Talk:The Brian Jonestown Massacre

Band name
This strikes me as original research. Is there any source to indicate that the movie influenced the band name, or are we just recording a coincidence? -Will Beback 21:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and the title of the horror movie The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The name uses the same poetic meter and syllable count as the name of the horror movie (iamb/iamb/dactyl) short-long/long-long/long-short-short.

members
Is this website (http://oz.plymouth.edu/~cbrough/members/MEMBERS.HTML) a good source to change this information? FeverDrum 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are at least two dozen musicians who have been in the BJM at one point or another.

hit albums
As much as I respect Newcombe, this is really a bit far... POV... Less than two weeks, maybe... but even then, when have the Brian Jonestown Massacre ever had a 'hit' album?
 *  Newcombe has been capable of creating a hit album in less than a day. 


 * Ah, but if you read it carefully it never says he did it, just that he was capable of doing it. Perhaps in the interest of our verifiability policy we should just leave it out until it has been proven. -Will Beback 05:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha - the only way to "prove" it would be to have him sit in a recording studio while being monitored by an observer for no more than 24 hours. At the end of that time, only the material he had generated in that period could be used in recording his album, no alterations would be permitted. The album would then have to be released and generate enough sales to be classified as a "hit" by some standard. Basically it's the most stupid statement ever put in wikipedia in the history of mankind. J Shultz 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm010.jpg
Image:Bjm010.jpg is b35rhrhhglhlhvlhfllerlglhtrlghlhgllhfvghgfklshgfjklhgkdlsjfhsdkljfdlksjad;ljfa4irirjjcjkfkdoeoiruttuyttytytytytytyruiewoqpeing used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm009.jpg
Image:Bjm009.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm008.jpg
Image:Bjm008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm007.jpg
Image:Bjm007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm006.jpg
Image:Bjm006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm005.jpg
Image:Bjm005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm004.jpg
Image:Bjm004.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm003.jpg
Image:Bjm003.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm002.jpg
Image:Bjm002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bjm001.jpg
Image:Bjm001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Descendents section
Is this for bands influenced by, or bands that share members? If the former, this is unsourced and probably original research. If the latter, it would help to list which members. / edg ☺ ★ 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is definitely not a list of bands that share members as the Black Angels (while they have played with the BJM) do not have any members who were once a part of the BJM. This section is certainly OR. Freesound (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section
Would it be fair to add a "Criticism of BJM" section, and allowable by Wiki rules? Sstteevvee (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * lol what the heck would that include? "The BJM are criticized because Anton kicked someone's face in a concert, as seen in the film DiG!" ??--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. My question is related to wether or not this article would be improved by adding a section that touches upon the published criticism of BJM, positive and negative, dealing strictly with the music. Sstteevvee (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be perhaps a "Controversy" section. The identity in the contemporary music press is that these guys (AN specifically) are a bunch of troublemakers. What is the origin of that identity? Is it hype or is it based in fact? Does it influence their music? Is it intentional? Are they emulating prior artists?

I think the problem is to distinguish the sort of trivial interest in violence and drugs with a serious cultural investigation of how rock and roll artists are driven to social transgression through their art and character. To me, it seems very relevant to the music. Psychedelic rock is fundamentally about transcending social taboos regarding drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.21.181 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Vast majority of material unsourced?
There is a vast amount of material on here, but the references only start after 90% of the previously unsourced content?Mlif Revol (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I hate this page. It is sloppy and biased. The only discussion of "Dig!" is an explanation of why it was an unfair portrayal of Anton. The problem is that Anton's bad behavior is omitted. It doesn't make sense to explain away a portrayal that isn't even mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.21.181 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is one of the sloppiest Wiki articles I've ever seen. Sstteevvee (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Line-up
The line-up for 1999 looks wrong: Anton Newcombe and Miranda Lee Richards both on drums, and "Joel Gion - Tambourine/Maracas" on vocals??? Please check/correct. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

