Talk:Green Day

Sign your posts!! That way, others will know who left which comments, and who you are. Do this by typing two dashes, and four tildes, with no spaces. --Mac Davis 09:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Johnny Rotten slams Greenday

Sex pistols frontman Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) has lashed out at Green Day, accusing them of stealing the term "punk" and reducing the political movement associated with punk into a simple musical style. He says, according to Contactmusic: "Don't try and tell me Green Day are punk. They're not, they're plonk and they're bandwagoning on something they didn't come up with themselves. I think they are phony."

Referring to his band's battle with the police and censors during its heyday, Lydon adds, "The government's against you, the police are on you.

"So there we are fending off all that and it pisses me off that years later a wank outfit like Green Day hop in and nick all that and attach it to themselves.

"They didn't earn their wings to do that and if they were true punk they wouldn't look anything like they do."

Personally, I agree with Johnny Rotten here, mainly because he is definately classed as punk and was one of the pioneers of the punk rock movement --202.7.190.131 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cigarettes and Valetines

Someone wrote in the article that those who heard the lost Green Day album Cigarettes and Valetines said it was quite good. This information is totally incorrect. During an interview in summer of 2005, Billie Joe stated that after the tapes were lost, Rob Cavallo (Green Day's producer) told the band members he thought, "it was no good." I am considering changing that information in the article.

Berkely or Oakland?

It said Berkely Calif on the page, I found this confusing as Billie Joe Armstrong announced on their Bullet in a Bible DVD, that "Were Green Day from Oakland California, but now England is official home of Green Day". If anyone needs it, I can lookup which song and timing he says it. Thats why I changed Berkely to Oakland. --Duey Finster 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He may have been talking about where they are from now, not where they originated. I was under the impression they started in Rodeo. -- Simpatico 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, no way of telling for sure. If its good enough for Billie Joe to say it, I think its good enough for wikipedia. Its on "Bullet in a Bible" album, song is "Minority" and time is approx. 2min mark, on the UK/Ireland version of the album (other regions may differ). --Duey Finster 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be that Billy Joe said that because at the time they were in england. He may have ment they felt like they were home, being that it was there most profitable concert (the show sold out, twice). After a Yahoo! search I found this "It takes [Billie-Joe] every crowd-pleasing trick in the book to control a crowd of 60,000 plus, and he uses them all, several times. So we get shout-outs to "England!", which is now "the official home of Green Day" (which will no doubt come to a surprise to the other official homes of Green Day that the band visited on their European tour)." Which further proves he was giving the U.K. the same treatment as all the other countries in their tour, there was nothing "offical" about it. He was just pleasing the crowd. Making once again, Oakland California, the home of Green Day --Jeffspace2002 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The members of Green Day are orginially from Rodeo, California according to the DVD Biography "Suburbia Bomb".

American Idiot interpretation

I find the interpretation inacurate, wanting to focus in the war when the story is not of a "boy going to war like the video". The story is of a boy who is growing up in a country really mess up, fell the sadness, get to the bad influences (Jimmy) and the drugs (Novacaine), find a girl (Shes a rebel and Whatsername) and end in na office doing paper work, and other stuff. I would edit the article myself, but i'm not very good in english :(

Really messed up country? I think ur the one on "novacaine," bud. Don't insult my home. We may have some people in congress bsing us, but our nation is still the only superpower in the world and continues to flourish.

---Wikikrieg---

That is exactly right sir, I am also pretty sure, when the album is bought, it provides an explanation. Green Day, also has provided this kind of explanation. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though most of the album is based on wild conspiracy theories with no proof? I'm sure if Bush was the monster they claim, he'd have shot them... but when do anti-war celebrities ever make sense? IAnd I got to hear the song American Idiot... it's nothing but whining about Bush, 9/11 victim trashing, and terrorist sympathy.

The person above me obviously is just another person who buys into politicos bullshit. The song "American Idiot" in no way (literal, metaphorical, symbolically) trashes 9/11 victims or sympathizes terrorists. The Bush whining is more like Bush bashing with the title, but the song is more about waking up to realize we've been hypnotized by a "truth" that might actually be made up of lies. That we live in an age where we take everything at face value and don't look any deeper. You sir, are probably a true blue and red blooded patriot. Waving your little flag, leaving it out in the rain for fear the terrorists will win if you take it down? Don't criticize the government and a misguided miscalculated war because then you'd be an enemy of America? Well, how can you disregard Green Day's freedom to say something while the only thing you've ever questioned of the government is when will we have another wonderful 4 years of Bush?! because since when do faux-patriotic Americans ever make sense? You can ramble about anything. You only want to make Green Day the enemy because you're running out of people to scapegoat for the problems of America. You sir, are the problem of America. Think you know everything. Shut up.--MassProducedGod 04:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, everyone here thinks they're an anarchist cause they listen to Green Day and don’t like Bush very much. Well, you can say 'fuck the system' and 'down with bush' and use 'scapegoat' in everything you say, but seriously, chill the fuck out. I listen to punk rock- new Green Day not being one band I listen to but not because they're popular or any of that shit, it’s because they're fucking fakes. Just because I listen to punk, go to punk shows, play in punk bands, does not mean I must complain about the government every second I can; I wouldn’t be enjoying life. And if you want to write music about how you feel, that's great, but it should actually mean something to you and not be some hypocritical bullshit just to get your fucking album sold. Now I cant remember how I got myself on this site and I don’t know why I'm wasting my minutes on here... but I find it incredibly RIDICULOUS that anyone on this thing takes Green Days lyrics seriously… or even bothers listening to Green Day’s lyrics and trying to find meaning it any of them. If you want meaning, listen to Dookie or something; listen to songs about cross-dressing and fucking with people. Green Day has written such little about politics before this album. Now that ‘punk’ has come back and total badass bands like Good Charlotte and My Chemical Romance are crying on stage as 8-year-old girls are drooling over their pictures in some teen magazine, green day has started dressing in black, wearing make-up and singing about America being corrupt. Now, if you’re not convinced that green day is sold out or you think they’re doing this because they really want to send a message out to people unaware that our country’s fucked, read the lyrics a little more and take a look at the fucking band. “Don’t wanna be an American idiot, one nation controlled by the media.” I was in Newberry Comics the other day and saw a stack of Green Day’s ‘American Idiot’ CDs and thought, why would you want to buy that CD in bulk? Then I took a closer look and saw that they were blank CDs. Green Day is now selling blank CDs. So if you’re just another fucking idiot that listens to the new Green Day saying “these guys are bad-ass” then fine, but if you’re taking in their bullshit lyrics, just remember, you’re a fucking American idiot. If anyone would like to further argue with me, please do. I would love to hear what you have to say to defend these guys that would never stand up for you. Otherwise just go listen to your pop punk and spend daddy’s cash at Hot Topic. -Jope

I think the article needs a change to the interpretation of the rock opera. Perhaps song by song? Here is my interpretation:

American Idiot- JOS is afraid of becoming an american idot. He recognizes the control of the media over what we think.

Jesus of Suburbia- We learn the story of JOS's childhood. Towards the end he decides to leave home.

Holiday- JOS is amazed by all he sees after leaving home and going on holiday. This song is also a direct attack on Gearge Bush.

Boulevard of Broken Dreams- JOS is lonely.

Are we we are- JOS is unhappy with his identity and decides to go to the City where he hopes to find himself.

St. Jimmy- JOS reinvents hemself and becomes the rebellios St. Jimmy

Give me Novacaine- He starts using drugs.

She's a Rebel- JOS/St. Jimmy meets whasername.

Extraordinary girl- They fall in love but are uncertain.

Letterbomb- Whasername breaks up with JOS/St. Jimmy because she knows he is crazy.

Wake me up when september ends- JOS/St. Jimmy is sad after breaking up with Whasername. This song is also about Billy Joel's father who died when he was a kid.

Homecoming- JOS decides to get rid of St. Jimmy. He is not sure what to do with himself but he finally decides to return home.

Whasername- Many years later JOS thinks fondly about his times with Whasername.

Collective Noun Crash Course

TheoClarke edited this page to change verbs describing the actions of the band from plural to singular. This, however, is unnecessary and (in circles outside the US) considered to be incorrect. It is the equivalent of changing the spelling of "colour" to "color" and vice versa. Stellis 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for that. I reversed a change from what I thought was a correct usage to what I thought was an incorrect one. I did not know that this was another US-English/Commonwealth-English divide, although I would be surprised to find that I favour US-usage. Please put it down to error rather than nationalism. I remembered being taught (in England) that either plural or singular verbs could be used after collective nouns but that singular verbs were preferable where they applied to the subject as a single entity. For example, "The band is a rock group" and "The band were born in Greensboro" are both correct, whereas "The band was born in Greenboro" is incorrect (unless they were triplets). To my knowledge (and I can find nothing in the edit history that contradicts this), I changed just one word, once, so you may be confusing me with someone else who made other changes (although I could not find evidence of such changes on a quick look through). Strictly speaking, though, (and I had not considered this before) this article should be written in US-English since it concerns subject that is tightly coupled to the US. —Theo (Talk) 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No harm done Stellis 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Green Day's Punk Disputes

I compressed all the separate punk dispute topics into one, please post your arguments here. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Green Day is not punk, nor punk rock. They are pop-punk, and I believe they have been quoted as saying that. To be punk, you need to be making a political statement, which is absent from all of their albums save American Idiot. But in the case of that, they sound more like a genuine rock band. --66.68.32.177 00:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Does it mean The Ramones were not punk either? As far as I know, they were not political at all. But have always been regarded as one of the greatest names of punk. -200.195.88.155

I'd say The Ramones were punk rock, and punk and punk rock are different things. Also, you don't need to be making a political statement to be considered punk, there've been tons of punk bands with no political message. --Yoko-onassis 6 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

The Ramones are seen as the fathers of pop-punk. Ask anyone who takes their punk seriously. So no, they weren't strictly Punk; they were pop-punk.Canaen 08:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

They are upbeat and have little to no talk on politics or current events. Real punk is like NOFX and Strike Anywhere. Green Day is not. I tried to put that they were pop-punk but it kept being reverted. Andre Wong 02:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The lyrics of a song do NOT change its genre. Ben Folds covered a song by Dr. Dre in his usual folk-y/pop style, does that make Ben Folds a rapper? Anyway genre is a very subjective matter. Stellis 00:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed:

Green Day's music is similar to earlier punk bands:'

• Bad Religion
• NOFX
• The Offspring
• Operation Ivy
• Seven Seconds
• The Subhumans (UK)

Because it's POV (many would claim Green Day is utterly unlike NOFX or Op Ivy). See Talk:Fiona Apple for some other reasons. Tuf-Kat

I've re-added the list under a different title: 'Other earlier punk bands include:'. I agree it is POV saying that Green Day's music is similar to those in the list, but I think a list of related bands is always useful, especially for genre-driven, subcultured music styles like punk rock. --Zaim

Ah, sorry, I've just removed it again (same list as above but with the addition of Rancid). "Other earlier punk bands" is too vague. We have lists of other earlier punk bands elsewhere - see Punk rock. It would, however, be good to say what the band themselves have cited as influences, or what reputable critics have said about their music, and what it is similar to. It's okay to mention critic's opinions, but we're not allowed to say whetehr we agree with them... -- Oliver P. 18:10 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that was quick. Just to note that that was my first Wikipedia edit. And I see what you mean, thank you for pointing that out. Wiki and Wikipedia is very nice. --Zaim

Oh, well in that case, welcome to the project! And yes, it is nice, I have to agree with you there. :) -- Oliver P. 19:23 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Green Day is so not like NOFX, and I think that they are more POP-punk than punk. Generally, traditional punk is darker and less upbeat. Like Pennywise. BTW, Zaim, I love Wikipedia too, as it has helped me infinitely on school projects. Thanks to all! Andre Wong 01:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Come on, Green Day is so pop-punk. Their subject matter and their playing style is wayyy too upbeat.Andre Wong 00:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article comes across as being written by a fan. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't exactly create a NPOV. I removed the incomplete sentence 'Hopefully they do.' as that doesn't exactly come across as Enyclopedic. I could say the same thing about many band pages on Wikipedia. Discolando 15:34, 23 Nov 2004 (CDT)

Upon further reflection, I removed the entire sentence, "Dirnt has been quoted on MTV as saying they may or may not find the master tapes soon." This is more of a temporary news blurb and doesn't add any value to the article. Discolando 18:16, 23 Nov 2004 (CDT)

Green Day is a pop-punk band; this is a well-established fact. If you want real Punk, I suggest you look at old Anti-Flag (first 3 albums or so), the Sex Pistols, Sham 69, the Dead Kennedys, or any number of other Punk bands. Although some of Green Day's earliest stuff (first album, no later) may be regarded as Punk, anything after is either pop-punk with rare exception (Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)), up until Warning or so. Then, it progresses into mainstream rock. This shit isn't a mystery, it's common sense for anyone who's been a punk for even a few months. Canaen 08:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to agree on what music they play!! Green Day is it's own style of music altogether, they are always at least in some way different to other bands, they are unique.

