Jump to content

Talk:Smash Mouth/Archive 1

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

Better than the Monkees?

I don't like the comment about most critics calling the Smash Mouth version of I'm a believer better than the Monkees version. Where are these critics? Name some names to provide some legitimcay to that bold claim.

Haha, "critics" = Smash Mouth fans. Let's not be POV while pretending not to be, folks, we're not a newspaper. -- MasterXiam 22:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting that statement until someone can provide a citation.

NPOV?

  • About 'Astro Lounge': "The album was also worthy of note in that it was the first Smash Mouth release that did not contain a single swear word, particularly strange in light of the fact that Fush Yu Mang had received a Parental Advisory warning from the RIAA."

Particularly strange? Maybe they "cleaned up" the lyrics to avoid a "Parental Advisory"?

I think it should be changed to: "The album was also worthy of note in that it was the first Smash Mouth release that did not contain a single swear word." (cutting off "particularly strange in light of the fact that Fush Yu Mang had received a Parental Advisory warning from the RIAA.")

212.242.205.5

  • "Much more laid-back, mature, and retro-sounding than Fush Yu Mang, Astro Lounge proved that the band had matured as musicians."

Isn't this statement POV? 70.106.107.167 22:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

  • "Get the Picture?, their fourth album, is their biggest flop. Every single ("Looking for a Wall", "New Planet") bombed, and the album was extremely overlooked. While this appealed to younger fans, it wasn't enough. The album sold a dismal 33,000, hovever, recent figures have shown that GTP has sold more copies, but still not enough to reach gold status."

I also think that sounds POV-ish.

Record Labels are responsible for the amount of records that are sold for most bands (with the exception of someone like Madonna, ect...) They either push it, or they don't. They either pay the radio stations to play their kiss ass bands or they don't cause the band doesn't want to kiss ass. I wonder who's really responsible for "Get the Picture". Seems like the band is now doing better on their indie label. The new record "Summer Girl" is awesome, and it seems to have more of an edge too. Sounds like the Smash Mouth I fell in love with. Sounds like their back!!!!


It may need some rephrasing, but I'm not exactly sure if the overall meaning should be changed, especially since it cited sales numbers. Someone should double check them, though. Just to be on the safe side. 67.187.113.190 05:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

August Cleanup

Saw this posted on cleanup - tightened up the article and tried to remove redundancies and POVs - perhaps it will be deemed in better shape now. Barrettmagic 10:30 August 11, 2005 (UTC)


I also saw this on cleanup. Didn't feel up to handling the POV stuff, but fixed up a bunch of grammar problems. ~Unregistered user?

I took down the cleanup notice, i think it's good now.

Pop punk description / category

I've added this group to the "pop punk groups" category. I found an article from the New York Times which calls them that. I'm not saying that's their many genre, but they have been described as a pop punk band so it should be noted. Here's the link to the article, [1], you might have to log in the view it. Here is a quote: "In Hang On (not to be confused with Good Charlotte's Hold On) the pop-punk band Smashmouth exhorts, Things are gettin' weird/ Things are gettin' tough/ Nothing's makin' sense/ But you keep on lookin' up. " Xsxex 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Their first album is PUNK / SKA. I think they've merged into the pop world tremendously, but they still have their original sound, that hasn't changed. I think they are powerpop, punk, ska. But these days people don't know how to explain music PERIOD.  :)

I still think they rock, whether it's in a commercial, on Shrek or in a horror flick. Tara - Las Vegas, NV

