. Up until Disco Demolition Night the "disco sucks" movement consisted of mostly banners and bumper stickers. This event brought the threat of real violence and that is why the record companies stopped supporting a genre was still doing exceptionally well. And why if that night had "no role" in disco's temporary decline why is the event given prominent mention in the Wikipedia and just about every history I have read of disco music? And why if the night had "no role"  did the 25th anniversary of the riot get so much interest? I would doubt the 25th anniversary of any old riot would have gotten that amount of attention. Were there other factors in disco's decline? Absolutely. As a person who was very much around at that point I stand by my statement that this event was a trigger. A caveat is that I should have added to my line was that this was a mainly U.S. phenomenon. From what I understand the Bee Gees were huge sellers in Europe during the '80's 69.114.117.103 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * That would be challenged as "original research". I don't think it's a "trigger", just more of a "symbol", a convenient retrospective reference point. My own original research is that Disco was a music fad that was already on the wane, as it had been around since about 1974. And as you may have observed, there is plenty of Disco on the radio, as it is now considered "nostalgia", the way 1960s music was during the 80s and 90s, the way 1950s music was in the 70s and 80s, and the way Big Band and Swing were in the 60s. However, the writer's restating of the famous phrasing of "American Pie" is interesting and funny, so I put the reference back, worded a little differently. Wahkeenah 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the Billboard listings showed that disco was not on the wane. The reference listed only the number one hits for the week but you have to pay a subscription to get the rest of the list but I believe if you do that you will get similar results. My opinion is disco would have started to wane but the process would have been much slower. The movie The Last Days of Disco makes reference to how the scene was "suddenly" gone. I believe the threat of violence helped speed it's demise. Anyway back to the article the line is good enough for now and I will try and find a better reference and hope this line will spark others to search for them 69.114.117.103 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * The notion that a promotion at a baseball game had anything other than symbolic significance to the wane of Disco is absurd. Wahkeenah 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The promotion was not the problem the riot that followed was. But our opinions should not matter as to what gets in the article. I did not know why you deleted the Rolling Stone magazines history of Rock and Roll book cite that actually agreed with your point about the event being symbolic or as they called it emblematic. And even though Steve Dahl disagreed with you he should not have been deleted because he is the definition of a notable opinion. And by the way in the interview the phrase "The Day that Disco Died" appears as it does in many other places meaning that there are many people that disagree with you about the significance of the event. But because you think that is "absurd" does not mean that you should solely control what goes in the article. I do not agree with Steve Dahl's opinion that disco was a fad but for arguments sake lets say that I did and because I felt that way no matter what anybody did I kept on cutting the main disco article to one paragraph. If you have a problem with my cites I am open to that but to delete them just because you think the whole idea is "absurd" is destructive. 69.114.117.103 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * Rereading my reaction I might be "rushing to judgment" as to why you deleted my cites. But when I saw you deleted the Rolling Stone book cite that agreed with your POV and saw your comments about "absurd" it looked me that because you were so outraged about my POV that you deleted my cites without looking at them closely. If you delete anything just write down why in the discussion pages. 69.114.117.103 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * I put back the two cites. It has been over a week without any defense of the deletions on your part or any correction to my POV on why you deleted them. 69.114.117.103 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * It's too silly to fight. Wahkeenah 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still curious as to the reason of your original deletion. If there is a valid reason no matter how "silly" the topic might be for those cites not to be in the article I will re delete them. 69.114.117.103 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

What on earth?
Some lit fires and started mini-riots.

What on earth is a "mini-riot" ??? futurebird 16:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great article
I just wanted to thank everybody who worked on this for putting together a great article. The topic is nothing earth-shaking, but it's the kind of interesting thing, like Heavy metal umlaut, that would never get covered in a paper encyclopedia. I'm definitely adding it to my list of examples to show to people who ask me about Wikipedia. Thanks! William Pietri 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Famous Participents Section below
Actor Michael Clarke Duncan, a Chicago native and 21 at the time, attended the event. He was among the first 100 people to run onto the field and he slid into third base. He also had a silver belt buckle stolen during the ensuing riot and apparently stole one of Bill Melton's bats from the dugout. According to Wikipedia's own section on Melton, this would have been impossible because Melton had retired in 1977. "His (Melton's) 10-year career spanned 1968 to 1977, the last two years playing for the California Angels and Cleveland Indians respectively." Melton wasn't a part of the White Sox in 1979.

James "Chico" Hernandez, US National Champion, in Sombo wrestling and featured on a box of Wheaties attended the event

The first cite that claims Clarke was there is now a dead link. As for Bill Melton Wikepedia should never print information that has been proven incorrect even if printed in a reliable source.

There is no cite for the claim that Chico Hernandez attended the event. Edkollin (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I took out the last couple but I put Duncan back in. for one thing, you don't need a live link to a news article, when you cite something online an "access date" is included because online articles are often removed later and you don't delete whole sentences just because of that. Also, the links here are just meant to be helpful its the hard copy newspaper thats being cited. Multixfer (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the whole section because since the section had multiple issues including false information I had reason to doubt the verifiability of the dead link.  Edkollin (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede edits
References have beenh provided as requested. The language that Jeena Ozero Capulet keeps inserting is, basically, a POV and is totally inappropriate. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, Refrain From Erasing My Reliable Information
I posted an actual video of the event as it happened and good recaps of it. Nothing unreliable75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't use you tube as a source due to copywrite issues. Edkollin (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism and homophobia claims
The claims of racism were mentioned in one book and that's the only time I've ever heard anything about accusations of racism. It's not an especially notable part of this event, but in any case, a paragraph discusses it already. It is not nearly important enough to be added to the lede and it seems someone who keeps trying to insert it has some kind of personal vendetta and is pushing POV as opposed to producing a neutral article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Many authors talk about racism and homophobia motivating the event and the anti-disco backlash in general.211.246.77.155 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen one and I didn't hear a thing about it until someone added that book as a reference here. It's a matter of WP:UNDUE, and NPOV is not at issue because it's a WP:FRINGE claim. It's a stupid claim as well, considering how many disco acts were white. Unless you can somehow establish that this is not a fringe claim by one or two people it's not going into the lede. The claim has already been addressed in a NPOV manner in the body of the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most authors who are writing about the event without anything to gain or lose mention racist and homophobic undertones. Most people who have something to lose (usually their credibility or respectability) will deny this, a prime example being the event's creator. Examples from around the world include: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jun/18/disco-sucks, http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/columns/story?page=disco/090712, http://timeoutchicago.com/music-nightlife/audio-file-blog/113741/mediana-disco-demolition-day-nostalgia, http://www.ica.org.uk/20364/DANCESCHOOL/DISCO-SUCKS.html,, ,.