I don't know why there's become this huge issue with the classification of Green Day, it is clearly noted on the edit page and in the talk archives that the consensus is that Green Day is punk rock. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It is actually not clear; I see just as many if not more people argue in favor of the punk-pop genre to classify this group. To compromise, I included both terms on the most recent edit since either way, they are both. As for the consensus bit in the article, I think it was referring to the pop-punk genre - that is how I first saw it. Now, agruements for the not-so-pop punk rock classification arise from the ideology that this genre was thought to have surfaced in the late 1990's - after Green Day first broke into the mainstream. However, they have virtually blended into the pop genre so much as of recent that they are having more success in that genre than "traditional" pop punk groups such as Blink-182 ever had. Drdr1989 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's close to Blink-182 in terms of being po-punk type but Green Day seems to be more hardcore rock, as shown by many of their songs. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardcore punk? Have you even listened to punk? Hardcore's eating your own shit on stage. Anyway, back on topic. Why have both? Pop punk is already saying that they're punk, so it's like repeating yourself. Someone debate me. And BTW, I don't think they're pop punk, I think that whole term is a contradiction. If anything beside pop, I see Green Day as emo. Gold Stur 20:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Punk Rock/Pop-Punk works in terms of the infobox and the intro paragraph, and I've changed it as such. How should it referred to after that though? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Their brand of punk"? --Joewithajay 21:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Since no one cares enough to reply, I'm changing them to just pop punk. Gold Stur 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the classification as pop punk only since don't they also qualify as punk rock? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen to Black Flag, GG Allin, The Clash, Dead Kennedys, and The Weirdos. Green Day sounds nothing like any punk rock band. They don't sound punk, they don't dress punk (how many punks dressed in suits?), and they certainly don't act punk. Also, punk bands never made slow songs, and the ones that did got ridiculed. Wake Me Up When September Ends is probably the best evidence needed to show that they're not punk. As DK put it in the song, Pull My Strings (where they act as a new wave band), "I’ll make my music boring. I’ll play my music slow. I ain’t no artist, I’m a businessman, no ideas of my own. I won’t offend or rock the boat." On top of that, punk bands didn't make 9 minute songs and appear on MTV. Punk was about being fast, quick, offensive, and independent, another thing Green Day isn't. Gold Stur 21:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The most un-punk think I've ever heard of is telling someone they aren't punk (I know how circular that can be, but it's about as true than trying to define what punk is). Just a theory that my friend and I were pondering the other day (while watching the mediocre Bullet in a Bible DVD), though not a theory either of us came up with. I remember seeing Johnny Rotten talk about it in 1995. By your definition, though the Clash really weren't punk, Joe Strummer certainly wasn't. One of my favourite recordings of his is a slow, acoustic duet with Johhny Cash. They covered Bob Marley's Redemption Song. Then again, my favourite Clash song is Train in Vain.. which isn't especially fast or aggressive. It's kind of a sappy emotional song, really. All about some girl, and getting dumped by her. How horribly un-punk.. Kinda like signing with a major label (say, CBS) or wearing a collared shirt on stage[1]. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Then again, if you were to ask me to define punk, I'd say that punk is doing what you want, being who you want to be, and telling anyone who doesn't like it to FOD[2]. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 23:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with classifying Green Day is that they don't fall completely into punk but neither do they fall under pop though they do fall under rock. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've given in with ol' Scoops. I had no idea that there were in fact so many punk artists, I mean, some of these punk rockers don't even play music! No fear though, I've undergone the task of slowly going through Wiki and correctly labelling everyone who does what they want, be who they want to be, and tell anyone who doesn't like it to "FOD" (whatever the fuck that means) with punk rock. My first change is Dr. Dre. See if I've done you good, master. Gold Stur 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could make a pretty valid argument that Dr Dre is an follower of the punk ideology, honestly. I know Rolling Stone has. I wouldn't say he's punk rock, as his music tends to not be very rock-ish. I congratulate you on your sarcasm though. I suppose it was an attempt to call my bluff. Like I wrote earlier, you cite the Clash as a prime example of punk. I fail to see a large-scale difference between the Clash and Green Day. Both signed with major labels. Both have written songs that are loud and fast, as well as songs that are softer. Both have dressed in a vriety of styles over their carreers. In fact, I'd say the two are more alike than either is like GG Allin. Maybe you find my definition overly inclusive. I find yours overly exclusive, since your defintion excludes one of your prime examples of the genre. I'd say your definition is probably closer to hardcore punk. I certainly don't think Green Day (or the Clash) would fall in there. And FOD, as per the link, stands for Fuck Off and Die. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually debated including the Clash knowing that they were rather prime targets. However, I must now defend my decision. As I stated earlier, Green Day is not fast, quick, independent, and neither do they dress like punks, sound, or act like punks. The Clash was not always quick as they had reggae influences though they usually were, and when not, the punk sound was distinctive. The length, or quickness as I put it, of their songs, while lengthy for punk rock (highest I know of being five minutes) was not near as long as Green Day's nine minute works. Punk worked against progressive rock and an almost trademark signature of progressive rock was lengthy songs. Now, one could argue that the Clash and Green Day are both sellouts, and to be honest, I don't care much about the Clash, however, they were an early punk band and didn't really have much direction from past bands to build on, if that makes since. As for their clothes, I don't see how loosely wearing a collared shirts is any where near frequently appearing in a nice suit and tie. And really, Green Day does not act punk at all. As I quoted from DK earlier, they don't offend or rock the boat. Before you say it, the Clash wasn't too offensive, but they did dwell into more political issues (in a broad spectrum, i.e. Spanish Bombs), unlike Green Day, who has only just recently gotten into politics, and one could argue that it only makes them more pop-ish because they're on the bash Bush bandwagon. And lastly, they just don't sound punk. Atleast when the Clash did a slow song you could hear the reggae in it, WSE just sounds like emo / pop. Gold Stur 02:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I wrote, it sounds like your definition of "punk rock" squares more directly with hardcore punk. Really, I hope you've read and absorbed that article and the punk ideology article I also linked earlier. While I don't disagree that Green Day are more pop than the Clash, that's also not entirely within their control. What's pop depends on what's popular. Stylistically, they haven't changed a whole lot between 1,039 Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and American Idiot. I find it hard to blame them for their success, given that fact. Thematically, they've changed and grown, as one would hope. They don't dress punk? I didn't realize there was a dress code... I don't think I've been following one... In fact, I always thought the whole conforming to a stereotype was kinda un-punk... Also, I'm not sure what your exposure level to Green Day is, but I find it hard to believe that you could listen to, say, Insomniac and say that it's not hard and fast. That would be the album that featured Geek Stink Breath, a video nearly pulled from MTV. It was a minor, and rather silly controversy, but they never seem worried about conforming to me. Ultimately, I don't see what the problem with the current classification is. It doesn't seem factually inaccurate to me, given the various things I've read and observed over the years. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's say I give you all of that. I still fail to see how that would justify both the use of pop punk and punk seeing as how one is stating the other, only more accurately thus the use of pop punk devoids the use of punk rock. Gold Stur 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that's a valid point. However the current state of the page isn't my choice at classification either. Given the choice, I'd call them a punk band. No rock, no pop. It strikes me that pop-punk isn't really a valid description of the band, since they've not changed their style much, but have had two waves of popularity vs non-popularity. They're a punk band who play rock and happen to be popular right now. If their next album tanks, despite a similar sound to all their prior ones, would they still be "pop-"punk? Are Insomniac, Nimrod and Warning pop-punk? They certainly weren't very popular. In any case, punk rock/pop punk was a group compromise. I'm happy to live with it, even when they aren't popular anymore. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about? They have freedom of speech just like any other American. As for the heart grenade and swearing, their music is actually for mature listeners, hence the Parental Advisory on American Idiot.

Green Day is the most punk you're gonna get these days and are worthy of the label "punk rock". Bullet in a Bible is genuine punk, and if you don't believe me, then go listen to some sellouts like Good Charlotte or Fall Out Boy. Now the "pop", I would use for only considering it "popular", not the overproduced "pop" that you hear from the All-American Rejects or something like that. Green Day is solely based on ANGER, like any punk bands, not ANGST like pop-punk bands like GC or Simple Plan.--4.253.125.29 04:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Insomniak

True, Green Day is miles more punk than all of the bands you list, but I believe you would agree that many of Green Day's songs have a pop-flavor to them, not to mention the crossover appeal. I think the pop-punk/ punk rock is the most accurate description of them. Drdr1989 04:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

((personal attack removed Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC))) Gold Stur 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Early Green Day such as the 1039 Smooth and Sweet Children EPs were lo-fi, punk influenced and under produced. They also had no comercial success and therefore cannot be categorizies as pop. More recent albums have seen comercial success. For a 12 year old buying a Green Day album today Green Day are just another pop band as the child has no knowledge of past punk scenes. More mature listeners to even recent Green Day albums will still be be able to identify with the rockier punk elements of songs. I therefore believe Green Day should be classified as pop-punk/punk-rock. Heezy 11:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Green Day does not sound, act, or dress punk. Even with their early shitty albums. ((personal attack removed Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC))). Gold Stur 12:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that Green Day are less punk than the unpunkest thing that ever wasn't punk, Gold Stur, I'm sure you must have better things to do with your time than write poorly-spelled personal attacks to other users. Please keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you write your next comment, even if you are talking to User:Drdr1989. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Gold Stur, I have removed some of your personal attacks from this page. Please adhere to Wikipedia's civility policy henceforth in both your talk page comments and your edit summaries. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

For one, Green Day is pop-punk, but pop-punk is a form of punk. While it's true they have deviated from this sound lately, they still are and will always be pop-punk. Green Day is pop-punk, as is NoFX, so whoever thinks NoFX is punk but Green Day isn't has a problem. And whoever mentioned the Ramones being the originators of punk but not political at all has a good point. A band doesn't have to be political to be punk, but many are anyway. Also, Green Day was political before American Idiot - listen to "Minority" and "Maria" for two good examples. With the exeption of War on Errorism, NoFX hasn't been all too political either. Their biggest hit was arguably "Bob", a song about as pointless as Green Day's "Longview".