"Music" section
The "Music" section starts: "The first BJM album, 1995's Methodrone". But the discography clearly lists Spacegirl & Other Favorites as the first album. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Clean-Up Project, Jan '09
I've taken it upon myself to clean-up this article: re-working the prose so that it 'flows' better and removing superfluous/clunky phrases and fanpage-ey pov-isms e.g., "Joel Gion is the voice of the revolution" or "Their Satanic Majesties' Second Request . . . [is] an excellent album for the uninitiated". Sstteevvee (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning multi-instrumentalists, I list their instruments from rhythm-section upwards, starting with percussion and bass, then harmonic instruments and ending with melodic instruments e.g. "Matt Hollywood - bass, guitar, vocal, songwriting". I think this is common practice and is good for consistency. Sstteevvee (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose that descriptive details concerning psychedelia be moved from the opening paragraph to another subsection, and that the first paragraph should function primarily to give the reader an overall picture of the band. I'm thinking specifically about this sentence, which is a little weak on clarity: "Newcombe once described the term 'psychedelic' as to refer to "mind-expanding", but the BJM's music can also be spoken of as being psychedelic considering that some fans think of it as a direct continuation of popular music from the 1960s". Sstteevvee (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gion played tambourine and maracas. Both of these instruments fit nicely under the word "percussion" ;) Sstteevvee (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just writing-in to say that I've un-hired myself from cleaning-up the article. Good luck trying to make it better. Sstteevvee (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have completed a review of the entire article and have copyedited for general grammar, citation-needed tags, and have inserted citations, where possible. I have also removed sections of unverifiable content that I presume was the reason for the "Original research" and "Personal reflection ..." tags, which I have now removed.--Soulparadox (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Referencing goingthruvinyl

 * Hu12,I apologize, but I am new to editing pages on Wikipedia; I thought would start out small by editing “External Links” to get the hang of things. I’m unsure why my edits and external links were taken down. Any help would be appreciated because I seem to be following the same procedure as other people on the same Wikipedia page, but my edits have been flagged as spam and taken down. I have read the article on “Spam” and "External Links" and don't think that anything applies to me, except perhaps that I posted to different articles quickly and this is why it was flagged and removed. The articles (and audio podcasts) that I’m linking to are with the actual people the Wikipedia page is about; the particular artists are not pushing a product, but discussing themselves and their work, and, often, the history of the musical genre. I feel this content is valuable and pertinent to the particular subject on the Wikipedia page, and I'm asking that it be allowed back on, or at least make the infraction clear to me. I think that the information is useful, and can only be referenced at the site, and would like it to be provided to the public at large. Thanks for your consideration. Mika Grueski --216.221.70.212 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing?
Someone seems to be removing all reference to Newcombe's drug addiction and the band's failed appearances. I also think they are minimizing the role of other band members. I have seen the introductory section listing "all-star" band members added and removed multiple times.

As a point of reference, Roxy Music has had many studio musicians and line-up changes over the years, but a concise, relevant description of the band will always include Brian Eno's tenure in the early years. A description of Hawkwind might even need mention of Lemmy, simply because he is a person of note and his stint as bassist coincided with their highest popularity.

The caption to the first photo should read "Brian Jonestown Massacre" not "Anton Newcombe and Brian Jonestown Massacre"(it's a very poor photograph because only AN is really featured). A photo of the Beatles would not be captioned "Paul McCartney and the Beatles" despite the fact that Paul went on to more commercial success than the others. I think a lot of these changes stem from AN or his fans wanting to characterize BJM and AN as the same entity. That's fine, but as a matter of fact, they were billed as BJM not AN and BJM. We have to rely on album credits and billing because they are matters of historical fact. AN's intent now regarding the past is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.111.246 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

More whitewashing at this date and the section regarding all members except AN has been taken off the main page. Sad what a little fame can do to someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.111.246 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Sad what a little fame can do to someone." Do you mean that you think Newcombe himself is coming on here and whitewashing the article? That's funny! But I honestly doubt it... 50.92.38.236 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely think that AN or one of his fans is coming on wikipedia and editing this article so that AN is featured more prominently and that all the press that painted him as a drug addict, narcissist, impossible to work with is removed (if you read the primary sources, this is what the US press characterizes BJM as). To me, this is like discussing the history of the Beatles without discussing the conflict when they broke up. BJM has "broke up" countless times though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.111.246 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

