Talk:Foo Fighters/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Alive and Well

Their connections with the AIDS-related organisation Alive and Well should be added here. Reubot 12:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree. If they're endorsing a group that believes that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that should be a matter of public interest. Andjam 04:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Except for the fact that they no longer publicly support the group. Doesn't mean they don't still support them personally (I believe Nate is the most supportive), but they no longer publicly affiliate themselves (and haven't in several years). -- ChrisB 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Even more reason to mention the allegations so the details can be clarified, I guess. Andjam 10:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
They still have mention of Alive and Well on their website with a direct link to it.


I moved this because there were more links to it here than at Foo Fighters (band), and all appeared to be about the band. I think anyone looking for foo fighters wouldn't be using upper case. Morwen - Talk 19:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chart Peaks

I think US and UK charts peaks are sufficient enough, especially as all the info is there. Adding Australian peaks - especially in such a spotty manner - seems superfluous, seeing as the single peaks are generally so low. It doesn't really add to Foo Fighters' profile.

PetSounds 13:52, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Band photo

Why isnt there any photo of the band, just besides the "contents", like everywhere else ? Vivek Malewar 13:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a small publicity photo at top JackFP 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Xinger's Singles Chart

In order to stave off an edit war, as per Wiki's guidelines, I've added a survey to discuss the inclusion of Xinger's Singles chart. If you have a chance and are willing to participate, please visit the survey and contribute. -- ChrisB 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • My table provides more information, including the most important charts to rock artists (Mainstream and Modern Rock -- two MAJOR charts). It doesn't leave out any information from the alternate format. It allows quicker and easier comparison of the singles' chart performance. On top of all that, it just looks much neater. Site-wide consistancy is a good thing. Xinger 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Images in Album Section

The album chart should really be converted to a simple list, or at least a text-only chart. The images ought to be removed for copyright concerns (the images are displayed at each album's separate article, so the album covers displayed in this article may not be fairly used). If I don't recieve any valid objections, I'll remove the images in the near future. — Prizm (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the album cover images. I don't know anything about the copyright/fair use concerns thought and if you're correct, then we have no choice but to remove them (as you've already done). David Björklund 11:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think they look nice, too, but we shouldn't use copyrighted images more than is necessary - the covers are already featured on the albums' respective articles, so any further use could be considered excessive. I personally doubt that the use of cover thumbnails in this article would bring any repercussions, but it's best to play it safe and not be over-reliant on fair use. Thanks. — Prizm (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Generator single

On the page dedicated to the Generator single, it says it was released in 1999 and features 2 live tracks recorded in 2000. Is this even possible? - MightyMoose22


Learn To Fly was No. 13 on Billboard not No. 19, go here to check it out here.

  • I assume that's why you've already changed it then, no? - MightyMoose22

- Yes, for some reason they have put the charts for the Best Of You single under albums at that site.

Top of the page

Now, I've noticed a pattern here. Every so often someone adds a single to the list, only to have it removed (usually by ChrisB). As far as the list goes as it stands, I can't see any logic to which songs are worthy of inclusion and which aren't. It claims itself to be the "biggest" singles but the #8/#12 single I'll Stick Around is there when the #8/#11 Breakout isn't. No doubt this is also what the stream of newbies have trouble with, which is why they keep adding to the list. Getting to the point, I propose the initial list be cleaned up to adhere to stricter guidelines. For instance, make it only the top half dozen or so, or only the singles that broke the top 5 or something like that. Something more clear cut than the current list of "11 biggest", when someone who makes it 12 is told it's too long. - MightyMoose22 04:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm for that. The sentence had six songs a few months ago, but people kept padding it with their personal favorite.
To be honest, I'd rather strike the whole sentence. There's no concrete way to judge which singles are "worthy", and, even if we set some standard, somebody will stop by and add their favorite.
I'll see if I can come up with a more descriptive intro. -- ChrisB 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool.Well, I've left it a couple of days and have had no objections so I went ahead with it. However, I think the way I put it makes it sound like every single they've released has made it into more than one top 5. I just can't think of a better way to phrase it right now, so I'd be grateful if I could get some help with that. Cheers - MightyMoose22 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea - but, yeah, I feel weird having it worded that way, given that there are a number of charts (ie, other countries) that aren't listed on the page. I moved it to an editor's note, just so people can see why those songs are there, and hopefully understand that we don't need to list every popular song of theirs. -- ChrisB 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I didn't know that was possible. - MightyMoose22 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Their newest CD, In your Honor isn't copiable. I found this out when trying to backup, like I do with all my other CD's, the album to my laptop. They're the only band I know to do somthing like this. It just seems crazy. Somthing should be added to teh article about that.

  • They are by no means the only band to use Copy Control technology, it's been around for a few years now. Check out this category, although the actual list is infinitely longer. - MightyMoose22 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • it's really easy to circumvent the copy protection. when you put the CD into the drive simply hold down the shift key on a windows computer. This disables the CD from installing copy protection software on your computer.

Also, it would be nice if someone could make a change to the last paragraph about how the album isn't nescesarily their last. Dave Grohl has made that statment about every release since "The Colour And The Shape" and that was three albums ago.


"However, he's also said that he could see the Foo Fighters go on for years."
The article already says that. Does it need to say more? -- ChrisB 23:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

i suppose it may be fine as is. there oughta be a better way to write it so it dosn't sound like they'll be breaking up soon, but I doubt I could fix it much so I won't complain.Stupidkrazykarl 16:28 7 January 2006

Rolling Stone

Nice one whoever put the Rolling Stone Mag cover on the page, the Foo's kicked ass back then.

And they dont now? PJB 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They have become a different band musically, a lot of people came onboard the Foo wagon when they mellowed out with There Is Nothing Left To Lose. A lot of people jumped off (I almost did)

It's true that There Is Nothing Left To Lose got them noticed and is more mellowed out (best Rock Album at the Grammys), but I personnally don't mind it, but can understand why old fans might have been put off. 'The Colour and the Shape' was their best in my view (although that's not to say I don't like their other albums).
Keep rockin' (yes, that is a very cheesy thing to say) PJB 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I let it be noted in the opening, that they are a supergroup. It's also one of the categories this article falls under, and this more informs readers at first as to the identity of the group, since they are one of the most popularly recognized contemporary supergroups, and the most exampled of one in the perspectives of most.

The Foo Fighters ARE NOT A SUPERGROUP. Sunny Day Real Estate was not a widely successful or widely respected band prior to Will and Nate joining the Foos. They had received positive reviews, but most of their fame came AFTER Will and Nate joined the Foos. (In fact, SDRE received a significant amount of exposure BECAUSE Will and Nate joined the Foos.) SDRE's second album wasn't released until several months after SDRE's disbanding, and three months after the release of the first Foo album. -- ChrisB 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps then, in the list of supergroups on Wikipedia, they should be removed. I don't want a broken reference between the two articles. The link can be found here for the supergroups list.
Okay, done. So what's your problem now? They're no longer listed as a supergroup, so you're going to add them back anyway? WTF!?!? -- ChrisB 06:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's what we could do. We could put a paragraph into the article that some music fans consider them a supergroup. Problem solved?
Absolutely not. One of Wikipedia's key mandates is no original research. I have never in my life seen any journalistic article refer to the Foo Fighters as a supergroup. If you can find one, that's a different story. But, regardless, they fail all of the guidelines as to what constitutes a supergroup.
But, even beyond that: WHO CARES?!? Why does this have to be included in this article? The Foo Fighters are a group, plain and simple. The article says that, and that's all that needs to be said. Even if there are fans who call them a supergroup, the overwhelming majority do not, so it's superfluous information. -- ChrisB 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? Just like post-grunge. Nobody cares about that term. The only connection the Foo Fighters have to grunge is Dave playing drums for a band for 3 years. (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Foo Fighters are a supergroup. It was said that the group has to be popular, and although SDRE was more popular after the Foo Fighters, they are still a supergroup. The article says that the band has to be made of members who "already achieved fame or respect in other groups or as individual artists," which SDRE did, even if it was after FF. Otherwise you could say that Temple of the Dog isn't a supergroup becuase either Soundgarden or Pearl Jam where popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:39, 28 November 2006.
The whole point of a supergroup is that the members of the NEW band are all ALREADY famous. That's why it's a supergroup - it's a combination of well-known musicians.
And, again, since there's no consensus on this, it shouldn't be included in the article. The Foo Fighters are a group. Whether or not they're a supergroup is irrelevant. -- ChrisB 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, considering that this is months after the end of this discussion...the point of a supergroup may be that the members of the new band are already famous, but as pointed out earlier, Temple of the Dog is one of the most prominent examples of a 90s supergroup, and NEITHER band was nearly as famous or well-regarded then as they were afterwards. They were an anomaly among supergroups, and the same COULD be said of Foo Fighters. Other than that, the argument is kind of bizarre (ie, I don't understand the passion on either side regarding this...from a technical standpoint, yes, but there is/was some REAL passion here). DestradoZero 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Learn To Fly , Bilboard 100

Learn to Fly was definatly No. 13 on the Billboard 100. Some idiot always changes it to 19. for some reason ?

