Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers

Talk archives:
* June 27, 2004 - 12 June, 2006
* April 1, 2006 - June 15, 2006
* June 15, 2006 - June 20, 2006
* June 21, 2006 - July 15, 2006
* July 16, 2006 - March 24, 2007
* March 25, 2007 - June 9, 2007

Hiatus

Since the band is not making music, is not planning on making music, I would consider this to be a hiatus and the are NOT ACTIVE. am i right? so why won't you add it to the main page on the years active section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa44 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could the word Hiatus be changed to break or something similar, this is an Americanism in what is supposed to be a worldwide encyclopedia. I've never heard the word used outside of The States. 86.9.225.51 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What word are you thinking? I think hiatus is acceptable, although I do see where you're coming from. I can't think of a better alternative at present. Sky83 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Ahhh, but Americans own this site; what they say goes no one else matters. If they can't have it their way, it's no way at all. 82.18.237.233 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about break? But yes you're right hiatus is OK - thanks to the editor who pointed this out to me on another page.82.25.200.157 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While break does seem okay, to me, it's a little too much like 'break up', which is one of the reasons why hiatus has so far worked. It needs to be implicit that it is not a permanent split, more so since this has been hugely debated and quite often why vandalism has taken place on this article. Hiatus isn't a particularly nice word, I just can't think of one that more accurately covers the subject. Sky83 (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus works for me - and I'm English, not American. I struggle to think of another term that would not risk misinterpretation, such as break. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of fair use images

I've counted eight fair use images in this article, which is a little much under fair use; some of the images aren't criticised (such as the Simpsons capture). Do you think we should use a little less? CloudNine 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons image seems a little suspect anyway. A promotional? It looks more like a screen capture. Kamryn Matika 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think we should probably remove or replace a fair bit of the fair use. The vast amount of images is making the article look very cluttered anyway. It needs some merciless trimming of irrelevant info. Kamryn Matika 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed three fair use images that weren't really criticised in the article. (also, the concert DVD capture was a large image) CloudNine 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a promo for Jesus's sake. If you looked at the image, you would have seen Matt Groaning at the bottom, which means it's not a screenie. I added the source too, so I want to add it back. CloudNine here keeps wanting to ruin the article though, so I guess not? The Slane pic and Grammy pic should be there for sure, too. The Slane pic was from a live DVD, it's important enough to be there. Grammys too, since it's the biggest music award you can win, and they won a few there, and playing Snow was enough to be in there. I added the source for the Simpsons pic too, so I think it should be there too. Xihix 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons picture is irrelevant. It isn't even mentioned in the article and isn't significant in proportion to the band's history. Some pictures could, as well, be removed. I'm leaning towards the Grammy one, as it's somewhat suspicious. NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The By the Way one and the one from the Grammys definitely need to go. WesleyDodds 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, please tell me why. Are they not critisised enough? No, the By The Way one is, well, from the By The Way era. The Grammy one? There's a whole damn paragraph on it. The sources and stuff? It's all there. Stop trying to ruin the article. Xihix 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they're replaceable fair use, meaning that you could get a free or licensed photo that represents the same thing. Furthermore, the BTY pic is just unnecessary (we really don't need to know what the band looked like during this era; there's already a pic showing the new line-up from Californication onwards), as is the Grammy pic. If either of them were free I'd have no problem, but they aren't. WesleyDodds 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed several images (the Simpsons appearance, concert capture, Grammy and 'By the Way'-era photo) per this discussion. That brings the number of fair use images down to four; a more acceptable number. CloudNine 11:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys should actually find free pics before removing them... Stop being so full of yourselves, how the hell do you know there are free pics that could be used? Oh wait, you don't. Good job ruining the article guys, great job. Xihix 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Nobody is going to listen to you if you persistently attack them. It appears you still haven't read WP:FAIRUSE. I would explain it but I already tried and I'm not going to repeat myself. Read it and understand it and then you can start making claims about fair use. Kamryn Matika 14:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I know civil and free use, but I'm just saying, you guys are really trying to make the article worse instead of better. Xihix 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't keep non-free material just because we like it. (see: WP:ILIKEIT) Wikipedia is about having free, reusable content for everybody. Keeping nonfree material that doesn't particularly improve the encyclopedia in any way (those images weren't really relevant and made the article cluttered, anyway) goes against our basic principle. Kamryn Matika 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures greatly helped the article. I myself am greatly confused without them currently. I feel like causing physical harm to myself because I'm so confused without the pictures... And, in my final note, I'll blame you three. Have fun. Xihix 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a RFC on Xihix's behaviour; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xihix. CloudNine 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that was pointless, Xihix made a perfectly good point the article is pretty rubish without all the pictures, even though this was along time ago now. Im going to add a logo in because i can and the article would look better with one.(LemonLemonLemons 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Logo or text?