And there's plenty of forensic evidence of this. AN's studio burnt down in a drug-related incident. AN hires and fires musicians seemingly at random. In the Dig! film you can see him punch his guitarist in the head, kick an audience member in the head, pawn a guitar for heroine, abuse bandmates and just generally act crazy. He was arrested in London for stabbing a member of his band (for a lot of people, this might be the most noteworthy event). He has maintained countless feuds with rival bands and criticized rock icons as well. He said of Eric Clapton, "All he's ever done is throw his baby off a ledge..." Every time I try to include these objective facts in their proper section, someone erases them. They are the real identity of BJM and why people find them interesting. The criteria for inclusion in the article should be 1) relevant and 2) truthful. Drug use and violence are relevant to a critical and historical appreciation of this band and to Anton Newcombe as a historical and cultural figure.

As a note, the articles on famous musicians generally include their personal struggles such as drug addiction, feuds and alcoholism (the article on Eric Clapton is a good example of this). This information needs to be included in an objective, scholarly fashion with the necessary sources. It's a disservice to music fans to 'whitewash' reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.111.246 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely think that many of the style issues and inaccuracies of this article stem from people with a positive bias toward Anton Newcombe editing out relevant and truthful aspects of the history of the BJM. They tend to remove or downplay 1) attributions to other band members (AN is the leader of BJM, but other members wrote lyrics and music), 2) evidence of missed appearances and internecine conflict in the band (missing big gigs, random hirings and firings, drug arrests, stabbings, physical violence, etc) 3) controversial remarks and actions of AN (remarks re Eric Clapton, Dandy Warhols, Oasis etc.) and 4) Apologies on AN's behalf (explaining why DiG! is biased and inaccurate). All of these actions and remark have forensic evidence supporting them and are relevant from a historical and critical perspective.75.173.111.246 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Musical Style
The article doesn't mention about musical influence from the "Spacemen 3" band.

The following text was taken from Wikipedia about "Spacemen 3" : ''Spacemen 3's style and sound has influenced many artists, on both sides of the Atlantic, including some bands belonging to the Shoegaze scene. E.g. My Bloody Valentine, Chapterhouse, Slowdive. Ride, Six By Seven, Mogwai, Bardo Pond, The Flowers of Hell, Yume Bitsu, 7% Solution, Lockgroove, Luna, Windy & Carl, Five Way Mirror, The Third Eye Foundation, American Analog Set, Black Mountain, Flying Saucer Attack, Asteroid No. 4, The Brian Jonestown Massacre, Colorsound, The Warlocks, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, The Icarus Line, The Morning After Girls, Scarling, and Wooden Shjips. '' I agree. They are perhaps the most important neo-psychedelic band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.111.246 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

BJM's alleged violence and feuds
Maybe its just me, but this page leaves out everything notable about BJM.

It's on film, Anton Newcombe kicking an audience member. It's a matter of record that he has slandered Bernard Sumner, accusing him of stealing a song. He also stabbed a guitarist during a London gig.

To me, that distinguishes BJM from nearly every other band out there. Does the Sex Pistols page mention Nancy and Sid's death? Does the Iggy Pop page mention his self-mutilation and wild stage presence? Does the Stones page mention the drug arrests? Yes, yes and yes.

