Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 25 September 2012

This is an archive of past discussions about Fall Out Boy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The End?

Hey I've heard rumors that Fall Out Boys Latest Album may have been there last. Im guessing this was stirred up since Patrick is on his own solo time doing collaborations and Pete having a kid. This was pushed furhter when Pete stated on his Twitter account in a Q&A that asked "Hey can we excpect Fall Out Boy album by next year?" He said "The truth is I dont know. Folie a Deux may have been our swan song but we might have another one in us well see." Is Fall Out Boy disbanding? (FallOutBoyFan123 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)) FallOutBoyFan123

AS of 11/20/09 Fall Out Boy is on an indefinite hiatus. This article explains everything.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/fall_out_boy_to_take_an_indefinite_break.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeaffect (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Hits Album...

Might want to add that they're releasing a greatest hits album sometime in November. No date is set yet for the release, but it will also feature two new songs.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1354271 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livedeliberate (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It will feature the complete version of the song "Alpha dog" which appeared on Welcome To The New Administration and a brand new song.--190.226.76.139 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The main fan site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.54.241 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 1, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: History ...best friends, Joseph Mark Trohman and Peter Lewis Kingston Wentz III wanted to play songs by bands they listened to growing up such as Green Day and Descendents. Clumsy and ungrammatical.

I rewrote this to be closer to what it was when it achieved GA.

Trohman met high school student Patrick Martin Stump in a Borders book store. Is Borders significant, why is it wikilinked?
I removed the wikilink, but I left Borders. I think it helps illustrate the meeting better for the reader.

The band received an advance from Island Records to record its proper debut, but the advance came with a right of first refusal for Island on Fall Out Boy's next album. But?
Corrected this.

it would take place with +44, Cobra Starship, The Academy Is... and Paul Wall as supporting acts. The show at Phoenix would be taped and become Fall Out Boy's first live album. Replace would with was. simple past rather than conditional.
Corrected.

and the song is currently on its chart run. Still? Replace with less specific timeline wording.
Corrected. Also fixed similar issues with outdated wording (or the potential to become outdated) in other areas of the article.

In general, the group has direct ties to melodic pop music,... What does in general mean?
No idea, and none of it was in the provided source. I cut the whole sentence.

Charity work Does this need a separate section?
Removed.

Lead: should fully summarize the article, please familiarise yourself with WP:LEAD.
I restored this to be closer to what it was when it achieved GA. I'll expand with the more recent history soon.

~~Thorough copy-editing throughout is needed.~~ Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

#:: Ref #12 is a dead link; ref #32 [1] is not RS; ref #33 needs properly formatting as news item from the BBC; ref #30 is a scan of a Rolling stone article, not RS, cite the print article if you like, but scans prove nothing; ref #32 redirects to band website; ref #35 - youtube is not RS; ref #27 is a social networking site, not RS; REF #34 is a blog, not RS; ref #26 is a blog; ref #25 is a dead link; ref #21 is a blog; ref #19 is a car sales site, not RS. Overall referencing is poor and poorly formatted, bare html should be properly formatted using citation templates.

The numbers are off now because of changes, but tinymediaempire.com (what was #32) is an RS. That's the website and blog post of the artist that did the cover art for the album, which is what is being referenced. So that's a primary source. Also, the personal blog of Pete Wentz would also be an appropriate primary source, but the site seems to have been taken down, so I've removed that. I think everything else has either been updated with archive info or removed, and all formatted. Going through now to replace dead links with new ones.

Ref #11 [V] Vivid Seats is a full service ticket marketplace - not WP:RS; ref #23 looks as if it may be a WP:SPS, makes no mention of song appearing on a n album, rather on a DVD; ref #28 [2] doesn't support the statement, just a few lines of text; ref #31 suggests that it has been announced as "Blink and Weezer will be touring together this summer, and they're taking Fall Out Boy with them. ". Yet the article says thathey toured - past tense - tours are announced all the time, not all of them happen; ref #32 is a blog, which may or may not have been posted by the cover artist - not RS, please read the policy; ref #2 "Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!" - not a RS; ref #5 Tv.com "Registration allows you to write reviews, participate in our lively discussions, and contribute to show, episode and person guides" not a RS; ref #34 is not a RS
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Concerns listed above, please focus on providing reliable and verifiable sources. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Responses above from Lara ☁. 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the prose and style side is greatly improved, thank you. Just the referencing to fix. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
They're all fixed. Lara ☁ 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, we have quite a few new unreliable sources. Please read up on verifiability and RS, consider statements such as "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." and how they apply to many of the sources in this article. Until this article is reliably sourced it is not worthy of GA status, so I am delisting it. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious section moved to Talk:Fall Out Boy#Dubious. Lara ☁ 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Someone tagged one of the refs with the dubious tag but didn't start the obligatory discussion, so here it is.

While the reference for Wentz referring to the band as "pop-punk" is clearly a scripted video meant to be comical, this particular aspect of it doesn't seem to be a joke. This comment is made early in the video during the build up to the joke and appears to be a literal reference to their genre. Lara ☁ 03:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a you tube reference, so fails WP:RS, hence the tag. Please address the referencing issues other wise the article will be de-listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I did address some, in the process of addressing others, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source. Certain websites are not automatically unreliable, just as certain formats (like blogs) are not necessarily unreliable. Primary sources, of which this YouTube video is, are considered reliable sources.