 * Also, that it is discussed in the body is not a reason to exclude it from the lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the article.211.246.72.187 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're using Wikipedia to push a fringe viewpoint, you're trying to characterize adherence to guidelines as censorship, and you're wrong, plain and simple. I will continue to revert you per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The article already covers the claimed, and dubious, racism angle, and it isn't nearly important enough to the body of coverage to be included in the lede. What's more, including it in the lede violates NPOV, as it implies a foregone conclusion without also including that Dahl and everyone else associated with DDN have vehemently denied racism. It's a borderline BLP violation against Dahl, insinuating he's a racist. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some more editor's perspectives would be helpful. This text is certainly not vandalism btw. Including it in the lede does not violate the NPOV policy, it does not imply any forgone conclusion except to say that it is a common way the event is perceived. Saying that the inclusion of that statement implies that Dahl is racist is like saying that the other quotes imply that no disco was ever heard again after that night. It's not a big deal to just lay down the whole story and summarize the article without a nostalgic and one-sided view of the event. You originally said that you would need to see more sources, why don't you comment on those sources instead of changing your argument to "this is vandalism" which is false and an assumption of bad faith.122.203.79.2 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For months the text was in the lede without a problem. How are we coming to the conclusion that it is a fringe viewpoint? I think I have demonstrated that most 3rd part commentators mention homophobic and racist undertones. I'd be interested to know what criteria we are using.122.203.79.2 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? You're going to start edit warring over this? I reverted you with an explanation and then you revert me back again asking me to join the discussion?  I won't revert again, but I strongly suggest you (and anyone else involved) review WP:3RR in case someone else does in the next 24 hours.  No, it wasn't vandalism, and I pointed that out, however I'm sure it was said out of frustration and certainly isn't relevant to this discussion.  Having said that, it's s quite clear that the current consensus is to leave it out of the lead, so I would advise you that until that consensus changes, you accept that and leave it out.  Anyway, WP:FRINGE may be over exaggerating, but essentially the point being made by bringing that into the discussion is is such a minor theory, it's okay to have it mentioned in the article (and it is), but it doesn't belong in the lead.  It's not even close to defining the event and giving it too much weight is WP:UNDUE  More importantly, Balph Eubank may very well be right, that it is a borderline WP:BLP violation as it implies that Dahl is somehow racist.  Therefore, it doesn't belong. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I'd suggest creating an account, as you're jumping between IPs and it makes this more confusing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "common viewpoint" per the preponderance of coverage. The applicable guidelines, once again, are WP:LONGTIME, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes by PREponderance and by sticking to one non-neutral point of view one might come to the conclusion that it is not a common point-of-view. However if you actually read the sources out there, they usually fall into to two categories: sports writers who run about 50-50 in mentioning these claims, and everyone else. Contemporary music and art historians, social commentators and local media all look at the event through the perspective that disco was gay and non-white, and that the event's participants were not and many felt threatened by changes in American society. Of course not all the participants actually harbored ill will for these groups. And nobody says that they all did. What they say is that the event represented a backlash against gay, non-white music and culture more than it represented "the death of disco". The last few lines of the lede paragraph erroneously give the impression that disco music went away after this event, when in fact the genre has been incredibly influential for 30 years and into the present, to the ironic point that at many baseball games it is common for disco songs to be played on the loudspeakers. And no one I've seen alleges the promoter to be homophobic or racist. Writing that x said y's event is racist is not the same as saying x said y is racist. Saying that quote defames the promoter dishonestly and entirely misses the mark.122.203.79.2 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the sources and you're mistaken. I also reverted your latest additions, which violated WP:OR and WP:RS. Your entire premise above is based on your personal analysis of whether or not the event was important, and this is starting to look like a personal crusade. The article mentions the racism angle already in compliance with NPOV and it says what the sources say while taking WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP into consideration. Unsourced commentaries and further attempts to push POV in violation of WP:UNDUE will be reverted. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're going about this the wrong way. Wouldn't you agree that it's better to propose your changes here first rather than insisting on making your additions that are obviously going to get reverted? Oh, and definitely agree on the WP:RS issue.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there is what the sources say and there's what you think seems to be both my argument and yours. So making assumptions about my or your intentions looks like the pot calling the clkettle black. I think there should be a consensual middle ground. The article as it stands is pushing a pov that is non neutral and violates many of the same policies you have mentioned. How would you propose making the article and especially the led more neutral?110.70.10.56 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Balph Eubank and Jauerback. That reference you're using isn't reliable and you appear to be pushing an agenda. You should gain consensus here before attempting to reinsert your claims again as the consensus here seems to be against you. The Garbage Skow (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I started an RfC to get some other opinions. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the reference being used reliable? There are other references which state the same thing. What I'm pushing for is a more neutral lead that talks about how the event is perceived by scholars 30 years later. It doesn't need to be prominent, just a brief mention is all I am pushing for, not some agenda. I'm pushing for a bit of balance in the led because it seems whitewashed and nostalgic, rather than critical and objective. I'm try to work for neutrality, that's my agenda, so I don't really mind you saying that I'm pushing an agenda. But I don't feel it's a constructive way of getting anything done, especially discussing the issue.122.203.79.2 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think Roctober would be a reliable source if you wanted hard numerical facts like baseball statistics, I do think it's a reliable source for opinions about music. And the policy you linked seems to agree.122.203.79.2 (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead?
Should the claims of racism and homophobia be included in the lead? Please see the current discussion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably per WP:LEAD advice on "prominent controversies" but it would be best that they are very well sourced. &mdash; Cup co  01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No As per WP:LEAD, this doesn't qualify as a prominent controversy. It was a very minor one that didn't really come up until later. Also, I think including it in the lede gives WP:UNDUE weight to one viewpoint. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The lead is short and should be expanded. I am neutral on what should be added there. If the racism/homophobia issue is included, both viewpoints should be mentioned. Since I came here following the RS noticeboard posting, another point: the Roctober reference is not an RS. It can be included if there is editorial consensus that the facts mentioned are undisputed and keeping it might help some future editor find a better reference. That doesn't seem the case here. It can be added as an external link. Churn and change (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with Churn and change. LEAD should be expanded. However, we should consider UNDUE with regard to various forms of prejudice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't include the racism/homophobia angle because it's a minor claim by a relatively small number of people and would give WP:UNDUE weight to this topic. I do agree that the lead should probably be expanded. If consensus ultimately determines that the racism and homophobia claims should be mentioned in the lead, then the concurrent statement from Dahl that the event was not intended to be racist/homophobic and the statement from HWC that he didn't think it was discriminatory need to be included as well for a modicum of balance/NPOV. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No One book alleges homophobia and racism in the general anti-disco movement, but not in direct relation to this particular event? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Seems like one author trying to make a point to sell books. It seems tangentially related to this event at best. Besides, I hate disco because it sucks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No you are mistaken. Many books and authors directly connect the event with racism, homophobia and some to sexism.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No As someone who is old enough to remember this event, I can honestly say that this is the first time I've ever heard of this. To be honest, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  The Bee Gees and John Travolta were/are white and AFAIK hetero.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well recently there have been rumors about Mr. Travolta that have made quite a few headlines but that is immaterial. Having been alive during the era you must remember that very few celebrities were open homosexuals and that white musicians playing any genre usually had access to more airtime and exposure. Also you should remember that the anti-disco backlash was not targeting black and gay artists but the largely black and gay atmosphere that evolved around the music.122.203.79.2 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also you should remember that the anti-disco backlash was not targeting black and gay artists but the largely black and gay atmosphere that evolved around the music. Therein lies the problem. Nobody seems to "remember" that except you, Nile Rogers and a few other people. DDN was about anti-commercialism and self-promotion. Steve Dahl didn't even really "hate" disco, the man used to have disco parties at his house. Much like John Lydon and his "I hate Pink Floyd" t-shirt, he didn't really hate Pink Floyd (as he said himself many times in later years), he hated the corporatism of music that took it out of the hands of young people and reserved it for selected, company-approved acts. