Jump to content

Talk:Quiet Riot

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

3 million albums

[edit]

How is that commercially disappointing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.205.197 (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tracii Guns departure

[edit]

Tracii Guns left as stated on RandyRhoads.TK. Kevin DuBrow is a member there and you can ask him yourself :P

Tracii Guns was never a member. He came to one rehersal.

I have restored Tracii Guns to the article, and added two sources to back up his being with the band. As per the Quiet Riot press release regarding his departure, "Although we all had high hopes and the best intentions for the success of our association, it became evident collective[ly] that the musical diversity of styles would not work to our mutual satisfaction. Rather than go into the recording studio unsure of the outcome, Quiet Riot and Tracii Guns have decided to amicably part company but remain friends and hold each other in the highest respect."

While they use the word "association", which doesn't nessesarily mean full membership, Guns' brief association with the band should not be excluded from the article as it is a documented part of their history, concerning a "big name" guitar player. Whether someone wants to re-word what I wrote to imply "association" rather than "membership", I will leave that up to someone else. I would argue that the press release itself and the statement "amicably part company" implies that his participation was considered more than just a rehearsal-only association. Also it was almost a month between the first announcement and the second. Frehley72 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He came to one rehersal. There was talk of him joining, he never played a gig, recorded or did any work or was ever paid a dime. There are a million musicians that could claim to have been in every band on earth if that was the only requirement. Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be, but his brief association with the band caused at least two press releases, making his participation notable. The citations in the article show this. I will rephrase the article so it doesn't appear he was an official member. Frehley72 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kevin DuBrow

[edit]

Shouldn't this be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.17.65 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Riot's Disbandment

[edit]

There was a web site that is now defunct -- quietriotonline.com -- that had a detailed bio of the band. It did state that the group disbanded in 1980, following Rhoads' departure. They also broke up in 1989 when Kevin DuBrow (who had been ousted for another singer) was trying to retain the rights to the name. I also read on an all music station that they did break up in 2003 and regrouped two years later. (HairMetalLives (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's also at [1], stating they disbanded in 1980 and Dubrow formed his own band. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name origin -- disappointing ;)

[edit]

Okay so the article mentions the *real* story behind the name. Kinda boring, really. Considering I thought it was due to a line from the "Three Stooges" "we need quiet, not a riot". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_Haters#Quotes 199.214.26.41 (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up and correcting this page, the official Quiet Riot camp

[edit]

Hello,

This is the official Quiet Riot band and management. We are slowly and steadily attempting to clean up the vast array of inaccuracies on this page and post a historically correct bio. Please be patent and please do not come behind us and vandalize or attempt to "correct" this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Quiet Riot (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We only have your word for it, don't we, that you're official? See also WP:OWN and WP:COIEverard Proudfoot (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the band and management http://www.officialquietriot.com, http://www.myspace.com/officialquietriot

and yes we cannot "OWN" the page, but we did live the history listed here and thus know it better than any other users that come and post non factual events and non actual past members. Therefor since we are trying to begin the undertaking of correcting this mess of a page, there is no reason for anyone else to make changes. No one else could possibly do it better than us now can they?

Official Quiet Riot (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Quiet Riot (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the conflict of interest guidelines? Just as you wouldn't expect to write an article for Rolling Stone about your band, you shouldn't expect to write the Wikipedia article. However, we do want the article to be as accurate as possible- please feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies here, including reference to reliable sources we can use to verify the correct information. One reason we all avoid writing about ourselves or our own interests is that it's hard to stick to verifiable facts, and Wikipedia doesn't publish any information that hasn't already been published elsewhere- Wikipedia is not a first publisher of new information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if Rolling Stone wrote an article claiming all these other people who were not in the band were members, and that the band was arrested many time, etc etc, theyy would be sued. I am just erasing the lies. Not stating our own opinions about ourselves. We do know the facts better than anyone afterall. Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be anything on the web pages you linked to that verifies that you are the person who operates those web sites. I think you probably are, but I know that you appreciate that we don't let people just create an account and claim to represent you, because you can imagine how badly that might go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to verify who I am in any way requested. Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinkmermaid, I don't know if you're Frankie Banali or not, but the official QR site says the band is managed by Banali. Anyway I mean no disrespect with my edits. I am a huge fan, and have been for 27 years. I own both of the original Japanese LPs and a near-complete discography so I do have a lot of knowledge to add myself. I am mostly editing for formatting, grammar, and tagging according to Wikipedia rules. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour there's no reason you can't add information, while others edit it for grammar and so on. I hope the end result is a Quiet Riot article that both looks great and is factually accurate. Cheers. Frehley72 (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names removed