As an aside, I put this back under a level 2 header because 1/ it's relevant for discussion outside of the GAR regardless of how it goes, and 2/ the link on the dubious template automatically directs to this section, so it needs to be separate. Lara ☁ 04:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is YouTube does not make a reference unreliable. If the video is posted by a legitamate source, for example the official Fall Out Boy channel or their label's channel, then it may be used. This avoids copyright infringement, there is really no other reason not to use a video as a reliable source. If i get time I'll put some work into this page and help get it back up to GA. kiac. (talk-contrib) 07:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "Chenney" to "Cheney".

Done I've reworded the sentence to something clearer and more encyclopedic. There was no need to mention Cheney. Tim meh 13:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Folie a Deux section, mention is made about the meaning of "America's Suithearts", supposedly from Wentz's mouth itself. "Wentz said at a recent concert in Sydney, Australia, this song is about the ongoing Bush administration." Citation needed, perhaps? Surf Wisely. -dolst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolst (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It says in the Believers Never Die: Greatest Hits section that the Madison Square Garden show was on September 27. It was actually on October 4th, 2009, and Pete Wentz did not exactly announce an indefinite hiatus, but that it would be "their last show for a while." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katinthehat1414 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please edit out the "indefinite hiatus." In this article (http://omg.yahoo.com/news/fall-out-boy-keeping-abreast-of-digital-revolution/28990), Pete explicitly states that the band is not on a hiatus:

"Maybe we will start recording again in two weeks; maybe it will be three years. I don't really know. There is no plan in motion at all and no one has said the "H" word (hiatus) no matter how many times people try to get us to say it. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.153.33 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please change the genre of the band from Rock to Pop or at least Pop/Rock because their music is about as rock as Lady Gaga, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.114.232 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Tour Stops

This page needs a listing of the stops on their tours. Someone deleted the pages for the Believers Never Die tours that had it, but it's significant information. PrepJock101 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture

My god, that picture is ancient. Someone please update with a more current one, with all the members in it actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.10.94 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

?

what did they do that made every one thin they were a sell out? i dont think thats adressed in this article--65.2.10.12 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Break Up?

Did Fall Out Boy officially break up? cause unless theyve stated its absolutly over then we shouldnt say its over. If it is we should update the article then. mrnintendoman (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As of Feburary 3, 2010, the band has unofficially broke up. I updated the parts of the article that had not already been updated with such information. --Freaky Face Films (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Andy Hurley and Pete Wentz they are still on their break and therefore are not in the band right now, as in they aren't in Fall Out Boy mode if we just back off and give them time they'll come back to being the band when they are ready.Bookbrace (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So can we change it back to just break? Were misinforming the readers and probably scaring the crap out of 13 year olds everywhere mrnintendoman (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the section below, I refreshed the "Unofficial Breakup" section and added new/more current information, which yes, does include the fact that band is technically again on "break" and has still not broken up. The indefinite hiatus has therefore been re-confirmed and that has been added in as well. Best of all, once more, the article starts with "Fall Out Boy IS" and not "Fall Out Boy WAS" :D --Freaky Face Films (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pete Wentz offically quit the band the other day. He announced it on Twitter. Joe Trohman later went on to say that he quit to then twittered that he was just joking and he really didn't quit the band. I don't know if they broke up or just found a new band leader, all I know is, as I stated earlier, that Pete Wentz quit the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelseaDavis1901 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To make it perfectly clear....

AND LET ME BE PERFECTLY FUCKING CLEAR!!!!!! FALL OUT BOY IS OVER! IM A DIE-HARD FAN BUT IM NOT A FUCKING IDIOT LIKE THE FUCKTARD WHO WROTE WHATS BELOW THIS. LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF HIATUS YOU MOTHER FUCKER!!!! WHEN BLINK-182 WAS ON HIATUS, THEY WERE BROKEN UP. PETE PATRICK JOE AND ANDY ALL SAID THEY WERE DONE!!!!! SO STOP BEING NAIVE AND CHANGE WIKIPEDIA SO IT SAYS WAS. IT PISSES ME OFF YOU BUNCH OF LITTLE FAGGOTS AT WIKIPEDIA WHO SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT BROKEN UP JUST CUZ YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT. YOU GAY LTTLE FUCKTARDS, GET THE DICK OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, STOP DEEPTHROATING IT, TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR BUTT HOLE AND EDIT THE FUCKING PAGE. FUCK YOU!!!! THIS WORD MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND AND MAKES EVERYONE SO FUCKING HAPPY.

