Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers/Archive 8

Timeline image issues
The timeline image does not reflect the fact that Jack Irons sung backing vocals. 106.68.139.84 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think timelines on Wikipedia traditionally do. OBLIVIUS (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed. AddingInstruments (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hiatus
Since the band is not making music, is not planning on making music, I would consider this to be a hiatus and the are NOT ACTIVE. am i right? so why won't you add it to the main page on the years active section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could the word Hiatus be changed to break or something similar, this is an Americanism in what is supposed to be a worldwide encyclopedia. I've never heard the word used outside of The States. 86.9.225.51 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What word are you thinking? I think hiatus is acceptable, although I do see where you're coming from. I can't think of a better alternative at present. Sky83 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess according to wikipedia we should call it a recess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiatus. I prefer hiatus personally. Nathan (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, but Americans own this site; what they say goes no one else matters. If they can't have it their way, it's no way at all. 82.18.237.233 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about break? But yes you're right hiatus is OK - thanks to the editor who pointed this out to me on another page.82.25.200.157 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While break does seem okay, to me, it's a little too much like 'break up', which is one of the reasons why hiatus has so far worked. It needs to be implicit that it is not a permanent split, more so since this has been hugely debated and quite often why vandalism has taken place on this article. Hiatus isn't a particularly nice word, I just can't think of one that more accurately covers the subject. Sky83 (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus works for me - and I'm English, not American. I struggle to think of another term that would not risk misinterpretation, such as break. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that Hiatus is an Americanism. I'm Canadian and the word is used here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voupi (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stadium Arcadium (2006-present) Section
Could someone fix the Stadium Arcadium (2006-present) Section? It's quite messy and the facts dont't follow each other in order of time. Gibsoninside 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently put the various periods in Chronological order. If there is anything else we want to clean up, please post here. (Yohowithrum (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

someone should include the fact that josh klinghoffer toured with them at this time and was essentially a fifth member of the band during this period...it would be good to have it since he is now rumored to be their axe-manGutscutter (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

By the Way
It says fans were disappointed by that there were only two songs from the albulm "By The Way" on the Greatest Hits album. This is more opinion than fact. Even so, it is known among many fans that that album was a disappointment in general, and the real song that was left out was Around the World from the Californication album.

Delete it, it looks bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.86.26 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I loved By The Way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undervenued (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Biscuits
I'm reading Scar Tissue and the section that discusses Cliff Martinez's departure and it doesn't mention anything about Chuck Biscuits. Where did that come from. 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know why it's there. He was never in the Chili Peppers. NSR 77  T C  21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard that Chuck Biscuits briefly played as a touring drummer for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1986. I'm pretty sure the Red Hot Chili Peppers never recorded any studio recordings with Chuck Biscuits. Gringo300 (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

‘hola ..........
hola q tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.1.203 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a claim such as this is not needed here, I would, however, argue that they have influenced quite a few musicians of the 80's, 90's and 00's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.117.234 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

External link to concert database
Would a database of RHCP's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. http://www.songkick.com/artists/246462-red-hot-chili-peppers? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Band Membership
Hey, I'm pretty sure an article on MusicRadar isn't sufficient evidence to change the 'Current Members' section so that John Frusciante is replaced with Josh Klinghoffer. I checked the band's official website and there's nothing about it there, so I'm reverting the page back to the most recent version with John as a full band member.

Stratpod (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'd like to see an official statement from a band or their label we can cite before we change it. Hopefully, it's all just talk. – Joe   N  22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect its true but it's certainly not confirmed at this point. The idea that his status is listed as "former" as if its fact on both pages (band and his own) is absurd.GuruAskew (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Josh Klinghoffer shouldn't be in the Band Members section before an official statement --Derek gz (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * K, but the articles are completely ignoring all the facts about John leaving the band. All the citations were deleted. Any fan in denial here?--César (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, John has definitely left the band, check his blog here. However, this doesn't mean he's being replaced by Josh. I think John should be removed from the current members but Josh shouldn't be a full member. Seriously, John left, stop being so dramatic about it. 92.85.50.198 (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jonh left, his name should not be on the Band Members Section
 * Still, Josh is not officially a full member yet


 * Again, Josh Klinghoffer shouldn't be in the Band Members section before an official statement. --Derek gz (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, put again the citation of John's blog, he left. And delete the rumors of the replacement, don't add anything until we have something official. --190.161.144.192 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

i've updated the ref on John to point to his personal website, with appropriate date, and also amended the section on Josh to mention that it's a rumour, with ref. Josh has also now been removed from the band members list pending official annoucement. The rumour news articles question whether he has the song writing skills necessary to contribute to RHCP - I wonder if this is why they aren't rushing to confirm it, as they are currently in the studio and are probably trying to see if it works first? Bertcocaine (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement on Jon's blog is unsubstantiated and that should be stated if it is used. Furthermore, it should be stated in the article that the band has "neither confirmed, nor denied John's or Josh's status.  In fact the last official statement form the band is that they will be playing the Musicares tribute on Jan. 29th with the full line up, whatever that means.Gutscutter (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The section has been changed again. It is unclear that Frusciante really wrote the comment on his website and he has not confirmed it verbally.  The Chili peppers have neither confirmed not denied the rumors as well and that needs to be put in this section as well.  John's status will only be official when either he confirms it verbally or the band makes an official announcement.  It is highly likely that it is true, but it is not ironclad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutscutter (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The section was changed by Sky83 to remove any mention of Josh, changed again by someone to include Josh (no ref) and then removed again by Sky83. I agree with Sky83. As to the validity of John's personal website, it is now 4 days since that was published, and it has been widely reported in media aronud the world. If it was not true, it seems likely that someone official would have denied it by now. It is also confirmation of widespread rumours in the industry that it was going to occur - if the personal website of an artist is not a good enough source, then what is? Bertcocaine (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you have said...there would have been a denial if the statement were not valid. It is most factual to state, as you have, that no replacement has been named (we may not know until Jan. 29th!).  Best not to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia that reports hearsay and rumors, only confirmed facts.  It would be factual and informative to report in the Stadium Arcadium section that Josh toured with them and the role that he played ie. essentially a fifth band member...sort of like Clapton becoming the fifth Beatle during the recording of the White Album.Gutscutter (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Josh should be added to the Stadium Arcadium section. I'm not sure the Beatles is an apt comparison - I don't recall so many lineup changes during their career, death of lead members, etc. They stayed together for all their released albums, and then broke up. I strongly suspect the Chili's will continue without John, although it will be interesting to see if they achieve the same success. Going back to my earlier point, I wonder if that's the reason why after a year, and going back into the studio, they have not announced anything - having read Anthony's biography, the process they go through in these circumstances seems a bit random, and I wouldn't mind betting that they are/will be trying to persuade John to rejoin, as happened previously.Bertcocaine (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been seeing Dave Navarro being placed onto the current members (on both the main article and the list of members) repeatedly without a given source. I am getting a bit frustrated, since there has been no announcement from either Navarro or the Chili Peppers. Is there anyway to protect the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members or to leave a note saying something along the lines of "Please do not add Navarro's name to the list"? (since that is where his name keeps showing up most often) WereWolf (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2 points...no substantiation on the navarro thing...it should not be posted. going back to my original comment...the beatles analogy is far fetch...but josh should be mentioned in the stadium arcadium section. I agree with speculation on john...he may still play a role and even help write a few songs...he may even record...i think that he has had it with touring for a while...he may even come back at some point...i wouldn't be surprised if he played on the 29th as a last minute decision...but he will not play a major role..we will know inside of 6 weeks..i do not think that they will back out of the musicares thing...it means a lot to ak...btw...i am goingGutscutter (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Josh might not be an official band member yet however the Peppers ARE rehearsing and recording currently with him. He has been in the studio with them ever since they regrouped in October however he hasn't been named an official member. The band has to see if the chemistry is right with him and according to Anthony, if he can write songs (which Dave wasn't good at but John was of course great at). In a way I think it comes down to if Anthony can work with him because Anthony had a great bond with John when it came to hanging out and working on music. Flea is good friends with Josh already. They recentlly attended a Warpaint show together. We all know Josh can sing, he can play many instruments and is pretty much a prodigy (and some say clone) of John. Also I might point out that Anthony's dad Blackie updated his MySpace on December 5th (it's still on his page) confirming a new album was being made (and the HBO show was still happeing by saying: "ak reports good progress on the album. HBO still alive". It looks like Josh will be the guy unless somehow the chemistry falls apart. The band has known him for at least 10 years now (due to his involvement in Bicyle Thief, who is fronted by Bob Forrest, friend of the Peppers and former member of Thelonius Monster). They also opened for the Peppers on the Californication tour and of course Josh has worked on all of John's solo stuff since 04 and toured with the Peppers. Josh also recently replaced John at the Musicares benefit for Anthony earlier this year in which he played with Flea and Chad. I think an official announcement is coming soon, most likely after the Neil Young tribute show. Jason1978 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As i said above...he should be included in the stadium arcadium section as an adjunct member...jason...where do you derive your info from, re song writing etc.? do you have an inside track on that or do you base it on scar tissue? agree, we wont know anything until the 29th and maybe not even then...expect them to play only 2 or 3 of their songs, which i am sure josh will do a great job on and the rest will be with the other artists...sort of like the hall of fame show at msg now on hbo.Gutscutter (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