[edit]

I double- checked the above user's edits, and I, too, wasn't able to find sources verifying the membership of Skip Gillette and Sean Manning, so I removed them from the list. If I'm wrong, feel free to restore, but it would be cool if you could toss a source in with it. Pinkmermaid also removed Greg Leon from the list, but this interview seems to confirm his participation with Quiet Riot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to confirm what Pinkmermaid says- that Greg Leon was a member of a band that existed before Quiet Riot proper, so I removed it. Then again, Pete Best is listed as a 'former member' on The Beatles... open to discussion on this one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Re:Quiet Riot question??? about membership in regards to Skip Gillette. Keep in mind there was not really any internet when Quiet Riot was still a local Hollywood band playing in clubs so one would have to search print archives of local magazines and paper such as BAM and LA Weekly for early QR and Dubrow show listings, reviews, photos and interviews. Likewise there were later interviews with members of WWIII that discussed bands that Skip Gillette had played with in the past - including Gamma and Tim Dulaine (who also used Frankie Banelli). There may be cross references with interviews and article on Kingdom Come and Johnny Crash, both of which sprang from former members of WWIII. But, again, a larger amount of these interviews are not online as they were in papers and zines around Hollywood in the pre-internet days. Likewise I also added Gary Van Dyke back in. Same scenario as with Skip - however at least we have a photo on the internet: Gary and Kevin and an overview at Gary Van Dyke (...he recorded with Kevin DuBrow and the late-great Randy Rhoads, played in DuBrow...) that aids to establish the fact. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The papers and zines are at least within the realm of consideration of WP:Reliable sources; a forum posting is not. If the membership can be backed up by overviews, interviews of other members who corroborate the membership, etc., then the insertion is reasonable sourced. However, a forum comment alone is not a sufficient source to verify membership, so it should not be relied on to list people as former members of the band. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is being relied on is facts from people who were there. What is being relied on is facts from people who were photographers, or fans who took photos. Can I pull a print archive out of my ass? No I can't. What I posted above should be enough for now for the reasons I stated. If a picture showing one of these "disputed" members on stage with them is not worth a thousand words than something is wrong with the "system". I have said that many many time before though - it is not a new thought for this discussion or aimed directly at any one person. The amount of musicians that traveled through bands like QR are vast, and in a lot of cases a who's who of the Hollywood music scene. But, I do understand why Wikipedia does not want band members, labels, management or close friends working on their own articles. On the other hand Wikipedia tries to put out that it is an encyclopedia, so it is the "duty" of those who oversee articles to not leave out facts. Were Skip Gillette and Gary Van Dyke, in fact, involved with DuBrow/QR? Absolutely. Can people in the internet age, where the concept that "if it is not on the internet it doesn't exist", verify that? Probably not because of the reasons I have already stated. As a perfect example of this - A few years ago there was a huge discussion about the band Heart and how Ann and Nancy were always in the band and how the band moved, en masse, from the state of Washington to Vancouver, BC. As is the same case here many of the photos, article, interviews and such are not online. I had to dig deep to produce two images to establish what was fact. There was no much, if any, text on the internet that said what the images showed - the band in Seattle with no female members and another showing the band in Vancouver without Nancy. If I could produce a photo showing Skip on stage with DuBrow I would - but as of right now I can't. As with articles, not every single photograph taken in the various clubs of Hollywood is online somewhere. I can say, as a fact, that I have read, on hard copy (not online) interviews where Skip talked about "playing in DuBrow with Kevin at the Troubadour". Is that online? Not that I can find. Do I have that in my hands? Not at the moment, and I am not sure I even would have saved that. I know, for a fact, Skip played with numerous musicians and bands - can every one of them be "verified" online? No. I know for a fact Skip was contacted by Ozzy when he needed a drummer and Skip sent one of his drum students over to him - Randy Castillo. Can you verify that online? Probably not. I know for a fact that when I was first introduced to Frankie Banali it was by Skip at a WWIII show at Gazzarri's. Can you verify that online? No. And doubtful Frankie would even remember that as it was 20 or more years ago. But none of that matters here because it is just OR and because I am very familiar with the Hollywood scene and the people who played in it is not counted as a reliable source. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We ARE people who were there and can verify the facts. Skip Gillette did in fact play a few shows with Kevin in the band "Dubrow" but he was never a member of QR. This is a QR page, not a Dubrow page. Pinkmermaid (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that means you're a primary source, and the Wikipedia policies about primary sources and original research kick in. Hence why it's preferable to rely on secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines. —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then your theory "What is being relied on is facts from people who were there." is not the case with WIKI. Second and third hand info and rumor, and sometimes lies, (especially lies in print) are more valuable than having the facts verified by the original principals. That is why wiki has mostly untrue data all over the site....I'm gonna start saying I starred in Hamlet on broadway. There, I said it in print so it's true now. I'm gonna go post in on my wiki page, then on the Hamlet wiki page. That's how all this runs. Pinkmermaid (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinkermaid,