I've uploaded the logo of RHCP and put it on the article, now somebody removed it. So should we use the logo or just use the text? I'd prefer the logo, but I just needa resize it.Pro Game Master87 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Logo section above. Text should be used, as the logo is not criticised in the article. CloudNine 07:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Red Hot Chili Peppers

The usage of “the” before the title in the introductory text in the article is needed. “The” is a descriptive word and should be used to describe the name of the name of the band. See Eagles and Pixies for similar usage. (SUDUSER)₈₅ 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it used to be there, but it was decided that it should be taken out. Xihix 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Freaky Styley cover it has 'The Red Hot Chili Peppers', this is also the case for the Abbey Road EP. However, on albums such as Californication and By The Way, the cover clearly has Red Hot Chili Peppers on it. I think that "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" used to be the name of the band, but it was changed, i dont know when or why, though.Jake.rhcp.utd 20:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The name was never "The Red Hot Chili Peppers" (also, it was on OHM, to add to your list). But, if they were to introduce themselves, they wouldn't say like "We are Red Hot Chili Peppers!" They'd say, "We are the Red Hot Chili Peppers!" However, I wasn't around for the debate on whether or not "the" should have been on the article, but it was decided for it to not be there. Xihix 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just a given to assume "The" should be in place, but in reality it is not correct. The Smashing Pumpkins are actually titled "THE Smashing Pumpkins". RHCP are titled Red Hot Chili Peppers. NSR77 ^T_C 22:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the band's name is "Red Hot Chilli Peppers", but why can't the opening sentence say "The Red Hot Chilli Peppers are an American rock band [...]", instead of just Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Sebi _[talk] 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In the One Hot Minute section, where is says "however, an relationship between (...)," it should read "however, the relationship between (...)." I would have changed it myself, but I do not seem to be able to make any changes to the article from this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.204.19 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

template

i am the founder of the u2 wikiproject. i am only new to this so im not that good. i have used the template of your project homepage to get me started. i hope this is ok. you can view what i have done by goin to mu project honepage. if the person/s who made this template are not happy with me using it please tell me and i will change it, dont just delete everything! if it is ok for me 2 use, tell me at my talk page. thank you. smithcool 20:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

movie

the peppers also played in the 1986 movie tough guys. the club where they play in in the movie is the jigsaw

They also had a cameo in the movie Thrashin' (1986) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Order of former members

Can someone order the former members in the amount of time they were in the band? And like, once it gets to less than a year, in order of who was there earliest? Xihix 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop rock

Can I add Pop rock to the RHCP, I mean they're leaning towards Pop Rock in their newest material (Californication - present).

Please check the Archive for the debate over this topic. We discussed this as an editing populace, and decided against the inclusion of "Pop Rock". Sources explicitly labeling them as a "pop rock" band are not very easy to come by, and most claims (including your own) of them as pop are based on Original Research. Additionally, please sign your posts in the future by adding four ~'s after your post. Regards, ColbeagleTheEagle 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Stadium Arcadium (2006-present) Section

Could someone fix the Stadium Arcadium (2006-present) Section? It's quite messy and the facts dont't follow each other in order of time. Gibsoninside 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently put the various periods in Chronological order. If there is anything else we want to clean up, please post here. (Yohowithrum (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

someone should include the fact that josh klinghoffer toured with them at this time and was essentially a fifth member of the band during this period...it would be good to have it since he is now rumored to be their axe-manGutscutter (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Musical style" section

The musical style is full of POV statements. Also some of the descriptions are very esoteric, such as the description of Chad Smith's drumming style as "in-the-pocket". What does that mean? And Chad Smith is the only drummer who's style is described. There should be at least a sentence each for Jack Irons and Cliff Martinez. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 75pickup 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I noticed this while doing a copyedit. Everything here needs to be verifiable or there is no place for it. --John 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Why there isn't rapcore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.55.3 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, rapcore should be there. I know that rapping may be generally considered to be part of funk rock/funk metal (as bands like Faith No More and Rage Against the Machine used rap vocals as well), but it cannot be argued that RHCP haven't used rapping mixed with rock music extensively, so it should be there. James25402 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Rap rock is a better name for the genre. The article Rap Rock has more info. Darky65 (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Associated acts

Should Black Eyed Peas really be there?85.225.15.85 16:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Removing. Tooga - BØRK! 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No 64.56.90.137 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre move

I moved funk metal and funk rock to the top, respectively. Anyway, funk metal is the only genre that is sourced, so it should be at the top. Do I have consensus? Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Funk metal is the only genre that needs a source. They are obviously alternative rock and funk rock. It's fine the way it is. Grim 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They were obviously also rapcore for most of their career (with the exception of their last couple of albums), but I've seen you argue that rapcore needs a source to be included. Why are alt. rock and funk rock fine to go in without a source, yet rapcore isn't? Rapcore is just as obviously a genre they've used as alt. rock and funk rock. James25402 (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

By the Way

It says fans were disappointed by that there were only two songs from the albulm "By The Way" on the Greatest Hits album. This is more opinion than fact. Even so, it is known among many fans that that album was a disappointment in general, and the real song that was left out was Around the World from the Californication album.