jason...read your page...now i understand...coolGutscutter (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In Scar Tissue Anthony does mention how John was a great song writer and he could always come to him with ideas but couldn't do that with Dave, who always seemed lazy and when Anthony called him up to come over and write songs Dave never wanted to however John was always happy and excited to, pushing Anthony alot of the times to open up with his lyrics and making him a better song writer. In the articles released about John leaving it was mentioned how the band needed to first see if chemistry was there and if Josh was a good song writer. John's influence was all over the last two albums, especially Stadium Arcadium, which Chad once called John's album because he went all out on that record. As for the Neil Young show...Chad said in a interview last week that they will only be playing 1 song (no word on the song but it will most likely be a Neil Young cover) because there are so many artists performing that night so it will be hard to play more than 1 song. You can find that interview here: http://funkymonks.com.ar/

Jason1978 (talk) 7:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

saw that interview on their website...which, btw is very uninformative. can't imagine that they wont do one of their songs, many of which are quite auprepeau given the musicares concept. to get back to business...dont you think that josh should be included in the SA section...and can you edit that in?Gutscutter (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

change noted...is it necessary to have all of john's statement...shouldn't it be mentioned that there is no official word from the band. also in the klinghoffer article it states that he is rumored to be in the rhcp...we decided here not to include rumors...to be consistent, it should not be there either.Gutscutter (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

who deleted the hiatus section and the tenth album section and put frusciante back in the band?????Gutscutter (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

does this photo of flea, chad, anthony and josh provide enough evidence for people? http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9950/kittymcares12.jpg if not, can the main photo be changed to it seeing as the current picture doesn't apply anymore, and even if josh isn't an actual member he is clearly playing with them as evidenced in this photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.152.99 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fanboyism
This entire paragraph seems like it was written by a fan boy and adds absolutely nothing to the article. With the excecption of the Rolling Stones reference, which isn't even linked:

"This album brought back guitarist John Frusciante, who proved that despite the revolving chain of Pepper guitarists, he is the only one worthy of being a Pepper. However, Rolling Stone noted lead vocalist Anthony Kiedis as the true star on this disc, claiming that he bounced back from rehab with "unheard-of vocal range, body, pitch, soulfulness, and melodic sensibility." Even though all of the Chili Peppers projects have been highly spirited, Californication has placed the Chili Peppers into an elite league of rock bands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.105.33.143 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please state what needs changed and also what it needs changed to. Also, please sign your comments with ~ Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Peppers' musical style is a mix of funk, alternative rock, hard rock and punk rock. The band's influences include Defunkt, Parliament-Funkadelic, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Gang of Four, Bob Marley, Big Boys, Sly and the Family Stone, Ohio Players, Queen, Stevie Wonder, Elvis Presley, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Black Flag, Ornette Coleman, Led Zeppelin, Bad Brains, Fugazi, Fishbone, Marvin Gaye, Billie Holiday, Santana, Elvis Costello, The Stooges,[134] The Clash, Siouxsie and the Banshees,[135] Devo, and Miles Davis.[136]" Obviously wikipedia needs to have a fanboy musical category of which the RHCP are the only members. "Rock." 72.179.53.2 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Eric

California
Someone thought it would be funny to write California in a bunch of times under the lyrics and songwriting section. Someone that has the power to should change that (I don't have the power to). Happy solstice! - TCE


 * Think that's got it. – Joe   N  03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Josh has not been confirmed as the newest member
The only confirmation that I am aware of, is an email someone got from Josh saying that he was in the band. As a fan, that is not an acceptable announcement. Until an official announcement is made by the band, either by website or in an interview somewhere, I think that Josh Klinghoffer should be taken out of the current lineup. It should remain as Anthony Kiedis, Flea, and Chad Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undervenued (talk • contribs) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally agreed with you, however the band has not denied this either and it appears highly likely that Josh is in the band...he essentially was during the last tour... and provides information for those who want to know. It might not be a bad idea to put a line in the appropriate section that states that the band has "neither denied or confirmed" Josh's membership. Why would he say that he was in the band if he was not?Gutscutter (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Has he actually confirmed this? The last I heard, it was almost second-hand info. One person got an email from someone who used to own a website saying that he knew someone that talked to Josh and he said he was in the band. Not that specifically,but you get the idea! I hadn't heard him oficially confirm what is going on. And just because someone doesn't deny something, does it make it true? I'm not against him being in, or anything, just want to know for sure! Undervenued (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Josh's official site http://www.josh-klinghoffer.net/ has a statement up saying until official notice from the Peppers or their managment he is NOT a member of the band. Now this is not to say that Josh won't be a Pepper but i'm sure the band wants to be the first to release a statement or maybe they are waiting to see how they play together at the Neil Young event before confirming things. There are RUMORS that Josh is telling people he's in the band and right now those are just rumors too. He might be in the band but nobody from the band has confirmed this and until they do it should be taken down that he's in the band. Bottom line: Josh is still not a Pepper and his site has confirmed this so anything any fansite reports is currently not confirmed even though many media outlets have run with this story from the Peppers fansite but lets remember that the media also has released false info in the past about Flea being in Faces and Anthony's poor health, which Blackie had to come out and said was a lie. Jason1978 (talk) 9:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The cleanest thing to do is not to include Josh as a band member until the Peppers announce it themselves. On the other hand, the rumors are so heavy that it would seem reasonable to put that in the article, but to qualify it as only rumor and to state that the band has made no official announcement.Gutscutter (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, take Josh out, for now. I could start a rumour tomorrow that Joe Satriani has decided to join the band. They haven't denied it, so we should put it in here, right??? ;) Undervenued (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing with the rumors is that they all lead back to the Peppers fansite. Even Rolling Stone took their info from Music Radar which got their info from Stadium-Arcadium.com and the info there is what Josh's website site said should'nt have leaked out and is unofficial. Nothing is official until the band says something and so far have not, which is pretty sad considering all the rumors flying around and the band has yet to even put info of John's departure on their website. Rumors are rumors. I believe these to be pretty true but at the same time nothing has been confirmed by either the Peppers, their management or even Josh's website. Even if Josh is telling people he's in the band (which are still rumors because I haven't seen or read ANY direct quotes from him) his own website clearly states no official word has been made by the Peppers yet. I will also point out that Stadium-Arcadium.com has a news page and has yet to post that Josh is a member. The info was however posted on their forum by someone with the site I believe. Until the band says something Josh's name should be taken out. I tried to a few times but someone keeps reposting his info. Jason1978 (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that their website has been entirely UNinformative and in general is loaded with commercial bs designed to make them money...I am as surprized as you that there has not been a single comment from one of the band members...I am not sure if it is because they don't care or if it is because they simply are not ready to say anything...one could make all sorts of wild speculations as to the meaning of that...there are only 3 weeks until the 29th and perhaps they are waiting for that date to make an official comment. (Part of me would not be surprized if they were a no show for that event...although clearly it is a cause that AK is very involved with.)Gutscutter (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So we agree then, it shouldn't be in there? Can someone take that out for now until it's official? Undervenued (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be taken out. Unless its reported by a good publication, independently, or the band announce it, Josh's name shouldn't currently feature on the current members list. Suede67 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What I think can be mentioned, and what I posted is that Josh is playing with the band at their MusiCares show however a replacment for John has yet to be officially named by band or mangement. Josh should be mentioned with the MusiCares event since he is playing with them that night. Jason1978 (talk) 2:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with the changes....where did they announce that Josh would be at MusiCares?Gutscutter (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps adding Josh's name to the members section. As for the MusciCares info...tt was mentioned in alot of the articles released around the time John announced his departure. This is what pretty much jumpstarted the rumors that Josh was John's replacement plus he has been in the studio with them since October so that adds even more (not to mention Josh performing with the other three at the MusiCares event to honor Anthony however they were not playing at the Peppers but under the name The Insects. If Josh is a member, and I have no doubts that he will be one i'm sure after the MusiCares show (or shortly before) something will be released however don't expect it to come from redhotchilipeppers.com. They rarely update their site and have posted false info in the past (like Flea was joining Faces...which Flea said he knew nothing about) plus they still have yet to post info that John left. Jason1978 (talk) 1:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason...I believe that you are correct...I will report as a primary source since I will be attending the event! (I am going all the way from NJ.) Still think that somehow, given John's exit was amicable, that he will play a role in the studio in someway.Gutscutter (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

