Talk:G N' R Lies

Untitled
I've removed the following sentence from the bit about One In A Million:

"Guns N' Roses was excluded from the Band Aid festival for that reason."

Two reasons:

1) 'Band Aid' relates to the various recordings of Do They Know It's Christmas?. Live Aid was the festival.

2) Live Aid was in 1985 - three years before the rase of the song, and before GnR had released anything!

More One in a Million talk
A user early in the day edited the article, stating that "One in a Million" was never removed in future releases of the album. I agree with the user because I still see the songs at my local music stores. Plus, all of the CDs seem newly made. So should that part of the article be changed or removed? --Snkcube 06:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Songwriting credits
Can someone please add the credits as to who wrote Move To The City and Reckless Life? I couldn't find them listed anywhere (and if you know that anyone besides Axl wrote One In A Million, please add that, I just guessed that he wrote it based on what I read about it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.186.60 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

What picture?
"most notably in Rock in Rio in 1991 which produced the widely used picture of Axl Rose and Slash back-to-back, occurring at the end of the song" I'd like to see this picture? Superior1 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Studio album
They say it's a studio album, and a like this, but it's much more EP or maybe even Compilation like. Could we have a reason for the record being called a studio album 77.99.231.37 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Was it released in 1988 or 1989? This article says both... Sleitfelt (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was released in 1988. 88.91.151.118 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Fixed the bare URLs. DustyCoffin (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of album title
On the german article's talk page a discussion launched on how to translate the album's title. Hence the meaning of the title is disputed. "lies" could be the plural of the substantive lie as well as the third person singular of the verb to lie. (The translation differs depending on that – there is no similar ambigous wording possible in german.) Disregarding the tabloid newspaper design of the artwork, does this ambiguity matter to a native speaker? It is clear weather it's a noun or a verb? Or does it seem to be deliberately ambigous? Does the verb version sound odd because "G N' R" (after all, a five piece group) never claims a singular verb? Considering the artwork in mind, it may be a newspaper's title (probably, claiming the noun "lies") or a headline (less probably, claiming the verb "lies").

Keeping all this in mind, how does a native speaker grasp the title? Any other hints or notes?

-- Pemu (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WRONG SONGWRITING CREDITS
Used To Love Her and Patience need to swap songwriters. In 88 Axl states, during numerous concerts, that Izzy solely wrote Patience. It’s also mentioned in numerous articles and websites like UltimateClassicRock Top 10 Izzy Stradlin Songs and on Songfacts. Used To Love Her was written by Axl and Izzy, again numerous websites wrote that too. A direct quote by one was Axl Rose wrote the lyrics as a joke-Songfact. Also I’ve heard numerous times that live era 87-93 You Could Be Mine was Buenos Aires 93, NOT Tokyo 92. Yet when I change them some Ringerfan joker changes them back saying I have put inaccurate information down even though I’m sure I have not. (100% on Used To Love Her and Patience) How do I proof this to get this changed permanently? KT032889 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources for information. Please Cite your sources when putting in new information or changing established.RF23 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about album status
I've asked this on the discography page, and I'm asking here as well: GN'R Lies has been said to be a pair of EPs, combining the preexisting one with an acoustic one. For years this was referred to by various sources, and hinted at by the labelling of the two sides of the record as "1986" and "1988" (in addition to including both the "Suicide" and "Lies" covers in the one release). But with the 2018 box set release of Appetite for Destruction, with disc two describing the sets of songs as "EPs", it feels more officially acknowledged by the band that these are two EPs, packaged together as an LP/CD that they don't consider to be amongst their "studio albums". Should this change be made here? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetTaylorJames (talk • contribs)

Opinion does not belong - only fact. Remove an opinion. Please read.  Thank you.
There are too many personal opinions included on Wikipedia. Someone writes about the song 'One in a Million':

'Although the song is not particularly deep and complicated, it is the racial and homophobic slurs that Axl use that really gave birth to the controversy, and it was probably included just to add more drama and sales more copies.'

You do not have a citation that proves that the song was included to add more drama and sell more copies. This is not a fact. If you can find a quote from any of the members of Guns N' Roses at that time - when this track was included - on GNR Lies (at the time it would be Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan, Slash, and Steven Adler) that says that is why the song was added then you can include that quote and then add the citation to prove so. If you can find a quote from a Geffen Records that says that is why the band included the song on their album, GNR Lies, then you could add that quote and cite the quote. Otherwise, it is an opinion. And if you add that they said that you still have to add that this member or this executive at Geffen said that they believed or felt at that time that it was being included for that reason.

It is very unfortunate that many people are afraid to us Wikipedia as a source anymore, or that they are not allowed to use it as a source in school, for their jobs, etc., because it cannot be trusted, but when you add opinions to a page that is supposed to be fact - not an opinion piece - you are only contributing to the problem.

This comment needs to be removed. If we want people to stop putting down Wikipedia, then we need to do our part to be factual and cite all of our contributions and ask ourselves if what we are writing is our opinion or not. If we write someone else's opinion, then we have to state it in a way that ensures the reader knows it is their opinion, too.

Furthermore, the beginning of the sentence is opinion as well. The comment that 'the song is not particularly deep and complicated' is also an opinion. If you want to add quotes from papers or magazines - critical reactions to the song - you can do that and include that under critical reception, etc.

If we want to express our feelings about a song or an album, we can write an essay or opinion piece and publish it somewhere - we can post our opinion in a forum or create a blog or webpage to express our beliefs. We can go on pages such as Genius or Reddit, etc. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for. An encyclopedia is supposed to be fact.

Thank you so much for your time and any and all contributions to Wikipedia. 2600:1700:FE31:3900:4AA:CC16:291E:3904 (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * someone recently inserted this. i've reverted it --FMSky (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)