Delete it, it looks bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.86.26 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo homies!!!

How come rapcore is not listed in the genres? RHCP RULE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.83.22 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...Because the Chili Peppers aren't rapcore? Grim (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They have done a lot of rap funk songs though. Thundermaster367^{Thundermaster's Talk}

Well, if you read the leading section for rapcore/Rap rock, RHCP does seem to fit the bill. Their older stuff does, at least. Maybe they should be listed as Rapcore or Rap rock. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of first line

Can someone with access plaese change the first line from "The RHCP is..." to "The RHCP are...". Its more grammatically correct. To have the first line of an encyclopedia article have such a basic grammatical error is ridiculousParradudes (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Although "are" may sound grammatically correct, the Chili Peppers are one collective entity. One "item", if you will. They are not referred to individually. Therefore "Red Hot Chili Peppers is.." would be the correct way to write it. NSR77 ^T_C 00:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong NSR. A band is a group of people, and therefore "are" is correct to describe them. Even though they are one collective entity—like the teamsters or the freemasons—they are still a group (i.e. "the freemasons are..."). I believe that saying "my family are kind to me", is correct too, even though saying that is a bit obtuse. Grim (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you would say my family is kind to me. Darky65 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be "The RHCP is" because they are one group composed of four members. For example you don't say "the Parliament are meeting" today. The president's cabinet is meeting today, not are meeting. If you want to use "are" you would need to type, "The members of RHCP are". 74.130.19.106 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the "Stop the pointless edit war" thread further down on this page. We've resolved this issue there. Grim (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal and Rapcore

Does anyone object to these genres being added? ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They are not those genres. Grim (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They have used rapcore quite a bit actually. But mabye they aren't alt. metal. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They aren't rapcore. They might've influenced some bands of the genre, but they themselves aren't. Grim 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Their earlier stuff is. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 08:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Got any solid references? Grim 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Er... No. However, read rap rock. Do you think that it fits their earlier work. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 09:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable references, at all? Then no inclusion in the article. We aren't publishers of your thoughts of the genre of the band, if you are wanting to write your opinion on the band somewhere, write a review on a website somewhere. Spebi 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But you can't write a review and then cite it here. If you find a reliable source, then we'll put it up there. Sound good? Grim (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Restarting indent – but then again, WP:SPS, a section of Verifiability says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". I'm not here to dispute that, though. If you think a band is a certain genre, go out and find reliable sources to cite those claims, and then introduce the genre into the article. Spebi 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In some of their earlier work, they rap. Do I need to provide more information? Thundermaster^TRUC 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A reputable website that describes them as being rapcore will do. Grim (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we had a larger discussion about their genres earlier this year, and ruled that Rapcore would not be included into the article regardless. What the article currently lists is sufficient. NSR77 ^T_C 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

if we want to say all, we have the source about rapcore : Allmusic http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:7730 but i think that three genres are already enough..but imho have no sense put funk rock AND funk metal..i think is better write only "funk rock" and then in article write that they was one of the biggest band of the late '80 "Funk Metal" scene. And i think we should re-add "rap" in the article where's write "with various elements of funk, punk rock, and psychedelic rock." Zagozagozago (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. "Funk metal" is a little redundant and they don't even really fit the genre that well. The source provided is a bit on the weak side as well. Is anyone opposed to having this removed? Grim (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I haved always hated the fact that RHCP are classed as it. Funk metal is FNM and RATM. 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 08:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry,but who cares if you hate it...they were labbelled as "funk metal" in late '80 also if they haven't nothing of "metal"..look at grunge, a lot of band sounds really different..also Funk metal was more a "music scene" than a pure "music genre" Zagozagozago (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

They are clearly not the genre. They some songs have elements of metal but personally it's a crap way to describe the band. Thanks for reading, Thundermaster^TRUC 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

imho they HAVEN'T elemets of metal (maybe apart something in OHM), but we can't do nothing."Funk Metal" is a term created 20 years ago, is a "term", don't means that a funk metal band have metal elements (but in generale mix funk with hard rock)..just look at Fishbone, also Fishbone haven't elements of metal but with RHCP and FNM was the first "funk metal" band.look at Klaxons..labelled "New Rave", are they really "ravers"? no way, are only dance-punk with "sirens" sometimes like in rave songs.you have to think at "funk metal" as a "term" like "grunge"..in grunge there was a lot of bands with different sound, just think at Pearl Jam and Nirvana, they have nothing in common!Zagozagozago (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the pointless edit war

