Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 2

covers
i see alot of song covers being listed, but ive never heard about these covers. take for example the public enemy cover. where is it from? i assume alot of them are live, but i really dont know


 * If they're just songs that they performed live once, I would question them being listed at all. You may as well credit them with covering "Happy Birthday" or "Auld Lang Syne" at that point... should be cited... there's a whole lot of content on this page that's without any sort of citation. Xinit 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like all of it . maxcap 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... there's at least a couple articles hiding in there that could be split off. Part of me wonders about how much of it is plaigarism too.... Xinit 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both points, I did an edit that kept being reverted if you care to take a look and share your thoughts. I like your intro bettermaxcap 22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to get heavy-handed on the current revision, and remove entire sections like the "Sound philosophy" section and others... The Covers list is another that would go away... possibly to its own article? Also, the external links section's getting lame. I think I'll have to think about this for a while before I start slashing. Xinit 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins
Does anyone know why they called the first disc Jupiter and the second disc Mars? It would be a real help if the origins were posted on the website. thx Wikipedia Stubmechanic 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

---

They didn't want to call the discs "Disc 1" and "Disc 2" or A and B - that's why they came up with these names. It was mainly John Frusciante's idea to name them after planets (see recent Q&A at AOL music). He's been into astrology lately and said that the planet Mars stood not only for war but also for standing up for what you think is right. Jupiter is the planet of creativity or something like that. Also, they thought naming one cd 1 and the other 2, meant that the second cd would sound lesser, being number two.

I hope, I could help and it's clear now. :) Unfrieden 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

links
i made links to a few names in the second section. ;)

User: The Updater 20:23, 1 April 2006 (AEDT)


 * Please stop removing the links to stadium-arcadium and onehotglobe. They both contain a wealth of accurate, original, and exclusive information relating to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Surely both these sites only add to the integrity of this wikipedia page by providing fans with additional channels to gain knowledge on the band. User: If you have to ask, you'll never know


 * You are forgetting to include what I'm asking for; a case bases on WP:EL (see below). Xinit 15:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you ask, doesnt mean you'll get. ReadyMade


 * That's fine; but if you can't provide a reason to keep something in the article, then it gets removed. If anyone can provide good reasons, referencing WP:EL for including one fan site, then it can be included.  In keeping with the established guides for music group articles, fan sites are typically not included.  Make a case and save yourself the trouble. Xinit 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Enjoy your miserable life. ReadyMade


 * Well, it's far from miserable... but does this mean you're leave WP? If you use tildes (~) rather than hyphens (-) you'll find that you're able to sign your own entries. Xinit 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I keep putting up a link for the One Hot Globe site (which has been around for a few years and was even voted a top site by MTV in 2002) but it keeps getting removed because it's said to be a trivia page, which it is far from. It has been one of the top RHCP news sources on the internet (we have broke RHCP news on there long before the official site has mentioned anything due to news writers being from all over the world). It has been known as one of the top RHCP fansites/news sources on the net for a while and we are very professional and dedicated to what we do. The page is going under some changes and should be re-done soon. --Jason1978 7:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:EL regarding things that may occasionally be linked: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.) The thing is that you really shouldn't be linking to a site that you maintain; ("we have broke...") ever. Check the "Links to normally avoid" section of WP:EL for example, especially items 1 (unverified original research), 2, and 11. Xinit 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really want to help improve the article on WP, perhaps you can help cite the information listed in this article; such as the sales information, quotes from the band about internal squables, etc etc... promoting your site isn't nearly as important in the eyes of WP editorial staff Xinit 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Cleanup tag
This article could be tightened up a bit. Some of it could be moved to the RHCP discograpy page. The history secion is largely redundant with the individual album pages. maxcap 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) I cleaned that section up a bit, removed some POV, copyedited. I also removed the bits about the concerts this year and the SNL appearance, it's just not that important. Although if anyone could find out when their first SNL appearance was that might be worth adding as it's sort of a milestone in a bands career.maxcap 18:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the history section is redundant. You can't have an article about a band without including the bands history. What else is there? S t. J immy 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I retract that statement, sorry. It was kind of a knee jerk reaction from my initial scan of the article, and after I edited it a bit I should have corrected that statement. Still the article has issues. Bits could be implemented better as part of the idividual album pages though, for example: "Described as straightout funk played at a punked out speed" from the Freaky Styley section;"Still, the album mixture of thrashed funk, psychedelia, and punk" from the Uplift Mofo Party Plan section; "an energetic mixture of funk, rap, metal and jazz" from the Mothers MIlk section, etc. Those statements are pretty much saying the same thing to me, and would fare better on the album pages at least up until "One Hot Minute" which is probably their first big departure from the punk/funk formula.