The negative stuff is what defines AN in contemporary rock journalism. Why is it consistently edited from this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.102.167 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to read WP:BLP and realize that WP is not a scandal rag. Nor is there much point in posting the alleged act of one individual, untried in court, on a band's article.  Bands don't kick people. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Scandals are part of the historical record as long as they are documented. Allegations and accusations, too, are part of the historical record. Does the OJ Simpson page happen to mention his trial, for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.102.167 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You are defending one of the worst pages on wikipedia in terms of objectivity and tone (I didn't grade it either). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.102.167 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If something is documented on film, in a peer-reviewed serious documentary, it has some substance. According to the WP page on primary sources, "In the humanities, a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time." Dig! contains many interviews with Anton Newcombe and other BJM members regarding their involvement with the band and their releases. Thus, in that capacity, it is a primary source for analyzing the history and impact of the band.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.102.167 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not entitled to claim on your own authority that something is documented on film, then add that claim to the article without a reference. Especially not a criminal allegation.  And especially not regarding a living person.  Even if the claim is correct there's the question of weight and appropriateness for the article, which is about the band, and not one article.  I suggest you find judicious, reliable sources, and make a neutral statement in the article.  Until then, unreferenced claims violating WP:BLP can be removed summarily.  And if you continue to edit war you can be reported to both the WP:AN3 and BLP notice boards. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As a separate matter, you removed what seems to be a relevant comment by the Dandy's drummer with an edit summary that implies you think there is some sort of punctuation problem or editorializing, but the comment is unclear. I have restored it, please explain in a sentence or two why you think it should be removed. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The reference is the film, itself. As I explained above, the film is a primary source in regard to the history of the band because it includes interviews with the members regarding their thoughts on their lives and music. The film, "Dig!", is referenced throughout the article. It is not slander or libel to assert: "The film Dig! portrays Anton Newcombe kicking an audience member. "DIG!". Sundance Channel. SundanceChannel.com. 2004. Retrieved 2 December 2012."

In regard to the quote, there was significant editorial ellipsis there without brackets [...] or an editorial note from the editor who quoted it. When I checked the link, there was no article at that address. Dead link.

I am heartily glad of your standards. However, nearly all the citations on this article are from weak, non-scholarly sources. Please enforce these standards consistently.

The most interesting thing about this band is all the: missed gigs, arguments, infighting, drug abuse, accusations, etc. This was documented in a documentary film. Any reasonable person knows that the film itself must be judged as a source. However, it is a credible source for an encyclopedia article. If it is not, remove the whole section on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.102.167 (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The following has been deemed acceptable at the page for AN: "Newcombe has battled heroin addiction. His substance abuse problems are featured prominently in the documentary film Dig! which focuses on the tense relationship between The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols as both bands struggle for success.[4] Chris Nashawaty, writing a review of the film for Entertainment Weekly, stated that in the documentary Newcombe came across as "deeply troubled, drug-addicted, often downright scary."[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.21.181 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Perception of Anton as self-destructive, addicted: "It’s an exchange like this that flies in the face of the public perception of this highly misunderstood musician. Since having his profile raised thanks to Ondi Timoner’s controversial yet highly entertaining 2004 documentary Dig!, Anton Newcombe has come to be viewed as something of a figure of fun prone to wanton acts of self-destruction fuelled by ferocious drug and alcohol abuse that has led to him create a Midas touch in reverse. Forget gold, says the general perception, watch him turn everything to shit. http://thequietus.com/articles/03702-the-brian-jonestown-massacre-an-anton-newcombe-interveiw"

Anton admitting to using drugs excessively: "R13: 'My Bloody Underground' is the first new album in over 4 years, what did you do during that break? Anton: Well there was an EP called, "We Are The Radio", which is great, but I've been doing a lot of things: I've been taking care of my son, we've been touring around the world and I got married and helping other bands produce their material. I'm a productive, civic-minded member of society…ok I was lying, I was doing a lot of drugs!" Interview with Anton, February 2008, roomthirteen.com

Anton violent and drug addicted: "Anton Newcombe of the Brian Jonestown Massacre is still mad, bad and dangerous to know, writes Kylie Northover.

ANTON NEWCOMBE, lead singer-songwriter and deranged genius of US outfit the Brian Jonestown Massacre, has a reputation for being notoriously difficult to interview; he's fond of tangential ranting and leaving interviews halfway through.

His fractious personality was exposed to the world - some say in an unfair light - in the 2004 documentary Dig!, which focused on the Brian Jonestown Massacre's deteriorating relationship with the Dandy Warhols. Shot over seven years, it showed Newcombe at - one hopes - his worst; punching bandmates, kicking an audience member, imbibing numerous substances and being arrested.Northover, Kylie (May 23, 2008). "Bad reputation". The Age. Fairfax Digital. Retrieved June 17, 2010."

Perception of AN as violent, drug-addicted: "In the film, Newcombe is hailed as a musical genius — the more talented artist and the one perhaps more deserving of fame. But he's also painted as a sad and troubled jerk who sabotages his career with onstage fistfights, a raging ego, and a grim spiral into heroin addiction. You know The Man With the Golden Arm? asks Newcombe, referring to the harrowing 1955 film in which Frank Sinatra plays a junkie musician. That was me. Neo-Psych Out, Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly, May 23, 2005."