Both "Red Hot Chili Peppers is" AND "Red Hot Chili Peppers are" are equally correct. Different style guides handle it differently, and it comes down largely to minute difference between British and American usage. The use of "is" or "are" to describe a group are both equally acceptable usages, so please stop fighting over 2-3 letters in the lead, as the difference is moot. Try to find somewhere else in the article that needs fixing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in American and British English, if a proper noun is plural in form, then it takes a plural verb (i.e. "are" rather than "is". See the American versus British English article. CloudNine (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take some time to consider other proper uses. If you were a member of the band, would you say "we is the Red Hot Chili Peppers" or "we are the Red Hot Chili Peppers"? Would you say "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight", or "the Red Hot Chili Peppers is going to play a show tonight"? As I mentioned above, a band is a group of people. Groups of people are referred to with "are". Now consider my last sentence; should I have said "groups of people is..."? I'm going to revert the change one last time so that the people making the changes are aware of this debate. Grim (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the subject in your first two statements is, "We," as opposed to the first line of the article, which is, "Red Hot Chili Peppers." "We," of course, is a plural pronoun, so "are" is the correct verb. Your comparison has no relevance to the statement in dispute. "Red Hot Chili Peppers" is a collective noun (and a proper one, at that), and in American English, if you are talking about a collective noun and you are taking them as one group (i.e., one band), then you should consider it as a singular subject, and it should take a singular verb. Again, your comparison of "groups of people" to the band is irrelevant. When you say, "groups of people," the subject there is, "groups," so, naturally it should take a plural verb. But when you say, "group of people," the subject there is singular, so it should take a singular verb. Merienda (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually not so much. See this link, already postes below: [1]. If the proper noun is a plural word, the verb takes the case of the word, in both American and British English.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Grim generally. "Is" sounds awkward most of the time. However, it's irrelevant here. "are" is the only correct usage, as it is a plural proper noun. CloudNine (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grim, though I should point out that the argument "Does 'We is' or 'We are' sound better?" is not important here as this is a matter of subject-verb agreement and has nothing to do with the direct object of the sentence. For instance, you can easily say "Trent Reznor is/constitutes Nine Inch Nails," where the verb agrees with the subject and has nothing to do with "Nine Inch Nails." If there is a difference between BE and AE on this issue, we should stick to AE across the entire article since this is an article about an American band. For the record, I am an American and "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band" sounds absurd to me. Throughout my entire childhood watching MTV, I distinctly remember people phrasing it like this: "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." JHMM13^(Disc) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band", "band" is not a direct object. It renames the noun. "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are in studio today/on tour right now." - That sentence is correct because the noun is not being renamed by a singular predicate noun as is true in "The Red Hot Chili Peppers is a band." The noun and whatever renames the noun must agree in number. Obviously, both "RHCP" and "band" cannot be plural as it would look like this, "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are bands." Therefore, both must be singular, which would make the use of "is" grammatically correct, at least in American English. And this is an American band, so American English must be used. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: On The Smashing Pumpkins we've decided to us the plural, because the name is not a collective noun, but referring to multiple individuals, (or "Pumpkins", so to speak). A band name like No Doubt or Nirvana would of course be singular, but band names that end in "s" and thus imply the plural do sound better when using the plural in prose. For example, you wouldn't say "the New York Yankees is" because multiple individuals are being referred to. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually now that I think about it, I agree with Jayron32. Both would be correct as you could refer to the RHCP as more than one person like saying they ARE a band as in they make it up or are what the band is. You could also interpret "Red Hot Chili Peppers" as a name referring to the band, not the members, and therefore it would be singular as it referring to the band as a whole. So I think this edit war is pointless and it should be left at whatever it was before this all started. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok that settles it. If a band name is presented plurally (ends in an "s") then it's "are", and if it's presented singularly, then it's "is". Grim (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't settle it. You misinterpreted my reply. I said both would be correct. If it ends in an "s", it could be considered either singular OR plural. Just leave it the way it was before all this started. And I have no idea what it said before the edit war started so don't think I'm saying that just because I want it a certain way. I don't really care, so just revert it back to before it kept getting changed. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been monitoring this page for quite a while now, and this issue comes up from time to time. It would be better if we resolved it—which I think we have. For the record, the page said "are" before this particular war started. Grim (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that it said "are". Also I just found this - "Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band" on American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. So "are" would be correct for any band with a plural name. "Is" would be correct for any American band with a singular name, and "are" would be correct for any British band with a singular name - just to preclude any later disputes that may be risen on this subject. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So in short, this article should say "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are . . ." and use the plural throughout the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You would use the plural in referring to the members of the band, but if the word "the" is not in front of the band name, it would be referring to the band as a whole and therefore be singular. I doubt I'm making much sense, but that's what I believe is the correct way to do it. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