Pop isn't a four-letter word. The group always composes with a strong hook in mind, no matter how hard they're trying to play, and I consider that a good thing. I agree powerpop for that reason, but as far as ska goes, I haven't heard an upstroke out of them since Nervous in the Alley, and they take songcraft too seriously to be punk. There's more to punk than just playing loud and fast, and there's more to playing loud and fast than punk. They can play some pretty hefty rock 'n' roll, but it's not rebellious, unkempt or rude enough to be classified in punk. It's hard to genre-diagnose a band who took such a sharp turn after their debut, though. DackAttac 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is too many people have to categorize bands these days, and furthermore, it seems like some of you are projecting your own opinion of the category you feel they should be put into without regard to what they consider themselves to be (if anything). It's really all a matter of opinion and hard to determine for an absolute fact what category many bands should fit into. Anyway, this article sucks b*lls. That's not a criticism of the band, just the article. And the biggest problem with the article is the section about the group's musical style; it cites no sources, makes broad statements along the lines of "most fans think" or "most people feel" (which is impossible to know let alone to verify; how would anyone know what most people or most fans think), and seems to be all one person's opinion and personal research. Cris Varengo 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does the trivia section say that the song All Star is so annoying it has been known to cause death to those who hear it?

Performed mergers

Merged content from Steven Harwell, Greg Camp, Paul De Lisle, and Jason Sutter. See old talk pages at:

Mergefrom Paul De Lisle

Paul De Lisle's only notability is with this band and there's almost nothing in that article. Seems like it should be merged in here... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I think the articles on all Smash Mouth members should be merged into the main article.


NO "Do Not Merge" Greg Camp and Steve Harwell have worked hard and deserve their own identity. They both have separate things going on besides Smash Mouth. 1. Steve Harwell was cast on Surreal Life (series 6) (separate of Smash Mouth) and I've heard on Radio shows that he may have his own TV show soon. And also Greg Camp writes notable songs for numerous films and television shows (separate from Smash Mouth) (as well as for the band too). Neither one of the band members should be summed up like that. They both work very hard outside of what you want "summed up". Silly Sierra - Los Angeles, CA



I agree entirely. There is no point for having so many band member stubs when they can just all be merged in to the bands page.-Nintendonien

Hell no, although I do believe if any band member is to be merged it should be Paul. -Protozoic Waste


I see absolutely no reason to keep them seperate. What does Paul De Lisle have that differs from what he has with the band?

Merge - there is nothing of note in this separate page that would not fit into the main article. Derek R Bullamore 21:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


I have added the suggestion for merger tag to all the current band members and to the top of this article. I agree they need to be merged, but at that time they also need to be cleaned up and referenced some. Also I dont have a good idea on how to format the merged text.Sir hugo 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One again hell no, at least not Steve (Steve is now on TV, so I guess that makes him notable).

And not jason either, he's been in other bands

Merge all band members into this article. Garrettcobb 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Band members deserve pages as well as the band they are in. CoastTOcoast533 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'No. It seems to be pretty standard on Wikipedia for band members and musicians to have their own article. I cannot see any reason why this band should be an exception without a wider decision to alter many other band articles.

NO "Do Not Merge" Greg Camp and Steve Harwell have worked hard and deserve their own identity. They both have separate things going on besides Smash Mouth. 1. Steve Harwell was cast on Surreal Life (series 6) (separate of Smash Mouth) and I've heard on Radio shows that he may have his own TV show soon. And also Greg Camp writes notable songs for numerous films and television shows (separate from Smash Mouth) (as well as for the band too). Neither one of the band members should be summed up like that. They both work very hard outside of what you want "summed up". Silly Sierra - Los Angeles, CA


