Talk:Green Day

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 /Genre disputes

Pop Rock

The genre box should say Pop Rock because they have done pop rock songs such as "When I Come Around" and "86" and it shouldn't say Alternative Rock because they ard one of the biggest rock bands in the world. James P Twomey 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are huge doesn't mean they aren't alternative, and if you look at some of their song structures, they are rather alternative. Also, I think they're more hard rock than punk rock at the moment. User:KingRantheMan 14:09, 22 March 2008 I would argue that the songs that you listed fall under the pop punk category (which is already listed as a genre), rather then pop rock.Jacknife737 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"86" is pop rock, not pop punk. Listen to most of the singles on Insomniac or Dookie and compare it to them. Also, most of Warning and American Idiot is pop rock. And they are not alternative rock, they're probably the biggest rock band in the world.James P Twomey 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well again, just saying that those songs are pop rock, doesn't necessarily make them so. I think that you'll have to source pop rock to have it included within the article. The band certainly has pop influences, but i strongly disagree with the claim that they are pop rock. Also i don't understand your claim that they shouldn't be considered alternative rock, because "they're probably the biggest rock bands in the world", many other bands such as Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins are immensely popular and are also considered to be alternative rock. Jacknife737 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

nirvana is considered alternative rock and they are one of the most popular and well known rock bands around.. disappearing one. 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana is A.) Not alternative, but grunge, and B.) They're nothing anymore, the band seperated more than 10 years ago. Alternative rock implies that said rock is the alternative to the mainstream. Green Day is the mainstream. 68.205.33.22 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Rock is a genre. It doesn't matter how popular a band is, whether they do or do not fit in that genre. Green Day is NOT part of that genre. They are not Punk Rock at all. Some of their earlier work is sort of Pop Punk, but for the most part they are a purely Pop Rock band. That's all there is to it. People who call Green Day punk are usually the same idiots who call Fall Out Boy and Good Charlotte punk. And don't give me any of that shit about their "old stuff", because it's pop. I don't see why I'm even bothering. Half the genres listed on this entire site are wrong. Skinny Puppy did barely any Industrial, Fall Out Boy is not Pop Punk, and Green Day is not Punk. 72.94.149.141 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing that people are responding to a six-month old thread. Secondly, opinion does not matter. Verifiable sources do. If it can be sourced, it can be included, if it is your opinion, that is all it will remain. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Green Day is and NEVER will be pop punk. Pop punk is bands like blink 182 and good charlotte - they sing about hating teachers and shit - green day sing about hating politics and stuff like that...so either list them as punk or just be an idiot. User:58.111.154.169 20:52, 13 June —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More than 95% of Green Day's songs have a punk structure to them. The progression of the power chords in their music make melodies that have pop influence. If you add pop and punk you get pop punk. More recently, they have had more of a rock influence than pop. If you add rock and punk you get punk rock. Style and attitude wise, they have punk assets to them; From the way the act on stage, to how they think, it's punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre

iF YOU WOULD ACTually listen to some ramones songs. you would know that green day is quite similar to them. If ramones is musically considered punk. then green day should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.9.86 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

if you look closely,punk rock, is listed as one of the bands genres Jacknife737 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Day has large elements of Emo music. The band, itself, has become a more emo band, dawning eye liner and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.44.2 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I tryed changing this earlier, but was sent a message saying not to by some pissed off fan. I think it's fine that punk rock is listed as one of their genres, but maybe is shouldn't be the very first genre described as their sound in the article. the way wikipedia works is that in the info box, it lists the genres a band is by first to last; first genre meaning thats what they play the most, and the last genre being what they play not so much. therefore, i feel its appropriate to change the order of their genres listed, so that Pop-punk is first before punk rock. I think it's pretty obvious that Green Day is loads more pop-punk then they are punk rock. -JamesK —Preceding unsigned comment added by James K (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Green Day and I was not pissed off. When you changed the genre order in the infobox, you did not explain your edit and you didn't bring it up on the talk page. You also didn't respond to my message asking you why you changed the order. I had no idea why you changed the order and therefore reverted it because I felt it was pointless. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes - ~~~~. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^╦ѦᴌҜ/_{ᴐʘᵰ╦яﺇß$}) 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the genres and their orders is good as of now. No need to change it for the moment. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is getting interesting, moving away from the fanzine tone. Rock is art, but it is also business, very big business. All rock, including punk rock, is always, already "sold out." When you're commodifying rebellion itself to sell to, let's face it, fourteen year old white boys, as Spinal Tap once put it, there are things you don't want them to know about their idols. And that's the "pop" quality which everybody above is right to be sensing. Here's stuff that appears on the internet, but not on album jackets. Don't just look at producers, look at the artist managers that the young, broke bands trust. Green Day's early style and pose owed an embarrassing amount to their first artist manager, Elliot Cahn, who also managed Rancid, and other major California punk bands that he finally helped "go public" as it were. Who was Cahn for those Bay Area frat party bands to respect him? A lead guitarist who had played Woodstock, the Woodstock movie, and the Fillmores, a co-founder of a group with a long running hit TV show that Green Day had grown up watching. What wouldn't fit the "punk" brand was, that group Cahn co-founded, and was music director for, was Sha Na Na. You can see Cahn playing Walk Don't Run onstage at Fillmore East on Youtube before Sha Na Na became marketed as a TV comedy act outright. You'll see the resemblance to mainstream Green Day retro songs. Sha Na Na's secret was discovering a retro act had to play every song as the audience remembered it, not as it was. Cahn always arranged their music to play at twice the speed of the original and with two or three times the volume. Cahn himself was careful to stay in the background rather than ruin it for the fanzine readers who wanted to believe in "punk", but you can google his name and find it all in print. Cahn left after Dookie, when the Green Day stage personality is fully formed. Meanwhile, you all suspected something like this, and you got it right. Profhum (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

