Talk:Sex Pistols/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Sex Pistols" vs. "The Sex Pistols"

are they "The Sex Pistols" or the "Sex Pistols"? Either way, the page title should agree with the bold text in the first line. --Tarquin 13:16, 30 September 2002 (UTC)

Well, Tokerboy just changed the text to The Sex Pistols, but I think he's wrong - I just checked in Jon Savage's tome on punk rock, England's Dreaming, and he indexes them as "Sex Pistols" (and he's not shy of the definite article, because the index also has "Buzzcocks, the", for instance). I don't suppose it's a big deal, however - I'll leave things as they are, for now at least. --Camembert 21:09, 17 November 2002 (UTC)

I had thought it was Sex Pistols too, but I typed it into the the allmusic guide and it redirected me to The Sex Pistols. I've checked the Pixies and it redirects "The Pixies" to Pixies, as is correct, so I figured it was reasonably authoritative. Jon Savage might be more accurate though. --Tokerboy 21:13, 17 November 2002 (UTC)

Yeah, I like allmusic, but it has some appalling errors in it which means I can't bring myself to trust it entirely - just to give one example, it conflates two (maybe even three) different people called Alan Holmes - I know for sure they are not the same person, because one of the Alan Holmeses told a friend of mine himself that they were different. Admittedly, that's somewhat more obscure, but still - I filled in the form to let them know, but nothing changed - if they made it a wiki it might work better  ;) So I tend to trust Savage more - I'll move the article to Sex Pistols, but as I say, it's not a big deal really - I'm just feeling awkward tonight. --Camembert 23:44, 17 November 2002 (UTC)

One slight problem with this. The band insist they've always been "Buzzcocks", not "The Buzzcocks"... --GWO 15:36, 18 November 2002 (UTC)

OK, so the fella's not perfect (it's still a good book, mind) - I think the index reflects common usage pretty well though, if nothing else: there are more links to Sex Pistols than The Sex Pistols after all. And he does list them as "Buzzcocks, the" rather than "Buzzcocks, The"... hm, why am I writing this? --Camembert 18:04, 18 November 2002 (UTC)

"Hip Young Gunslingers" ad

I will check this out, but I'm pretty sure the 'hip Young Gunslingers' ad was in New Musical Express to recruit young new journalists to write for that paper rtaher than to form the pistols. The 'hip young gunslingers' included Julie burchill and Tony Parsons, who were actively interested in and made their names by covering the pistols & punk, but the ad wasn't directly connected to the formation of the band. --quercus robur 12:41, 8 September 2002 (UTC)

Have checked. This is definately the case --quercus robur 09:01, 25 September 2002 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right. The Pistols ad ran: Wanted: Whizz kid guitarist. Not older than 20. Not worse looking than Johnny Thunders. My memory is slipping --GWO 12:01, 30 September 2002 (UTC)

This ad is covered in Jon savage's book Englands dreaming, Mclaren ran the ad, but the band was already formed by then... They auditioned some guitarists but realised that none of them were any better than the band line up as it already stood, so it doesn't really make a difference to the overall history of the band --quercus robur 20:27, 22 November 2002 (UTC)

Need explanation

Again the band faced controversy when a record shop in Manchester was threatened with prosection for diplaying the album's 'obscene' cover, although the case was overturned when defending QC John Mortimer produced expert witnesses who were able to demonstrate that the word "bollocks" was of legitimate English origin.

Can someone explain the last statement? Surely being of legitimate English origin doesn't mean a piece of content is categorically not obscene? Is my issue with the word 'legitimate'? --Tempshill 16:51, 18 September 2003 (UTC)

Wally Nightingale?

.144.177.0.6 asked "(Wally Nightingale? Who he?)"

No idea, but according to Jon savage & John lydon and their respective books on the Pistols he formed the band in the first place, he's now dead by all accounts due to substance abuse. This is all verifable information in the various Pistols bios etc --quercus robur 00:56, 17 December 2003 (UTC)

The reaction of most visitors who know a little about the Pistols will be to say "Who?", and to click on the link... but we don't even have a little stub article about him to answer that question. After a little googling I'm far from convinced that he ever really existed, but if he did, it seems he was only a member of the band before they named it "The Sex Pistols". I might be persuaded that he maybe deserves a mention, somewhere in the depths of the article but he certainly doesn't merit the top billing he has now. I'm removing him. --GrahamN 04:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Biggs?

I noticed someone added Ronnie Biggs as a member. He sang with them on only 2 tracks, I think, which I don't think qualifies him as a "member". If he's listed certainly Edward Tudor-Pole should be. I think existing mentions of them in the article were sufficient, but I will yield to people who know more about it. --R. fiend 19:30, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Biggs wasn't part of the Sex pistols but was just an old lag being used by Mclaren for novelty value once the Pistols were to all intents and purposes finished. --quercus robur 19:46, 17 February 2005 (UTC)

post-pistols

I think records released under the Pistols name, post-Lydon, should be privileged (in this article) over other projects. The Cook/Jones pre-Professionals incarnation might not be the canonical Sex Pistols, but those singles had UK chart success and were released under the Sex Pistols name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto movil (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, post pistols projects, eg, PiL, The Professinals, Rich Kids, the rubbish Sid Vicious put out, etc, releases should go on their respective pages rather than here. But post-pistols projects using the Pistols name (ie, cash-ins, he said in amost non-NPOV fashion...) should be differentiated as such --quercus robur 22:00, 18 February 2005 (UTC)

Check out my PiL article, btw. I wouldn't want it nominated for featured status because people tend to gang up and whack on the text of featured candidates (sometimes not for the better), but I think it's pretty comprehensive and colorful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auto movil (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2005 UTC)

History Edited

I am an anonymous user who edited the History section of the Sex Pistols page. I have made it more true than the previous version. I used the Sex Pistols Box Set booklet to help me write this. Don't worry, I put it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.194.72 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

"chart rigging"

Current edit reads:

Nevertheless, in the week of Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee, the record officially reached number two in some UK charts (although many people believe they acually reached number one and the charts were rigged to prevent them topping it), although the title and artist were replaced with a blank space in many publications.