It says so at the official Billboard site:[1]

Also at the All Music Guide(although not always up to date): [2]

For starters, I'm not the one who asserted the #19 issue. It was asserted by User:BGC, but without providing a source. So I researched Billboard Hot 100 charts, and came across the March 4, 2000 chart which said exactly what he asserted: that the song peaked at #19.
The chart's final column is "peak position", and I saw several charts from February and March of 2000 that said the same thing: #19. And I wasn't looking at the Adult chart. Billboard posts the "5 Years Ago" Hot 100 charts on their website, and most of the early 2000 charts were still available via cache until a couple of months ago.
Everything I could find said the same thing: Billboard's summary is wrong. And AllMusic takes their results from Billboard's summary, so we can't use that as a second verifying source.
I don't have a Billboard subcription, so I can't look up the real charts in their database. However, the downtown branch of my local library used to carry Billboard magazines in their periodicals. I'm going to be downtown early next week, and I'll see if they still have those magazines in their archive. -- ChrisB 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Found the answer. "Learn to Fly" peaked at #19 on the Hot 100 on the January 22, 2000 chart. It debuted at #80 on October 16, 1999. Its last charting was at #50 on March 4, 2000, a total of 21 weeks. And, yes, THIS IS THE HOT 100. Billboard's site is wrong, period. -- ChrisB 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Date 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29 2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/4
Position 26 20 *19* 22 26 30 35 42 50
This is original research, and you have edited this 4 times. Please refrain from editing this again unless you can actually prove what you are stating and not just stating it as fact. It is your word against published material, and thus the published material stands. Contact billboard to get this figured out. Bsd987 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Looking at the actual Billboard charts constitutes original research? ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WERE PUBLISHED. And the March 4, 2000 issue says that it peaked at #19. So don't hand me the ridiculous argument about "published material", when I've got that source right there: the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine.
Oh, and stuff threatening to report me. Read WP:3RR and see what the guideline actually says. -- ChrisB 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

you cannot provide an internet source that says it charted at #19.billboard itself says its #13.if you have proof where is it?Provide an internet source or you will be reverted,peiod. P.S. AND YES I READ IT AND YOU HAVE BROKEN THE 3 REVERT RULE.

It's three reverts in 24 hours. Read it here: WP:3RR.
Sources don't have to be on the Internet to be verifiable. It'd be kind of difficult to cite biographies and whatnot if we required that they be on the Internet.
However, if you're going to continue being a douchebag about this, this person has archived the 2000-era Hot 100 charts, and they match the Billboard Magazine listings:
Then there's this guy who independently tracked the Foo's chart stats: [3] If you can't understand the instructions at the top, the first blue number is the peak, the second is the number of weeks on the chart. You'll notice that the other stats match what we have.
I've got more if you really need to see it. -- ChrisB 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry but these sources are unreliable also as far as we know this could be made up.give us an OFFICAL source or it will continue to be reverted.(This is an independent site).Why can't you find anything o the internet possibly because your wrong.(quit the language or I'll have to report you.

Yeah, 'cause there's a giant conspiracy to deny the Foo Fighters of their rightful place at #13. And it all started in 2005 with a post on a UK message board. It continued with the "5 Years Ago" charts that Billboard posted on their own website last year that said the same thing. (Which are all now offline because Billboard only allows access to their archives to current Billboard subscribers.) It moved on with some kid in Japan who decided to fake a whole bunch of charts.
The verifiable source is the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine. I don't actually need to provide anything else. Not every information included in Wikipedia comes from an Internet source - in fact, a very high percentage of it does not.
Why do I owe you any respect at this point? I've done everything possible to follow the guidelines, and you've reverted them for no legitimate reason. My note about the chart is a) verifiable, b) sourced, and c) NPOV. I've done everything I can to make a good faith effort to show that I'm not just pulling this out of my head. -- ChrisB 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many things on wikipedia do not have sources but this is a disputed claim.As far as we know you probably made this up.Your claim is A UNVERIFIED B UNSOURCED if it was verified and sourced we wouldn't be having this arguement.ALSO you have been very rude.what are you talking about I've been reverting your UNSOURCED UNVERIFIED claim 'for no legitimate reason'?.YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG,period.

Because, of course, I made it up. I paid a guy in the UK to post fake Hot 100 results last year. I paid this guy, too, also last year. (Different person, same result: "1999.10.16 Foo Fighters Learn To Fly (19) 21w" - translated: debuted on 10/16/99, peaked at 19, 21 weeks on the chart.) I also paid some kid in Japan to post Hot 100 charts from six years ago on his site. In fact, I paid him to post the last six years, too, just to serve my point that much more strongly.
I haven't been proven wrong whatsoever. All you've proven is that you'd rather be ignorant and flail your arms around screaming than use your intellect. Good effort, genius. -- ChrisB 06:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been proven wrong.You have not been proven right neither(and you never will be).You have made this more than it needs to be.You have affended me for no reason whatsoever.Even after giving up and admitting you paid people to lie you continue to insult me and argue WITHOUT RELIABLE SOURCES WHICH BY THE WAY I HAVE [[4]]. where's yours?I don't see anything but a bunch of unverifiable sources.Even if you are right you cannot prove it without proof of your claim WHICH I HAVE[[5]].quit flailing your arms in the air crying like a baby WITHOUT RELIABLE SOURCES.useless,time consuming effort, GENIUS

Holy crap, are you serious? Can you not tell when people are kidding? I couldn't possibly have paid a guy last year to fake Hot 100 charts. I hadn't even heard about "Learn to Fly" peaking at #19 until about two months ago. BCG asserted it, and I researched and confirmed it with the March 4, 2000 issue of Billboard Magazine. All of the sites that I posted above were found via Google.
I "gave up" because Wikipedia demands that its editors try to avoid conflict whenever possible. But I certainly have no hestitation to add that comment back, especially if someone else reads this ridiculous argument and can see for themselves that I'm not making this up. -- ChrisB 07:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?you admitted it just then.No matter what your caim is original research and wikipedia has a strict rule of no original were so desperate to prove me wrong that you checked GOOGLE.Sorry these are the only sites you could find that backs up your claim UNSOURCED UNVERIFIED site.In the end I have billboard itself backing me up.

The problem is, so does he. You do realize that website information can be changed, right? WesleyDodds 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As is conveniently demonstrated by Wikipedia. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So here's the good question. Apart from my sparring partner (who just got blocked for three days), are there any objections to the version I had most recently - ie, #13 in the chart, but note at the bottom pointing out that Billboard Magazine listed the peak as #19? -- ChrisB 01:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. WesleyDodds 06:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 18:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but even if you are right CAYA does have a verified source like it or not.Personally I believe it is 19 but unless you show us an offical billboard arcticle that states that the correct number is 19 it will have to be reverted sorry but thats just how it has to be. User:SOADLuver

You can look it up yourself, though. That's the point of references. Both sources are equally valid. WesleyDodds 09:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I just want to point out again per SOADLuver's comment - I'm not removing the #13 listing in favor of the #19 peak. I'm simply adding a comment that notes that there is another verifiable source (Billboard Magazine, March 4, 2000) that disputes the #13 chart peak. And, again, it must be pointed out: sources do not have to be publicly available on the Internet to be used on Wikipedia. As long as the source is available and verifiable (which is true in this case), it's usable. Take, for example, the citings of Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Heavier than Heaven which appear in the article for Nirvana. Those texts are not available on the Internet - a person cannot verify the quotes simply by poking around on Google. However, the citings are independently verifiable, even if an editor would have to acquire the books to do so.
I re-added the comment per this discussion (though I can practically guarantee that it will be removed by somebody in the next couple days). -- ChrisB 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read this entire discussion after seeing the chart format on the page, and I have to say, this is ridiculous. Obviously, the charts are a more reliable source for chart information than the summaries, which are not always accurate. I see one participant requests an official source from Billboard. It is hard to get Billboard back issues (although you could ask at your public library, as some keep them archived.) However, it is very easy to purchase Billboard books. I would recommend one to those who are looking for reliable sources and seem to prefer a misprint on a website to hard data. GassyGuy 05:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to agree with you and sum up your point by adding that the summary was only typed out once, so it's more subject to errors. Thank you. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving your comment since you are right.I'm just saying you have to leave number 13 up there because billboard claims 13 is correct (which is a misprint).Any deletion of your factual comment will be seen as vandalism and reverted.-SOADLuver