dead skin on trial

What does that mean?--69.113.129.244 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it's along the lines of 'beating a dead horse,' i.e. a pointless examination, but i could be wrong. why are you asking on the talk page, btw? songmeanings.com is a good place for this. :) 67.64.119.116 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't know a friend asked me that question and when i told him i didn't know he told to ask it here.--69.113.129.244 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead skin on trial means all the narrarator's mistakes are up for public review. most of the time they are criticized. Silverzone (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

he woz stoopid init —Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

dead skin on trial is a lyric from Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) in case this gives a bit of a point to you being here--Greenday21 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Kiffmeyer versus Al Sobrante

Unlike Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt, Kiffmeyer does not typically use his alias. I believe the article should reflect the name commonly used by the performer professionally, rather than an occasionally used nickname.Theplanetsaturn 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's credited as John on 39/smooth, so I'd agree. Hoponpop69 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So if no one objects, later today I'm gonna change the article to mention him as his birth name. Hoponpop69 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still gonna have his nickname somewhere, though, right? If so, good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New link I added...

Please don't yell at me for this but I added a link to the Green Day Idiot Club, I know there is already a link to greenday.net, the 'fansite' but the IC is a 'fanclub' and it is the 'official fanclub'. Please say if you think this is incorrect. --The cheese master 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullet in a Bible

Why is Bullet in a Bible not listed under discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.147.110 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because only the studio albums should be listed there. This is standard for every band who has a seperate discography page. Hoponpop69 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New info on album

Here's some new info on the album, work it out on the article the best you can. It's from the newest edition of Rolling Stone. scan Xihix 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

some info at last... i was scared for a while--Greenday21 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Timmy Chunks

He should be listed under one of the "touring musicians" sections (I presume former, since I don't think he's been working with them recently). Can anybody track down a source? (Not that the other entries are really properly sourced either...) --Cheeser1 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section here, I'll note, for discussing the inclusion of this former touring musician. As an alternative to repeatedly removing verified information from the article. --Cheeser1 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [1]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[2] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GD Are not even CLOSE to either of those genres. That source lies.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

shenanigans

Why does everyone seem to keep forgeting this album? It's a real album released in 2001-2002. Google it if you don't believe me. picklefishman Nov. 3, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking why it's not in the discography, it's because it's a compilation. Zazaban 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Day vs. Sweet Children

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. Please stop ignoring a reliable source.Hoponpop69 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever heard of Berkeley? That's closer. As far as the rest, I am not ignoring a reliable source. That should be clear as I have always kept the basics of Livermores story in my edit of the actual page. I am arguing against the inclusion of specific information not relevant to the article. Based upon one individual interview. Livermore claims a specific origin for the band. Nothing in my edit contradicts his retelling. I just left out the unnecessary, and frankly somewhat preposterous aspects of his retelling. The more detailed aspects of the interview are linked within the article and we don't require those details here.Theplanetsaturn 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all when did he say this Oakland thing, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.[3]

Secondly what you are doing is deleting sourced content, based on your own original research. The interview with Larry appears to be a reliable source. You are claiming that he is lying because you know first hand that GD and SC where two different bands, and based on that removing source content. You are using original research to justify your edit.

What part of my edit to the page was unnecessary or proposterious? Here is what it reads:

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show in front of five people at a party. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."

The only thing in there that seems like it might be unnecessary is the Shea Stadium quote, and that was there before I edited it. Hoponpop69 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the majority of preposterous information was not included by you either. However, I still contend some of the information in your edit is unnecessary. I'm in favor of leaving out how many people were allegedly at the show and what the show was for. This material can be readily found within the cited interview. And I wish you would stop using the word "lying". It's a loaded word that is a bit strong for this scenario. I think Livermore was exaggerating. At least in my mind, the word lying carries the suggestion of malicious intent.