John according to his own message is done with the band completly and on to his own thing (he's producing, working on his own stuff and working with Rza from Wu Tang Clan). He has been out of the band for a year now and didn't join them in the studio in October so he's probably not coming back in a guest role and in a way that would be unfair to the new guitarist with the old one popping in. It's also unfair to the band to say you don't want to be apart of the group but hey, i'll make a guest appearence. If John doesn't want any part of the rock star lifestyle it would make him look like a hypocrite for going back to it for a 3rd time. I think John and Peppers are done for good. Time to move on and hopefully it's with Josh. Please do report on the MusiCares event. It will not be recorded (however the Anthony tribute had some cameras snuck in and clips are on YouTube). Jason1978 (talk) 7:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.32.98 (talk)


 * The newest issue of Kerrang confirms Josh as the new guitarist. Is that a good enough source? Tom walker (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would want to know where the magazine got that info. If it has quotes from the band in it, I would believe it. Undervenued (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

relax boys...we will know in eight days what the story is and how they sound w/ josh.//Gutscutter (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I know about Kerrang...they get their info from various other sources. Still nothing has been confirmed by the Peppers so it's unoffical. Someone however keeps changing the info on here about how Josh is in the band and posting the link which credits Music Radar as the source (however again, Josh himself on his website said it's not official). Oh and btw Josh's website now directs you to his Wikipedia page. Jason1978 (talk) 9:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I took Josh out of the current member section again. Just in case anybody cares Undervenued (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like until he is confirmed that might be a daily thing. Hopefully before someone adds info about how he's in the band they will read what I wrote. I posted with the link/info from his website explaining how the rumors and reports so far have not been confirmed but hopefully are in the next few days considering the MusiCares even is tomorrow, 1/29. Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Josh did perform with the Peppers last night playing just one song (A Man Needs a Maid) but so far nothing official has been made about him being the full-time replacement for John however longtime Peppers soundguy Dave Rat did post on his Twitter page: Chili Peppers 1st gig w/ Josh K on guitar which pretty much leads me to believe there is more to come and like I said, Josh is a Pepper, I have no doubts about it but so far Josh said the band hasn't confirmed anything. I'm startng to wonder if the band will even release any official statement. btw.. stadium-arcadium.com has tons of pictures from the event last night and are again saying his performance confirms he's a member now. Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I was at the event....it was obvious that josh was a pepper....they did not intro them as the chili peppers with josh klinghoffer...they played as one and anthony gave josh the mike for a brief falsetto solo as though the torch has been passed....he was animated and totally into it....their performance was raw and less polished than the other acts...it was a hard song and i am not sure why it was picked for them....anthony's voice was tight as the song was a bit out of his range...it usually takes him a while for his voice to loosen up...anyway agree that they will not ever make an announcement...i think that they like josh and he fits in and he will give them an edgier sound and after friday night it is clear that josh is the new lead axman and we should list him as such.Gutscutter (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Josh is 100% confirmed. I sent Anthony's dad Blackie a message on MySpace trying to clear up the confusion and asked if Josh was a member and he responded: He's confirmed, they're working on the next album.

Of course since this was sent to me in a personal MySpace message I have no way of posting a link to confirm this so you will have to take my word. Blackie has posted pictures of the band from the MusiCares event and video on his MySpace page pretty much indicating that Josh is a member but for me his message confirms it and I added Josh back to the page and that they are working on a new album with him. Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed...now confirmed by multiple sources, blackie, chad and by virtue of the musicares event josh is in! We should now list him, even at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutscutter (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's great to hear he's finally confirmed by a band member. I also changed some stuff around in the article, mainly how it said after John first left the band in 1992 they toured with three different guitarists until they found Dave...which is completly untrue. Arik Marshall was the only guitarist they toured with other than John on the Blood Sugar tour. They then briefly replaced him with Jesse Tobias AFTER the tour but Dave became available, Jesse was quickly booted.

Also...since John is no longer a member I removed his name and info about his departure from the top of the article considering it's mentioned elsewhere. I know John is the longest tenured Pepper guitarist but something always bugged me about the part where it said almost indicated John as the only true guitarist since was with the band the longest and made the most music with them. That lineup with Chad, Anthony, Flea and John is the classic lineup but I felt there shouldn't be mention of the current lineup and then right after that mention how John however is the longest tenured guitarist.

Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Former Members
The sidebar with all of the former members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers is misleading. It implies that there hasn't been a stable lineup throughout their history. Replacement members like Zander Schloss, Chuck Biscuits, and D.H. Peligro should not be listed because they were just week or month replacements until a lead guitarist or drummer could be found.

Therefore their names should be deleted off the list, and below the names of John Frusciante, Dave Navarro, Hillel Slovak, Jack Irons, Cliff Martinez, and Jack Sherman should be a link to the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members.

D.H. was an offical member. He was the replacement for Jack Irons and he even played some shows with them and made t.v. appearences (the bowling alley lip sync performance, which is on YouTube comes to mind). D.H. was just too out there for even the Peppers and also battled his own drug problems, which led to his departure. He wasn't happy about being fired.

Also...guitarists like Arik Marshall, Jessie Tobais and Dwayne "Blackbyrd" McKnight were all considered official members. Blackbyrd was so upset about being booted from the band that he told Anthony he would burn his house down. Arik of course toured with them on Lollapalooza, the remainder of the Blood Sugar tour, various awards shows and was also in the Breaking The Girl video. They were going to make a new album with him but according to Anthony the chesmitry and his attitude were not right. Jessie was also a offical member (he even had his own Rolling Stone article with Anthony and Flea discussing how he was the full-time replacement for John and Arik) Jessie's stint was very short lived though. Dave decided he was ready to join, Jessie was booted. When Dave first joined he actually had guitar picks listing all the ex-Peppers to come before him and included those three mentioned.

Pretty much all of this is mentioned in Anthony's book. All of these guys, including D.H. were offical members even though they never recorded with the Peppers. The band acknowledged them as members so they should be included on the page.

Now as for Zander and Chuck...Zander was auditioned but never was a member of the band. He was flown out but the band felt the chemistry wasn't right. Zander wasn't pleased with the decision. As for Chuck Biscuits...he played maybe one show as a fill in back in 85 I believe and not even his on Wiki page mentions he ever played with the band. He was never an offical member either. Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The timeline section might need to be cleaned up. I fixed a few things (like how it stated John leaving in 08 and the Peppers not having a guiarist for 2 years). Also... Phillip "Fish" Fisher was NEVER a member (he played drums on Taste The Pain though). I again removed Zander Schloss and Chuck Biscuits from the main article since neither of them were ever band members. Details about Chuck have always been sketchy and it doesn't help when his own wiki page doesn't mention the Peppers at all so the Peppers article shouldn't especially as a official member, which he never was. Jason1978 (talk 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

John Frusciante's depature date
On the list of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members timeline, some users continue to change John Frusciante's departure date from 2008 to 2009. This is incorrect: Frusciante confirmed on his official website in late 2009 that he left the band "over a year ago", placing his departure sometime in 2008. (See here for official post: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=3981059&blogId=522547404 )

I am getting extrememy frustrated with users continuously changing this information. The only compromise that I can think of is marking the time period "(1998 - c. 2008)" on the timeline. Any other ideas/suggestions are appreciated and recommened. I am just getting a bit fed up with reverting the edits constantly..

