Talk:Against Me!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
 

Initial[edit]

What's so historical about The Distillers?

Or the Hives for that matter. On that note, wtf, this article has some POV problems. "not-so-punk acts like Mandy Moore and Spongebob Squarepants"? That's merely the biggest one. wilhelm 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Selling Out Bullshit[edit]

Whats with all the talk of 'best work' about all the early albums and then the talk of selling out. It's not written in a generic style - it's all very subjective and without any references. Sounds like someone with a grudge. Fuck-off Hipsters. -- ben

  • Find sources that say Reinventing Axl Rose isn't their best work, and that signing to Sire didn't represent selling out, and then you can put them in the article yourself. Everything stated in the article is backed up by legit sources. Nowah Balloon (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of wikipedia is to represent a neutral point of view. It is clearly not universially known that Reinventing Axel Rose represents the band’s best work, music is subjective after all. Furthermore, wikipedia is not a place to discuss whether or not a band has "sold out". My own irrelevant opinion on the matter is that anyone who actually cares what label a band is signed to, needs to stop, and reevaluate their priorities. As well, it's quite clear that "everything stated in the articles" is NOT backed up by "legit sources", as there are only 3 sources, one of which only concerns the bands genre, the other the coffee house incident, the third only discusses the fan base’s reaction to the release of New Wave. Jacknife737 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Jackknife. He shouldn't have to fine a source saying that it's not their best work, especially if there's no source for it being their best work. I don't even listen to this band but that caught my attention. It's definitely POV, and without a very clear source there's no way it should be in there.Tithonfury (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

College Apartment Complex?[edit]

I don't think that Against Me! as Tom Gabel's solo work started in college apartment complexes. My understanding is that he started it while still in Naples (a number of my friends recall seeing him playing outside of shows, and sometimes seeing them with Tom and various people on buckets)

I doubt that this statement in the article is true and should be changed or cited, because if it's false, it obviously doesn't belong in the article. KurtFF8 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


While it is true that Against Me! started in Naples, I was at the laundromat show, which was at College Manor Apartments in Gainesville on a Thursday night in fall 2000.

I, too, was at that show at College Manor Apartments in late 2000. AM! played with David Dondero, Sexual Chocolate, and the show was organized by Mikey Hot Sauce of Hot Sauce Records who lived in the complex at the time. Unfortunately, I don't have the flyer anymore. Mcas (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was at that laundromat show too and no one hated them, contrary to popular belief. In fact, the host of the CMC Poetry Jam (of which I was host for a year and a half) truncated that night's Jam to encourage everyone in attendance to go see Against Me!. Tom and Kevin rocked that laundromat with a fiddle player named James, if I'm not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crashsites (talkcontribs) 06:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Deitrich AM! Electro Dance Hits[edit]

Going to take that link from the External links... it2's just weird and irrevelant in my opinion. QzarBaron 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm?[edit]

I've seen people say here and on the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity page say that "Baby I'm an Anarchist" is tounge-in-cheek or sarcastic. Is there any evidence of that? I thought it was serious, a bit funny, but serious. So do at least two of my friends? Perhaps my being an anarchist biases me into actually thinking it's serious, but yeah...The Ungovernable Force 04:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible that there are some tounge-in-cheek aspects to it, but Tom Gable (who I assume wrote the lyrics) has said before that he is (or at least was) an anarchist, so I'm assuming that the message of the song, while being portrayed as tounge-in-cheek, could also be serious at the same time. KurtFF8 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He's obviously not an anarchist anymore, since he deals with those fucking bastards on MTV and FUSE-FionMacCumhail 07:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

regardless, that wouldn't make the song toungue-in-cheek, it would jsut make it hypocritical. toungue-in-cheek means to me that Gable disagrees with anarchism, which I would doubt.. I'm gonna change it. someone else can confirm later, if they want. --naught101 10:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
lol, yeah, sell-outs, I know. It's always annoying to see a good band go the way of commercialization. Alas, we lose another one to the dark side. Anti-flag really upset me too with all their punkvoter drivel (actually, punkvoter made me upset with a lot of bands), not to mention signing to a major label, sounding worse and becoming supposed pacifists (they had the song "kill the rich" and now they have a song called "Power to the Peacefull"). Somebody shoot me please! The Ungovernable Force 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Antiflag was never anarchist though. They said they were anarchist in their music but real people who have actually talked to them have said they were pretty reformist. One of them in the band was a Leninist though. Leninism is almost bad as capitalism so I think its better that they sell out anyways lol. Good band though

