Talk:The All-American Rejects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The All-American Rejects article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

The All-American Rejects have a new album out called Move Along. With this album is their titled hit " Dirty Little Secret " With that "The Rise of the Fall Tour" is now in progress. Some tour dates have been canceled due to Tyson Ritter , the lead singers, laringytis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pretty REject (talk • contribs) 2005-11-25 12:24:05.

Are the Rejects a one-hit wonder anymore? I mean, "Dirty Little Secret" has gotten really high on the charts ... their one-hit status should probably be changed, along with "they're best known for 'Swing Swing.'"

Contents

[edit] To Those Who Keep Deleting the Address

You have no right to delete the address. It is properly verified. If you delete it again, you'll be reported. The information is FACTUAL.

JBull12 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody douted that it's factual. I for one just don't consider it noteworthy in an encyclopedia. --HarryCane 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's YOUR opinion. However, unless you have proof that it is not factual, which is impossible since the proof is there, you have no reason by Wikipedia standards not to include it, or rather, to delete it once its there. JBull12 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference though, between what's factual and what's noteworthy and encyclopedic. That some website states the singer's home address is most definitely NOT noteworthy! But rather random trivia. And I beg to differ on the Wikipedia standards issue. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.", and this is not MY opinion but a Wikipedia guideline. --HarryCane 18:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems that addresses do not fall under those guidelines for lack of inclusion, therefore its not your right to delete what I've written. That's why you're just trying to justify it rather than actually claiming it. JBull12 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Harrycane: Just because something is true doesn't make it important and justify its inclusion. That some website lists his adress has no importance for the article and therefor should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Trivia. And just because adresses aren't explicitly mentioned at WP:NOT does not mean the rules don't apply to them; the sentence Harrycane quoted applies to everything on Wikipedia, not just to those things in the list below it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering that there is no explicit reference to it, one cannot just assume such things. Just as people in most democratic countries are allowed to do as they wish provided the activities they engage in are not explicitly banned by Constitution or enaction of law, I can post what I want. It is proven by a reputable source, and what you consider to be trivia is not explicitly sited and therefore a matter of opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JBull12 (talk • contribs) .
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but so are others and Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. Judging from the removal of that paragraph by multiple editors and editors disagreeing with you here on the talk page, the majority thinks it should be removed. And you haven't really made any attempt to explain why this is important and notable. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Two people talking is not a majority. It appears that no one but you and the other guy have even bothered to contest it. I think it's notable. It's up to you to find a way to prove that it is not allowed. That's the spirit of Wikipedia; you cannot delete factual information unless it is explicitly not allowed. So, drop it, because you obviously haven't proven anything. JBull12 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's still more than the number of people saying it should be included, which currently is just you. Thus, currently, it IS the majority. Why do you think it is so notable anyway? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It's notable because it's information that somebody might want to know. If you were to propose building a Trivia section on the page, as many celebrities on Wikipedia have, I wouldn't be against it. --JBull12 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections – although many articles have them – are usually discouraged on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it fit the Tyson Ritter article much better anyway, because it isn't directly relevant for the band (and the Tyson Ritter article already has a Trivia section). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, three people (me, User:Lastdrax and User:Fritz Saalfeld) opposing you alone is most definitely a majority. And your claiming "you cannot delete factual information unless it is explicitly not allowed" is pure nonsense. Where on Wikipedia does it say that? If an article is not notable, it gets deleted, no matter how factual it is. That very rule applies to single pieces of information just as it does to full articles.

The section should be left out of the article for three major reasons:

  1. The information you provided is not his address, but that his address is found on a website, which is even less notable than his actual address would be.
  2. It bears NO relevance to the article/band history whatsoever.
  3. I doubt that Mr. Ritter would approve of you posting (or linking) his home address on an as highly frequented website as Wikipedia. I would, if not for the first two reasons, alone out of respect not post such information on Wikipedia.