WereWolf (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The last functional date the John was w/ the band was in 2008 when they did "Let the Good Times Roll." I do not know the recording date, but that is the most objective way of documenting his departure.Gutscutter (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

John did in fact say he quit the band over a year ago, which would've been 2008. Problem with the Peppers is that the people that work for them are extremly lazy. While John said he quit in 2008, everyone in the band kept quiet about it and refused to answer the question. They mainly did this because they hoped John would change his mind according to Chad. Of course nothing official was released by the Peppers until late 2009 and of course nothing about Josh being a member until two months ago...even though he has been with the band recording since they regrouped in October. So the official statement from the band came in late 2009, John says he left in 2008. To make things even more messy, the band's website has yet to even mention John leaving and Josh being the new guitarist. I love this band but they need to find employee smarter people who know what they are doing when it comes to this stuff. In my over 18 years of being a fan of this band I have never seen something like this. Normally there is alot of attention focused on the new album, there are articles everywhere, the Peppers have always talked to the media. How ironic that in the past two years the so-called quiet Pepper, Chad Smith has been the one doing 95% of the interviews and answering the questions. I don't recall Anthony or Flea commenting much at all on John's departure or Josh being a member or the album updates. Chad has though. Very strange for it to be this way. I guess that means though when the new album comes out and the band does all their magazine interviews/artcles they will be well worth the read now and not just reciting their long biography again. Jason1978 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.32.98 (talk)

Jason, as usual your comments are right on. I am confused about whether they want to keep us in the dark on purpose, don't care, don't have the time or have terrible PR people working for them (or all of the above). I wondered if John was using again and they were hoping that he would straighten himself out and that's why they were so quiet. That would be a good reason. I obviously hope that that is not the case. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to the material that they produce now, with Josh and would like to hear a taste of it in the way of a single release or something...doubt that that will happen.Gutscutter (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's poor managment/PR like you said. Alot of fans were angered during the past few years with the way management handled things. I'm not sure what the band's views on this are and maybe they really have no idea. I doubt any of them are on their website much or really care to read about themselves. They might not have any idea how lazy the people working for them really are. As for John...I highly doubt drugs were involved. John seems to have put drugs in the past. He seems like a person in control of his life. John has been clean since 1998. This is far different from how Anthony has been when it came to drugs but i'm hoping and praying that drugs are finally in his rearview mirror considering he now has a son to look after and raise. As much as he loves his dad, Anthony didn't have a normal childhood at all and i'm sure his son will be raised much differently. Going back to John, I think the reason why they waited so long was in hopes that John would change his mind. He would go off and do his solo stuff and then re-join the band. Sadly it didn't happen this time and he's gone for good. That chapter is over, a new one with Josh is underway but you have to wonder, how many people around the world outside of the Peppers devoted fanbase even know John quit. All goes back to the poor management and poor PR people they have. I guess with the next album we will see because the Peppers are going to need a big PR push (sort of like Stone Temple Pilots are getting). Alot has changed in the few years since they have been away with radio, album sales and music video t.v.. .Jason1978 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.32.98 (talk)

I move to have John Frusciante's official departure date read July 2009. This comes directly from the brand new, full authorized Red Hot Chili Peppers biography. (in stores now) Undervenued (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I think it's strange that anyone feels an entitlement to know what's going on in the private world of RHCP. As long as they release their albums and play their shows, they don't owe us as fans anything more. It's not bad PR, it's just their own business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.104.1 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Invite edits to my edit RE band's changing lineup
There's a difference between tongue-in-cheek and tongue-tied. Readers of the article's first paragraph know or will learn that the band's lineup has changed. But lineups change; this band is no exception. Any point about the frequency of changes to the lineup should probably be acknowledged in the opening paragraph -- but the style should be music-critic (wary). My edits address the stylistic embarrassments of the clauses I touched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salon Essahj (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks on Cocks
Yet again, this article is one of the few biographies of the group which does not mention socks. See the multiple mentions in |lang_en|lang_fr&id=1Nioh8BXKqIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22red+hot+chili+peppers%22+socks+cocks&ots=c1Iu4yNkJv&sig=dwfq4bFh0h4CPRNSSrry1QK5BEY#v=onepage&q=socks&f=false this biography book (Fornication) and this one (By the Way), their MTV biography. Wherever, this should be put into the article. I am wanting to know though: where is the best place to put it? Munci (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this level of performance should be added, it has been one of the most characteristic pieces of the RHCP's and was pretty important to their success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanna91 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Spirituality
There is not one mention of the spirituality of the RHCP, which seems odd given the fact that they have written entire songs dedicated to Eastern and general philosophical spiritual matters (One Big Mob, Falling into Grace, Walkabout, etc). In addition, many of their songs contain metaphors that can easily be interpreted as having spiritual overtones, or have lines that refer explicitly to a modern understanding of spirituality ("a nervous breakthrough that makes us the same", etc.).

At the very least, spirituality ought to be listed under the lyrical content section along with things such as "Michigan" and "friendship". I can't be the only one who feels this way... I love the RHCP specifically because so many of their songs have spiritual messages that agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGoerss (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members
I just wanted to let everyone know that the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members is currently a featured list candidate, and it urgently needs a review. It's been almost three weeks since the nomination began, and any feedback on the list is appreciated. Thank you so much. WereWolf (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Band name
Now, it would seem more suitable to discuss this in all the album's discograhies, but now as it's too distressing for myself. I'm thinking that the article is hinting that all their albums are relaesed as 'RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS', which isn't true.

These come under 'Red Hot Chili Peppers'
 * Mother's Milk - 1989
 * Blood Sugar Sex Magik - 1991
 * Californiacation - 1999
 * By the Way - 2002
 * Staidum Arcadium - 2006
 * What Hits? - 1992
 * Out In L.A. - 1994
 * Greatest Hits - 2003
 * Live In Hyde Park - 2004

These come under 'THE Red Hot Chili Peppers'
 * The Red Hot Chili Peppers - 1984
 * Freaky Styley - 1985
 * The Uplift Mofo Party Plan - 1987
 * One Hot Minute - 1995
 * The Abbey Road EP - 1988

Sorry for all that but it look at Oysterband article. They seperated Oyster Band and Oysterband in the discography.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that "The" is affixed to all the studio releases that don't feature John Frusciante, whereas all of his releases come without the "The" on the beginning 35.13.183.95 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What about I'm With You (which Josh Klinghoffer played on)? Gringo300 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

False Information
On September 23, 2010 in an MTV exclusive interview, Michael "Flea" Balzary promised that two tracks from the new Album entitled "The Calico Carpet" would be released during the holidays. With one called "Hoverboard" released on Thanksgiving, November 22nd, and one called "Brian's Shlong" featuring Blink 182's Mark Hoppus and Tom Delonge, released on Christmas, December 25th. They will be released exclusively via ITunes.

I caught this in time. First of all, the 23rd has just begun now in California, where the Chili Peppers live. Secondly, the note assigned to this statement leads to the same youtube link as the one made in the previous paragraph, regarding Kiedis' September 11th interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.221.241 (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That band member chart
Seems a little off. According to that chart, Dave Navarro and John Frusciante were in the band at the same time at the end of the One Hot Minute tour. Undervenued (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Former Members List
I think this section should definitely be added and revised. It seems that the members are getting confused, and the definition of a "member" is debatable. What do you guys think? Alanna91 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, like where it lists Zander Schloss as a member in 1992, this isn't true. According to Scar Tissue written by Anthony Kiedis, Zander only really rounded off the Japan leg of the tour, and Anthony ended up firing him. He wasn't really a full time member of the band,just a touring guitarist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Wieder (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you are going to add Zander you need to add guitarist Dix Denny because he actually was with band briefly after Hillel/Jack left but never named a official member. Dix actually spent more time practicing with the band than Zander ever did. Dix was a former member of The Weirdos with Cliff Martinez and future member of Theonius Monster. It's all in Anthony's book but Dix just like Zander was never considered full-time official member. Dix went to band practice but he never made it to the studio or the road with the band and was quickly replaced by Jack Sherman. Like Zander, he auditioned but things didn't work out and and he was never once considered a Chili Pepper. It's not like Jessie Tobias, who auditioned and actually joined the band before being booted for Dave. Jesse was brought in and actually started to write some stuff. Zander and Dix passed were never named band members or considered by anyone within the group to be band members. You never hear Zander mentioned as John's replacement. It was Hillel, Jack Sherman, Hillel, Dewayne "Blackbyrd" McKnight, John, Arik, Jessie, Dave, John, Josh. Jason1978 (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Associated acts
I have deleted many of the artists mentioned under ASSOCIATED ACTS in the infobox. A shared band member does not make an associated act! See Template:Infobox musical artist, the criteria are...


 * Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
 * Groups which have spun off from this group
 * A group from which this group has spun off
 * Separate multiple entries with commas.