I've added this group to the "pop punk groups" category. I found an article from the New York Times which calls them that. I'm not saying that's their many genre, but they have been described as a pop punk band so it should be noted. Here's the link to the article, [2], you might have to log in the view it. Here is a quote: "In Hang On (not to be confused with Good Charlotte's Hold On) the pop-punk band Smashmouth exhorts, Things are gettin' weird/ Things are gettin' tough/ Nothing's makin' sense/ But you keep on lookin' up. " Xsxex 20:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Smash Mouth is a big enough band that the members each deserve a page. Oren0 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge, there is nothing of merit than can be put into these individual articles, and will never rise above "Stub" status. MDowdal 22:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge, although I also think "Smash Mouth is a big enough band that the members each deserve a page" that's POV. The member articles are small enough to be included in the band article for now. When they grow too big, they should be separated, until then they should be in the band article.Pro bug catcher 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not yet anyway., Smash Mouth isn't big currently, but keep in mind they had a massive slew of Top 40 hits over the course of the beginning of their career. Look at, say, Fall Out Boy's. Four hits total, three of them top 10. Their members' individual pages aren't disputed. Because they're currently huge, but if pop radio is as "kind" to them as it usually is to bands of their ilk, they may be in the same boat as SM in five years. FOB's member pages will still be up and relevant then. That said, the main difference is that Fall Out Boy's fanbase has enough activity to whip up coherent bio's for each member from current media coverage. The Smash Mouth pages are stubs in the worst way, so if it hit comes to merge, I wouldn't shed a tear over it, but I say leave Sutter's alone. He (a) hasn't been with Smash Mouth long enough to warrant being tethered to his latest gig like that and (b) as an unsigned comment above pointed out, he's been in other bands. I'm not saying he's a celebrity, but let's make sure he's a Smash Mouth fixture before we just throw his page in there. (I don't have the liner notes with me, but I believe Urbano played drums on half the latest LP, and even produced a few.) DackAttac 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NO "Do Not Merge" See similar arguments made for Randall Munroe of xkcd fame. His bio page is even weaker than the band members', but the community decided to keep them separate (precedent!).


I count a majority in opposition to merging. Why then was it merged? The Band Members section looks pretty rough the way it is now. Michael 134.84.96.142 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles on band members?

You know, it's just sad when the links to articles for band members redirect to the article for the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.114.202 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harwell Arrest

In the History section, there is a note about Steve Harwell's arrest for DUI and the subsequent search of his vehicle (and resultant findings). I can find no reference to this occurence on any of the three major news websites I searched, nor does a search engine return any relevant information regarding the arrest. A source should be cited for this item, or it should be removed.


REPLY - On an interview on youtube, Steve Harwell did say he went to jail, though he doesn't say what for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.246 (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember When We Called Them "Fans"?

"Before the release of Summer Girl, the Smash Mouth community was surprised to learn..."

It's official: The word "community" has jumped the shark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.7.221 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Harwell's band status

In the article, no mention is made of Harwell's departure of the band until the end, when it says he departed in March 2008. However, everything else says that he is still involved with Smash Mouth. Which is it? --Celticsfan1983 —Preceding comment was added at 07:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

This article is full of an amazing amount of false info / terrible writing / vandalism. If anyone out there is a fan of the band, look through the article and see what you can fix! 134.84.96.142 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits indicating Steve Harwell left band in March. Unable to find any documentation to support. Not to mention my seeing him leading the band less than a month ago Isgrimnur (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Camp's solo album

Well, Being as I'm from San Jose, there is an annual fireworks event, as well as a festival type thing. about 6:00 pm, they were saying something about lead guitars...and greg camp performed vocals and lead guitar with a band. they mentioned him having a solo album to be released on september 9th.

it has info on this event (including the thing showing proof he played): http://americafestival.com/july4.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.103.90 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Greg Camp leaving

I edited Camp's info to reflect his recent departure from the band. He really needs to be removed from the "Current Members" section but he has way too much info to put under "Former members." Now that he is no longer with the band but still has an ongoing music career he really does deserve his own page. Je5s3r (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Je5s3r

Something

Cleaned up the obviously "anti" smash mouth bits and opinions. "So in other words, they essentially are a 60s rip-off band." How do you "rip-off" a decade exactly? I can see citing the influence but to say rip off is insulting. That's like calling the Cosby Show a Leave it to Beaver rip off. - opie 9/13/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.61.227 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I put this article up for cleanup because it is sloppy and isorganized and opinionated.-Whatever The Heck My Full IP Address Is.

Kevin Coleman is referred to as both Coleman and Koleman. I don't know which it is, but someone should figure it out and change one of them.

C is correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Everyking 08:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Didn't Smash Mouth appear on Charmed performing a single once? Shouldn't that be under Trivia?