As I recall it wasn't so much 'chart rigging' as refusing to acknowledge the record existed AT ALL, hence the blank spaces instead of the artist and title. I'm convinced that they were number one in some UK charts even if not the 'official Uk radio 1' chart, but this is based more on memmery than anything else, looks like I'll be digging out Englands Dreaming again to try & verify this.... --quercus robur 18:24, 7 January 2004 (UTC)

I have a growing suspicion that this "blank space" business may be either an urban legend, or something that happened, but not in as widespread a way as is implied. I've never seen it given an actual source, e.g. "The Mirror printed the chart with a bank space at number two" or somesuch. (And actually, why not just omit the number 2 altogether and go straight from 1 to 3 rather than leaving a gap?) --Bonalaw 12:31, 5 January 2005 (UTC)

I clearly remember the blank spaces in more than one chart --quercus robur 19:19, 5 January 2005 (UTC)

It seemed fairly widespread to me. I recall reading some pop magazine at the time showing the No.1 as a solid black line covering all of the text, and it also appeared that way in the Top 20's that were shown in a couple of tabloid newspapers, who had a habit of publishing the week's Top 20 singles in those days. Also, where I lived at the time (Portsmouth, UK) the local Woolworth's and Rumbelows stores had "Top 20" boards displayed on their singles counter, and both of them had No.1 followed by a blank space. Even at the time, as a 13 year old, I found the whole thing laughable. If you hate the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" then fair enough, but it's fairly extreme behaviour to not even acknowledge that it existed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.102.239 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I created a navigational template for the Dream Theater article, {{Dream Theater}}, that might be of use to the Sex Pistols article (and its related pages). The Iron Maiden and Rush articles use the same template style, and it seems to work well for bands with many members and releases. Someone with enough knowledge to complete it for Sex Pistols should consider doing so, it is very useful. -- plattopus^talk 02:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Other Members

There isn't even a mention of Steve New or Nick Kent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpalicious (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

urm I don't recall them being members of the Sex Pistols- Sid V allegedly once hit Nick kent with a bicycle chain, but I don't think that constitutes being a band member.... --quercus robur 00:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If they were members it was before Sid. It might have even been before they took the name the Sex Pistols. I'm not positive but a lot of sources say they were members so they should at least get a mention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpalicious (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What sources? Certainly not Englands Dreaming or No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish, which I would consider pretty much definitive. --quercus robur 08:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fodderstompf says Bob New was a member "for about 15 minutes" [1] and this bio of The Damned mentions something about a band called The Swankers with John Lydon, Nick Kent, and Steve New [2] Certainly not as good as the sources you mentioned but the fact that there are such sources at all leads me to believe the two should at least be mentioned in this article and there relationship with the band, whatever it was, be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpalicious (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it all sounds a bit dubious to me, but if you can successfully integrate it into the article go ahead --quercus robur 23:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Razor incident

Thoguh accounts of this vary, even to the point of claiming that it never really happened and was merely one of McClaren's stunts, I have never seen it placed in Finsbury Park. Here is just one citation for the Pegasus: [3] It's supposed to have taken place in the car park too. Additionally, only some accounts refer to 'Teddy Boys' (who were in pretty short supply around Newington Green in 1977 (I lived there then) - they could be found beating up on punks in Camden Town and Kentish Town, mostly.) --Tarquin Binary 12:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing newspaper headlines about this at the time, so it actually happened rather than being a Mclaren invention. I also seem to recall that the incident hapened in acr park. Maybe it was in the Finsbury Park area rather than actually in Finsbury Park? --quercus robur 10:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The new edits to this section look good to me, maybe something about the gang being 'Teddy Boys' possibly being a myth could be added? --quercus robur 10:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No - the Pegasus on Green Lanes is a long way from Finsbury Park, not only is it not in the area, the whole expanse of Highbury (a big district) is between the two areas. The reason for the confusion may be that Green Lanes is a very long road that stretches from Newington Green up through Finsbury Park and beyond into deepest Haringey. Some lazy journalist just took a quick look at the A-Z and picked on a random Green Lanes district is my guess. My recollection of the incident (and I remember the headlines too) agrees with the source I cited too as to it being the Pegasus (you don't easily forget if the locale is one of your local pubs). Still have no memory of 'Teddy Boys' being mentioned though and cannot figure out why they would have been hanging round Newington Green.

