Talk:AC/DC

Archives
January 2004 – August 2006 August 2006 (protection and voting) August 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – January 2007 February 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – April 2008

Why are they so important

The band well known as ac/dc has in fluenced many bands well known today. like Fall Out Boy, Plain White tees, and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.213.142 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.4.166 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave Evans

Can someone please check the recent edits to Dave Evans (singer)? The edits made by Mosey1 (talk · contribs) are apparently made by Mr. Evans himself, and while they fixed some obvious inaccuracies and added some useful content, I'm not sure that all the info added is accurate and NPOV. I might be wrong, but the article seems to lean towards a certain POV now, and some statements need a source. For instance, was Mr. Evans a founding member of the band? Or is it Ok to refer to opinion of Angus as "malicious", while the NPOV rules require that the wiki article should not assume any position and just present the opinions of both sides? A checkup by knowledgeable editors would be good. Grandmaster (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

200 million album sales?

ok, i think it should be changed from 150 to 200 million albums sales, because I found this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631502999.html , this indicates that they have sold more than 200 million, and it's by far the most reliable source ; The Sydney Morning Herald(and it's Austrian btw) should i change it or not ? i know there are other sources that say they have sold 150 million, but i personally think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove dave evans

I removed Dave evans from the former members section of the info box and list of former members list. This is because he was removed from the second row of the template and also since he is a little too minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

8 out of 10 current and former members are of British origin

Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article? Surely the fact that the vast majority of the members are British would be something to take note of?

8 of them were born and raised in Britain with British parents. The 2 Australian members were booted from the band. AC/DC only stayed in Australia for a couple of years before relocating to the UK. They draw on British bands for influence.

Surely this is a British band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.13.210 (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion in archive 3, the article currently has 50 odd sources which say the band is Australian. Global tv in this article from March 4, 2008 calls them an Australian band. The difference is that the band formed in Australia, first album release was in Australia, the fact that current members are Brittish nationals doesnt change the origins of the band. Gnangarra 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the band formed in Australia doesn't mean that the band itself is Australian. Surely the nationality of the band plays at least SOME part in determining the origins of the band, considering that NONE of them actually originate from Australia. Considering that AC/DC's origins are more strongly British, it would be a good idea to mention this.

As for sources, you have each member's wikipedia page. None of them are Australian, bar the 2 that were kicked out. This is definitely not an Australian band we're talking about here.

Case in point, Kirk Hammet was born in America, that doesn't change the fact that he isn't American. No American blood in him whatsoever. Kylie Minogue's half British, should we gloss over that as well then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ah, looking back at archive 3, it seems all the users had come to a reasonable agreement... until you, Gnangarra, came in and caused a huge argument.

Consider the sources you're referring to. People referring to AC/DC as Australian because they know no better; many of them haven't got in-depth knowledge of the background of each member. With wikipedia we definitely do. Please read some of the comments again; one stated that, while 2 members are 100% Australian, many more are 100% British. Even disregarding the Young brothers, who only LIVED in Australia but are not Australian, surely that is enough to list this as a British-Australian band?

Here's another example. Fleetwood Mac, some members British some American. Listed as a British-American band, disregarding where they actually formed and where they released their original music.

Razorlight. Some members British some members Swedish. Listed as a British-Swedish band in origin, disregarding the fact that they were FORMED in the UK and released their first albums in the UK before anywhere else.

And then we come to AC/DC. some members Australian, vast majority are British. Listed as an Australian band ONLY.

That is not fair, nor is it accurate. Your argument seems be based solely on the ignorance of the general media, and you are totally disregarding the nationality of the vast majority of the band.

We have the wikipedia pages citing that 8 out of the 10 members are British, and even if you disagree with the fact that the Young brothers are British the majority is STILL British and MORE than enough to list this as a British-Australian band!

I propose what previous members have proposed - write a paragraph at the beginning explaining the situation, and list this as a British-Australian band. Can't say fairer than that; other bands that I've listed have been given this fair treatment, and the only reason this band has not had the same fair treatment seems to be Australians not willing to let go of what they percieve as their greatest contribution to music.