I think you misunderstand. Does the New York Times say you were in Hamlet? That is a reliable secondary source. Frehley72 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times doesn't say Greg Leon was in QR. Only online interviews with Mr. Leon and not backed up by anyone in the band. Pinkmermaid (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Leon is fabricating his membership in QR in many interviews. He was in fact a member of 'Dubrow" which had a few members that later reformed as Quiet Riot without Greg Leon but Mr. Leon was in fact never in QR himself. Has done press to try and state otherwise but that doesn't make it true. No actual member of QR backs up his claim in any interview.Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, it could be argued that DuBrow was in fact simply QR - at least no more or no less QR than Banali's new attempt at cashing in with what is essentially a QR tribute act. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. Dubrow was a different band. It had many different musicians at different times, (a few not even listed here) played different songs.Pinkmermaid (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to take the band's side on this one. There is precedent for bands who don't include members from differently-named incarnations as ex-members. Kiss don't consider Wicked Lester members to be Kiss members, even though one band evolved from the other organically. Black Sabbath don't consider Earth members to be Sabbath members even though it's the same band. Deep Purple don't count Roundabout members. Van Halen & Mammoth, Iron Maiden & Gypsy's Kiss, and so on. I couldn't really think off the top of my head of bands that do count members from differently-named incarnations as true members. Both Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe are considered Beatles members, but both were in the band after they changed their name to the Beatles. Of course I'm sure there are examples of the opposide point of view, but my inclination is to think they are the minority.
The Tracii Guns thing though, I do think he should count as an ex-member regardless of how the band feel. Maybe they have some "buyer's regret" and want to erase that misstep. The press releases from the time are enthusiastic and imply he was to be a member. They say he was to record the next album. In one interview with Banali, cited on the wikipedia article, the interviewer said that Guns "joined" the band, and Banali didn't correct him. To use another precedent, Tony Iommi is considered an ex-member of Jethro Tull, even though he was only in the band a week and never recorded, wrote, or did anything aside from mime in one video. However I'm not going to change the wording of the article to reflect membership for Guns since that is just my personal feeling. I'd be curious what the consesus is among everyone else. Frehley72 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frehley72 about Guns. In addition, I have to take exception again with Pinkmermaid's stance on Leon (note: an inference has been made by this user that he is either Banali himself or a close associate - please see user's talk page). When DuBrow continued QR after the exit of Rhoads, he represented half of QR and, for all intents & purposes, continued using the name. Leon has stated in interview that he believed he was joining QR but that, at some point, DuBrow decided to change the name of the band. In any case, this is all pre-Banali, so if Pinkmermaid's POV is that Leon was never a member of QR at any time, I have to raise my eyebrow a bit (remembering personally what occurred but also having read Leon's published accounts). Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin did not continue QR when Randy left. He started a new band. It wasn't until 2 years later when the metal health era was together, and couldn't find a great name, they decided to use the name QR. Pinkmermaid (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we know Pinkmermaid that this is your POV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just the facts, Ma'am. Like 'em or not. Pinkmermaid (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia is a lot like Missouri when it comes to verifiability: "you have got to show me" the reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One possible source to support Leon NOT being a Quiet Riot member are the credits to the CD Live & Rate Vol I. Leon seems to have been associated with DuBrow early on, from formation. By the time they got around to recording the demo tracks that are included on Live & Rare, the guitar player was a guy named Bob Steffan. The lineup on those demos, stated as "DuBrow", is DuBrow/Steffan/Chuck Wright/Frankie Banali. That lineup implies that the demos were recorded late in the DuBrow period, due to Banali and Wright's involvement, and after Leon. The name change to Quiet Riot would have happened after, meaning Leon wasn't a member of QR. (However it begs the question if this Bob Steffan person was a member. What came first -- Carlos Cavazo, or the name change to QR?)
This, however, would all be easy to settle if Pinkmermaid would supply a reliable third-party source. An interview with DuBrow where he states that Leon was never a member would go a long way towards settling this. Cheers. Frehley72 (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Steffan was one of the many revolving members of the band Dubrow. Generally in interviews people don't speak in negatives but there is an interview where Kevin recounts the Dubrow, QR line up history. It was done in 84. It's on video though and not online. The Demos were Kevin, Bob, Chuck and Frankie. Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclinded to remove Leon's name as a member of Quiet Riot, but consensus is important. Frehley72 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A Sniper. I suggested that Pinkmermaid may be Banali because he states he is Quiet Riot's management, and their official site states that Banali is the manager. Regardless, I didn't realize that Leon stated in an interview that he thought he was joining Quiet Riot, but at some point DuBrow changed the name. That makes me rethink my position. I think sometimes, sadly, a band cannot be considered the be-all and end-all of information. A lot of bands like to revise their own history. Helix are guilty of this, as they often claim they are touring with the "original" lineup, when in reality they only have one original member. So that's an example.
Regarding the Guns thing, here's another example. Accept had a singer in between Udo and David Reece whose name escapes me. All they ever did was a photo session, and realized the fit didn't work out. However, the guy WAS in Accept for a brief period of time, even though the band never talk about it anymore. Black Sabbath had a couple singers (David Donato and Dave Walker) who never recorded anything, but they are considered official ex-members. Frehley72 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the death metal side of things, take the curious example of John Hand from the genre innovators Death. He is consistently listed as an ex-member of the band on the strength of having appeared on the back cover credits of their debut, despite all accounts pointing to the fact he never actually played any gigs or on the album itself - he merely showed up to a few rehearsals, they sent the new information to the label, and then he was sacked within weeks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