By the way (not that I think it was a stunt), but having it appear in the headlines would be the exact object of Mclaren pulling a stroke like that, so that in itself wouldn't prove it was real. His whole genius was in manipulating the media, remember. :) --Tarquin Binary 11:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Mclaren would certanly have capitalised on the press coverage, but although he certainly mainuplated events (including, in my opinion, the self-destructive tragectory of Sid which could probably have been prevented if the people around him had cared about him more rather than hyping him up into a rock & roll icon) he didn't actually invent them as far as I was aware... BTW if memory serves, weren't Lydon's attackers portrayed as cartoon Teddy Boys in The Rock & Roll Swindle film? Maybe this is where the myth originates? --quercus robur 12:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with your analysis. But it is easy to see how people at the time could believe that he might stage something like that. So it's more a comment on McClaren's reputation at the time than anything. With regard to the film, this is tricky, I have seen it at least 3 times, but not for ages. My memory is that we do not see the assailants at first, just sinister shadows falling on Johnny, then there is a razor or knife opening and we do not see the actual nasty business because it is obscured by the assailant's back (of which I don't remember any fashion details). Now while that sounds like a very detailed recollection, I don't trust it, so we need input from someone here who has the DVD, I think. --Tarquin Binary 12:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro section

Would someone who knows the Sex Pistols better than I do care to try making the intro section more neutral? "no other group better exemplified the punk movement's spirit and inherent contradictions" is anything but NPOV. The intro section isn't particularly informative, either; maybe mention Sid Vicious or something up there? I'd be bold and fix it, but I don't know a damn thing about the band. --CDC (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you 'don't know a damn thing about the band,' then don't go all car-alarm on the opening paragraph. Sid Vicious was their second bassist, as the article makes clear, and contributed little to the band. --Auto movil 05:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, sorry - just trying to throw in a little constructive criticism from an admitted outsider. Adding Sid Vicious was just an off-the-top-of-my-head example. My point was that in the lead section, I wanted to know a little more about why the band was so influential, or a few key facts about its career (when? where? who?). Adding these things would make the article more accessible for someone, like me, who doesn't know much about the band, by telling me what's most important in the body of the text, and by giving me a useful overview if I don't want to read the whole thing just now. I was also suggesting that in my opinion the statement I quoted above, unsourced, isn't neutral. --CDC (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

CdC has a point- therefore I've modified the opening para to include a reference to the Pistols' lasting influence on popular culture, hope that helps without making the opeing overly-wordy. The reasons for their influence become clear as the article unfolds, and are many, eg, jamie reid artwork, the myth of Sid, God Save the Queen, Anarchy in the UK, the effect on UK music industry, etc, etc, etc --quercus robur 20:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's important that the intro isn't wordy and that it--like the band itself--is to the point. It's fine the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.176.4 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about the statement that the Clash were more articulate, however. Seems a bit subjective and hard to verify. I also think Lydon has a lot to say and says it well when he chooses to do do. Perhaps it should say something like 'more willing to articulate' or simply 'more political'? --kingboyk 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "While The Clash were both more articulate and politically motivated, and Buzzcocks had more astute pop sensibilities, no other band so strongly exemplified the British punk movement's spirit and inherent contradictions or made such a lasting impression on British popular culture." is completely unreferenced, and represents either an editor's point-of-view or original research. Is there a specific source for this claim? --Jkelly 20:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Legal battle

Just realised that an important part of the Sex pistols saga, ie, the long, protracted and highly accrimonious legal battle between Lydon and Mclaren is completely missing from this article... Anyone fancy a crack at this? --quercus robur 10:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been working on adding this but been busy with other things. I should have it up within the next couple of days. --Logan1138 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pistols manufactured? No. The Clash? Yes.

Conversely, it can also be argued that the Sex Pistols were a manufactured pop act in the vein of The Sweet, Mud, and other early-'70s 'hard rock' singles acts, inasmuch as their look and sound were in part innovations of Malcolm McLaren's. Opinions, however, differ widely on McLaren's actual responsibility for the band's artistic and cultural relevance, with the evidence suggesting that McLaren was never fully in control of events, and played almost no role in creating the band's actual music and lyrics.

Nonsense. If you look at the FACTS, such an argument cannot be made. Half the band existed before Mclaren's involvement.One third happened to work in Mclaren's shop,the final quarter was spotted by Mclaren in his shop. The only solid Mclaren 'input' concerning the Pistols was that he introduced the first 3 to Lydon, and they wore clothes from his shop (which also, he apparently made them pay for!).

To compare that situation to a manufactured band is laughable. Using that criteria any band that has Manager who makes a decison which affects the band in anyway becomes 'manufactured'! What many people don'trealise these days, is that the 'manufactured' rumour ONLY exists because of a press smear campaign in the 70's, where the lie was spread that the band couldn't even play their own instruments and the 'Bollocks'album featured nothing but session musicians. Couple that with Mclaren's own (largely fictious) account of the band's history in the 'Great Rock And Roll Swindle' film...and you have a myth perpetuated to this day by people who aren't fully aware of the facts. If the press hadn't printed that lie in 1977 and Mclaren hadn't lied in the film in 1979 there's NO way there would ever be any discussion about the Pistols being a manufactured band.

Ironically, if you look at the early history of Pistols 'rivals' The Clash and their Manager Bernie Rhodes, they were very much manufactured in many respects...defintely moreso than the Pistols ever where...Rhodes introduced Strummer to the band (same as Lydon did for Mclaren)...but that's where the similarity between the two bands ends. Rhodes took matters even further, he told them what to write songs about, he told them how to think, he told them how to act, he even told Mick Jones how to cut his hair ....yet The Clash are seen as an honest and scrupulous band, always 'keeping it real'!