Although it is true that NoFX is a pop-punk band, I contest your view of their lack of political content. Fat Mike himself says that they formed to make music about how much Reagan sucked. Canaen 08:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well said. Sabrebattletank 06:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with your position, this dispute appeared on blink-182's article. It is kind of lame to have these sort of discussions, instead of really caring about making a much better wikipedia...--Greedyredbag 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter what the band is? They are who they are, they rock and make me have a good time. Call them what you will but why put lables on some thing that you don't really know. For all you know they could sing lullabies while in the shower or some thing like that and well that not punk or pop thats just lullabies in the shower. stars2005 may 19

Labels... puh! If we step back and put a bit of logic into this, we can correctly point out what kind of music they are. The most obvious indicator is how well-known they are in the musical mainstream, and since they've been causing a stir from the start with Dookie, it's safe to assume they're well-known. That factor immediately adds the word "pop" to whatever other genre they are. The other gender, then, breaks down into the musical conventions the band follows more closely - and although the sound is rather experimental, it all breaks down into basic chords on the guitar and a moving bass line (often at a fast pace). BAM - there's your punk label. Mainstream music (pop) + balanced chord structure and moving bass line (punk) = Green Day (pop-punk). And that's my only word on this subject. Wanderer 02:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Really, we should be following NPOV, which means that anything controversial should be attributed to those who hold the opinions. Does anybody feel like citing some sources? It doesn't matter what I think, or what stars2005 thinks, or what Wanderer thinks; we should rather be citing print or web sources (how does allmusic classify them? how do punk purists classify them? add this to the article, with links and references as needed). Tuf-Kat 21:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Forget about the punk part for a moment. How in the world is Green Day a pop group? This comes across me as being the funniest thing I have ever heard. 64.231.154.102 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The official definition for punk rock from Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus says, "a loud, fast, and deliberately offensive style of rock music". Green Day is not fast or deliberately offensive. May be loud, but not the above two. That's why I'm once again taking away the punk rock listing. Gold Stur 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of their music is all three. Not all of their music, but a substantial part, mind you. This is why we have both categories. Drdr1989 01:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Show me the "deliberately offensive". Gold Stur 02:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Deliberately offensive" is unnecessary in the definition, since the shock value of punk rock can be interpreted in various ways. Sometimes it was just the rebellion against the modern rock scene in the late 70s. certainly Green day has been offensive in their career at various times, be it starting a mudfight at Woodstock 94 or having a provocative politica viewpoint on their current album

And your overall argument is flawed since the definition of punk rock is most fluid in the minds of members of the punk scene. Sure, dogma emerges from time to time, but many artists, ranging from Joy Division to Beat Happening to the Minutemen to Big Black to Nirvana have interpreted punk rock as the ability to approach their music with a mindset that would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Some would consider Throbbing Gristle punk rock due to their approach and beliefs regarding music, even though sonically they're the template for early industrial.

If you want to apply the rather unspecific definition of "loud, fast, and deliberately offensive" to Green Day, then you have to apply to all punk rock bands. For instance, the Sex Pistols rarely played past midtempo speeds, and Richard Hell's "Blank Generation" is pretty relaxed. Punk rock was relatively faster than most other rock at the time, but it didn't become blindingly fast until hardcore bands like Black Flag (who actually slowed down later on) and Bad Brains speed up the tempos. Green Day generally plays at speedy tempos, and they can be pretty damn fast ("Jaded", "St. Jimmy", "Platypus (I Hate You)", to name a few). Aditionally, I don't see how the Damned's "New Rose", the Buzzcocks "What Do I Get?" or even anything put out by Bad Brains or Fugazi is in any way "deliberately offensive". And loud? Green Day has loud, distorted guitars on most songs. And you should note (given yoru criticism of sogns on the most recent album) that American Idiot is a rock opera, so there's a massive incorporation of many styles, tempos, and dynamics. Hey, pivotal punk rock double albums like Zen Arcade and [[[Duoble Nickels on the Dime]] were pretty diverse. The Minutemen incorporated jazz and funk (and even a Steely Dan cover), and three songs into Husker Du's double album they bust out acoustic guitars and harmonize on "Never Talking to You Again". And both those albums wee released on SST, Black Flag's record label!

And let's not even get into mainstream musical popularity. If you define punk rock by set of ethics that rejects mainstream success, you have to acknowledge that a whole swath of CBGB's bands were signed to Sire Records (of many major labels other punk bands signed to) and the Sex Pistols topped the charts and sold albums by the truckload in the UK. In fact, punk rock was hugely successful in Britain. The idea of "punk rock integrity" mainly comes from the American underground scene, since punk rock was not largely successful in America. And even then you have figures like Greg Ginn, Ian MacKaye, and Mike Watt bemoaning the rigidity and factionalization of 80's punk rock in Our Band Could Be Your Life.

In my opinion you seriously need to deeply research both Green Day and punk rock in general. WesleyDodds 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There's so many examples on every album. Some are actually covered in this talk page. In regards to the definition, I'm pretty much OK with it (although some people may interpret "deliberately offensive" in their own way). What I was trying to make clear was that part (again, not ALL) of their music has that punk-rock feel; some has a pop feel. With that, some people might think that they could denote it, therefore, as just "pop-punk". I was one, just like you. This was before I realized that the term "pop-punk" is actually new a subgenre of punk (like Simple Plan for example). The split categorization was meant to eliminate that ambiguation. I just don't see how one could compare Green Day to those who are true pop-punkers. Make sense or am I confusing you still?? Drdr1989 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how any one could classify Green Day as punk rock at all. Like I said, give me examples of their offensiveness on their supposedly punk rock releasings.Gold Stur 04:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already told you where to go look for the "offensiveness". Your classification opinions unfortunately go against consensus. You could still argue with it and very much disagree, but unfortunately the current consensus is a split. If I could keep it at only pop-punk I would, but their classification is unfortunately quite complex enough to go beyond being another Blink 182. At least you'll still have your pop-punk part in there, right? Drdr1989 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is my little collection of evidence on why Green Day should be Punk-Rock (as well as pop-punk) I have structured it in terms of the Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus definition from Gold Stur. Loud: Very much so. All the Green Day live gigs I have been to have been very loud. Fast: Album: Nimrod, Track: Platypus (I hate you), BPM:214... Album: Kerplunk, Title: Best Thing in Town, BPM:220... Album: 1039, Track: I Want to be Alone, BPM:192... nearly all tracks (including the modern ones) are over 180bpm. Deliberately Offensive: The Song "Green Day" from the Album 1039 is with reference to drug taking. Frequent references to masturbation and drug taking on the album "Dookie". Many people accuse them of anti-american lyrics on the latest "American Idiot". I think those points should satisfy the three criteria but I am happy to provide more if required. Now I have proved Green Day fulfill the dictionary definition of "punk-rock" heopfully we can settle on the "punk-rock/pop-punk" genre tagging even if it does mean slightly different things to different people. Heezy 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of their recent songs like Wake me up when September Ends and Boulevard of Broken Dreams are some of their most played recent songs and those are neither loud nor fast. Drug use is not something that is taken offensive in today's music world. Rap, disco music, and rock from the 60s to today have had drug references. Nothing new or offensive. As for masturbation, not offensive. Have you heard of the hit pop song, Turning Japanese by The Vapors? Anyway, masturbation is essentially sex, just with yourself, and again, as with drugs, sex has not been a controversial issue in music since the late 60s early 70s and is prominent in today's rap, rock, and pop musicians such as Britney Spears. As for American Idiot being offensive, if it is, it's certainly not as offensive as other anti-government punk songs. Plus, the American Idiot album can't even be considered as punk in the first place because, as with mention of WMUWSP and BoBD, American Idiot is an album far too slow to be considered punk. And as with Drdr1989's rebuttal, just because the majority thinks some thing doesn't make it true. Democracy can't be applied to everything. If you vote on wether a green car is red or green, and everyone votes that it is red, that doesn't change the color. Your arguement isn't a valid one. Gold Stur 22:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A consensus is a consensus. There has been much talk on this to lead to this consensus as you can see. Anyway, your car example is too objective. I'll add that your disco and 60's examples of offensive type materials just shows that the "offensive" trait doesn't necessarily mean a punk denotation. Drdr1989 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Gold Stur he has a point, there is a consensus for the double classification. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Democracy, discussion and consensus are critical to the success of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. As for your claims that American Idiot is "too slow" listen to the track "St. Jimmy" off of it that is over 180bpm. You may well argue that some of the tracks are slow therefore it cannot be categorizied as punk, in which case I suggest you listen to some of the slower Ramones tracks and then ask if maybe the Ramones should not be categorizied as Punk. GoldStar wrote "As for American Idiot being offensive, if it is, it's certainly not as offensive as other anti-government punk songs" Very true. It is not the most offensive album ever released. However if you want to see what impact it made look back to the MTV coverage of the recent US Presidential election where for once MTV were producing shows detailing how modern artists were getting political such as Green Day, Eminem and Puff Daddy. Another good place to look for the contraversy the album has caused is Wikipedia. The Green Day page has been vandalisied many times with complaints of Anti-american sentiment or false accusations over how Green Day hate Jews because they are anti-American. It is also important to consider that many artists go through different phases/styles over their carear. Even if you (GoldStar) do not believe modern Green Day recordings to be punk-rock you cannot ignore early Green Day recordings from the late 80's/early 90's where the fast beat, offensiveness and loudness was present at the same time as being hugely unsuccesful eventually signing to a small very minor label (Lookout) and not enjoying popular success until their 3rd album (Dookie). Heezy 10:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said twice before, just because the majority thinks something, that does not make it true and factual. The majority of people used to think that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around Earth. Today we know that's not true. If your arguement was correct though, the human race wouldn't even need science, just other humans to vote on things and then the voice of the people would be the definitive scientific answer. Can I be clearer? And Drdr1989, no, being offensive isn't just a trait found only in punk, but it is an essential trait. And what I was saying was that those disco, rock, and rap bands weren't offensive, so they're not punk. Mainstream = nonoffensive. Gold Stur 02:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And you can quote definitions all you want and that doesn't make it right either especially in music where Green Day's music qualifies as many things but that doesn't make it right either, and actually the current version is not a consensus version because it is a compromise version due to lack of consensus so if you want to make the change then fine convince everyone that it's a good idea and I for one would be happy to go along with it but until then leave it alone. Btw, also what's your definition of offensive in terms of music and what do you think would qualify under that category in terms of music and bands? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I figure I should clarify, the current wording is not a consensus wording by the fact that no wording except for this compromise could be agreed upon, however the choice to use this wording was by consensus to prevent edit warring and ongoing issue with the wording. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gold Stur, you keep missing the point over and over. Let's make it clear for YOU. The fact is: this a compromise based on comments for either sub-genre. Whether it is scientific or not is irrelevant here. Maybe 100 years from now if someone wanted to do some sort of "scientific study" the consensus could be changed, but until then, what you see is what you're gonna get. And I hope for your sake you don't think that all rock and rap are not offensive. Also, if those types of "non-offensive" genres talk about offensive stuff then where does that put punk rock? Drdr1989 04:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Here a few links from well respected music sites that attribute punk (in particular punk-rock) to Green Day. (there of course many more of these available... just the same as there are many more sites definining Green Day as pop-punk) NME Big Cheese BBC USA Today Pure Volume I support the punk-rock/pop-punk genre tagging as we have considerable evidence and argument for both categories and it is unlikely we will ever reach a consensus on a single genre (and why should we! its quite ok for a band to have multiple genres throughout a carear) Heezy 10:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like both genres together wins as opposed to just "pop-punk". Lharvill 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I take it that if I got a petition going, saying that Green Day was actually an evil plan introduced by SkyNet and they are actually cyborgs, and I got say, 500 people to sign it, I could get that new scientific fact into Wiki? I'll get right on that. Gold Stur 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on that, until you get that petition completed will you at least agree not to change it unless you can get a consensus to do so? I hate having the article protected since that means that neither myself (and I do have improvements I'd wish to make) or others can edit it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I plan to make it scientific fact that Green Day are cyborgs though. I went ahead and bought the domain www.greenday-cyb.org and am planning it out. Keep watch of it and be sure to be the first to sign the petition when I release it. Let the truth ring! Gold Stur 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty funny... Drdr1989 00:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I got the site up, check it out [3] and don't forget to sign the petition [4]. I know it's shabby, but it should take more shape over the weekend. Gold Stur 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hooo-kaay. Go ahead.... Get "enough" petitions. When you still get a rejection of both your pop-punk and cyborg claims, we'll let you know why. Can you get the Governator to sign? 69.236.136.85 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Read above. This democracization is a common and completely accepted practice in Wikipedia. It relates directly to 1984. 2+2=5 because that's what Big Brother says. Green Day=punk rock because that's what the people say. Green Day will soon=cyborgs because that's also what the people say. Gold Stur 02:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Brilliant straw man argument. You've failed to prove your point, so instead you'll attack the system. Aside from the patent absurdity of your claim, trying to re-define a band's place in the musical spectrum and trying to re-define a provable fact are two entirely different beasts. Whether or not something is "human" is both provable and binary. They either are, or are not. A musical genre would be neither wholly provable nor necessarily binary. This place is a secondary reference. It aggregates data from primary references. You can find valid primary references (for example, published music critics) referencing both genres, hence an agreement to include both genres. You can not, and will never, find a valid primary reference that would conclude that Green Day are cyborgs. The best you could possibly come up with would be something like "a totally non-scientific internet petition has deemed that Green Day are cyborgs." As opposed to the current situatuion, where a non-scientific survey was used to decide on the inclusion of verifiable primary source material. I must say though, you are fun to watch. Keep up the good work. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 03:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought people would long be over the "Green Day is not punk" argument. Jesus, they began their career in the Gilman Street punk scene. They were on an independent punk rock record label. They're influenced by the Ramones, The Clash, Dead Kennedys, Buzzcocks, The Jam, and Husker Du. Their musical style certainly contains the conventions of punk rock. I mean, if Green Day aren't punk rock, then the Buzzcocks and any other punk band with a sense of pop melody isn't, and that's pretty much 60% of the original wave from the 70s. WesleyDodds 08:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there is considerable dispute as to Green Day's genre, I have added the disputed template there so that those of you who think Green Day is punk rock can be happy, and those of us that think they aren't can be a little settled. I R bold. And I have also added the request source info on the Lookouts: the beginning (1988-1992) section, more specifically, the third paragraph that compares them to the Beatles. Gold Stur 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm still curious why you couldn't just allow both categorizations to remain on the page, without adding the disputed thing. The fact that more than one category is given would seem to indicate that there is no total consensus on what their style is. There is also a note embedded in the article indicating that there has been some controversy over the categorizations and that the current wording is a compromise. And you still haven't provided more than opinion as to why they fail the punk rock classification. I find that especially interesting that you'll find several Green Day songs listed as examples of specific punk rock themes in the punk rock article. Quite frankly, the more of these assertions I read, the more I get the impression they're based solely on a quick look at Green Day since American Idiot came out (and perhaps including Good Riddance). All these things about how they dress, 9 minute songs, slow songs etc. I'd highly recommend people check out 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours, Kerplunk! and Insomniac (particularly the latter). -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 00:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it absurd that you say that all my arguments are opinion when all of yours and others arguments are also opinions. The whole genre debate is opinionated and is not a factual debate. Atleast with the tag everyone can know that there really is some debate, and not the result of a vote of opinions. And the note in the article is only visible when someone trys to edit it. With this tag, everyone can see it.

