Jump to content

Talk:Black Flag (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Improved Sources

[edit]

Surveying the source section for this article, I see that most of the sources are not contemporary to the period when Black Flag were originally active; that is, people have used sources mostly written after 2000, sources that are conveniently access by Internet. As a participant in the "punk" or "hardcore" scene since 1983, and as some one with a graduate degree in history, I would like to suggest that this article needs more sources written and published at the time the band were still active, especially band interviews, and fanzine reviews of that time. The use of "Get in the Van" by singer Henry Rollins is good, but more like that is needed.

Another improvement would be to minimize the use of reviews and analysis written by non-participants, written long after the band broke up. To understand Black Flag or anything else from the past, one must begin with "primary sources" - here, that would be band members, their friends, and people who participated in that scene. For that reason, I think there is an over-reliance on the Allmusic website or Rolling Stone rock history articles, which are retrospective, and a lack of reviews from that time. Also, I would suggest deleting most of the references to, and summaries of, Azerrad's "Our Band Could Be Your Life." While that book is good for its use of contemporary sources (same time as Black Flag were playing), it is terrible in that it applies a marketing perspective, and MBA/commericialism perspective that is very much at odds with both the goals and values of many of the band members, and also very much at odds with the values and perspective of the Black Flag audience of the 80s. A much better source is Stevie Chick's "Spray Paint the Walls," because Chick was a participant in that scene, and understands the band the way they understood themselves. That is a more appropriate starting point. As an older punk, I find Azerrad's perspective horrible and insulting.

I realize that I am asking for a lot, and offering little in the way of elbow grease, but a) I don't really understand the wiki formatting very well, and b) I know there is some one here who cares about this enough, and is a good wiki contributor, to improve this entry. The leading magazines ("zines") of the time - the insider view - were not Rolling Stone or Spin. You want to look for Flipside, Forced Exposure, Maximum Rock'n'Roll, Jet Lag, Grey Matter, Gerard Cosloy's Conflict, and a million other little zines from the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.199.71 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Is it really appropriate to simply label Black Flag hardcore punk? Most hardcore bands, today and in the eighties, have only a superficial connection to a group like Black Flag. Henry would probably just say they were a rock band, that's good enough for me, but it's certainly misleading to label them hardcore punk. I have a problem with the way labeling is used in general but I think alternative rock or indie rock (it was used back then) may be a more accurate context to place them in considering their relation to other bands in America at the time. Jonas.E.B. 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have at least 8 books on punk and alternative music sitting on my shelf which call Black Flag "hardcore" and describe them as one of the first and most important bands in hardcore punk (alongside Minor Threat, Circle Jerks, and others). They experimented with other styles later in their career, but "hardcore punk" is, if anything, the main genre they are associated with and should probably be the first one listed. To suggest that labeling Black Flag as hardcore punk is "misleading" is completely incorrect. In fact every single source I have that discusses Black Flag discusses them in the context of hardcore, as they were one of the originators of the style. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Black Flag had NOTHING to do with hardcore punk whatsoever and that it should be removed entirely, I just think it's absurd to only label them hardcore punk as it currently stands. By that logic, we should only have glam rock listed on David Bowie's page. Jonas.E.B. 06:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talk • contribs)
They're definitely a hardcore punk band, but I think Black Flag is also a noise rock band. See their Allmusic Guide entry and Azerrad's book. They also have definite and documented connections to punk jazz. The My War album is also seminal for grunge, sludge metal, metalcore, and mathcore, but that probably shouldn't be addressed in the context of the genre box. Aryder779 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IllaZilla and Aryder. While later they might be considered other genres, this band throughout most of their career is practically the definition of "hardcore punk", particularly "Los Angeles Hardcore Punk." To say this band is not punk is grossly inaccurate and doing a disservice to readers. --Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, no one said they weren't punk. Second, "this band throughout most of their career is practically the definition of hardcore punk"? It's well documented that the hardcore crowd hated what they did after Damaged. The "scene" rejects Black Flag yet they still demand that Black Flag simply be considered a hardcore band? Everything after Damaged isn't hardcore (that's half of their career). They produced far more material that isn't hardcore. Black Flag, Husker Du, and Minutemen were a part of something much bigger than hardcore (which, like its parent punk, just became a generic brand name for unoriginal music.) Everyone knows Black Flag pioneered hardcore music, that's why hardcore punk should remain, but they did so much more after that. That's what's misleading. Jonas.E.B. 05:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas.E.B. (talk • contribs)