 * Then there's the POV and weasel phrases, and unsourced statements.
 * "The band is unique by being the first rock band in the world to fuse punk and funk, or "White sound" with "Black sound", way before Aerosmith and Run DMC featured "Walk This Way", "Walk This Way" bears a strong resemblance to the RHCP's song "Fight Like a Brave" from their 1987 album The Uplift Mofo Party Plan and might have been influenced by the latter." "The band's most prominent contribution to the rock world would be crossing over to both white and black audiences and making rap music more attractive and plausible to the white audience. Even though most fans don't know much about the formative years of the Red Hot Chili Peppers in the '80s, it was the backbone of their more renowned work from the '90s and 2000s." Honestly, what the hell is this? They weren't the first. That was already discussed above. Then the bit about "white sound" and "black sound" which is just purely ignorant. Then the bit about Run DMC which is pure speculation. Then the bit about their contribution to rock, which is again, ignorant. There is Elvis Presley after all, and Pat Boone. Rock has a long history of trying (succesfully, I might add) to make black music palatable for white audiences. Then, the "most fans" bit which is speculative.


 * "Many RHCP fans argue, that unless Frusciante joined the band in 1989 or should the band had stuck with Dave Navarro for the production of Californication, the result would've been different, as the former is considered to be a major creative force behind the success of the band, and it would've remained/relegated to an insignificant and amaturish one that would never make it to stardom rather than a prominent band in the 1990s and 2000s. They would argue that it was Frusciante's return which made Californication successful, as all the sold-out albums of the Red Hot Chili Peppers were produced after his joining/rejoining the band - Mother's Milk, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Californication and By The Way." complete speculation, prefaced by a weasel phrase.


 * "The band's switch to Warner Bros., its hiring of Rick Rubin as a producer and its bringing John Frusciante into the fold are the 3 major decisions that propelled it to a major commercial and musical success." speculative, unverifiable.


 * ", but the Clear Channel Entertainment UK promoted and produced RHCP shows, blew the competition out of the water." POV, sounds like an employee of Clear Channel wrote that one.


 * The greatest hits albums, "Rare Remix" aren't a big deal. And probably don't need to in the text of the article. It's filler. The Stadium Arcadium section is full of random stuff as well. Like the tour dates announcment, big deal. The bits about the festivals are important if this will be their first time playing those festivals, and it should say so.


 * Finally, the list of cover songs is better suited on the discography page, as are the singles chart positions.maxcap 19:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

SALES
the sales are Red Hot Chili Peppers - 300 000 units worldwide Freaky Styley - 500 000 units worldwide The Uplift Mofo Party Plan - 750 000 units worldwide Mother's Milk - 2 million units worldwide Blood Sugar Sex Magik - 12 million units worldwide One Hot Minute - 5 million units worldwide Californication - 15 million units worldwide By the Way - 10 million units worldwide Stadium Arcadium - 1 million worldwide data update 15 may 2006

stop change it, with other data, specially with only RIAA data that is only for U.S.A. sales.

Allmusic link for similar artists
for me allmusic list for similar/influenced is a bit wrong..for me was better the last. zagozagozago

I like the idea from an exploratory point of view, but it's still subjective. It's probably better to let the people at All Music Guide be subjective. maxcap 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Chart
i put album data in chart in US UK and Germany...maybe is not the better page...for the format of the page. for you is better put it in "red hot chili peppers discography" page?? zagozagozago 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to keep everything together, yes, it should be on the Discography page. WesleyDodds 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i do it zagozagozago 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Petty - Red Hot Chilli Peppers
"Dani California" = Plagirised (Don't know if that's spelt right) Version of "Mary-Jane's Last Dance" by Tom Petty. There is a sound file somewhere on Totse.com that shows you this. It talks about how there is the same chord progressions and even sounds the same. Also, the drum beats match up when they are mixed side-by-side. RCHP have now lost my respect. J

Yeah I heard about this and they are almost identical, shouldn't something about this be included in the article? Thunder Cat 09:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.musictimes.com.au/chili-peppers-accused-of-plagiarism/

