Talk:Disco Demolition Night

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag
Portal
 Disco Demolition Night is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 

I changed some of the assumptions the author made regarding the cancellation of the second game. Having actually been at this event, I think I have a good perspective on what happened and why the second game was cancelled.

I was there myself and remember it fondly. The records were supposed to be brought to the park for a 98 cent admission. The ticket booth didn't know anything about the records and said it was, "just a 98 cent night". As a result, records of all genre littered the park and didn't start flying until Steve Dahl blew up the huge box of them in center field. He was driving around in an army jeep and dressed in fatigues. When the bomb went off it was LOUD! It was minutes later that I actually went on the field, put an unknown girl on my shoulders and walked around the infield. About ten minutes later, someone on the loudspeaker, (some say it was Bill Veck himself), said, "Please get off of the field, you are no longer on television." We all laughed and left when the police showed up with the dogs. I don't remember anyone being arrested or even confronting the authorities. It was good clean fun in those days. i also was there . yes it was fun. but there was plenty of arrests.not only did the police show up with dogs. they came on horses in full riot gear. hitting those who did not submit.you must not have stayed till the end.even before the police came, inhouse security tried to get those of us by the bonfires off the field with firehoses.they laid the chick on my shoulders to the ground. still all in all it was the most memerable time in my life. on my game ticket which i still have. before i went, i wrote on my ticket, riot day i guess i remember all of the fun. i am vito plioplys of chicago

Awesome. I was not there, I only saw it on TV. One question: Were there, or were there not, records being slung through the air like frisbees? I think that comment was already there, but I'm not 100% sure it was true. I only remember Piersall commenting about the "strange people" wandering around the stands. Wahkeenah 23:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vandal

Can we do something to stop the idiot who keeps putting up stuff about Jimi LaLumia & the Psychotic Frogs on the page? Can we block his IP or something?

Is there any way to block this page from being edited by non-logged in users? Every day this idiot keeps putting up crap about this stupid band nobody ever heard of! Ace-o-aces 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This was really getting out of handAce-o-aces 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Death To Disco" single was international news; this band appeared on the Don Imus TV show and the record was reported on in Billboard,Rolling Stone,Variety,the Daily News,Gig Magazine, England's Melody Maker,etc. The anti disco mentality did not exist until this record launched it and led to the events at the stadium a year or so later.You may call it vandalism,but i call it accuracy,as compared to your attempted re writing of history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.198 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, I'm not sure that Ace-o-aces minds the information being added to the article. However, it doesn't need to be the first information anyone reads (at least in the form you are adding). I agree there are significant Psychotic Frogs hits on google, and their one album with Death to Disco appears on Allmusic...so they may meet WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion and an article of their own. Perhaps both parties to this debate could discuss how to include some of the information regarding the esteemed Mr Lalumia here so we can return the page to regular status. --Syrthiss 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not debating that the band is significant for inclusion in wikipedia, but as Syrthiss said, I don't think this information belongs right at the beginning of the article. However, I think it is streaching things to say that ALL anti-disco feelings stemmed from this one song. Certainly rockers in general, and punks in particular took a disliking to disco right from the start.
None of the documentation on Disco Demolition Night I've seen makes referance to the Psychotic Frogs as an influence. It seems like the band was more significant in the local New-York Music scene, and might not have been all that well known in Chicago.

I think the band deserves its own page. I see Mr LaLumia now has his own page on wikipedia (which needs some cleaning up and formatting BTW).

I would agree to the bands inclusion on this page as part of a discussion of the overall anti-disco movement. However, I just feel that to point to the song as the sole origin of all anti-disco feeling may be a case of East Coast media bias (i.e. a local New York act gets more coverage because it's in the same city as so many media HQs)Ace-o-aces 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I also now see that this same user has been making multiple edits to the wiki for Punk Rock. These also keep getting reverted, which makes me wonder just how significant the Psychotic Frogs where (although Johnny Thunder, a significant figure in Punk Rock was associated with the band, which might support claims of significance) Ace-o-aces 21:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been among the editors reverting endless interjections of Jimi Lalumia into the Punk Rock article, in spite of a consensus on the talk page (with no dissenting opinions) that Lalumia was not nearly significant enough to be included on the short list of important figures in the early NY punk scene. Johnny Thunders was a significant figure, and evidently there's a live recording of Thunders playing guitar behind Lalumia on a couple of songs. At best, Lalumia counts as an obscure footnote to Thunder's career. On his own, he evidently had a minor local anti-disco hit, but the claim that he somehow singlehandedly instigated an anti-disco backlash is preposterous. Unless he had some direct participation in "Disco Demolition Night," I really doubt he should be mentioned. The poster's persistent vandalism of the Punk Rock page (where he or she has not been willing to respond on the talk page) certainly is reason to be suspicious. BTfromLA 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He's a punk. >:( Wahkeenah 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On further review of the matter, I don't this LaLumia belongs on this page. If he's not significant enough for inclusion on the Punk rock page, then he's definantly not significant enough for this page, which is tangenataly related at best. Ace-o-aces 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protection / unprotection