-FionMacCumhail 03:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If he didn't mean everything he sang in the song, then maybe it could be tongue-in-cheek - for example, the bit about smashing the Starbucks window strikes me as sending up anarchists a little... Also, I think Leninism is far worse than capitalism - it's nothing more than repressive state-capitalism. At least capitalism has some freedom... Supersheep 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he was saying something along the lines of [this], which is a criticism of the black bloc actions at Seattle. Just a thought, we'll need someone who knows more about the band to help out. Supersheep 11:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, people on songmeanings.net are pretty divided. [1] I think until they say whether is was sarcastic or not, we won't really know. I think people just interpret it the way they want to, because it can be twisted either way. It seems obviously pro-anarchist to me, but that's very likely just because I'm an anarchist. Oh well. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems mocking to me, and I'm anarchist too - obviously Against Me are from the peaceful end of the anarchist spectrum, or didn't think that a violent response to police brutality was appropriate... Supersheep 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I already changed it, but I'm having second thoughts... perhaps the best description would be "hyperbolic" - that way, regardless of whether it's toungue in cheek or not, people will realise it's not to be taken too literally.. --naught101 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I'd agree with your interpretation of hyperbolic, I think that unless the band made/makes some kind of statement about their intent, then we shouldn't speculate since it's really contensious and not incredibly obvious. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's kind of shallow to think that just because a band signed to a major label it makes them any less of an anarchist than they were before. I've talked to Gabel because he happens to be my first cousin, on a regular basis. And his views on having a band are pretty simple in that, not everyone in the band is an anarchist, so he never really viewed Against Me! as an anarchist band. And I think a lot of people lose sight of that. Sure, Gabel wrote some anarchist songs on their early recordings, but you must remember, that was a totally different situation in which it was just controlled by him and one other member who probably agreed with him fully. Tom still claims to be an anarchist, but is also a very lucid anarchist. He's very realistic, and keeps things in perspective. I think to call a band to sell out would say that they have abandoned their former ideals, and honestly, Against Me! as a four-piece band never really stated all-out that they are an anarchist band. However, "Baby, I'm an Anarchist!" does sound like a tounge-in-cheek ballad. I don't think it's saying that anarchist beliefs are moronic, however. I think it's just pointing out the difference between liberals and far-leftists and anarchists, and how they are ironically commonly associated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.236.57.67 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

New Live CD[edit]

Against Me! will be releasing a live CD entitled "Americans Abroad!!! Against Me!!! Live in London!!!" This is the bands "goodbye" album to fat wreck chords so to speak. It will feature a new song called "Americans Abroad."

Vanessa? Who is Vanessa?[edit]

Who's this Vanessa character? I'm not saying she doesn't exist but whereas all the "Associates" are well established as working for the band (see the We're Not Going Home DVD), I've never seen mention of her before. Perhaps an interview link or something would be helpful.--AgainstSteve 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


    She could be the female voice in the song "Baby, I'm an Anarchist." If she isn't... Who is?

I know it's quite late, but the female Anarchist vocalist is Cassidy Rist from one of Tom's former bands. She also co-wrote the song. Nowah Balloon 07:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Adversaries[edit]

Anyone else remember Tom's old Naples band Adversaries? Smart Mark Greene 00:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC

yeah but i didnt know it was tom gabel till about 2 days ago. lol

FOLK PUNK???[edit]

okay i love Against Me but what dummy has the nearve to call them folk punk? I mean come on!! folk and punk as a combined genera? thats almost as smart as miltary intelgence. Against me kicks ass but i demand a rethinking of the critics. _peace_love_unity_ CHECK OUT ANTI-FLAG IF YOU LIKE AM! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razor romance (talkcontribs).

^^you are stupid.^^ ^^ ^^

First off, calm down. Second, folk punk is an established genre. There are many bands that play a mix of folk and punk (This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb and Defiance, Ohio to name just two). At the same time, Against Me! has been moving away from the folk side of folk punk as they progress (along with their ideals it seems like). Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
punk=ethic, folk=style. 's like eco-friendly modernist architecture. they aren't in any way exclusive. 'nuff said. --naught101 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever was bringing up the issue of Against Me! not being a "folk punk band"... look up on the bands MySpace, they classify themselves as a "folk punk" band. Wow.

yeah duh, the myspace will tell you that they're totally folk.
lol
I think the point of the myspace comment was that they even classify themselves as folk punk. KurtFF8 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, their earlier stuff (Crime as Forgiven By, Vivida Vis!, etc) are more folk-punk-ish than their later music, but I'd definitely say they did play folk-punk, but their music just evolved. No reason not to leave it on there.Artiste-extraordinaire 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