Don't get me wrong, I love The Clash. But if anyone is willing to consider the Pistols manufactured, then using the same logic that same person MUST have to consider The Clash as the new Monkees! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.143.220 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

It can also be argued that the Clash, while more explicitly "political", were not really more articulate than the Pistols. Rotten's lyrics were in fact very articulate, and a lot of it relied on wit to make a point. The Clash (at least as they were around the time of the Pistols) embraced the use of political slogans, which sometimes is a powerful weapon, but wasn't complemented enough with strong "backing statements" (in other words, lyrics) in some of those songs. The Clash took themselves too seriously, and it's been proven that humor is often the deadliest weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.176.4 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Guitarist/producer Chris Spedding weighs in on this when he states that the early demos that he produced (Problem, Pretty Vacant, No Feelings) highlighted the band's musicianship: "I'm quite proud of the Sex Pistols demos, especially when compared to their other later recordings. On my demos you can hear everything quite clearly - the bass and drums are really audible plus you can actually hear what the rhythm and lead guitars are doing. Part of why they (McLaren and the Pistols) didn't like my demo was that because I like R&B, I highlighted their rhythm tracks with a big bass drum and bass aound, particularly because Matlock had some intensely played bass runs. They wanted a guitar soup. I think that whenever you've got an interesting rhythm section like that, a band sounds like they can actually play, and since that was the whole point of my demo - to prove they could play - that's what I pushed. When you have a guitar soup, which is what the demo they recorded later sounds like, you have to face the fact that someone's trying to cover up the fact that they can't play. And that's what McLaren wanted people to think that they couldn't play, that was just an idea, a way of making all this anarchy stuff happen." --Dannyinla 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

As often happens to me, I went into this article to fix a couple minor grammatical problems, and wound up rewriting quite a bit. Brash fool what I are, I dint even think to look here first, so sorry for hacking up a once-featured article; hope I didn't ruin it for ya. :) btw, if you hate my work here, you'll probably want to have a look at Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, as well as Wally Nightingale. --Eaglizard 10:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hayes and Jim Mackin

Xavier1019 has added the above as early members of the band. Does Xavier (or anyone else) plan on adding separate articles for them ? If not their names should be de-linked (no, not volunteering to create them - never heard of them before this - my very quick check of the web did find them mentioned as there near the start but no clue as to when they left or what they did post-Pistols...). Cheers, Ian Rose 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The date of Sid Vicious' first gig.

The article says that Sid Vicious first played for the Sex Pistols thus "Ritchie played his first gig with the Pistols on April 3, 1977, at the Screen on the Green in London"

This however I believe to be untrue - If you look at [4] or [5] you will see that Sid made his first appearance in March at the Notre Dame Hall in London. These two sources have the exact date at either the 21st or 28th. Perhaps someone could shed some light on which one it was. If you look at [6] you will see the first three photographs taken by a photographer called Ray Stevenson have Sid Vicious playing with the Sex Pistols at the Notre Dame Hall in Mar 1977. --212.111.35.130 15:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Originally called The Strand..."

"Originally called The Strand...", "Past members..." - are you crazy? The Strand is The Strand, The Swankers is The Swankers and the Sex Pistols is the Sex Pistols! The Strand is not the Sex Pistols and the Sex Pistols is not The Swankers! Is it clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.5.83 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Surviving" Members

I deleted the blurb about the 'Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame' which refers to the "surviving" members. All of the original lineup survive, and Americans need to educate themselves to the fact that Sid Vicious was not part of the original lineup , as is common knowledge in the U.K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.179.235 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yanno, if Souxsie or Billy Idol had joined the band instead, I'd have considered them fully members. Instead, we got one of John's friends named John, but he had at least been around about as long as the "BC", so he was kinda as much part of the band as they at least, I always thought. But what do I know, I'm just a underedumacated Americun. Personally, I think John (the first) was the dickhead, not Matlock, and they admit Glen wrote the music for all their good songs anyways, so it weren't that Syd sucked, per se, but that Matlock was a critical cog in the machine. Ah well. Great songwriters never get along, just ask Macca. --Eaglizard 05:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As well as changing the misspelling (honor - honour) I've also added the "surviving" bit back in. I may be wrong, but "surviving members" does not neccessarily need to include the original lineup. Sid Vicious may not have been part of the original line up but he is generally seen as being part of the definitive line up, and was one of the punk icons. If you still don't agree then by all means revert it. I'm really just bothered about the spelling --hedpeguyuk 9:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sub articles

Do we really need these sub-articles on previous incarnations of the Sex Pistols such as The Swankers and The Strand (band), especially as they seem to only contain text copied and pasted from the main Sex Pistols article --quercus robur 13:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardly - suggest they should be deleted and the links removed from this article. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Even the The Swankers ARE the Sex Pistols, it's good to have a separate page about the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is if there is anything significantly expanded on that isn't already in or would be relevant to the Sex pistols article. At the moment it doesn't look that way, I'd put the Swankers page up for VFD if I had any sort of clue how to do this these days on wikipedia, its all got so convoluted and complicated... --quercus robur 23:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They Didn't Attend The Rockhall Induction?

Why wouldn't they attend their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Surely that is a great honor. --67.188.172.165 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame reportedly wanted them to pay a certain price to attend the induction (for a table, or something of that sort.) Plus... let's face it, they're the Sex Pistols. They have an image to keep up. Hall of Fame? Naaaah. --Skin Crawl 06:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sid Sings

Have moved Sid Sings from pistols discography to 'Viscious solo album' as it's not a Pistols album. In fact should it be removed from discography altogether? Otherwise there is a case for also including PiL, Professionals and Rich Kids as these were all post pistols projects by ex band members? --quercus robur 19:59, 1 February 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Sid Sings should not be included in this article, so I removed it. -- Heaven's Wrath   ^Talk  01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Seeing as this article has 'featured' status, why on earth were the very few citations and references stripped from it? Surely it needs more citations adding, not their removal, particularly as some of the assertions in the article as it stands seem quite questionable, particularly the early history?? --quercus robur 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone has a copy of Pete Frame's Rock Family Trees, that probably will be a good citation for all of the early line-ups of the band. --Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it on interlibrary loan, cited a lot of this.