Ok Lemme clarify something so it can be edited. FALL OUT BOY HAS NOT BROKEN UP!!!! Seriously theyre still on break. Pete Wentz was just in one of his moods, Patrick Stump was stating the obvious (cause noones in Fall Out Boy at this time DUH) and Joe trohman And Andy Hurley were simply kiding when they said they quit. Follow there twitters theyve said again and again that there still on break. Change it back to Hiatus and please erase the unofficial breakup section. Thank you. Heres a list of the links of tweets and articlaes where im getting my info from

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/hwood_party_girl/b166029_pete_wentz_fall_out_boy_on_break_not.html

http://twitter.com/peteWentz - keep scrolling down he has tweets saying there still on break

http://twitter.com/FUCKCITY - As does he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSOXVTvZjQU - and in case you cant find them urself this girl points it out quite well

Fall Out boy are still on break. Please stop calling it an unofficial breakup.mrnintendoman (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I refreshed the article and particularly, that section with more current info that re-confirms the indefinite hiatus. The band is technically, as of right now, back on break. (Yay :P)--Freaky Face Films (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pete Wentz offically quit the band the other day. He announced it on Twitter. Joe Trohman later went on to say that he quit to then twittered that he was just joking and he really didn't quit the band. I don't know if they broke up or just found a new band leader, all I know is, as I stated earlier, that Pete Wentz quit the band.

TO THE PERSON AT THE TOP, IF YOU WERE A DIE HARD FAN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT EVERYONE ELSE EXCLUDING PETE HAVE ALL SAID FALL OUT BOY WILL BE BACK, PATRICK SAID GIVE IT TWO YEAR, ANDY SAID THEY WOULD AND JOE SAID HE COULDNT WAIT TILL THEY WERE. PETE IS BEING A BI-POLAR IDIOT AND SOMEONE REALLY NEEDS TO CHANGE WAS TO IS, I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS, IM NOT ALONE IN THINKING THEY WILL GET BACK, THEY WILL MISS EACH OTHER. SO PLEASE GO AWAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsbenzedrine (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus date

Some users continue to change the infobox information from "2001 - 2009 (hiatus)" to "2001 - 2010 (hiatus)". This is incorrect; Fall Out Boy announced a hiatus in late 2009, following their US tour with Blink-182. After rumors were started about their "unofficial breakup", the band confirmed the hiatus was still in place -- NOT start a new one. This is getting a bit frustrating, and I am wondering if it is at all possible to have some in-text edit deterrents to the code for the article to let users know not to change that information. Any other ideas are greatly appreciated.

WereWolf (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, and I wouldn't say that it would be a problem to add a comment in the years active field like you suggest. —Akrabbim^talk 03:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

fall out boy

You little shits need to calm the fuck down. Fall Out Boy is dead and gone. Time to move on the newer shit emo music this society has produced. I find it hilarious that this page is protected so that anonymous users can't edit anything. What a bunch of babies.

fall out boy is on break not a hiatus so stop putting lies about them online its bullshit!!!! pete said they would be back witch means they will be back!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.10.44 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

See Hiatus. "On break" and "on hiatus" are pretty much the same thing. —Akrabbim^talk 03:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguably a band 'on hiatus' is suspending operations entirely (often while band members are pursuing independent projects), whereas one simply taking a 'break' just isn't touring at the moment. It's a subtle difference, but a valid one. 99.174.234.211 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the first two sentences of this article don't seem to make sense. 'Fall out boy was an american rock band/The band consists of'. Also, as far as 'was' goes, they haven't officially broken up yet. This should be changed to 'is'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophhmeatsix (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph

On both February 4, 2010 and February 6, 2010, the band's current status was made more clear and the break (not breakup) was re-confirmed. This is not a very well worded paragraph. Could someone fix this?.
Also this paragraph,
On November 20, 2009, the four band members announced they will be taking a break, an indefinite hiatus for the time being. "We don't know the future of Fall Out Boy!" said the four band members. Bassist and lyricist Pete Wentz has said that his personal reason for taking a break is that he feels that his name and marriage to pop singer Ashlee Simpson had become a hindrance for the band. He added: "I think the world needs a little less Pete Wentz", could probably be better written.
123.100.61.101 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop rock

It seems fine to tag them as 'pop rock'. See "Fall Out Boy fans can expect even more polished pop rock from the multi-platinum group" at apple.com for just one example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.2 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Members bit at the bottom of the page

Someone has changed the Members bit at the bottom and put all the band into 'former members' this isn't right as none of them has technically left the band and Joe, Andy, Patrick and Pete needed to be put back into the 'Members' catagory like they are at he top of the page, because if it is putting them as members at the top of the page, why not at the bottom! let me just get this clear with you, they are all still in the band and until there is an official announcement saying otherwise they stay as members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.163.253 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, as long as the band is inactive, none of the members are really current members—whether it's a hiatus or official break up. When a band enters a hiatus or breaks up, some editors like to change "Current members" to "Former members" until the band reforms as no members are currently contributing to the project. In other situations, it may be better to change the current members headline to either "Final lineup" or "Lineup before hiatus." Would either of those alternate wordings be better for this article? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

to be perfectly honest i think if they are classed as members at the top of the page they need to be classed as members at the bottom, im only saying something because it has been upsetting a lot of people since it has been changed. honestly i would never class them as former members only if they really left the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.163.253 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is/Was Debate

This whole "Fall Out Boy is" VS "Fall Out Boy was" fight going on in the first part of the article is ridiculous. We have established that they are on an indefinite hiatus. Thus, they aren't fully broken-up and definitely not in the past. With that being said, they aren't currently making music. I have decided to attempt to end this crazy debate by re-wording it as "Fall Out Boy is a currently inactive American rock band..." - This change makes a lot of sense and should please both sides. Unless a specific and understandable reason is stated here, please do not continue to mess with it. It makes people on tumblr cry, lol. --Freaky Face Films (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Best known for????