However this ends up (hopefully without further edit warring, because it's lame), this needs to be worked in WP:MUSTARD or another relevant guide. Lara❤Love 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's "Are" but only because the noun in the band's name (Peppers) is in the plural. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations, you've got a WP:LAME listing. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is kinda late, but why not "The Red Hot...are"? Petero9 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing talk page

This talk page has multiple topics relating to the discussion of rap rock, and how it may relate to the Red Hot Chili Peppers Darky65 (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already been discussed multiple times (even in the thread above this one, I think) that rap rock will not be included in the infobox – this does not mean that they are not rap rock, nor does it mean that they aren't rap rock simply because it's not included in the infobox. All other genres of the band are discussed in Musical style. Spebi 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Biscuits

I'm reading Scar Tissue and the section that discusses Cliff Martinez's departure and it doesn't mention anything about Chuck Biscuits. Where did that come from. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why it's there. He was never in the Chili Peppers. NSR77 ^T_C 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that Chuck Biscuits briefly played as a touring drummer for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 1986. I'm pretty sure the Red Hot Chili Peppers never recorded any studio recordings with Chuck Biscuits. Gringo300 (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

minor edit needed (reference 72)

I wanted to read the article about their Holywood Hall of Fame star, but the link given [2] isn't working. I searched the same website it is meant to be at, and found the article here: [3] Now as I don't have the rights to edit the article (and wouldn't risk messing up with it anyway) I'll leave it to someone who'll know what to do. castiboy (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Regarding the use or is and are in the name of the band... I checked with several style guides and grammar websites online, and they nearly universally agree that "are" is the correct usage. Consider:

• [4] "Generally, band names and musical groups take singular or plural verbs depending on the form of their names: "The Mamas and the Papas were one of the best groups of the 70s" and "Metallica is my favorite band."
• [5] "Note that some collective nouns always take plural verbs." This one seems to apply.
• [6] "With certain customary exceptions (such as sports teams), plural titles of works of art, organizations, or countries take the singular verb. The United States is a very influential country. Tales from the Crypt was a popular program. (but) The Kansas City Chiefs are undefeated. " Again, shows that American english is hardle in agreement on this. A rock band shares more in common with a sports team than a nation or a TV show.
• [7] "Follow the rules of subject-verb agreement when using the proper names of athletic teams and musical bands or groups: The Seattle Mariners are on the road. The Seattle Storm is an event sponsor. The Beatles were wonderful at the old Seattle Center Coliseum and so were the Rolling Stones. The Who is still terrific.". In other words, if the word is plural, the verb is plural. If the word is singular, the verb is singular.

How many more style guides do I need to quote? In American English, for musical acts and sports teams only, if the collective name is plural the verb is plural. That's it. Now, can we change it back to ARE, since we pretty much came to a consensus on this MONTHS ago? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since a consensus has been reached already, I would make that clear to disagreeing editors and link to the discussion. If they continue to change it to "is", I would consider it vandalism. Timmeh! 13:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about one text page up. And I wouldn't jump to vandalism accusations at all. This is a confusing issue, and MANY people make such changes when they trip over the article, and change the word to "is" out of genuine desire to fix it. We can assume good faith and not jump straight to vandalism accusations. Now, if people edit-war over it, it would certainly be grounds for a WP:3RR block, however... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant. But anyway, I think we should put up an edit notice saying something along the lines of "DO NOT CHANGE THIS TO 'IS'. A CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE CONCERNING THIS ISSUE" or something like that. We should leave a kind explanatory message if a certain editor has changed it once. If they change it after this with no explanation, it would be considered vandalism, at least IMHO. Timmeh! 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to improve grammar (even if again consensus you aren't aware of) is not vandalism. I wouldn't object to a commented notice at the top of the article though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just realized something. We're agreeing that the sentence should say "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are" based on the assumption that the name refers to the band members;however, it doesn't. The band's official name is "Red Hot Chili Peppers", not "The Red Hot Chili Peppers". "Red Hot Chili Peppers" could then only refer to the food. This is different from a band whose name refers to its members, for example The Beatles, in which "The" is part of the official name. Therefore, it would be grammatically correct to have "Red Hot Chili Peppers is..." An example would be this article, the title of which is "Red Hot Chili Peppers Sue Showtime", NOT "The Red Hot Chili Peppers Sue Showtime". Putting "the" in front of the name would therefore even be grammatically incorrect. Can anyone concur? Timmeh! 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no not at all. In both American and British english, for CERTAIN collective entities like sports teams and musical acts, there is always subject-verb agreement between the name of the group and the verb EVEN if the article refers to the group as a single unit. Thus "The Who is" and "The Beatles are"; "The Utah Jazz is" and "The New York Yankees are". This is an exception to the usual rule (For example, you would ALWAYS say "General Motors is" and not "General Motors are".) Its hard to pin down an exact, consise way to state this exception, but most style guides (which, as with all lexicons, are descriptive and not proscriptive or prescriptive with regards to proper English usage) concur that in this case, the use of "are" is appropriate even when refering to the Red Hot Chili Peppers as a unit and not as individuals, even if the standard rule for dealing with collective nouns says the opposite. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Give Lockage Away Give Lockage Away Give Lockage Away Now