And last but not least, even if their old albums are punk, which I have listened to (albeit not entirely) and they sound more like skater music than anything, that doesn't mean that they should be given the punk label. The Beastie Boys started as a punk rock band but on their genre the Wiki article doesn't state "punk rock/hip hop". The most important thing that matters is what they are now or at the time of death / disbandment. Gold Stur 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've also noted that my opinion and what I'm advocating here are not actually the same thing. I'm advocating maintaining the compromise that already existed. I've also provided links that can help to illustrate that other Wikipedians seem to be of like mind. I come back to the fact that they seem to fall in with most, if not all, of the points on the punk rock page. I just don't see why it needs to be changed from punk rock/pop-punk. You aren't happy with it, apparently. That's fine. That doesn't really make the article "disputed." I'd have to wager you could find someone to disagree with something on almost every article in this encyclopedia. The point is to find the happy medium. The happy medium here is not to stick in this disputed tag, it's to include the two tags that are generally agreed to be most appropriate: Punk rock and pop-punk. Then if someone disagrees, they'll go to edit the page and see the note regarding the perceived balance in the classifications. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 04:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not the The Beastie Boys were or were not a punk rock group is irrevelant since their current sound is definitely not punk. I know that our sturred friend pointed this out, but Green Day still has the punk characteristic manifest which renders the Beastie Boys issue irrevelant to this discussion. Drdr1989 06:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the tag since it interrupts the reading and serves no real purpose, there has to be a better way to do this. My suggestion is just to not note it since it's more of an editorial issue than anything else and their genre only seems to be disputed here and it isn't a wider global issue. I also added a little more to the html comment regarding it to note that changes to genre without talk page discussion would probably be reverted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How much evidence is needed to show that Green Day is not punk? I just thought of two more points for the case against a punk Green Day. American Idiot is a self proclaimed rock opera. Rock operas are traits of prog rock. Punk rock and prog rock are two highly contrasting genres that are at odds with eachother. The second point is Green Day's concerts. They are huge. Don't believe me? Do a google image search. And I also know that they are big from local concerts they've had around my area and people I know that have gone to their concerts. Punk rock concerts were small and usually in bars. Even during the times when punk concerts were big, they weren't near as big as Green Day's. So, in sumnation, here are is all the evidence that Green Day is not punk.

• Don't sound punk
• Don't dress punk
• Don't act punk
• Slow, long songs (very prog rock)
• Self proclaimed rock opera (also very prog rock)
• Large concerts
• Frequent play on MTV
• Signed with large record company
• Non-offensive attitude and music

When I think of more, I'll add them. And since the tag left, so does punk rock. Gold Stur 01:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Big time agreement with Gold Stur!!!!!!--Alhutch 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd hardly call them non offensive and in terms of American Idiot being a rock opera your right but at the same time that's only one album. It doesn't entirely matter to me what they're categorized as long as it's at least one of the things that fits it but since the HTML comment now appears to be incorrect I'm going to remove it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• In its almost three decades of existence, punk music has evolved and mutated to create a diversity of sounds. Punks may now enjoy the earthy harmonious-ness of folk-punk, the nostalgic, but often still relevant anthems of 80s peace- and anarcho-punk, or the more abrasive offerings of hardcore punk ("hardcore" for short), and its own elaborate array of sub-genres (i.e. crust, grindcore, metalcore, thrash, power violence, etc.) In general, however, punk music is loud, fast, and usually didactic. The sound is meant to express impatience, frustration and discontent. It also expresses anger and aggression by being loud and fast. The rhythm is often monotonous, but can in some cases be extremely erratic and complex. punk ideology. Green Day's "loud, fast and didactic" songs outweigh any of their others by far, taking in their whole catalog.
• As the punk movement matured, fashion became less important as punk ideas became more important. Punk fashion has also received criticisms for being meaningless and for being conformist as the fashion grew in popularity. punk ideology
• They write, play and produce their own albums. They're vocal about their beliefs. They always have been. Their beliefs have become more political of late.
• I can't deny that they have written two long, slow songs. And a handful of other short, slow songs. Over the course of 7 albums. Averaging more than 15 songs each.
• I wouldn't call a rock opera "prog rock." Certainly not typical punk. Certainly not conformist.
• They do draw big crowds, indicating their popularity. So did the Sex Pistols last tour. And the Ramones.
• Frequent play on MTV is also a sign of their popularity, true. For American Idiot. And Dookie. Their other five albums did not generate the same video play.
• The Clash signed to Columbia. The Sex Pistols signed to EMI and Warner during their career. Billie Joe also operates an indie label for other punk bands.
• I suppose they're not offensive to some people. People who are anti-war or pro-pot legalization, for example. Some people, on the other hand, find their recent political leanings fairly offensive (hence them having been labeled anti-American by some). Their longer-standing drug stance never seemed to garner much attention at all. I'm not sure that's necessarily their fault. I don't find many punk bands offensive. My mother finds almost all of them (including Green Day) offensive.

I also note that you've gone through the punk ideology article and removed every single Green Day reference. I find some of the removals suspect, as having listened to and read the lyrics to the songs removed, they seemed to fit well within the sections they were placed (except perhaps Holiday, which probably got in just for one line in the song). -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 05:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not into Punk rock as much as others are, but I am a major fan of bands such as Iggy Pop, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Adicts, The misfits, Bauhaus and the Ramones. I dont think Green Day sounds punk at all with exception of his voice, because he and all the other pop-punk bands out there have that same tone when they sing.

Their guitars occasionally range close to the punk sound but not enough to be classified.

This is the thing you have to remeber when classifying the genre Pop, Pop means popular, aka mainstream desiring artists. One could say Britney Spears is EBM and Christina Aguilera is Soul, h however they both fall under pop because theyre music isnt their music and it is purposely intended to sell. Green Day's music is aimed to please their fans. POP-punk is a genre made to sell to a young crowd. Pop-punk or pop-rock doesn't HAVE to be an insult. Why do people not like it? Because little 12-14 year olds and I'd even say some older teens would love to be different and would want to believe their music is special too. Therefore they call their music names like goth, punk, emo. Even if their music is really just mainstream rock. Its real fans of punk that tell them Green Day is pop or pop punk. And then their fans get mad because that degrades their artificial esteem built upon feeling important.

Green day is just another example of their fans/hottopic making them out to be something they arent.

• Again, this is all a your personal POV. The article description is based on citable references describing them as both. I can (and have) made all kinds of arguments for why they are punk rock. It's still my POV. It doesn't belong without references. And there are references. For both. You may not think they're punk rock. GoldStur may not. I may. Others may. We don't matter. We aren't valid primary sources. The article is for aggregating data from verifiable primary sources. It does. Being popular doesn't make you pop. If it did, Metallica would be pop metal and AC/DC would be pop hard rock. Not to mention that Green Day have released more albums (at least 5, depending on which albums you count) considered to be not commercially successful (ie. not popular) than the two that have. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 20:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As per the reasoning above if they don't qualify as one then the current version should be fine because it classifies them in a way as to not display a certain POV. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Punk rock is what they're marketed as, not what they are. WB knows how to capitalize on "teenage rebellion" and knows that their teen buyers want to be edgy and not another brick in the wall, so they market Green Day as punk rock. All the sources cited are listing Green Day by what they're marketed as, not what they are. And hell, I bet that to a USAToday writer there is no difference between punk and pop punk. Gold Stur 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

True about the marketing, but what they are is how the media (mainstream or underground) interprets them as - thus the classifications. No way around that, the media is much more powerful than you and me. Don't know about the USAToday writer deal, Lord help them, but I do know one thing. You need to get to work on your site. The site! The site!! Don't forget about the cyborgs!!! How is that coming along btw? Drdr1989 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I got a distinguished "Mr. Fag" to sign my petition, so it's going good. And I want to bring something up about sources. On Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, the game states Green Day as "Rock/Other" for genre, while they state Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Sham 69 and Circle Jerks as "Punk". That's one major source against their punk listing, and it's one that one would think to be biased FOR Green Day's punk listing. Gold Stur 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you think the big problem is with having the compromise listing, it's just as good and considering the variety of Green Day's msuic it's just as accurate so what's the big deal with keeping it as it is? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

1) It's redundant. Pop is short for popular, so pop punk = mainstream punk. Saying pop punk and then punk rock is not needed. 2) Punk rock is about being underground, not selling out, and about 50 other things I listed above. Green Day is not punk rock. They're not even pop punk. However, I know that their die hard fans will never accept that they're not punk or pop punk, so I'm being realistic arguing for pop punk and not something more fitting like just pop or rock. Gold Stur 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Having two classes that have "punk" in them may seem redundant at first, but I already mentioned about the groups that are supposed to make up the "pop punk" category. That is why we need the punk rock thing in there, too. ...and of course the "pop punk" part - only due to their mainstream success. Anyway, keep working on your site. How about a pay-per-click campaign for that? Drdr1989 06:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, (Goodness, am I good at thses genre articles) first off, I would like to note that Green Day is ALTERNATIVE ROCK; meaning that they were punk (all the albums prior to Dookie) until they blew up into an international rock group, and yes, they are very popular now, but they don't sound like Simple Plan or Fall Out Boy (like Pop-punk). Green Day is alternative, no matter how punk their attitude on stage is, their music made them become commercial changed their style. Please agree, because Green Day is a great band, but their MUSIC isn't punk after becoming mainstream. Please, just label them alternative rock, because that is what they are.