There is no good argument for listing this band purely as Australian. At the very least it is British-Australian; you can't disregard the nationality of all the members simply because they formed somewhere else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not we think the Australian designation is entirely accurate, Wikipedia's policy is to only re-publish that which has already been published by multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. If you think the band should be listed here as "British" or "British-Australian", then please dig up some reliable sources that have called it such. Thanks. — Satori Son 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that the wikipedia pages of each band member point out that each member is British should be enough? That's not "original research", that's a fact highlighted by other wikipedia pages.

Also, you've just highlighted a major flaw of wikipedia, which is a large part of why wikipedia isn't that credible. You're going on what other sources have stated without any in-depth research; not only that but each source is WRONG. That's not an opinion, it is a FACT that this is not an Australian band! They are a British band which once had an Australian in the line-up, who was eventually booted from the band.

The fact is, they're more British and Australian, and it is far more accurate to describe them as the former instead of the latter. All this page is doing is perpetuating a critical misconception made by the general public. Each band member's wikipedia page is evidence, containing reliable sources proving that almost all band members in the band's history are British. That is evidence, therefore it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.53.40 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you did not carefully read the official policy at WP:NOR. Please do so, paying explicit attention to the section entitled "Synthesis of published material which advances a position", because that is exactly what you are trying to do.

You may indeed be correct in your analysis and conclusion, but unless you find multiple, reliable sources that clearly state "AC/DC is a British band", you are out of luck. — Satori Son 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do the Youngs have British passports? We don't know. So where's the "proof" of British nationality? Rudd (still IN the band by the way) and Mark Evans are Australian, no question, as were almost all the original guys who were briefly members. Johnson and Williams are British, no question. The Youngs, Scott and Dave Evans were naturalised Australians, probably with Australian passports or dual nationality. The Youngs didn't live in the UK beyond childhood so it is not certain in any way that they claim British citizenship. Sounds like British/Australian is the most sensible description. I suggest this is clarified in the opening paragraph. A British band? Absolutely no way, and you've got zero chance of getting a cite for that.

As for the band itself as an individual entity, it unquestionably originated in Australia. Band origins are irrespective of individual band members' nationality. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Considering that there is a mix of nationalities in the band - and that the nationality of some band members is debatable - it seems reasonable to do what you're proposing.

If anyone feels they could give the explanation of the band's origins justice in the opening paragraph then I implore you to do so, as I personally don't feel that I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.14.190 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at explaining the nationality debate in the lead paragraph, while trying not to go over the top with exactly who's Australian, who's British etc. Hopefully it will satisfy most people who had issues with this subject. If anyone has any further suggestions or problems, it would be better to talk here rather than start reverting again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you probably should not have changed it back to "British-Australian" without clear consensus. Asking others to not revert when you have just done so is somewhat poor form. — Satori Son 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor form or not, what the article now says agrees with everyone who's made a comment here. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. Band origin is clearly stated as Australian, with a mix of nationalities among the members. People were never going to agree on a particular line to take, so the best thing is just to accommodate everyone within the realms of what's verifiable and non-OR. Maybe you're just attempting to prolong the drama? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the fundamental policy problem here, you flippantly brush it aside and personally attack me as a drama monger. Nice...