I unprotected the article again. Honestly, the vandalism isn't extensive enough for either FP or SP. 2-3 edits a day just isn't enough, no matter how annoying the anon is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to have to agree with Woohookitty on this. Unless semiprotection becomes the norm for all articles I have a hard time justifing applying it in this case, except when the anon is actively vandalizing the page. I have sympathy for the frustration of seeing him do it again and again. --Syrthiss 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just what is your definition of "actively" vandalizing? He is doing this every day. He keeps putting info about this band right at the beginning of the article where it obviously doesn't belong. To me, that is vandalism, and that is active! Not to mention that, for very little additional effort he could just start a new entry on the band. I don't know much about Punk bands, but it might qualify for its own article. Ace-o-aces 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Active vandalization is users who are constantly watching the page and re-reverting minutes or seconds after you put it back, or making multiple little edits inserting their vandalism in a short time period (10 minutes). Both of those would easily be counterable with a block on the account, AOL or not. If instead we had lots of vandalism from several users / IP's in a short period of time then semi protection or full protection would be applied so we could get a handle on fixing the vandalism. My understanding of the protection policy is that this case doesn't apply. I also agree that the anon should create an article about the band by itself if they feel it should be included...but my assumption of good faith is beginning to run out, and I feel they are indeed just vandalizing. --Syrthiss 15:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Upon reading the separate policy page at WP:SEMI, I'm going to agree with User:Curps and revert my statement above regarding this page being semi-protected. I'm sure we can set it back to normal editing in a day or so. Sorry for the confusion. --Syrthiss 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeebus! Do we have to protect the talk page now too? I've worked on controversal political topics on wikipedia with less vandalism. Ace-o-aces 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Anybody know where I can find a good image for this page that is in the publi domain? Ace-o-aces 14:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't, but they deleted the other one seemingly without even giving anyone a chance of licensing it properly. Wahkeenah 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, there are quite a few images out on the web from a google image search (some that retain their AP credits). What was wrong with the image that was there, it wasn't tagged freeuse? --Syrthiss 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I found it last year. I thought it was public domain, but I couldn't find it agiain to confirm. Ace-o-aces 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The point being, some wiki busybody took it upon themselves to clobber it without giving whoever posted it a chance to properly label it. Wahkeenah 23:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Insane coholips"

What the hell is a coholip? I'm assuming something derogatory, like hooligan, or hippie, or bum, but I don't know. Maybe alcoholic? Could someone fix this? Pimlottc 12:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That was an obscure, uncited reference that someone had tried to comment out but didn't quite get the syntax right. I have now fixed it. d:) Wahkeenah 13:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comma

OK guys, does the comma go inside or outside the quotes? Ace-o-aces 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • As I interpret the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, commas go inside of quoted passages and outside of so-called "scare quotes", or titles of things (like this example), and the usage in this article would seem to fall into the latter category. Wahkeenah 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] This is what happens when disco haters unite

The whole point was supposedly to show how much disco sucks, but in the end it proved that disco haters are manic and destructive. Now, electronic music (house,hip-hop,neo-disco) is bigger than ever.

  • What it proved more than anything was the impact of the uncontrolled use of controlled substances. Wahkeenah 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the main disco article and discussion page the reasons behind the anti disco movement as discussed in detail. Your supposition would be true if the majority of disco haters were blowing up records. The reasons the other genres are successful is that they fixed the flaws of disco updated it etc. Some elements of the genres you cite are quite destructive in tone and lyrics(See gansta rap). And a genre you did not mention but was partially influenced by disco known as techno is quite “manic” 69.114.117.103 06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

  • That's a little outside the scope of the article. What happened that night was a park filled with inebriates who caused a near-riot, thanks to an ill-advised promotion that Mike Veeck is still trying to live down. Wahkeenah 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Inebriates was a major player that night but if that was all there were to it there might not have Wikipedia article on it, most histories of disco music would not mention it and the event would not still 27 years later be a subject of heated messageboard debate 69.114.117.103 06:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
If it weren't for the near-riot and the cancellation of the game, there would be no mention of it. Wahkeenah 11:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
While that is true if it was not for the social/cultural controversy surrounding disco the incident at most would be a trivia question like the far more violent Ten Cent Beer Night. I have to give you it would be a Wikipidea article 69.114.117.103 06:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Only a much less-covered one. Wahkeenah 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced?

There are references, embedded within the text. Is the "unreferenced" tag still needed? Wahkeenah 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to Michael Clarke Duncan the answer is yes. While he is cited the claim that he was on the field is not. Just find a place he is quoted as saying he was there or at minimum a reputable fan website that makes the claim 69.114.117.103 04:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
I'm referring to the tag in general. I have no clue whether the Duncan story is true or not. But if there's a specific issue in an article, normally that one item would be tagged with the brace-brace-fact-brace-brace tag rather than the entire article. If there are lots of issues, maybe that's a different story. Wahkeenah 06:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved the brace-brace-fact-brace-brace to the middle of the sentence to hopefully clear up any confusion 69.114.117.103 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
My question is why the BANNER is still there. Whoever posted it, what is their specific issue? Wahkeenah 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The specific issue is that a cite is needed for the claim that Mr. Duncan was on that field that night. If I missed it somehow point it out to me. If you have a place to put the banner or a better way of explaining the need for a cite for the claim be my guest and edit it. 69.114.117.103 14:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
I just wondered if there were any other issues. Wahkeenah 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not for me 69.114.117.103 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

[edit] The Video from the DDN

Where I can find video from this events? I saw it in some documentary film about disco and I want to watch it again.