While I agree with labeling them alternative rock (one of a few styles their music falls under), there is nothing inherent in punk rock that it cannot be mainstream. Punk rock certainly broke through to the mainstream in late 70's Britain, and many of those groups were on major labels. WesleyDodds 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the unsigned user was referring to the genre rather than them being actually alternative to mainstream per se. Anyway, "alternative rock" is much too broad. The compromise punk split works best. Drdr1989 02:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The inherent problem here is that genres are - by their very definition - subjective, especially in the case of somewhat generic bands such as Green Day, who's sound isn't original or static enough to easily categorise them. With that in mind, I suggest we leave this as Pop-Punk, and move on. It somewhat appeases those who claim Green Day is purely pop, it somewhat appeases those who claim they're purely punk-rock, and it's a nice middle ground for everyone else. Above all else, there's the fact that the band themselves have taken to calling themselves Pop-Punk nowadays, which is a marked move away from previous years/albums, where they stuck to the Punk-Rock tag. There have been a few examples of this, but the one that comes to mind is during their last appearance on Last Call with Carson Daly - Billie Joe specifically mentioned that they "wanted to show how divisive Pop-Punk could be". In the absence of strict guidelines as to what makes X band Y genre, perhaps we should just stick with what the band refer to themselves as? Such definitions are equally fluid, of course, but it seems like as good a place as any to start. Excursus 21:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I once thought that the "pop-punk" genre was the only one suitable (about six weeks ago); but there's just so much agruement for both genres that we couldn't think of anything but a compromise. Perhaps "divisive" means extending to "punk rock"? Long and short: Compromise works best! Drdr1989 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ok, adding in my two cents from an avid Green Day listener for many years: When Green Day began, they may have been the very definition of punk. Over time they matured and mellowed, and formed albums such as "Waiting," taken by many fans as being very soft, and extremely un-punkish. Through Waiting and afterwards, their genre of music has been highly disputed. I think American Idiot falls between the cracks very well. I think it best to just plain call them rock. And that is something we can all settle on. Just call them rock. :) --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rock is probably just about okay for American Idiot, but doesn't suit their early work. Either way, rock is possibly too broad a term for this, since just about any guitar band could be called rock if you tried. Also, another problem here is how you define punk - is it the attitude, or the music? The music doesn't fit the punk tag anymore (if it ever did - it's always had a distinct pop tinge to it), and whilst you could debate the merits of their attitude being punk, I've never been convinced attitude is relevant when it comes to defining a band's genre. The very fact Warning was such a departure for the band - and not in a commercially appealling way, either - means you could easily argue they were being punk there, but it's the most non-punk sounding record they've ever done. Which is more important in this context? Excursus 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to recall comments made about Green Day's 'Punkness,' people said that they weren't an offensive band. Come on, these guys are offensive. Have you not heard 'Platyus - I hate you.' That song is about how happy Green Day are that journalist who gave Green Day bad reviews died of cancer. That is offensive! Even swear words are considered offensive. Green Day are an offensive band and I strongly believe that they are a punk rock band too. --Lutrov71 13 December 2005

No, this is completely inaccurate. Whilst the song was directed at a Journalist who had turned on them, he was very much alive at the time of them writing it. He only died later on, just prior to the album hitting the shelves. Excursus 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This song was also very old and immature, back in their punk days. --Mac Davis 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seriously is there really a problem with Green Day either being punk, pop-punk or non-punk? This whole debate ,in my opinion (mind you), is really stupid. In general, Green Day is Alternative, if you take in account all and I mean all of their songs. I seriously think that Green day has their own style and I don't know why people compare them to other bands. Hello! no two bands are the same, however I believe that bands should be categorized in thier proper categories. I'm not saying that they are either punk or not. Either, please end this whole debate,or ask Green Day if they consider themselves as punk or not? Oh,my gosh! --"noboby" unknown 5:55 pm 12/16/05.

This is all completely ludicrous. Green Day are obviously pop-punk. They have the punk sensibilities of fast rhythm, simple chord structures, and bold lyrics. The have the 'pop' of selling millions of albums. They have brought 'punk' or any of its variants to the mainstream in a way no other band in history ever has, while not relying on traditional punk structure for what they accomplish. If that's not pop-punk then I don't know what is. If they themselves have re-defined pop-punk so be it, but they ARE pop-punk whther you like it or not. "Miami_pony" 12:21 pm 12/17/05

It's funny that now, when the old "consensus" looks as though it maybe endangered that there is no talk of a new "consensus". How often do we hold elections in Wikipedia anyway?... Gold Stur 18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Green Day gets labeled as "punk" solely for their Bush hatred. They're not even anti-government. Did they care when Clinton bombed Iraq? Oh, right, not ONE anti-war celeb whined about THAT... Jerry Only has stated a full support for the war(Misfits lost a friend on 9/11 in the towers), but I can see GD appealing to Glenn Danzig fans... soft sticks with soft and weak. Not that I know anyone with an IQ above 80 who listens to Green Stain's music. They always appealed to the D and F students, and now they're ant-Bush... hmm, wonder if it's even SINCERE, or just a convenient career boost? The fact Alice Cooper won't even acknowledge them is proof enough they're not a valid band. They cater to people who don't think(Bush opponents will eat up any propaganda they can be fed).

Green Day are not Punk. But it will be unfair to say they're Pop, either. Pop Punk is what they do. They're kind of a mixing between a rock band and a boy-band. They are sure not Punk Rock, There is a clear defenition for what Punk Rock is. And one more thing, Pop does not stand for "popular". It's a genre that is a bit of R&B and some Dance Music, mostly about love. In my opinion, They music is Punk, and they're lyrics is Pop. Psychomelodic 12:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Does any1 care wot type of music Green Day play. We like it dont we.

Maybe YOU like it. Psychomelodic 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Green Day plays Punk rock music. Maybe years ago they may not have been considered it but all music is change. The Punk rock we know today is different from the time of the Ramones but remember music is change. Green Day is definetley Punk Rock and should not be mistaken or compared with bands like Good Charlotte or Simple Plan who are known as pop-rock. To settle disputes I suggest we should change the genre of Green Day to Punk Rock/Punk-Pop to make people who think they are Punk-Pop satisfied as well. ~Helen

i think it's unfair to compare Punk bands to see whether they're 'punk' or 'pop-punk.' I've listened to Green Day since elementry school and always considered them to be punk until their album Warning. From that album you could tell they were trying to gain an edge with the audience. now with their new CD, they're only playing for the money. This is why I now classify them as a pop-punk band. they're selling themselves to the media. Also, you cant compare them to bands like the sex pistols, ramones and op ivy and other bands who arent around anymore. those bands have ended. who knows, maybe they would have fallen into the media and become 'pop-punk.' -jope

Agree with every word (also with what Gold Stur wrote). Face it people, they make Pop-punk. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK. Only the facts are matter. If you still think Green Day is Punk rock, Please listen to American Idiot (song). If you still think they're Punk rock, well... not very good at identifying music genres are you.

Punk rock or not?

A comprimise has been made by listing Green Day as a part of both Pop Punk and Punk Rock.

OK, If you think the music that Green Day plays today is Punk rock (and read the article before you comment!), please speak here.

It is time to change the consensus.

Yes, Green Day used to play Punk Rock. But that was 10 YEARS AGO.

Should it be included in the article or what? And if so, Whouldn't it be better with a small comment beside it?

The only classification they play today it Pop punk, and there's NO dobut about that (read that too, and listen to American Idiot. You'll see I'm right).

So, Anyone has to say something? I'm wrong? I'm right? I'm sooo not in and Green Day is da best hardcore heavy rock band?

Leave your comments here ;) New!!!!!oneone 05:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm exaggerating, But they stopped playing Punk rock atleast 5 years ago.

Still I'll like to know what you think New!!!!!oneone 05:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, enough time past and nobody thought I'm wrong. I'm editing the article. New!!!!!oneone 14:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not time to change the consensus. Please see the discussion here. Perhaps a few songs in American Idiot take a step away from punk-pop, but the fact remains that the majority of their work falls under this category. You cannot change this because of a few songs on one album. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, also any changes without consensus to their genre is considered vandalism and will be reverted on sight. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely correct. That would be vandalism or at least ... a trait of something else. Drdr1989 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to calling this vandalism. I have no doubt the people who make this kind of edit have good faith, but it'd be nice if there was more respect for precedent. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I read that, what's your point? Green Day made Punk rock in the PAST, before the album "Warning". I will revert the article now. By the way, I have an idea. 2 aritcles: 1. for Green Day before the "Warning" album, and 2. for after. The first aritcle could be Punk rock and the second Punk pop. And one more thing; AMERICAN IDIOT IS DEFINITELY NOT PONK ROCK! Agreed? New!!!!!oneone 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert the article again. A consensus has been reached and going against that consensus is a bad idea. Also, regarding your edit summary, idiots all around me, please consult WP:CIVIL before making these remarks in the future. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was not here when the consensus reached (Maybe that's why I wrote "It is time to change the consensus"?). I would like to have a discussion with anyone who thinks they're Punk rock and explain him why he's wrong. And yes, poeple who acuuse me of mental disorder are idiots. New!!!!!oneone 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still available here. You are free to participate. Also it's considered impolite to make these kinds of changes without the consent of other authors. What you are doing could be interpreted as starting an edit war. Please refrain from these kinds of edits. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought thats discussion was closed and a "consensus" has reached. I am now moving this part in. New!!!!!oneone 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am on the record saying Green Day is not punk. Read a dictionary and look up what it says under punk rock. Gold Stur 20:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why to bands have to be classified? It might help someone if they don't no what a band sounds like and they want a general idea. Who doesn't know what Greenday's music sounds like. If you haven't heard them then you aren't from anywhere around here. There is no reason to put Greenday in a certain classification.

-Paul Feb. 5 Lake Tahoe

Damn, talking to you guys is like talking to a brick wall. "Green Day's not punk!", "What you are doing could be interpreted as starting an edit war. Please refrain from these kinds of edits." Yeah, great way to back up your argument, just completely ignore the evidence brought forth (and the worthless new concensus) and threaten people. Take debate class, please. I'm removing punk rock. Gold Stur 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Green Day In Disguise

• For the IP that edited the paragraph regarding GD's 2003 master tapes being related to "The Network": Sorry, but that sounds rather unlikely that a band could release an album using someone else's master tapes. The whole thing seemed kind of POV, so I excised it from the article. If you'd like to prove your case, feel free; I'm always open to being proven wrong. I think I might have proved myself wrong, and as such I'm going to *cough* attempt to hide the evidence. >_>[[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 22:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Okay, let's try this again. I'm going to leave the article up the way it is, without reverting it. What I'll ask for is simply a confirmation of whether The Network is, in fact, Green Day. Once that happens, I will rewrite the things related to The Network, as what is there feels a bit POV-ed. Apologies for the massive stupidity on my part. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 22:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The members of the band Green Day are all members of the band The Network. There are two additional members in The Network that are not members of Green Day. See The Network for more/correct details. Stellis 23:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Billie Joe confirmed that Mike, Tre, and himself were members of The Network in an issue of Q Magazine during summer 2005. He also denies that The Network's "Money Money 2020" was actually the lost mastertapes for "Cigarettes and Valentines".