Since no one has been able to find reliable sources that refer to the band as anything other than "Australian", I have fixed it again. (By the way, I am not Australian or British.) WP:NOR and WP:V are non-negotiable, official policies of the project, and we can't ignore the rules "just to accommodate everyone". — Satori Son 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Considerably less flippant than your high-and-mighty "with respect" and "poor form" comments, and indeed, your "nice..." comment. If you want people to treat you with respect, you might start thinking about earning it. If you think my comment was a personal attack, then perhaps you need to get out more. The part of my edit which you reverted is the part I'm least interested in, to be honest. The explanation about members' nationality is more important. To say that describing AC/DC as a British/Australian band is WP:OR is laughable - it is as clear as day that the members themselves are not, in the main, Australian. Furthermore, this fact is not in any way arguable and as such, does not need a cite. Yes, most sources state that "the band are Australian", but this is an extremely woolly concept, and it is patently not true per se. The article clearly states band origin as "Sydney Australia" - no-one is denying it. Why is this particular (utterly abstract) point of "band nationality" the ONLY thing you're interested in applying WP:V to? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are to continue with the bizarre obsession with applying an abstract nationality to something which, in this case, does not have an easily-definable nationality, then I think it's important to clarify the complex situation regarding the origins of the band itself, and the band members' nationalities. As it stands, the first line still describes the band as "Australian" for those people who believe this kind of thing to be important, but this is enlarged upon in the rest of the first paragraph. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yes members of the band are from the UK but that doesnt change the origin of the Band. The sourcing for the article says its an Australian band as said in this discussion provide sources that call the band Brittish. This article went through WP:FAC and the issue wasnt raised. Gnangarra 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You've lost me. No-one changed or challenged the description of the origins of the band, and I have always said the band originated in Australia. I have also never said that the band was British. What is being done here is the application of a nationality to a band, which is an abstract concept. It says AC/DC are an Australian band, which is a misleading statement, however sourced. That said, I am not advocating the removal of that statement, just the clarification that despite that statement, it is the band origin that is Australian, not the band members. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the part of the leading paragraph concerning the nationalities of the members - none of this is OR - the birthplaces are SOURCED in the cite provided. It is considerably better sourced than other portions of this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be time to clarify what it is you're trying to say. Are you two agreeing with each other or what? Does anybody actually want it to say "Australian band"? So much stuff is getting reverted that I am losing the flow. Let's just clarify what we want to be sourced and what we think isn't necessary, bearing in mind I can provide sources for all the band members' birthplaces, the fact that after Rudd left the band in '83 there were no Australian-born members, AND if anyone so chooses, I can provide a cite (Classic Rock magazine) that says AC/DC are a British band, not that I agree with it personally. It's make your mind up time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That line you added is inappropriate for the lead where we're trying to sum up their thirty year career and impact. There is no need to include a dialogue of the band members nationalities (unreliably sourced too). In any case, "rock band formed in Sydney, Australia" is enough. indopug (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was simply attempting to avoid all the vandalism surrounding the nationality of the band by clarifying contentious issues within the lead, where the problems were taking place. That vandalism will undoubtedly continue. The lead is diabolical and too long - it is chock-full of stuff that shouldn't be in the lead, including synthesised argument and relative trivia like minor lineup changes. The source I used in the opening paragraph was a provisional one, awaiting comment from the people who were moaning - as I say, I can provide decent cites for anything regarding AC/DC, including stuff that isn't even true. Between the three of you, you seem to WP:OWN the article, so it's all yours. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bon Scott emigrated to Australia when he was five or something. FFS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.223.139 (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, they're an Australian band. Who cares where they (previously) came from. I hate this wikipedia/ethnopedia b------s Hakluyt bean (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Site worthy of inclusion