[edit] End of the Disco Era

Why was the line in the event and results section that the events triggered the decline in the popularity disco music taken out? I used the same cite as the one in the disco article. A Disco Demolition Night article that does not mention the role this event had on the music scene is like an article about disco not discussing Saturday Night Fever. 69.114.117.103 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

  • This event had no role in the end of the disco era, although it had a lasting effect on Mike Veeck. Wahkeenah 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look closely at that citation, you'll see they're just being funny. Disco was already winding down as a phenomenon. It continued into 1981 or so. Wahkeenah 07:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well disco did not die that night it still lives is influential and everybody screws up the YMCA these days. But the perception that that night was the end of disco still persists [1]. There is very good reason for that perception. Look at the billboard charts in 1979 from January to July. I would guess if memory serves me that 80% of it was disco. That summer I remember Donna Summer having several hits on the charts. The last few months of that year if I am not totally senile it would less than half and maybe a lot less[2]. 1980 would see several disco hits but it was far from the dominant music it had been[3]. Throughout most of the 1980's you could not use the word disco to promote "dance" music. Why that fear?. Up until Disco Demolition Night the "disco sucks" movement consisted of mostly banners and bumper stickers. This event brought the threat of real violence and that is why the record companies stopped supporting a genre was still doing exceptionally well. And why if that night had "no role" in disco's temporary decline why is the event given prominent mention in the Wikipedia and just about every history I have read of disco music? And why if the night had "no role" did the 25th anniversary of the riot get so much interest? I would doubt the 25th anniversary of any old riot would have gotten that amount of attention. Were there other factors in disco's decline? Absolutely. As a person who was very much around at that point I stand by my statement that this event was a trigger. A caveat is that I should have added to my line was that this was a mainly U.S. phenomenon. From what I understand the Bee Gees were huge sellers in Europe during the '80's 69.114.117.103 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
That would be challenged as "original research". I don't think it's a "trigger", just more of a "symbol", a convenient retrospective reference point. My own original research is that Disco was a music fad that was already on the wane, as it had been around since about 1974. And as you may have observed, there is plenty of Disco on the radio, as it is now considered "nostalgia", the way 1960s music was during the 80s and 90s, the way 1950s music was in the 70s and 80s, and the way Big Band and Swing were in the 60s. However, the writer's restating of the famous phrasing of "American Pie" is interesting and funny, so I put the reference back, worded a little differently. Wahkeenah 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well the Billboard listings showed that disco was not on the wane. The reference listed only the number one hits for the week but you have to pay a subscription to get the rest of the list but I believe if you do that you will get similar results. My opinion is disco would have started to wane but the process would have been much slower. The movie The Last Days of Disco makes reference to how the scene was "suddenly" gone. I believe the threat of violence helped speed it's demise. Anyway back to the article the line is good enough for now and I will try and find a better reference and hope this line will spark others to search for them 69.114.117.103 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
The notion that a promotion at a baseball game had anything other than symbolic significance to the wane of Disco is absurd. Wahkeenah 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The promotion was not the problem the riot that followed was. But our opinions should not matter as to what gets in the article. I did not know why you deleted the Rolling Stone magazines history of Rock and Roll book cite that actually agreed with your point about the event being symbolic or as they called it emblematic. And even though Steve Dahl disagreed with you he should not have been deleted because he is the definition of a notable opinion. And by the way in the interview the phrase "The Day that Disco Died" appears as it does in many other places meaning that there are many people that disagree with you about the significance of the event. But because you think that is "absurd" does not mean that you should solely control what goes in the article. I do not agree with Steve Dahl's opinion that disco was a fad but for arguments sake lets say that I did and because I felt that way no matter what anybody did I kept on cutting the main disco article to one paragraph. If you have a problem with my cites I am open to that but to delete them just because you think the whole idea is "absurd" is destructive. 69.114.117.103 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Rereading my reaction I might be "rushing to judgment" as to why you deleted my cites. But when I saw you deleted the Rolling Stone book cite that agreed with your POV and saw your comments about "absurd" it looked me that because you were so outraged about my POV that you deleted my cites without looking at them closely. If you delete anything just write down why in the discussion pages. 69.114.117.103 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
I put back the two cites. It has been over a week without any defense of the deletions on your part or any correction to my POV on why you deleted them. 69.114.117.103 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
It's too silly to fight. Wahkeenah 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I am still curious as to the reason of your original deletion. If there is a valid reason no matter how "silly" the topic might be for those cites not to be in the article I will re delete them. 69.114.117.103 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDisco_Demolition_Night_fe05.html"