"green day in hell"

User:67.67.132.59 wrote in the article "It has also been reported in print by the band members themselves that a principal at their school once made the comment that it would be a "green day" in hell before they amounted to anything." I cannot find any original citation of this although it is often repeated so I have made it anecdotal until we have verified the source. --Theo (Talk) 14:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to keep an eye open and a Google tab available to hunt down that citation - if it really exists, that is. =) Wanderer 02:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll confirm it, though I don't have a textual basis for it. Canaen 08:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sales levels

Does anyone know which records went gold, platinum, double platinum, etc.? Three singles were flagged with such qualificatiosn but this is misleading if we do not yupdate the entire list in one go. Please could knowledgable editors annotate the following list so that we can update the article in one consistent hit. Please italicise each title as you bring it up to date so that we know when low-selling titles have been processed.—Theo (Talk) 12:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Albums

1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours no cert (only 55,000 units)
Kerplunk! Platinum (though it's actually sold 680,000 units)
Dookie 10x Platinum (though it's 11 million sold)
Insomniac 2x Platinum (1.9 M sold)
Nimrod 2x Platinum (1.9 M sold)
Warning: Gold (500,000 sold)
International Superhits! Gold (1.2 M sold)
Shenanigans no cert (183,000 sold)
American Idiot 3x Platinum (3.6 M sold)

EPs

Sweet Children
1,000 Hours
Slappy
American Idiot
Sessions@AOL - Green Day
Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking

Singles

Welcome to Paradise
Basket Case
Longview
When I Come Around
Geek Stink Breath
Stuck With Me
Brain Stew/Jaded
Hitchin' a Ride
Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)
Redundant
Minority
Warning (2000)
Warning (2001)
American Idiot [Platinum]
Boulevard of Broken Dreams [Triple Platinum]
Holiday [Gold]
Wake Me Up When September Ends
(Hi, Im just wondering, does anyone know the next single after Wake me up when September Ends?)

I think the single after WMUWSE is going to be Extraordinary Girl. It's been playing in my hometown and they hinted at it during their Dayton concert in October.

Actually, Jesus of Suburbia just came out as a single. It also includes St. Jimmy, the "VH1 Storytellers" version.

Theo, I just added a few days ago what the US sales were since on Billboard.com they have a column called Ask Billboard where they sometimes release sales figures of album. I added them all to the regular album entries. Mind you, Dookie which is certified 10x platinum hasn't even sold 8 million copies yet, so you can see how the certifications can be misleading. Warning: has also sold 1 million units, but is actually still only certified gold (500,000 sales) as is International Superhits! which has actually sold 1.2 million. If you want to check out the certifications, go to www.riaa.com and go to the certification database and enter whichever artists' name you wish and you will get the info you desire.

Actually, I've added the certs next to each album in your list.

-PetSounds 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)

Great job! Now we need to decide where to put this information. How about in the last column along with chart positions?—Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)

I think the next single is "Jesus of Suburbia" ...and i thought the "wake me up..." video was long...

Now that JoS is out, is there gonna be another single from American Idiot?

1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours

PetSounds, please stop changing 1990 to the incorrect year (1991) to 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours. The album was released, copyrighted and published in 1990 (as printed on the CD and back cover, in-case you don't have the album). I can see why you changed it to the incorrect year but, seriously just leave it as 1990 because that's the correct year. I repeat, please stop changing it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:53, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[5] shows the release date as April 19, 1991 not July 1, 1991. I would also like to continue to point out that dates on cases are copyright dates, not release dates unless specifically said it is a release date. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:23 (UTC)

The user said July 1st, 1991. -- Mike Garcia | talk June 28, 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Neither date is in 1990. You are mistaking the copyright date for the release date. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:45 (UTC)

The album says 1990, please see: [6]. -- Mike Garcia | talk June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)

link aint working and like Cburnett is saying you are mistaking copyright date with release date imo Boneyard 29 June 2005 10:30 (UTC)

The copyright date for the music on 1,039/SOSH in 1990 because the 39/Smooth vinyl LP was released that year. The actual CD, which compiled 39/Smooth, 1000 Hours EP and the Slappy EP was released in April of 1991 according to greendayauthority.com and other websites (sorry for not remembering off the top of my head.

Walking Contradiction

Hey! Walking Contradiction is a single from "Insomniac" that doesn't figure on this list... I didn't added it yet because I need the ranks for that song. If anyone has them, please post them on the article. Thanks, Greedy 2 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

According to The Green Day Authority "Like Stuck With Me, Walking Contradiction didn't get a single, just a video." Some promo singles were sent to radio stations and journalists but it was never on general release. This is why it does not feature on the list.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Currentness of the Article

May I complain? Well, this article is good and all, but it's lacking quite a bit of information on the singles. Even the newer singles have almost no information whatsoever. DrippingInk 4 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)

The information about the singles is largely dispersed to individual articles about each of them.—Theo (Talk) 4 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but the main article does not contain much information on them, like it should at least have when they were released. Winnermario July 6, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Good point. Go for it! —Theo (Talk) 7 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

PetSounds' warning

PetSounds, please don't change 1990 to 1991 for 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours again, you have the wrong information. Unconvinced? Please see the source again before changing/reverting: [7] and you better not change/revert it again this time. If you do it, I'm gonna be tracking you off, so don't have me do it. As I said on your talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Mike the link doesn't work, perhaps they have disabled direct linking. No-one is denying it says 1990 on the back of the album, but that isn't the release date. the wub "?/!" 9 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Yes it is the release date! Are you people insane? -- Mike Garcia | talk 9 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Mike, please calm down and refrain from comments like "Are you people insane?" which I think you know are inappropriate. Thanks for posting the link to the image with the 1990 date. If you say it is a release date as opposed to a copyright date, please site a source saying so. Folks who say it is some other date than 1990, you are asked to please site your sources as well. Gathering evidence and evaluating it is a better way to build articles than insults, threats, and revert wars. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 19:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to calm down, okay. But, here are more sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also, PetSounds, I hope this is the last time you changed it to the wrong year (1991) before we both violate the 3RR again. -- Mike Garcia | talk 9 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

OK thanks Mike. From some of those sources it looks like there may be more to this, but you never posted any of them before only links to pictures of the cover. On the other hand Amazon, allmusic, [15], [16] and [17] all point to 1991. I think the best idea would be to put a dispute template on 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and possibly make a RFC to try and get some more information. the wub "?/!" 20:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

OK have done this. Please direct any further discussion to Talk:1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours. -- the wub "?/!" 20:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

dropping Lookout! Albums

i read on CNN that Green Day was pulling their pre-1994 album off Lookout. --Terinjokes

I heard this too, and that the move will drastically cut Lookout!s already small staff. I will look for a link and get back to you guys on it. Apparently, Adeline records got the rights to the album back, and they can reissue them as they see fit? -- propogandhi

Neo-Nazi Accusations

• Totally untrue, Green Day cannot be accused of this. it has now been deleted, can we make sure it doesn't come back please. 80.42.28.76 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be rumor and nothing more, also it's unsourced info and very POV. This should stay deleted unless it can be backed up and sourced, that is to stay that this should stay deleted since there's no way to source and back up these claims with fact. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Despite wether or not it is true, I would prefer that the article remain on their page, because I think it is fair to allow the reader to decide wether or not it is true. It also does not accuse them, it informs that they have been accused. I will do my best to keep the article running, because I believe it is fair and unbiased.

>User:Kerrysfrench

Here's my problems with it, notable parts bolded. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Green Day has been accused of Neo Nazism multiple times, however no solid proof can be found. The evidence for these accusations lie in song lyrics such as Boulevard of Broken Dreams. It is believed the lyrics are actually about Adolf Hitler walking alone through the streets of a destroyed Polish city with a large Jewish population. The song American Idiot also provokes an anti-American message.

- - The Song "When I Come Around" can also be interpreted as Hitler taunting fearful Jews to not cry, becuase he will soon arrive to kill them. In the song "Reject"(Nimrod) the lyrics contain the words,"To Hell and back to Hell again, you're not my type, your not my type(refering to Jews), I do what I want and you do what your told". "Nice Guys Finish Last" contains the lyrics "Nice guys finish last, your running out of gas", which refers to a Holocaust victim holding on to their last breath of air, while being gassed. - - "Having a blast" is a narrative in which the author states "I won't listen to anyone's last words", reffering to Hitler's final moments.another part of the song says"There's nothind left for you to say. Soon you'll be dead anyway," which can be seen as Hitler speaking to his next victims. With these hidden song meanings, one can easily arrive at the conclusion that the band espouses Adolf Hitler, and his murderous deeds, however it is up to you to decide what is really true.

This is entirely unsourced and the sections I have bolded show that these sections are inferences and opinions which are unencyclopedic and POV, now if there was any way to back this up then this could be formatted as such to include fact, however since this is unbacked up I think that this should stay out. I am also annoyed that you appear to be in the mindset that you will do what you want even if consensus and wikipedia guidelines disagree with what you want. "I will do my best to keep the article running, because I believe it is fair and unbiased.". Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Jtkiefer. —Theo (Talk) 08:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, and I will continue to remove it unless it is backed up with sources. the wub "?/!" 10:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. I especially like the "analyses" of those songs. User:moondust9358

This is such BS that Green Day is being accused of being Neo-Nazis. In Holiday they are acusing Bush of being Neo Nazi "Zeig Heil to the president gasman" No one has any proof of this. HOLIDAY IS NOT ANTI-AMERICAN, IT IS ANTI-WAR!

it is my opinion that you would have to be completely insane to read that much into a Green Day song. you could interpret it any way you want, if you look at it hard enough, but that doesn't mean that its true. by these standards, any song ever written could be construed as neo-nazi. i'm glad it was removed.--Alhutch 19:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

i agree whple heartedly with Alhuttuch. anything can be considered "neonazi" if you did deep enouth. the nightmare befor christmass can be contorted because jack wears a suite that looks like a ss uniform. OH GOD!!!!!!!! come on now are the history students who quote nazis ne themselvs? what about the anarchist movemant of the 80's? are they nazis? come on!!! you arre a nazi!! they are expressing themselvs which are protected by the 1st addment! JEW!am i one ? no!!furbyco07

Firstly, I would like to appologize for User "Kerrysfrench" for his lack of sources.

Evidence from Rolling Stones' magazine the 2004 issue had shown evidence that the following accusations of Green Day are true. When Green Day appeared live on TRL they denied these accusations; however, when interviewing "Tre Cool" he addmitted to most of the accussations along with addmitting he in fact was a Neo Nazi. June 2004. Rolling Stone Magazine. Article 24. Page 9.

The Song "When I Come Around" is interpreted as Hitler taunting fearful Jews to not cry, becuase he will soon arrive to kill them. In the song "Reject"(Nimrod) the lyrics contain the words,"To Hell and back to Hell again, you're not my type, your not my type(refering to Jews), I do what I want and you do what your told". "Nice Guys Finish Last" contains the lyrics "Nice guys finish last, your running out of gas", which refers to a Holocaust victim holding on to their last breath of air, while being gassed. - - "Having a blast" is a narrative in which the author states "I won't listen to anyone's last words", reffering to Hitler's final moments.another part of the song says "There's nothind left for you to say. Soon you'll be dead anyway," which can be seen as Hitler speaking to his next victims. With these hidden song meanings, one can easily arrive at the conclusion that the band espouses Adolf Hitler, and his murderous deeds.

It makes more sense when you accuse a band like KMFDM, Psyclon Nine and Rammstein of being neo-Nazis. Even Marilyn Manson. The idea that such baseless accusations can be made against Green Day is just down right ignorant. It could be someone reading too much into a song, or it could be someone wanting to make an accusation out of boredom. I'm sure of it that if there people who have the time on their hands to order off infomercials, someone has the time to come up with these things. Any song can be anti- anything if you try hard enough. Neil Diamond's "America" could actually be anti-immigrant for all we know. Hidden context and meanings in songs about bad relationships? More blatant disregard for any fact. It's just idiotic, man. Seriously.--MassProducedGod 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the idea seams pretty possible to me... I doubt it's true, but it's possible I think. Perhaps we should create a special page for it? I'm thinking "Green Day Neo-Nazi Accusations" perhaps. I think people who dislike it need to take an unbias look at the article, becuase I have a feeling the people who dislike it are probably die-hard Green Day friends. So keeping an open mind, I think it deserves its own page where its flaws and possible truths can be observed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.247.202 (talk • contribs) January 23, 2006.

Please see WP:OR.Jtrost 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading this I was seriously amazed. It makes a lot of sense, and I think we have a good theory. But you guys are right it does seam more like blog material than encyclopedia material, so it should stay off.