http://acdcnews.com Good site for updated AC/DC news and rumors. Usually more current than ACDC.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.227.209 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP does not link to blogs. I will remove it if it has not been already. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when does WP not link to blogs? I see blogs all over WP. Where is the precise rule that says that WP can't link a site on Blogger? 71.122.32.84 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the blogs you "see all over WP"? How do we know your blog is reliable and that it contains accurate information? indopug (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said it was my blog? All one has to do to find a blog on WP is to look up nearly any well known person and you'll see that many of them have their personal blogs listed as external links. Is there something you can point out to on http://acdcnews.com that is innacurate? For that matter, how do we know wikipedia is reliable and contains accurate information? Many reputable researchers regularly say it does not. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't AC/DC's personal blog is it? And yes, Wikipedia is not reliable. indopug (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not a personal blog. My point was that blogs are obviously allowed on WP. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. See #12 at Link to be avoided. indopug (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That rule is irrelevant in this case as AC/DC News is not a Wiki. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant number eleven. indopug (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the author of AC/DC News is a recognized authority on that band since he's obviously been writing about the band for years and years if you look through his personal links. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Recognised" means that independent third-party reliable sources have identified him as an authority on the subject. Doesn't matter what he writes about himself on his own blog. indopug (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So Mark Cuban's musings on Bill O'Reilly are somehow "recognized" as "reliable" http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/04/07/bill-o-reilly-why-wont-you-support-the-movie-fighting-for-li/ yet AC/DC News doesn't qualify? I think you're missing the big picture. What other expert on AC/DC has had a longer running history of writing about AC/DC on the web? Let me know and let's put that link on Wikipedia. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not American, so I don't get the point of that Cuban/O'Reilly comparison you made. Really sorry Wikipedia policy doesn't allow your blog to be added though. indopug (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's not my blog. Second, how about answering my question on what other web expert has more authority on AC/DC? Third, regardless of what nationality you are, a quick internet search would show you that Mark Cuban is the owner of a professional basketball team which gives him no "recognized" authority to comment on political pundits like Bill O'Reilly (whom you can also look up). 71.122.32.84 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We are on Wikipedia. We don't need a "quick internet search". I figured out who the people were, but couldn't quite figure what Cuban was trying to say on his blog and the context of the whole incident. If I knew that then maybe I could tell you why that blog was included. indopug (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't know any web-experts on AC/DC; unless if you consider the likes of Rolling Stone or Allmusic websites (not experts, but reliable sources). indopug (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well if you're going to avoid answering my questions, there's no sense in discussing this topic any further with you. I don't know why you're so biased against http://acdcnews.com (a site you've probably barely even looked at) but just quoting some vague rule about blogs (which is obviously not uniformly enforced on WP) seems to me to be a very poor editing decision. Also, I wouldn't consider Rolling Stone or All Music to be reliable sources on AC/DC. They're for pop music fans at best. I thought WP wanted expert info here? Finally, if you don't know any experts on AC/DC, what are you doing editing their page? 71.122.32.84 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It is not a vague rule about blogs; it is clearly stated that blogs are to be avoided. Even if it is not uniformly enforced, it is still a WP policy. I enforce it when I come across it, and it seems that Indopug does as well. Links to blogs will be removed from the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is vague. Otherwise, there would be no blog links posted on WP. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of the rule being vague. It's more that WP is overrun with vandals and spammers, and the worthy editors are many places overpowered. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He decided to go ahead and add his blog anyway. indopug (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Was fixed by Anger22. As clearly stated above, this website is not a suitable external link for Wikipedia. — Satori Son 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the MySpace page since there's now a special way to put them in, making it okay.Sposato (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Rock n roll"

While the fans might call them rock n roll, shouldn't we point out that AC/DC is far from rock n roll? The lack of a walking bass line and that kinda thing? Seriphyn (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC is most certainly rock 'n' roll. The beats, rhythms, and song structures are all based on the great rock songs of the 50's and 60's. 71.122.32.84 (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Former members in the info box

I recently added Dave Evans and two other former members of AC/DC in the info box as former members, but they were taken off the next day. While no albums were released with their names in the credits, they were still apart of the band, and if not all of them, atleast Dave, because he was the first AC/DC lead singer, whether any of us liked it or not. BBFootBallr54 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Pretty much every other edit to the article is vandalism, is it eligible for semi-protection? indopug (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the vandalism has tapered off. If it picks up again, I'll semi-protect it (and if I'm not around, please file a request at WP:RPP). — Satori Son 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC in Rock Band

The band licensed the song Let There Be Rock for the upcoming game Rock Band 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brig35 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New Album title

It was revealed on ultimate-guitar.com that the new album title is "Black Ice" Here is the url, http://ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/acdc_confirms_new_album_title.html The release date has also been confirmed here, http://ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/acdc_new_album_release_date.html The album will be followed by a world tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.89.106 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Waiting for a reliable source, i.e. one of the band's official websites, or the record company site. Anything else is "some guy who knows" or "a reliable insider" who has informed one of the music news sites. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

band picture with the current lineup

shouldn't there a band picture with the current group lineup? bon scott has been dead for almost 30 years, and i'm thinking there should be a picture with the current lineup on the page. Doctoracdc72 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find one that's free use, please add it. I doubt anyone will argue :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I put up the picture of them performing in support of the Black Ice album (the same one that is on this article and is near the "recent events" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arollins (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