The following paragraph, aside from lacking proper citations, is just plain retarded (IMHO):

They are best known for their single "This ain't a Scene, it's an Arms Race", from the platinum-selling Infinity On High album. [3] However, Fall Out Boy's major mainstream fanbase was also derived from the single "Thnks fr th Mmrs", also from the same album.

I would remove it, but thought I should try writing about it first. Aside from just sounding ridicules, I have no idea how a "fanbase" can be "derived" from a song. And to go so far as to claim that it's true for the band's "major fanbase" is just plain wrong.

# Ido50 (talk to me), at 17:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've since changed it, I agree that it doesn't sound right. Now I added Fall Out Boy's best selling single, "This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race" and their other notable songs. I think it's good to put in some of their popular (demonstrated by their selling) songs in the background information section. This is for new people to quickly see what the more popular Fall Out Boy songs are, so they can check them out and maybe like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Vocalist Patrick Stump disconfirms Fall Out Boy break-up

On March 2, 2011, Patrick Stump, vocalist of side project Soul Punk and the supposedly broken-up Fall Out Boy, disconfirms the alleged hiatus on Idobi Radio's The Gunz Show.

The Gunz Show - Interview with Patrick Stump
(Patrick Stump acknowledges the alleged break-up at 06:57 into the video. He is quoted saying "Fall Out Boy never broke up" at 07:09).

I would make the edit myself, but I am not currently privileged enough.

Thanks! Jacobso4 (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would add it, in google news there's a source too, but I'm too busy...but it should be noted in the article.

Could you write it up in this Discussion page, then tell me where it should go in the article, and I'll put it in. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical Style

I think that it should be noted that Fall Out Boy's musical sound and style were different in all their albums. Evening Out was pop punk, Take This to Your Grave was pop punk, From Under the Cork Tree was pop influenced pop punk, Infinity on High was more pop rock, and Folie a Deux was different...I can't explain how Folie a Deux is different, but if someone could, then I think this article needs it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Year-end Charts

We need to add to Fall Out Boy's albums and songs pages all their year-end chart positions. Could someone do this? I think it is very important for this to be done in order to relist Fall Out Boy pages as "Good" articles. Try the Billboard website. Thanks! Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fall Out Boy Getting Back Together" section

I'm not sure if this section is really necessary and I'm not sure if this only source http://www.nme.com/news/fall-out-boy/56658 is reliable...Patrick Stump's quotes may have been taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to get rid of this section in the article. I asked Patrick Stump on twitter and he said "NME's full of...", "We'll be back when we're back". What he meant was that he did not want to make more Fall Out Boy music if he was like 40 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 09:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Citizens for Our Betterment (2008)

Should we keep or remove the "Citizens for Our Betterment (2008)" section in the article about the band's viral campaign? Currently it's removed but I would like to discuss an editor's choice of removing such a large section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Hamm

Brandon Hamm was an early member of the band. On May 2, I added him to the list of past members. On May 15, user Noreplyhaha removed him and said this: "Brandon Hamm wasn't in Fall Out Boy. He played a few shows in their early days, but wasn't part of the band." I don't understand what this user means by playing shows but not being part of the band, and I would like to add Brandon back onto the list of past members. --Taylornate (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added him back along with my original primary source citation. I acknowledge that ideally this would be confirmed by a secondary source, but given that the user who removed him acknowledged Hamm's participation in the band, I think it is reasonable to add him back in for now.--Taylornate (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I had asked Patrick Stump on Twitter before I removed Brandom Hamm as a former member. Patrick Stump's words are "Yes, [Brandon Hamm] played guitar for a couple shows (but was never actually a member of the band)". This was my reasoning for removing Brandon. He was involved in the band, but he is likely a spare guitarist who filled in for a few shows. I am pretty sure he wasn't involved in making any music or lyrics, but rather just played guitar for a few shows in the band's early days. I can post a screenshot on the internet if you want to see, as I would like to remove Hamm from the "Former Members" section. However, I think he should be included in the band's "Early days" section. Also, TJ "Racine" was not in the band for very long, and the band was between drummers before current drummer Andy Hurley joined. The band's first line up was Patrick Stump, Joe Trohman, Pete Wentz, and Ben Rose (drummer for three or four shows). -All this information came from Patrick Stump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Hamm left the band on poor terms, they prefer not to acknowledge him, and he did participate in songwriting. He was not filling a temporary position rather he quit on his own accord so he could go to college. This is from my conversations with him. If you have questions for him I could probably get them answered. As to what constitutes "membership", it seems like meaningless semantics to me, but I'm an outsider to the music business.--Taylornate (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You've discussed with Patrick Stump on Twitter? What did he say? Can you copy paste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I've discussed with Brandon Hamm.--Taylornate (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh never mind the confusion haha! I'm a diehard Fall Out Boy fan so I want to know more about their early days that no one knows about. How did you contact Hamm?Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

He is a friend of mine.--Taylornate (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

