Talk:Propagandhi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Anti-Everything?

Isn't there a way to generalize the opening sentence so that a reader doesn't run into a whole bunch of "anti-<insert something here>" attacks upon starting to read the article?

They seem to be in line with anarchist philosophy but they have claimed that they don't like being labeled as anarchists.
Anarchists don't like *isms or ideologies, hence why they would deny having any guiding "philosophy". And you don't see the irony in your generalized statement about anarchists?
I don't think they can really be called "anti-capitalist". They're definitely anti-corporatist, but songs like "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism" on their new album seem to indicate they support some form of capitalism. --Delirium 03:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone missed the point of that song.
yes, someone definitly missed the point of that song. they are clearly anti-capitalist. READ THE LYRICS!!!!
I suppose that's possible; I just glanced at the title, not the lyrics. I haven't bothered to listen to any Propagandhi since the utter shite "Today's Empires...", although their old stuff is still great. --Delirium 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Then yay for uninformed and biased statements!

Just thought I'd note that this very Wikipedia article was mentioned in an interview with Chris / Glen. http://www.propagandhi.com/interviews/uptown.php Dylan 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Glen Lambert vs. Chris Hannah

Uhh, I'm pretty sure the comment on the G7 site saying Chris Hannah had left the band was a bit of a joke. It is obviously him singing in both of the released tracks ("Name and Address Withheld" and "Die Jugend Marschiert"). Also, it says he left in 2003. I have seen videos of Propagandhi in 2004, and Hannah plays with them. I'm not sure if your editing the article was a joke too, seeing as a Google for "Portage Terriers" only returns a hockey team, not a band, and a Google for Glen Lambert and Portage Terriers returns only one usable result, and that's the G7 website itself. I'm reverting the edit. -- Q

Sorry -- I was basing it on what the G7 website said. Sorry to have changed it if it was wrong, but it seemed authentic enough. It occured to me that it may have been a joke, but they fooled me. My bad.
I think the wording regarding Glen Lambert and the Portage Terriers should be changed, as is makes it sound as if something can't exist if Google hasn't indexed it. Whether Lambert's involvement is a joke or not, that sentence screams of unprofessionalism. Deisbrenner 08:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're hinting at, does the text in Wikipedia sound unprofessional, or are Propagandhi unprofessionaly for spreading such disinformation? If you feel the text is unprofessional, then feel free to change it around. Personally I think it sounds ok, but then again I'm biased since I wrote it! hellboy 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone else has already changed the text, but to clarify my concern, the way it was originally worded made it sound as though something must be able to be found online in order to be true. Deisbrenner 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of recordings?

Are these picture of each and every Propagandhi release really neccesary on this page? Surely anyone wanting info and/or pics of this will go to the album page? hellboy 04:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok since no one has any objections I'll take the off! hellboy 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Punkervision

Anybody have more info on the Punkervision comp in the Disco section? It seems more like an advertisement than anything, a bootleg that somebody threw onto DVD.Wyatt Riot 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It bordered on non-notability and vanity enough to warrant removal, I think, so I removed it.Wyatt Riot 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

+The Beaver, -Glen Lambert

According to the G7 site, Glen Lambert is leaving and they've adding a new guitarist, nick-named "The Beaver". I already reverted the add of "The Beaver" to the page, thinking it was vandalism (because there was no context or edit summary), but that was before I read the news entry. I'm still unsure how much of this "Beaver" thing we should add. Knowing Propagandhi's history, there's a good chance that this is one huge joke. Ideas? Wyatt Riot 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, found more info on the G7 Giant Sons page (especially here) and added it into the entry. Wyatt Riot 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

I removed the passage "There name comes from a portmanteau of propaganda and Gandhi." I can't speak for the other editor who also removed it, but the problem I see is that it implies there there is some meaning behind their name. I believe that they chose the name simply because it sounds cool, but I certainly can't back that up with any evidence. All I know is that I've read many interviews with the band and I can't recall them ever commenting on their name or why they chose it. If an editor can find such a reference, please put the passage back. Until then, I'm removing it per WP:V.