I propose that this term be removed from the band's genres as well as all other references to the term. The text of the CD inlay to "The Razors Edge" cites Angus Young's irritation at having been named a Heavy Metal band, with Heavy Metal having largely being associated with the less than desirable Hair Metal as well as the Gay Metal which was emerging from 1990 onwards. His own perception of his band was purely Rock and Roll, which explains why throughout the years, their msic evolved very little: it simply never needed to, and the respect that people have for them is out of this world. I consider it unfair fair to hold a term that the band clearly find an insult. I believe that "Hard Rock" should suffice for that field. Evlekis (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a subject that's already been discussed. The term is referenced in the article from reliable sources. Lemmy doesn't think that Motorhead is a heavy metal band either. And Robert Plant never liked the term describing Led Zeppelin. But that's still what they are. Wikipedia is based on the weight of citations. And in this article the way the term is used is fully supported by the added references. I think they are a rock and roll band. But editor opinion doesn't count, only reliable sources. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there was always conflict between the musicians and the journalists concerning classification of the music. In general, the journalists who are writing about the rock music are not neccesarilly the experts with academic education. It's not clever to follow writtings of any of them, without, at least, minimum of criticism. AC/DC were pure 100% rock'n'roll band as well as Motorhead. Rock'n'roll with more gasoline than the average, that's all. More guitar overdrive, but typical boogie/r'n'r riffs and passages, based on pure blues pentatonic scales - total rock and roll. Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple were hard rock, not heavy metal. Thick sound, step out of pentatonics, orchestral arrangements with almost no limits, based on wide area, from folk to classic music. Black Sabbath is considered to be the first real heavy metal band. Ozzy was always proud of this classification. Fuzz distortion guitar sound, obscure atmosphere, limited arrangements. And all those bands that followed Ozzy were on the same HM trace, the most known and the most comercial Iron Maiden (80's) and Metallica (90's). An journalist who is in love with Madonna or Beyonce can write that the Rolling Stones are HM. It's his pop or r'n'b point of view. I'm a musician and I really hate those critics of arts. Ten bears, brain storms and then classification. They feel so good about it, they're so reliable :) Zenanarh (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Black Sabbath were a blues band that didn't play heavy metal until they heard Led Zeppelin do it first. If you tried to add the above post into any music article on Wikipedia it would be reverted for violationg WP:NOR and contradicting many references from reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't based on personal opinions. Especially incorrect ones. It's based on verifiable references. And referenced content can't be removed unless it's outweighed/outnumbered by relaible sources stating the contrary. No editor opinions required. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, buddy, no need to WP:XY me. Don't worry I didn't want to change anything. See what you've written about BS or what what I have. It's always like that ;) Zenanarh (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This subject is a horse that's been beaten to death way too many times. Editors want to delete it. Reliable sources keep it in. No need to ooze anymore or on the topic. Libs (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My question is only, how can a "source" suggest that a band is or is not HM? People have their own opinions and the whole phenomenon of musical genre is entirely subjective. It's the song in the end of the day and not the artist: take a look at other musical acts and you'll find that the longer they have/had been active, the bigger the list of genres. Bands stretch from synth pop to industrial rock to new wave to soft rock etc. Atleast ACDC are not a "let's reinvent ourselves to stay on top and in the press like U2" type of band, yes they evolve but they never derail like some "pop" artists. Remember, it's one thing for the plebs to label someone "Heavy Metal" and have it accepted, but totally a different thing when a key band member (Angus Young) has declared the term a complete insult. Precisely who is contributing to the article?? Fans of ACDC or REM?? Evlekis (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what makes ACDC Heavy Metal. There's nothing metal about them. There's nothing Metal about Glam either... Poison is Hard Rock, maybe Glam Rock but certainly not Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.83.205 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References for name of new album

Hello. I noticed there is some recently added info about the name of the new album, when I checked the reference the web site looked like some kind of forum. Is this a valid reference for a wikipedia article even though the information might be correct. Adam (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. The reference is a blog, which I am disinclined to treat as a RS. I will remove the sentence and ref; if someone feels that it is a RS, please discuss here before reverting me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

HDDVD vs Blu-ray

I think No Bull is being released on Blu-ray, as that is the only format you can preorder it on amazon, also, HDDVD is dead, why would they exclusively release it on that? 24.65.42.159 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Spelling

Thats not how you spell their name! its AC (lightning bolt) DC! GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

very true - should be AC⚡DC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "lightning bolt" just looks like an empty block to me. I think we need to keep the slash. Not everyone has the Squealer TT Font loaded.  ;-) --Bark (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Somebody vandlized the AC/DC article and I can't undo what has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I tried to fix a vandalism that was there and went back to a version that screwed the infobox up. Thanks, and again, I'm so sorry. Halofan333 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing Heavy Metal is vandalizim?