Actually no ChrisB I am sorry but your comment will need to be removed plain and simply because your claim is original reseach and I have proof (which is from billboard itself) and you have nothing beside some unverified sources.You say that you have proof than show it to me.Until then I have billboard saying I am correct and you don't.And if you want to argue some more you may want to read THIS first. -CAYA

And you should read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm not sure you quite grasp the concept of "original research". WesleyDodds 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't waist your time.I have read that 2 times already.Thank you though for proving me right.Why?BECAUSE BILLBOARD IS AN OFFICAL SOURCE.when asked about a billboard chart peak i rather trust billboard than anyone else.The moment you shove VERIFIED RELIABLE truth into my face YOU WILL be reverted.-CAYA

I'm not going to even continue this argument. What is so hard for you to grasp about print sources being perfectly verifiable and credible information? What do you think people used for sources before the Internet came along? WesleyDodds 05:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of what people used as sources before the internet came along stop getting off the subject. I am aware that a billboard magazine may have the learning to fly chart peak at no.19 but where's your proof?Huh?oh yeah you got none.right here it says that learning to fly peaked at #13.[[6]]

I'm not debating that one is right or wrong. What you are ignoring is that a source exist that is just as valid that is contrary to what the web chart says. You keep removing the reference to the issue of Billboard magazine that lists a different chart placing. The thing is, Billboard magainze is the primary product; it has been published for decades. It is just as valid. The proof that exists is the actual issue; if you debate it, is UP TO YOU to research that issue. Go ahead, look up the print issue at a library. Debating the chart placement in an issue of Billboard is like arguing information from a biography book about the band. Your insistence on arguing against this boogles the mind. Not only that, you actively remove references to a discrepancy between the sources, and that's not academically honest. Please stop reverting the changes or I will have to contact an administrator. WesleyDodds 07:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

GO AHEAD bring an administrator in I have a VERIFIED source and you have an imaginary magazine.-CAYA

Did you miss the part that the company responsible for that website is the same company that made the magazine? -- ChrisB 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything.-CAYA

You're claiming that Billboard says you're correct. Well, Billboard says I'm correct, too. And it is categorically not an "imaginary magazine". -- ChrisB 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

THAT's GREAT let's compare our OFFICAL source mine where's yours? -CAYA

I Really can't stand this guy anymore...even if is just a non crucial matter, shoudn't we contact editors, or try a poll (since this guy seems to be a little be deaf and also blind), or whatever else? Excuse me if i don't know how...i'm a newbie...if someone is interested, please do something cause the arrogance of this guy seems to be without limit...can't the billboard website be wrong? Can't they do a typing error? If we have more than one source that says it peaked at 19 (including the Billboard magazine itself) why should be a problem admitting that maybe they did an error? Are you the webmaster of, and scared about the consequences of being proven WRONG? If ChrisB or everyone else could scan the billboard page saying it peaked at 19 would be GREAT, if not...maybe a little consensus will do? Please, let's solve this, i can't stand people liek this guy Sickboy3883 03 Nov 2006 (UTC)

This was months ago. I think it's already been concluded. He was banned from Wikipedia at some point during this process because of his behavior. (Not that it would stop him from coming back.)
Not that we need this information, but I did contact Billboard Research back in June. I received a response almost immediately. The guy who emailed me (Billboard Research Manager Gordon Murray) confirmed the chart positions as I had them (see the table way above, includes the #19 peak) and that he'd forward the correction to the "appropriate people". I was hoping that the Chart History would be corrected (and then I could officially tell CAYA to eat it), but, for some reason, the "appropriate people" must not have cared enough to fix it. And, since we can't use the email as a source, CAYA's argument about their website saying #13 still holds.
There's really no reason to poll it - the song did not reach #13. Their website is wrong. But as long as it's wrong, we just have to leave the article as it is. -- ChrisB 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I hate to flog a dead horse, but is this good enough to once and for all get rid of the faulty info?, which is Billboard's more reliable location, is, for a limited time, showing its info to non-subscribers. Here is actual web evidence from Billboard itself: I guess it's not really that important, but thought I'd share anyway. GassyGuy 11:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Laundry Room Studios

I know that the first Foo Fighters album was recorded in Seattle at Laundry Room Studios and that Barrett Jones is related (I know his brother). My understanding is that Jones actually opened the studio, I might be wrong though.

foo fighters aerial phenomenon

shouldn't we disambig this page, with links to the band and the aerial phenom, instead of just giving the latter a small link at the top? --andrew 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything about the way this was done follows Wikipedia guidelines to the letter. The term has its article at Foo fighter. They each disambiguate to each other via notes at the head of the article. Adding another article to disambiguate the terms would simply be redundant. -- ChrisB 22:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

hyde park biggest foo concert

on the official website, it states that the hydepark gig was the bigest show they have ever held in their 11 year history. should this be mentioned? i understand they have done bigger festival gigs, but this was a foo "owned" gig.

Several problems.
1) For starters, there's no way to write it that makes logical sense in a "biggest ever" way. It's not their biggest headlining gig; other festival appearances take that claim. When you're down to "played their biggest ever non-festival headlining gig", it doesn't make sense and isn't particularly notable.
2) Several people have tried to include Hyde Park in this article, and they all share the same thing: they were there. Personal experience should not influence the notability of an event. For this to be included here, it should be added by someone who was not personally involved in the event to avoid WP:NPOV concerns.
3) Was this show really that notable? Nirvana's Reading appearance was notable in their history as it had worldwide attention. People outside the UK have virtually no idea that this show even took place.
I don't personally think this show should be included. By comparison, I think the acoustic tour is significantly more notable, given that it's not something the band has done before. Maybe if the show can be crafted into some greater context. -- ChrisB 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You could always say that, as sole headliners, it was their largest-supported concert or something like that.(Stuey 182 11:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Changed the end part as Everlong wasn't a solo performance of it, at the end of the song the whole band joins in. (Stuey 182 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I think it should be taken out. We're already getting what looks to be the start of an edit war over the size of the crowd (aparrently 85,000 people in a 60,000 capacity space). As has been said, they've played to more people at festivals, anyway. There wasn't anything about what their biggest gig was pre-Hyde Park, why should this one be significant? It's only going to change soon. Check around other bands' pages, is there anything about their biggest audiences? Unless it's the biggest crowd for anyone ever, or something, it's not at all notable. Chuck it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 05:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I say keep it but tie it into the trivia section and reduce the detail in it. (Stuey 182 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC))


The main part of this article really needs subheadings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ed Trivia

Didn't they have "Next Year" as the opened credits song in Ed? Is that worthy enough for Trivia...? GAYBO

I think so, but this article has no trivia section. The fact is mentioned in the "Next Year" article, though. Skittlesjc 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Duration in band?

Can somebody add in the primary Foo Fighters infobox how long the band members have been in the band? i.e. Dave Grohl (1995-present), etc. Skittlesjc 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Nate Mendel's time in the band should also be added, since technically he hasn't been there since Foo Fighters started, when Grohl did the whole first album by himself.

One minor problem with this latter post - as far as we know, the Foo Fighters didn't really exist in name when it was Dave alone. He didn't record those songs specifically as "the Foo Fighters" - he was just recording his songs. He put the band together to play those songs, at which point the Foos were founded. At some point, we'll need to figure out what exactly happened at the very beginning and at what point "the Foo Fighters" came into existence.
(BTW - the FF Blackbox lists a private party on November 30, 1994, so we may have to reset the date of the band's establishment. But I'm slightly baffled by the timing - SDRE was still touring in December of 1994. Maybe the party was Dave solo? Or a temporary lineup? I dunno.) -- ChrisB 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Band Members Section

There has been an edit war going on for a while about the formatting of the band members section of the article. I would like to see people discuss which version should be kept in order to help build a consensus and hopefully avoid arbitration. For the versions that are out there, see the edits by ChrisB and from the ip User: I personally think that the version by ChrisB is easier to read and just as informative. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the non-chart one is better. With the chart, you can see how Dave was playing all instruments at first, then the others joined in later 1995. Also, you can see the incarnation on the band that was listed for The Colour And The Shape, between where William left and Taylor joined in 1997, and how for recording The Colour And The Shape, they had Pat on lead guitar, Nate on bass, and Dave on vocals, drums, and rhythm guitar. As well as that, it shows how for There Is Nothing Left To Lose, Dave was playing all the guitar parts because it was between the time that Franz left and Chris joined.
I agree with Maelnuneb. I just happened upon this one today. There is no need for duplicate information. And the box is just clutter compared to the simple/concise list format. Indivual members roles can/are detailed in the main article. The box is just superfluity. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, is persistent with it, He's tacking the same thing onto the Nirvana article. I talked to him, pointing out this conversation has consensus that its unnessesary, and that having it constantly reverted should be another hint. Hopefully he stops, I encouraged him to contribute some other way. -- Reaper X 20:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I give in if you guys really insist about it this much. Can I just ask what was so bad about mine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
My biggest issue with it was appearance. Both your version and the current version present the same information. The current version displays it in a manner that is by far less cluttered. This of course comes at the expense of being able to easily see the chronology of members joining and leaving the band; however, this information is already included in the main body of the article. At least in my opinion, the band members section is meant to be an overview of the members of the band anyways, and people who care to find out more than what they see in that section should read the main body of the article, specifically, the history section since it provides those details. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The ACTUAL name.