The following should be avoided:


 * Association of groups with members' solo careers
 * Groups with only one member in common
 * Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
 * One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
 * Groups that are merely similar

Hope this helps. Iangurteen (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, these "associated acts" keep getting re-added. I have deleted ATOMS FOR PEACE, AXIS OF JUSTICE, CHICKENFOOT, DOT HACKER, FEAR and WARPAINT. All these just have 1 shared member, so according to Template:Infobox musical artist they are NOT "associated acts". Iangurteen (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE, August 2011 - Chickenfoot removed AGAIN. Also George Clinton, Fishbone, Pearl Jam and Thelonious Monster removed.Thegraciousfew (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it should be pointed out the Template:Infobox musical artist is not a wikipedia policy, more of a guideline. The criteria should only really be invoked when the listed associated acts becomes a ridiculous amount (i.e. adding every band they have toured with, bands who members have recorded with, etc,). What happens if a band meets the criteria for both inclusion and removal? You state one member in common yet you do not remove The Mars Volta (only John Frusciante is credited as studio and occasional live member). What should be included in the infobox is bands that have more than one member in common (Ataxia, What Is This?, Jane's Addiction) and other groups that the members have formed, not joined (Chickenfoot, Atoms for Peace). How you can say two bands that were formed by current members of RHCP are not associated acts of the band is beyond me. HrZ (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bands with 1 shared member are not considered associated acts, even if they were formed by a member of the Chilis. I take your point about The Mars Volta, but Flea played on nine tracks on their album De-loused in the Crematoruium and John F. has a known history with them, so I guess they should probably stay in the list. I have to say, I find the "Associated Acts" section annoying, appearing in the infobox give's a quirky section too much prominence...now if only we could scrap all references to "Genre" I'd be really happy!Thegraciousfew (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are not considered associated acts by who? Like I said, there is no policy for this, only a guideline. And I still find it silly, 2 current members form bands and they are not associated because they have only one member in common, but The Mars Volta a band not formed by any member of RHCP are associated by one member in common + the fact that Flea recorded on 9 songs on one album. Surely you see how silly that is? On another note, I would personally like to see the genre field removed as well, constantly changed on every band/musician article despite a consensus and/or sources! HrZ (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I really find silly is that "Associated Acts" gets a place in the infobox and is one of the first things that someone looking to find info on the band sees. I absolutely take your point about The Mars Volta and will remove them from the infobox. I'm really not sure what constitutes a policy and what constitutes a guideline, but the info I put at the start of this section is from Template:Infobox musical artist, which indicates that a band like Chickenfoot would be an associated act on Chad Smith's wiki page, but not RHCP's. Regarding "Genre", I can't understand all the time and effort some people take in worrying about a band's genre(s). Bands like RHCP, Fleet Foxes, Band of Horses and so many others just can't be categorised in any really meaningful or accurate way, so why bother?!? I'd like to see that go from the infobox as well! Thegraciousfew (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was actually a brief discussion on the Template talk page about what constitutes a "spin-off" group that it was pointed out that the template should only be used in when the bands listed in the associated acts are a bit OTT. For a while, I was pretty much removing every band with only one member in common, after that discussion, I remove only ones that are only vaguely related. I guess it is just down to what the editor(s) think should be included? Genre fields, while I would like them removed, they do serve some purpose to anyone who is not familiar with their music (i.e. need to know if they are rock, metal, pop, dance, etc). A musical style section, in my opinion, is usually the best way to describe a band's music when done right (like on Nirvana and R.E.M.). HrZ (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Thelonious Monster should not be removed. Bob Forrest was a good friend of RHCP, collaborated with them a few times, performed with them a few times, John Frusciante tried out for Thelonious Monster but went to RHCP instead in 1988 and Josh Klingoffer went to play with Thelonious Monster. Bob Forrest went on to help Anthony Kiedis get rid of his addiction. Aren't those enough ties to make this an associated act? Same for The Bicycle Thief, but that was more of a restart of Thelonious Monster so less relevant. Also, I'd like to see John Frusciante added as an associated act. He works together with Josh sometimes, which he also did when he was still an RHCP memeber and Josh wasn't. Erikivo (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone continues to add 311 to associated acts. How are they associated? Maybe influenced, copied their sound.

Associated acts:
 * The Weirdos - Cliff Martinez was their drummer. Dix Denney auditioned to replaced Slovak, Zander Schloss auditioned to replace Frusciante
 * Eleven - Jack Irons was their drummer. Alain Johannes was also a high schoolmate of the Peppers, a member of What Is This? with Irons/Slovak
 * Pearl Jam - Jack Irons was their drummer, even helped them form introducing Eddie to the band. RHCP were an early supporter, taking them under their wing
 * Thelonius Monster/The Bicycle Thief - Klinghoffer was in both, Frusciante auditioned for them prior to getting picked for RHCP. Bob Forrest is very close with RHCP, helped Anthony kick drugs.
 * Dead Kennedys - drummer D.H. Peligro's band
 * Fishbone - Philip Fisher performed on Mother's Milk, played drums on Taste the Pain prior to Chad joining. Both bands have long history together
 * Circle Jerks - both bands have long history of performing together. Keith Morris replaced Anthony for one show
 * OFF! - Morris' new band that Kiedis has promoted the hell out of on the recent tour and also has performed with them

I think those acts should be included especially if ALL of Flea and Smith's side projects are PLUS...pretty much all of these artists list RHCP as an associated act in their articles. Jason1978 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

years active
i was reading billboard.com and it said that in 1983 they changed their name to red hot chili peppers but technically they were active before thisFeedmyeyes (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New Guitarist Josh Klinghoffer section
There should be a citation about Josh and John Frusciante's participation in "Bob And The Monster", or else how do I know that they're really in it? I dont necessarily know how to find the movie, and im sure a lot of people are in the same predicament so if possible, maybe include a cast list or a link to the imdb page for it or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Wieder (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a entire page for the movie on here that links from the Peppers page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_and_the_Monster

It has the full cast list, link to official website and the trailer. The movie also also not out yet on dvd and has been in limited release. I'm sure by the end of the year it will be out. As for Josh and John's participation...just watch the trailer or look at Bob Forrest's Facebook page. Jason1978 (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Kiedis handwriting
I don't know weither this is worth adding anywhere but Anthony Kedis wrote the track listings for the back cover of Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Californiacation, By the Way and Live in Hyde Park - As well as liner notes for almost all of those albums and Out in L.A. too.--92.237.84.183 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page image
The main image that is being used was NOT from the actual Musicares event, it was from the night before at the rehearsal. The caption below it should be altered to clarify that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.18.55 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New album TBA
For some reason pretty much every band article on wikipedia allows TBA as a listing for a album when the title is unknow yet whenever it's put up for the Peppers it's removed. Chad Smith gave a interview last week saying the album title was still being worked on, which means it's TBA aka to be announced. This continues to be removed and the reasons for removal are that it's not a legit album title, which is true...and it's not intended to be the album title because the title is to be announced. Also when removed it said blogs and forums are not reliable sources yet the info comes from a interview with Chad, a band member. Jason1978 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the dispute with Mr. Bungle?
Seems like this part of their history is missing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.184.230 (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a major/important part of the band's history and even the Mr. Bungle page has a few paragraphs on the lenghty feud. The feud has mostly been Anthony Vs. Mike Patton but other Bungle members have bashed the Peppers and Mr. Bungle clearly crossed the line when they opened their Halloween show covering Peppers songs, dressed as the Peppers and even made fun of Hillel Slovak's death by one of their band members pretending to shoot up and O.D. on stage. Personally I think mentionig the long feud belongs in the RHCP article. Hopefully others agree. Jason1978 (talk) 4:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC

