Talk:924 Gilman Street

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Event Venues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Event Venues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Event VenuesWikipedia:WikiProject Event VenuesTemplate:WikiProject Event VenuesEvent Venues articles

Cooperatives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Untitled

"Bringing the mosh?" Is this encyclopedic language to make a violent sadist government thug and his Nazi six-on-one-what-a-man friends sound hip or something? 223.134.58.150 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

How close to socialism do you want to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.39.120 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as the "help help I'm being repressed" club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.39.120 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Official business name of the all-ages, non-profit, collectively organized music club usually referred to by its fans as simply "Gilman".

This sounds pretty POV. Is there another way we could say this? Newguineafan 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound a little "marketing brochure," but if it's true, which I believe it is, then it's NPOV enough for my tastes. --Andy M. 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Free?

how about Jello Biafra getting both his legs broken when appearing there?

The anonymous one speaks the truth: Jello Biafra did get jumped there. Matt Gies 07:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No LA Bands?

Just reading their calendar you can see that they do often book LA groups.

Yeah I saw Mika Miko there two months ago and Child Pornography and Erebrus Nix n Stix (who are from Riverside and Los Angeles are playing there in May. This article seems really POV to me and needs a lot of grammar/syntax cleanup.

hotdiggitydogs 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside is not Los Angeles, and inhabitants of both would admit clear and substantial differences. Both are in Southern California, however. Considering Riverside and Los Angeles to be the same would be like saying that Sacramento and San Francisco are the same.

I would agree (I grew up in Riverside and have spent a lot of time in Los Angeles), but my comment was directed at the article's claim that Gilman doesn't book bands from LA/Southern California in general. Also if you want to discuss the difference btwn Riverside and LA I'd say if anything Riverside is a thousand times worse for propogating culture which goes against Gilman's intents (i.e. nonracist, non homophobic, etc) hotdiggitydogs 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the bit about not booking L.A. bands since it's not cited and their calender lists quite a few groups from L.A. The Ungovernable Force 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jello was NOT attacked, at gilman. He has addmited since that the whole thing was blown out of proportion. I have talked to Spider, one of the guys involved and he had said at the time it was an accedent.

Anarchist Organinization?

Removing category for anarchist organizations. As far as I know they are merely DIY, and although anarchists probably play some role in both maintaining and playing there, I don't think Gilman can be considered and anarchist organization. Any objections? The Ungovernable Force 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my band played there and we loved it everyone is so friendly everyone there has so much talent

Photo request

I put a photo request in for this article at Wikipedia:Requested photos. Tempshill 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have a few camera phone pictures i took (i am willing to put them under creative commons) of the interior with a crowd. I can arrange to take a proper picture of the front later if desired. Barakplasma 07:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gilman was torn down.

I've heard that the 924 Gilman Street Project was torn down, but I don't know why. Maybe, since it was/is non-profit and run on donations and volunteers, maybe they couldn't get enough people to volunteer to help out and people weren't giving donations. The building was already pretty old and run down when a bunch of kids restored it, and after they started booking bands and getting crowds, it got even more run down. Those kids restored and turned it into Gilman way back in the day, anyway, and probably the only way they could keep it running without the police stopping them was to keep it safe, and maybe things got out of hand or dsomething and they were forced to stop using it as a club. Maybe something else was built on the exact same spot where Gilman was, but I don't know.I've never been there, but I have seen pictures of it and read things about it in books and on the Internet. Nothing I said about what the reasons for tearing down the Gilman might have been are for sure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.193.133 (talk • contribs) .

Um, I doubt it. They're website doesn't say anything about that. The Ungovernable Force 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, don't think so. I live in the bay area and I just called their phone number two days ago. What makes you think that is the case? It is definitely NOT true. hotdiggitydogs 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it was their idea of a joke. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of CBGB's.68.114.92.56 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was there last night (20 Jan 2007) so I'd say it's safe to say it has not been torn down.

poor writing

The whole 'History' paragraph is terrible. Should be rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.150.46 (talk • contribs).

How about that? You're always welcome to edit yourself, of course.~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

it says that bands like rancid and NOFX are banned, but since when have they been part of a major label? unless you consider epitaph a major label...Itachi1452 14:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the mentioning of NoFX has been removed, and Rancid indeed are on Warner Brothers now.

LAME

This page is horrible. There's a much better history, and as far as I can see, pretty accurate, of Gilman st on this page: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=924%20Gilman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GEICOCaveMan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Green Day in 2003?

I highly doubt that Green Day was allowed to play in 2003. It goes against all their ideology and becuase their is no cited evidence I am removing this from the page.

I heard they did too...

They did play there..I put it in the article with a link to a DVD of the performance. It was in 2001 though.

In an interview for the Green Day biography Nobody Likes You by Marc Spitz, somebody said that Billie used to see shows at Gilman after Green Day was "exiled", if you will, from Gilman, disguised with a beard because he was so ashamed and he didn't want anybody bugging him and calling him a sell-out.

--Punkbassist 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)punkbassist[reply]

I used to go to Gilman in 90-91 and people didn't like Green Day even before they got signed. They had attitude problems and their music was more like pop than any other band that played there. Technically they weren't sellouts because they played the same exact kind of music even before they got signed.Crescentia 02:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

924 Gilman: The Story So Far, Review

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and if an editor wishes to post a link to ir, or just quote it as a source on the book section of the page, please do. I appreciate your time. 2008
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three rules

Although this is actually four rules, in the punk rock scene "three" is used interchangeably with "four," with four only substituting for three in cases of extreme emergency.

I'm not from the punk scene, so I don't know much about this. The sentence is extremely unclear for me. Which one does not exist in the set of "three" and what types of emergencies are we talking about? Situtations of crowd chaos, dealing with authority, etc? I would remove this sentence, unless it can link to another wikipedia article for clarification. jlam (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Influential bands" section

I removed an unwieldy section of the article that listed band names:

Extended content

Some of the most influential bands that have played at Gilman include:

Mainly since it was collecting a ton of non-notable cruft and Wikipedia is not a directory. If anyone wants to work some of the more notable bands back into the article with sources, go for it. In general, this article is really hurting for sources to verify its claims. czar · · 00:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that even Anal Cunt has performed there I do not know if they have. Even Crossed Out, Dropdead, etc, have.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 924 Gilman Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429063256/http://www.924gilman.org/blog/?page_id=9 to http://www.924gilman.org/blog/?page_id=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (September 2023)

Suspicion of public relations activity based on edit history pattern Graywalls (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree about the original research, and writing quality, but I'm going to nick the "importance" tag. Underground scenes are very important, and I feel that just because the underground doesn't get written up in mainstream media, which makes it easy to cite, these kinds of pages should be left to grow over time.

Any venue that houses bands like Green Day when they are young, and is an incubator and safe space for alternative societies, should be included in Wikipedia. My concern is that Wikipedia ends up being an echo chamber for mainstream media. Taylor Swift has more Wikipedia pages than World War Two!

Trust me, the better sourced material will come over time. For example, there is properly cited stuff about 924 Gilman in the Green Day article that could be brought over. In short, long live the underground. Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) thanks[reply]