Did you know that one of the members of the band liked to start food fights when he was a kid. When they were thinking of names, he suggested the food fighters. They thought it was kinda stupid, but when they took away the d, it sounded alot cooler. So they chose the foo fighters, and the U.F.O. thing is just a coincidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I find that hard to believe. In case you don't know, Dave Grohl is very interested in UFOs and Aliens, so he took the name from the Foo fighters that were spotted during World War II. Karrmann 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, David Grohel didn't base it off food fighters. He based it off his kung fu sensai he had when he was a kid.

No, it is from the Alien phonomon. Again, as I said, Dave Grohl has a strong interest in extra-terrestrials. Karrmann 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nu-uh, they love to have food fights, but they think the d is stupid.VicAndPhill 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor, and provide a source for this. That is the only way I will believe this. Karrmann 00:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know nothing, as Dave Grohl picked the name before his project became a 'band'. Savagepine 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This silly conversation looks very, very familiar... Now c'mon guys, dont egg this guy on, he's obviously fucking around. Very mature dude...come back when you have something factual and relevant to discuss. -- Reaper X 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, just don't bite the newbies. Darthgriz98 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the name was based off of David Grohls kung fu master from when he was a kid. How do I know? Because i am David Grohl!!!! Mwahahahaha!!!

Wouldnt it be a godd idea to upload and show the Foo Fighters logo (the round one with the FF) ? Weenie beenie 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the foo fighters

it's the foo fighters, not just foo fighters. everyone knows that. 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that's funny. Judging from the big picture which you can easily see at the top of the page it looks like Rolling Stone doesn't know that. And what's funny, if you look at the pictures on the CDs it looks like even the band doesn't know that! --JayHenry 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You can laugh. And you can mock them. But wherever you go, whatever you do, you can do it safely because these guys are out there, day in and day out, doing what they do best: fighting foo.
It's true, someone needs to keep the foo under wraps. Seriously, I don't think the word "the" being left out makes any difference. The website for the radio station I listen to usually lists The Doors as just "Doors", and other "The" bands follow the same pattern. --SykoNachoman 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this is significant. The band clearly choose not to use the word "the" (their website, CD covers, etc) it is not just that radio stations forget to use it. My name is Paul, it is the name I was given and the name I choose to me The Paul and you're deadmeat!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm brewster (talkcontribs) 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its significant. Adding excess articles to the beginning of one's name doesn't do anything significant, except that when mentioning the Foo Fighters in a sentence would often require an extra the to be grammatically correct, ie: "And now, the The Foo Fighters!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
More on this below. - eo (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The band never chose their name, it was one person. However, it does unofficially change now that they are an actual band. Nowadays you can spot an ignorant person just by how they refer to the band, and if they use Foo Fighters you can be sure they don't listen. (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC

Seriously, this is nothing other than vandalism.

According to the Infobox template, "Origin" is defined as "the city where the group was founded". The Foo Fighters were founded in Seattle. Grohl was a full-time Seattle resident at the time the band was founded, as were Goldsmith and Mendel.

I would readily agree that the band no longer bears any ties to Seattle. However, the same can be said for DC. Grohl is a full-time Los Angeles resident now, as is every other member of the band. Grohl's Virginia home studio was completely rebuilt in Los Angeles.

The only way to justify a change to DC would be if someone could provide a reliable source confirming that the band was secretly holed up in DC during the formation of the band. However, that's an impossible request, given that it's wholly false. -- ChrisB 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Why was the pic in the infobox removed? and I swear there was an old cover of Rolling Stone with the quote-unquote original Foos on the front (Smear, Goldsmith, Mendel and Grohl) Speedboy Salesman 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use problems. Magazine covers can only be used to aid "critical commentary" of the magazine itself, not solely to identify the person(s) pictured. The promo photograph failed Wikipedia guidelines that require we use non-free images only where free ones are unavailable. Free images are certainly available of the Foo Fighters - we just need to find one that's suitable. -- ChrisB 02:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pretender

"Sorry Chris, but any single release is notable, irrespective of where it's done."

Are you serious? Do you see ANY single releases mentioned ANYWHERE in the article? There is nothing notable about "The Pretender" being released anywhere, least of which on their Myspace page, and least of which with an unsourced date. (It aired on radio long before its "release" on Myspace.) When bands release albums, they issue singles. SOME SONG was going to be the single - that it was "The Pretender" is not notable, particularly when we're talking about a band that's been around for almost thirteen years.

Saying that a single was released on Myspace is patently false - nothing is "released" on Myspace. iTunes, perhaps, but not Myspace. Shared, uploaded, streamed - take your pick. But, regardless, it wasn't even released there - it already debuted elsewhere. The statement (as it was twice submitted) was not notable and was unsourced. -- ChrisB 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Associated acts

I've added Queens of the Stone Age and Tenacious D to the Associated Acts section for the following reasons; Dave Grohl has played on QOTSA's Songs for the Deaf album, as well as QOTSA vocalist/guitarist Josh Homme appearing on the In Your Honour track Razor. Also, Tenacious D have appeared in various Foo Fighters videos such as Learn to Fly and Low, Dave has also played drums for the band on their albums and appeared in the music video to Tribute. Defunct Lies 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Touring musicians

For the Skin & Bones acoustic tour last year, and apparently for the upcoming tour to support ESPG, the Foos had and will continue to have several touring musicians, including former lead guitarist Pat Smear. While I don't believe any of the touring musicians are considered full-time members, there is a precedent for noting them in articles. I do remember the musicians at the three-show stand at Pantages (used for the S&B live album) were as follows, from the liner notes:

Petra Haden: Violin, mandolin, vocals. Drew Hester: Percussion and vibraphone. Rami Jaffee: Piano, mellotron, accordion, organ. Pat Smear: Additional acoustic and electric guitar. Danny Clinch: Harmonica on "Another Round".

I felt that it was a better option to discuss this instead of sticking it on the page, since the lineup has changed for the upcoming album and the format has to be considered. Wyatt Gallagher 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS controversy

I created a section called "HIV/AIDS controversy", but it's been removed with the edit summary "the band's public support of alive and well was short-lived - this content belongs in mendel's article if anywhere". This is not true: the band's website currently lists Alive & Well as an "Official Foo Fighters Cause". [7]