I thought the claim of release of the promo photo was at least plausible, and restored it. If you think I'm out of line with WP:IMAGE, or if there's another reason to prefer the other photo, please feel free to change - I tend to tread cautiously around image use, which is an area of policy that baffles me, and am not married to the photo. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm starting to double-think myself. The Quiet Riot that is most well-known is the first iteration of the band, not the new one... that might be a reason to keep the lead photo of the original band, and move the new band further down the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any official QR photo would be fine. We figured current = better. Any official QR pic is better than one a fan took of the band with his baby.Pinkmermaid (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The picture of the fan, his baby, and the band might be better if it is a free pic, as opposed to a non-free official promotional picture. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The promo QR pics are always free. We are happy to supply any promo pic we own from any era. Pinkmermaid (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the band's management is happy to give away any promotional picture, and won't object if it shows up on t-shirts or other items for sale, because it's given away the rights for any derivative use, including commercial use, of the images? —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The band's management "gives away" the photo to press and for any promotional use of the photo. (advertising shows, etc) Wiki isn't promotion but it qualifies as an informational outlet. Wiki is not commercial. An NO you cant make and sell bootleg t shirts. Pinkmermaid (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think it's safe to say the picture in the article should be changed. As per WP:IMAGE, "Images with any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia." Frehley72 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image on the article now is tagged as if it's been released into the public domain. I suppose the question, based on Pinkmermaid's comment, is whether that license tag is valid. However, Frehley72, you've gotten to the point I was trying to make: there is no "for Wikipedia use only" license. If a free image is available, such as a picture taken by a fan who licenses the image under Creative Commons, it will be used in the article instead of any non-free images, such as promotional pictures. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles and Rolling Stones pages have photos on them, real photos not fan snapshots. I'm sure it would be illegal to make T shirts with them also. How come Wiki allows those photos and not the QR promo photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the logo, the only non-free image in Rolling Stones is of the band lineup from the 1960s. Since Brian Jones is dead, it would be impossible to get a free image to portray the band, so a non-free image is allowed. All other images that I saw were free images.
By that same logic, a non-free photo of QR's early lineup with Randy Rhoads would be allowable, since it is impossible to take a new, replacement free image. A non-free photo may not be used for the current lineup of the band, since it is possible to take a free photo—and as the infobox attests, a free photo has been taken of them (File:Quietriot2.jpg).
With regard to the logo, the Rollings Stones' lips logo is copyright-protected but a key identifying mark of the band. It may be used under the non-free usage criteria. Likewise, an image of Quiet Riot's mask logo would be usable within the non-free content guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the current QR photo is with someone's baby who is not a member of the band. And the Rolling Stones photo does not have Brian Jones in it. Pinkmermaid (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the infobox photo, it's a montage of four free photos. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So people can make Rolling Stones T shirts using those for free photos if they want? Intresting. Pinkmermaid (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drummer's statement