Frame gives a different version of some of the early chronology. He has both Kent and New in the band at the same time, both having responded to the "Wanted: whizz-kid guitarist…" ad.

Frame is a reference for the St. Martins' gig being November 1975, and for the gig causing "havoc and outrage", but not for them not even getting through one song or for the exact date. He also says that the 100 Club was the only place in London that would book them; he doesn't mention the Nashville. This may be a deliberate simplifying: the Pistols material is only about 8-10% of a very crowded chart of the interrelations among various bands. --Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are still about eight or ten citation requests in the article. Does anyone have ideas where to look for the various uncited material? Especially, about half of the material on the pre-fame years needs citation.

Also, the citations from Jon Savage's England's Dreaming and Lydon's own No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs lack page numbers. I don't have copies. Can someone add those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited opinion

In an effort to keep this a featured article, I have removed the following, which was mainly uncited opinion; one sentence can be cited to Caroline Coon, but it doesn't really stand alone in the context, so I cut it, too. If someone can rebuild this as something citable, great, then it should go back.

The aim of shocking the establishment has always been a traditional goal for all groups who feel that a given music or art style is in serious need of renovation. The Sex Pistols emerged at a time when the economic boom had finished, youth unemployment was rising, and pop music was indisputably sugary. [ <ref name="coon2" /> ] Their aggressive lyrics and standpoints were taken literally by the conservative press but really can be seen as a form of theatre of rage. Making money was not glorified at this time.

--Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, can someone please, please, find citation for the following? It seems to me to be entirely on the mark, surely someone citable has said this; I've left it in because I can't bear to cut it, but as it stands it is likely to cost the article FA status.

The Sex Pistols remain influential, both for their musical style and in terms of their effect on the British cultural landscape. Whereas previous challenges to the class system, and to the post-war British ethos of uncomplaining sacrifice, had come mainly from within, such as from the public school and Oxbridge dominated satire boom of the late 1960s and early '70s (including the Monty Python troupe), or from the social-realist novels and theatre of the 1950s and early '60s, the Pistols communicated directly with a much wider, more vernacular audience and, to some extent, the resulting shock waves can still be felt.

--Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The only other uncited statement remaining in the article is:

Early in 1978 an American tour was booked by McLaren. They had originally been scheduled to begin the tour in December 1977, but due to the members' minor scrapes with the law, were unable to receive their Visas in time.

This should not be hard to cite; I assume the capital "V" in "Visas" is a mistake. --Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind... section

This is the only part I still think needs work. First, the cite request needs looking at (quotes must have citations); the last para could also use a citation. Second, the first paragraph: the Bruce Foxton bit is tacked-on and should be moved. Also, just one sentence on critical reception, maybe?

That's it for me. I'll go keep if someone can do this, and maybe the review can be closed. --Marskell 13:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the quote from Foxton, it doesn't belong here, but could perhaps be re-instated elsewhere, maybe in the actual Never Mind article --quercus robur 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have in fact moved the Briuce Foxton allegation to Holidays in the Suns' dedicated page --quercus robur 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Previous challenges to the class system"

Still trying to work out how to cite this; I think that there is still more to be said here, too.

I've added the "angry young men" of the 1950s and (of course!) trade unions; seems to me that we should mention hippies and maybe even mods, as well (rockers and Teddy Boys seem to have basically accepted the class system). Can anyone think where we would cite this, and in particular where we would cite for what was novel about the Pistols' attitude (distinctly working class, angry, politically vague but politically confrontational, sometimes witty but never overtly intellectual)? --Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Savage's "England's Dreaming", if you have a copy handy, would be an excellent source for the section --Coil00 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that this specific paragraph is one of the issues on the FAR, I don't think anything should be added there without a source. The page is tightening up otherwise. --Marskell 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also angry young men points to writers of lower-class origin, so I'm not sure if the point really hangs together. --Marskell 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cut it: "Previous challenges to the class system, and to the post-war British ethos of uncomplaining sacrifice, had come mainly from traditional sources, such as from trade unions with concrete political goals, or from the intellectual "angry young men" of the 1950s and the public school- and Oxbridge - dominated satire boom of the 1960s."

There's a couple of small things needed as well (a critical reception sentence for Never Mind the Bollocks?) that can be mentioned at the FAR. Otherwise this is basically a keep. --Marskell 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm not at all sure the point was valid, but to talk about challenges to the class system in the UK and leave our the "angry young men"—or the trade unions—is pure currentism. When I added them, I added the qualifiers "concrete political goals" and "intellectual" so as to try not to completely undercut the previous writer's point. But it is hard to say what was genuinely new about the punks, except a particular combination of elements coming together: working class base, working class anger, working class pride; primarily cultural rather than political expression (especially in the case of the Pistols; less clear in more politically engaged bands like the Clash); counterculturalism, anti-fashion, and anti-aestheticism (which, paradoxically, created a new fashion and a new aesthetic that are still with us 30 years later, but that's the way things go). --Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Trilobites

I think the comment about the Trilobites should stay in the article - I was unaware that trilobites had been named after Rotten, Jones, Cook, Matlock & Vicious until I found it in the wikipedia article, thought it not very credible and was going to delete it, then did a check and found it to be true! Maybe it could be moved to a 'trivia' section, but I think it belongs in the cultural legacy section as it shows just how far reaching their legacy actaully was... --quercus robur 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not very encyclopedic, its trivial, its obscure, but its a nice little story, only one sentence and ref'd twice (!). I'd say keep it, though this king of thing should be kept to a minimum. --Coil00 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is trivia, but just a tiny addition. --Marskell 18:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I say keep: for once, let's have science trivia in a pop culture article, rather than vice versa! --Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep for sure. Interesting fact, fully referenced. --BabuBhatt 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FAR

There are 3 tasks still outstanding, as I see it.

