Jump to content

Talk:The Clash/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Moved from article

Trivia

  • For the first 3 years of their career The Clash were based in what is now 'The Stables' Market in Camden Town, London. "Guns On The Roof" (from the band's "Give 'Em Enough Rope" album) was written about an incident which took place here.
  • Martin Munsch, American producer, talent manager and owner of [PunkRock Records], had worked with Strummer on a final dub version mix of "Revolution Rock". The mechanical version was acknowledged in 2002. [1]
  • The Clash recycled the riff from The Who's classic single "I Can't Explain" at least 5 times during their career, most notably with "Guns On The Roof". Slight variations on the same riff appear as the backbone of "Capital Radio" and "Clash City Rockers", and two tracks only available on live bootleg from 1976, "I Know What I Think About You" and "Deadly Serious".
  • Clash members appear in the 1983 Martin Scorsese film The King Of Comedy (starring Robert De Niro). Strummer, Jones and Simonon can be glimpsed during a crowd scene. The movie's credits bill them as "street scum".
  • Joe Strummer, Mick Jones, Paul Simonon and Topper Headon, along with others, are credited on the 1981 CBS recording "Spirit of St. Louis" by Mick Jones' then girlfriend, Ellen Foley. The producer credit is attributed to "My Boyfriend".
  • Joe Strummer was posthumously honoured by a British rail company, Cotswold Rail who named one of their locomotives after him. The new "Joe Strummer" train was unveiled at a ceremony at Bristol Temple Meads by his wife, Lucinda.[1]
  • When Martin Scorsese was planning out Gangs of New York in the late 70's, he planned to have the Clash not only star, but produce the score as well.
Trivia sections are uncyclopedic and don't belong in any article. I could sit here and cough up pages and pages of Clash trivia all day, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Leaveitout. wikipediatrix 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The onus will be on anybody wanting to reinstate any of this material to justify its reinclusion. --John 20:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand the why, but I have to say that I miss trivia sections. I just enjoy reading the little tidbits. Que sera. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoponpop69 deletions

The following passages were deleted by User:Hoponpop69 as unsourced:

The Clash's skilled musicianship and the passionate, left-wing political idealism of frontmen Joe Strummer and Mick Jones contrasted sharply with the nihilism of the Sex Pistols, the simplicity of The Ramones, and the art rock of the The Talking Heads.

and

The Clash were notable for their strident leftist political outlook and distinctive clothes, self painted with Jackson Pollock-style paint splashes and revolutionary slogans, such as "Sten Guns in Knightsbridge," "Under Heavy Manners," and "Heavy Discipline". Throughout 1977, Strummer and Jones were charged with a range of minor crimes ranging from petty vandalism to minor thefts.

While the first could be construed as POV, it does serve to distinguish the band from their fellows and helps contextualize their music. I would possibly drop Talking Heads and add the craziness of The Damned.

The second can surely be sourced from any of the biographies, and was vital to establishing their early image in the UK.

If every unsourced statement were removed from the article there would not be much left. I don't see why these in particular should be excluded.

Comments?Wwwhatsup 08:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the Clash were no more skilled as musicians than any of the named bands, certainly not in the early years. As for left wing politics, back in the day it was never viewed as "strident" in America -- more of a left-wing pose (Did they really support the Red Brigades, or did it just look cool on a shirt?) Over time, I think its fair to say that Joe sympathized w/the left, but I don't think you can make that assumption about the rest of the band, and there's nothing politically doctrinaire about their songs. Re the "minor crimes" in 77, I never heard that. Cheers. Cloonmore 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you, and Hoponpop, have an American perception. You're not too aware of the UK politics of the day where neo-fascism was rife. The Clash provided a working-class counterpoint. If White Riot isn't strident what is it? I suspect there's plenty of citable material in Antonio Ambrosio's book Let Fury Have the Hour: The Punk Rock Politics of Joe Strummer[2], but I don't have a copy. I do see this quote online, provoked by the arrest as a terrorist of someone singing along to London Calling:

He understood how undemocratic democracies can become when they seek to solidify the dominant political order and maintain control under the guise of nationalism. He vividly captured that sentiment in "Whiteman in Hammersmith Palais": "If Adolph Hitler flew in today/They would send a limousine anyway."