Frankly, I don't think "hardcore punk" goes far enough. I basically agree with the above comment. Like Bad Brains, the other indisputable formative hardcore band (Minor Threat were just a tad later), Black Flag quickly moved beyond hardcore and helped pioneer what we now call "alternative metal". Any citations to back this up would be terrific, and we can add it without unneccessary controversy. Nobody's saying the "hardcore punk" tag should be removed - I think most would agree it should by all rights be the first genre listed in the infobox - but it doesn't go far enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.137.75 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be hard-pressed to find sources describing Black Flag as "alternative metal". Yes, many sources talk about how the band moved further and further from hardcore over the course of their career, from the sludge-y B-side of My War all the way through the instrumental jams and spoken word etc., and some sources note their influence on other fusion genres/subgenres. But in my reading of a number of sources none of them actually placed Black Flag themselves in any specific genres that weren't some variation of punk rock. And of course the term "alternative metal" didn't come along for well over a decade after Black Flag's breakup. Of course if you want to build a "Style" section in the article and draw from different sources describing the band's musical evolution (and cite them, of course), that'd be fantastic. The infobox is supposed to summarize details from the article itself, so as long as the infobox reflects the (referenced) content of the article body, I'd be satisfied. Ultimately it's up to the sources and what they say. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I write as a participant in the "punk" or "hardcore" scene since 1983, and also as some one with a graduate degree in history: From my perspective, both "punk" and "hardcore" are accurate to Black Flag because that would be how they might have described themselves at that time, certainly as part of the "punk" scene, and it is best to begin an assessment with an understanding of the subject by their own terms. If you read "Spray Paint the Walls" by Stevie Chick (also a participant) you can learn the details of how the band, originally from the South Bay area, related to the 70s punk scene of L.A. - geographically and culturally distinct from South Bay. They attended those shows, and played some of those clubs, shared the same audience; however, being from South Bay (not LA) and playing faster tempos and beats, "hardcore" is appropriate because they helped invent the genre, playing barre chords, fast tempos and "one-two" beats by 1980. This question of genre or labelling could be ultimately resolved by consulting interviews from that time - if some one cares enough to do that.

One user completely removed "External links" section

[edit]

A user a chosen to remove the entire "External links" section with the edit summary: lacking an external links section" is not a bad thing. ELs are not requisite (WP:EL/WP:NOT#LINK). fansites are discouraged, & allmusic should be cited as a source.[1]

First of all, WP:EL does NOT require external links to be inline citations. WP:EL states in the "What should be linked" section:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Simply because a valid external link isn't included as an inline citation, WP:EL does not in any form "ban" that link.

As for the "fansites are discouraged", there is not guideline anywhere discouraging fansites in External links sections.. WP:NOT#LINK states:

"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." (emphasis mine)