In answer to your question: The quote about coming from Oakland is one commonly pulled during point of origin disputes for the band. During a well documented show, Billie apparently claimed the band was originally from Oakland. I'm simply using it as an example of how just because a person makes a claim it is not automatically valid. We're talking about a topic that is not well documented and is subject to unreliable memories and personal interpretation. We have exactly ONE source on this. Livermore. Not a member of the band, mind you. Just Livermore. I believe his basic recollection should be included in the article, but I don't think it and it alone, should be used as the definitive reference for the history of the band on Wikipedia. The version of the article I edited does not contradict his information or remove it as a source. It simply takes the elements out of the main article. This is wholly independent of my personal knowledge or anything that can be construed as original research.

Otherwise, there is the separate issue of the marijuana origin for the name. I don't think your source on that is strong and suggest we leave it as "allegedly".Theplanetsaturn 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for a mediation.Hoponpop69 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we could work this out ourselves, as we did in the past. It shouldn't be that difficult to come to a mutually agreeable choice of wording within the article that satisfies both of our preferences. You don't appear to be willing to do this and instead are allowing this to be a larger debate than is necessary. Fine. If it's that important to you to include every minutiae of information in the actual body of the article, go for it. I will reiterate a final time in the hopes that you will see the logic of my position: I am not suggesting the inclusion of information that contradicts the statement by Livermore. I am not suggesting the deletion of the source, so it remains accessible to anyone who wants to read the detailed recollection by Livermore himself. I simply do not believe that the main body of the article needs to include Livermores personal and unsupported history of the band as definitive fact. We need to have the basics (how he was impressed by their performance, and on those merits agreed to work with them), and that's really it. Because that's the only thing he can speak on definitivly. Why HE acted the way HE did in regards to the bands personal history.Theplanetsaturn 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll try to find some common ground before asking for a mediation, how does this sound:

""Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 the band recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."Hoponpop69 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I edited it a bit. Let me know what you think

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play at a very small show early in the bands career. Livermore was impressed by the performance. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Subsequently, Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 the group recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. According to Livermore, Mike, Bille and John changed the name of Sweet Children to Green Day shortly before the albums release in order to avoid confusion with another local band by the name of name Sweet Baby. Allegedly, the name Green Day was chosen to reflect the groups fondness for marijuana."Theplanetsaturn 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 they recorded their first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, the band dropped the name Sweet Children, according to Livermore this was done in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby. The band changed their name to Green Day, allegedly due to their fondness of marijuana."Hoponpop69 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That works well enough for me. Thanks.Theplanetsaturn 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRIof3KnpBAHoponpop69 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you want to make edits that reflect this interview, I won't alter it. It's still innaccurate, but if that's the history the band is going to purport, what can you do? However, it does seem to clarify that the band was called Green Day at the time of the show in the mountains, and in fact never did any "official" shows as anything other than Green Day. So I guess the link supports different points of both our positions. Thanks for drawing my attention to this.Theplanetsaturn 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Foxboro Hot Tubs

A Nwe band called Foxboro Hot Tubs has posted some songs in their site, and it's rumoured (and pretty obvios, specially for the voice) that this is another Green Day "Hidden Side project" (Like The Network, before American Idiot)

This hasn't been confirmed, but it's almost a fact that Green Day is somehow related to this band 200.59.44.237 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to verify this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

myspace - clearly Billie guardian mtv punk news eonline ultimate guitar yahoo there are some source, i think this should be included in the article.

The Lookouts

Should we include Tre Cool's pre-Green Day band "The Lookouts" in associated acts? It seems pretty major to the band because members of The Lookouts helped them produce their early albums and are apparently are large enough for an article... what do you say? BobHiggs (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should. Both Mike and Bilie Joe have other bands listed, Tre' Cool Should to.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Fair use rationale for Image:Lookoutgd.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

A free image of the entire band would be very welcome. I just removed a no source image and moved up the Mike Dint one to replace it, but that's a poor substitute for showing the whole band. Superm401 - Talk 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to improve this article, we need a picture of the band. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, it will get deleted. Zazaban (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

American Idiot and the emo phase?

WTF? Green Day arent emo!! Amercian Idiot maybe is a little more Alternative Rock than their previous albums, but emo? it's bullshit! i'm sure that this change were made by a Green Day hater... i will put again American Idiot and renewed popularity over "the emo phase"... if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, Green day is not emo (screw the eyliner!) But i disagree about the alternative rock. They are punk rock.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Some of their stuff is alternative. sorry.--Greenday21 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Green Day is definetly not emo. And yes, some of their songs are alternate rock. While as a majority of others are punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.183.165 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with Brandon Flower's statement. I mean really, it was the American Idiot world tour. Which means they go and promote their songs all over the world. Even in places like Germany and England. Why would they skip over playing the songs they are touring for? It's called a world tour for a reason. Something the Killers wouldn't know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Name Green Day

Green Day comes from slang that the band used to describe a day were they didn't do anything but smoke weed. (PnJunkie (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

LOL serious did they actually say that--Greenday21 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

LOL

"Green Day, often misspelled as Greenday" --apparently even at their own concerts judging by the photograph. Mwv2 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.greenday. net