It should be noted that the chord structure if very common. The singing melodies are completely different and the only thing the same is the verse chord structure. I don't think this is notable or worth including into the article. I really doubt RHCP would intentionally copy Tom Petty. The claim itself is ridiculous. PrettyMuchBryce 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree! It is just some guy Jared Morris (see http://www.jared-morris.com/") who is getting his 15 minutes fame by making a slanderous accusation. He even sped up the Petty song, to make it fit better his purposes. "Dani" and the Petty song does share the four (very common) shords in the verse. That's it. One could go search for "plagiarism" in jazz, blues, do-wop, etc. and find zillion of songs that sounds the same. This is not the same as plagiarism. In any case, including rumors, allegations and discussions currently floating around on the net should not be included in an encyclopedic article.--HJ 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as likely that "dani california" would have existed as it does without the petty song. the second i heard the single on the radio i pointed out the similarity to the person i was in the car with, and this was a few months ago. also, the chord structure isn't THAT common. am, em, dmaj, em. it's no 1-4-5 progression. i can't think of another song i heard with that progression, especially played in an almost identical rhythm. just saying. i'm not out and out accusing the rhcp of plaigarism, they could have unconciously used the chord progression. i'd personally like to hear a comment on the accusations from their camp. anyway, i think it's worth mentioning the debate on their main page, regardless of the veracity, it looks as if petty may take legal action.

did you ever hear the neil hamburger rhcp joke?

what's the difference beetween harriet tubman and the red hot chili peppers?

well, harriet tubman was a heroine to slaves, and the red hot chili peppers were slaves to heroin! --Friendship hurricane 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Last I check, it's mentioned on the Dani California page, so no worries. Eiffelle 23:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy Gill
Is it worth mentioning that Andy Gill was the guitarist in Gang of Four, and that Entertainment! was a record that a record Flea cited as one of the biggest influences of the groups early sound? (Sergelapelle 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

TV & Film
The TV & Film section is getting a bit out of control. I appreciate the latest additions, but this is growing beyond the scope of the band... Appearances by a member by themselves should be listed on that individual's article, while appearances by the BAND should remain here. Flea in a move; on his page. The band on Simpsons; here.

I'll be taking the machete to that section later in the day, so speak now... Xinit 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much information (in general)
We've got to come to some sort of agreement on where to draw the line. Some of the newer additions, while good, are better suited to the individual album pages. The more stuff that gets added just invites people to add more trivial stuff. maxcap 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Good Article" Candidate
This will never be a good article; too many people are wanting to control it, and now it's filled with pointless information. No it is not getting better, it is getting progressively worse and it is the worst band article of any I have seen on Wikipedia. This is an encylopedia; we're trying to make this an article that the average person that is ignorant to the Red Hot Chili Peppers as a whole would actually be able to learn from and gather from. I'll be willing to work with anyone to create a cohesive and much cleaner rewrite of the entire Red Hot Chili Peppers article. -- Parallel Universe


 * I'm not seeing any fight for control outside of the EL issues. Look at the article as it stood even a month ago and you'll see that it is better; trivia has been removed, much POV has been excised, and structure has been tightened. What are the immediate issues you see with the article as it stands, or are you suggesting a full rewrite? --Xinit 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fansite Debate
Not that I am connected to any of the fan sites, I find it wrong that only "stadiumarcadium.com" only gets their links to be posted, while other credible and popular fan sites (such as The Red Hot Stadium, the Italian Red Hot Chili Peppers website, and One Hot Globe news website) gets their links pulled time and time again. It's not fair at all. If no other legitimate fan sites can have their links posted besides StadiumArcadium.com, which is nothing more than an uninformative forum, then NO fan sites, that are equally legitimate (or else they would not be posted here in the first place), should have their links posted. -- Parallel Universe

i agree with Parallel Universe. why is it that "stadiumarcadium.com" is the only fansite that gets to put up their link to their site? there are plenty of other sites and it doesnt have to be just them. everytime i come here i see only stadium-arcadium.com on the external links. but where are the other good sites? nowhere to be found. i am accusing stadium-arcadium.com of being selfish and childish. i believe that all the good RHCP sites deserve a chance to promote their website here. it is absolutely unnaceptable that only one site should be promoted here. -- regrhcp


 * Stadium-arcadium gets pulled off 2 or 3 times a day as well. The person that puts it up is just a more persistant spammer. Take it down. And just a reminder, wikipedia isn't here to promote fansites good or not. maxcap 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be the case, however, I feel that if there are going to be fansites posted on here, then other fansites should have the chance to be posted also. -- Paralleluniverse