Your right. There names dos'nt really fit the definition of a true portmanteau, which would mean there is a combined meaning to them. I found there name dureing a search and thought it was an accuarate desription of were I was trying to go. I put it back but have removed portmanteau. (It seems to me, though, that in this case it comes not from a combination of meaning, but simply an expression of ironey, simular to Jello Biafra. Im not sure what you'de call that, exactly)* 69.250.130.215 22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted this edit again. Please, if you're going to add it back, make sure that it's properly cited and from a reliable source, or an editor is just going to remove it again. Also, please find some non-POV phrasing because it really is contentious the way you've been putting it; we can help you out on this if you want. Wyatt Riot 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about??? How the hell is "There band name is a combination of propoganda and gandhi" Point Of View??!?!!? Its obviouse thats what it is. You'de have to be stupid not to see that! Im sick of going thru the trouble of explaining my side just to have it COMPLETELY ignored. Did you even bother to READ what I wrote? NO. This dos'nt have ANYTHING to do with a meaning behind the the name, it just plain damn linguistics. I don't need to cite sources to say Martin Luther King gets his name from Martin Luther. Its called Logic.
I don't doubt that it's a combination of "propaganda" and "Gandhi", but the way it's phrased implies that the band intended it to mean something, whether as a political statement or simple irony. In fact, I don't think there's a way to state it without implying anything, which (to me) means we should keep it out unless the band has specifically addressed the issue. Wyatt Riot 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discography

I just made a rather large update/reorganization to the Discography section. If anybody feels the need to put the tables back, please do so. This is also my first addition to Wikipedia. If I did something wrong, please let me know. Wyatt Riot 08:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a few more minor edits and added a new page for "Where Quality is Job #1". Wyatt Riot 09:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I reverted changes made by 24.20.57.217. Where Quality is Job #1 is a double 7" released by Recess Records in 1994 and Where Quantity is Job #1 is a CD released by G7 Welcoming Committee Records in 1998.Wyatt Riot 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I added this to the discography:
It was deleted and maybe I put it in the wrong place, but is it not noteworthy to include this somewhere as part of the band's activism? And maybe mention that they played a free show for protesters at the FTAA summit in Quebec? The article mentions the band's political ideals, but doesn't describe the band's political activism beyond their song lyrics, which seems odd for such an activist band that supports a number of social justice organizations. Strobilus 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted that song from the discography because, as of right now, the compilation section only contains alternate takes/versions and songs which don't appear on any other album. This isn't to say that a list of all their compilation appearances isn't appropriate for that section, just that including every appearance of Propagandhi on a compilation will probably more than triple the discography section itself, watering it down in my opinion. The way I see it, what's the point of listing every single compilation that "Anti-Manifesto" has appeared on, especially when it's the exact same version found on How to Clean Everything? (Again, my opinion. This from a person who bought every compilation with a new Propagandhi song on it, only to have 90% of those purchases become obsolete once Where Quantity... came out. That was frustrating, to say the least.) But if people want to catalog their compilation appearances, I'm willing to help. Like I said, I own tons of them....  :)
As for including details about their activism beyond the lyrics, I think that's a great idea. Maybe a general note about contributing songs to benefit compilations and then list a few specifics (including GASCD)? Other ideas beyond that? Where should it go? Wyatt Riot 07:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that every a list of every compilation would add little to the discography. Maybe the band's activism should get its own section? Strobilus 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly about a new activism section. Ideas for content? (Maybe a new topic section on the talk page, too?) Wyatt Riot 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a discography template. First template I've added. I'm not much of a wikipedian, so I may well have screwed up. Feel free to fix it if needed. Alrin 03:00, 6 April 2008

Activism section?

There are mentions of the band's activism throughout the article, but not a lot of details. Some notes that are currently in other sections could be moved to concentrate activism info in one place. Things like contributions to benefit albums and concerts could be listed, and a couple of well chosen quotes from song lyrics might be appropriate. Any thoughts? Strobilus 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Band picture

How about adding a decent picture of the band? Maybe something like this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duap (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

At one point there was a picture from G7, but I think it was removed due to fair use concerns. Not sure if your suggestion would get taken down as well, as beautiful as it is!  :) Maybe someone has a picture they've taken themselves? Wyatt Riot 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a couple of photos. Strobilus 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Fat Mike?