There is now way in the world they're Nazis. Why? Because Billie is Bisexual, That's why. New!!!!!oneone 05:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

American Idol vs. American Idiot

Hi there. Firstly, I would like to thank-you all for your contributions. At present though I just want to clear up some misunderstanding. For those obviously-not-so-die-hard fans of Green Day please be advised that American Idiot is the name of their current album, whereas American Idol is, of course, the popular reality show. With that said, I'm not sure what some editors mean by "American Idol" sessions. I think at should have read "American Idiot" sessions, but whoever keeps changing this to "American Idol", please participate in this discussion with some citation. And happy Monday. ;) 18:52 August 29, 2005 drdr1989

Happy Mondays to you too :) the wub "?/!" 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the recent vandalism that happened to this entry in the wake of their VMA victory, I think the Idiot/Idol switch was part of that vandalism. Cjmarsicano 05:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

AOL, released, the day before American Idiot was released, "Sessions@AOL" with Green Day. They played a few songs including "Jesus of Suburbia, " "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," and "American Idiot."

Recent link removed - Drumscore

Was about to put it back on. Will do so if owner can explain how to make the download links work without having a "corrupted file" icon appear with each link. Drdr1989 17:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess it was just put back on. Rather than nitpick and remove it (hint, hint to someone) I'll just kindly direct them hopefully to this page.  ;=) Drdr1989 17:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Rise in popularity?

I'd like to know where this header came from in the article: Rise in popularity. This seems to be placed after the release of Dookie, and judging by this article, Insomniac and its follow-ups to Warning: were not as successful as the debut major label album. So how does this title fit with the article? If anything, the group had a "dip in popularity". Winnermario 18:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yellow submarine?

"Future Plans

According to NME Shooting of an American Idiot: The Motion Picture movie is planned to start in 2006. In an interview with Billboard, Armstrong revealed that the group are still considering turning the punk rock opera into a film, in much the same spirit as the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine." Green Day are debating whether, after the end of their Stateside jaunt, they will play stadium shows in Australia and South America."

Is there any real reason that "Yellow Submarine"'s being listed here? It's a song which was turned into a film because they were contracted for another film. Surely The Wall/Tommy/Quadrophenia would be better examples, since they were albums describing a narrative of sorts which was turned into a film because the band wanted it, rather than being forced into it, which is more analogous to the situation.

Whether or not either film was a contractual obligation doesn't enter into it as far as comparisons of how they want the finished product to be. I see your point about the Wall/Tommy/Quad comparison though... I hope it's not anything like Tommy though - the soundtrack was great but the movie sucked. Cjmarsicano 15:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Emo?

Since when did Green Day get classified as emo? Was this some sort of vandalism or did I miss something? Cjmarsicano 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of funny. But vandalism is not, which is what it is. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

haha green day emo.--ChildOfMorella 17:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Day should not be considered emo in any sense of the word, regardless of the makeup and hair changes they've made. Even though some songs are mellow and depressing on American Idiot, they are not emo. If so then most country music songs should be called emo. Ever heard "Whiskey Lullabye"? It's about two people drinking themselves to death.

Should we lock this article?

Considering that this article is vandalized almost daily by people looking to label the band as anti-American (amongst other ephitets), might I propose locking this article for the time being, similar to what had to be done with the Bob Dylan article? Seeing what has been done to the article every day, much of it not real updates, has been rather disgusting. Cjmarsicano 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, the vandalism isn't often or significant enough to cause huge probles and vandals can easily be reverted so locking this article would probably do more harm than good. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Compared to, say, articles concerning the Middle East, or major American political candidates, this is a walk in the reasonable-discourse park! - DavidWBrooks 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why this article is constantly vandalized, but it is, and it should be locked for a while. I remember last year, someone completely filled Tré Cool's article with misinformation about how he got his name.

Heart Like A Hand Grenade

"...and Green Day's DVD Documentary "Heart Like A Hand Grenade", has spoken of various projects recorded at Studio 880..."

Has anyone actually seen this documentary? Maybe I'm missing something here, but there's almost no reference to it on the internet, other than cloned versions of this article. Amazon has never heard of it either. Does anyone have any solid references to back this up?...Or even back up that there was a Green Day DVD, because - other than 'bullet in a bible' - this is the first I've ever heard of anything like it. --Joewithajay 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Only parts of this documentary have been made public at this point. Reprise Records released a half-hour cut to Fuse and MTV earlier this year. The documentary was filmed over the entire album-recording process by John Roecker and is still in the editing phase. I was told this summer by a producer close to the band that it had been cut down to a 3-hour version at that point. --AHSports 15:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Concert Info

I feel dumb for asking this on this article, but how does someone get a hold of the Green Day manager, I would love to fund a concert in my hometown, but I don't know a thing about setting up concerts and whatnot. This is totally hypothetical because I don not have the money for it, unforetunatly :(

You should email them through their website. Please don't ask for these kinds of things on Wikipedia. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And what happens at Green Day concerts, I've never been to one?

Well essentially, they sing, play drums, and guitars in an almost-rhythmic fashion, while the die-hard fans and teeny boppers alike mosh to the music. --SCC 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ive been to their concerts and they have a long row of flamethrowers that shoot 15 foot flames out of the stage, they have pretty damn loud explosions, and an unbelievable fireworks show at the end. If there are any elderly people who live in the neighborhood of the designated concert area, then you should buy them hotel tickets for a nice quiet spot, invite them to the concert or buy them headphones. This comment was added by COOL GUY

Jason White

I figured that since Jason White has his own article, his larger biographical info was probably more appropriate there. I decided to be bold and move it. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

statement removal

Many long-time Green Day fans felt uncomfortable and even threatened when American Idiot was released. The music was much more accessible, and was occasionally mistaken by less-cultured music fans (who had previously been oblivious to Green Day's work) for the "boybands with guitars" style of Busted and McFly. This was viewed as particularly insulting, as some would argue that such boybands exploit the very things that made Green Day popular, mimicking them in a contrived and insincere way.

I removed that statement since it was entirely unsupported and fairly opinionated. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Good. That statement has been very annoying since the time it went up. It was quite a POV statement. Newguineafan 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a statement also. I had asked that it be cited a while back, in one of my 50 other comments, but with the recent merger of the comments, I'm too lazy to look it up. It should be in the Punk dispute thing, unless someone deleted it. The statement I removed was "About two months later, they played a high school party with the Lookouts in a remote mountain location near Willits, California, where Tré and Kain Kong of the Lookouts lived and attended school. Only five kids showed up for the party but they left after the first song, and there was no electricity in the house and the toilet didn't work, so Sweet Children had to play using a generator and candlelight. But they played, as Lookouts singer/guitarist Larry Livermore put it, "as if they were The Beatles at Shea Stadium."" There are also several other biased and uncited statements in the "Lookouts: the beginning (1988-1992)" section, and unless more of them are cited, I will delete them in the next week or so. Merry Christmas GD fans! Gold Stur 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

green day hoax

I have removed the entire green day hoax statement since it is entirely unsourced. It should only be re-added if a proper source can be found for it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1997, it was announced on the official Green Day fan site www.greenday.com that 2 previously unreleased Green Day songs had been "found" and added to the site. They were supposed to be old recordings from years before. The songs "Listen Son", and "I Had a Dream", the latter being more or less a cover of "Worry Rock", even got aired on radio. No one seemed to suspect anything until Billie Joe's wife, Adrienne, contacted the site owner, Jason, telling him the songs were fake and should immediately be withdrawn from the site. This caused some embarrasment for the owner of the site since he had failed to check his sources. The 2 songs had been sent in by Daniel Soxic, who was 18 years old at the time of the hoax.

Well done, the artist Daniel Soxic has nothing to do with this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenx (talk • contribs) 01:09, November 28, 2005.

The Hoax should be reinstated, source, www.greenday.net

Criticism

I've removed as unsupported the following material. Per WP:V, WP:CITE, and even WP:WEASEL there needs to be something to back up these claims. Tell who said these things, and where. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of Green Day's most recent work has met with a degree of wide-ranging criticism. Many argue that their latest commercial offerings are of inferior artistic and creative merit to their earlier works. Furthermore, many argue they have used political messaged to plug a hole left by this decline in creativity, and as such they are accused of playing off trends in American society to their own commercial betterment. Still others attack the mere notion of the Pop Punk gender espoused and led by Green Day.

Uh, I've been saying that for a long time.Gold Stur 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Many doesn't cut it though in terms of inclusion into an article so it should be sourced or left out. Even if it can be sourced it may be better to be left out though. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

non fairuse images

I have removed Image:Greendayold.jpg and Image:GreenDayTracks.jpg since they have no fairuse rational, they should be re-added though if a good rational can be found. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

The following were moved here from the main page. If any of these have a compelling argument relevent to Wikipedia:External links, here's the place to put it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Concert Information<<OFFICIAL SITE moved back Lharvill
• Bandnews: Green Day<<DIRECTORIES Lharvill>>

FANSITES:

• TheNimrods.com
• Geek Stink Breath community
• Green Day @ the SoundtrackINFO project (Green Day songs on soundtracks)
• Green Day Lyrics Searchable index of all the songs
• Green Day Authority
• GreenDay.net
• Warning: A Green Day Site
• Another Broken Home
• Green Day Lyrics
• Green Generation
• Green Day Fan
• Green Day Lyric Interpretations Discussion of the meanings behind their songs.
• Green Day Paradise
• [18] Green Day 2K green day forums 100% in spanish

MISC LINKS:

• Green Day Ladies
• Tré Cools Dominated Love Slave
• "Nothing Nice To Say" cartoon about Green Day's pullout from Lookout! Records

I put the "Nothing Nice To Say" cartoon link about Green Day's pullout on the wiki as I felt that it would be relevant to the article. I still feel that way, for the record. Perhaps it could be linked as a reference to the paragraph about their pullout when the article is unlocked? -- Cjmarsicano 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected the page

I've protected the page because of the multiple reverts on genre classification. Please reach a consensus / compromise on this talk page rather than continuing this. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How long do I have to be a user before I can edit this page again. (I just became 1 today) --ChildOfMorella 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They're Pop punk. Those who say they're Punk rock don't know what Punk rock is. (read this)

They started as a punk rock band, probably before the expression pop punk was created. So I believe they could be considered both a pop punk and punk rock band. Or do you think Kerplunk is pop punk? FTota 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Good Riddance

The article states, "It was also the top wedding song for that year, ironically, seeing as how the song was written as a bitter kiss-off to the other party after a nasty breakup."

The popular interpretation is it is about suicide, maybe add that into the sentance to change

"It was also the top wedding song for that year, ironically, seeing as how the song was written as a bitter kiss-off to the other party after a nasty breakup. Another morbid interpretation of the song believes it deals with suicide."

I've heard several times Billie Joe Armstrong say that as with Wake Me Up When September Ends, the song is kind of mourning his father's death. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

CORRECTION! Good Riddance is about the struggle between Green Day and their Supporters. They couldnt return to their hometown in California due to the fact that many punk fans saw Green Day as sell-outs and hated them for "soaking up the spotlight". They couldnt return to their homes because the poparazzi and anti-Greenday people knew where they lived. It describes secluding yourself from the underground punk scene. Green Day doesnt care about the opinions of people who think that they are sell-outs. To be successful you need to worry less about satisfying the same crowd over and over, and you need to satisfy whoever is necessary to be successful and sometimes that involves changing the style of your music to gain interest from everyone. -Cool Guy

Radio Daze

Why dosen't anyone mention Radio Daze in the ALbum section? Radio Daze was originaly a live radio show Green Day did in New Jersey, which was recorded and sold without the bands permission. Even if it was created illegally, it still should be entered into the article, because it has many live versions of songs and a previously never mentioned song, "C Yo Yus", which was a cover.