• The lead needs a third paragraph. Suggest it outlines the in-fighting that 'plagued' and eventually split the band, also the tension between Lydon & McLaren (which also needs to be inserted in the main text, I suppose).
• Spungens 'Yoko' like effect on the band should be mentioned
• The dreaded 'influences' section is still light.

Any help on these would be great. --Coil00 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm low on edit time right now, but quickly:

• I don't know if the lead needs it, but a couple of sentences describing the McLaren/Lydon thing specifically (rather than alluding to it in other contexts) belongs somewhere.
• How right is a "Yoko" like effect? She was apparently disruptive but for a band that was plagued by disruption regardless. Further, Vicious wasn't the band's Lennon; she was a sideshow to a sideshow almost. Anyhow, no more than one sentence needed IMO.
• I honestly think it's fine. We establish influence but we don't wander away into OR and over-contextualization.

Looks like this is heading toward keep. Excellent work Coil. --Marskell 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've filled out the lead a little bit. All that was needed was to mention that the band broke up and reunited since the article goes into those bis in-depth later; that's it. Like Marskell, I'm not sure about having details about Spungen's "Yoko" effect. And the influence section is fine; what the article actually needs it mention of the band's musical traits and influences. We probably don't need a separate section like I drew up for The Smashing Pumpkins since I think most of those details can be worked into the biography (or are present, like the New York Dolls mention). For example, we can include Steve Jones' comment that he played primarily barre chords because that was the only chord shape he knew at the time. --WesleyDodds 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation: letter and spirit

This and this strike me as a very poor approach to a legitimate problem. I agree that the linked sites were problematic in copyright terms. However, the citations accurately indicated the actual underlying sources of the material, and replacing that with {{fact}} without coming to the talk page and doing something like I'm doing now makes it much harder for someone to find those actual underlying sources. Clearly, you believe that the sites in question were reproducing these sources, or there wouldn't be any copyright problem. Your precise problem with the linked sites was that they took the material from elsewhere.

For the record, the problematic material was from reviews of Never Mind the Bollocks, respectively by Paul Nelson writing in Rolling Stone, issue 259, 1977 and Andrew Collins, in Q Magazine, 1998. At least the former should be reasonably straightforward to track down, since it is available on microfiche. --Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're referencing an article then it should be referenced accurately, there's no need to link to a web-page copy of a print article. I did not know myself if the cited magazine article actually does contain what that webpage does - that's why I labelled the edit "remove per WP:EL - "Sites that violate the copyrights of others", not a WP:RS", since the site appears to contain the copyrighted content of the magazine and I cannot verify the accuracy of it.

I agree that I could have left a note on the talk page, but I was working through a fair few of these and this article had the added confusion that two of us working through the list bumped into each other here! Thanks/ --wangi 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my approach to this. Any problem with this? --Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Anybody mind if I remove this? I don't think it adds anything to the article. --Guinnog 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it for now. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. --Guinnog 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols

Didn't that album sell over 20 million records? --Kingforaday1620 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel quite safe in saying 'no'. --Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did man! So get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.132.164 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's never been certified above Platinum. So no, it didn't. --Switch ^t 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Small Faces

The Small Faces aren't an American band, as it says they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.223.47 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

"We're Not Gonna Take it?"

i keep hearing about a Sex Pistols version of this song, is it a real song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.124.237 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like a The Who song to me. --Face 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Crass & John Lydon story

It would be interesting to include the following in the article regarding the meeting of Crass artist and film maker Gee Vaucher with John Lydon in New York during the period he was stranded there, but not quite sure how it can be worked in;

She (Gee Vaucher) also remembers bumping into a Sex Pistol during her time in the Big Apple. "I can rememeber picking up Johnny Rotten outside one night - he was absolutely paralytic. He was a total wreck, on his own, outside GBGBs. There were these girls trying to come on to him, it was just awful". So Gee hoisted him up and helped him back to the address he was staying at on Houston Avenue. "These girls kept in tow, and i thought, this guy is just going to b walked on for what he is. So I took him back to where he was staying, took him upstairs and laid him on his bed. And the girls were still trying to get off with him". So Gee ecided to sit guard until they left. "Then I write him a little note and stuck it in his jacket saying that if he ever needed any help, just to ring his number. I never heard from him - he proabably thought I was just another fucking wanker".

From The Story of Crass, George Berger, Omnibus Press ISBN 1-84609-402-X page 69 --quercus robur 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CBGBs, not GBGBs; Houston Street, not Avenue. --KD Tries Again 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)KD

Main page

Has this article been on the main page? I'm not sure how to check, but I think it would be a strong candidate if nominated. --Ceoil 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Spitting on the audience

I always hear that they spit on the audience when in concert. Is this true? If its some sort of trademark thing they have it should be mentioned in the article. --Diemunkiesdie 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was usually the other way around, though there is a lot of early footage of Jones gobbing. --Ceoil 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Misconceptions about the band"

Is this section at all necessary? Any relevant points should be worked in elsewhere. In particular, the Ramones bit isn't really all that solid; to verify that only Sid Vicious was influenced by the Ramones there's a link to an article where he mentions them, rather than a citation of a source that explicitly says the other band members weren't influenced about the Ramones. I've got an interview with Steve Jones where he talks about being blown away by an early UK Ramones gig. --WesleyDodds 22:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering one of the refs is a YouTube link, I would fully support removing it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, lose it. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ritchie vs. Beverly