Smash Mouth performed All-Star at the 1999 All-Star game (Home Run Derby) at Fenway Park in Boston, MA. --Blastphemist 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When is the new album coming out?

Just wondering if anybody heard anything because I read here it was going to be released in "late 2008" and obvioulsy that never happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.112.37 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Smash Mouth also be listed as Surf Rock??

Smash mouth has a lot of surf rock style songs, why aren't they listed as Surf Rock on the article? estemshorn (talk|sigs) 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

LyricsFreak copyvio?

Is the website "LyricsFreak" a mirror of Wikipedia? Nearly all of this article is a direct copy of that website's biography of the band, and if it's not a mirror of Wikipedia, that's one hell of a copyvio. If no one replys in two days to this, I will assume it is a copyvio, delete the entire history section, and then rebuild it, initially using LyricsFreak as a ref. If it is a mirror, and I don't think so, as there's nothing on the page about, and it isn't listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/Jkl, than I apologize for the confusion. Cheers, C628 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to assume no-one has a problem with that, and start rewording the history stuff, although it might take a while; I'm quite busy in real life right now. C628 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Habits

Why did Old Habits lose its own article? Even though it never were released, there still was an album cover, if I remember correctly. I think it earns as much an article as the other albums. 78.72.6.6 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Walkin on the Sun

I changed the Hot 100 Airplay peak to #2, as Billboard's web site has the peak at #2, correct me if I am wrong, I also changed it on the article for the song too. The Man Who Needs No Introduction! (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Third Wave Ska

Really? I don't think they fit that description at all and it's sure not the first genre I think of when I think of this band. 71.0.173.144 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Their first album "Fush Yu Mang" was a ska punk/pop punk album, everything else they've done is pop rock. 108.60.162.33 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Eggs

where is the part about the eggs. smash mouth eat the eggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.174.242 (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple fans on Twitter wanting Smash Mouth to each a bunch of eggs is hardly notable. The page has already been semi-protected once because people wouldn't stop adding stuff about the eggs, and I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to protect it again if it starts back up.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 03:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Smash Mouth is going to eat all the eggs. The egg money is going to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. That's pretty notable, wouldn't you agree? http://twitter.com/#!/smashmouth/status/88366645747257344 ~stewie_familyguy_fan_420— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 July 2011
Not without independent reliable sources. Heck, you're batting only about 50% on putting up working Twitter links. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
here are some egg sources now get to work on the egg article http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/crossfade/2011/07/history_of_internet_campaign_smash_mouth_eats_24_eggs.php http://www.ology.com/music/smash-mouth-please-eat-eggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.255.163 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has addressed this point. This is the most relevant the band has been since the 90s. Definitely notable IMHO.Apophenic (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fun story: I did a Google search of "Smash Mouth eggs" and it seems to have been covered on quite a few different sites. You might be able to make a notability case if any of those sites are considered reliable sources. On the other hand, it appears to be just Steve Harwell who has been asked to eat the eggs, so it might belong exclusively on his own page and not this one.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 09:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple media outlets have reported on the large-scale grassroots movement to get international Grammy-winning punk rock band Smash Mouth to eat the eggs like they should. Already tens of thousands of dollars have been pledged for notable charities, and all Steve Harwell needs to do is eat the eggs. Pitchfork, Vice, and Rolling Stone have all reported on the band's declining sales and listenership because the band will not eat the eggs not even for charity. Some college radio stations are even boycotting Smash Mouth and are refusing to play such rock and roll hits as "All Star" until those eggs get eaten.