 * I've referenced WP:EL on a number of instances; this isn't about being fair. The external links are there for reference, and if a topic has many fan sites, sometimes it is a good idea to link to one of them.  This is not the place to catalog all the fan sites for a band... if there were a meta page out there listing thousands of fan sites, then I'd consider linking to that rather than picking one specific site to link. --Xinit 21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i have gone to every page relating to RHCP on wikipedia and i have seen the external links with only stadiumarcadium.com on many of these pages. if that isnt childish and selfish then i dont know what is. i think all links to fansites should be removed if this kind of behavior is going on. it is unfair to the other fansites and actions must be taken to stop stadiumarcadium from being selfish and power hungry. Regrhcp


 * stop whining and take action and remove them. maxcap 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * im not whining. i have been taking the links off but they keep on putting them back, dick. Regrhcp


 * You're making terribly mis-guided assumptions. Stadium-arcadium.com has not attempted to muscle in on other fansites. The link to stadium-arcadium has just been back more intensively after being removed so often - like all the other worthy fansites have. ReadyMade


 * yeah and when those other links are removed which one is still there? stadiumarcadium.com Regrhcp


 * What are you suggesting idiot? So stadium-arcadium has been replaced as quick as its been removed today. Get over it. Note to Parallel Universe: stadium-arcadium contains a wealth of exlcusive information relating to the band, so please keep your ignorant comments to yourself when they're based on a mis-guided assumption in the first place. ReadyMade


 * then who the fuck keeps deleting all the links!?? fucking assholes Regrhcp


 * Xinit and Maxcap ReadyMade

User Readymade has been blocked for violation of WP:3RR and spamming maxcap 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Maxcap and Xinit are the patron saints of this page or something? As far as I am concerned, this page is still garbage.
 * If you think the article is garbage then you should explain why, so some attempt can be made to fix it's garbageness maxcap 18:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

no theyre dicks. -- anonymous bitches Regrhcp


 * You should log out before adding comments like that... I've explained why the URLs are removed, and you choose to take the work of a spammer over mine? If you have something to contribute, speak up, but if all you're good for is complaining about the status quo, you're of no use... I believe the expression is "put up or shut up." --Xinit 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i believe the expression is bite me

I have put up the One Hot Globe link a couple of times to have it removed so I have stopped posting the link. I don't see the problem with putting up fansites just as long as not every single one of them are up there and there really aren't alot of RHCP sites out there though a few new ones like the Stadium Arcadium site (which is just a message board really) has popped up recently. In One Hot Globe's defense they have been noticed by the band's label. Last month we had a RHCP cd single contest made possible by the band's management and label so OHG is not just a bunch of gossip and talking about how hot Anthony is. AOL has also made their AOL sessions available to OHG, the only RHCP site other than the official site which was given permission to use them. OHG has also been mentioned on mtv.com. I'm not here to bitch or cry because it's just a internet link but most of the other band pages on here allow more than one link. I mean you guys keep removing the RHCP/Warner ran MySpace page link too, which is not a fansite, it's official. I understand you guys have rules to keep the page under control and that's understandable. I'm not here to call names. It's just a freakin' link so if you want it off i'll play by the rules. Jason1978

Political views, and trivia section, format

 * Anyone opposed to integrating the songs mentioned in the political views section into the body of the text and dropping the section altogether? On a related note can anyone help provide sources for the claims made there because aside from Power of Equality it's been a bitch finding anything.
 * I'm going to give this a couple of days, then move the info contained in the section to the album pages for the songs that are mentioned. maxcap 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the trivia section; I hate trivia sections these sort of things just become fluff dumps and I almost deleted it on sight. The thing is for me, if it's trivial it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry. i would appreciate some comments on this.


 * And the format, I'm 50/50 on the album headings chronology, I see the point of organizing it this way, but it kind of make the article look messy. Maybe we could condense to 3 or 4 sections instead of 11? 12:53, 14 June 2006 Maxcap


 * I'm with you on the trivia section; if it can't be integrated into the body, it's not worth having. It's like the huge numbers of EL on some articles; they make more sense when they're used as references than as bare EL... See Pearl Jam for an example of an over-loaded EL section.
 * I'd argue in favour of moving solely to a year-range heading (1995-2000, 2003, etc) --Xinit 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)