Whether or not Anton is violent and drug-addicted is a question that perhaps cannot be answered. However, it is well documented in secondary sources above that a) the perception of him in the contemporary rock press is that he is violent and drug-addicted and b) he has been accused of being violent and drug addicted.

This page will not be an objective, neutral description of BJM if it refuses to address BJM's image in the contemporary press. The Mary Shelly page, for instance, is a FA page and there is a whole section on her reputation with the critics of her time, and her struggles with accusations of immorality.

I think you are being overly critical of accusations and criticisms that have extensive documentation in both primary and secondary sources. You are also downplaying the impact of drugs and violence on rock and roll; if we took this stance regarding the Rolling Stones, the violence at Altamont wouldn't be on their band page. Historians agree, however, that that was one of the defining moments of 60s culture: "Just after the tour the band performed at the Altamont Free Concert at the Altamont Speedway, about 60 km east of San Francisco. The biker gang Hells Angels provided security, and a fan, Meredith Hunter, was stabbed and beaten to death by the Angels after they realised that he was armed.[78] Part of the tour and the Altamont concert were documented in Albert and David Maysles' film Gimme Shelter."

Now, most of the Stones are still living. This was a violent act by their security agents and it is relevant to the history of the Stones. That fact was included in a B-level article, by the way.


 * I am not about to read a book by an anonymous author. Whoever wrote that 5,000 word post, can you condense it to one concise paragraph and sign it?  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A) It's 1000 words. B) It's mostly quotations and citations from relevant, appropriate primary sources. C) This is an awful WP article. I want to help other editors improve it. That is my only goal. In my opinion, the only way to tell the most relevant details about this psychedelic rock band is to discuss their image in regard to drugs, violence and dischord. It's the subject matter of their music, part of their appeal to their fans, and part of their image in journalism. It's why DIG! was critically acclaimed; it followed that story. Even if the accusations are unfounded, they are relevant to the band.97.123.21.181 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No mention of drugs?
Psychedelic rock is a genre of rock linked to drug culture, particularly that of hallucinogenic drugs. Anton has admitted his prior drug addiction in interviews (see above), has an image in the press (fairly or unfairly) as a drug user or addict (see above), and writes extensively about drugs and works of art linked with drugs (see discography).

Why isn't there a single mention of drugs in this entire article?

I am very confused by this article. I think that social and cultural import of BJM is their capacity to transgress taboos regarding violence, sex and drugs. To ignore this aspect of their performance is to omit the most relevant details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.21.181 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't write articles or add claims based on personal arguments of importance. Find some reliable sources giving due weight to notable facts and add them to the article.  Stop arguing that it is our purpose to portray a certain viewpoint you find salient--it's not. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the talk section. The purpose of this section is to discuss different strategies to making the best article possible. In my opinion, the confrontational and dangerous image of the band is what makes them distinct and interesting from an academic standpoint. We have to find a way to discuss that image while maintaining WP's standards. To be honest, I don't know the best strategy to do so. That's why I'm discussing it here in the talk section.97.123.21.181 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

media notoriety
We need a better source than "quietus" for the band's notoriety. The claims being made amount to defamation per se and need to be sourced to something better. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. People regarded Byron and Shelley as Satanists during their lives. It may be defamation to call Lord Byron a satanist, but is not defamation to say that a literary critic accused Byron of Satanism. The second statement does not speak to the truth of whether or not Byron is a Satanist, it merely states an opinion of a third party that has relevance to Byron's historical and cultural work. Similarly, I do not want to defame or libel any of the band members. However, the cultural import of this band is tied into accusations of violence, drug-use and conflict. I thought it would be better to put these examples here in the talk section than in the article. I am new to wikipedia and appreciate your guidance.97.123.21.181 (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Brian Jonestown Massacre/Temp2" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Brian Jonestown Massacre/Temp2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Brian Jonestown Massacre/Temp" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Brian Jonestown Massacre/Temp and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)