This article needs locking, too much vandalism going on Titan50 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's vandalism to the intro I can't remove. Anybody? Mcboozerilla (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here, vandalism says "go to wowomg.com", but can't be removed; doesn't show up when you click "edit this page". - 10:11am Atlantic Time, May 20 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.255.236 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the locking. Multiple times, someone changes "1983 - present" to "1983 - 2008" or "1983 - present (hiatus)" or a combination of both. Unless I'm wrong here, it should be left "1983 - present". Burnedthru 00:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be 1983-present because they are still in a band regardless of the hiatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grt05 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of new album?

I heard a rumor the new album is due to be out in May 2009 and titled Powerfunk. Any confirmations? -andy 78.51.113.221 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering Anthony gave an interview about 3 weeks ago that said they are on hiatus and haven't even started to come up with new material, I highly doubt it. Burnedthru 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By The Way and Hiatus

Yesterday I added "Mini Epic" to the new songs played at Hyde Park, but that got removed. Why? That was the third new song played at the shows along with "Leverage of Space" and "Rolling Sly Stone" was it removed simply because it was not featured on the Hyde Park CD? Also, on my hiatus update, I said that the minimum one year would be up in August which is true. Ever since that god damn interview with RS everyone acts as though the hiatus started this May when it instead started at the end of Stadium Arcadium tour. I understand that sentence being removed, but could we make it a little more clear that the hiatus began at the end of the tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.182.188 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

It failed, however, because of Navarro's different style to match the critical acclaim of Blood Sugar Sex Magik and sold fewer than half the copies of its predecessor. Shortly afterwards, Navarro was fired from the band due to creative differences.

I think a citation is needed to prove that it was Navarro's "different style" that led to its poor critical acclaim, rather than any other factor. I also find the sentence a bit awkward. It could be rearranged to read "Because of Navarro's different style, it failed to match the critical acclaim..." - that reads a bit better, I feel. Estesark (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of Won Grammy Awards

I just noticed that at the end of the introduction, it states that the band won sixty nine Grammy Awards, but when I looked at the Awards and Honors section it states (with a citation) that the band has won seventy Grammy Awards. So which is it? Tsurugi (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sixty nine? Seventy? Lol, they've won seven. Burnedthru 22:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed those typos. :) Thank for the correction! Tsurugi (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro says 6 Grammys. Towards the bottom, it says 7, but only lists 6. The article on RHCP awards says they've only won 4. Someone want to fix that? 128.227.127.2 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fetus Kiedis

Could someone look at Antony's page please, there's an edit saying he's also know as "Fetus Kiedis." This just doesn't sound right. I did delete it but it's back again. Many thanks 86.29.226.104 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go take a look now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. GlassCobra 14:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

name of the band

since they covered robert johnsons they're red hot on their 1991 album Blood Sugar Sex Magik is it possible that they have taken their name from the song? probably they once said it in an interview, if someone knows about this i would like to know it and it could be integrated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.229.212 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Politics

Is it necessary to have a "politics" section on the band when it only contains one sentence, and doesn't seem to be relevant to the main point of the article? Metsfanmax (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the main point of the article? To describe the band. I think that those two sentences are important. Maybe it could be placed somewhere else, though. Burnedthru 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Breakup??

Well, I did see that according to some people here, they have broken up just because most of them have a disagreement about the lenght of their hiatus, and i really thik its wrong to jump into a conclusion already, even if it where true, you shouldn't put it yet, you should wait for them to oficially publish their breakup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancho449 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing definite been put out there that hasn't been contradicted. It's been implied by 'sources' that the break would be for a year, but it isn't apparent when this year started. Chad Smith has claimed in an interview that there is a plan in mind over a certain time period, but John Frusciante was asked about this in another interview and claimed there were 'absolutely no plans to do anything' and they were on 'indefinite hiatus'. The interview with John was by Music Radar, but I don't know about Chad. It would be wrong of us to speculate on what that means, other than to say that John's statements were not stretched or manipulated since it was a recorded interview and not on paper. I wouldn't necessarily say to put this in the article though. Sky83 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Years active 1983-present

They are on hiatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Instrument of Torture?

RHCP was used as an instrument of torture by the US Government against Gitmo inmate and Osama bin Ladin associate Abu Zubaydah. The Chili Peppers were played at high volume for an extended period of time until Zubaydah broke. Source: NY Times, 9-10-2006, "At a Secret Interrogation, Dispute Flared Over Tactics" by David Johnston[8]. Where should we put this? 131.96.47.8 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's not really relevant to the band itself. Burnedthru 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting, though. I guess it depends on the song... -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually find that quite interesting as well! Although I agree that it's probably not especially notable to the band. Sky83 (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

lol..idiots..it was a joke..you see..the guy was trying to be funny.