Let's stop ownership ownership of articles and let all editors contribute useful information.--Oakshade (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required that articles have external links sections. A well-written article shouldn't need one unless, as EL says, there is relevant, reliable material that can't be included in the WP article due to amount of detail or copyright issues. The majority of fansites are notoriously unreliable and full of copyright violations, and it is difficult to determine if one "major fansite" is more appropriate than another (inevitably this leads to an EL section that is a list of fansites). For reliable, informative sites, it is greatly preferred to use them as sources to reference the article rather than slap them on as ELs. For example, the Allmusic biography would be useful as a source for the article content, and could be linked via a citation. Ditto the interviews: If they contain information useful to explaining the band's history, use them as sources & cite them. If they don't, then what's the point of linking them (again, an inevitability as evidenced in many musical artist articles is that the EL section becomes a list of interviews, most of which would be much more effectively applied as sources to verify & enhance the article). One should always consider a link's usefulness as a source first, and try to apply it as such, before slapping it in an external links section.
Note that I'm not saying "no external links". I'm saying "consider using them as sources instead", which is of much better service to the article in the long run. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because a link is not used as a source is absolutely no reason, either per WP:External links or WP:NOT#LINK do delete them. WP:EL does not say that if a link isn't used as a source than it can not be used as an external link. That's only you saying that. The Allmusic link is currently not used as a source, yet it is "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." If you find a place in the article to use it as an inline citation, go ahead and link it that way. Otherwise, it's still a useful link per WP:EL. Other editors have considered "using them as sources," but have found not place for them as citations, yet have found these links useful. Avoid ownership and respect other editors, please. --Oakshade (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this isn't about ownership. You made an edit, I disagreed and reverted it, you restored it, and now we're discussing it. I've only made 1 edit in this interaction, and we certainly don't have an edit war on our hands, so I don't think I've done anything here that validates an accusation of ownership. Plenty of others have made plenty of contributions to this article, so accusing me of ownership is basically an ad hominem attack and does nothing to address the actual topic at hand.
You're right, EL & NOTLINK don't explicitly say "you can't put in an external link if it would be better used as a source", but common sense says that if it would be better used as a source, you should use it as a source rather than as an external link. You and I are both veteran editors with several years of Wiki-experience: If I found a website that I thought had useful, relevant information that could be incorporated into an article, I'd use it to improve the article and cite it as a source, rather than just slapping it in an external links section. I'm simply asking you to do the same. Adding a list of external links doesn't do anything to improve the article itself.
There's no evidence that "other editors have considered 'using them as sources,' but have found not place for them as citations, yet have found these links useful" ... how would one even go about verifying that claim? Unless you're saying that you tried to use them as sources but couldn't, yet found them useful anyway...but that's not what you said in your edit summary: you said "Article lacking external links section". I didn't think that was a valid argument for adding one: articles aren't required to have external links sections. In fact, we have policies and guidelines (NOTLINK & EL) that encourage us to be critical about the types of external links we provide. That an article "lacks an external links section" is not in itself a reason to add one; the valid argument for having one is if there are useful, content-relevant links that can't be used as sources for one reason or another (level of detail, copyright issues, etc.). Are you suggesting that these links can't be used as sources for some reason? The Allmusic biography most certainly could, and I believe that if the interviews contain any relevant information then they should be used as sources rather than as external links, and if they don't contain any relevant information then there really isn't any point in linking them in the first place.
So basically I'm asking you to justify using these websites as external links rather than as sources, and not simply with "EL/NOTLINK doesn't forbid them", or "ELYES says this is okay". What "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, or other reasons" do these links provide? Because it seems to me that most of them would be better utilized as sources. An external links section isn't a holding pen for potential sources; that kind of thing belongs on the talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IllaZilla, it was other editors who placed those links in the External links section and in fact you who had first removed the entire External links section.[2] This is only you who wants it removed. And it was you who cited WP:EL/WP:NOT#LINK as reasons to remove the entire section. Now that you've been shown that those guidelines explicitly allow and even encourage such links, you're pulling this wanting more reasons for the links instead of ""EL/NOTLINK doesn't forbid them", or "ELYES says this is okay"." As you're clearly confused on how you value our guidelines, it's impossible to respond now.
You might not feel that a reliable biography, interviews or a fansite should exist in the article, but in fact other editors have felt they bring encyclopedic value to the article. Interviews of this band from the early 1980s gives insight to the band's writing, philosophy, personality and work ethic. If you don't thinks that's encyclopedic, that's okay. Other editors and our guidelines disagree. Writing articles on Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not just the managing and policing by one editor. If we need third opinions for wider community scrutiny of appropriateness of external links, then that's what we'll get. --Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misinterpreted my remarks. You read WP:EL as explicitly encouraging these types of links, but I read it the other way. Take the following lines from the lead of EL:
  1. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
  2. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
  3. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.
I'm simply asking you to, rather than just say "EL doesn't forbid these", to explain how it justifies them (per point 2 above). That is, how do they satisfy the criteria of EL? Common sense says that a reliable biography contains information that is accurate & could be added to the article (point 1) & that it should therefore be used as a source (point 3). So in my view, per EL, it doesn't belong in an external links section. Same with the interviews: if they're reliable and provice meaningful content about the band's writing/philosophy/work ethic (which are topics touched on in the article), then they should be used as sources & not as external links (points 1 & 3 again). The value of the fansite depends on its reliability and how much in-depth content it includes that goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia or the article's cited sources. That's something I'm certainly willing to discuss. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're insisting on splitting hairs. As you're gaming the system and cherry-picking items in your guideline that you think justify your behavior (they don't), here's the WP:EL "WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED" (bold not mine) section:
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." (bold mine)