Nobody can edit the article until this link is removed. I cannot find it. Please help, I need to fix the link to Nimrod. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have now removed all the blacklisted links. Go ahead and try your edits again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Insomniac Sales

On the RIAA official site it says that "Insomniacs" official sales are 2x Platinum, not 7x Platinum. I noticed, however, that a source stated that the band had sold 7 million copies of their album in the US, which contradicts what the RIAA says. Personally, I'm going to trust the RIAA, but I'm not the only person here. I reverted the link and made it reference the RIAA, and removed the instance of "7" and changed it to "2" on both this page, and "Insomniac"'s page. Is everything OK?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RIAA is the only organization that certifies records in the US, so if they say 2x platinum, that's how much the album has been certified for. However, this number is with few exceptions more than the actual number of copies sold; RIAA certifications actually count how many albums are shipped to retailers, not the number of those copies sold. Regardless, it's doubtful Insomniac has sold an additional five million copies since American Idiot came out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite skeptical about lots of the sales numbers posted here and on the discography page. Jacknife737 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Drummer

"When John decided to leave Green Day for college, another drummer joined named Dave E.C.. He was only in the band for a few weeks when he decided to leave and then Tre joined."--Green Day Authority. Should this be mentioned?--Greenday21 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

No. Unless you can find a more reliable source, but even then I don't really think it is very notable really. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yur right. to hell with it. its not worth the time to look for another source.--Greenday21 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

I disagree. Fan sites are usually pretty reliable, and it's part of the band's history.

it was a few weeks. he never recorded. i dont even know his full name--Greenday21 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

The Killers' member

He said that the people in germany and england didn't see it the same way, but I think it's entirely possible that the message caught on just as much there as it did here in america, given that the song can be seen as an attack on American imperialism, it could be argued that the people over there singing it were objecting to the influence that america's pop culture has on the world. Bit ironic, given the band that wrote the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.4 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography Table

A user remove this table constantly due to "uneccesary information", i think the table it's right... check it out.

Year	Title	Notes
April 19, 1990	39/Smooth	Debut album on Lookout! Records, later to be combined with Green Day's Slappy and 1000 Hours EPs into the compilation album 1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
January 17, 1991	Kerplunk	Second album on Lookout! Contained the original version of the song "Welcome to Paradise", which would be re-recorded for Green Day's Dookie.
February 1, 1994	Dookie	Green Day's major label debut. Moved 15 million copies around the world and launched the band to international fame. Won the 1995 Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album
October 10, 1995	Insomniac	The band's second release on Reprise Records. Represented a shift towards more aggressive playing and darker lyrics, which are seen as a response to the backlash received from many hometown critics due to commercial success.
October 14, 1997	Nimrod	Experimental album in which the band branched off to other genres including hardcore punk, surf rock, instrumentals, and ballads.
October 3, 2000	Warning	Only major-label album not to achieve at least double platinum status in the US. Represented a further extension of experimentation from the time of Nimrod.
September 21, 2004	American Idiot	Comeback album after master tapes of their original seventh album (So-called Cigarettes and Valentines) were stolen from their studio. Launched Green Day's first Top 5 single, "Boulevard of Broken Dreams".

I would put it again, if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it here.--Maul_day (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was removed because the information was already stated elsewhere in the article not because it is incorrect.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The separate discography article provides all the necessary info. The discography section of the main article only needs to be very simple and brief - there is no point duplicating so much info. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

In the last paragraph of the band's history there's the name Jon Stewart when there should be Billie Joe Armstrong. Can someone change this, please? 88.112.107.109 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. -skaterboy182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

EDITING

Can somebody tell me why there is no "edit this page" tab at the top of this article? I want to add a better pic of Green Day and can't seem to do it. Help!

Link to picture I want to put in:

http://www.newyorkrock.com/img/2000/greenday2a.jpg Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

wait a few days and your username will be recognised and the edit tab will appear.--Greenday21 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

"Anti-American" label

I question the neutrality of the criticism section, in which one person is quoted as criticizing American Idiot for being anti-American. The fact that the article's author did not include any remarks from Greenday to counter the criticism makes it seem as if the "anti-American" comment is justifiable. I think the author needs to include any quotes or links to videos in which Green Day discusses the political content of their album. I personally feel it is an exaggeration to label American Idiot anti-American. Obviously, the author (and the critic) did not take into consideration the politically tumultuous time period in which this album came out, nor the possibility that the term "American Idiot" refers to a specfic type of an American--not America in general. As proof, I cite the lyrics & video for the song "American Idiot", and the songs "Holiday" and "Jesus of Suburbia."