Is there anything beyond the diss on PCL to back up the fact that Propagandhi have "fallen out" with Fat Mike? It might be just me but it seems like the punk community is making more of a deal of this than Propagandhi and Fat Mike themselves. Anything concrete that I missed or can that be deleted?

I doubt it. Seeing as the album was on Fat Wreck, it'd be surprising if they had some falling-out and had to sneak that swing into "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism." I'd go ahead and delete, or at least explain the situation. Dylan 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Some people think it's important, I guess, because it keeps getting added back in. I just removed this bit only because it seems like a poor explanation: "The album's name appeared in the lyrics to the 2006 NOFX release "Wolves In Wolves' Clothing" on the song "The Marxist Brothers" - 'Still I'm waiting to see if my bid on eBay was enough/To get Today's Empires Are Tomorrow's Ashes on soviet red vinyl/It's going on the wall/Next to Tubthumper and The Battle Of Los Angeles'."
I thought it was an interesting bit of trivia, by you're correct, it needs to be cited before it can really be included, as well as a better explanation of the so called dispute. Personally it looks more to me like they're taking the mickey rather than an actual falling out. hellboy 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The two bands (or at least Propagandhi and Fat Mike) have had shots at each other. "Rock for sustainable capitalism" clearly references NoFX "When did punk rock become so safe, well excuse me if I laugh at your face while i analyse your receipts, and powerpoint your balance sheets". NoFX's "One Celled Creature" is apparently a dig at Propagandhi (Glen Lambert, or whoever he really is) "life on a matress in a robe, in a room full of emptiness" may refer to the picture in the booklet of "Lambert" and the other lyrics do seem to fit him. Also on the same album NoFX's "the marxist brothers" says "to see if my bid on ebay was enough to get Today's Empires are tomorrow's ashes on soviet red vinyl" and mentions it alongside albums from more mainstream bands as Tubthumper and Rage against the Machine. They don't hate each other but they have had 'shots' at each other. Mike seems to think highly of Propagandhi but regardless had some criticisms of them (and vice versa). Jabso (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This Link is for a Propagandhi bio on their new American Label's site. It says, amongst other things "The band released 4 records on the American label Fat Wreck Chords until 2005 when its relationship with the label began to sour over its CEO’s highly-publicized campaign to ensure that Democratic Party got a turn to totally rape and plunder the planet in the service of corporate power." I think thats of note regarding their relationship with fat Wreck Chords.--74.78.85.231 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore!

Propagandhi plays a kind of Polit-Hardcore Punk and melodic Hardcore. Thats no Trash Metal or anything like that! The song strukture, their attitude etc. show that there have nothing in common with the metal szene. There are just musical style elements which shows the big relation to Punk or mostly to Hardcore Punk. This should be changed! 88.72.18.122 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [German Wikipedia]

Propagandhi often self-identify as progressive trash, such as in this interview. Strobilus 03:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The don't seem to identify as progressive thrash in that inteview. They talk about their music being "thrashy" but that is a far cry from labelling it within the genre of progressive thrash. There are some thrash elements to their music, but there is also a lot of pop-punk influence as well. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 06:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guys, be realistic, how does Propagandhi could be a Thrash Metal band?? I really don't get it. They're a punk rock/hardcore punk band, that's all. Actually I don't think they're a punk pop band either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.204.47.118 ([[User talk:{[[User:201.204.47.118}|201.204.47.118}]] ([[User talk:201.204.47.118}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/201.204.47.118}|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=201.204.47.118}
WHOIS])|talk]]) 01:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to the band's website where they identify as thrash. That said, a band doesn't necessarily get to choose which genre they are identified as. I think the genre section in the infobox ought to include both progressive thrash and hardcore punk. I don't think pop-punk and progressive metal are very appropriate. Strobilus 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When they say "thrash," I believe they mean either Thrashcore or Crossover Thrash, not Thrash Metal. Thrash Metal is like Slayer/old Metallica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up To Supporting Caste