All in all, do we remove Brandon Hamm from the page? He played guitar, but wasn't that Joe Trohman's job, or was Hamm the rhythm guitarist? He left on poor terms though, so does he ever contact the current band members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with a new source, it needs to be removed. The current source is self published, you should have a look at WP:SPS. - Jer757 10:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. See WP:ABOUTSELF.--Taylornate (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Take This To Your Grave

The sngles pages on Take This To Your Grave are Unavailable, Could somone work on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.146.111 (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure each individual song is notable enough to have its own article.--Taylornate (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Singles "Dead on Arrival" and "Grand Theft Autumn/Where Is Your Boy" are fine, but "Saturday" links to the album Take This to Your Grave because no one made a page for it.

name origin

once there was this little boy, he fellt out of an plane just seconds after he was born so his parents named him fall out boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.167.144 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

Images

We need a good concert photo that has all of the boys in it to replace the current infobox image which has only three in view, Andy Hurley the drummer is missing The image can not be copyrighted in anyway... no rights reserved.
Screen shots for each music video on their respective page would be really good.
Lead singer Patrick Stump needs a new, more recent picture that reflects his dramatic weight loss.

Audio

If anyone has any experience in sample boxes, that would be a great addition for this article. "Dance, Dance" and "This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race" are definite needs, as are "Sugar We're Goin Down" and "Thnks fr th Mmrs". Currently, the only audio sample is "Beat It" which is a Michael Jackson cover, not an original Fall Out Boy song.

I really only think "Sugar, We're Goin Down" needs to be sampled here, as it is likely their most well-known song (it pulled them into the mainstream). Others would be helpful, however, in showing the evolution of the band's sound. 74.5.138.72 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Glambert4688

"Sugar, We're Goin Down" did pull the underground and unknown Fall Out Boy into the mainstream, but arguably "Thnks fr th Mmrs" is their most popular hit. There's an uploaded sample for "Sugar..." on its Wikipedia page, we could use that, but what do we write for the text under it? (See Infinity_on_High#Music) Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of information

Expanding "2001-2002: The beginning" would be good. However, I am unable to find articles that talk about the band's early days and lineup changes. TJ "Racine" was not in the band for very long, according to Patrick Stump when he talked to me on Twitter. Also, Andy Hurley was good friends with Pete Wentz ever since he was 16, and Fall Out Boy needed a drummer for a show, that's when Andy came in. I'm not sure if he joined full-time right after that, his response on Twitter had a double meaning.

Sales totals

Does anyone know where sales totals for each Fall Out Boy album and single can be found? "From Under the Cork Tree" has sold 2.5 million copies in the US according to Billboard, but that source is way dated from 2007, and I think it should be well over the 3 million mark by now. "Infinity on High" is certified Platinum for over 1 million shipments, but I can't find anywhere a figure of actual sales totals, nor singles.

Good Article status

How far do you think this is away from Good Article status? It used to be GA. The body paragraphs go on too much about the commercial success side and not the history... Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Hamm

There was a productive conversation on this page on the inclusion of Brandon Hamm as a former member. That conversation went a month without activity and was archived. Now, suddenly he is again removed with no explanation. Why?--Taylornate (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't been on this discussion page for ages but Patrick Stump told me on Twitter that the only real former members he considers are Mike P and Ben Rose (first line-up drummer). He explains it all on Twitter, I screen captured it: http://twitpic.com/6h5olr Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this. If you want to re-open the discussion then please say something new.--Taylornate (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a few issues here. The first is not who the founder thinks are former members but can any proof be given that Hamm performed regularly with the band. I would suspect that this would make him a member. However, if Stump has some other method of inclusion in the band (say a secret handshake, oath, or ritual) that Hamm didn't participate in, then he needs to publish it (see WP:V), prove that all of the members have undergone this ritual, and then it's valid. For the purposes of Wikipedia, only verifiable and reliable sources should be offered as proof. One final thing, just because a musician played on an album doesn't make that person a member since studio musicians can be used for recording purposes. Rather, membership implies a touring commitment to the band. I don't know if that helps, but I hope it offers some insight. Personally, I would add Hamm back based on consensus and request information to attempt to create a new consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing on the internet (no articles or anything on forums) that mention Brandon Hamm being involved with Fall Out Boy. Noreplyhaha (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is exactly one thing on the internet, which I cited. Are you now saying he had no involvement with the band at all? That is different from what you acknowledged previously. Why did you suddenly remove him after a month with no discussion and respond to my inquiry as if the original discussion didn't happen, even though I linked to it?--Taylornate (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just scoured the first five pages of a Google search of "brandon hamm fall out boy" and only on the first two pages there was Brandon Hamm listed as a former member, but there was no prose and those websites were using the Wikipedia material, such as on this, this and this. The only website that didn't (at least not directly) copy Wikipedia was this but it's unreliable as it features typographic errors. There's only one thing on the internet which you're using as a source, and it's not published by Chicago Sun-Times but is a comment/reply to a newspaper article by someone called Brandon Hamm. That isn't appropriate as a source. In the same way, I could also leave a comment on that newspaper article and call myself Brandon Hamm and say anything. I am not saying that Hamm was not involved with the band at all, I acknowledge he played guitar circa 2001 but there's really nothing that proves he was in the band. Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