i agree --82.32.158.10 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the issue, as it is not sourced at all... Dinky town  talk  03:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That belongs on Anthony Kiedis page, not here. I call the big one bitey (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Today I reverted an IP editor who twice blanked the section Red Hot Chili Peppers without giving a reason and posted a message on the user's Talk page. They replied on my talk page, "... i dont think that content is for Wikipedia. Its more like stupid yellow press and is not good loking on the site like this. Sorry for bad english". Reading the section in question and looking at its references the IP user does appear to have a point, in that most of the references don't appear to be reliable sources, and the amount of space devoted to this topic seems excessive (see Neutral point of view). Also I see the same material is duplicated at Anthony Kiedis. Qwfp (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Release date dispute
I ask others to join in on the discussion in the I'm With You article on the release date. Someone continues to make edits to the release date. All RHCP album articles and discographies use the US release date despite the album being release earlier elsewhere. This person feels we should use the 8/26 date since it's the first day of release however if you look at any album article on wikipedia the UK bands always have the UK release date, German bands German release date and US bands the US release date despite the album possibly coming out earlier elsewhere. August 30th has been the date in the band's main article, album article and discography since early June until now when a person with a history of warnings/blockings has decided to edit it daily. Please join the discussion here: Talk:I'm with You (album)Jason1978 (talk) 6:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The red hot chilli PIPers
Perhaps we could get some sort of mention of Red Hot Chilli Pipers who of cause named themselfs after the Red Hot Chili Peppers?--92.237.88.53 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Album sales
Hey I love the chilis as much as anyone but surely 85 million is excessive? Where's the source for this? I'm pretty sure that most reliable sources out it at a more likely 50-60 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 07:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother's Milk
There is no real entry about Mother's Milk in the article. Has this accidentally (i.e. maliciously) been erased? Would it be possible to restore the text? 178.116.222.162 (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this guy ^^^ The time between Uplift and Blood Sugar is missing, the article doesn't even mention Smith and Frusciante joining the band, it just skips to his first departure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.34.38 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I just heavily edited the Mother's Milk section which was poorly written and contained alot of wrong info. Manager Lindy Goetz didn't make the decision to fire either McKnight or Peligro and the sections states both were fired at the same time, which is wrong. McKnight lasted a short time, recorded 1 song with that lineup and played 3 shows before getting fired (and when he was fired threatened to burn down Anthony's house). The section states Peligro was fired before John joined, which wasn't true either. Peligro, Kiedis, Flea and Frusciante started work on the album (Peligro has a few writing credits) and they toured for two months before Peligro was fired.Jason1978 (talk 10:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

AKA
If people commonly call the band by other names, why is it such a problem to have that in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.1.105 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To-do list
Is it worthwhile getting a to-do list together to work it up for GA (and maybe FA?). I'm suggesting this as there are possibly a few editors who will help out for this (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * lead doesn't mention frusciante's 2nd departure.


 * lead could possibly do with some more reorganising.


 * I am not hugely familiar with alt of ins and outs, so the basic scope of content I'll leave to those really familiar and then copyedit/ask questions afterwards.

Musical Style
There's nothing here on Josh Klinghoffer's guitar playing? Surely if Navarro can have a line or two, so can Josh. :P Thoughts? Aleksandar Bulovic&#39; (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement
In American English, band names that are plural in form take a plural verb. Please refer to the following resources for verification and further explanation and examples:          Piriczki (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, the opening should read, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are the name of an American alternative rock band" - is that correct? It uses the plural form, after all.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  19:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on my recent edit, the issue is avoided. However, if the opening were to be changed to be plural, it would read, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American alternative rock band, formed in Los Angeles in 1983," not "are the name" - it never said "name" before, and the addition of that word would not be relevant to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the opening should read "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American alternative rock band." Introducing the word "name" into the sentence is both unnecessary and awkward. In any case, a better way to phrase that would be "the name of the band is the Red Hot Chili Peppers" where "name" is the subject. Regarding the lead sentence, you appear to be confusing the subject (Red Hot Chili Peppers) with the object (band). The verb agrees with the subject, not the object. Piriczki (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion before, and you are still wrong. The subject is the name of a band, not two or more chili peppers. The reason I included 'the name' above is to illustrate how ridiculous your idea really is: if 'are' actually was correct, you'd be able to use it in my suggested phrase and it would be grammatically correct - but it isn't. You can throw all sorts of "reliable sources" into the discussion, but to say that the band 'are' is not logically correct American English. Thanks for wasting more of my time.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no one agrees with you. Nor have you contributed to the ongoing discussion about your behavior at WP:ANI. Your attitude is unconstructive at best. Maybe if you don't think of it as a singular "name" but as a plural band because it includes the members plural, that would help you. It's not like the British/American distinction for collective nouns (like jury).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is apparent you misunderstand the meaning of subject (grammar) and object (grammar). You may choose to read any or all of the 12 resources provided or not, but beyond that I can be of no further assistance. Piriczki (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Red Hot Chili Peppers are a band. "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" is the name of a band. That's normal usage. The Giants are a baseball team. "The Giants" is the name of a baseball team. When Dodgers manager Charlie Dressen said in 1951 that "the Giants is dead", he was ridiculed for it, even before his team lost the pennant to the very-much-alive Giants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, BB, surely you can come up with something other than baseball analogies. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can address the other part. THe Beatles were a band. "The Beatles" was the name of a band. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm .. so "The Beatles" is no longer the name of a band that once existed? Are that correct? :-) — Ched :  ?  16:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking for the "result" of the discussion, and all I see are a confident but ignorant bunch who don't know their own language...but I will try once again: You would not say, "'The Grapes of Wrath' are a novel by John Steinbeck..."; 'The Grapes of Wrath' is the title of a book, and even though 'Grapes' is plural, it is part of the title of the book which is a singular entity. Likewise,'Red Hot Chili Peppers' is the title of a band - not a plurality of peppers. Stop the nonsense already.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The title of a work of art or the name of an organization, or a country, even when plural in form, takes a singular verb. It is correct to say "The Grapes of Wrath is a novel by John Steinbeck" or "the United States is a country located in North America" however, that rule is applied differently for organizations such as musical groups and sports teams, in which case one is referring to a specific group of people rather than a thing or entity. Feel free to read the sources linked to at the beginning of this section for further explanation and examples. Piriczki (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Radiopathy: You have, on your talk page, been provided reliable sources which confirm that the use of the word "are" in this context is considered correct by grammarians and style guides. You have, as yet, provided zero sources which show that the use of the word "is" is correct.  If you want anyone to take your position seriously, provide evidence that it is correct.  Calling people ignorant does not amount to evidence.  -- Jayron  32  16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I really needn't point out the ignorance, because it is self-evident, and all of the "reliable sources" on Earth are not going to make the phrase that you're edit warring over grammatically correct American English. None of you have provided a cogent argument as to why your version of the language should prevail; all you have are "reliable sources" and rote comments. Are the whole lot of you autistic or something? Just drop the stick already.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it self evident? The cogent argument is that reliable sources, which are written by experts in the field of English Grammar, have said that it is correct.  What more persuasive argument do you need?  You have provided zero evidence that any expert in the field of English Grammar, considers your proposals to be correct.  -- Jayron  32  03:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the use–mention distinction. Deor (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The name "Red Hot Chilli Peppers" is the name of one band. Singular units of anything always use "is".  If we talk about the members by name, it becomes plural (IE  Johnny Guitar and Flea ARE members of) .   Radiopathy IS correct, The Red Hot Chilli Peppers IS a band, not ARE.     @- Kosh  ► Talk to the Vorlons ►  Moon Base Alpha  -@ 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting: Can you point us to the style guide or grammar textbook or other source which indicates that, for names of musical groups which are plural in form, they should take the singular verb? Because above there are several sources which indicate the opposite to be true, and which state unequivocally that "are" is the correct word for this usage.  I assume you have verification that would indicate that "is" would be correct, or else you wouldn't be so sure about it?  -- Jayron  32  20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears the point of confusion for some is the presence of the word "band" in the lead sentence. Although the word "band" is a collective noun and is singular in form and takes a singular verb, it is not the subject of the sentence in question. The subject of the sentence is the Red Hot Chili Peppers which is plural in form. The proper subject-verb agreement that applies to the word "band", if it were the subject of the sentence, is not then applied to a subject which is plural in form. Again, the verb agrees with the subject (Red Hot Chili Peppers) not the object (band). I suspect this misapplication is why some editors only attempt to change the verb in the lead sentence and not the other plural verbs used thoughout the the rest of the article. Piriczki (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been talked about on other band pages. A band name that's plural in American English (Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Ramones, etc.) is treated as plural. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the band had chosen the name "Red Hot Chili Pepper" (singular), there would be no confusion as to subject-verb agreement, and there really need be none just because "Peppers" is plural. No one would say or write "The Red Hot Chili Pepper [sing.] are a band," because a band (whether the final noun in its name is plural or singular) is a singular subject. A band remains a singular subject even when, alas, it elects to have a plural noun for the last word of its name. That said, a construction like "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are great performers" is also correct in that the reference is to the individual members. Any group is properly treated as a singular subject when it (not they) represents (not represent) a single unit, as here, rather than when reference is made to the unit's constituent members. One does not ask "who are your favorite band?" because the reference there, as here, is to a singular unit. So the band's name, as the subject of a sentence, can rightly be treated as either singular or plural depending on the case. Treating the band as plural (as multiple units) creates confusion only in the former case -- in a construction like the one used in this article's first sentence -- when the object of the sentence is clearly singular ("a band"). All of this aside, the use of object words in the singular makes the case. It is not just a question of subject-verb agreement but of subject-verb-object agreement. If a band is properly referred to as plural in the subject of a sentence, it does not become singular in the predicate according to any correct grammatical construction. "Four quarters are a dollar" is grammatically correct: the individual quarters referred to form a singular unit. "Four quarters is a dollar" is also fine, as the reference there is to (we may say) a sum value. Likewise, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are a band" works -- but only in the case that the reference is to the (singular) band's individual members. Here, it is not -- the reference is to the band, as the sentence itself makes explicit. That said, I won't edit the article because the consensus here seems to prefer the plural treatment. If the subject is plural for conjugation purposes, though, we either have an awful lot of predicates to clean up or an awful lot of subject-object and object-verb disagreement. The article's opening sentence splits the baby in half and in halves.Salon Essahj (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture
Hey, the picture at the top still has John Frusciante in it, I know he's awesome, but shouldn't it be updated to a picture with Smith, Flea, Kiedis and Klinghoffer? Aleksandar Bulovic&#39; (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin Paragraph
It seems to me that this whole paragraph about the band wearing red sweatshirts doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article, and is very poorly written. It includes both a political bias, and overall poor grammar neither of which should be found on wikipedia.