I added that the band posted a brand new song in their Facebook page on June 24 2011 and someone deleted it saying that it's "true but not particularly notable". I would have to disagree. The band released a new song. Anyone who is a fan knows that this is significant. When Marilyn Manson updates his website and posts a 20-second video that isn't even a full song, it goes up on their wiki page, but when Propagandhi posts a full new song, it doesn't go on theirs? I don't understand. It definitely belongs on there and seems very relevant, so I have added it again and hope that Wyatt Riot won't delete it again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.10.164 (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's not important in the grand scheme of things. It's a rough cut of a new, killer song, I'll agree with that, but it's still just a video that they put up. If there were, say, a reliable source documenting the band playing new material, then we could consider including that. When the band actually starts recording (instead of simply saying "We hope to record in September"), that's also something we may include. But we don't document the day-to-day doings of the subjects we write about unless they are otherwise notable. Of course, what is "notable" depends almost entirely on what reliable, third-party published sources choose to report about.
So no, Propagandhi posting a video isn't important, unless Maximumrocknroll (unlikely) or Rolling Stone (even more unlikely) were to deem it important. If there's discussion of a 20-second Marilyn Manson video on that article, perhaps it's something you may want to remove. In any case, a problematic edit on that article has no effect whatsoever on this article. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding how the band itself isn't a legitimate source, but that's just me finding Wikipedia semantics ridiculous, not me arguing with you, so that aside, a couple of fairly reliable websites (http://www.punknews.org/article/43227 and http://www.punknews.org/article/42939 and http://www.bigcheesemagazine.com/news/article/propagandhi-start-work-on-new-album) have done write ups about the new song and the recording of a new album, and since these articles have been published, it seems to me that it should be included. I couldn't find anything on the links you provided that made it seem like it wasn't important in the grand scheme. It has been documented by a reliable source, as far as I can tell, as I noted above, unless I'm misunderstanding the definitions for "reliable source", which it doesn't seem like I am, though I could be mistaken. It doesn't have to be MRR or Rolling Stone or even Blabbermouth. This isn't simply a day-to-day doing, it is a new song that has just been released. Has it been released? In these times when I can plug my phone into my car and listen to the song while driving twenty times in a row, I would say it's fair to consider it released, though still untitled. I don't know if Wiki has a definition for what constitutes "released" but feel free to provide a link, if so. Don't people go to Wikipedia pages for bands to learn about what they have done and are doing? This is the first official info on a new album, so it seems extremely important to me.
So, yes, reliable, third-party, published sources have chosen to report about the fact that they have a new song and a new album on the way, and it is important, unless something I just said was way off. In addition, I have just cited the articles on the page, so I can't imagine any scenario in which this isn't as legitimate as anything else on the page. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.86.244 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. :) First off, I want to thank you for finding some references. Self-published sources from the band are allowed only in a small number of cases, as they're not independent and they're also not a good indicator of what is truly important. (Otherwise, Wikipedia would be filled with trivial twitter updates.) And you're absolutely right, it doesn't have to be Rolling Stone or MRR, but as far as I know, Punk News is a reliable, independent source, so that's good. You're also correct that many people come to Wikipedia for updates on just about everything, which is ironic in that we're only supposed to document what third-party sources have already reported, and only then when someone gets around to editing that material into the article. Anyways, thanks again for including the references. I'm fine with keeping it. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, in the future, instead of deleting someone's legitimate edits and being counterproductive, you can just check yourself if there are any references and add them yourself and actually help the community vibe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.86.244 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's not my job to clean up after you. Every edit window will remind you of our verifiability policy, which specifically states that it's your responsibility to include references. I also don't read Punk News and only knew of the video from the band's Facebook post, which is why I considered it a rather trivial update. Perhaps I should have spent the time searching for a news article and properly citing it, but given a finite amount of time I revert the chaff edits and move on. I apologize for that, but I can imagine it's something most editors do eventually. If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so on my Talk page as we're moving quite off topic. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Genre