To people who are not interested in their music, the Foo Fighters' long-standing support for AIDS denialism is by far the most notable aspect of the band. At present, this information is buried in the middle of the There Is Nothing Left to Lose section of the article, where many readers are likely to miss it. It's completely inappropriate to relegate the most notable controversy in the article to a section with a totally unrelated title. Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You have completely misstated their support. Apart from the web link (which was already mentioned in the article), the entirety of the band's public support of the organization came in 2000. The music that appears in the 2004 documentary comes from their 2000 benefit concert. (Again, the benefit was already mentioned in the article.)
Reiterated: apart from the web link, they have offered NO PUBLIC SUPPORT of the organization in YEARS. They haven't mentioned it in ANY interviews or in any other public appearances. It's not notable because it is not an ACTIVE cause that they CURRENTLY promote at their concerts.
The PLoS article is also a gross misstatement and is not a reliable source on the issue. The documentary mentioned in the article was released in 2004 and, again, features music filmed in 2000. (I find it journalistically questionable that the authors intentionally left out the exact date of the movie's release, instead choosing to describe it as "recent".) The article's reference for the statement that the band supports the organization at their concerts is the same article we use: FROM 2000. They do not CURRENTLY support the organization at their concerts.
I didn't remove the category, though I do think it's worth pointing out again: this was Mendel's cause. The band was supporting him. Once they were criticized for their involvement, the band withdrew their public support (apart from the web link). -- ChrisB 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, it's clear that the band still supports Alive & Well. Maybe they don't organise benefit concerts any more, but they haven't publicly distanced themselves from the group and they still list Alive & Well as an official "cause we support" on their website. (Incidentally, this is not just a "web link": it's a clear, unambiguous public statement that "we support this cause", and I don't understand how anyone could look at that website and still claim that the Foos don't publicly support Alive & Well.) The Foos themselves are comfortable about their continuing public support for Alive & Well; they don't deny it so I don't understand why you want to.
Secondly, even if what you're saying were true and the controversy peaked seven years ago, that doesn't mean it's not important. Public support for a group like Alive & Well is notable — even if it's in the past — and there's no reason to bury it in a section called There Is Nothing Left to Lose. This comes across as a deliberate attempt to downplay the controversy. This material has nothing to do with There Is Nothing Left to Lose; it should be in a section called Notable controversies, Criticism, Support for AIDS dissidents, or something like that. Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's is absolutely not as notable as you're describing. The perceived notability is solely because of the indisputably controversial nature of the organization. If the band were currently active supporters (meaning: being outspoken, making appearances on their behalf, passing out information at concerts, etc), then I could understanding highlighting it so directly. But, again, they haven't done that in years. It's not even the cause they support the strongest - just look at their Causes page for proof. (If it were so notable, it would surely be earlier in the list - even an alphabetical list would put it first, and it's not.)
If your intent is to strongly note their association in order to draw people's attention to it - that's a direct violation of WP:NPOV. We cannot overstate the notability of something. Such a claim of notability must be supported by reliable sources. But where are they? Apart from a few 2000-era interviews and articles (and reviews of the movie), there hasn't been any media coverage of the Foo Fighters association with Alive and Well.
Find media coverage of their association with Alive and Well dated any time in the last two years which specifically describes their relation to the organization, and it would be certainly worth discussing. But every article that has been posted so far has simply repeated their association from 2000 - and there's no evidence that they're anywhere nearly as supportive now as they were then.
Apart from what we have now, the best we can do with is a section that covers all of the causes they support. But highlighting one because of its controversial nature fails guidelines. The band's own involvement must be so notable to justify it. Otherwise, the detail we've provided covers it succinctly. It's in correct chronological order, and covers the subject comprehensively. -- ChrisB 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I don't understand why you keep arguing that their support is not current. Even if what you're saying were true, this is completely irrelevant. If the Foos organised a benefit concert for Alive & Well, then it doesn't matter whether the concert took place last week or in 1990. Either it's notable or it's not, per Wikipedia:Recentism. If someone wanted to add material about Bob Dylan to the Beatles article, or about the mafia to the Frank Sinatra article, you wouldn't demand that they "Find media coverage of their association ... dated any time in the last two years which specifically describes their relation ... and it would be certainly worth discussing". The Foos' support for Alive & Well was notable in 2000, it's notable now, and it will still be notable in twenty years' time — even if the Foos have completely distanced themselves from the AIDS reappraisal movement in the meantime.
As for your suggestion that their links with Alive & Well should only be discussed in a section that covers all the causes they support, this is another red herring. Feel free to include material about the Foos' other causes if you like, but none of those causes is as notable as Alive & Well. Whether you like it or not, the Foos have publicly supported a dangerous bunch of lunatics. The Foos have voiced claims that the medical establishment regards as dangerous. As far as I'm aware, no other rock group as famous as the Foos has done anything like this.
Not all the Foos' causes are equally controversial, and not all their opinions are equally notable. Your claim that Wikipedia's guidelines require that we pay equal attention to every cause — whether it's a neo-nazi movement or a local homeless shelter — is bizarre.
You claim that "the detail we've provided covers it succinctly. It's in correct chronological order, and covers the subject comprehensively." Even if this were true, it doesn't address my main concern: that the material is buried in the middle of a section called There Is Nothing Left to Lose. Anyone who doesn't read the article thoroughly from start to finish, or who isn't interested in that particular album, will have no idea that this controversy exists. To my mind that's unacceptably misleading. The controversy has nothing to do with There Is Nothing Left to Lose so, chronological order or not, it shouldn't be buried in a section with that name. Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but "the Foos have publicly supported a dangerous bunch of lunatics" would be a strong argument to exclude yourself from the discussion herein per WP:NPOV. We're supposed to be neutral - and not let personal biases affect article content.
The relation to adding Dylan to the Beatles or the mafia to Sinatra is a straw man. Dylan introduced the Beatles to pot - the Beatles drug use was a prominent and often-cited aspect of their musical creation and development. Even still, Dylan gets a mention in the article, not a full section heading. Same with Sinatra and the mafia - he had long-term relationships with more than one notable mob figure. What you're attempting here would be if someone added a heading called "Sam Giancana" to Sinatra's article. Instead, it's in a subheading called "Alleged organized crime links". The Foo Fighters equivalent of that heading would be "Supported causes". (And I'm against that, as the intent is to highlight one cause in particular.) Either way, Sinatra's article is not an FA, so it's not the right place to look for guidance.
The content isn't "buried" in that section. The article is written in chronological order, delineated by album title. Both Nirvana (band) and Bob Dylan (both of which are FAs) are organized similarly - they're both almost entirely written in chronological order. In both of those cases, notable and/or controversial elements are included at the time they happened, which is precisely why this content is where it is. There are no guidelines requiring that this content be pulled out and highlighted. In fact, WP:NPOV specifically discourages it (see Article structure). The guidelines strongly suggest that controversial topics be included as part of a longer narrative in order to maintain balance.
It's not like we're avoiding the subject. We've covered it completely. But moving that paragraph to the end of the article and sticking a giant heading over it for the sole purpose of drawing attention to it is completely and unequivocably unacceptable. Forget WP:Recentism (which, for the record, is not a guideline, is not enforceable, and honestly has nothing to do with this discussion). Highlighting this - for the reasons you gave - specifically fails WP:NPOV. -- ChrisB 07:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if my point about Wikipedia:Recentism, the Beatles and Sinatra wasn't clear: I only mentioned them to make the point that it doesn't matter whether the controversy took place in 2000 or 2007, and to ask you to stop arguing that the Foos' support for Alive & Well wasn't current. I certainly wasn't suggesting that the Foos' relationship with Alive & Well was like the Beatles' relationship with Dylan.
As for my opinions about Alive & Well, that certainly is not a reason to excuse myself from this discussion. First of all, I was expressing the mainstream view of Alive & Well (and the opinion held by virtually every AIDS expert in the world). Secondly, I don't think it's fair of you to suggest that I've "let personal biases affect article content". This is the only Wikipedia edit I've ever made about AIDS dissidents: how exactly do you think it was influenced by "personal bias"? Are you suggesting that anyone who has an opinion — even a mainstream one — can't edit neutrally?
I'm not really sure what to make of all your stuff about maintaining chronological order, including controversial elements at the time they happened, including controversial topics as part of a longer narrative in order to maintain balance, etc. You'll notice that my edit, which you reverted, did exactly that. I've never suggested we should move this material to the end of the article. The only change I made to the structure of the article was to add a new heading, "HIV/AIDS controversy", so that the reader knows we're not talking about There Is Nothing Left to Lose any more. As I've said, I don't think it's acceptable that anyone who doesn't read the entire section about There Is Nothing Left to Lose will be completely unaware of the main controversy in the article — a controversy which has nothing to do with the album. There's no reason why we can't use a neutral heading to let the reader know that we're not talking about the album any more: both the Bob Dylan and Nirvana articles use other headings as well as album titles to delineate their history sections, and I've never heard anyone suggest that only album titles should be used as headings.
Your repeated reference to featured articles is interesting because I guarantee you this article will never reach FA status as long as the HIV/AIDS stuff is dealt with under the heading There Is Nothing Left to Lose. It might be useful at this stage to cast the net a bit wider and request comments from neutral editors who aren't interested in the Foo Fighters or Alive & Well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideshow Bob Roberts (talkcontribs) 10:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Bob Roberts on this. Odd nature 17:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added something similar [8] only to have it bowdlerized.