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd have to agree with you that the backlash was directed towards the music and the scene around it and not towards the artists that made the music, which was my point in that reply. Also I have never said that the sole motivation for the backlash or the event was racism or homophobia. I have only said, like many social critics and historians, that it was an important factor.122.203.79.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not What follows is partially based upon personal experience, so that aspect deserves lower weight, but I did review the sources. I lived in Chicago during this period of time. While I did not attend the event, I was very familiar with it at the time. More importantly, and relevantly, I listened to Dahl almost every day for years. I never heard a hint of racism or homophobia, so I was stunned to see the inclusion in this article. While my personal experience doesn't refute the possibility that some of the opposition to Disco was driven by racism and homophobia, this is the first I've ever hear of such inferences, and should be included in the article, at most, as a relevant observation on anti-disco reactions in general, and care should be taken not to impute that feeling to Dahl or the impetus for the event. I see some sources making suppositions; I have no opposition to general inclusions of commentary on general anti-disco motivations, but absent an RS linking Dahl to this view, there should be nothing in the article making this unwarranted leap. If it is felt appropriate to leave the general speculations about the motivations of others in the article, so be it, but that doesn't deserve mention in the lead.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point regarding the sources. There seems to have been a little WP:SYNTHESIS gooing on there, so I've edited a little to put the comments more in line with what the sources actually say. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "RS linking Dahl to this view" this is a red herring. No serious source labels Dahl with these views, at least not from what I've seen. The RSs do talk about the motivations for the backlash and talk about what the event symbolized in that context. And many of the sources give little credence to the event symbolizing the "death of disco" but rather symbolizing the reaction to changing attitudes in the United States.
 * "Social critics have argued that the backlash against disco was implicitly macho and bigoted, an attack on a cultural aesthetic that was non-white and not necessarily heterosexual. But the Cohos would've said that argument sucks. If doing a one-hitter in your parent's basement while listening to Obscured By Clouds was macho, then yeah, the Cohos were macho. "We were just disenfranchised 24-year-old males," says Dahl."-ESPN
 * "The unspoken subtext was obvious: disco music was for homosexuals and black people. Not only that, but, as Knopper notes, in the disco era "to make it with a lady a guy had to learn how to dance. And wear a fancy suit!"...But it was a pyrrhic victory. Disco spawned house music and the club scene and impacted upon the then-emerging hip-hop culture. In short, disco's influence is everywhere."-the Guardian122.203.79.2 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph sounds like a supposition being made by a journalist. The first is already covered in the article. Linking Dahl to this isn't a red herring as this article is about "Disco Demolition Night", not the anti-disco movement as a whole. If you want to write paragraphs about what journalists and musicians have to say about the general anti-disco movement then there ought to be an article about the movement in general. This article is about a single event that was promotional in nature. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both passages directly refer to the event, i.e Cohos, pyrhhic victory. The page is about the event. The sources are about the event. A part of explaining the event includes writing about what was the motivation for the event. Most sources address the motivation of the event by addressing the motivation for the anti-disco backlash.
 * And if Dahl said he's not, then I believe him and so do most journalists. So saying we need a reference to say that "he is" is asking for a red herring, a defamatory one too.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes since it is easily established that this is not a fringe view: homophobia and racism. And many of those hits are from reputable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A google search for "Disco Demolition Night" and the terms "homophobia" and "racism" doesn't prove anything. The first book that appears in the "racism" search doesn't even mention racism in conjunction with demolition. Most of what I see are journalists and commentators opining, not serious journalistic work in which they're interviewing people who could actually have a reason for claiming racism. Do any of these sources say what the actual musicians thought? Or what other radio people thought? The opinions of some journalists don't mean a whole lot when it comes to something as serious as claims of homophobia and racism. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually you are incorrect. The fist result of the racism search, a book called Queers in American Popular Culture, contains the passage "Journalist Dave Marsh interpreted the Disco Demolition as antigay, racist, and sexist in an article for Rolling Stone." And there's no real reason why the authors of secondary sources, the rock critics and social historians, why their opinions and thoughts are less valuable than those of radio personalities and musicians. Why do you assume that they should be given less weight than primary sources? And why do you assume that there are no musicians and radio personalities who do remember the event as is being alleged? Because you misread the first book result, maybe everyone should assume that you misread the others or didn't read them at all.122.203.79.2 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the key point there is "journalist interpreted". That's only good for saying what some journalist thought, which isn't worth much for a claim like this. The primary sources behind the secondary sources need to be excellent. Where are the interviews with the major acts of the time? What did other musicians besides Nile Rodgers and HWC think? Those are the people who would potentially be affected by feelings of prejudice and their viewpoints, as primary sources covered in reliable secondary sources, are what matter. Not what some journalist "interpreted". This is how fact checking works. WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are helpful, and WP:BLP most certainly applies, so the highest of attention needs to be given to excellent sourcing. I also tend to agree that a google search for some related terms doesn't say much about the quality of these sources without having read each of the sources themselves. Frankly, these mostly look like the opinions of journalists, not necessarily experts or primary sources, and this just isn't enough for me to think such a negative claim belongs in the lead of material affected by the BLP policy. This isn't an argument for removing the racism angle entirely, just one that it doesn't belong in the lead. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unplayable grounds
The article says "The remaining games in the series were played, but for the rest of the season fielders and managers complained about the poor condition of the field." As I recall, the notation "Postponed, unplayable grounds" appeared in the baseball results for three days. About a month later, the Angels were playing there, and Don Drysdale said the field was not good enough for class A.   Randall Bart    Talk   23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not correct, the remainder of the series was played as scheduled, see for example here (July 13). Apparently they also had some rock concerts on the field in August, which contributed to a very bad field condition according to the bio of Veeck which is a source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia additions
The latest additions are cited, however I believe the inclusion of ever more opinions that DDN was homophobic is now violating WP:UNDUE. The article succeeded at FA, and I would not like to see the featured status revoked because the article has ceased to conform to NPOV. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I have to admit I was a bit shocked when I came across this article when doing some research and saw that the primary sources were given such weight when everything I was reading in academic journals was saying something else. I will not add any more references, but I do think the article is more balanced now than it was. --Michelledavison (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw no need for the recent additions (post-FA) and am happy to see them removed. The point is to let the reader know of the various points of view on DDN.  We don't have to beat the point into the ground.  I propose they be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I second the motion. They appear undue to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In light of the above discussion with trying to cast the homophobia claim as "fringe," I would argue that these are well-sourced edits that deserved to stay. Particularly since people were complaining about the quality of the original citation. The fact is that most academics see the anti-disco movement, including this event, as homophobic and racist. Having primary sources make up the vast majority of the opposing view is really misleading, and isn't it Wikipedia's policy to favor secondary, peer-reviewed sources over primary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship --Michelledavison (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the homophobia claim is fringe, we're saying the balance of the content in that section is now heavily weighted towards the homophobia angle. The article already covered that viewpoint with scholarly sources and your addition of one more didn't really hurt anything, but adding even more and more after that makes the article appear biased/weighted towards one analysis. It's not really a matter of sources, but a matter of WP:NPOV. I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of academics saying they think the Anti-Disco movement was racist and homophobic, it doesn't mean this article should become a WP:COATRACK for that viewpoint and that the opinion of every academic should be added, particularly when the article already covers the homophobia/racism viewpoint. All articles are supposed to conform to NPOV. (EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then.) - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, the point is to make the reader aware of the homophobia theory. That many people in certain disciplines busily agree with each other does not mean that we must quote every one.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "EDIT: If you're referring to the source mentioned in the collapsed discussion above from last November, the article has been almost totally rewritten and re-referenced since then." I didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing that out. And again, I will not add any more references.--Michelledavison (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * THanks for that, still, I think a couple of the ones you added should be deleted. The Echols one, for example, seems to add nothing, it just agrees with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, how about deleting Echols (which I agree adds really nothing new or spectacular to the article) and keeping the Lawrence quote (which at least references DDN directly)? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