MusiCares MAP Fund benefit concert

I have removed this addition, since it was unsourced and appeared to delete existing information, feel free to add it back with a citation and without deleting other sections/sentences. Thank you. Sky83 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Best band? Don't think so

The article mentions they are widely considered to be the best band of all time. This completely disregards the fact that the beatles, for instance, have sold close to a billion albums and the rolling stones have influenced rock infinitely more times than the red hot chili peppers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.244.134 (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

‘hola ..........

hola q tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.1.203 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a claim such as this is not needed here,  I would, however, argue that they have influenced quite a few musicians of the 80's, 90's and 00's.

External link to concert database

Would a database of RHCP's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. http://www.songkick.com/artists/246462-red-hot-chili-peppers? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Band Membership

Hey, I'm pretty sure an article on MusicRadar isn't sufficient evidence to change the 'Current Members' section so that John Frusciante is replaced with Josh Klinghoffer. I checked the band's official website and there's nothing about it there, so I'm reverting the page back to the most recent version with John as a full band member.

Stratpod (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see an official statement from a band or their label we can cite before we change it. Hopefully, it's all just talk. – Joe N 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect its true but it's certainly not confirmed at this point. The idea that his status is listed as "former" as if its fact on both pages (band and his own) is absurd.GuruAskew (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Josh Klinghoffer shouldn't be in the Band Members section before an official statement --Derek gz (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

K, but the articles are completely ignoring all the facts about John leaving the band. All the citations were deleted. Any fan in denial here?--César (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, John has definitely left the band, check his blog here. However, this doesn't mean he's being replaced by Josh. I think John should be removed from the current members but Josh shouldn't be a full member. Seriously, John left, stop being so dramatic about it. 92.85.50.198 (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonh left, his name should not be on the Band Members Section

Still, Josh is not officially a full member yet

Again, Josh Klinghoffer shouldn't be in the Band Members section before an official statement. --Derek gz (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, put again the citation of John's blog, he left. And delete the rumors of the replacement, don't add anything until we have something official. --190.161.144.192 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

i've updated the ref on John to point to his personal website, with appropriate date, and also amended the section on Josh to mention that it's a rumour, with ref. Josh has also now been removed from the band members list pending official annoucement. The rumour news articles question whether he has the song writing skills necessary to contribute to RHCP - I wonder if this is why they aren't rushing to confirm it, as they are currently in the studio and are probably trying to see if it works first? Bertcocaine (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement on Jon's blog is unsubstantiated and that should be stated if it is used. Furthermore, it should be stated in the article that the band has "neither confirmed, nor denied John's or Josh's status. In fact the last official statement form the band is that they will be playing the Musicares tribute on Jan. 29th with the full line up, whatever that means.Gutscutter (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The section has been changed again. It is unclear that Frusciante really wrote the comment on his website and he has not confirmed it verbally. The Chili peppers have neither confirmed not denied the rumors as well and that needs to be put in this section as well. John's status will only be official when either he confirms it verbally or the band makes an official announcement. It is highly likely that it is true, but it is not ironclad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gutscutter (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The section was changed by Sky83 to remove any mention of Josh, changed again by someone to include Josh (no ref) and then removed again by Sky83. I agree with Sky83. As to the validity of John's personal website, it is now 4 days since that was published, and it has been widely reported in media aronud the world. If it was not true, it seems likely that someone official would have denied it by now. It is also confirmation of widespread rumours in the industry that it was going to occur - if the personal website of an artist is not a good enough source, then what is? Bertcocaine (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said...there would have been a denial if the statement were not valid. It is most factual to state, as you have, that no replacement has been named (we may not know until Jan. 29th!). Best not to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia that reports hearsay and rumors, only confirmed facts. It would be factual and informative to report in the Stadium Arcadium section that Josh toured with them and the role that he played ie. essentially a fifth band member...sort of like Clapton becoming the fifth Beatle during the recording of the White Album.Gutscutter (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Josh should be added to the Stadium Arcadium section. I'm not sure the Beatles is an apt comparison - I don't recall so many lineup changes during their career, death of lead members, etc. They stayed together for all their released albums, and then broke up. I strongly suspect the Chili's will continue without John, although it will be interesting to see if they achieve the same success. Going back to my earlier point, I wonder if that's the reason why after a year, and going back into the studio, they have not announced anything - having read Anthony's biography, the process they go through in these circumstances seems a bit random, and I wouldn't mind betting that they are/will be trying to persuade John to rejoin, as happened previously.Bertcocaine (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been seeing Dave Navarro being placed onto the current members (on both the main article and the list of members) repeatedly without a given source. I am getting a bit frustrated, since there has been no announcement from either Navarro or the Chili Peppers. Is there anyway to protect the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members or to leave a note saying something along the lines of "Please do not add Navarro's name to the list"? (since that is where his name keeps showing up most often) WereWolf (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2 points...no substantiation on the navarro thing...it should not be posted. going back to my original comment...the beatles analogy is far fetch...but josh should be mentioned in the stadium arcadium section. I agree with speculation on john...he may still play a role and even help write a few songs...he may even record...i think that he has had it with touring for a while...he may even come back at some point...i wouldn't be surprised if he played on the 29th as a last minute decision...but he will not play a major role..we will know inside of 6 weeks..i do not think that they will back out of the musicares thing...it means a lot to ak...btw...i am goingGutscutter (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Josh might not be an official band member yet however the Peppers ARE rehearsing and recording currently with him. He has been in the studio with them ever since they regrouped in October however he hasn't been named an official member. The band has to see if the chemistry is right with him and according to Anthony, if he can write songs (which Dave wasn't good at but John was of course great at). In a way I think it comes down to if Anthony can work with him because Anthony had a great bond with John when it came to hanging out and working on music. Flea is good friends with Josh already. They recentlly attended a Warpaint show together. We all know Josh can sing, he can play many instruments and is pretty much a prodigy (and some say clone) of John. Also I might point out that Anthony's dad Blackie updated his MySpace on December 5th (it's still on his page) confirming a new album was being made (and the HBO show was still happeing by saying: "ak reports good progress on the album. HBO still alive". It looks like Josh will be the guy unless somehow the chemistry falls apart. The band has known him for at least 10 years now (due to his involvement in Bicyle Thief, who is fronted by Bob Forrest, friend of the Peppers and former member of Thelonius Monster). They also opened for the Peppers on the Californication tour and of course Josh has worked on all of John's solo stuff since 04 and toured with the Peppers. Josh also recently replaced John at the Musicares benefit for Anthony earlier this year in which he played with Flea and Chad. I think an official announcement is coming soon, most likely after the Neil Young tribute show. Jason1978 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As i said above...he should be included in the stadium arcadium section as an adjunct member...jason...where do you derive your info from, re song writing etc.? do you have an inside track on that or do you base it on scar tissue? agree, we wont know anything until the 29th and maybe not even then...expect them to play only 2 or 3 of their songs, which i am sure josh will do a great job on and the rest will be with the other artists...sort of like the hall of fame show at msg now on hbo.Gutscutter (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