And your threatening users (I'm referring to what you wrote on User:Lastdrax) with having them banned proves just how little you know about how Wikipedia works. A difference of opinions like this is not going to get anyone banned. --HarryCane 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stillwater Elementary School

They did not perform their first gig at Stillwater Elementary School. There is no Stillwater Elementary School. I grew up in Stillwater - I'd know. Perhaps it's Stillwater High School or the junior high or the middle school they're referring to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CountCrazy007 (talk • contribs) .

I can't fine a Stillwater Elementary in Florida (I assume) either. I thus removed "by playing their first official gig at Stillwater Elementary School in Stillwater, Oklahoma" from the "The All-American Rejects began their career in the late 1990s..." line. Thanks for the heads up! Janet13 06:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Dispute

There seems to be a dispute about where the band's name came from. One sentance says, "Their name came from a Green Day song "Reject", where the lyrics are "You reject All-American"." and the other says "Nick Wheeler thought of the name, All-American, since they are all american, and Tyson thought of the name, The Rejects. So when they put it together, they got The All-American Rejects." --Stacey 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love it when an article contradicts itself. A citation (I'm sure one exists) would be much appreciated. 208.59.171.97 01:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I always thought they got their name from the Bikini Kill song 'Reject All American.' It makes the most sense. --216.160.108.251 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah are there any sources to mack up either of these? They should be properly referenced. Also if it is the case that they were referencing Green Day, then it might be a further indication that they reference punk. Xsxex 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later Punk Groups

Should The All-American Rejects really be in the Later Punk Groups category? --Stacey 21:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that they aren't a punk group, I'm thinking no. --HarryCane 10:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Arent they in the top 40?

so is green day and they are punk. AAR is a power pop, pop, rock, and a pop punk band. They have punk connections, its not as strong as say, The Sex Pistols, but then again, they stole their act from NYC & The Ramones, (well The Ramones gave it to them, July 4th 1976.. go do your research, oh yeah it was the 200th anniversary of Americas independence from the British MONARCHY!!!!!), ANARCHY in the UK,... BUT THE Ramones, .. they were the first Punk Rock band... who you could say, well there it is ... thats a punk rock band... (but that label was only applied later.. maybe in 1977/78? or something, in '74/75, they were not really labeled as punk... read The Ramones)... Also, they were pre-dated dozens of punk-rock bands, like Iggy Pop who no one knew what to call other than wild rock, which is now considered protopunk, also check out List of forerunners of punk music. So it always comes back to "Who is punk?" and the answer is always gonna be, "Do I feel lucky?".... "Well, do ya?, PUNK???!!" Xsxex 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That might be right, but it does not settle the question of whether AAR is a pop punk band... or does it? --HarryCane 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well the original question was whether AAR should be considered a "later punk grous" I think its still up for debate. But I have no problem describing them, in part, as a pop punk band. But pop punk doesn't necessarily mean that they are "later punk" unless you want to include "pop punk" into your definition of what constitutes a "later punk group" That debate should be engaged on the "later punk group's" talk page.. Xsxex 15:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best Band?

I havent seen them in Video hits in Australia lately. I reckon they are better than GreenDay...

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --Scotteh 08:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cigarette Song

This song was released on the LP version of their album, as well as on a Doghouse Records sampler. How should this be added?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.48.86 (talk • contribs) .