IllaZilla, you are the only editor who doesn't find the interviews or one fansite, or even an entire External links section, appropriate or encyclopedic for an article. We'll get a third opinion if you insist on owning and ignoring consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherry-picking your preferred parts too:
  • Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
You have failed to provide a reason why the material in these links cannot simply be integrated into the article, which is what I clearly asked for. Interesting how you interpret any opinion of mine as a transgression of WP:OWN but any opinion of your own as a clear demonstration of consensus. Consensus comes through discussion, agreement, and compromise, not by your decree. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While probably not your intent, you're validating WP:EL's stipulation that interviews should be linked. The amount of detail in the interviews is way too much to be included in the article and they add encyclopedic perspective to readers. You keep attempting to deny readers that insight. You are the only user who wants no External links section. This is just like your sole insistence that the lede shouldn't describe this band as a "punk" band and reverting all users who tried to state otherwise. You're repeating that pattern. Please stop. --Oakshade (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the interviews stay and the fansite goes. That seems like a fair comprise. Select interviews can add to an article. Side note: If you both put this much work into the article the NPOV, sourcing and copyedting problems would be gone. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Instead of asking can the links be included we should ask should they. I assume the discussion is about the three removed with this edit. As for the Allmusic link, any information from their site that is not already in the article can easily be added so I would say the link does not belong. IMO the dementlieu site is nothing but cruft, I don't see how having it would benefit the article. On the other hand the ipass site has lots of info, much of it not suitable to adding to the article, I think keeping it would be a plus. So my two cents is keep the ipass site and get rid of the other two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J04n (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites are used in pretty much every band article and I find no reason why this one should be singled out for not including one. Per WP:NOT#LINK (the reason cited by IllaZilla for removing the fansite link with the summary "fansites are discouraged"):
"There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines."
Please note, that I don't advocate for the restoring of all the links that were deleted by IllaZilla, including the cruft site described by the above editor, just interviews and only one fansite (there were two). Others can be added if they bring encyclopedic value to the article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fansites are used in pretty much every band article" — That's a reason to step back & think whether they're actually useful, not a carte blanche for adding them just for the sake of having some ELs in there. IMO a fansite link can be useful, if it contains content that we can't reasonably include in the article—for example, long lists of touring histories, collections of non-free photos (providing that the site holds the rights or permissions to use them...we don't want to knowingly link to copyvio), gear lists, etc.—and if the site is considered neutral and reliable (which of course begs the question: If it's neutral & reliable enough to be an EL by WP standards, isn't it neutral & reliable enough to be used as a source?). The fansite linked, for example, seems to have a number of copyrighted images of the band that they have permission to display, but that Wikipedia wouldn't have permission to use, so that's a good reason to keep it. As for the interviews, I'd really rather see them used as sources to enhance the content of the article. I've encountered too many band articles with EL sections that are just long lists of interviews, few of which have any information in them that shouldn't be used in the article body or that isn't already covered by secondary sources. Like I said earlier, the EL section isn't meant to be a holding pen for sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has ever claimed an External links section is "a holding pen for sources." That's only you. That opinion is not an excuse to delete external links that are helpful to the reader in an encyclopedia. The most telling part of your reply is the "I'd" in "As for the interviews, I'd really rather see them used as sources to enhance the content of the article." That's what I'm talking about when I bring up ownership issues that you seem to constantly have. That's nice what you'd rather see, but other editors would rather have links to interviews and our guideline WP:EL explicitly encourages links to interviews. Just because you call External links a "holding pen" does not in any manner mean external links should be deleted. You're just in the one-person minority on this. --Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If you find a place in the article to use it as an inline citation, go ahead and link it that way." — That is why I say that the EL section is not a holding pen for sources. Links that clearly could/should be used as sources, like the interviews (or the Allmusic bio, which has since been turned into a citation) do not belong as ELs, they belong as sources. This is supported by WP:EL: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." As I asked earlier, what makes these interviews unable to be used as sources (thus justifying putting them in an EL section instead)? If, as you said earlier, they contain relevant info about the band's style/work ethic, etc., shouldn't we quote or paraphrase something from them in the article body & then link them via citations? That would seem a better way to use these to improve the article. Also as I've asked before, please drop the ad hominem accusations of ownership. I've still only made 1 edit to the article during this entire exchange, so that accusation is unfounded. Discussing differences of opinion, as we are doing here, is not indicative of ownership. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL says ""If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." (Bold mine). "Consider" does not mean "should" as you are claiming. WP:EL also states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In this case it does state "should" because it's in the "WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED" (bold not mine). Sorry, our guidelines aren't á la carte menus where you can adhere to the parts you like and disregard other parts. --Oakshade (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at ya: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." (bold mine). Why can't the pertinent info from these interviews be integrated into the article, exactly? Why do you get to pick & choose the parts of the guidelines that suit your views while dismissing others' arguments that are based on the same guidelines?
Look, clearly we disagree and we're not getting anywhere with the continual back-&-forth. I'm content to have stated my opinion and I don't plan to remove the links, as I don't wish to be the cause of any edit-warring. My intital objection was that you seemingly added these links simply for the sake of having an external links section (which is what your original edit summary indicated), and that didn't make sense to me. Chances are that at some point I or another editor will look to use these links as sources, and turn them into citations. As the article is in need of improvement anyway, I think that's reasonable. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's getting nowhere and only a RfC or other third party scrutiny would end this. Just for the record, I only restored select external links which seemed appropriate, not all the ones that you removed. Leaving the community to decide and improve the article is reasonable.--Oakshade (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