That's why Strummer had declared early on that the Clash would be "antifascist, antiviolence, antiracist...we're pro-creative, against ignorance," while other groups (insert Sex Pistols here) were famously declaring that there was "no future." This made the Clash an anomaly in the 1970s counterculture scene, standing in direct opposition to the nihilism and alienation dominating punk. Even more, the group boldly linked itself historically to artists of every discipline who had fought against tyranny. In "Spanish Bombs," Strummer sings about the Spanish Civil War and the brutal murder of writer Federico Garcia Lorca. "Washington Bullets" illustrates Western imperialism and invokes the spirit of Chilean folk singer Victor Jara. [3]
While it's true the other members, apart from Simenon, were less political. Strummer, as prime-songwriter, set the tone. Strummer did disavow the RAF later for their methods, but not their politics. I think details of that whole issue would be a valuable addition to this article, or Joe Strummer, perhaps..
As far as skilled goes, maybe it could be qualified as relatively. Mick Jones, in particular, was regarded as way more musicianly than his fellows in the punk scene. The Clash had GUITAR SOLOS! They also rehearsed exhaustively. I don't think the skill issue particularly vital, but I think a line that distinguishes them from the styles of their punk peers is valuable in the opening section.
The most notorious of the minor crimes was the pigeon-shooting incident. But there were others. From Rolling Stone's bio of the band:

The White Riot Tour, named after the current Clash single, ended at a London concert where the audience ripped the seats out of the floor. It was the first in a series of confrontations between the Clash and the police, especially in Britain, where the group members were arrested on charges ranging from petty theft to illegal possession of firearms (for shooting prize pigeons).[4]

There's also some details in the Joe Strummer article.
Lastly, I repeat my assertion that all the citation requests do nothing to add value to the article. Also, Hoponpop should bring his thoughts to talk, before deleting other people's edits willy-nilly. There are enough biographies of the band that everything could be sourced many times over. I believe he'd be better off looking for anomalies, and then discussing them, as we are here.
Wwwhatsup 16:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
With no further response. I accept Hoponpop69's edits.Wwwhatsup 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Where the Sex Pistols’ Johnny Rotten gave us a nihilistic worldview in "No Future", Strummer gave us fiery anthems such as "White Riot" an "I’m So Bored With USA", anthems that perfectly captured the fledgling punk-rock generation’s discontent and served as a call to action to youth - especially in the face of then - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s right wing Tory government and her harsh use of police force against striking coal miners.


Were it not for the Clash, punk would have been just a sneer, a safety pin and a pair of bondage trousers. Instead, the incendiary lyrics of The Clash inspired 1,000 more bands on both sides of the Atlantic to spring up and challenge their elders, and the man we all looked to was Joe Stummer." - Billy Bragg, singer songwriter to the BBC News in England [5]

Was Sandinista! a Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros' album??? Why Mick wrote and sung on about all of their song (or he wasn't so conscious of that)??? Do you know C/Si or "The Global War On Culture"??? Who is Simenon??? (a Belgian writer?) - (Pjoef 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC))


That's a great quote from Billy Bragg. Do you have a url that could be referenced? To be fair Hoponpop69 did add the sentence The band's music was often charged by a leftist political ideology. which is followed by They are credited with pioneering the advocacy of radical politics in punk rock, and were known as the "Thinking Man's Yobs" by many simply for voicing a political slant other than anarchism. in the third paragraph. But the reference included is to the rather feeble MTV bio. The topic is explored further in the third section. Wwwhatsup 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


For more quotes about the influence of The Clash see: Talk:The_Clash/Influences - (Pjoef 11:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Associated Acts

User:John deleted "Janie Jones & the Lash" from the "associated acts" line of the infobox. They would seem to meet the definition of an "associated act" per the WP template: "Acts from which this act spun off; acts which spun off a group act; groups with which an artist performs; other acts with which the act is associated." JJ & the Lash recorded one single in 1982; they included three-fourths of the Clash (no Topper) + 2 Blockheads; the record was written & produced by Joe Strummer and released on 7" vinyl in 1983. How is that not an associated act, pray tell? Cloonmore 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

UK perspective

Pensiang's edit, adding the following text, had already been undone by Unknown Unknowns on the basis that Complete Control was not reggae based. I wouldn't comment on that, but I feel the rest of it is definitely off the mark.. In contrast it could be argued that Sandinista was a time when they really mastered their music almost to the realms of jazz. They were still well popular in the UK, that same original base progressing similarly into post-punk. The deprecation of their US influence is also off. For instance, Chuck D of Public Enemy credits thems as a major influence.