Why is Vicious referred to as "Ritchie?" His name at that time was not his birth name, but "John Beverley". You can see that on the A&M contract in "Filth". --Zorro6204 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

US Tour

In "12 Days on the Road: The Sex Pistols Across America" by Noel E. Monk, I'm pretty positive that it stated that Sid Vicious had written "Gimme a Fix" on his chest with makeup, instead of carving it with a razor. There was a nasty cut on his left arm self-inflicted by a razor, but I'm almost positive "Gimme a Fix" was just written there. If anybody has a copy of that book, as I seem to have lost mine, could you verify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.6.13 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Struck by a pie

I dont know where to ad this: BUT Sid hit a man AFTER he was struck by a pie. Look at "Sid Sings" the liner clearly shows the San Antonio newspaper and the headline, "Pie Guitar Fracas" Wikipolice can contact the San Antonio Express-News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.25.14 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Got Back Together to Perform "Anarchy in the U.K." for Guitar Hero 3

I don't really know the details, but Guitar Hero 3 claims that the Sex Pistols got back together in order to create a special version of "Anarchy in the U.K." for the game (and it's listed as "Anarchy in the U.K., The Sex Pistols, 2007". I dunno if it's relevant or important, but I thought perhaps it ought to be pointed out. --134.173.56.174 07:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Will be playing with "original" lineup in 2008

I'm not a regular wikipedian, so i thought i leave the editing of the article it self to a "pro". The Sex Pistols have been confirmed for the swedish Peace & Love music festival in Borlänge, so it is probable that they will go on a international or atleast european tour. Source only available in swedish, & http://peaceandlove.nu/. Be on lookout for an english source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.132 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The?

I see another editor has diligently removed many instances of "the" in front of the band's name. I would say that this usage is typical of how bands with names like theirs are referred to in British English. I cannot imagine anyone saying "Sex Pistols were a punk band", it would always be "The Sex Pistols...". What do others think? --Guinnog 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic.com, generally considered a reliable source, lists them as "The Sex Pistols." However, they're always listed as "Sex Pistols" on albums, compilations and singles. I would say that the band's name is "Sex Pistols" but being that it's a discussion of a group, "The Sex Pistols" is appropriate, and changing it to just say "Sex Pistols" (as in, "The Sex Pistols performed today" / "Sex Pistols performed today") is inappropriate. --Salamurai 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, Guinnog ol' buddy, no need to be shy - you can say it was me who made the last change! BTW, only two instances of "the" were removed, hardly 'many'. What I was aiming to do was revert a change which bolded the "the" as though it was part of the band's proper name, which it isn't. I fully agree that normal English usage would have you say "the Sex Pistols" rather than just "Sex Pistols" and I've never suggested removing the "the" everywhere it appears. What I considered inaccurate was The Sex Pistols, which is what the previous editor had made it, in both the first paragraph and the picture caption in the infobox. I think the way things are right now is appropriate, the first mention being the exact name of Sex Pistols, and then most other instances being "the Sex Pistols" for convenience. If you wanted to start the article off with "The Sex Pistols", I wouldn't have a serious argument with it (except maybe aesthetically!) but let's just be clear on what the band name is. Not the same situation as The Smiths or The Beatles... Cheers, Ian Rose 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, sorry for exaggerating. Glad we have ironed out this style issue. --Guinnog 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. I could discuss band nomenclature for hours. I think it's to do with plurals. If a band name appears collective (like Sex Pistols) we usually feel we have to put "the" in front of it or else it sounds like Pidgin English. And yet... Down here we had two popular (and very excellent, I might add) bands in the 70s and 80s, Skyhooks and Models. Yep, those were the proper names. Almost universally, Models were referred to as "the Models", yet Skyhooks were never called "the Skyhooks" - go figure! Cheers, Ian Rose 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I should note that I took advantage of an anon addition to sneak in my linguistic aesthetic POV there! I hope we can all live with it as it is now, with the "the" but without the bolding. --Guinnog 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said earlier, "The Sex Pistols" is not aesthetically pleasing to me but it is perfectly correct name-wise, so fill yer boots...! Cheers, Ian Rose 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that the labels of the original Virgin 7" singles stated the band name as "Sex Pistols". However, most people will refer to them as "The Sex Pistols" or "The Pistols". In fact I'm sure I've heard Lydon refer to them as "The" as well. --StanPomeray (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spurious Train Robber Cred

"...vocals provided by Jones, Edward Tudor-Pole and Ronnie Biggs..." - surely Biggs only ever (even allegedly) appeared on two songs? --HairyDan 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't alleged, he did appear on "No One is Innocent", and one of the versions of "Belsen was a Gas" on "The Great Rock & Roll Swindle" album as lead vocalist. I don't recall him appearing on a third song though. --StanPomeray (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks UK Release Date Was 28-10-1977

I corrected the release date in the article and added just one citation from many available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveG12345 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sid Vicious (deceased)"

This has been added and deleted from the infobox a couple of times and the latest edit suggests that the consensus is that the addition of "deceased" is not necessary. I'm not sure if a consensus has actually been reached but I do know that the infobox guidelines state that the Past Members field should show, "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names". So I've added a HTML note asking that "deceased" not be added again and redirecting potential editors to this discussion. --Kevin Boyd (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Rock & Roll Swindle

I saw a cute source on this today. --Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheated -> Reunion