cites regarding homophobia of DDN
Are there any sources before 2007 suggesting a homophobic aspect to DDN? Is it not worth mentioning such a recent provenance for this interpretation, when no material new facts about DDN have come to light in ~35 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.69 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has to be mentioned, and as you can see from discussions on this page, what I put originally was shorter than what we have now. But I respect the outcome of discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Joke?
Why was this article chosen for April Fool's Day? As far as I can tell, there's nothing particularly unusual about the subject or the Main Page lead — nothing like last year's ? (film) or my favorite, George Washington (inventor). Unless I'm missing something, this article could have been run equally well any other day, with precisely the same Main Page lead. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at TFA/R, but I suspect you might want to discuss it with .--Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the link to the TFAR discussion and my decision based on the discussion. If you would like to help select next year's April Fool TFA - or indeed any TFAs between now and then - please come along to WP:TFAR and join in - all welcome! BencherliteTalk 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was vaguely wondering if it was supposed to be "unusual" or not as well, but there's only a limited store of Featured Articles out there so it's a tricky task to keep coming up with unusual ones. Certainly it's no fault of the TFAR team who do a fantastic job working to keep the feature in place day in day out. I guess the best way for to get a good one up there for next year is to start work now on something weird and whacky with a view to having it featured before next April! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Year (1969) is wrong - happened in 1979
The first sentence has the wrong year : 1969. This happened in 1979. Not sure if the month and day are correct. Also - the little gray summary box on the right has the wrong year.