173.33.140.237 (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Album capitilization
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Capitalization. "With" should not be capitalized. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 13:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement?
"Red Hot Chili Peppers (also commonly known as the "Chili Peppers" or abbreviated as RHCP) are an American rock band formed in Los Angeles in 1983"

Isn't "Red Hot Chilli Peppers" a collective noun? It should be "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is an American rock band", not "are". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, see American and British English differences. Piriczki (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts
I don't know how to edit the associated acts, but I feel these should be added: - Thelonious Monster - The Bicycle Thief - John Frusciante!!!

Associated acts
I don't know how to edit the associated acts, but I feel these should be added: - Thelonious Monster - The Bicycle Thief - John Frusciante!!! Erikivo (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Need a new picture
The current picture on the article still has John in it. Can we change the picture where Josh is in the picture. 108.240.218.230 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a new picture however it was removed. I agree one is needed that includes Klinghoffer however it hasn't been easy finding a quality image that meets the requirements of Wikipedia. Jason1978 (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Flea's full name
In a few places in the article his name is written as Michael "Flea" Balzary giving the impression that he goes by his full name with the nickname included. Flea is his stage name, the name he is known by and called by everyone and should be the name used everywhere in the article much like Slash is used in the Guns n Roses article and not listed Saul "Slash" Hudson or U2's The Edge is not listed as David "The Edge" Evans in their article. Jason1978 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Red Hot Chili Peppers. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20151006075749/https://twitter.com/flea333 to https://twitter.com/flea333/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting 1998 tour article
It appears the 1998 tour article has now been redirected to the main Red Hot Chili Peppers article by a person who took it upon themselves to remove it for no reason other than they personally felt it wasnt a legit article. This person said they would open it for discussion but decided to redirect it anyways (and with the article existing for a few years nobody else appeared to have complaints of it existing). The 1998 tour was one of the most important tours in the band's history as it marked the return of John Frusciante for his first shows in six years (it also included the debut of new songs and last performances of other songs) however the person who removed the article felt these events were not important and it wasnt a real tour even though (and as I pointed out in our back and fourth discussion over it's removal) the band's official website acknowledges it as an official tour http://redhotchilipeppers.com/tour/past?direction=asc&year=1998. Futhermore I also asked that if the page were to be removed or redirected it should be moved to the Californication tour article (even though they were two different tours) Jason1978 (talk) 11:48, 2, July 2016 (UTC)

Feuds
What is the point of yellow press content like feuds between KEidis and Faith No More. Its not good for my eyes atleast. This should be deleted. Is not for Wikipedia too. Wasted of words. Sorry for bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.107.89.146 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red Hot Chili Peppers. 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/20121115151612/http://www.bucketheadland.com/faq/faq2/FAQ_2_0.html to http://www.bucketheadland.com/faq/faq2/FAQ_2_0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202155425/http://www.alternativenation.net/red-hot-chili-peppers-reveal-producer-new-album/ to http://www.alternativenation.net/red-hot-chili-peppers-reveal-producer-new-album/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928054947/http://www.drummagazine.com/news/post/5494/ to http://www.drummagazine.com/news/post/5494/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509183236/https://www.1057thepoint.com/news/music-news/red-hot-chili-peppers-perform-facebook-napster-execs-house to https://www.1057thepoint.com/news/music-news/red-hot-chili-peppers-perform-facebook-napster-execs-house
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tomppat/rhcp/

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) 16:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Related acts
Can we clean that up? It seems excessively long. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ  13:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been done. AddingInstruments (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page
The current talk page should be archived. AddingInstruments (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ( recent changes patroller ) Done! My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 09:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Red Hot Chili Peppers. 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://www.webcitation.org/6FcCrF9xe?url=http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=mother&artist=red%20hot%20chili%20peppers&sort=Artist&perPage=25 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=mother&artist=red%20hot%20chili%20peppers&sort=Artist&perPage=25
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123024218/http://www.thelantern.com/2.1346/repeated-violence-1.99635 to http://www.thelantern.com/2.1346/repeated-violence-1.99635
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041119215623/http://news.modernrock.com/1972 to http://news.modernrock.com/1972
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415174251/http://www.craveonline.com/music/interviews/143702-chad-smith-of-rhcp-chickenfoot-and-bombastic-meatbats to http://www.craveonline.com/music/interviews/143702-chad-smith-of-rhcp-chickenfoot-and-bombastic-meatbats
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206002037/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/timeline
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927004155/http://tv.mtvema.com/ to http://tv.mtvema.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205140543/http://www.alternativenation.net/red-hot-chili-peppers-update-new-album/ to http://www.alternativenation.net/red-hot-chili-peppers-update-new-album/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604215608/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/491-2016-europe-summer-festivals to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/491-2016-europe-summer-festivals
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160519130418/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/519-anthony-and-iheart-radio-update to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/519-anthony-and-iheart-radio-update
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FcD5ytJF?url=http://invisible-movement.net/articles/2006-press/0601-rollingstone to http://www.invisible-movement.net/articles/2006-press/0601-rollingstone

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, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Hot Chili Peppers. 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/20160629002054/http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/526-new-song-the-getaway to http://redhotchilipeppers.com/news/526-new-song-the-getaway

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) 00:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Swellfeller91
Welcome to Wikipedia. This is the article talk page. I reverted your change to this article because you added content that was not supported by a reliable source and the changes did not seem neutral. Can you explain here why you feel the current version does not "state facts" or continues the "#MeToo witch hunt"? Dartslilly (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red Hot Slane.jpg

Abbreviated name
Since the group is called only Chili Peppers multiple times in the article, shouldn't we establish that aka in the lead? Do we need a reliable source to prove it's not a Wikinvention? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it will be clear to readers. Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How, exactly? Can't see that they are called that anywhere else. Wikipedia does not create new terms. Show me a source, please! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be clear to readers because referring to "the Chili Peppers" in an article about a band called the Red Hot Chili Peppers is obviously not talking about capsicum fruit. We don't need to cite this, it's a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, but here are a couple of random Rolling Stones articles that use the same shortening:, Popcornfud (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to explain such basic things to the reader. Most people can recognize basic shortening's of names as nicknames like this. Sergecross73   msg me  13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Explain absence of nudity on stage?
How do we explain to the millions of people who have seen their world-famous so-called sock act and other very prevalent recurring nudity on stage that Wikipedia is too cowardly to even mention it in such a long article? It's probably by far the most famous thing about these guys: regularly performing their songs with nude butts. No matter how utterly sensitive the topic (really?!), this prude, no prissy-prude, omission makes us look utterly ridiculous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely deserves a mention, but almost certainly not an entire section. By all means please suggest any reliable sources we can use. Popcornfud (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How's this? My computer doesn't like those papers & jumps all over incoherently. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And this? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty good.
 * Good night! 2 am here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy or performance style
This item goes under "legacy" or "performance style" not under musical style and is defining enough to deserve its own subheading. Also as per cited sources they were famous for this worldwide not just in CA. It is far from trivial to their legacy and should not be treated as trivial. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