About the source being self-published—that's another point that was covered in the previous discussion, which I linked to when I started this section. Please read it and post here again if you have something new to say. I'm not sure why you scoured Google since I already agreed that there are no other sources online, but since you brought it up, please cite a reference that says information with typographic errors is unreliable. I've never heard that before.--Taylornate (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reasonable doubt over its authenticity though. Anyone could go on that newspaper's online article, or any reliable website for that matter, and write a comment and call themselves anything. Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The policy states that it applies to social networking sites and your argument would apply to all of them.
If you truly believe this, then how do you justify your screen captures of someone claiming to be Patrick Stump on Twitter?
Did you read the post? What a bizarre post from an impostor claiming to be someone so obscure. What possible motivation could a person have?

A couple of loose ends that you didn't respond to:

Why are we doing this all over again? Why the sudden renewed interest? Why the unexplained revert after the discussion is archived? Why the duplicated arguments from that discussion?
What do typographical errors in a source have to do with reliability? Why shouldn't we add this as a second source?--Taylornate (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think a reply on a website counts as reliable, and there's nothing else on the internet that supports it (besides the typo website that I shall discuss later).
I can justify and support my use of my screen captures of Patrick Stump on Twitter. His account is verified; the user name is PatrickStump and when you look up @PatrickStump there's a blue tick next to the user name, denoting a "verified" account, just as Barack Obama's Twitter is BarackObama with a verified tick. Also, on [www.falloutboyrock.com Fall Out Boy's official website] it links to that Twitter. I don't know what motivation someone would have in posting as Hamm on that newspaper article, but anyone could have done it. What if I post what I want to write on Stump's Wiki on a Rolling Stone article about him by posting a comment as "Patrick Stump" then use that and say it's self-published?
I've read the post on the website multiple times, but I still stand by in saying that anyone could have written than. Even I could go comment on that article now with the name Brandon Hamm and say something like "Previously I mentioned I was involved in a Chicago band called Fall Out Boy, I would like to correct that to a band called Boy Of Fall" and that could be the same person.
I started the dispute again with renewed interest (you should see how much that has happened over the band's genre in Archive 3) because after reluctantly leaving Hamm on the page for a while I decided it doesn't belong. I decided to revert because I'm pretty much the sole editor of the Fall Out Boy page and I don't think Hamm has a place in the article.
If a website has many typographic errors then what's to say they haven't written incorrect or misinformed information too?

Also, if Hamm has a place on the article at the moment, why not all the other people involved with Fall Out Boy in their early days?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreplyhaha (talk • contribs)

I'm skipping most of your reply for now because I think the following is much more important. We can always come back to the other points.

I started the dispute again with renewed interest [...] because after reluctantly leaving Hamm on the page for a while I decided it doesn't belong.

Please pardon me if I mis-interpreted this, but it sounds like you made a personal decision early on and your purpose here is to "win" rather than reach consensus or find truth.

I decided to revert because I'm pretty much the sole editor of the Fall Out Boy page and I don't think Hamm has a place in the article.

I'm sure it is not your intention to break any rules and I understand completely if you are not familiar with all of them—there are so many—but this sounds an awful lot like ownership.--Taylornate (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Hamm wasn't ever a full member of the band so I'm just arguing that he shouldn't be listed as a former member. Maybe give him a mention in the early days section, like "Fall Out Boy in their early days recruited touring members, including Brandon Hamm," but honestly he's not notable.

No it is not my intention to break Wikipedia rules. Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you believe this is the truth, and I can't blame you for wanting to remove something you believe is untrue, but please be honest. Are the arguments you are making really why you believe it or are they a means to an end? For example, do you truly doubt that Hamm wrote that post, or are you looking to discount it because you believe he is lying? Do you really believe a source is unreliable if it has typos? Or, is Patrick Stump's word your main reason? The reason I ask these questions is that ideally, if we can't agree on the truth, hopefully we can at least agree on whether or not it is appropriate to include him according to Wikipedia policy. We won't be able to accomplish that if we descend into wikilawyering.

By the way, I ordered a FOB album that includes a DVD that Hamm told me he appears in. Maybe it will help us, maybe not.--Taylornate (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point there is no doubt that Brandon Hamm had SOMETHING to do with Fall out boy. I think mentioning him in the article is also fine, I just feel that the source isn't strong enough. Sorry if you feel I'm intruding, just seen you guys going back and forth for quite awhile, and thought I'd give a 3rd opinion. Jer ^{Hit me up} 09:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just debating for the truth, truth from Patrick Stump's words. I don't really doubt Hamm in writing that post and I don't think he's lying. A source being unreliable with typos? Well I don't know Wikipedia's policy on this but if I see a website with lots of mistakes then I don't like using it as a source. You ordered a FOB album/DVD over just this to seek information? My Heart Will Always be The B-Side to My Tongue? Jer757: a 3rd opinion is great. There's no doubt that Hamm had something to do with the band. I wrote before about mentioning him in the article, but then again, the band had lots of other people who played with them in their early days, for the rhythm guitar or a second guitar and the drumming position - Hamm could be getting included in the article but not them? Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion on another bands page about "other members" that weren't included in a certain section of the article, we all acknowledged that the other members had quit for some reason, but only two of them had sources for the details on -why- they quit, so only those two had much mention in the article. Yes there were other members, but (don't quote me on this because I haven't even looked) they don't have sources, and that's why they aren't mentioned in the article. Brandom Hamm is listed because he has a source (although I still don't think its a good one), the "other" former members aren't mentioned well because.. they have no sources to back it. Jer ^{Hit me up} 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the "Former members" list then? Do we change it to Ben Rose and Mike P as per the Patrick Stump source I posted earlier? Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike P. is already listed, as for the two other guys (Chris Messer, and Ben Rose), I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Though I know that the guy you're DMing in that screenshot is really Patrick Stump, does that meet wiki's standards to be a useable source? Jer ^{Hit me up} 02:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think mentioning him in the article is also fine, I just feel that the source isn't strong enough.
— User:Jer757