Later references to the year in this article are correct 1979.

I mean - come on, disco wasn't even around in 1969. At least not enough to be hated so much that an event like this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.72.232 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I have no idea who did that, but I'll look. It's been fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, it was changed again, but I reverted to what I think was the last clean version. Please correct if I made a mistake, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed the other vandalism. Thanks Gerda. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you too. I try to watch the article but I'm fairly busy today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Coho lips?
Cohos have no lips; they're salmon! - Neonorange (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently he named it after a marina or something he passed on the way to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Great Lakes are stocked with Coho. Cohos don't like disco; can't dance: no feet! - Neonorange (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a little slipshod
My jaw hit the floor when I read that DDN helped cause the demise of disco in the USA. Seriously? I also don't understand why a story about Michael Clark Duncan is included. I'd suggest it be removed but I'd probably denounced as racist. 209.179.40.208 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt it was a little off too but I didn't feel I could override it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Vinyl" (Wikilink)
Hi,

Wikilinking the word "records" to vinyl record seems unnecessary per WP:OLINK. The word is common term used in this context and is already mentioned in the article's second sentence without being linked. The word "vinyl", however, seems more like "jargon" or a "technical expression" per WP:UNDERLINK whose meaning might not be as clear to certain readers, particularly not native English speakers. So, it makes more sense to pipe link "vinyl" to vinyl record". Also, it seems better to directly wikilinking to Gramophone record (or perhaps even Gramophone record) without needing to use a redirect from "vinyl record". - Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change the phrasing, but I have no objection to changing the pipe. I feared that in the iTunes era, it is necessary to remind the younger generation of a thing or two in articles that turn on dated technology, like this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback . I get what you're saying about the younger generation. Maybe the thing to do then is remove any mention of "vinyl" from the article per MOS:JARGON, replace it with "record" and then just pipe link "record" to "Gramophone record" or "Gramophone record#vinyl". - Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They still issue vinyl records, I think the term is still known. They're more durable than posters.  I think the word could stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt:  Personally, I'm OK with "vinyl" since I have no problem understanding what it means. To me, "vinyl" and "record" are synonymous in this context. My only concern is that such a connection might not be as obvious to others, particularly non-native English speakers and younger Wikipedia readers. My memory of that time period is that "record" was far more commonly used than "vinyl" to describe this particular medium for recording music. Back then there were pretty much only records and tapes; "Vinyl"tended to be only used when describing the material used to make records. Most people would say "Did you hear so and so's new record?" or "I am going to the record store." You didn't hear many people say "Did you hear so and so's new vinyl?" or "I am going to the vinyl store." So, it just seems to me that "record" was the preferred nomenclature of the time. These days, however, the situation may actually be reversed. Quite a few bands issuing new music (or reissuing their old catalog) specifically use the word "vinyl". Quite a few people refer to themselves as "vinyl" collectors. I think this distinction, however, is primarily being made because there are so many more types of recording media (e.g., CDs and Mpegs, etc.) being used today then there were back in 1979. In this particular article, there are 3 instances where the word vinyl is being used: (1)"destroy the collected vinyl in an explosion"; (2) "vinyl-filled box"; and (3)"burning vinyl shards". In the first two instances, "records" and "record" could easily replace "vinyl" without any loss of meaning at all. Number 3 might not be as clear, but "burning vinyl shards" and "burning records" mean essentially the same thing here. I am not saying that "vinyl" absolutely needs to go, but I don't think its use is absolutely essential to understanding "Disco Demolition (Night)". I am also not sure if it is important that this article remind users that before iTunes and CDs, etc. music was actually recorded on discs made out of vinyl. Anyone interested in such information can, in my opinion, easily get it from the Wikilink record. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The other concern I had at the time of writing was a lack of synonyms for record that's why I used the term vinyl in the first place I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably disc would do. I think "vinyl shards" might be OK.  "record shards" is sort of odd, "shards" alone might leave the reader in doubt as to what was burning.  The others I'm fine on changing. I'll massage the prose if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also feel that "vinyl shards" is better that both "record shards" or "shards". As I said above, I don't know if it's essential for this particular article to worry about whether readers know how records are made, so piping "record" to "Gramophone record" should be more than sufficient for anybody interested in learning more. I guess the "vinyl" in "vinyl shards" could also be piped to "Gramophone record#Vinyl", but that might be borderline WP:REPEATLINK. Anyway, thanks for considering my suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks in article
Hi,