The Twitter-fueled grassroots uprisings in Egypt and Iran are on Wikipedia, why should this be any different? Will a fellow Wikipedian please improve the egg section of the Smash Mouth page and connect it with the pages for "egg" and "egg challenge?" Come on gang, let's make Wikipedia the free encyclopedia for 'everybody'. ~stewie_familyguy_fan_420 "there isnt any any key" - homer simpson Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone reported on this? That would definitely establish notability. If you can provide a link to rolling stone talking about this, that would be huge.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Read a bit more carefully. The IP's claim is not that Rolling Stone etc. reported on this non-notable non-event. The IP says they reported on something that the IP says is related to the non-notable non-event. Similarly, the notable events in Egypt and Iran are not related to the non-notable non-event. Additionally, the Egypt and Iran events are cited to CNN, the New York Times, etc., not Twitter. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to point this out, I did a Google News Archive search of "Smash Mouth" eggs and then narrowed it down to 2011; there was only one result, and it had nothing to do with this situation. As you can see, it's mostly fan messageboards and those type of sites that have covered this controversy. It hasn't broken into mainstream news at all. That puts its notability in question.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 22:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be just childish nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia. Bazonka (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, childish nonsense can become encyclopedic if it gets enough attention. (See Rebecca Black, Friday.) That's why I've been looking for a reputable news source to use as a reference—I just haven't found one yet.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This childish nonsense will not be notable until it gets the kind of coverage Rebecca Black and "Friday" have (see Rebecca_Black#References and Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)#References). When this non-event has coverage in the New York Times, BBC, ABC, CNN, LA Times, etc., I will add it to this article and Harwell's article, write an article about it myself, print out all three articles and eat them while playing "Friday" on a ukelele and tap dancing, dressed as Spiderman, on top of the Reichstag. Until then, this is trivial non-event remains in the realm of stuff a few anonymous editors like. If anyone can find independent reliable sources for this, please do add it. Otherwise, it's time to move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I hesitate to recognize this grotesque argument about trespassing on the Reichstag (historic monument that deserves to be treated with solemnity), the egg challenge is on and will most certainly receive coverage in all the mainstream media outlets. Please begin working on the egg challenge edits. Print them out. Thank you. http://twitter.com/#!/smashmouth/status/88366645747257344 ~stewie_familyguy_fan_420— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk • contribs)
Still lacking discussion of this non-event in independent reliable sources? This is still trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Without discussion of this non-event in independent reliable sources, this is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • They've just accepted the challenge. Looks like the egg's on your mirthless faces, deletionists. Undoubtedly this will now be covered in exactly the sort of reliable media outlets you crave, and i greatly look forward to adding a reference-saturated section on the topic to the article. tomasz. 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What a childish comment towards editors who were simply following Wikipedia policy, requiring reliable sources does not make one a "mirthless deletionist", and when your reliable media outlets appear I look forward to reading them. I would have hoped that an editor with as many edits as you have would be aware of such things, apparently this is not the case--Jac16888 Talk 22:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Your a childish comment lol. Smash Mouth is going to eat the eggs to help the kids and your a wikipedia editor. Enjoy you 're life not eating the eggs. God Bless America — Preceding unsigned comment added by EATEGGS (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a childish comment? Wow, that's pure genius, I must congratulate you on your ability to perpetuate a well known American stereotype. Can I also be so bold as to recommend that when you go to school tomorrow you ask your English teacher to teach you the difference between Your and You're--Jac16888 Talk 23:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Smash Mouth Is Going To Eat All The Eggs

Attention fellow Wikipedians, hit punk rock band Smash Mouth has accepted the egg challenge is going to eat all the eggs once $10000 is raised, CITATION: http://twitter.com/#!/smashmouth/status/88366645747257344

This is a major media event and probably deserves a page of its own, so I recommend making a page called Smash Mouth Egg Challenge (2011). Here are all the citations:

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/smash-mouth-eggs.php http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic/31/smash-mouth-refuses-to-eat-24-eggs-to-save-dying-children/503175/ http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/smash-mouth-eggs2.php