This article seems far too detailed and far too lengthy. For example, is anyone interested that one record of the band "was to be distributed by now-defunct Unicorn Records, a subsidiary of MCA"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.150.64 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article isn't long enough. The history isn't very detailed considering the amount of available source material. I've ordered some books and plan to work on that. And yes, people do care about the Unicorn distribution deal, because it led to a legal battle between Black Flag and Unicorn/MCA that resulting in the band being legally prohibited from releasing any recordings under the Black Flag name for several years (which they did anyway, and a couple of the members served bried jail time as a result). So yes, that detail is important to their career/history. Whether it interests you personally is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show that the article's too long, you sure picked the wrong example. The whole kerfuffle with Unicorn Records was a pivotal point in the band's history which drove them to the idea that DIY was, after all, the way to go, paving the path for SST's subsequent history and the whole history of the indie rock ethic. If that's not clear in the article, then it's a matter of the article not being long enough, not too long. Acidtoyman (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. I'm currently reading Spray Paint the Walls, Rock and the Pop Narcotic, and Planet Joe (on top of the already-read Our Band Could Be Your Life, American Hardcore, and Get in the Van) with the aim of getting Black Flag-related articles (especially this one) to GA. Right now I'm concentrating on List of Black Flag band members, but I'll get around to this one. To suggest that this article is too long is rather absurd, given the depth and breadth of coverage this band has received. The article's not even 30K, for pete's sake. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, suit yourself. But realize that the vast majority of people who look up Black Flag on wikipedia are not adulatory fanboys such as yourselves but people who want a relatively quick summary of a band they know little about. This sea of facts is just going to turn them off and make them less likely to read the article, not more likely. You criticize me, "Whether it interests you personally is irrelevant," but the reason for the excessive self-indulgence of the article is because it interests you personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.150.64 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is what the lead summary is for. If you're interested enough in the band to read past that, then, seriously, the Unicorn stuff was a big deal. It's what kept them from being able to release records until 1984, which was why they put out so many records in 1984 (three years worth of backlogged material). And as I said above, if it weren't for the Unicorn incident, the whole indie record movement that got started in the 80s quite likely wouldn't have happened. It's important enough to have its own subsection (this way, if it doesn't interest you it's easy to skip). You really do have to understand that it was not only a pivotal piece of the band's history, it had repercussions outside of the band: it caused Unicorn to go bankrupt, and it caused Black Flag to adopt the DIY ethic that they are so famous for, which had a huge influence on the punk, alt rock and indie scenes to come. Again, if this wasn't clear from the article, then that just means the article was to short---this stuff seriously needs to be expanded and made clear.
If the article is a "sea of facts" that will keep people from reading it, then that just means it needs to be reorganized in a reader-friendly way, not that it needs to be made shorter. Acidtoyman (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well-said. Encylcopedia articles are supposed to cover their topics in-depth. This is a band that had a complex and well-documented history, a significant cultural impact, and about whom entire books have been written. An encyclopedia article with under 30K of information can hardly be said to be a "sea of facts" when there have literally been hundreds and hundreds of pages' worth of biographical and critical information published about this band outside of Wikipedia. If all you're interested in in a cursory glance, then you can just read the lead section...that's partly what it's for. Many readers will want more detail thatn that, however, and that's what the article body is for. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credits on Everything Went Black?