PS Flea often also performed totally nude without the sock so the new wording was not OK on that detail either. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While mentioning this is definitely worthwhile, there's very little to actually write about it; it can be covered in sufficient detail in a sentence or two. Such a small amount of material doesn't justify a subsection. We also don't need so many sources to cover this - see WP:CITEOVERKILL. Popcornfud (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, and I feel these opinions are not in the best interest of our readers. They need to find the item in "Contents" at the top of the article, not wade through the whole text (as I had to) to find it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't need a whole section. The whole original argument that it's one of the things their most notable is a ludicrous claim. They've sold 80 million albums across four decades. The fact that they played some nude/"sock" shows is a minor footnote in their overall history. Sergecross73   msg me  14:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are are now to have the nudity misplaced and hidden under "Musical style"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because a) it's not a large enough amount of notable information to justify its own section and b) there's no better section to put it in right now. I agree it doesn't seem to completely match the section title, but that speaks to a bigger problem with Musical style section anyway, which is poorly organized generally. Popcornfud (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I move your wording it to "Legacy" which makes more sense? Would be nice to get this little item settled now, sensibly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no relevance to legacy. The information is about how they perform, not their influence and impact. Popcornfud (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't find legacy, as in reputation, more relevant than nudity as a "musical style"? Any other constructive idea so as not to leave that obvious error in there? How  about changing that heading to "Musical and performance style"? Or just "Style"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers star on Hollywood Blvd near Amoeba
Just wanted to contribute my original photo of the Star on Hollywood blvd. I was there, on the sidewalk near the Amoeba music store and took the picture after the crowd moved. Love the Peppers!!! Enjoy and have lots of fun! Steve shelok  honov  19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
Under the heading History, 2019 to present..., 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, it reads "On March 15, HEY performed in Egypt.." rather than "On March 15, THEY performed in Egypt..".

Sorry, I'm using my phone and didn't know how to use italics so I used all caps to highlight the error that needs correcting. 2607:FEA8:2D60:59C3:A4E3:5F9C:1A7A:8CD4 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A sentence in the introduction seems unfair
I noticed that in the introduction, the band is referred to as "the most successful band in the history of alternative rock." This isn't totally inaccurate, as this claim is backed up with some statistics, but it feels incomplete. While there are facts and figures that back up this claim, I'm sure there are some other stats that could advocate for some other band. The claim mostly relies on chart success, but it wouldn't surprise me if other metrics — streaming stats, record sales, touring figures, etc. — give another group a stake to the claim. Maybe we could change it to, "By some measures, they are the most successful band in the history of alternative rock?"

I am a huge fan of the band and I want to make sure that their page is as fair and accurate as possible. 2601:643:8501:A740:7DF1:8A7F:D3AF:BF9F (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair point, and it seems risky to make the claim "most successful" without strictly defining how we're measuring that. I've removed that portion of the sentence — I think we can just list the records they hold for the most number-one singles etc and let those facts speak for themselves. Popcornfud (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022
181.223.218.194 (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Band first show was in 1982
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 (2)
Jaymoroso83 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC) There are a new information from Gary Allen regarding the first ever concert of the Chili Peppers,he proves that the first concert of the band was in december 16th of 1982 and not in february of 1983.

Here is the link: https://buttondown.email/rhcpsessions/archive/me-and-my-friends-51-40-years-of-the-red-hot/
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2022 (2)
The "Sexual assault charges and allegations" section mentions the arrests of Flea and Smith but does not divulge the result of the prosecution. I would add the following sentence after "premises by security": Flea and Smith both entered pleas of guilty on all charges on August 9, 1990 and were sentenced to pay fines and write a letters of apology to the victim. Shaggydan (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have found some reliable sources that mention the sentences and updated the section. Popcornfud (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2023
In this section:

"The 12th Chili Peppers album, Return of the Dream Canteen, recorded during the same sessions as Unlimited Love, was released on October 14.[176] The first single, "Tippa My Tongue", was released in August,[177] followed by "The Drummer". The former Chili Peppers drummer D.H. Peligro died at the age of 63 on October 28, 2022.[178]"

change "12th" to "13th" ("Unlimited Love" was the RHCP's 12th album)

change "Chili Peppers" to "Red Hot Chili Peppers" N707301 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chili Peppers seems to be the consensus Lightoil (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Title
Name spelt wrong. It has two ll. Chilli. Not Chili 59.154.170.234 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it's spelled "Chili" on all their releases and in all sources. "Chili" is the American English spelling, and "chilli" is the British English spelling. Popcornfud (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Chili Peppers"
The abbreviated term "Chili Peppers" is very frequent in the text of this article, but without any explanation. When any non-expert reads it it is unnecessarily confusing - what "Chili Peppers" is that part of the group, another group, a sister group, what is it? I attempted to alleviate that problem, but was almost instantly reverted with a summary indicating that one should know the subject beforehand, that I do not know English well (have taught it for 50 years) and that abbreviation without explanation is elementary. I do not agree. We are here to inform readers clearly, not to format articles only for people who already know the subjects at hand. We also have a redirect from Chili peppers to the article Chili pepper, rendering the whole thing even more confusing. Will revert again soon unless someone can come up with a better reason not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This was previously discussed in this archived talk discussion.
 * Per WP:STATUSQUO, please don't revert without consensus.
 * I'm skeptical that, realistically, readers will be confused about what "the Chili Peppers" refers to, and it seems of trivial importance to mention in the lead. As I said in my edit summary, I believe this is equivalent to writing "the Catholic Church" on first mention and then "the Church" afterwards. It doesn't require spelling out. Popcornfud (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That comparison is absurd. Church is a regular word, where as here we're dealing with jargon, lingo for the initiated, a pet term steeped in fondness and fandom. I would guess that over the years at least 10,000 readers, who do not know the group and jargon well, have used search and ended up at Chili pepper. Needs to be fixed, and the lead is the right place for an a.k.a., right up there with RHCP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's linguistically identical. "church" is a common noun, but is capitalized when used in the proper noun "Catholic Church". This becomes "Church" (still a proper noun) for short, as in "the Church". "chilli pepper" is a common noun, but is capitalized when used in the proper noun "Red Hot Chili Peppers". This becomes "Chili Peppers" (still a proper noun) for short, as in "the Chili Peppers".
 * I don't understand the search issue. Chili pepper is the right article to go to if you search for "chili pepper". There's a hatnote on that article to help people looking for the band. Popcornfud (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice if people read what others write on talk pages before replying. Big hint: Chili peppers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, I still don't understand your point. Chili pepper is the right article to go to if you search for Chili peppers, too. Perhaps I'm missing something. Popcornfud (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Questions based on your kind assistance: (1) Is it your opinion that we only should consider "a reader who understands how abbreviations work in context"? (2) Is it wrong to give the abbreviation as an a.k.a. in the lead to prevent any form of confusion no matter who the reader may be? (3) When anyone not initiated in abbreviation traditions, nor in the history of this band, searches the term Chili Peppers one ends up in another article not related in any way to this one; why not preclude that with the a.k.a in the lead here? SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a formidable example. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In order: (1) WP:MTAU notes: Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. That is my understanding of other policies and guidelines as well, including WP:AUDIENCE. (2) I don't think it's wrong, just not necessary. (3) I still don't quite understand. If someone searches the term Chili Peppers, and they end up at Chili pepper, they will probably recognize that they're not on a page for a band and then search "Chili Peppers band" or something like that. I'm not sure how adding "a.k.a" would address your concern here. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (3 [also covers 1 & 2]): Because then a reader who might not understand how abbreviations work in context, or a reader who is not familiar with the fact that this band is known to fans by this abbreviation, or a reader who might assume that "the Chili Peppers" is another band; another act; a spin-off; etc, they all would see from the very start of the article what you and one other editor here take for granted that everybody (everybody) already knows. Wouldn't clarity be nice, clarity also for the uninitiated, the non-experts, the other-than-fans? That, I believe, is why we use bold type for alternative names in the lead of Wikipedia articles, to set things straight from the start. We work for the benefit of all (all) readers of English. Believe it or not, and like it or not, there are actually many readers who known absolutely nothing about the Red Hot Chili Peppers. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I really think the possibility of readers of "average reading ability and motivation" being confused is vanishingly small. Popcornfud (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not alone. So would any other avid fan. That's the problem here. We don't write only for fans. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about fans. (And I'm not a fan.) Popcornfud (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed incorrectly. But you knew of this group, when you took on the 3O, and that (only) readers familiar with it might realize that "the Chili Peppers" can mean nothing else but this group? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing up editors. :-) Popcornfud (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Right! Confused because you've replied in 2 different places, here for the 3O helper. Your opinion, whether a fan or not, assumably is that everyone in the world who might read English Wikipedia is at least as familiar with this group as you are. That's not my opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023
The band was founded in 1983, not 82. 2607:B400:26:0:71F4:FA25:3B57:53B9 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)