[edit]

Do we still need the paragraph from the drummer explaining that he will never, ever rejoin Quiet Riot, now that he has done so? Should we keep it, or summarize it in a sentence? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. its not hurting anything being there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.239.34 (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I think it is historically intersting. It is a legitimate documented reflection of Banali's feelings at the time of DuBrow's death. It's a documented part of the band's history. Also it reflects a trend in rock music in general. Motley Crue once said they would never perform without one of the original four. Kiss once said they were saying farewell forever. I think the statement is just another part of the tapestry of rock.Frehley72 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Franklin

[edit]

I suggest removing Tony Franklin's name as a member of Quiet Riot. His picture does not appear on the Rehab CD, and he is not credited as a member but as an "attending musician" -- the same as Glenn Hughes' credit, who was obviously not a member of Quiet Riot. I would also question why the band's management allowed Franklin's name to appear as a "member" in this article, while Tracii Guns' name was removed. Is it because Franklin is one of the best bass players in the world and it looks good to have him listed? This is why I'm not always cool with a band editing their own article, little biases like that could creep in -- if that's indeed the case here.

There are a few people listed as members that were not. As for me or the band editing the page or "allowing" this person or that person to be listed. That is a joke. Anything that the band camp has edited just gets deleted. I barely began deleting lies and false members (it would be a big job) when the trolls took over so this page is now abandoned by anyone who could verify actual facts. This page is largely inaccurate. Siting "references" that are nothing more than blogs or interviews that are not truthful. If anyone is coming to this page for info about this band they are just getting a mish mosh of myths & rumors anyway.Pinkmermaid (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the consensus? Should Tony Franklin be listed as a member of Quiet Riot, yay or nay? Frehley72 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City

[edit]

Should anyone mention the parody of "Love Fist" from Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto game " Vice city "? Alexandre8 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

I have replaced the old messy version of the membership timeline with a version that reflects modern Wiki formatting (see List of Black Sabbath band members for example). I used dates, some of which were estimated, from the main text of the article, and probably got a few of the date ranges wrong. Let me know via talk page if anything needs to be adjusted. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Band vs 70's Band

[edit]

I don't know the best way to do this, but i'm thinking separate wiki pages for each band. The way this one reads, it makes it seem like both QRs were the same band. It has been mentioned by Franki and Kevin, and known for quite some time, that this band is one that used to be called DuBrow, and only assumed the QR moniker because Kevin's previous band wasn't using it anymore. The way the page is would be like having Creed and Alter Bridge's pages as one, or the classic rock band Skid Row combined with the 90's hair metal band. There should be a page for the 70's band called Quiet Riot, and one for the band formed in 1980 by Kevin and Franki. Any takers? UtahCountryBoy (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right/Quiet Riot - Rick Parfitt?

[edit]

It occurs to me that Quiet Riot recorded a version of Slade's "Cum On Feel The Noize".