So please authors, do your homework. In this day and age, you ought to be careful with the labels you give people in regards to their political beliefs, as it can prove detrimental to their dignity, and their careers.

krj3550 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj3550 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i say, the people who think greenday is anti-american should just FUCK OFF AND GO TO HELL. this is not true, greenday are NOT anti-american because they ARE american! DUHHHHH! fucking retards!! SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 /Genre disputes

Pop Rock

The genre box should say Pop Rock because they have done pop rock songs such as "When I Come Around" and "86" and it shouldn't say Alternative Rock because they ard one of the biggest rock bands in the world. James P Twomey 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are huge doesn't mean they aren't alternative, and if you look at some of their song structures, they are rather alternative. Also, I think they're more hard rock than punk rock at the moment. User:KingRantheMan 14:09, 22 March 2008 I would argue that the songs that you listed fall under the pop punk category (which is already listed as a genre), rather then pop rock.Jacknife737 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"86" is pop rock, not pop punk. Listen to most of the singles on Insomniac or Dookie and compare it to them. Also, most of Warning and American Idiot is pop rock. And they are not alternative rock, they're probably the biggest rock band in the world.James P Twomey 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well again, just saying that those songs are pop rock, doesn't necessarily make them so. I think that you'll have to source pop rock to have it included within the article. The band certainly has pop influences, but i strongly disagree with the claim that they are pop rock. Also i don't understand your claim that they shouldn't be considered alternative rock, because "they're probably the biggest rock bands in the world", many other bands such as Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins are immensely popular and are also considered to be alternative rock. Jacknife737 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

nirvana is considered alternative rock and they are one of the most popular and well known rock bands around.. disappearing one. 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana is A.) Not alternative, but grunge, and B.) They're nothing anymore, the band seperated more than 10 years ago. Alternative rock implies that said rock is the alternative to the mainstream. Green Day is the mainstream. 68.205.33.22 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Rock is a genre. It doesn't matter how popular a band is, whether they do or do not fit in that genre. Green Day is NOT part of that genre. They are not Punk Rock at all. Some of their earlier work is sort of Pop Punk, but for the most part they are a purely Pop Rock band. That's all there is to it. People who call Green Day punk are usually the same idiots who call Fall Out Boy and Good Charlotte punk. And don't give me any of that shit about their "old stuff", because it's pop. I don't see why I'm even bothering. Half the genres listed on this entire site are wrong. Skinny Puppy did barely any Industrial, Fall Out Boy is not Pop Punk, and Green Day is not Punk. 72.94.149.141 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing that people are responding to a six-month old thread. Secondly, opinion does not matter. Verifiable sources do. If it can be sourced, it can be included, if it is your opinion, that is all it will remain. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Green Day is and NEVER will be pop punk. Pop punk is bands like blink 182 and good charlotte - they sing about hating teachers and shit - green day sing about hating politics and stuff like that...so either list them as punk or just be an idiot. User:58.111.154.169 20:52, 13 June —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More than 95% of Green Day's songs have a punk structure to them. The progression of the power chords in their music make melodies that have pop influence. If you add pop and punk you get pop punk. More recently, they have had more of a rock influence than pop. If you add rock and punk you get punk rock. Style and attitude wise, they have punk assets to them; From the way the act on stage, to how they think, it's punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre

iF YOU WOULD ACTually listen to some ramones songs. you would know that green day is quite similar to them. If ramones is musically considered punk. then green day should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.9.86 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

if you look closely,punk rock, is listed as one of the bands genres Jacknife737 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Day has large elements of Emo music. The band, itself, has become a more emo band, dawning eye liner and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.44.2 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I tryed changing this earlier, but was sent a message saying not to by some pissed off fan. I think it's fine that punk rock is listed as one of their genres, but maybe is shouldn't be the very first genre described as their sound in the article. the way wikipedia works is that in the info box, it lists the genres a band is by first to last; first genre meaning thats what they play the most, and the last genre being what they play not so much. therefore, i feel its appropriate to change the order of their genres listed, so that Pop-punk is first before punk rock. I think it's pretty obvious that Green Day is loads more pop-punk then they are punk rock. -JamesK —Preceding unsigned comment added by James K (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Green Day and I was not pissed off. When you changed the genre order in the infobox, you did not explain your edit and you didn't bring it up on the talk page. You also didn't respond to my message asking you why you changed the order. I had no idea why you changed the order and therefore reverted it because I felt it was pointless. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes - ~~~~. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^╦ѦᴌҜ/_{ᴐʘᵰ╦яﺇß$}) 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the genres and their orders is good as of now. No need to change it for the moment. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is getting interesting, moving away from the fanzine tone. Rock is art, but it is also business, very big business. All rock, including punk rock, is always, already "sold out." When you're commodifying rebellion itself to sell to, let's face it, fourteen year old white boys, as Spinal Tap once put it, there are things you don't want them to know about their idols. And that's the "pop" quality which everybody above is right to be sensing. Here's stuff that appears on the internet, but not on album jackets. Don't just look at producers, look at the artist managers that the young, broke bands trust. Green Day's early style and pose owed an embarrassing amount to their first artist manager, Elliot Cahn, who also managed Rancid, and other major California punk bands that he finally helped "go public" as it were. Who was Cahn for those Bay Area frat party bands to respect him? A lead guitarist who had played Woodstock, the Woodstock movie, and the Fillmores, a co-founder of a group with a long running hit TV show that Green Day had grown up watching. What wouldn't fit the "punk" brand was, that group Cahn co-founded, and was music director for, was Sha Na Na. You can see Cahn playing Walk Don't Run onstage at Fillmore East on Youtube before Sha Na Na became marketed as a TV comedy act outright. You'll see the resemblance to mainstream Green Day retro songs. Sha Na Na's secret was discovering a retro act had to play every song as the audience remembered it, not as it was. Cahn always arranged their music to play at twice the speed of the original and with two or three times the volume. Cahn himself was careful to stay in the background rather than ruin it for the fanzine readers who wanted to believe in "punk", but you can google his name and find it all in print. Cahn left after Dookie, when the Green Day stage personality is fully formed. Meanwhile, you all suspected something like this, and you got it right. Profhum (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