BTW, here's another reliable source: HIV Denial in the Internet Era Tara C. Smith, Steven P. Novella. Public Library of Science, Policy Forum, August 21, 2007. Odd nature 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also with Bob Roberts on this. The part in There Is Nothing Left to Lose is ok as it is but should be put into a new section.--Cato82 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The PLoS story is not a reliable source for several reasons. Most importantly - it doesn't reference the controversy about the Foo Fighters association with Alive and Well. All it says is: "Rock stars have weighed in on the topic." The article points out that the beliefs are controversial and that rock stars are on record about the beliefs, but doesn't say anything about the Foo Fighters' involvement being controversial. The article also fails inclusion because it doesn't introduce any new information - it simply cites other articles, all of which (with regard to the Foo Fighters) we already reference. We could use the PLoS article to reference the statements we already make, but since we already reference the primary sources, there's no need. -- ChrisB 07:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a "story": it's a paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (which, per Wikipedia:Verifiability are the most reliable sources for discussion of medical controversies). The Foo Fighters are probably the only major band whose behaviour has been criticised in a peer-reviewed journal, which is evidence of the controversy's notability.
The relevant section of the PLoS article reads as follows:
"It may seem remarkable that, 23 years after the identification of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), there is still denial that the virus is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This denial was highlighted on an international level in 2000, when South African president Thabo Mbeki convened a group of panelists to discuss the cause of AIDS, acknowledging that he remained unconvinced that HIV was the cause [1]. His ideas were derived at least partly from material he found on the Internet [2]. Though Mbeki agreed later that year to step back from the debate [3], he subsequently suggested a re-analysis of health spending with a decreased emphasis on HIV/AIDS [4]."
"HIV denial has taken root in the general population and has shown its potential to frustrate public education efforts and adversely affect public funding for AIDS research and prevention programs. For example, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) was for many years on the front lines of AIDS education and activism. But now a San Francisco chapter of the group has joined the denialist movement, stating on its Web site that “HIV does not cause AIDS… HIV antibody tests are flawed and dangerous…AIDS drugs are poison” ( In 2000 the chapter wrote letters to every member of Congress asking them to stop funding research into HIV [5]. ACT UP San Francisco's position has been condemned by other ACT UP chapters, such as ACT UP Philadelphia and ACT UP East Bay ( Rock stars have weighed in on the topic. Members of the group “The Foo Fighters” provided music for a soundtrack of the recent documentary, “The Other Side of AIDS” (, which questions whether HIV is the cause of AIDS. The band has spread its message that HIV does not cause AIDS at concerts [6], and it lists the HIV denial group “Alive and Well” as a worthy cause on its Web site ("
"As these challenges to mainstream theories have largely occurred outside of the scientific literature, many physicians and researchers have had the luxury of ignoring them as fringe beliefs and therefore inconsequential. Indeed, the Internet has served as a fertile and un-refereed medium to spread these denialist beliefs. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (“Reappraising AIDS”) noted, “Thanks to the ascendance of the internet, we are now able to reinvigorate our informational campaign” [7]. The Internet is an effective tool for targeting young people, and for spreading misinformation within a group at high risk for HIV infection."
The article then goes into a lot of detail about Christine Maggiore and Alive & Well.
I'm not suggesting we quote this directly in the article, but it's a good reference for our claim that the Foos' advice contradicts mainstream medical opinion. If anyone reads the Wikipedia article and wants background information about the controversy, this is a very useful link.
I'm not sure why you think this "is not a reliable source", or what you mean when you say "it doesn't reference the controversy about the Foo Fighters association with Alive and Well" and it "doesn't say anything about the Foo Fighters' involvement being controversial". Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the HIV/AIDS controversy section

A few more changes:

  • I've changed the heading from "Alive and Well" back to "HIV/AIDS controversy", which conveys useful information to the reader without pushing any particular POV. Since most readers have never heard of the organisation, the heading "Alive and Well" conveys absolutely no information about what the section is about. Nobody's offered any reason why we shouldn't use "HIV/AIDS controversy" so I don't understand why this change was made.
  • I've restored my in-line citations, which were removed without any explanation. Every claim we make should be attributed to a reliable source.
  • I've added references to Mendel's letter to Mother Jones outlining his position, and the PLoS Medicine article which provides a brief, neutral summary of the medical establishment's view of the controversy.
  • I've removed the claim that "in ensuing years, the band significantly reduced its public support of the organization". Unless we can cite a source, this is brazen original research.
  • I've removed the reference to Robin Scovill and the statement that "Initially, Mendel spoke of holding more benefits". I don't see how these added to the discussion.
  • I've split the section into separate paragraphs to make it easier to read.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't "change it back" - it wasn't there. I created it as "Alive and Well" because it's the most clearly neutral heading we can have. I was acceding to your point about the heading. I realized after reading your last post that your edit did not move the content to the end of the article - Odd Nature's had, and I confused the two.
The elements you've removed do one thing - obscure the nature of the band's support. That Scovill is Maggiore's husband is notable - removing it suggests that the film was an independently-made endeavor. And, frankly, there's no reason not to include it.
In an article about the Foo Fighters, it's not our responsibility to poke holes in Mendel's personal viewpoint. Noting that Alive and Well's stance runs counter to medical wisdom is sufficient, given that it and the band's support is the key issue here. (An analysis of his opinion would not be a problem in his article.)
If it's original research to claim that the band's support has diminished, it's also original research to suggest that the band's support remains the same. In 2000, the band had a banner ad on the main page of their website (scroll down). Mendel's last statement on the band's website about the organization came in 2002. A web link is not equal to holding benefits, doing interviews, and passing out information at concerts. It's irresponsible to write this section in such a way that it suggests the band's support of the organization has been exactly the same for the last seven years. -- ChrisB 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I give up. I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in any more of this nonsense. This is a terrible article and—it has to be said—that's partly because of your ownership issues, which have been noted elsewhere.
Your childish revert-first-ask-questions-later attitude damages the article and discourages others from working on it. You accuse those who disagree with you of misstating the facts or pushing a POV, you shout irrelevant nonsense at people whose edits you don't like and you persistently make false claims here on the talk page.
I suppose it is strictly true that you didn't change the heading from "HIV/AIDS controversy" to "Alive and Well". You did, however, remove the section called "HIV/AIDS controversy" and create a very similar section called "Alive and Well" in the same place so it's quite dishonest of you to claim that I didn't "change it back". You keep removing headings like "HIV/AIDS controversy" without ever explaining why you don't think they're neutral.
The article has never "poked holes in Mendel's personal viewpoint" or "suggested the band's support of the organization has been exactly the same for the last seven years" and I'm tired of you misrepresenting what I say. I don't really see any point in addressing any of your other claims because every time I explain that what you're saying is untrue you just come up with another equally lame excuse to restore the article to the way you want it.
I'm not going to attempt to edit this article any more and I think the article would benefit immensely if you'd take a break from it as well. Come back in twelve months and I think you'll be impressed by what other editors can achieve in your absence. At the very least, please stop reverting other good-faith editors. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that we'll be able to reach a consens, so is it possible to conduct a survey on whether we should call the section "HIV/AIDS controversy" or "Alive and Well" (and all the other things that correspond to the respective positions)? While disengaging is proposed to be the first step, I think that this might help. However, I don't have any experience with editing wars, so feel free to critizise this proposal. --Cato82 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently indicates that "the band has since removed the organization from its list of supported causes" and indeed it is no longer listed on the linked-to "" page, but it *is* listed on the similarly-themed "" page. The latter looks to me perhaps like an older version that hasn't been cleaned up, or some such, but thought I'd mention it here. I don't believe it's actually linked to by any other pages.

Whaddya reckon? Does this indicate continued advocacy for the group? Should the article reflect this? Nickwithers (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Foos at Reading 2007

1) For starters, it's unsourced. Not even the NME reported this. 2) Even if it were sourced, it's not notable. If they'd cancelled a headlining set at a major festival for illness, that would be notable. This is passing on an unannounced acoustic set. 3) Illness might be notable on its own, but what's the nature of the illness? Did Grohl have pneumonia, a bad cold, or a sniffle? Maybe he just didn't want to make the trek out to Reading and told them he was "ill". -- ChrisB 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It had been a rumour for quite some time over at the Reading festival message board, the only place i have seen it confirmed was on the BBC's coverage of the festival where Zane Lowe and Edith Bowman confirmed the rumour but said they couldn't play as Dave was "ill", can't remember Zane's exact words and i've deleted my recording on my Sky box, either way, rather than play the festival an interview was conducted with Dave about his experiences of the festival, starting off with reliving how Mudhoney had told him about the festival when he was in Nirvana, and then retelling the Foos legendary first appearance in the Radio 1 tent and then about their recent headlining performances.--Benburdett 11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TNLTL and Chris?

"Shiflett initially joined the band as touring guitarist, but achieved full-time status prior to the recording of the group's fourth album."