While it seems incredibly unlikely that any native English speaker would interpret 'quite right' from Rick Parfitt as 'quiet riot', the same could not be said for the same phrase as spoken by a member of the band Slade, which hailed from the West Midlands (okay, Wolverhampton. I always though they were Brummies, but never mind). Noddy Holder, I do mean you. Michael F 1967 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael F 1967: Please refrain from using talk pages as forums or soapboxes. The talk page is intended strictly for discussing how to improve the article, not for venting your feelings. SolarFlashDiscussion 02:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your good faith criticism misses the point that my remark was intended purely to guide editors as to how to improve this article regarding one minor aspect. I was making a comment with respect to an edit I'd made to correct apparently mistaken information given in the main article, which claimed that the band name 'Quiet Riot' came from a mis-hearing of 'Quite right' spoken by Rick Parfitt.
Now then, the source for that claim was not available. The claim seemed to me to be ludicrous, given the way Rick Parfitt spoke. So I applied editorial judgement and changed the article's wording.
After a period of contemplation - okay, actually paying attention to what Quiet Riot had actually recorded - I spotted the Slade cover "Cum On Feel The Noize". And then it struck me: hang on a bit, you could mistake a Brummie-or-near-equivalant 'quite right' for 'quiet riot' if you weren't used to the accent. So I added a comment here by way of providing useful information to guide future editors.
Not soap-boxing: simply providing a bit of background info in the hope that it'd help make for better judgements regarding the article in future.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing how any of this deals with article improvement. What you call "background info", we call original research, and it's not allowed. You are implying a conclusion not stated by any sources, and as you no doubt know, we go with what the sources can confirm, even when you deem it "ludicrous". SolarFlashDiscussion 03:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comments in this section are intended to improve the article by adding some background information to inform editorial judgement.
Editorial judgement is in part always based on personal knowledge however acquired. It is wrong to suggest that original research cannot be mentioned on talk pages and I think there is some purpose in doing so because it can be used to inform editorial judgement. If I were presented with two sources which stated different things, and had personal knowledge which told me one source was wrong and one source was right, I think it would be a correct application of editorial discretion for me to rate as more reliable the source I knew to be correct, no matter how I had come by my knowledge.
Of course, not all information presented in sources is clearly wrong or right, and it would be wrong to present in an article a judgement on the reliability of a source based on what's in my brain - that sort of thing needs to come from yet another reliable source. But I can put [dubious – discuss] tags in based on my personal knowledge.
Back to this article.
Now then, in this case a claim was made that was not backed up by a WP:RS that was available and seemed to me to be ludicrously wrong. Given that the claim seemed utterly ridiculous and had no source I could check, I removed it. If I'd read the claim in a source, I'd've added a [dubious – discuss] tag.
I have added nothing to the article based on my personally acquired information.
I then made a point on the talk page that the mistaken hearing in question could have been a result of mis-heading a different British rock musician with a view to informing future editors that if they came across the mis-hearing "quiet riot" for "quite right" in a source which named (e.g.) Noddy Holder that would be a more reliable source even if another source names Rick Parfitt again. After all, mistaken stories do go around, don't they?
And the thing about this point is that you don't have to take my word for it. The accent in question - whoever was speaking - was described as a 'thick' English accent. Pretty much any English (and probably British) person listening to Rick Parfitt and Noddy Holder would agree that you'd only use 'thick' to describe Holder's accent, not Parfitt's. Basically, I'm highlighting a reality check that lots of people can do rather than trying to impose my ideas. Yes, doing so would be original research, but - well, when it's just doing a quick reality check to see if a source is making an apparently ludicrous claim, why not? This isn't about matters of fine judgement, just making sure that obviously wrong information isn't included or is at least tagged [dubious – discuss].
My point is also that even if a source does name Rick Parfitt, the claim should be viewed with deep suspicion - and perhaps editorial judgement would decide that such a claim was not reliable, based on an application of common sense and an understanding of English accent. In such a case, editorial judgement would either not include the information on the grounds of unreliability, or (and this would be my preference) include it with a [dubious – discuss] tag.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SolarFlash: It seems you've added another source. I followed the link but I have no access to the text on the cited page. Are you in a position to provide a relevant quotation from any of the cited sources?

I'm genuinely intrigued by this one - I mean, if the source really does name Rick Parfitt, then it should be used. But oh boy - one article cited is titled 'Quieting the noize', and that 'noize' spelling comes straight from Slade. Or then again, straight from the 'Slade track Cum on feel the noize' that Quiet Riot covered, so, erm. I'm sat here shrugging to myself. "Quite Right" does have the ring of something Parfitt might have suggested.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's confirmed by multiple reliable sources, so that's that. This satisfies the guidelines, thus it satisfies me. Find another battle to fight. SolarFlashDiscussion 18:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current band photo

[edit]

Shouldn't we try to get a more recent photo of the band now seeing as, following Banali's death, not a single person from the Metal Health-era lineup is in the band's current lineup? Doesn't seem like an accurate representation. 2A00:23C6:C284:4600:D552:FFDF:280B:20A4 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quiet_Riot&oldid=1208095422"