Talk:Towers of London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not a forum for discussing Towers of London. Such messages may be deleted. Please discuss the article instead. Thank you. |
Contents |
[edit] Other Stuff
I'm 99% certain that this is not a band but a comedy. (82.43.189.130 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)) This page is trying to back up the myth. It's a comedy project - for definite definate. Quite silly, heh, heh. Spinal Tap must be proud of their legacy!
I believe that this is a fictitious band created to provide credibility to the individual known as “Donny Tourette” who is a contestant in the 2007 “Celebrity Big Brother” running on the Channel 4 TV station in January 2007 within the United Kingdom.
The British press are all reporting (with startling lack of variation) that:
• he is the lead singer of the band Towers of London
• He is a ‘friend' of peaches Geldof
• He is in there to have a good time
I believe that this is an attempt by the producers of Big Brother to introduce a “fake” celebrity into the programme, for their own purposes. A search of the internet indicates that the content relating to the UK rock band “Towers of London” has only been authored in the past 3 months, which supports this theory.
This is my first ever post, so go easy guys and gals. I felt it was appropriate to the “discussion” page, but not for the main article. Thanks!
- Having endured their live "show" at Carling Weekend Leeds 2006, if it is a comedy it's a very bad one. Sadly this band are real and "Donny Tourette" is under the genuine misapprehension that he is a musician. Pathetic really. Rainbowfanclub, 5th Jan 07
- Nice try but... no. ToL are a real band, who have been gigging fairly regularly for several years. Thermaland 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is there nothing here about...
Donny Tourette being challenged to a boxing match by lead singer of the Cockney Rejects, Stinky Turner, and completely bottling it?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.18.2.199 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] History
- "They are well known for" by whom? This needs to be vefiried prior to inclusion.
- Citation re-added concerning criminal damage conviction - why was this removed?
[edit] cults & chavs
- "shows members of the band beating up a drunken chav" The language is inconsitent with an encyclopedia and is not NPOV. Princess Tiswas 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Again - not NPOV, and no basis for claiming a cult following. It's a small town high street, not the sermon on the mount. --Princess Tiswas 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The posted clip has 147,536 views and has even been mentioned in music magazines (such as NME)... that is a cult following. Read the comments in relation to the video, most of them directly reference the stereotypical "chav" (a term which appears in the dictionary), which is no different from calling the band punk, its within NPOV. You don't like the band.. understood, but no need to mess the article about. - Deathrocker 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- 147,536 comments would be a following, cult or otherwise. 147k views is just that - the number of times the clip had been seen. A cult, as your own link suggests, would require an indicative level of devotion or obsession, and a culture surrounding the focal object. Similarly, chav is pejorative slang, and therefore, by definition, not NPOV. My opinion of the band is entirely irrelevant, and not even touched upon, and your comment on "messing the article about" is inappropriate. --Princess Tiswas 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deathrocker - If you are repeatedly going to revert changes, be courteous enough to make an entry in the talk page. This is not a discussion on the merits of the band, but on the use of chav as non-neutral language, and incorrect use of cult as an adjective. I suggest WP:RFC --Princess T 11:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Comment : Use of language for Youtube video
This is a dispute about the language used to describe a video clip -- 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
- Chav is by definition not NPOV, and cult implies more than merely a large number of observers or participants. -- 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Repeated unsupported reversion
User:Deathrocker, please stop reverting edits without supporting your actions - such action is tantamount to vandalism. Citing "anti-Towers" motivation is a straw man arguement - the edits are being made due to POV comments & unencyclopaedic language - Tiswas(t/c) 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Year of formation
The BBC states the band formed in 1999, not 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6230445.stm
[edit] HxC. Anarcho groaning...
Punk rock band, my fucking arse, Conflict, Crass, Icons of Filth, Dead Kennedys, etc. They were real punk bands. Punks nowadays are pretenders, theres more to punk than bleached spikey hair and a guitar with a distortion pedal.
-
- Incorrect. Why are you name dropping anarcho and hardcore bands?... you don't know anything about punk rock do you. Yet comically you are pretending to know it all... research, then come back when you know a little bit about the genre. - 12:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- the band has elements of punk rock and hard rock in them, hence why they are sometimes refered to as a punk rock band
Grim Reaper66- 18.54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversial controversy
Enough with the edit war on the word 'controversial' in the opening sentence already! For the life of me I can't understand why you all feel so strongly about it. Have a discussion about it instead. Personally I would probably lose it as I think it's a bit strong and vague at the same time, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Thermaland 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