As far as I'm aware Chris joined after the recording of the album because Grohl found it too difficult to juggle the tasks of lead singer and lead guitarist. Furthermore Shiflett is not credited on the album whereas the above statement gives the impression he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear this up if you will

OK, does anyone have the solution to line one? was it Kyle Laskey or Dave Grohl. I know who my $ is on. I would have no objection but for the following points:

  1. Reference after 1st sentence
  2. Anon user

Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Foo Fighters' support for HIV-AIDS denialism

I am doing some research on the history of AIDS denialism, and will be covering the Foo Fighters support for "Alive and Well" as an example of how influential the movement has been. FF played a sell-out gig to raise money for "Alive and Well", allowed Christine Maggiore to speak directly to their fans (some of whom subsequently became volunteers at her organisation), and copies of Maggiore's book were handed out at the gig. In addition to the banner ad, the FF website carried a statement supporting Alive and Well's position on AIDS. Nate Mendel subsequently wrote to "Mother Jones" magazine, arguing again in support of Maggiore's case:

Even if FF had now totally distanced themselves from Maggiore, the fact that they chose to give her that level of support in 2000 is still historically significant. This Wikipedia article is all the poorer for that particular episode in the band's history being airbrushed out. I personally don't think it takes anything away from FF being a great band and good people to talk about this fact. The reason it is interesting and relevant, in my view, is exactly because it shows very clearly how easily even well-intentioned, well-respected people were taken in by the very eloquent, superfically-very-convincing, AIDS denialism "cult"... 11:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. In the interests of neutrality, such a notable stance from the band should be mentioned in the article. It is certainly noteworthy and of definite public interest.

MattJPWHUFC 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Walking After You

It takes away from it because the statement "'Walking After You' was a single from The Colour and the Shape" is completely false. The single was an entirely different version, specifically recorded for the soundtrack to the X-Files movie. The TCATS version never aired or charted as a single.

If the Skin and Bones version of "Marigold" had been released as a single, would it be accurate to say that "'Marigold' was a single from the 1992 cassette Pocketwatch"? Absolutely not. Same deal. -- ChrisB 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are incorrect. While different versions were done, it should be listed and noted where the original songs came from. Walking After You SHOULD be listed with TCATS, as Marigold from Pocketwatch. (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate lineup notes

1) The claim that Mendel sang vocals is unsourced. And, considering the liner notes don't mention specifics, where did the information come from?

2) The details and dates for Grohl are completely unnecessary, and, in most cases, are incorrect. The first album was recorded in 1994, not 1995, and it was technically outside the band context. He recorded the album as demos, not as a Foo Fighters album. He did not play bass, etc, as a member of the Foo Fighters.

The larger point - the dates are completely unnecessary. He's done all of those things at random occasions - there's no need to supply specifics.

3) "Guitar" covers lead and rhythm - there is absolutely no reason to split them into specifics. And Franz and Chris don't just play lead - they often play rhythm as well.

-- ChrisB (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Take a look at the articles for There Is Nothing Left to Lose, In Your Honor and One by One. Nate is listed for backing vocals. Yes, I amended the article to have it say that, but before it simply listed both him and Dave for vocals, so I amended it to distinguish who was lead and who was backup. If you still insist that he doesn't sing, bring it up with the person who wrote it on the album articles.
2) I listed the details and dates for Dave to distinguish when he played what. He played all guitar parts on the first album and on There Is Nothing Left to Lose, drums on the first album and The Colour and the Shape, and bass on the first album. It doesn't matter if he recorded the album as demos rather than a Foo Fighters album, it was still released crediting him as the band's vocalist, guitarist, bassist, and drummer. Therefore, he was each of those things during the time that the album was released. However, if you list all those things under his name, it makes it look like he's the band's multi-instrumentalist when he really only does guitar and vocals, and has done the other instruments in the past. I tried creating a page with all the line-ups to distinguish these factors, but now that's nominated for deletion. So tell me, what way can I clarify Dave's instrument-playing history in the band without someone speaking out against it?
3) I believe that in general, Dave is the rhythm guitarist and Chris/Pat/Franz is the lead guitarist? I know their music doesn't feature much lead guitar, but when it does, isn't it played by Chris/Pat/Franz, therefore making him lead guitarist? I know he plays rhythm guitar too often, but that's a given when it comes to lead guitarists; there's hardly a lead guitarist out there who doesn't sometimes play rhythm. It's clear enough to say lead & rhythm guitar by just saying lead guitar. If there actually is no specified lead player, than fair enough, we can keep it as just "guitar" for all of them.
I think I've made my points clear, now may I ask why the convenient and clear band members page I created keeps getting its link removed from this article?!
--Rock Soldier (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1) The related articles have been fixed.
2) You can't. Your list doesn't in any way express what you've said in that paragraph.
Saying that Dave played drums in 1994 and 1997 doesn't clarify that he played drums on the albums specifically. It also ignores the fact that he actually played drums at live shows in subsequent years. He also played drums on several tracks on There Is Nothing Left to Lose. And, as I mentioned already, Dave never played bass as a member of the Foo Fighters - the album was recorded before the Foo Fighters existed (1994).
Personally, I think the best answer is to state their main live instruments, maybe with a side note relating that they've played other instruments on albums. The album articles can then contain the details. But trying to cram all of that information into a single chart is completely unnecessary (and practically unachievable).
3) They both play both. I think "guitar" is sufficient, but it might be worth opening up to greater discussion.
4) Existing consensus from the last time you tried adding this list to the article. You tried to bypass that consensus by creating a new article and linking to it. It would be difficult not to consider that a violation of consensus per Wiki guidelines.
Just because you can create a list doesn't mean that every article you create one for has to accept it or that Wikipedia has to host it. The Def Leppard editors may have no problem with it - that's their call. -- ChrisB (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect referencing/citing

The band is referred to as the Foo Fighters, for the last time. Is the White House, just White House, are we just USA, etc? Check your own wiki articles on these places/things. How one thing can unofficially contain "the" and the other can't is quite contradictory logic if you ask me.

Even here they refer to the band as the Foo Fighters -

"The British singer Amy Winehouse received six nominations after months of personal problems that took the focus off her gritty, soulful music. Other top nominees included the Foo Fighters, Jay-Z, Rihanna, Paul McCartney, T-Pain and Timbaland."

"Other record of the year candidates included Beyonce's "Irreplaceable," the Foo Fighter's "The Pretender," Rihanna's "Umbrella" and "What Goes Around Comes Around" by Justin Timberlake."

Does Wikipedia run on its own "superior" logic here? absolutely ridiculous. - Me 12/6/07– (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