This sort of internet-driven "people power" is identical to what we are seeing in Libya and Iran. I hope that the Wikipedia community will come to its senses and reject shifty fly-by-night "editors" who refuse to acknowledge the egg notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between this and Libya and Iran is still the lack of independent reliable sources for your "story". 3 'net forums and a token will get you on a bus. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

why are you people refusing to add the egg news to page? this is a significant event in this band's history. smash mouth is going to eat all the eggs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.177.66 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We need coverage in independent reliable sources, not net forums and Twitter. If it is a "significant event in this band's history", it's pretty damned baffling that no one is reporting on it. That's strong evidence for the null hypothesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this? Miami New Times, Huffington Post. http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/crossfade/2011/07/history_of_internet_campaign_smash_mouth_eats_24_eggs.php http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/smash-mouth-to-eat-eggs-t_n_890993.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.238.89 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More publications writing about this all the time. TMZ http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/06/smash-mouth-frontman-steve-harwell-st-jude-childrens-hospital-charity-fundraiser-campaign/ SF Weekly http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2011/07/smash_mouths_egg-eating_charit.php Death+Taxes http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/114000/smash-mouth-agrees-to-eat-24-eggs-for-charity/ How many more references do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.238.89 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


Wow. Look At All These Egg News References. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=nws&q=smash+mouth+eggs&oq=smash+mouth+eggs&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=77l189l0l4l2l0l0l0l0l98l98l1l1 I guess a certain Wikipedia "editor" has "egg" on his face now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://news.google.com/news/more?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=smash+mouth+eggs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=d-M75JFdJAeRXRMje7hyiuOKKZvDM&ei=f8wUTrGbLpHEsQLmouTUDw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CC0QqgIwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.175 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that search results are worthless. The first one brings up the TMZ ref and 9 completely unrelated stories that happen to include the words "eggs", "smash" and "mouth". The second brings up TMZ, Huffington Post and a whole bunch of worthless blogs. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a brief blurb about the egg challenge, citing TMZ & Huffington Post, as there is now minor notability demonstrated by coverage in reasonably reliable sources that are independent of both the band and the guys pushing the stunt. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Owned. Bart simpson rules (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, except for you being wrong 100% of the time and having nothing to do with it eventually being added to the article. Totally. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the band's charitable work definitely deserves a mention here ChaosEmerald 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosE (talk • contribs)
Can you direct us to any independent reliable sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody got "owned" here; the egg thing was added to the article as soon as it became notable (i.e. as soon as Smash Mouth acknowledged the challenge and news outlets started reporting on it). That's how Wikipedia works. It's a reactionary site designed to wait and see what becomes notable.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 22:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Smash Mouth's ongoing inability to eat the eggs he promised to is surely notable by now. 96.46.17.31 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It is notable when independent reliable sources discuss it. As previously, when such coverage is presented, we will add it to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it still noteworthy if he doesn't do it? If you're following this whole thing, it looks like he's not going through with it. A website trying to harass a minor celebrity into doing something which he doesn't end up doing is, by definition, a non-event. It might be something to put on their own page, but not necessarily this entry. You also have a whole lot of people on this discussion page veiling the catchphrase "eat the eggs" in their comments under the guise of contributing. Making this noteworthy is contributing to the "famous because it's famous" mentality of media that's otherwise supposed to be reliable. 142.179.122.11 (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There is enough coverage in reliable sources to document what we have. If it happens or not, we'll again need reliable sources for that. Things that are planned but don't happen can still be notable, given enough coverage. And yes, there certainly is a whole lot of trolling on this talk page. Whatever. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source we can cite? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It's been updated with a reliable source, though it doesn't include the word "fail," as the source did not. The update did note that he ate the eggs with the help of others. Seriously folks, can you really expect a non-pro to eat 24 eggs that were heavily spiced by themselves? How about conceding that he was a good sport about it, as Doc Evil did in his update? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this a reliable source? https://www.vice.com/en/article/6wnmbr/i-made-the-smash-mouth-guy-eat-a-shit-ton-of-eggs and it cites three other sources: https://www.gawker.com/5818980/washed-up-rocker-will-eat-24-eggs-because-the-internet-told-him-to and here's video of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clyEcrwuXfk

Can we get this on the page now you sperglords?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Smash Mouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Band member history

Did the band ever have guitarists named Danny Richardson and Rob Schwartz? I couldn't find a reliable source for them. Kart2401real (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smash_Mouth/Archive_1&oldid=1163146870"