You know a band sucks with you got Anti-flag fans telling you shit about it. God I love WIKI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.2.122 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

^^^^^^ Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.45.250 (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I like Anti-Flag and I see absolutely NO RELATION between these two bands other than they each play on a different branch of the punk family tree. If Against Me! was anything I think it would be Folk Punk or Punkabilly/Rockabilly. I Dont agree with them being just punk like it states right now. --Blckhawk1234 (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent five minutes on Google and found these articles which all describe Against Me! as folk punk. [2] [3] [4] [5] --Blckhawk1234 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Rhapsody.com is a retailer and not a reliable source for critical commentary, including genre designations.
  • I'm not sure about The 217. Is it a magazine? Does it have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? It seems to consist largely of blogs.
  • I don't see where the LiveDaily article describes Against Me! as "folk punk". It merely says that they're special guests on a Chuck Ragan tour.
  • Punkbands.com seems OK.
My main problem is that the Against Me! article doesn't mention "folk punk" anywhere in the article itself. Not even once. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of details from the article. There shouldn't be anything in the infobox that isn't discussed in greater detail in the body of the article itself. You can't put "folk punk" in the infobox if the article body doesn't even mention "folk punk" in any way, shape, or form. My advice is to add a "Style" section to the article, write some well-referenced prose about Against Me!'s musical style, with citations to reliable sources. Then base the infobox contents on what that section says. As long as the infobox reflects the article body, and the sources therein, then the problem should be solved. The primary problem with this article is the fly-by editors who only care about the infobox and don't take the time to actually write any useful prose in the article itself. If someone would just put the effort into finding sources and writing a decent "Style" section, we could avoid these edit wars. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anarkopunk?[edit]

i don't consider this band as an anarkopunk band. Is it ok to remove it from that category? thanks for your input. Cacuija (my talk) 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, unlike the edit I just congratulated you for, I'm not quite so sure about this one. They used to say they were anarchists, didn't they? I don't listen to them much though, so I'm not the expert on this band. I'd say keep it in, but just weakly. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert myself.. but they could say they are anarchists (at an personal level), but .. can a band who signed for Fat Wreckords and tours with NoFX be considered anarcopunk. They have more relations with other comercial punk bands than with anarkopunk bands.. i don't think they are anarkopunk at all. IMHO the just happen to play a style of music which can be considered "punk rock", rock, folk-punk (you name it) and they call themselves anarchists. That doesn't put you in the anarkopunk category. The bottom line is, besides what they say they are and their music style, what facts make them "anarkopunk"? Tell me what you think. Cacuija (my talk) 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
First, isn't it anarcho-punk? As for the stuff on record labels, Propagandhi is on Fat Wreckords too, but I've never seen anyone try to say they aren't anarchists because of that. It seems a little improper to say a band isn't anarcho-punk just because of that. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You might be right about the record label and i don't know propagahndi, but you still don't answer my last question. Cacuija (my talk) 22:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about missing that part--I had 5 minutes till class started so only had a minute or two. I'd say any band that is made up of anarchists, blends that into their lyrics and plays punk music of some kind. For myself personally, they should also be active in political/social movements related to anarchism and should be trying to live consistently with their beliefs, but that's my own personal view and I don't think it's a good measure of whether a band should be included or not in an encyclopedia. Case in point--well, this one. I might have considered them anarcho-punk earlier on, but they do seem to be really selling out in my opinion. I wouldn't really consider them that great an example of an anarcho-punk band, but they do probably meet the basic definition for on here. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
By definition (note that i don't like "book" definitions) from Anarcho-punk: "Anarcho-punk is a part of the punk movement consisting of groups, bands and individuals promoting specifically anarchist ideas.". note the "promoting". Can you tell me how this band promotes anarchism?, again, at an individual level their members may consider themselves anything, at a group level.. i don't think we can consider this band anarcho-punk. Still my question remains unanswered "besides what they say they are and their music style, what facts make them 'anarkopunk'?". thanks for your feedback, - Cacuija (my talk) 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Besides what they say and their musical style"? Why leave out the two most imporatant aspects that define an anarcho-punk band? They even have a song that mentions Anarcho-punk. I fail to see how they are not anarcho-punk. Just because they are now on a major label doesn't take away what they stand for (or even if they no longer stand for that, the majority of their music and message does) KurtFF8 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You still don't answer my question. So, based on your point of view, shall we place The Sex Pistols in this category? Cacuija (my talk) 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, The Sex Pistols have a different musical style, and don't really hold anarchist views (to my knowledge) and those are the two things that distinguish a band as "anarcho-punk" from what I understand that genre to be. KurtFF8 04:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Musical style has nothing to do with anarco-punk.. You just have to play punk, or something like that and even if you play other music style, and you want to consider yourself anarcho-punk, i think it's perfectly fine. it is the attitude, For instance Catharsis is hardoce-metal IMO, they are anarcho-punks. The point is. Against me! as well as The Sex Pistols play "punk" music, and they might say they are anarchists or have songs about "revolution" and bla blah's. that doesn't make them anarkopunk. So in my opinion your "musical style" point is not valid, and your "don't really hold anarchist views" apply for boths. Please, someone show something that verifies that Against me! say they consider anarco-punks... something else than just a few (if only one) members say "we are anarchist" more at an intelectual level. Otherwise, i will be removing them from Category:Anarcho-punk Category until someone provides a valid source. Thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note, can we agree that they are actually a punk rock band? I've changed the intro paragraph to mention that. Artiste-extraordinaire 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