dead skin on trial

What does that mean?--69.113.129.244 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it's along the lines of 'beating a dead horse,' i.e. a pointless examination, but i could be wrong. why are you asking on the talk page, btw? songmeanings.com is a good place for this. :) 67.64.119.116 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't know a friend asked me that question and when i told him i didn't know he told to ask it here.--69.113.129.244 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead skin on trial means all the narrarator's mistakes are up for public review. most of the time they are criticized. Silverzone (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

he woz stoopid init —Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

dead skin on trial is a lyric from Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) in case this gives a bit of a point to you being here--Greenday21 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Kiffmeyer versus Al Sobrante

Unlike Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt, Kiffmeyer does not typically use his alias. I believe the article should reflect the name commonly used by the performer professionally, rather than an occasionally used nickname.Theplanetsaturn 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's credited as John on 39/smooth, so I'd agree. Hoponpop69 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So if no one objects, later today I'm gonna change the article to mention him as his birth name. Hoponpop69 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still gonna have his nickname somewhere, though, right? If so, good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New link I added...

Please don't yell at me for this but I added a link to the Green Day Idiot Club, I know there is already a link to greenday.net, the 'fansite' but the IC is a 'fanclub' and it is the 'official fanclub'. Please say if you think this is incorrect. --The cheese master 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullet in a Bible

Why is Bullet in a Bible not listed under discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.147.110 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because only the studio albums should be listed there. This is standard for every band who has a seperate discography page. Hoponpop69 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New info on album

Here's some new info on the album, work it out on the article the best you can. It's from the newest edition of Rolling Stone. scan Xihix 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

some info at last... i was scared for a while--Greenday21 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Timmy Chunks

He should be listed under one of the "touring musicians" sections (I presume former, since I don't think he's been working with them recently). Can anybody track down a source? (Not that the other entries are really properly sourced either...) --Cheeser1 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section here, I'll note, for discussing the inclusion of this former touring musician. As an alternative to repeatedly removing verified information from the article. --Cheeser1 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [4]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[5] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GD Are not even CLOSE to either of those genres. That source lies.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

shenanigans

Why does everyone seem to keep forgeting this album? It's a real album released in 2001-2002. Google it if you don't believe me. picklefishman Nov. 3, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking why it's not in the discography, it's because it's a compilation. Zazaban 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Green Day vs. Sweet Children

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. Please stop ignoring a reliable source.Hoponpop69 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever heard of Berkeley? That's closer. As far as the rest, I am not ignoring a reliable source. That should be clear as I have always kept the basics of Livermores story in my edit of the actual page. I am arguing against the inclusion of specific information not relevant to the article. Based upon one individual interview. Livermore claims a specific origin for the band. Nothing in my edit contradicts his retelling. I just left out the unnecessary, and frankly somewhat preposterous aspects of his retelling. The more detailed aspects of the interview are linked within the article and we don't require those details here.Theplanetsaturn 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all when did he say this Oakland thing, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.[6]

Secondly what you are doing is deleting sourced content, based on your own original research. The interview with Larry appears to be a reliable source. You are claiming that he is lying because you know first hand that GD and SC where two different bands, and based on that removing source content. You are using original research to justify your edit.

What part of my edit to the page was unnecessary or proposterious? Here is what it reads:

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show in front of five people at a party. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."

The only thing in there that seems like it might be unnecessary is the Shea Stadium quote, and that was there before I edited it. Hoponpop69 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the majority of preposterous information was not included by you either. However, I still contend some of the information in your edit is unnecessary. I'm in favor of leaving out how many people were allegedly at the show and what the show was for. This material can be readily found within the cited interview. And I wish you would stop using the word "lying". It's a loaded word that is a bit strong for this scenario. I think Livermore was exaggerating. At least in my mind, the word lying carries the suggestion of malicious intent.