As they became more successful in the US their influence and popularity in the UK waned and they were, at the time, always considered a distant second in cultural and musical importance to the Sex Pistols. Many of their lyrics and PR stunts were considered "off key" and naive, particularly an ill fated promo trip to Belfast in 1977. They reached a creative peak with the single Complete Control that year, a stunning fusion of Reggae and Punk, but an ill-advised liaison with Sandy Pearlman for their second album and an increasing focus on the US market and traditional rock and roll presentation, music and lifestyle were to steadily alienate them from their original UK fan base. By the turn of the 80s they were an irrelevance in the UK in the face of post-punk and new romanticism. Whilst London Calling had its moments (notably the title track) Sandinista was a bloated embarassment, embracing all the hubris and excess that they ostensibly came to wash away in 1976. In recent years a revisionist approach, notably in magazines such as Mojo and Uncut, has given them far more cultural and musical importance than they ever possessed at the time. It is, however, arguable that they influenced a generation of US neo punks such as Green Day but their importance to the UK music scene has never been that significant. Live they were always poor, Strummer and Simenons lack of chops and the limitations of Strummers voice cruelly exposed.

I trust the passage will remain excised.Wwwhatsup 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. 10 Upping Street/Strummer

"In 1986, Joe Strummer collaborated with ex-bandmate Jones on BAD's second album, No. 10 Upping St., co-producing the album and co-writing seven of its songs."

The article for No. 10 Upping Street says only 6 were co-written with Strummer, so I'm not sure which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.154.138 (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

'Revolving drumming position'

Makes me think of Tommy Lee's elaborate drum set-ups. Is there a better way to put it? SteveRamone 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cited Source For Rock

Does rock really need a source? It is quite obvious they are rock and if anything punk rock needs a source not rock. Thundermaster367 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rock is just the genre that punk falls into. Of course they are rock, but the type of rock is 'punk rock'. If you put rock under this band, you'll need to put rock under every single other rock band out there along with the sub genres it has. Rock should be taken off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.254.182 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive this page?

It's getting to about that time,eh? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is possible to use a bot that runs an automatic archiving of pages (See: User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo Pjoef (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Another one (probably better) is {{archive box}}, but a consesus must be established before setting up. See more at Help:Archiving a talk page Pjoef (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and done it. I seperated out the Influenced by.. topic. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandinista

The article says: The album had no catchy single and, in the increasingly conservative environment of AOR FM radio in the U.S., received minimal airplay, but it fared well in America, charting at #24. It's awkward grammar for a start with the double U.S./America mention. It cites the R&R HOF bio as a source, which doesn't say anything like that. I'd argue that, on the contrary, one reason the album hit #24 in the USA is that the single 'Magnificent 7' was extremely catchy and, in fact, a crossover radio hit, playing not just on AOR but also R&B/urban stations such as WBLS. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Sandinista! is in the RS 500 greatest album of all time. Otherwise, the three singles from Sandinista! ("The Call Up", "Hitsville UK", and "The Magnificent Seven") have not reached a significant position in the USA singles charts. Today, I have changed that phrase, but you'll free to change it again. (Would you consider to become a member of WikiProject The Clash, a new project to expand and improve all articles related to The Clash? This is the link to join us). Best wishes, Pjoef (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the phrase in question (but it's been revised since, which is why it reads so poorly). I remember when the album came out & the AOR stations (WPLJ & WNEW) in New York barely acknowledged it. Of course, the AOR environment in New York was notoriously conservative, but I have the feeling that these stations weren't alone. Peaking at #24 isn't exactly earth-shattering, especially considering that the critics fell over themselves praising it & it was a 3-LP set at a 2-LP price. "Magnificent 7" was an excellent fusion of funk, punk & rap & probably would have been a huge hit 10-12 years ago, but wasn't catchy & radio-friendly in the manner of "Train in Vain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiley kealy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Engine named after Clash singer". BBC News. 2005-02-12. Retrieved 2007-07-06.
  2. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Let-Fury-Have-Hour-Politics/dp/1560256257
  3. ^ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/dambrosio
  4. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/theclash/biography
  5. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2602083.stm

I restored the logo to the article; I hadn't noticed its removal. However I have also been in an interesting chat at my user talk and here about logos and how we use them in band articles in general. If there was a consensus that this is not a useful addition to the article then I would be fine with that. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the logo restoration. Certain band logos - the Clash included - become iconic and thusly justifies inclusion, I think, on historical significance alone.Heuback (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Topper Headon

Everytime I come back to this page I notice the position of Topper on the list of members has changed, he went from being listed right with Joe, Paul, and Mick to being behind Terry, Keith, etc.