These are not comparable (Foo Fighters with USA, etc). No Foo Fighters albums, singles, etc. contain "The". The wikipedia article also contains no "The". The band's official website has no "The". News articles posted on their website which refer to themselves also contain no "The". There is nothing grammatically incorrect by referring to them as "Foo Fighters". Your insistence that you've listened to the band since 1995 doesn't suddenly mean that "The" should be included in all Foo Fighters articles. Whether Yahoo uses "The" in their report means nothing. If they printed "This Is A Call" with a capital "A" does not mean the Wikipedia article should have a capital "A". Notice that Yahoo also printed "Fighter's" with an apostrophe in the wrong place, so should we change that? - eo (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Compare this situation with Eurythmics, another band with no "The" in their name. They were always just "Eurythmics" whether a thousand disc jockies or newspaper articles got it wrong. As eo points out, every Foo Fighters record says "Foo Fighters" on it. Hult041956 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC) <---- This does not matter when you are referencing the band itself. (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk: you are absolutely right in this argument. How is it acceptable for one thing to contain "the" and not the other? I would take the Journalist's reference from Yahoo over two random Wikipedia editors as well. It needs to be changed, because there is no consistency in either authors argument regarding one and not the other. (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly needs to be changed, can you clarify? As long as we're talking about Yahoo! - note that they use "The" when reporting on the Grammy nominations, yet if you go to the official Grammys website and look at their list of nominations, there is no "The". It seems clear that the band's official name does not contain a "The" and therefore this shouldn't be included within the context of an encyclopedia. - eo (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They're talking about it containing "the", not "The". It is still an unofficial use of the word, which should be included after all. It is uncommon to hear just Foo Fighters when talking about the band. The bandmembers themselves, other musicians, and journalists all use "the" even though it is not an official part of the name, its just common English. I do agree that it should not be included in an encyclopedia, however, it is used in the examples they stated earlier; the White House, the USA, etc. so ask yourself why this particular band should be treated differently, because they do present a clearly logical point regardless if it is not on albums, songs, etc. You must also remember that this band at first was a one-off, and everything was done under an acronym, which now surely is different considering there is a full band. (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What does being a one-off have to do with whether a "the" is needed? - eo (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no prevailing opinion in the matter (as I think either is acceptable). But I'll point out that a similar discussion has been had about the Pixies. They went with "The" in front of it, but unbolded, as it's not officially part of the name. Same with the Eagles. (I saw the Foos during their first tour in 1995, and Dave introduced them as "the Foo Fighters".) -- ChrisB (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just giving this as an example to show that not all journalists use the "the" and it doesn't sound or read awkward: "Winter is almost here, but it was summer when Foo Fighters advanced to No. 1 on Modern Rock Tracks with "The Pretender" (Roswell/RCA). That song has never wavered since and is now in its 16th week at the zenith, putting it into a four-way tie as the longest-running No. 1 hit in the history of this chart." [9] - eo (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This band gets bigger with every album release, and I think that new-age fans will make that mistake when they refer to the band as Foo Fighters. Most people who have been listening since 95 and have followed articles, interviews, etc. would know how they have always been addressed, and honestly, it sounds funny when people pronounce just Foo Fighters. I was watching the news the other night regarding their Grammy nominations, and the newsanchor who must've been in her late 40s, surprising but properly said "the Foo Fighters". Just my take on this whole thing. I'm assuming that people who have known they've been around just "know" I guess. (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but huh? I don't understand why it would matter at all how long someone has been listening to the band whether or not saying "the" is a "mistake". - eo (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Credibility. (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain that? So, people who have been into the band since 1995 have more credibility than those that did not? Maybe we should start deleting edits from users who have been fans of the band since "only" 1998. I was very into Nirvana, years before Foo Fighters even existed, so am I like way more credible because of it? Articles are supposed to have NPOV. How big of a fan you consider yourself to be makes no difference. - eo (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does this have to do with Nirvana? Nirvana and the Foo Fighters are two totally different bands. You used that because of the Dave Grohl connection? Why didn't you use Scream instead? A band more related to the subject here, and earlier than Nirvana. Its a shame Dave Grohl's career is overshadowed by those 2 and a half years of spotlight in Nirvana, when he's been in countless other projects, before and after. Try following his POV instead. Anyways, following the Foo Fighters from their inception does give credibility, especially regarding the name. Following the band in and out of every show, seeing almost every interview, reading almost every article. Your knowledge of the band grows, so for some new-age fan who in their mind starts at Best of You onward to call them Foo Fighters is absolutely annoying considering how long you have listened to them as well. Don't be a smart ass jokingly suggesting deleting entries from fans later on, because you know what I mean. I think someone would know what they're talking about who listened to the band 10 years earlier regarding songs, members, etc. Look, ANOTHER article. "The Foo Fighters will perform on Feb. 22 at the Binghamton University Events Center. The concert is being organized by the Student Association at BU." (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that the only reason I brought up Nirvana is because you've been very adamant about pointing out that you've been "into Foo Fighters since 1995", right? - eo (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't even matter This is Foo talk here. (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Seattle 1995-2004? What the hell are people on, who added this? They left Seattle in 96, Dave moved back to Virginia and to Los Angeles, and the entire full member band technically has never recorded an album in Seattle anyway for argument sake. It seems that where your studio is or where they've recorded is the basis for this and I find this very misleading to put on the page. Studio 606 was finished in 2004, but if a studio is the basis for saying 95-04, then you need to include Virginia. This band was done with Seattle from 96 onward. They're unofficial home has been Virginia/DC and Los Angeles ever since. TCATS was recorded in LA/DC, TINLTL and OBO in VA, and IYH and ESPG in LA, so Seattle 95-04 is just simply not true. They spent a year at most there in their early stages. There are also songs like Stacked Actors that reflect on the band's time living in LA. (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Origin" is supposed to be where the band was founded, hence "Seattle" and nothing else.
If it matters, they didn't leave Seattle until 1997. The one part of TCATS that was recorded in DC was recorded by Dave (by himself) when he was home taking a break from the trainwreck of the original Seattle sessions.
Oh, and per your (as usual, wrong) TCATS edit:
All of "Doll" and all of the slow section of "Up in Arms" were recorded during the initial sessions in Seattle - it even says so in the liner notes. They didn't just save the drums - they used the entire recording. Christ, just look up "Up in Arms (slow version)" that was released as a b-side (on the "Monkeywrench" single) - it's the exact same recording as the fragment used on the album. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some moron decided to put "Seattle 1995-2004, Los Angeles 2004-present." As for the liner notes, it says Wills drumming was used on Doll and Up In Arms, but on Dave said in an interview how the drums were dubbed in, so the official recording was in fact re-done. Let me find the article and ill post the link. Sorry buddy, (as usual) God I love that website. (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least do me the courtesy of actually looking at the liner notes before telling me what's in them? It specifically says that "Doll" and "Up in Arms (slow version)" were recorded at Bear Creek Studios. The "Monkey Wrench" single with "Up in Arms (slow version)" says exactly the same thing.
And, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. How does one "dub in" drums? If they'd saved the drums, they'd have simply kept the original multi-track with the drums on it and re--recorded everything else. But that's not what they did. They were happy with the Bear Creek recordings of those songs, so they kept them. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They had multiple recordings of songs, you actually think they recorded once, altogether and that was it? hahahaha. We're talking Gil Norton here. Why don't you read up on interviews from then, i'm basing my statements on factual information from Dave via articles/interviews. Anyway, its common musical knowledge you record one instrument or part at a time. They simply took the drum parts used and incorporated them into the other songs from the LA sessions. How do you think they only used the slow part of Up In Arms on Wills drums and the rest were Dave? hahahaha (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide said interviews.
They recorded "Doll" in Seattle and used the Seattle take in its entirety. They took the Seattle take of the slow version of "Up in Arms", edited it down to the part you hear on the album, and used it as an intro for the Los Angeles recording of the track. That's precisely what it says in the liner notes.
And your analysis of how you record is grossly simplistic. Yes, you often record one instrument at a time. But basic tracks are often recorded by the entire band all at once. Unless the drummer and/or the band plays to a click track, you have to have the drummer play first, or the tempo gets screwed up.
Here's the problem with your logic. In the pre-Pro Tools era, you recorded on big multi-track reels. To take the drums from one reel to another, you would have to either dupe the drum track onto another tape (in 1997, probably a DAT) or copy it to another multi-track reel. That entire process would be a pain-in-the-ass - AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. Why keep Will's old tracks if Dave Grohl is sitting right there, especially considering how those two songs sound?
They didn't keep Will's drums around because they were awesome - they kept the whole take because the band had an extremely limited timeframe for the Los Angeles sessions. (You don't normally see bands recording in February for an album that's being released in April.) Songs were being recorded as quickly as possible - some went to be mixed the same day they were recorded. It was out of necessity - those two tracks didn't need to be re-recorded, so they weren't. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the album was not released in April but May 20th, and secondly, In Your Honor was recorded January - March 2005, and released June 14th, so its the same time frame (February - May is 3 months and so is March - June) Your statement doesn't hold up there. By the way, do you know anything about Gil Norton and the comments that are made by the bands that work with him? Its a grueling, lengthy process, and i'll find quotes where Dave said they'd have to record the same song 10 times over because of him. Just wait. Thats the main difference between TCATS, ESPG and albums like OBO, which was totally rushed. (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the dates, but that doesn't mean they weren't on a short schedule. They were overtime - the album was already supposed to be finished. (You never record and mix on the same day unless there's a necessity to do so.) From the band's 1997 bio:

1997 bio from what? (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying, "Just wait," but the cited sources are clear and unequivocal.

I'm in the process of moving so I only really have enough time to make quick statements, and hardly any time to actually fish through and research at the moment. (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's their official bio from their press kit. They typically write new ones for each album release. That's from the one they offered with the release of TCATS.
And your having "hardly any time" isn't our problem. Find the sources and we can discuss accommodating them. But as long as every cited source (and every other piece of related evidence) contradicts what you're claiming, you cannot add the content or write the article from that point of view.
Because, honestly, once you find "them" - you'll find that they don't say what you thought they said. I've read most of them, and there's not a single one that suggests anything like what you're describing.
At that time, Grohl actually had to go on the defensive against claims that he recorded his drum parts over Goldsmith's from the Bear Creek sessions. The reality is that Grohl didn't re-record over anything that Goldsmith did - and Goldsmith played every drum track recorded during the Bear Creek sessions (including the b-side "The Colour and the Shape" - that's Will, not Dave, despite the erroneous liner notes included in the 10th Anniversary reissue). The reality is that they saved the Bear Creek sessions, and used the Bear Creek sessions on the album where needed. Will didn't actually quit the band until after the Goldmaster sessions were finished. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the liner notes of TCATS:

I don't know how much more clear that can be. -- ChrisB (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Are we settled, then, that an infobox doesn't track all the places a band has ever recorded? That is, "origin" means where a band got started. Right? Beatles from Liverpool, Aerosmith from Boston, Foo Fighters from Seattle. Hult041956 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since some moron changed it I thought there was a new format so I corrected theirs by adding VA and LA. Doesn't matter to me. (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)