Talk:Foo Fighters/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Campaigning & Acitivism

Is there a particular reason the information about this group lending their name to the controversial Alive & Well organisation has been mysteriously removed, despite their being a number of sources and references? Ultramantis (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why it was removed but it's there at the moment. I will say that the wording of that paragraph heavily implies that the band still supports Alive & Well, which is in fact not the case and hasn't been the case since about 2007. Perhaps the paragraph should reflect the fact that Alive & Well is no longer supported by the band, at least not officially. Just a thought.

I feel like it should be removed, or integrated into the History section or something. As a stand-alone section, it causes undue weight issues, considering they're hardly the type of band that heavily emphasizes any sorts of activision or political message. They're not a Rage Against the Machine type or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The song they played in front of a Westboro protest was a laudable and noteworthy event, but probably not enough to be considered "activism." I think integrating that into the History section would make sense. Their work with Alive & Well, on the other hand, (raising money for them, appearing in a documentary about them, etc) warrants being separated out into its own section. However, we could rename that section "Support of Alive & Well." A lot of wiki pages have a "Controversies" section, but I'm not sure if that title would be appropriate since it's just a single controversial thing.Dustinlull (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Isolating it into its own dedicated section is even more of an WP:UNDUE issue though. This isn't a thing that defines their career. It didn't even make much of a blip on the radar for the short time it was relevant... It had no affect on their career. They didn't write a concept album for it. They didn't get significant boycotted for it. Yeah, they believed in a questionable fringe theory for a bit. So what? Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be cool with these two elements (the Westboro counter-protest and their support of Alive & Well) being cut/pasted into the History section. Their support of Alive & Well is a bigger controversy in some circles than others, so from my perspective it has heavier weight. But I can understand your perspective too, and since they apparently no longer avow support for Alive & Well, I agree it's inaccurate to imply they continue to be activists for this cause. It's just part of their history now, so I'm fine with it getting moved to the History section.Dustinlull (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're right, this compromise is probably better than just outright removing it too. I'll try to integrate it into the history sometime soon... Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasting Light and hiatus (2010–present) section

The 'Wasting Light and hiatus (2010–present)' section of the article is getting far to long and there is a lot of unsourced material. We don't need to include individual live performances in this section.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Other appearances section

I would like to bring into question the "Other appearances" section which seems to be just a list of the band's events from the Wasting Light era, and nothing from the rest of the band's career. Perhaps some of these are not note worthy and some really belong in the Wasting Light section. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A year and a half later, I individually came to this same conclusion, and reworked the info into the history section. There was no reason for it to be separated out from the rest of the band's happenings at the time, and those sorts of sections just attract more trivia and redundant entries anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Genre Ordering

I'm thinking that Hard Rock and Post-grunge should be listed in front of Alternative Rock because the former two better describe the Foo Fighters. "Alternative Rock" these days is more like Mumford And Sons and indie pop/rock than "rock", and FF have a harder and purer rock sound. Should the change be made?

Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. Tinkering like this is pointless, and I'm not sure the average reader weights the order of the genre like this to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline – Rami Jaffee

Seen as Rami Jaffee played on Foo Fighters' In Your Honor album in 2005. surely the timeline should represent this.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as he's an official member (according to Dave Grohl when they played at the Cubby Bear, and in the liner notes of Sonic Highways) he should be listed as an official member too. --129.120.194.55 (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll put Jaffee in, as long as no changes are made to the order of the band members (and the timeline) once I've put him in. I'm changing them back to what I had before – in order of instrument – and I'll slot him in before Hawkins. 4TheWynne (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Origin" in info box

The origin of the band given in the info box says Seattle, Washington but in the recent Foo Fighters: Sonic Highways documentary, the band actually said that people are incorrect to think that Foo Fighters came from Seattle because not a single member of the band is from Seattle.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That field indicates "where the group was founded" (per template:Infobox_musical_artist#origin), not where the members are from, so if the band was indeed founded in Seattle, it's correct this way.--MASHAUNIX 00:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

All Things Foo

I trimmed the sentence "Once Grohl assembled a full band, his bandmates assisted in song arrangements and what he hopes to be his final and greatest victory over all things Foo." It sounds like nonsense/vandalism, but it's cited to an offline source so I'll leave this note here in case it's legitimate. If it's a quote, it really should be in quotation marks. —howcheng {chat} 17:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

An Improvement to the timeline

Currently, the timeline looks like this:

Timeline

In my opinion, it looks awkward and messy, so We should change it too this:

Timeline 2

We can leave out the all instruments part if its to much

If you were to leave out the "all instruments" part (something that I believe isn't needed), then you wouldn't really be changing much of the timeline, would you? If anything, you would be making it less accurate. Apart from the colours, I believe that the timeline looks fine as it is. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think replace the all instruments with Lead for that beginning piece instead of all instruments. Otherwise I agree with the change of labeling (Personally I think the "backing vocals" everywhere is necessary so this is an improvement. DLManiac (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

On a minorly related note, you should implement this over on List of Foo Fighters band members page and remove the timeline from the main page. DLManiac (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Rami Jaffe as official member

I've heard that Dave Grohl said once that he was an official member, but I'm not sure where, or if we should include him as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 04:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This issue was discussed at length a little while ago, from memory I think it might have been in November? Anyway, I thought that he was an official member as well, but it turns out he's not. I think Jaffee's Twitter would be the first place to look, just to be sure, because that's what was used in the article. If not, look through the article's history and check out the edit summaries, look at the diffs and see if the link still exists. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV: AIDS Denialism

A scientist by the name of Myles Powers found an old cached segment of the Foo Fighters website many of us will remember called Alive and Well spreading alternative medicine that HIV is crap and woo medicine cures it. They had this segment live, I remember it myself, it was hosted on their own website and although the woman they dragged around to charity gigs who was 'alive and well' with AIDS they have never retracted their stance after popularising it for the countless people who are sick or even dead because of their anti-science stance. How this has been whitewashed over on this article is tantamount to NPOV. Their involvedment in AIDS denialism has been well documented and I -came here- to find out more from an academic point of view only to find NO reference to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEjUNYVnZLQ?t=23m40s <- Video source at the Australian Skeptics Conference. 121.211.33.244 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a small reference to this in the "There Is Nothing Left to Lose (1998–2001)" part of the History section. There use to be a section in this article (I think it was called "Activism") that referenced their support for Alive and Well. I fully support the addition of any additional sources you think should be cited here. If their support of Alive and Well continues to this day, I do think it should have its own section. However, when this issue was last discussed everyone decided that, since they apparently no longer support/promote Alive and Well, it should be considered part of their history and go in the History section.Dustinlull (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)