I agree it would be better to have a stronger source, but do you have an opinion on why this source wouldn't be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF?

I'm just debating for the truth, truth from Patrick Stump's words. I don't really doubt Hamm in writing that post and I don't think he's lying.
— User:Noreplyhaha

What do you mean by this? I'm a bit confused. I think I know what you mean, especially after reading your description of yourself on Twitter, but how do you justify it here? Your statement on Twitter, "I'm totally obsessed with Patrick Stump and Fall Out Boy", raises concerns in me about WP:COI. Your statment " I'm also the main person writing their Wiki pages" again concerns me regarding WP:OWN. These are not just posts you made but your actual self-description.

A source being unreliable with typos? Well I don't know Wikipedia's policy on this but if I see a website with lots of mistakes then I don't like using it as a source.
— User:Noreplyhaha

If you want to challenge it, then you need to apply a Wikipedia policy. I don't mean to offend but your preference doesn't count.

You ordered a FOB album/DVD over just this to seek information? My Heart Will Always be The B-Side to My Tongue?
— User:Noreplyhaha

Yes.

but then again, the band had lots of other people who played with them in their early days, for the rhythm guitar or a second guitar and the drumming position - Hamm could be getting included in the article but not them?
— User:Noreplyhaha

Like Jer said, you would be justified in adding any former members that are backed up by an acceptable source.

Mike P. is already listed, as for the two other guys (Chris Messer, and Ben Rose), I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Though I know that the guy you're DMing in that screenshot is really Patrick Stump, does that meet wiki's standards to be a useable source?
— User:Jer757

I don't think the screen shot would be an acceptable source. If Noreplyhaha can reference the Twitter posts themselves then... maybe? There would need to be an appropriate policy cited. I'm not sure WP:ABOUTSELF would apply because it's not strictly about himself. If it does turn out to be an acceptable source, then I think the other former members could be added, but the removal of Hamm would not necessarily be justified.--Taylornate (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading WP:ABOUTSELF I can't really see a reason not to use that source now. As for the screen, he posted that because they are Twitter DM's, which are basically just private messages on twitter, so he can't actually reference them. Jer ^{Hit me up} 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was actually wondering what DMs were. Thanks for the input.--Taylornate (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For the COI, I believe my contributions are helping Wikipedia. Also, I'm very well aware I don't "own" the pages, I've been here for about a year now. The band's early days history is obscured and undocumented, almost no one really knows what happened with the band's lineup and what they did and so an actual member of the band's information is really useful. That's why I'm abiding by what Stump has told me; it's the truth. Basically you're both saying (about the screen) 'The person who would know the most, Mr Stump, has said what it is and we know it's the truth but anyway we're sticking with something we can source (although shaky) even though it's wrong'? Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I only ever said I believed Brandon Hamm had something to do with FOB, proven by both Patrick Stump, and the source linked to the his name. Do I think he was a member? No, not really, but again, its blatantly obvious he played with the band for some period of time and does deserve to be mentioned.

As for the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, I believe you're both somewhat guilty of this, Noreplyhaha may be a super fan, but Taylornate, you personally know Brandon Hamm, so have a look at this Here. Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Noreply: The Hamm source is not wrong just because Stump says it is. His words are not gospel. Hamm was there just like Stump was and he would know if he was a member of a band. You said yourself that you don't doubt its authenticity and you don't think he's lying, so what did you mean by that? Anyway, I think we've established that according to WP policy, Hamm stays. If you disagree, please cite policy so we don't get off track.

Jer: That is true, Hamm is a personal friend of mine and I won't deny my COI. If you think it is causing problems please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylornate (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe it is causing some minor problems, but it's not all on you, noreply is equally as guilty of having a COI, obviously. But I mean, if we can all agree on something, it shouldn't be that big of an issue.