The classic lineup should be grouped, excluding Topper is foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.21.14 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Past_members field in {{Infobox Musical artist}}: Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field." (from Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Past_members) —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 07:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


THE CLASH LIVE: REVOLUTION ROCK

I added the info about the new doc. It seems they write the title in all caps. It's being shown on WHYY in Philly tonight 1/24/08 [2] but I didn't mention that. I presume this is the global premiere but I'm not sure. Can that be confirmed, or has it been shown in the UK already ? Also the PBS press doesn't mention the director, who I assume to be Letts. I didn't find a Sony/BMG page on it in my brief google. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's their privilege to write the name in all capitals, but that doesn't mean that we should. Some more information on it would be welcome. --John (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ferdiaob removed the info on the grounds it was spam LOL. I've re-added it. If you want to uncapitalize the title, feel free. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, that info should be moved from the lead section to the end of Cut the Crap and legacy: 1985-present section. I found a couple of pages with some additional information: WHYY PRESENTS "THE CLASH LIVE: REVOLUTION ROCK" (MSWord DOC format); and WMMR’s Pierre Robert Hosts The Clash Live: Revolution Rock, but nothing about who is the director. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

I passed this for Good Article. It is a good article, and the only thing I could find wrong with it is that the bibliography should be noted in the "Notes" section. You have to shorten the references for the books in the "Notes" section, as WP:CITE says. But still, it's a good article, and it deserves the title. Good job on everyone's part. Just as a formality, we'll run down the list.

1. Well-written. Very. Great writing style and organization.

2. Factually accurate and referencing. As stated above, but no big deal.

3. Broad in coverage. Good, covers details.

4. Neutral. Yes.

5. Stable (no edit wars). Good.

6. Illustrated. Yes.

Great job on all who contributed to this article. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mick or Mickey?

I have started a discussion at Talk:Mick Gallagher on the proper naming of this article. Any contributions would be welcome. --John (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All members are ex-members

The Clash split up. Why did you group the most known line-up as they are still a band?

This article has been selected for Version 0.7

This article has been selected for Wikipedia Version 0.7. Version 0.7 aims to be a collection of around 30,000 articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year.

Please try to fix any urgent problems in this article.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of this article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. The version can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. The Editorial Team is planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. For more information, please see the WPClash's Talk Page. Thanks! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Recently WesleyDodds removed post-punk from the genres. I believe post-punk is defined as music that decended from the punk scene which experimented with different sounds, styles and production techniques and was too different to be called punk anymore. Eventually the post-punk movement splintered off into more distinct styles such as 2 Tone, New Wave, Gothic rock, and alternative rock. I think that this is an accurate description of the Clash's later material. They got very experimental later on and I don't think it's accurate to just say it was all punk. Westley said that one of the reasons he removed the genre was because post-punk fans didn't like the Clash's later material. Well, I'm a fan of punk rock and I don't really like the Sex Pistols. Does that mean the Sex Pistols weren't a punk band? No, genre isn't defined by who liked it, it's defined by what the band played. I think we should have the genres be punk and post-punk. It's not accurate to say they were just a punk band and it's too messy to say they were a punk/country/dub/reggae/rap/pretty-much-everything band. However, I'm reluctant to add it again without the consent of other Clash fans. Westley is far more knowledgeable about music than I am and was around to witness the rise of punk and post-punk while it was happening. So tell me, is my definition of post-punk flawed or should we add it to the genres? And if we don't add post-punk, what should we add because I'm certain the Clash weren't just a punk band and nothing more.Ash Loomis (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The case you make is quite reasonable, as is Mr. Dodds's desire to uphold a more restrictive definition of post-punk that doesn't comfortably admit The Clash. In the infobox, I would go for "Punk rock, many others". That's both accurate and clear--given the content immediately adjacent in the first paragraph of our introduction, as well as in the main text, of course. I think it's probably the best way, within an infobox, to address the "country/dub/reggae/rap/pretty-much-everything" aspect, as you put it. What do you think?DocKino (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Ash Loomis (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I added rock and reggae, but it seems a good idea to me too. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Members

May I remove the list of the studio albums from the members table? I don't like it because it looks not good. Also, it forces the page to be too wide and out of the standard format, and all studio albums are just in the section below. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it adds little in way of informational value and it looks quite awkward.DocKino (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jones or Strummer?