I'm not sure how necessary it is to Wikilink the same item more than once in the main article. Does Wikilinking words like "forfeit", "twi-night doubleheader" as well as both team names, and the names of some of major people involved with this event more than once really help improve the readers ability to comprehend what is written. It seems like a single Wikilink for each should be more than sufficient for those looking for more detailed information. I understand that WP:OVERLINK is just a guideline, and it does say linking to same thing again at the first occurrence after the lead is OK if helpful; I just don't see how it's helpful in this particular case. Anyway, this is just my particular opinion and I'm really interested in hearing what others might think. For reference, I am only referring to repeat Wikilinks in the main text. I am not referring to the ones in the infobox or table. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a consistent style which is the form it passed FAC in, and no objection was made there, which means it carries consensus with it as a question of style. Not everyone reads the whole article, and it's simpler (from my standpoint) to treat the lede and the body as separate creatures for purposes of wikilinking.  Otherwise, in my experience, you get some startling non-links adjacent to links.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. That helps me understand things a little better. One question if I may. Why WL "1979 Chicago White Sox season" and "1979 Detroit Tigers season" in the lead, but "Chicago White Sox" and "Detroit Tigers" throughout the rest of the article? - Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I do try to review all edits to articles in which I was an FA nominator but I'm human and often busy with other things.  I try for consistency as much as possible, but, well, who knows? Life isn't perfect.  If I don't maintain articles, they get nibbled to death with unsourced information, vandalism, etc. I don't feel hugely strongly about this, but I like to stay more or less consistent so I know what I should expect to see.  If I don't do maintain articles, and consistency helps with maintenance, articles degrade, unfortunately.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just curious if there was a specific reason for doing that or if it's just anomaly because just the teams (and not their seasons) were linked in the lead to Ten Cent Beer Night. Again, I wasn't trying to badger you or anyone else or sound accusatory in any way. One way I learn about how things are done on Wikipedia is by asking questions and discussing things with others. I thought my question was pretty neutral in tone; it really wasn't meant as a criticism of how the article has been edited or maintained up until now. I'm sorry if it came off that way. - Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

35th anniversary
I recently came across the following articles, etc. that apparently were written to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the event.

I always stuff a sock in It always makes the ladies start to talking My shirt is open I never use the buttons Though I look hip, I work for E.F. Hutton (Chorus) Do ya think I'm disco Cuz I spend so much time Blow drying out my hair Do ya think I'm disco Cuz I know the dance steps Learned them all at Fred Astaire"
 * Dahl himself penned this opinion piece titled "Disco Demolition 35 years later: That's the way I liked it" for the business news website of Crain's Chicago Business. It's an interesting first-hand account of the event, particularly Dahl's response to charges that DDN was racist and homophobic. This part in particular directly addresses that:
 * "I put out a record parody of Rod Stewart's "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy," called "Do Ya Think I'm Disco" in 1979. After many Kafkaesque years of trying to defend myself against the racist/homophobe charges, it occurred to me to let the lyrics of my anti-disco anthem make my point for me."I wear tight pants
 * Not a masterpiece, I know. But not exactly a racist/homophobic manifesto, either. We were a bunch of disenfranchised 20-something rockers having some laughs at the expense of older brothers who had the capital and the clothing to hang with the trendy social elite. We were letting off a little steam. Any statement to the contrary is just plain wrong."


 * Obviously it would be impossible to use all of the above, but it does seem like something worth adding to the article in some shape or form. Perhaps a much shortened version could be added to "Aftermath and reaction" possibly in the same paragraph as the Olbermann interview quote. Any information taken used be cited as ""


 * There was also this article written by Mark W. Anderson titled "Time Obscures Meaning of Disco Demolition: Saturday is the 35th anniversary of the infamous Disco Demolition Night". on the NBC Chicago website. This also touches on the "racist" and "homophobic" from the viewpoint of a 15-year kid growing up in Chicago at that time. It offers a different take on things than Dahl as shown by this quote: "Because, in the end, the chance to yell “disco sucks” meant more than simply a musical style choice. It was a chance to push back on a whole set of social dynamics that lied just beneath the surface of a minor battle between a DJ and a radio station that decided to change formats. More importantly, it was a chance for a whole lot of people to say they didn't like the way the world was changing around them, or who they saw as the potential victors in a cultural and demographic war. And, from the perspective of 35 years later, its hard to believe few if any of those who organized the event didn't see that underlying reality for what it was. Or perhaps still continue to cling to the idea that it was all harmless fun."
 * Again, it seems like some of this could be used in the "Aftermath and reaction" section. This could be cited as "

Anyway, I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say on whether stuff from either or both of these sources would be worth adding to the article. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I will read the article and put up some revisions of the page and if they're not satisfactory people can comment on them. I can also use some of the lyrics in a quote box I think that would be sort of fun and help break up the text because we don't have a lot of images. Or you can if you get to it first. Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. I'm just happy to contribute so it doesn't really matter who adds the info. Regarding photos, there were quite a few used in the Crain's Chicago piece. Obviously, these cannot be used without obtaining proper permission. All of the photos are credited to photographer Paul Natkin. Dahl and Natkin are good friends and Dahl has stated on numerous occasions that Natkin took almost all of the pictures taken that night, at least almost all of the good ones. Natkin has blogged about the event here. Do you think that would be something worth investigating? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if someone wants to try to see if he can be persuaded to license us a picture or two under a suitable license, I'd be delighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, having read both pieces, if it's worth adding. Dahl says one thing, Anderson says he's full of it.  We already quote Dahl, if we did it again, we'd have to rebut with Anderson.  I don't know that either breaks much new ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. The only reason I would suggest adding the Crain's piece is that it is Dahl's most recent public statement on event. He has mentioned on his podcast that he considers this to be his "best defense" against those claims and he has also mentioned that he has turned down requests for interviews from various TV/radio stations, etc. because he feels he stated his case as best as he could in the Crain's piece. The Behren's article is cited so many times that I am not suggesting replacing it with the Crain's one at all; that would be to the detriment of the article. Personally, I think a single sentence or two mentioning this is probably OK. I only posted the song lyrics for reference, I wasn't really suggesting that something that detailed should be added to the article. If the links to both articles are given, a reader who wants to know more details can just click on the links. One suggestion that might possibly work is just a brief mention after the Harry Wayne Casey/Dahl quotes. Maybe something like "Even 35 years after the event there is still quite a difference of opinion on this point with Dahl stating blah, blah, blah in an opinion piece written for Crain's Chicago and Mark. W. Anderson stating blah, blah, blah in response in a post on the website for WMAQ-TV NBC's Chicago affiliate." That's a really rough draft and I don't suggest adding exactly that to the article, but it might be something to build off of. So, if the consensus is not to add the new stuff at the moment, then the Crain's info will still be here on talk for later reference in case opinions change later on. FWIW, I have a feeling that this is the only aspect of this event that is still seen as somewhat controversial, if that makes sense at all. All of the other facts have been pretty well documented, so I don't see many ways to expand the article in those areas. I'm not saying that the article should be expanded just for the sake of expansion because it is well written as it stands, but this is the one area where new information and interpretations will seemingly always be available. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it again. I was still planning to add the lyrics as a quote box.  My time is limited until Tuesday, so I may be slow.  Possibly it could be focused on Dahl's claim that the interest in gay/color came from a VH1 documentary, which Anderson ridicules.  That would tie it in with the scholarly analyses we have cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey there's no rush. I'm sorry if I made it seem like it was. I just thought it would something worth discussing. I'm not very WP:BOLD when it comes to editing; I prefer to discuss and build a consensus when there are a few people working on a page since it seems to ensure that whatever edit is made will be a good one. If the community feels the info should be added, then it makes no difference to me who actually does the editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added something. I'm not truly happy with it because I'm not sure who Mr. Anderson is to have a published opinion on the subject, and right now he's effectively getting the last word.  I may play with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC+9)
 * Whenever the discussion is regarding something controversial, there is, unfortunately, usually no real way to avoid giving somebody the last word. In this particular case, the Anderson stuff has to come after Dahl's Crain's Chicago stuff. Not only is that correct chronologically, but also correct in terms of flow. I am a fan of Dahl's and tend to agree with his assessment, but keeping a NPOV is the most important thing. As long as the WMAQ website satisfies WP:RS (I think it does), I personally don't think "who Anderson is" is sort of relevant. If he's an employee of NBCChicago.com and that website is OK by Wikipedia, then Anderson should also be OK, right? One suggestion I have is to try and add more balance by pitting direct quote against direct quote. Right now, we have an statement about a statement made by Dahl being countered by a direct quote from Anderson. Maybe something like this"Dahl in 2014 stated that the racist/homophobic view of Disco Demolition Night stemmed from a 1996 VH1 documentary, The Seventies, which presented it in that light; According to Dahl, 'We were a bunch of disenfranchised 20-something rockers having some laughs at the expense of older brothers who had the capital and the clothing to hang with the trendy social elite. We were letting off a little steam. Any statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.'[11] Mark W. Anderson, in response, suggested that the event gave the participants an opportunity 'to say they didn't like ... who they saw as the potential victors in a cultural and demographic war ... its [sic] hard to believe few if any of those who organized the event didn't see that underlying reality for what it was'.[46]"One thing about the VH1 stuff that Dahl touches on in the CC article is that he (Dahl) was not interviewed by VH1. An interview was requested, but Dahl says he "blew it off". Over the years, Dahl has said on other occasions that he regrets doing that because he feels it gave VH1 room to interpret things as they did. Not sure if that's something that needs to be added to the article, but it is something that may help explain why Dahl has been a little reluctant to give interviews on DDN since the VH1 piece aired, especially when he feels he is going to be being mischaracterized. FYI, I'm pretty sure that the VH1 piece was Disco Explosion. This is from the Orange County Register via the freelibrary.com; It may show where Dahl is coming from and that not everyone agrees with VH1's treatment of the event. Not sure of the date, but it seems to be from 1996 when the VH1 piece originally aired. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that your proposal is a bit long ... no objection to changing the quote but we shouldn't go too much longer. Consider that a long quote would be a bit like recentism. We're allowing Dahl to explain his actions three separate times in that section, of which the first (the day after) is likely the most honest and the most useful to the reader. Plainly somewhere along the way Dahl's offense got changed from inciting a riot to bigotry, but I am reluctant to accept his word (without doubting it) as to how that came to be.  That information may be out there, or it may come along in the future.  But Dahl's lengthy explanation 35 years after, when he's watched the way culture has turned in this country and he may go down in history as having been on the wrong side of it ... I confess to some reluctance. Was "Disco Explosion" an episode of The Seventies or did they get the name wrong?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Seventies" appears to have been a mini-series and "Disco Explosion" was just one of the episodes. My suggestion was just that. It just seemed more balanced to me if two direct quotes were used instead of an observation and a direct quote. If it won't work, then that's OK. Just felt it was something worth discussing. Regarding the bigotry charge, I don't think the VH1 thing is where that all began, so I disagree with Dahl there. My guess is that the Marsh article was probably the first place to really discuss that perspective and VH1 just was the first to put it on TV. Seeing things on TV as opposed to reading about them in a magazine probably had more of an impact since TV tends to reach a more diversified audience than a rock magazine, right? Maybe that is why Dahl focuses on the VH1 piece.