In answer to your question: The quote about coming from Oakland is one commonly pulled during point of origin disputes for the band. During a well documented show, Billie apparently claimed the band was originally from Oakland. I'm simply using it as an example of how just because a person makes a claim it is not automatically valid. We're talking about a topic that is not well documented and is subject to unreliable memories and personal interpretation. We have exactly ONE source on this. Livermore. Not a member of the band, mind you. Just Livermore. I believe his basic recollection should be included in the article, but I don't think it and it alone, should be used as the definitive reference for the history of the band on Wikipedia. The version of the article I edited does not contradict his information or remove it as a source. It simply takes the elements out of the main article. This is wholly independent of my personal knowledge or anything that can be construed as original research.

Otherwise, there is the separate issue of the marijuana origin for the name. I don't think your source on that is strong and suggest we leave it as "allegedly".Theplanetsaturn 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for a mediation.Hoponpop69 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we could work this out ourselves, as we did in the past. It shouldn't be that difficult to come to a mutually agreeable choice of wording within the article that satisfies both of our preferences. You don't appear to be willing to do this and instead are allowing this to be a larger debate than is necessary. Fine. If it's that important to you to include every minutiae of information in the actual body of the article, go for it. I will reiterate a final time in the hopes that you will see the logic of my position: I am not suggesting the inclusion of information that contradicts the statement by Livermore. I am not suggesting the deletion of the source, so it remains accessible to anyone who wants to read the detailed recollection by Livermore himself. I simply do not believe that the main body of the article needs to include Livermores personal and unsupported history of the band as definitive fact. We need to have the basics (how he was impressed by their performance, and on those merits agreed to work with them), and that's really it. Because that's the only thing he can speak on definitivly. Why HE acted the way HE did in regards to the bands personal history.Theplanetsaturn 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll try to find some common ground before asking for a mediation, how does this sound:

""Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 the band recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."Hoponpop69 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I edited it a bit. Let me know what you think

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play at a very small show early in the bands career. Livermore was impressed by the performance. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Subsequently, Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 the group recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. According to Livermore, Mike, Bille and John changed the name of Sweet Children to Green Day shortly before the albums release in order to avoid confusion with another local band by the name of name Sweet Baby. Allegedly, the name Green Day was chosen to reflect the groups fondness for marijuana."Theplanetsaturn 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 they recorded their first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, the band dropped the name Sweet Children, according to Livermore this was done in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby. The band changed their name to Green Day, allegedly due to their fondness of marijuana."Hoponpop69 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That works well enough for me. Thanks.Theplanetsaturn 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRIof3KnpBAHoponpop69 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you want to make edits that reflect this interview, I won't alter it. It's still innaccurate, but if that's the history the band is going to purport, what can you do? However, it does seem to clarify that the band was called Green Day at the time of the show in the mountains, and in fact never did any "official" shows as anything other than Green Day. So I guess the link supports different points of both our positions. Thanks for drawing my attention to this.Theplanetsaturn 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Foxboro Hot Tubs

A Nwe band called Foxboro Hot Tubs has posted some songs in their site, and it's rumoured (and pretty obvios, specially for the voice) that this is another Green Day "Hidden Side project" (Like The Network, before American Idiot)

This hasn't been confirmed, but it's almost a fact that Green Day is somehow related to this band 200.59.44.237 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to verify this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

myspace - clearly Billie guardian mtv punk news eonline ultimate guitar yahoo there are some source, i think this should be included in the article.

The Lookouts

Should we include Tre Cool's pre-Green Day band "The Lookouts" in associated acts? It seems pretty major to the band because members of The Lookouts helped them produce their early albums and are apparently are large enough for an article... what do you say? BobHiggs (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should. Both Mike and Bilie Joe have other bands listed, Tre' Cool Should to.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Fair use rationale for Image:Lookoutgd.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

A free image of the entire band would be very welcome. I just removed a no source image and moved up the Mike Dint one to replace it, but that's a poor substitute for showing the whole band. Superm401 - Talk 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to improve this article, we need a picture of the band. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, it will get deleted. Zazaban (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

American Idiot and the emo phase?

WTF? Green Day arent emo!! Amercian Idiot maybe is a little more Alternative Rock than their previous albums, but emo? it's bullshit! i'm sure that this change were made by a Green Day hater... i will put again American Idiot and renewed popularity over "the emo phase"... if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, Green day is not emo (screw the eyliner!) But i disagree about the alternative rock. They are punk rock.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Some of their stuff is alternative. sorry.--Greenday21 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Green Day is definetly not emo. And yes, some of their songs are alternate rock. While as a majority of others are punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.183.165 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with Brandon Flower's statement. I mean really, it was the American Idiot world tour. Which means they go and promote their songs all over the world. Even in places like Germany and England. Why would they skip over playing the songs they are touring for? It's called a world tour for a reason. Something the Killers wouldn't know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Name Green Day

Green Day comes from slang that the band used to describe a day were they didn't do anything but smoke weed. (PnJunkie (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

LOL serious did they actually say that--Greenday21 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

LOL

"Green Day, often misspelled as Greenday" --apparently even at their own concerts judging by the photograph. Mwv2 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.greenday. net