Dude

Unprotecting

This article has been protected from editing for ten days over a petty dispute about whether the group is punk or pop punk. If there is no substantial agreement on either then I suggest that it would be wrong to state either. Without much personal familiarity with their music beyond the obvious, I'd hazard a guess that like most good music acts they tend to transcend any genre labels people might care to put on them. So I'm unprotecting and if I catch any further warring over these labels I'll be inclined to get medieval on the perpetrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the "warning", but this is exactly why there was a compromise for two genres reached after much discussion as you can see. Drdr1989 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems people are vandalizing the page again, maybe it should be protected again? --predatorfreak 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the vandalization will stop until Green Day are irrelevant, which won't be any time soon. We'll just have to keep an eye on this page and revert everything. *sigh* -- Simpatico 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, surely if it's going to cause such pathetic problems then it's not worth mentioning at all.Liss 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotations vs Italics

Albums titles are italicized while song titles have quotation marks. There are problems with this throughout the article (sometimes they are correct, sometimes not). -- Simpatico 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Steve Diggle incident

Where would be a good place to mention this [19] ?

• Too trivial to mention, IMO. Also, Diggle sounds like an ass - if he has no idea who they are how can he have any opinion about them? Shallow... -- Simpatico 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm assuming they had a conversation, whatever happened during it I don't know but I assume it was long enough for Diggle to obtain an opinion Johhny-turbo 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Green Day being accused of being neo Nazis

These are about the most exaggerated, tenuous interpretations of Green days music. And the person who wants these to be in the main article obviously shows their true agenda when they say ‘The song American Idiot also provokes an anti-American message’. Stop trying to colour a an entry on a factual encyclopedia with your own agenda that is so obviously to taint Green day’s reputation just because they have made an album which demonstrates against the neoconservative agenda of war and unilateralism and the media which unquestiongly supports these policies.

i don't know if you've read it yet, but this issue has previously been discussed on this talk page. scroll up to see it.--Alhutch 21:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the members of green day are not neo nazis, however it is clear, and i am sure that they would tell you this themselves, that they are anti-Americans. And you are utterly mistaken with your statement about the media. Fox News is the only conservative TV media network that I am aware of. Have you looked at PBS or CNN? ---Wikikrieg---

Green Day have openly stated that they are not "anti-american", civil discourse, and challenging government is as American as apple pie.

Like mentioned up above on this page, the album american idiot is not meant to be taken 100% literally. There are terms and statements that are contradictory and people need to understand that not all music has a subliminal message. Greenday has been accused of being sell-outs but what are you supposed to do when people lose interest in your music? you try new things. they arent neo-nazis. -Cool Guy

Semi-protection

I'm putting up semi-protection on this article. It is such a target for unregistered vandals that as far as I am concerned, it is the only way that most admins' and contributors' energies to be devoted to writing and expanding the Wiki, rather than cleaning up after the random shitting of anonymous wild animals.

No, I'm not an admin (yet), but as long as I have the ability to type the sprotect template and be bold, I'm going to look out for the encyclopedia. Cjmarsicano 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting the sprotect template on the article does not semi-protect the article. It makes people think the article is semi-protected, but it doesn't actually do anything.--Alhutch 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I highly suggest that a momement, petition, or whatever other protocol is greatly in order to prevent any and all unregistered participants from altering the Wikipedia, because I'm tired ot seeing every other edit to many of these articles be a reversion of some juvenile asshole's vandalism. Cjmarsicano 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

the article is now semi-protected.--Alhutch 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to semi-protect the article for a while if that is the necessary course of action. Please do not try to do this on your own, however, since you are not an administrator. Thanks,--Alhutch 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It's amazing how many things are locked down for vandalism. --DanielCD 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this article seriously worth semi-protection? Wouldn't it make more sense just to block the vandals? I note quite a bit of vandalism in the history, but it doesn't seem near the amount done on articles such as George W. Bush. --Cymsdale 08:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

CHARTS

Here is a list of all of Green Day's UK hit singles if anyone would ike to edit them up:

Position Artist Title Date Details

20 Green Day Welcome To Paradise Oct 1994

7 Green Day Basket Case (re-issue) Jan 1995 Notes

30 Green Day Longview Mar 1995

27 Green Day When I Come Around May 1995

16 Green Day Geek Stink Breath Oct 1995

24 Green Day Stuck With Me Jan 1996

28 Green Day Brain Stew / Jaded Jul 1996

25 Green Day Hitchin' A Ride Oct 1997

11 Green Day Time Of Your Life (Good Riddance) Jan 1998

27 Green Day Redundant May 1998

18 Green Day Minority Sep 2000

27 Green Day Warning Dec 2000

34 Green Day Waiting Nov 2001

3 Green Day American Idiot Sep 2004

5 Green Day Boulevard Of Broken Dreams Dec 2004

11 Green Day Holiday Mar 2005

8 Green Day Wake Me Up When September Ends Jun 2005

17 Green Day Jesus Of Suburbia Nov 2005

Heres the ones for Sweeden too:

Artist Title Entry Peak

Green Day Basket Case 1994-11-11, 3

Green Day When I Come Around 1995-07-14, 28

Green Day Geek Stink Breath 1995-10-06, 28

Green Day American Idiot 2004-09-24, 18

Green Day Boulevard Of Broken Dreams 2005-01-20, 2

Green Day Holiday 2005-04-28, 25

Green Day Wake Me Up When September Ends 2005-08-18, 21

New Label

Green day is no longer with Reprise records. They are on Warner Bro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.160.171.111 (talk • contribs) .

Reprise and Warner bro. are the same. --Dwnsjane 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Look at Bullet in a Bible, released as recently as November. It still says Reprise Records because they are signed with Reprise, a part of Warner Bros. Records. Remove from the main article, or I'll do it if I'm not lazy. --Guess Who 00:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Green day punk rock? ha!

green day are not punk rock, wheres the angry vocals and the torn clothes or the attitude? They're far to emotional to be punk, pop punk maybe but punk rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Rotten (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at all the debates on this talk page about this topic... and please don't repeat them.--Greedy 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an huge miss-understanding here

Well, I am well aware of the debate above yet I DON'T CARE because nobody looks at him anyway so don't refer me to it.

I think it is clear that MANY MANY people disagree with the Punk Rock classification! Look at all these discussions, look at the history page! I'm sure that It's not just because people hate Green Day (which I may admit are on to something). People who DO listen to Punk Rock are ANGRY because GREEN DAY ARE NOT PUNK ROCK. Everybody who DO listened to punk rock HATES GREENDAY. look at the history page, all these "Green Day are not punk they are stinky pop" edits! Maybe they're childish but they're right! The only people who do think they are Punk Rock are GREENDAY'S FANS. Nobody else thinks so. And why you ask? because Green Day has a pose of "reely kool and harkorr" heavy-rock-punk band. Well newsflash, Greem Day is Punk Pop and nothing besides it. I fukkin don't care what you're "consensus" is. Wikipedia should show the truth, and the discussion above is just some stupid fans arguing about something they don't know anything about. I will now edit the article in 4 days from now so if you have anything to say before, say now. Userbox from hell 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (a proud punk fan!)

Look at this great sentence i found at the Hardcore Punk article: other Pop punk bands that had a poppier sound, such as Green Day and blink-182, were often accused of being "sellouts" or "posers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userbox from hell (talk • contribs)

I'm saying now. People have argued and argued about this, and frankly I feel that the compromise we've got now is the best we're going to get. Don't mess with it or the whole genre thing will go back into edit wars. Also: refrain from personal attacks and respect the community. Calling people "stupid" and outright saying that you don't give a damn about a compromise that people have worked hard to create is not going to make you any friends, and it's going to make people less likely to listen to you, regardless of whether your arguments are good or not. Hbackman 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. But I still think that someone who thinks Green Day is punk rock don't know what punk rock is and that's not the kind of editors that wikipedia needs. Maybe they do have few "punky" songs but that's like metallica has a few nu-metal (rap-metal) songs but you don't see it on their article do you. Userbox from hell 22:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a new account beacuse I was blocked for bad username so don't confuse. Userbox from heaven 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that his second account was also blocked by an admin for a username violation. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

good--ChildOfMorella 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, about that, look what Sellout#Punk has to say:

In the early 90's Green Day was signed with an independent punk record company called Lookout! Records, but in 1994 they signed with Reprise Records and released Dookie. The album drew scorn from the band's earliest fans. More recently and more commonly, Green Day was accused of selling out with American Idiot, since songs like Holiday, Boulevard of Broken Dreams, and Wake Me Up When September Ends are believed to be too pop-oriented, and receive airplay on top 40 radio stations, in spite of the fact that Green Day are not considered "punk" at all by most Punk rock fans. Some of these artists have defended these actions as a necessary evil in order to achieve widespread distribution of their records and messages, and argue that selling out only occurs when the artist compromises the music in order to appeal to the broadest mainstream audience.

Psychomelodic 18:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Day has been prey to "sellout" retaliation from diehard punk-rock fans ever since 1994. This situation replicates every other one when a one-time struggling group may add some commerialism and go "pop", much to the dismay of "anti-pop" fans, who will erroneously nudge them out their original genre. Nonetheless, the commerialism factor was the exact reason why at one time I personally defended the pop punk category by itself. Look at the commerialism of some of their songs? BUT, this was before I got this confused with true "pop-punk" artists like Simple Plan which clearly are an element of their own and in no way should undermine Green Day's efforts at putting out punk-rock tunes right up through their latest. Just have a listen to true pop-punk artists' music and Green Days' and you'll understand why both classifications need to be kept in. Drdr1989 06:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh, why are genres so important to people? As long as the music is good, who cares what the classification is? Halliwell3 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yyyyyyeah. Maybe we should change the genre to just "good"? (No, don't change it!!) Drdr1989 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone obviously cares... check out who's been removing other people's comments on the quiet.[20] Fight censorship! ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Talking about quiet, I think they may have been removed accidentally, let me fix.... Drdr1989 03:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Next album section

I really think that people should know what is going on with the band and how they are fairing in the studio, recording the new album. Thus I plead to have this section in the article as many bands has it. I don't think it's so much and such stupid explanations that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball are stupid for me. I just want to have a smooth "new-album" section where people will be able to know what is going on with the new album. We are not talking about things of speculative nature. Yesterday, I only put up things which bandmembers said and which were said according to their website, so I really think that they were removed harshly and unjustly. Thus I plead for the reinstatement of this section and I really think that there should be one, where information will be put, when new facts have emerged about the new album.

Thanks for your attention. Painbearer 09:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are able to find some verifiable sources about the next album and properly cite them, then there should be no problem with this section. However, the Cigarettes and Valentines article is littered with point of view, original research, and does not cite a single source. It's a very bad article and should not be linked to until it is cleaned up. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball applies here since it undoubtedly is going to be speculative. The only exception to this I can see would be if a verified interview or something discussed their future plans and even then I doubt that would be enough for it's own section. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That 'famous' website criticizing Green Day

I removed the link to this site, it can hardly qualify as criticism when its arguments read:

10. They suck.

9. They suck ass.
8. They suck smelly ass.
7. They suck smelly, crusty ass.
6. They suck smelly, crusty ass with bits of corn in it.
5. It might be more fun to eat your own intestines than listen to them.
4. They claim the music they play is punk rock, but it is really better described as a lot of crap.
3. Your mom likes them, because she likes bands that suck.
2. Your granpa is in the band. He is their fluffer.

And the #1 reason to HATE Green Day

1. They exist, therefore they should be hated.

The only thing it would be famous for, would be the horrible design (which most of the Geocities websites are notorious for, anyway). So what I'm suggesting is that if it's so essential to fling dirt at Green Day, write a little section of well-flowing prose, I'm sure it will be received much better.

And what's a 'fluffer', anyway...? --Obli (Talk)^? 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I will write a paragraph called Criticism against Green Day. psychomelo₍di_s)c_(ussion) 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose writing a paragraph againt Green Day since there is almost no legitimate criticism of them that can't be grouped into one of the other sections and we don't need to give these whiny trolls their way by rewarding their behavior on this article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I Strongly Agree with Pegasus1138. Please read the "Thanks for all your efforts" section on Obli's Talk Page. --Andy123 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing you're more involved in this than I am, I trust your judgemnt on this --Obli (Talk)^? 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't all criticism is a POV? Yet Green Day is a very disputed band and the article should include section about it (I've made a summery here). And for Obli's question, fluffer is the girl in porn movies that "plays" with the actor before shootings so he'll be in shape. psychomelo₍di_sc_ussion) 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)