Who was a better singer? Jones or Strummer? My moneys on Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.98.192 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

this is not a forum- this is a discussion page. if you want to ask trivial questions go elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.95.1 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I Fight The Law

not I Fought The Law! anark'aist 'till my last day! from a geek - hacker ~~~~~Bodigami (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of prehistory

Prehistory is the period before written records. Consider using pre-formation or prior to formation instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.51.161 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How about "Origins", will change unless anyone objects. J04n(talk page) 19:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Nothing on Relationship between the Clash & the Jam?

Why is there nothing about the relationship between the Clash and the Jam in this article? The Clash first launched the Jam's career during the White Riot tour... And they had a long interaction together in the club scene in London. Shouldn't there be something about that history as well? Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just find some souced material and add it. I don't think the relationship was that favourable anyway, apparently Strummer was having a dig at The Jam when he wrote "New groups in Burton suits, Think it's funny turning rebellion into money" in Hammersmith Palais. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading Passion is a Fashion, and in it the Clash said a lot of negative things about the Jam. I don't think it necessarily needs to be included; if anything, if the Clash was integral to helping launch the Jam's career, that'd be better suited for the Jam article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The Clash launched countless of bands and many-many others were inspired by them. We could start a new article about this. Maybe one day. I agree with WesleyDodds, probably, it is better to write something (well-sourced) about that into The Jam article. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

Why was my whole edit reverted? Most of my edit was constructive. I understand I probably did some things wrong (I always seem to even though I try not to), but I know for sure that most of what I edited was valid. And if I did only one thing wrong, just undo that, not my whole edit, I'll restore my edit and then you can undo what I did wrong. If you guys undo whole edits, you could be removing something important! So I would appreciate it if my whole edit wasn't reverted again. :) And I am not going to start an edit-war, if you revert my whole edit again, I am not going to undo it again. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of your edits are simply unnecessary, while some degrade the quality of the article. Replacing every appearance of the word "gig"--a standard term that means "entertainer's engagement"--with the phrase "live performance" is (a) verbose, (b) often inappropriately shifts the emphasis from the engagement to the performance, and (c) in many cases demonstrates a tin ear. You also pointlessly replace "show" and "concert" with "performance" with similarly poor results. You seem to think "band" is a far preferable word to "group" and "act" for no good reason and, again, replace other terms with it routinely without regard to euphony and flow. You introduce errors, like replacing Rolling Stone Record Guide (the title of the work that is cited) with Rolling Stone Album Guide (the title of much later editions, with vastly different content, that are not cited). You are insistent on phrasing that is awkward, unclear, and prolix, such as "There were over thirty performances between Edinburgh and Portsmouth, finally returning to London" (What precisely is "returning to London"? If nothing more than the band, what makes this notable enough to spell out?). And so forth...
This is a Good Article, vetted as one of the better examples of Wikipedia composition. Again, very few of your edits actually result in any clear improvement--those few, of course, have been retained--while a substantial number manifestly lower the quality of the article. Thus the latest reversion. Any further changes you want to make should be discussed here first so we can determine if consensus agrees that the status quo should be altered in the direction you propose. DocKino (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, okay? You know, you could be less rude about this, it is very obnoxious and rude to point out everything that I did wrong when you could just simply say that most of my edits weren't much of an improvment. And also, look at some of the "featured articles" on Wikipedia, my edits aren't much different from those articles, they use "performance", "band" (and not just because I edited them) or whatever! I try so hard to make good edits and you guys always have to make me out to be such an idiot and that I do not know what I'm doing (when I do). And fine, sorry, I just will not edit this article anymore, happy now? Alright, I'm not going to start an argument. Just forget that I even edited this article at all. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Blaquymonkey, discussions are not arguments. And the more detailed the better. The Clash is a project with quite a few participants. If you make good points others will back you up. By the look of your work you are a conscientious editor. I do think though you have to respect that, when it comes to a "good" article that has 100's of edits in its history, it is probably wise to tread lightly and, if making major stylistic alterations, gain a little consensus beforehand. At least be prepared to defend your edits gracefully. Acting hurt and stomping off doesn't help anybody. Many hands make light work. BTW DK I had to look up prolix - good word! Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that discussions aren't arguments, but I know that this discussion will go into an argument soon. And I'm not really trying to act "hurt" or "stomping off", I just decided that editing this article wasn't really worth a long discussion or arguing over. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is how wikipedia treats their novice editors then this site is an affront to decency. I certainly hope DocKino isn't in education, and I strongly recommend lessons in etiquette.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Clash/Archive_2&oldid=1137230236"