After listening to the new album "folk punk" is a bit of a misnomer. I could accept that up to the point of "Searching or a Former Clarity" but with that album and "New Wave" it's pretty clear that it's much more indie and/or alternative than punk at all.


Yeah chill out there like punk rock with a twist. Cause punk rock is usually 3 chords and Against me isnt like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.244.231 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Clever song titles?[edit]

Seems like a pretty biased thing to say. If anything they're embarassing to say out loud.

Type Of Music[edit]

The "Type of Music" section is fairly subjective, and written very strangely. Also, I think the author of that section was confusing "soft rock" with "folk rock". I'd say that bit either needs to be wiped out, or cleaned up (ie. citing the comparison to Bob Dylan). Jeridus 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, good call on wiping that bit out. I just managed to catch it before it was deleted, and it really wasn't written very well. I couldn't quite tell if he knew what he was talking about or not, but he made a good call on that bit about "Wagon Wheel" sounding like Dylan. The best I can figure it is this; the version that Against Me! does (from PROTECT: A Benefit for the National Association to Protect Children CD - 2005) is pretty much as it's performed originally by the Old Crow Medicine Show (from S/T CD - 2004), but even they only added some lyrics to an old Dylan song called "Rock Me Mamma" (from Genuine Bootleg Series CD - 1994 - Originally recorded in 1973). Personally, I completely prefer the AM! version over the OCMS version, but the original Dylan song is even better.
Anyways, that's just a random bit of information in case anyone was curious. Maybe the writer will be surprised if he reads this, who knows? (Callthekettleblack 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Tom Serick (spelling?) - Manager[edit]

Does anyone know if that's the correct spelling of that guy's name? I'm not seeing any reference to a Tom Serick in relation to Against Me!...other than a link to this article. --adamh 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why Freegan[edit]

On the "Freegan" article, it says the drummer wrote a pamphlet in 1999 advocating freeganism as an appropriate lifestyle. It certainly goes to the politics of the band, and so I figured it could be included somewhere in the article. Whatcha think?72.78.179.244 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Gabel wiki?[edit]

I'm a little shocked that Tom Gabel doesn't have his own article. With all of the interviews available, the arrest, and marrying Heather Hannoura, one would think that it would be fairly easy to do (and interesting to read). Somebody should get bored and make one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.184.251 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Gables own Article[edit]

How can I stop Tom Gabels name from being redirected to the Against Me article when you search his name, so that I can make one specifically for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wanamaker (talkcontribs) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just made the Tom Gabel page. It's pretty bare (it's very difficult to find any biographical info about him), so PLEASE contribute if possible. --TrafficHaze (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Traffichaze Vs. the house show[edit]

TrafficHaze,

Hey man. We seem to be going back and forth here with the edits. What's up? I don't know what your aversion is to the house show entry...but maybe if you clearly stated it...i could respond and through communication we could find something that suits us both?

Here's what i'm trying to do: include the house show entry in the broader against me page, with an accompanying picture from said house show. I'm new to wiki, dunno exactly how to do stuff....but i've uploaded a picture from the show over at the commons and was trying to include that in my latest edit. I don't think I did that correctly. Maybe, since you're obviously more well versed in wiki, you could do this for me? Obviously you have some sort of standard that i'm not meeting...otherwise the entry would have stayed. I hope we can correct this and come to terms with eachother.