To all involved: this is the proper place to discuss genre in the infobox, rather than reverting endlessly. Wyatt Riot 21:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes myself, but personally I don't think that Propagandhi are progressive in any way, let alone progressive metal. hellboy 00:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The infobox guideline says to aim for generality, so disputes like this might be avoided. How about including just punk and metal? All of the controversial edits to the genre box have been about sub-genres of these two. Strobilus 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but there is such a thing as being to general, Personally I think we should work to maintain the current page until we can reach a better arangement Scipo 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
But is there any kind of consensus about what the current page is? While we're talking about it, not all genres should be capitalized in the infobox, only the first one listed. I think commas ought to be used to separate them, rather than <br />, as using <br /> leads people to capitalize inappropriately and makes the infobox longer than it needs to be. Strobilus 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't beliveve thier is any general rule on which to use. Personally I like
just beacause I find it looks more professional Scipo 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There is currently no guideline regarding the use of commas versus line breaks (<br />), though it is currently being discussed at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Standardizing genre delimiters. I prefer commas, but I'm not too concerned either way. There are, however, guidelines about the capitalization of genres (they should not be capitalized -- see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Musical_genres) and the use of the en-dash in the years active field (should not be spaced -- see Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Years_active). Strobilus 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the genre edit war has started once again, let's revive this discussion. I'd suggest punk and hardcore as options if only because there's already a reference cited there and that's what it says. And since there's obvious disagreement over their genre(s), I believe the best thing to do is to back everything up with references. Once we reach some sort of consensus, slap a hidden tag in there (something like <!--Please discuss all genre changes on the Discussion page. Unexplained changes will be reverted.--> and revert on sight if necessary). Also, as Strobilus pointed out earlier, template guidelines do state to "Aim for generality", which is why I think we should leave "progressive thrash" off, even though they do (arguably) fit that description. Ideas? Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some referances for pop punk
And the punk news thing clearly state that propagandhi has turned into a pop punk/heavy metal/hardcore on thier lastest album. And hardcore should also be added beacause it seem to be a popular adjective for the band. 137.186.50.40 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the band is best described as hardcore punk, but melodic hardcore, anarcho-punk, pop punk, thrash metal, and probably a few more genres are also accurate. We could be very general and go with just a parent genre like punk rock (which is not very descriptive, but is a genre few would disagree with), or we could include all of the subgenres that may apply.
I agree that we should include references, but they should be placed in the article body rather than the infobox, and they ought to be good ones. The Vue Weekly reference does not refer to the band as pop punk, it says pop punk bands cite Propagandhi as an influence. The article describes the band as "political punk", "thrash punk", and "busted-down metal". The Aversionline reference is essentially a blog, and therefore not a reliable reference. The Brock Press article is a university newspaper article about The Weakerthans that describes Propagandhi only in passing, so it's not a great reference either. The Phoenix New Times reference seems fine to me, though I don't know anything about that publication. The Punk News reference that is currently in the infobox refers to the band as "punk", "hardcore", "progressive thrash", "pop punk", and "metal". We could use this reference for hardcore punk, pop punk, and thrash metal. I'll take a look for a decent anarcho-punk reference too if there is consensus for including a bunch of genres. A note in the infobox to discuss genre changes is a great idea, too. Strobilus (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Heavy metal would propably be better than thrash, as it is more general. Plus, few sources call propagandhi a thrash metal band. They may call the thrash, but this could refer to a number of things, like thrashcore. I against putting anarcho-punk in the genre box, as it is realy more of a scene than a genre. As for melodic hardcore, I find that it is a very limited genre, and there are very little bands desribed as such. 66.222.238.128 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like all of the suggestions can be generalized to punk, hardcore, heavy metal, or a combination of the three. Hell, hardcore could be seen as punk as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Any comments at all? I'll just go ahead and do it in a few days if nobody objects. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. I didn't include hardcore punk because it's really a subgenre of punk rock. Hopefully this will end the edit wars. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I gotta weigh in here. I get as weary as anyone of hairsplitting over subgenres, but I disagree with the person who said anarcho-punk should not be used because it's more of a scene than a genre. There are lots of genres that are defined by more than just the characteristics of the music--like glam metal, which is what you get redirected to, for example, if you enter hair metal, because frankly the musicians' hair style is an aspect of the genre. And as far as punk rock, the "anarcho-" thing is a critical distinction in my opinion--it communicates, or ought to communicate, a huge amount about a band and its overtly (radical) political leanings, and I for one want to know that kind of thing about a band up front. This article mentions very early that Propagandhi espouses anarchist politics, and they are clearly part of the punk scene, so ipso-facto they are anarcho-punk (and by the way, in my further opinion, this utterly precludes their being "pop punk", but that's really another subject). Frankly I think this sidesteps the dispute over purely musical distinctions, because the "anarcho-" thing crosses subgenres--Crass and Discharge are both aptly described as anarcho-punk, and they sound NOTHING alike. So anyway, that's my two cents. I did in fact change the genre, but if anyone wants to make a big deal out of it, just go ahead and change it back, because I in no way have time or energy to devote to "edit wars," so I'm unlikely to come back and redo any undos. (I'll just weep gently in bed as I wait to fall asleep, and rue what a hard world it is.) AdRock (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template guidelines say that we aim for generality. Since anarcho-punk is a subgenre of punk itself, it's unnecessary to include it, especially since they play several other subgenres of punk as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the use of the term Heavy Metal in the genre infobox: Personally, I'm indifferent to the entire affair (as I detest genrefication), but I know a few Heavy Metal fans who scoff at the notion that Propagandhi share the tag. I suggest it be left at Punk. Just my two cents. Alrin (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2008 (AET)
I can't help but think that your friends either don't know much about metal or they've defined it in such a way as to exclude 99% of metal or metal-influenced bands. I mean, Propagandhi's music is filled with metal riffs. They've covered Venom, who are as black metal as you can get. Plus, there are references and I'm sure we could scrape up more if need be. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the capitization in the genre infobox, the example in Template:Infobox Musical artist makes it pretty clear that with line breaks, each new line is considered the start of a new sentence. And can some one tell me why wikilibs seems to going around changeing delimiters without asking or making a note on the talk page, while falsy stating that he/she is repairing formating, even though everyone knows that is grossly untrue. 66.222.253.33 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't untrue. It is making it easier to read... non-discriminating against readers using read-assist software... and consistent with all other music infoboxes. It is a 100% honest edit. Now using IP sockpuppets to revert my honest edits... well that is dishonest and could result in a block against the IP and the user account that occasionally uses that IP. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Propagandhi are heavy metal band. :) :) :). LOL. Propagandhi are 100 % punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reorgart (talk • contribs)
Of course, that's your opinion. The references suggest otherwise. I've reverted to the version discussed above, as supported by references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Any idiot can figure out that Propagandhi aren't heavy metal. Sure, their last album was metal influenced but that doesn't make them metal. Maybe that makes the album metal. And where's ska and skate punk? I'm not deleting metal, but I'm adding Ska and Skate punk --Revilal90 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre, you'll see that we're supposed to "[a]im for generality". Since ska punk and skate punk are subgenres of punk rock, it's not necessary to include them in the infobox. That type of detail is best left for the article itself. As far as the metal thing goes, I disagree, and so do the sources. They've incorporated so many different genres (and subgenres) that I personally consider them a prog punk band at this point. I don't know if that can be supported by reliable sources, but it's probably true nonetheless. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How the hell are they ska? The only song of theirs that has any ska influence is "Ska Sucks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As many have pointed out, and I agree, Propagandhi is in no sense a straightforward "heavy metal" act. They are a hardcore/punk band. I'd like to nominate a motion to remove "heavy metal." While there is a semi-audible influence from some '80s thrash, sure, having minor elements of a genre in your music does not mean you are that genre. I do hate to split genre hairs, yet this seems simply inaccurate. Allmusic backs this idea up. Motorizer (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It passes the duck test: influences from metal bands from a variety of genres (Venom, early Metallica, Cro-Mags), elements of those genres in their music, even guitar solos. Nowhere does it say they're a straightforward heavy metal band (is there such a thing?), just as nowhere does it say they're a straightforward punk band (again, what would that be?). Furthermore, we have sources which say "metal", and that's the important part: if there were reliable sources that called them "Cuban electro-fusion pop", then we'd say that and source it. Of course, in the infobox we'd "aim for generality" like I wrote previously and put something like "electronica" and "pop". Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Stolen Riff