[edit]

Looks like someone made an error. Keith Morris was only credited as "Johnny 'Bob' Goldstein" on the Nervous Breakdown EP, and Ron Reyes as "Chavo Pederast" on the Jealous Again EP; they were credited under their real names on Everything Went Black. --71.173.14.251 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I'm holding Everything Went Black in my hand right now and it credits "Johnny 'Bob' Goldstein" and "Chavo Pederast", not Morris or Reyes. While Reyes was credited as Chavo Pederast on Jealous Again, Morris was credited by his real name on Nervous Breakdown. See for yourself the back covers of Nervous Breakdown (on which Chuck Dukowski is credited by his real name, Gary McDaniel), Jealous Again, and Everything Went Black (as well as the original cover of EWB, released when the band was legally not allowed to release anything under the name Black Flag so they instead simply put their names on the cover...the image is small but it says Goldstein/Pederast, not Morris/Reyes). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Flag (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding (a) genre(s)

[edit]

Standard hardcore punk really isn't the only genre that Black Flag go under. I have two sources that consider Black Flag a post-hardcore band and Black Flag were credited with starting post-hardcore by one of these sources or even both of these sources. I do consider Black Flag post-hardcore as the band mix elements of punk/hardcore with elements/influences of genres like math rock, heavy metal, jazz, etc. I think post-hardcore should be added. There actually is quite an amount of Black Flag songs that aren't standard hardcore punk or even hardcore punk as a whole. EuropeanSwedenAmerican2222 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Flag (band). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Flag (band). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Flag (band). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginn & Morris

[edit]

I edited to include Morris as a founding member, whereas the previous version had Ginn as sole founder with Morris thrown in as an afterthought when the two had difficulty finding other musicians. Morris recounts how the two met and decided to form a band in his autobiography.--Chimino (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Flag_(band)&oldid=1252178823"