 * (This next stuff is just for reference in case you're interested. I'm not asking that any of it be added to the article in any shape or form) Dahl has given a few interviews since the VH1 piece, including this one to BBC-radio early in 2013 . He felt, however, that the BBC did things slightly differently from how they said they would when they proposed the interview, so he has declined their requests for more interviews. There was also this from 2013 and this  from 2009 (The local news coverage from the night is interesting). Also, not sure if you knew this but there was talk in the early 2000s of making a movie about the event. Studio meetings and all that took place and money was on the table, but negotiations stalled and nothing materialized. Recently, however, those talks have picked up again, but still nothing definite has been decided. There's also a DVD documentary of the event   that was released in 2004 for the 25th Anniversary. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks on those. I rarely have time to do update research so it is helpful to have those links.  My policy on movie proposals is to wait until they happen as they generally don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Balance
I feel that the article currently gives far too much weight to the "it was racist/homophobic" viewpoint, whereas it doesn't give enough coverage to the viewpoint that it had nothing to do with homophobia or racism. Here's an article with quotes from many people who were there or involved who explain their viewpoint. And Tribune columnist Robert Feder writes about a new book by Dave Hoekstra that offers similar non-racist viewpoints. . The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will look them over. But the scholarly view is what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Slate" link to complete game on YouTube
I think the link to Slate article linking to a YouTube upload of the complete game is probably a violation of WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. I highly doubt that the YouTube uploader holds the original copyright on that original footage and based upon the channel's description it appears that the uploader knows this and could care less. Same goes for the Slate author, who might have been as diligent as he should have been. Even trying to link this as a reliable source is probably also not OK as explained in WP:EL. Sometimes bits and pieces of copyrighted content can be linked to under a claim of fair use, but I don't think 3+ ours of footage is going to be seen as fair use. I've posted a Please see at WP:ELN to see others can help clarify this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My thought was that it's pretty prominent on Slate and the rights holder, if any, hasn't objected. And I'm watching the telecast and I'm in the 7th inning and I haven't heard the copyright notice.  It may not be copyrighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that all the rights of broadcasts to MLB games are held by MLB and the individual teams involved. This might allow fair use of certain highlights of a game for news purposes, but I don't believe it allows uploading a complete broadcast of a game where it can be downloaded by others. I think its like VCRing any other TV show in that simply copying it in and of itself is a "mechanical reproduction", not any transfer of copyright. It might be acceptable for you to do something like that strictly for home use, but uploading things to YouTube might be considered a form of distribution, even if no money is being made by the YouTube uploader. Not sure how this would be any different from uploading entire movies/TV shows to YouTube, etc. where others can download them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that was the case in 1979, when teams had broadcast TV contracts and all there was regular season on the networks was a Saturday and maybe a Monday telecast.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think MLB might still own the rights to even these old games, but if they don't then somebody probably (perhaps the White Sox, Tigers, Channel 44 or all three combined) does and I don't think that somebody is the YouTube uploader. I also think we are not talking about this or this type of thing. Anyway, I could be totally or partially wrong which is why I posted a link at WP:ELN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Someone will know.  I didn't hear any copyright notice, but there are bits and pieces, for example some of the lead up to the explosion, missing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be something worth considering adding to the article as a content/source in the "Reaction and aftermath" section or as an external link. Also, this column by Robert Feder might also be a candidate for inclusion as article content or an external link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyrights do not expire in the US (see Copyright law of the United States) so it is certainly still copyrighted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Classifying Jimmy Carter as a "centrist"
Not sure how classifying Jimmy Carter as a "centrist" as made by this and this edit is relevant to this particular article an improvement unless it's something that Zeitz used himself to refer to Carter. I'm not saying that Carter was not a "centrist" (though that term is not used to describe him anywhere in Jimmy Carter), just that it does not seem to be really needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not only is it relevant, it is basically the point of the entire sentence, namely that certain voters were rejecting the middle and going back and forth between the extremes. Carter is described elsewhere on wikipedia as a moderate with appeal to Northern religious conservatives, and if those phrases are more palatable to you, so be it.  I simply used 'centrist' because an early version of this very article described him as such, most likely for exactly the reasons I gave.  The phrase was deleted by an editor with no further contributions to the page for exactly the reason you've rejected, namely that carter COULDN'T be a centrist, a view which seems to be more of a regretful commentary on the current polarized state of US politics than one of historical accuracy.  63.143.235.135 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you the same editor who initially added that bit to the article? Just asking for reference because this is the third different IP (without any editing history or history of editing this article prior to today) which is making edits/commenting about this today. It might help if you could edit from one account or identified whether you are one and the same, so that it does not appear to be different people editing/posting. Moreover, my removal does not really have anything to do with the current state of US politics or historical accuracy so please try and WP:AGF. If the Zetiz source cited refers to Carter as a "centrist", then it seems OK here; if not, then it seems like WP:SYN or WP:OR to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not the original editor. I get whatever address my ISP assigns.   Not sure where you got I was saying YOUR edit had anything to do with politics or history, I'm referring to the poor reason given for the original deletion done here  of this edit .  Not sure what source says, but maybe it also doesn't say Kennedy and Reagan were liberal and conservative, and I don't we should delete those characterizations either. 63.143.236.38 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you considered registering for an account since this is IP #4. It just might make it clear that you are always the same person if a new IP doesn't appear any time you make a new post/edit. What the source says is extremely important because article content, for the most part, is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources say; it's not intended to reflect our own opinions or interpretations. Since the sentence about Kennedy and Reagan begins with "he notes...", I'm assuming in good faith that is how Zeitz decsribes them. If he describes Carter as a centrist then that should be re-added. If you've read the source and say that's the case, then re-add it. I'm assuming that since you know how to find diffs that you're not a total newbie, and you do have a valid point about the other IP's removal/edit sum. My suggestion is that if it reflects Zeitz, then either a new citation be added or an exisitng citation moved after the Carter sentence to make that point clearer. Maybe move citation 45 to the end of the sentence? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't be registering. Of course, sourcing is very important, but if we are going to eliminate text based on sourcing doubts, we should remove the entire phrase beginning with "both times".  The entire phrase was inserted during one edit, any source doubts would be applicable to the entire phrase, and the article would be improved by eliminating it in its entirety and not only one word.  I'm not sure how easily available the Zeitz article is but will try to retrieve it63.143.224.57 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK IP#5. I'll ping since, IP#4 pointed out above, he added the bit about Carter appears to also have been the one who originally added the content about Zeitz here back in February 2013, so he probably is familiar with the Zeitz source and can clear this up no problem. Welwhat usually reponds fairly quickly to questionable edits made to this article, and  actually made this edit two edits after IP 71.36.245.42's removal of this bit about Carter but did not revert IP 71.36.245.42's edit itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote: "But it is worth remembering that the same demographic group that raged against disco in 1979 swung the most wildly between left and right in the following year's election cycle. Roughly 27 per cent of Democratic primary voters who backed liberal senator Edward Kennedy against incumbent President Jimmy Carter backed Ronald Reagan in the general election. Most of these crossover voters were blue-collar men - a demographic group that broke for Reagan by a margin of six points. Viewed in this light, Disco Demolition Night supports a different interpretation of the 1970s as a decade that saw ordinary Americans gravitate to radical grassroots alternatives, both left and right, out of frustration with the political center." Although it does not directly call Carter a centrist, I felt it was implied by the analogy that ends the passage.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A reasonable inference, note also that the passage doesn't say Reagan is a conservative but that remains in our article. Again, the reason given for the deletion was not that it was uncited, but that it wasn't true, a view I find to be greatly oversimplified at best.  63.143.226.149 (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IP#6: I don't think we should "say" that Zeitz categorized either Reagan or Carter as such if he did not do so. Maybe the best thing is to stick as closely to the source as possible and leave out any interpretations we may have based upon it. Maybe we can add more of the Zeitz quote to include the bit about "different interpretation of the 1970s..."? This may be a bit off point, but recently I have seen some comparisons of Carter and Trump in some articles. These comparisons don't focus on Carter being a centrist, but rather more on him being an outsider to national party politics. I'm not criticising him for this, but I think we probably should avoid adding our own WP:SYN to what sources say; otherwise, we may also be accussed of oversimplfying things ourselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would definitely be a case of WP:SYN to say he's "centrist" based off of that quote. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The author's citing frustration with the political center and the only example given is Carter. Not much synthesis there. I think a direct quote is a very good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's the exact definition of WP:SYN: "...imply a conclusion not explicitly stated..." Now, a direct quote is something else entirely; otherwise you're drawing your own conclusion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As may be. In any event, I wonder if it is worth quoting, or if we should cut the whole bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cut it as it has proven contentious. If anybody else wants to take a stamp at phrasing it they are welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We may be accused of harming the article if the best solution we can come up with is removing the entire passage, and we may be accused of being obtuse if we argue that Zeitz doesn't consider Carter to have been representative of the US political center. He argues the 1970s were a decade that "saw ordinary Americans gravitate to radical grassroots alternatives, both left and right, out of frustration with the political center." and cites as evidence the US Presidential election where "roughly 27 per cent of Democratic primary voters who backed liberal senator Edward Kennedy against incumbent President Jimmy Carter backed Ronald Reagan in the general election."  How can Carter be anything but the "political center" in this example?
 * Your comment about Carter being an outsider is more than a "bit" off point, unless you are arguing we include it in the article, a synthesis far more egregious than anything entered so far. 63.143.239.33 (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * IP#7: My "outsider" comment was a bad attempt at showing that such labels can be contentious. I don't any such labels should be added unless they reflect the cited sources. So, my original suggestion is still the same: we should stick to the cited source as closely as possible and leave the interpretation of the source to others. If we quote Zeitz directly and attribute/cite him accordingly per MOS:QUOTE, then that's fine. On the other hand, if we start interpretating Zeitz, then in my opinion that would be WP:SYN. I could see adding the "grass roots..." part of the quote, but the question then is how much of Zeitz should be covered per WP:UNDUE. I think that the current version is fine. If you want to propose a re-write, then please do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If I can't insert an innocuous word into a sentence without getting reversed twice and spawning a talk page discussion quickly reaching the length of the article itself, I suspect my efforts at a rewrite would be as successful as your efforts to get me to register. I'm beginning to think that if a source mentioned the Pythagorean Theorem and mentioned a 3,4,5 triangle as an example, I'd be accused of synthesis if the citation didn't specifically say the longest side was the hypotenuse.  So the article will have to say in its present truncated and decayed state, until a more skilled writer comes along, or at least one better able to demonstrate the pretty obvious. 63.143.225.25 (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not anxious to do it myself, but if someone else wants to do it, I'll clean up the prose and whatnot as needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disco Demolition Night. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504172447/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=behrens%2F040809 to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=behrens%2F040809