Ok a person comes in and vandlized the AC/DC article by removing the photo of AC/DC and writes above it "Joey is Amazing" and no one does a damn thing about it. While I correctly edit the page by removing that and the label "Heavy Metal". And than I get ridculed and labled a vandalist. Oh just arrest me great Heavy Metal police, I have done wrong. Really what is this world coming too? I know this site is based on resources but yet it even states that the band only labels themselves as a rock band and down right hate the "heavy metal" label. And that alot of album reveiwers would falsely label them as heavy metal (which is also the resource to the label on the article). AC/DC is not, I'm sorry, a heavy metal band! Period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.9.145 (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting referenced content is vandalism. Deleting references is vandalism. Hope this helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by westvoja 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So if somebody writes their name in the article or outright vandalises the page without removing "reference content" then it's NOT consitered vandalism? How stupid is that! You know damn well that the page is called "AC/DC" so when somebody changes the taxobox from saying "AC/DC" to "Joey is Amazing" then it is NOT VANDALISM? What the HELL!!! But when I respect the bands right to not be called a heavy metal band then I'M THE VANDALIST? I don't give a rat's ASS if there is a reference stating AC/DC is a heavy metal band, they are wrong. It is not a strong reference to use an article by a reviwer. If you want to know the genera of music they are you go to their website or their record company's website. Even stores do not place AC/DC in the heavy metal section.

This argument is a perpetual one. The AC/DC articles state the term "heavy metal" not because the band are HM; we all know they're not. The term is there because a number of "reliable" sources say that they're HM. It doesn't matter if all those sources are wrong, it's weight of numbers. That's one of the flaws of Wikipedia - the majority of "reliable" opinion wins the day, even in cases such as this, where "reliable" opinion is clearly wrong, for reasons outlined elsewhere on this page. If enough self-appointed music know-alls in the music review business decided that AC/DC were a hip-hop act, then it would go in the infobox. Sad but true. Fitting artists into musical genres is a totally subjective thing, and is one of the overlooked instances of personal opinion being passed off as fact on Wikipedia. Not editor opinion, but the opinion of musically ignorant reviewers and headline writers. Personally, I'd like to see all musical genre classifications removed, not that there's any chance of that, of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I say that we should define genres based on consensus (putting polls on the discussion page), not listening to "reliable" sources. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is WP policy to go off of RS, not just consensus. We can't all agree on the sky being green instead of blue and make it so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case, we have sources saying the sky is green. We all know it's blue and we can't say so. In this case, Wikipedia's policy of following "reliable sources" makes Wikipedia itself a regurgitator of false information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we do? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think removing genres from infoboxes was a great idea. Genres are wholly subjective and should have no place there. Other than that, we are stuck with the view of the RS, regardless of whether it's wrong or right. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How would we go about doing this? I assume we can't change that policy based on this article alone. And even if it isn't in the infobox, we'd still be discussing genres in the article itself, right? I don't think it would be good to make no mention at all of what genre a band is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the reliable sources are just plain stupid, so then it's completely warranted to disregard them. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. This has been exhaustively discussed, and one anon mouthing off isn't going to change the matter. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not infalliable in subjective matters where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by individuals who disagree. In that case, they sould be ignored; as reliable sources are only needed in non-subjective matters. I think that in this case, a few hundred music reviewers shouldn't have more weight than hundreds of millions of people who disagree, and the band itself. I say that in this case, the band's opinion should trump the opinions of reviewers. Anyway, I've never been to a music store that puts AC/DC in the "metal" category. That alone should be enough to nullify all of the reliable sources. If it's not, then Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for any information as their policy doesn't support reflecting the truth but the opinions of the select elite who get to be called reliable sources. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'll find as many reliable sources as possible that say that AC/DC isn't metal. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think if you found a sufficient number of RS specifically stating that they are not heavy metal, it would at least be worth discussing, whereas now, as valid as your point may be, removing referenced genres from the infobox is vandalism. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think that each RS should, in matters of opinion, only have the same weight as 100,000 people who disagree. Therefore, the reliable sources are beaten 1000:1, and are moot. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly think that, the thing to do is to get an account, and start a discussion about the reliability policy. This isn't the place to fight the entire policy on RS. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to have a name attatched to me. Let's just have the discussion here. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Without an account, you won't be seen as a serious editor, but that decision is yours to make. But, this is not the place to have a discussion about policy. The RS policy is not up for discussion here, and until you come up with a number of RS that state "AC/DC are not heavy metal because...", I will no longer continue this thread with you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a flaw in the RS policy. The heavy metal or hard rock thing is mentioned in the heavy metal music article. I'll quote the bit about AC/DC...