Furthermore, If possible, I have a bevy of decent-quality images from the house show, maybe we could throwup a gallery? It would be cool looking, and I hope any personal opinions you have on the aesthetics of the page don't interfere with making the most visual/textual information available to the public. I know lots of people have intense, passionate feelings about AM! and things can get heated quite easily.

Hopefully you'll respond and we can work something out. I'm sure we're both tired of the faceless back and forth edits. I think the event itself is of enough significance to warrant a spot on the page, and that the accompanying picture/pictures is/are good enough as well. Please respond, I don't know how else to contact you. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vosentreste (talkcontribs) 05:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer this question on behalf of TrafficHaze (hope he/she doesn't mind). I'll explain why your edit was reverted and give you some tips since you are new.
  • Firstly, you need to cite a source. You should always cite a source when adding material to Wikipedia. This is to help with fact-checking and accuracy. Also, you should not add information from your own experiences (you cannot be the source). Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. So for the information you added, the sources would need to mention the place, date, other performers, that they played in a living room, that they played a full set, debuted new material and that the sweaty crowd overtook them. If the information is not mentioned in the sources, it should not be added to the article. Examples of sources would be a magazine, newspaper, book, website, a press release, etc.; but not a blog or forum post by an average joe, an unreliable publication, yourself, etc.
  • Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the article does not need to be mention every single gig the band plays. This information might be notable for now since they played new material, but it will definitely be removed later on because in terms of the history of the band, it is a minor thing.
  • Watch the tone. "AM! churned out a full set" is not the tone an encyclopedia uses. Articles should be written in a formal tone, avoid editorializing and a POV tone. Also, "the sweaty crowd overtook them", "overtook" is quite ambiguous here, what does it mean really?
  • The image. Close, you uploaded it correctly and got the syntax right, just got the filename wrong. Best to use copy and paste. Uploading photos to Commons is always appreciate. (if possible upload the original high resolution versions).
  • Also remember to sign your name on talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. Also every editor has their own talk page that they can be contacted on. It's just like this talk page, but for talking to the editor. For example, TrafficHaze's talk page can be found at User talk:TrafficHaze.
I recommend you read the articles I've linked to above. They'll provide more information on editing. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Welcome to Wikipedia. - kollision (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for all the confusion. I've always looked at Wikipedia as a slightly more vetted oral history than a britannica-style encyclopedia. In light of what you've said, and what i've obviously missed, my desire to add the house show to recent activity doesn't bear much weight. Since it was a secret show, there is no documentation other than the fliers, pictures, and the video. (I think AM! has video of it somewhere..). About the writing style, same thing. I'm accustomed to writing music column in papers, not encyclopedias. Maybe we can compromise and just include the picture in recent activity with the tagline stating something along the lines of..."AM!/Tom/XXX/ during secret house show in Gainesville, FL on XX/XX/XXXX? Similar to the tagline on the top-most coachella picture?
But on another note, what signifigance does Toms arrest play in the page? Or even the bands history? An entire paragraph devoted to the incident is excessive. Especially since the incident was over "selling out," I think it's silly to have a single sentence devoted to the "sell out issue" and then an entire paragraph about a direct result of that. For the sake of conversation, I was there that night at All Saints, and tensions in tally were fairly high. Local punks had thrown an "against against me" show at the infoshop, a local bookstore, (i think it was there..) while AM! played the Beta Bar. You can Imagine the tensions among the anarchist windbags floating around waiting to give Tom and AM! a piece of their minds.
But the important thing really is...he was arrested, so what? Alot of us go to jail, and I don't think this event plays a significant role in their history at all. That being said, why does Tom's arrest hold more weight than say, the laundromat or house show? Because it's documented? David Bowie, Bill Gates, and Carmen Electra have all had documented arrests but they aren't noted on their page. I believe there is an incredible, yet subtle danger in including/excluding information in anything based on documentation.
cheers! (98.180.4.40 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
I've added the photo and removed the part about his arrest. - kollision (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Preemptive discussion[edit]

Today Gabel publicly came out as transgender and announced his intention to live as a woman, eventually taking the name Laura Jane Grace. I won't bother providing a source, since it's all over the music news right now (Rolling Stone is running the exclusive, I believe). Before the inevitable barrage of IPs and SPAs hit the article, I think a few things should be hammered out:

  1. The biography/history portion of the article should continue to refer to Gabel as "Tom Gabel" and as "he" up until the present, where it should discuss the announcement of gender transition. After than point it can begin saying "she" and referring to her as Laura Jane Grace. It's inaccurate to refer to Gabel as "Laura Jane Grace" or as "her" from the beginning of the band to the present, because throughout that time he was Tom Gabel, a male.
  2. The article should only begin calling Gabel "Laura Jane Grace" after the transition is made. To be clear, Gabel announced his intention to transition his gender, upon completion of which she'll take the name Laura Jane Grace. I'm sure more details will follow when the full Rolling Stone article comes out, but as of this moment he's still Tom Gabel, a male. He's going to go through a process to become a woman, after which the article can begin referring to her as such and by her new name.