Does anyone know where the Stolen Riff in Anti Manifesto is stolen from??? It's always really annoyed me! I would be enormously grateful to find out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.181.124 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know where it is from...how do you know it is stolen?? RiseAgainst01 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
By the lyrics "by the way, I stole this riff". Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That riff is from Metallica's song And Justice for All. It's in the part that I guess one could call the pre-chorus (between the "Exploiting their supremacy" and "I can't believe the things you say" lines.) I think that's it at least. Colinclarksmith (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the correct part of the song where he "steals the riff." Tuggler (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember seeing an interview in which Chris said it was a reversed Concrete Blonde riff. benzband (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Banjo?

This edit about a new member keeps getting added to the Members section. I have started a discussion with the editor who keeps adding it because I don't want it to turn into an edit war. At this point, it has all the hallmarks of a hoax—see my reasoning here—but I'm curious if anyone else has opinions. Woodroar (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

purevolume is used as a source throughout this site. Given the volume of views and fans its obvious that is real and regularly updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.168.227 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not regularly updated at all. There is a single post, the one in question. Purevolume shouldn't be used elsewhere—though, even if it is, that doesn't matter here—because it's trivially easy to create an account as an artist and then post updates. It's not even linked from their official Facebook page or website, so there's no way to tell if that account is even under the band's control. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
actually if you check the page you'll see its a verified account by the staff at purevolume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.168.227 (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Verified how, though? We have no information about that process, nothing about Purevolume's editorial structure or capacity for fact checking. The site has never been vetted at our reliable sources noticeboard. (As an aside, I would strongly suggest reading about our sourcing requirements at WP:V and WP:IRS.) Even if this were a verified account—which I still doubt—it's still considered a single self-published source and is trumped both by higher-quality sources and by the weight of other sources that say Propagandhi (1) is still a four-piece (2) without a banjo player that (3) doesn't even have a tour scheduled. Woodroar (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"We", it seems like just you as everyone has no issue with this verification process. You seem to be the only holding issue here as no one else is saying anything. Purevolume is a good enough of a source for all others, why not you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.168.227 (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Where on PureVolume does it say it is a verified account by Purevolume staff? And even if it was, there are no other sources to back this up. This is clearly an exceptional claim, thus requiring multiple high-quality sources. benzband (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not holding your hand to find where it says it. Send them an email and find out yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.168.227 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:V) I've removed the banjo player from the infobox and timeline, and I recommend that you please refrain from adding them again unless you have a reliable source to back it up. benzband (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Propagandhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Stevenson is the Producer?

I was wondering if Bill Stevenson really is the producer of Potemkin City Limits. If that's the case, why does not this article mention anything about it and I was also wondering if those albums prior to Potemkin have Stevenson as producer as well? In case this is all nonsense, please remove him from Potemkin City Limits. Thanks. --RememberMe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RememberMe (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bill Stevenson, of Descendents/Black Flag fame, is NOT the producer of Potemkin City Limits. However, he did MIX and MASTER the album along with Jason Livermore. I don't think he was involved in any other albums by Propagandhi. I don't think there is a strong need to mention his name in the article. On a side note, Stevenson compared Potemkin City Limits to a Voivod album, a band that Propagandhi like a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.60.89 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Formed in 92?

From their site: "So then we got a call from a young lad named Stinky Mike Braumeister who wanted to play bass. Mike tended to wear a leather jacket with no shirt on underneath in the summer, hence his nick-name. We played our very first shows with Mike, including one with Fugazi in 1991 that was definitely one of the bigger hi-lites of our "career" to date" First bassist was Hopper too, not JKS. Could someone feeling wordy (yes, wordy!) fix it cos i'm not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.114.7 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Propagandhi/Archive_1&oldid=1137101045"