Nobody can edit the article until this link is removed. I cannot find it. Please help, I need to fix the link to Nimrod. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have now removed all the blacklisted links. Go ahead and try your edits again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Insomniac Sales

On the RIAA official site it says that "Insomniacs" official sales are 2x Platinum, not 7x Platinum. I noticed, however, that a source stated that the band had sold 7 million copies of their album in the US, which contradicts what the RIAA says. Personally, I'm going to trust the RIAA, but I'm not the only person here. I reverted the link and made it reference the RIAA, and removed the instance of "7" and changed it to "2" on both this page, and "Insomniac"'s page. Is everything OK?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RIAA is the only organization that certifies records in the US, so if they say 2x platinum, that's how much the album has been certified for. However, this number is with few exceptions more than the actual number of copies sold; RIAA certifications actually count how many albums are shipped to retailers, not the number of those copies sold. Regardless, it's doubtful Insomniac has sold an additional five million copies since American Idiot came out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite skeptical about lots of the sales numbers posted here and on the discography page. Jacknife737 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Drummer

"When John decided to leave Green Day for college, another drummer joined named Dave E.C.. He was only in the band for a few weeks when he decided to leave and then Tre joined."--Green Day Authority. Should this be mentioned?--Greenday21 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

No. Unless you can find a more reliable source, but even then I don't really think it is very notable really. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yur right. to hell with it. its not worth the time to look for another source.--Greenday21 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

I disagree. Fan sites are usually pretty reliable, and it's part of the band's history.

it was a few weeks. he never recorded. i dont even know his full name--Greenday21 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

The Killers' member

He said that the people in germany and england didn't see it the same way, but I think it's entirely possible that the message caught on just as much there as it did here in america, given that the song can be seen as an attack on American imperialism, it could be argued that the people over there singing it were objecting to the influence that america's pop culture has on the world. Bit ironic, given the band that wrote the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.4 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography Table

A user remove this table constantly due to "uneccesary information", i think the table it's right... check it out.

Year	Title	Notes
April 19, 1990	39/Smooth	Debut album on Lookout! Records, later to be combined with Green Day's Slappy and 1000 Hours EPs into the compilation album 1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
January 17, 1991	Kerplunk	Second album on Lookout! Contained the original version of the song "Welcome to Paradise", which would be re-recorded for Green Day's Dookie.
February 1, 1994	Dookie	Green Day's major label debut. Moved 15 million copies around the world and launched the band to international fame. Won the 1995 Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album
October 10, 1995	Insomniac	The band's second release on Reprise Records. Represented a shift towards more aggressive playing and darker lyrics, which are seen as a response to the backlash received from many hometown critics due to commercial success.
October 14, 1997	Nimrod	Experimental album in which the band branched off to other genres including hardcore punk, surf rock, instrumentals, and ballads.
October 3, 2000	Warning	Only major-label album not to achieve at least double platinum status in the US. Represented a further extension of experimentation from the time of Nimrod.
September 21, 2004	American Idiot	Comeback album after master tapes of their original seventh album (So-called Cigarettes and Valentines) were stolen from their studio. Launched Green Day's first Top 5 single, "Boulevard of Broken Dreams".

I would put it again, if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it here.--Maul_day (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was removed because the information was already stated elsewhere in the article not because it is incorrect.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The separate discography article provides all the necessary info. The discography section of the main article only needs to be very simple and brief - there is no point duplicating so much info. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

In the last paragraph of the band's history there's the name Jon Stewart when there should be Billie Joe Armstrong. Can someone change this, please? 88.112.107.109 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. -skaterboy182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

EDITING

Can somebody tell me why there is no "edit this page" tab at the top of this article? I want to add a better pic of Green Day and can't seem to do it. Help!

Link to picture I want to put in:

http://www.newyorkrock.com/img/2000/greenday2a.jpg Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

wait a few days and your username will be recognised and the edit tab will appear.--Greenday21 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

"Anti-American" label

I question the neutrality of the criticism section, in which one person is quoted as criticizing American Idiot for being anti-American. The fact that the article's author did not include any remarks from Greenday to counter the criticism makes it seem as if the "anti-American" comment is justifiable. I think the author needs to include any quotes or links to videos in which Green Day discusses the political content of their album. I personally feel it is an exaggeration to label American Idiot anti-American. Obviously, the author (and the critic) did not take into consideration the politically tumultuous time period in which this album came out, nor the possibility that the term "American Idiot" refers to a specfic type of an American--not America in general. As proof, I cite the lyrics & video for the song "American Idiot", and the songs "Holiday" and "Jesus of Suburbia."

So please authors, do your homework. In this day and age, you ought to be careful with the labels you give people in regards to their political beliefs, as it can prove detrimental to their dignity, and their careers.

krj3550 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj3550 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i say, the people who think greenday is anti-american should just FUCK OFF AND GO TO HELL. this is not true, greenday are NOT anti-american because they ARE american! DUHHHHH! fucking retards!! SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)