jason...read your page...now i understand...coolGutscutter (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In Scar Tissue Anthony does mention how John was a great song writer and he could always come to him with ideas but couldn't do that with Dave, who always seemed lazy and when Anthony called him up to come over and write songs Dave never wanted to however John was always happy and excited to, pushing Anthony alot of the times to open up with his lyrics and making him a better song writer. In the articles released about John leaving it was mentioned how the band needed to first see if chemistry was there and if Josh was a good song writer. John's influence was all over the last two albums, especially Stadium Arcadium, which Chad once called John's album because he went all out on that record. As for the Neil Young show...Chad said in a interview last week that they will only be playing 1 song (no word on the song but it will most likely be a Neil Young cover) because there are so many artists performing that night so it will be hard to play more than 1 song. You can find that interview here: http://funkymonks.com.ar/

Jason1978 (talk) 7:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

saw that interview on their website...which, btw is very uninformative. can't imagine that they wont do one of their songs, many of which are quite auprepeau given the musicares concept. to get back to business...dont you think that josh should be included in the SA section...and can you edit that in?Gutscutter (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

change noted...is it necessary to have all of john's statement...shouldn't it be mentioned that there is no official word from the band. also in the klinghoffer article it states that he is rumored to be in the rhcp...we decided here not to include rumors...to be consistent, it should not be there either.Gutscutter (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

who deleted the hiatus section and the tenth album section and put frusciante back in the band?????Gutscutter (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fanboyism

{{editsemiprotected}}

This entire paragraph seems like it was written by a fan boy and adds absolutely nothing to the article. With the excecption of the Rolling Stones reference, which isn't even linked:

"This album brought back guitarist John Frusciante, who proved that despite the revolving chain of Pepper guitarists, he is the only one worthy of being a Pepper. However, Rolling Stone noted lead vocalist Anthony Kiedis as the true star on this disc, claiming that he bounced back from rehab with "unheard-of vocal range, body, pitch, soulfulness, and melodic sensibility." Even though all of the Chili Peppers projects have been highly spirited, Californication has placed the Chili Peppers into an elite league of rock bands." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.105.33.143 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please state what needs changed and also what it needs changed to. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

California

Someone thought it would be funny to write California in a bunch of times under the lyrics and songwriting section. Someone that has the power to should change that (I don't have the power to). Happy solstice! - TCE

Think that's got it. – Joe N 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)