It's already in the non-album tracks section. Where else would you want to add it? --HarryCane 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is on the album, is what I was pointing out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.32.86 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not too sure I get what you mean... but the "Non-album tracks" section is for songs that were officially released, but cannot be found on the conventional versions of any of the band's albums (e.g. foreign bonus tracks, compilation/tribute songs, single B-sides, etc.). Are you suggesting that "The Cigarette Song" should not be listed in this category? --HarryCane 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

The all music guide lists their genre as power pop, indie rock and emo. Shouldn't we change their genre to that. DavidJJJ 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no, as indie rock would imply some sort of underground/independent/DIY ethic or affiliation, when in fact AAR is pretty mainstream. And I wouldn't want to be engaged in yet another discussion on whether or not a band is emo (see talk pages for Panic! at the Disco, Dashboard Confessional). AAR have very little with the early form of emo (Sunny Day Real Estate, Texas Is the Reason) or the current form of emo (Taking Back Sunday, Thursday) in common. --HarryCane 10:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---I don't think they're emo, but they aren't 'power pop', since A Hard Day's Night is nothing like this... I think it's just Rock.. =\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.69.103.54 (talk • contribs) .

And a musical genre applies only to one song? In genre discussions, why do people always dig up the oldest song tagged with the genre and compare any newer songs to that? Britney Spears doesn't sound like Frank Sinatra either, but they're still both pop. And "just Rock" is not a sufficient genre classification. --HarryCane 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone is reverting the genre of pop punk, which I oppose. --Adriaan90 (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But to be honest, what you, me or the general public think what the genre of the band is, is really irrelevant. Going by google hits (or MP3 labels from probably an awful lot of people who've never held one of their CDs in their hands) is also not the best way to determine that, as for example "all-american rejects" and "emo" brings up even more hits, and anyone who thinks they're emo seriously deserves a lobotomy. See, for instance their Purevolume profile (official), or their Absolutepunk profile (independent and (mostly) unbiased) list them as "power pop" instead of "pop punk". Hell, AMG doesn't label them "pop punk", even though they tend to slap the moniker on every band that uses a distortion guitar (they also don't (anymore) list "power pop", I know). I really think the "punk" label should stay out of the article, because they are not part of the thrid wave punk movement and weren't inspired by bands like blink-182 and Green Day, but by pop/rock bands like The Cars, Def Leppard and AC/DC. --HarryCane 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, lucky for us, it doesn't matter what we think, per WP:V. We just say what other people say. If AMG thinks it's indie rock, they might be wrong, but they said so, so it goes in. If you think it's something else, find a source and cite it. I've added (back?) "emo" with citations. Dylan 01:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian 28th december They have nothing in common with emo. They're slightly punl poppish but there more alternative than anything else.

Not sure if this is correct, but I'll say it anyway. I think the best way to get a band's genre is to ask the band members. Of course this probably isn't possible but if it's noted in any interviews then put it up here. Hah I really don't make sense today. Jedi feline 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticed something...odd

There was a bit of messed up stuff, so I edited.24.192.149.188 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Random dude

[edit] Chart positions

Just looked at the Chart positions for the billboard charts and they are all too high! Compare the main page of this article to http://billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.vnuArtistId=491174&model.vnuAlbumId=722447 I'd edit it myself but they won't let me so...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.122.59 (talk • contribs) .

Done. --HarryCane 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zack Peterson

This article is supposed to be a serious article about "The All American Rejects." However, the last sentence is about the author's roommate. (My roommate Zack Peterson listens to this band non-stop, and sometimes even does this odd tribal dance to the song "Swing Swing.") I think this line should be deleted, being as it is about the author's roommate instead of something band related. Plus, the fact that Zack Peterson does a tribal dance is not newsworthy. As the average reader, I don't care about Zack Peterson.24.47.113.126 13:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)SS

It's been deleted. For future reference, you are welcome to remove this sort of vandalism. :D --HarryCane 13:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration

Does anyone know what inspired the song - Move Along or what it inspired?

and By the way the rejects were not convicted of DUI this is pure vandalism (2000- present) OmG I love these people!!!!

[edit] Tim Jordan Suicide

Does anyone know how Jordan committed suicide (there's no article on him or I'd ask there)? Datapolitical 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa?

Someone put vandalism concerning Santa and death machines? under the Biography section. I suggest removing this because it is completely irrevelant and off topic. Sherlock32 22:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_All-American_Rejects_f495.html"