AC/DC, which debuted with High Voltage in 1975, is a prime example. The 1983 Rolling Stone encyclopedia entry begins, "Australian heavy-metal band AC/DC..."[76] Rock historian Clinton Walker writes, "Calling AC/DC a heavy metal band in the seventies was as inaccurate as it is today.... [They] were a rock'n'roll band that just happened to be heavy enough for metal."[77] The issue is not only one of shifting definitions, but also a persistent distinction between musical style and audience identification: Ian Christe describes how the band "became the stepping-stone that led huge numbers of hard rock fans into heavy metal perdition."[78]"

If we mention the genre debate in the article, yet call them both a hard rock and a heavy metal band in the infobox, it loses all credibility. I have another example which is very similar to this one... Slipknot were pegged as Nu Metal by every critic in the late 90's/early 2000's mainly due to the time they broke into mainstreamm. Their bassist said in an interview that they are NOT nu metal and that "[he's] been listening to Metal for 20 years, I know what type of music we're playing". This doesn't seem to matter as there are hundreds of sources stating they are nu metal. Another example somewhat similar to this is when I tried to get speed metal in the infobox on Lamb of God's album Sacrament because in the documentary about the album, drummer Chris Adler calls them a speed metal band on several occassions. Apparently the bands own opinion cannot be used as a source, it can only be mentioned as their opinion in the article. Yet, a critics opinion can. It appears that Wikipedia believes that critics know more about the music that a band is playing than the band itself. Do we have any solutions to this problem?122.57.30.224 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If You Want Blood You've Got It

Added that album to the list. It's live but it's also known by name. I wasted erm, valuable internet seconds wondering where the heck it was after arriving at this page following a search for a song, finding the song article but no mention of the version that appears on that album, then coming here and not seeing the album... grrr. Added link to If you want blood on the song page too. Maybe all the live albums should be on the list in this article. Hakluyt bean (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Live albums, compilations and EPs are not detailed here. There is a separate discography page that details the band's releases. Only studio albums are included here (and in every other music page that is done right) The Real Libs-speak politely 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bagpipes

76.22.214.58 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else see a problem with the fact that the clip of 'It's a Long Way to the Top', which is labeled with text denoting how the song features bagpipes, does not actually feature said bagpipes?

Just a thought.

It's a fair point. If the caption is going to mention the bagpipes, it might be worth including a clip of part of the song that does actually feature the bagpipes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please note...

That Malcolm Young and Cliff Williams do more than just guitar work? They should also be credited with backing vocals on the albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.72.10 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why no refs in infobox?

The hidden source message advises not to use footnotes/references in the infobox. But I can't find any manual of style/guidelines on the Wikipedia namespace suggesting that. Why? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian/International versions of albums

Is there any particular reason why they are seperate? They should be merged with the coinciding releases. All the articles involved are no more than start class, so it would improve quality. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Merging makes sense, and it's easy to include the different covers, track listings etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm curious as to why the image I uploaded is suddenly being used as the lead image. Sure, it's a more recent image of the band, but the other was so much better. Mine is too far back, slightly out of focus, and doesn't show the band very well. I basically only uploaded it to show what the set for the Black Ice tour looked like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Back In Black: 131 Weeks in Top 10?

This is wrong. It spent just 45 weeks in the *Top 40* of Billboards Top LP & Tapes List (now the Top 200) according to Joel Whitburn's Top 40 Album guides. It's possible that the AC/DC webpage is mistakenly citing the Catalogue Chart, which is so recent that it's pretty meaningless. There's nothing impressive about the 45 weeks in the Top 40. Hundreds of albums have spent 60+ weeks in the Top 40. Many albums have spent 45+ weeks in the *Top 10*. So someone should edit this Toshiaki1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

Edit

In the Black Ice Section, please remove or change the image. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)