This is a really good article, but something I'm not seeing is how Lydon reconciled with the band enough to do the reunion gigs? There just seems to be a gap between him leaving, the information about all members' subsequent work, and then the reunion. Is there any information that could be added? Thanks --Torc2 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks Bass

I just watched the Eagle Rock 'Classic Albums' DVD about the album. It contradicts what the article implies - that Glen returned to play bass. The tracks he's on were already in the can. It suggests that Steve played all the bass on the album. [7] [8] --Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed  Done - though obviously the bass on "Anarchy in the UK" was by Matlock. --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anarchy and Pretty Vacant, and their b-sides I think. I believe it said in the doc. that, after he was fired, he was asked to do sessions and he refused. I went back looking for it and couldn't find it. I've not read any of the books - surely they have detailed info? --Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He played on Anarchy, I Wanna Be Me and No Fun, of the singles tracks - only Anarchy ended up on the album. Of course, he played on all the Goodman/Thorne/Thomas demos prior to February 1977, which was when he left. But after he left he didn't play on any new recordings - Jones did all the rest of the bass on Bollocks. This stuff is in a book or two - if we need a ref I can look them up when I get chance. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sid's "Amazing Grace"

I moved this passage, it sounds a bit vague ("later on in Holland") and smacks a bit of fan-worship to me in its present form:

Later on, at a show in Holland, Rotten refused to come to a sound check. Ritchie claimed he knew all the words and promptly climbed up on stage and began to sing the songs. Malcom McLaren recalls this event in the Sex Pistols documentary 'Chaos: ExPistols' that he was in tune, and could sing them, and had this amazing grace to him. McLaren stated that 'he should've come at the right time, he missed his window of opportunity'. This stage persona would be recognisable both on stage for the Pistols, and when he would pursue his short-lived solo career.

We already have "the wrong John" allegation in the article, balancing the "Sid couldn't play" angle - so I do think we have enough on this topic, and with the right balance, while this passage seems to go too far in the uncritical and unsubstantiated direction. We surely all know that McLaren likes to play the revisionist Sid fanboy. Purely IMHO, I can't see how the words "in tune" and "amazing grace" could be used to describe any aspect of Mr. Vicious's solo career "persona" - but I'm willing to read some reputable citations to this effect if they exist. Not even McLaren is claiming that. --DaveG12345 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Very bold, sah! Matter of fact, I agree with you. Admittedly McClaren's "window of opportunity" quote may be verifiable, but the overall tone is fannish - I don't think we need it in the article in its current form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

Newer image

There's a newer and free image of Sex Pistols in concert (this). Shouldn't we use that instead of Image:Sex Pistols.jpg? --Ivan Isaak (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock?

is sex pistols hard rock? I've never heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.181.120 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your confusion/concern and I think that "Punk rock" alone is probably a perfectly acceptable description for the Sex Pistols. However, having read the entry for "Hard rock" there's nothing in there that conflicts enormously with a description of the Pistols. Maybe we just need to qualify the use of the term a bit more vigourously?

For instance, there's no mention at all of musical influences in the Origins and early days section, which seems a bit of an oversight to me. Whilst it's true to say that punk did take on a "year zero" attitude in many respects I think it would be impossible to deny that the first wave of punk bands took their influences from somewhere so why don't we have some discussion of those influences here? From memory there's quite a lot in Jon Savage's England's Dreaming about the origins in the band, earlier incarnations and general influences. If nothing else, their covers of "Substitute" by The Who and more recently "Silver Machine" by Hawkwind should point towards the influence of "hard rock" in their sound at the very least but I'm not sure if this alone is enough to justify the use of the term in the current context. Like I said, if we can justify the use of the term within the main text I see no reason why we can't retain it in the infobox. Anyone care to give it a go? --Kevin Boyd 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

well, i think they have hard rock influences, but if we gonna use another genre, i prefer "garage rock" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.177.224 (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Rotten (Lydon)

The first paragraph lists Johnny Rotten as the vocalist and then in the third paragraph, without warning it says "With Lydon". At this point we dont know who Mr. Lydon is. Could someone please introduce us to John Lydon before this mention or maybe even take it out? --Jameywiki (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Current activities

User:Ceoil removed most all mentions diff of current activities including the re-release of NMTB, the recording for the Guitar Hero, and 2008 festival appearances, mostly well-referenced, on the grounds that they are "trivia". I personally think that current info is absolutely as encyclopedic as historical, and current trivia is even of interest while it may not be merited in a historical context. However, since Ceoil is a worthy & more experienced editor than I, I would not mess with his edit. Opinions? --Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is looking up the Sex Pistols here, they'd probably be very interested in the group's current activities. I know I was. ("Guitar Hero"? Really? I remember when they used to say Jones couldn't play-!) Besides, Wikipedia is awash in trivia, what's a few more bytes? If it's actually about the Sex Pistols (and not just referring to them), I don't see why you shouldn't include it. I would say, put it all back in. --SteveStrummer (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The link "Sex Pistols on Myspace" leads to the myspace of the Sex Pistols Experience, which is a tribute band. They don't have an official myspace, but the most frequently updated fan-run Sex Pistols Myspace can be found here: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.184.95 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Messthetics (where's Jamie?)

This is a pretty good article, but I'm surprised not to see any reference to Jamie Reid and his designs of leaflets, sleeves, posters etc. Also, Helen of Troy (can't remember her real second name now) isn't mentioned either. According to Jon Savage she was the one with the idea of using the kidnap letters for the Pistols' logo. By the way, Helen doesn't appear either in the The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle article, which is strange. Saludos --Fernando H (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? I mean, there are quotes I can put on of Punk musicians who atually criticize the pistols, their music, etc. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.184.243 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)