It may be worth considering semi-protecting the article to prevent the inevitable onslaught of vandalism/unconstructive edits. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, wait for the article. Hell, if anyone can, contact them, and ask what they'd prefer to be referred to as, in the past tense. If anyone wants to consider it, replace the pronouns with 'they' until there is more certainty. They is a genderless pronoun, and it is correct to use it as such, in the English language. Regardless, I hope we can respect their wishes, I've already seen many fans turning tails and saying rather offensive things about transpeople in general. Do try to remember, the Rolling Stone article we both read may be written poorly, and their wishes may differ significantly. In their private life, they may already be known as Laura, and live as a woman, but be formalising the changes (Name, licenses, etc). And for the love of god, please don't mention their genitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.185.224 (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That's simply not how encyclopedias are written (language-wise). As far as respecting wishes, etc., Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view on these things. We just write the facts, as reported in reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that the approach here matches that taken at Tom Gabel and that discussion about gender occur in one place, which is probably better at Talk:Tom Gabel. Thanks -- (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
If anyone sees a problem requiring article protection again, please raise a request at Requests for page protection. As I have been involved in some detailed discussion, I no longer feel independent enough to take direct action as an administrator. Thanks -- (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that facts are subjective. Though they appeared to the public to be male, that could just have been the show, and they may have lived as a woman the rest of the time. As I said earlier, the use of they as a pronoun is appropriate - it leaves room for a line such as 'who was living as a woman as of <such and such a date>'. I'm not going to edit this (I'm clearly partial to the argument, and feel it would be improper.) I don't have an agenda to advance, I'm just trying to help other users out in figuring out how to address this issue, which is more complex than people actually seem to realise. For a parallel, the public face of the armed forces is demonstrably different to the actual operation of said forces. And I reiterate, it's probably a good idea to wait until we know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.185.224 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the process of rewriting the article in a way that addresses the language issue. I hope that, when finished, it will be satisfactory. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The comment above does not reflect MOS:IDENTITY. Use of "she" and the name Laura Jane Grace for all periods of Grace's life is correct.
Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.
After all, we don't take pains to refer to e.g. Hillary Clinton as Hillary Rodham when discussing her pre-marriage life. Mote (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy Editing[edit]

Hey folks, I can't edit this page as it is locked, so I just wanted to request that someone add a comma to the second to last sentence.

"That May Gabel publicly came out as transgender, having dealt with gender dysphoria for years." With those three capitalized words in a row, I had to read it several times to figure out that it meant the month of May, rather than addressing Gabel as May Gabel, as though that was the new name she has chosen. I suggest, "That May, Gabel" or even, "On May 9th, Gabel"

Just a suggestion for readability72.74.134.42 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by the addition of a comma ("That May, Gabel..."). The specific date is unnecessary and refers to the date the article was published, not necessarily the date he gave the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pre-transition articles[edit]

I wanted to bring this up in case anybody opposes it, but somebody changed all of the references to "Tom Gabel" in every related article to "Laura Jane Grace." While that's fine for Transgender Dysphoria Blues and anything post-transition, the use of "Laura Jane Grace" in, say, "I Was a Teenage Anarchist" is factually wrong. For instance, this section: "The music video for the song features Laura Jane Grace in traditional punk clothing running through a park being chased by a police officer." This is incorrect, since it leads the reader to believe that the video features Grace post-transition, when in fact she was still Tom Gabel when it was filmed. The same goes for all of the album credits. In each of the album, Grace was still credited as "Tom Gabel," and wasn't credited as "Laura Jane Grace" until the most recent album. So unless anyone has any reasonable objections, I'll be changing these back shortly. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 09:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thanks for clarifying. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Any chance we can change the picture to a picture of the band after the start of her transition?[edit]

Please.

Any chance we can change the picture to a picture of the band after the start of her transition?[edit]

Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E07:A1E0:8F6:D7AA:31D1:7CAE (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)