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disco Demolition Night. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523105634/http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-060520cubicle,0,7421730,print.column to http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-060520cubicle,0,7421730,print.column

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Revert
Regarding this revert, specifically: "Please do not mess with what is included in quotations without having read the sources. I'd rather have the source's words than someone else's characterization."

Direct quotes are an indispensible part of Wikipedia, but can be overused. There is no advantage to using them when the same information can be succintly paraphrased - it takes up less space and lowers the risk of copyright problems. As per MOS:QUOTATIONS: It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright).

When I paraphrased quotations, I did read the sources in some (but not all) cases and was satisfied I understood the quoted sections. The part I most significantly rewrote was the account of Dahl's op-ed, which I think was confusingly represented - I had to read the source to make sense of it. Obviously any mistakes I added need to be corrected, but if you could point out examples where my paraphrasing created a misrepresentation, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As per your suggestion in your revert, I've now reinstated most of my copy edits bit-by-bit, with the exception of the paraphrasing. I believe the edits only simplify sentences and remove unnecessary words without removing relevant information. Let me know if I screwed anything up. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I spoke too soon; I didn't see you'd reverted another, earlier copyedit by me too. I'm surprised by this - I believe the majority of these edits are harmless - so I'm going to restore those with explanations too. We can discuss them here if needed. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, done. Popcornduff (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've kept some, changed some, and reverted some. Some of them are good, some of them are little more than rephrasing without a good enough reason (I've kept a number of those, even so), and some of them I've reverted, for reasons explained in edit summaries. As for quotes, when renovating the article, I chose the portion of quotes I thought best for readers to see directly. I felt your changes lost information or nuance present in the original. I hope you can agree to what I've done as a compromise.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. In response to your argument that some of my changes are "little more than rephrasing without a good enough reason": no - in each case, I removed words, which is a net gain when the words add no value. The question therefore is whether they were adding value. You made a good case for some of them in your recent edit summaries and I'm happy with the compromise.
 * There's only one trivial change I have to question: switching "riot gear" to "full riot gear". The term "riot gear" implies heavy armour and coverage; describing "police in riot gear" conjures images of bulletproof vests, helmets and shields. Saying "full" therefore clarifies nothing - readers won't otherwise wonder if it was only partial riot gear. If you really think this is necessary then I'll drop it. I just want you to understand I'm not making these edits at random.
 * As for the thornier issue of quotes... here's my rationale for the paraphrasing.
 * Dahl stated in a 2004 interview that disco was "probably on its way out. But I think [Disco Demolition Night] hastened its demise" I paraphrased this as: Dahl stated in a 2004 interview that disco had likely been "on its way out", but that Disco Demolition Night had "hastened its demise". The reason is that the original phrasing is ambiguous; it could mean that Dahl thought disco was "on its way out" in 2004, or in 1979.
 * I corrected the errors in the Anderson quotes - such as "its" instead of "it's" - as they are trivial. This is per WP:QUOTE, which states Exceptions are trivial spelling or typographical errors that obviously do not affect the intended meaning; these may be silently corrected.
 * I rewrote this part significantly based on the source, as I find it difficult to understand: The event's misunderstood historical relevance he blamed on "the lens of 1996 sensibilities" that framed the 1996 mini-series "VH1 Presents the 70's" after Dahl missed a scheduled interview with VH1 producers. There are way too many ideas crammed into one sentence; how is Dahl missing an interview connected to this "lens"? Checking the source, it's unclear if he's explicitly suggesting they did this as "revenge" or whatever, so I trimmed that - and it seems more important to report why he thought the view was flawed (it is "a cheap shot made without exploration"). Also, writing "misunderstood historical relevance" here is a WP:POV problem as it presumes the relevance is misunderstood in the first place. Popcornduff (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the origninal source anymore as I did not renew my SABR membership, but as I recall, the source used "full riot gear". Wearing riot gear could mean they had only some, a helmet, say, and a shield, "full riot gear emphasizes that they wore the works. I think it makes it clearer.
 * Regarding Dahl's 2004 quote, I don't see that as ambiguous, especially in light of the rest of the article. His view is that whether or not disco was on its way out, DDN gave it a healthy shove in that direction.
 * I'm OK with correcting typos, but you also changed the capitalization and that I think we should leave alone.
 * I see your point on the 1996 matter, it probably could use a bit more clarity.
 * Thank you for working to improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I altered the capitalization of "Disco Sucks" to make it consistent with Wikipedia capitalization style. I see this as a harmless modification in line with WP:QUOTE policy, and removes no information or nuance from the quote, but I appreciate that others disagree and I can live without it.
 * What do you want to do about the VHS documentary quote? Are you happy for me to restore my version or do you have other ideas? Popcornduff (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean VH1, I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Attempted clean up reverted with "many changes, don't agree"
Simple copy edits and clean up edits were just reverted without explanation. Trying to clean it up because it's to be a featured article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is already featured. I think such things as removal of the reason disco is called disco reflect your personal preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a workaround to avoid the completely unnecessary "sic", and since this is not an article about disco, there's no reason to explain its etymology, like we don't explain why the White Sox are called the White Sox. And undoing the entirety of the edit because of your personal preference on that one phrase is a misuse of the revert. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more than that. You left discothèques accented and unlinked in the article, without explanation. You removed a comma that needed to be there. The repetition "music fans rather than baseball fans" was unneeded. You removed several refs. At the least, it might have been best to do this piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, as someone who has also written FAs, I understand the urge to defend good articles, but I think it might be worth dropping your guard a little here. Having said that it's good to see some compromises have been found.
 * I support the removal of the explanation of the "disco" etymology. This isn't the place for that information. Popcornduff (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very well, as a compromise, I've dropped it to a footnote.==Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still oppose a footnote as it's completely superfluous. Popcornduff (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? It's a background section. This is background about disco.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But you already know that not every piece of information about disco is worth adding to the background section. If that were true, we'd just copy-paste the entire disco article. Instead, the info has to be relevant to the topic of the article, the demolition night. Explaining that disco is a popular music genre, was associated with gay and black culture etc, led to a culture war etc is relevant. The history of the word disco isn't - it doesn't aid understanding anything else in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. My feeling is that nightclubs/discotheques is where disco music came from, alongside the cultures which were major contributors to it. At one point, we went so far as to mention that DJs played it to get the crowd moving. Mentioning it helps explain where it came from before Saturday Night Fever made it mainstream, setting the stage for the cultural clash which expressed itself in Disco Demolition Night.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true - but already covered better in the first sentence: "Disco evolved in the early 1970s inner-city New York clubs". Popcornduff (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, congrats on being the first person I've persuaded to change their mind on Wikipedia in some time... Popcornduff (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The repetition "music fans rather than baseball fans" is clearer: it's comparing two fan bases, not baseball fans and music. I didn't remove any refs (at least, not intentionally), but bundled many per WP:CITEBUNDLE. I didn't remove any links to discotheques, and accented as it is accented in disco. I removed superfluous commas and added needed commas. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like what Popcornduff did on the fans issue. And thank you for your edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Day of the week
As I read the article, when I came to the part about Dahl's regular broadcast the next day, I wondered what day of the week this took place. I had to go to timeanddate.com and use that site's weekday calculator to find out that July 12, 1979 was a Thursday. Is this something that could be useful to include in the article? &mdash;⁠184.248.94.218 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so. I've added it to both lede and body and do not feel the day of the week needs to be sourced since anyone can check it against a calendar. Thank you for the contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

40th anniversary
There was coverage on the 40th anniversary last week, including the debate over the cultural effect. I don't have time right now, but there might be things worth adding.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an Yahoo Music article I saw, but it seemed more of an interview with Vince Lawrence and his recollections/feelings about the event than anything else. It might be worth considering in the context of how some at the time and some still even today perceive the event. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This Article is a Complete Mess
This article is trying to include the Anti Disco Movement in an entry about a baseball game. Too much background information about Disco Sucks is included and needs to be moved to a new entry. The suggested title would be "Anti Disco Movement" in which this incident could be mentioned in passing with a hyperlink to this article. Ty78ejui (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)