Like I've said previously, and we all agreed - Brandon Hamm has obviously had something to do with fall out boy, but you have to view this from a perspective of someone who doesn't know Hamm on a personal level. One of the founding members says he played WITH the band, but was never actually a member, this guy is still a member at this point, it is his band - shouldn't he be an authority on what has happened in his band? If anything, I think Brandon Hamm at the very least deserves to be mentioned as a "Touring" member during whatever time period he played with the band. Jer ^{Hit me up} 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this. 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Stump is an authority, but no more so than anyone else involved. Anyway, it's moot because he hasn't said anything that can be referenced. I'm also not sure I understand what you mean by mentioning him as a touring member, as a status different from member.--Taylornate (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Touring members are "Fill-ins" for the most part, they play with the band, but for the most part, they are never actually "members" of the band. Jer ^{Hit me up} 05:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look on Panic! At The Disco's page, there's a band members section and it lists current and former touring members, like what Jer757 said, fill-in for a band member who can't play at a show. Noreplyhaha (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What if we just use the Twitpic as a source for Hamm being former touring member? Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Per earlier discussion, that would not be a valid source. I believe it would qualify as original research. If you find a valid source, then we can talk about it. It wouldn't necessarily negate the current source.--Taylornate (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove collaboration with T.I. in Infinity on High section?

I'm thinking of removing the small bit of the band's involvement with rapper T.I. for a song that didn't get to be included on the latter's album. It seems tacked on and is not notable and Fall Out Boy fans wouldn't even care. Seeking opinions. Noreplyhaha (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have opinions on this? It's not notable and interrupts the flow of the article. New material from the Infinity on High page should supplement the section after removing the T.I. collaboration mention. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

fansite tag

I would encourage you to read through the pages linked to in the tag because I won't be able to do a better job explaining it. Basically, the article does not read like an encyclopedia. There is more than one reason for this but the biggest problem is the promotional tone. Here are a few specific examples of why I placed the tag:

Fall Out Boy released their follow-up album, Infinity on High, to major chart success
His solo album is the ultimate solo effort
Fall Out Boy have not broken up, rather they are taking a rest
Fall Out Boy "seems like one of the quintessential mainstream rock singles bands of the 2000s."
Stump auditioned as a drummer, but the discovery of his impressive vocal range led to his placement as the lead vocalist

--Taylornate (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotta be honest dude, while I agree the two Fall Out Boy fanboys shouldn't have been the ones to remove the tags, there isn't anything wrong with either of these articles really. 95% of what you've posted are quotes from other places, although I will note that they seem to be slightly altered, and come off more brown nosey than the original comments. Jer ^{Hit me up} 23:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must conform to WP:style. Being sourced is not sufficient.

I don't know how you can say there's nothing wrong with the article while also saying things appear to have been altered to be more promotional.--Taylornate (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I say that because I'm only assuming. Its pretty common for sources to seem like they're kissing the artists ass. I myself don't care enough to look at the sources and actually compare them, but as I said its not out of commonplace.

But you can disregard my opinion, no point even trying to come to consensus with you, the reality is you have a COI, and rather than actually trying to come to a consensus like you should, you go out of your way to discredit the article. Jer ^{Hit me up} 00:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to violate policies and guidelines even by having fully sourced quotes faithfully represented—the trick is to stick to quotes by people with a reputation for knowing what they're talking about, and keeping it in proportion. One can, of course, cherry pick the "good" quotes and leave out the "bad" ones (or vice versa; note that I'm speaking in abstract terms), so critical quotes should also be given whatever weight they're due. Also, quotes should be clearly attributed in the text (for example, "according to Harry Mitchell, who is not by any stretch of the imagination a noted expert in Fall Out Boy...") so the reader can make their own mind up about whether or not to trust them.

All in all, I would say the article is not likely to get through FAC in the near future, and it may lean very slightly to a fan's point of view in places, but I don't think the issues are serious enough to warrant a tag at the top of the article. At worst, a few inline tags on dodgy phrases might be justified. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll work on tagging or fixing the specific problems.--Taylornate (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct the name

In the past members tab of the article, T.J. "Raccine" Kunasch is misspelled. The correct spelling is T.J. "Racine" Kunaschk. The reason I know this is I am his brother. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.125.125 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I do think you're right: In Patrick Stump's messages to me, he spelt it as "Racine." I will correct it now, albeit Stump has said that the only former Fall Out Boy members he considers are Mike P and Ben Rose, both drummers. Do you know what TJ contributed to (split EP, Evening Out?) and some history? Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

emo

Recently someone added emo as a genre and then it was removed. Why not keep it? If you search "fall out boy emo" on google news there are numerous results referring to them as emo.--Taylornate (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Same reason the Brandon Hamm thing went on for so long, WP:COI from the fanboy who probably doesn't like the title.

I'm not saying you can't be a fan of the band and edit this page (I actually own all of their albums), but NoReplyHaha seems to take it a little far. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the reference, it's already referenced in the article itself, and looks kinda tacky in the genre box. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 00:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

...and the genre debate is revisited again, after years of agreement that they're not "emo." Even the band says they aren't. Maybe you should read this, the great genre debate revisited here, this too, this, discussion comments here ad a little bit here and think about it. The argument has spanned hundreds of essays already. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've skimmed through all of the past talk sections that you linked to and found most of the discussion to be irrelevant as it does not relate to Wikipedia policy. If you pay attention to the points backed by policy you will see the consensus is to keep the designation of emo along with the others. The main issue is WP:V. By the way, it is considered bad manners to change what other people have written on talk pages as you have done with the title of this section.--Taylornate (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to read everything you linked, though I did skim a few things, and it seemed a lot of them agreed on the genre "emo". What the band says doesn't even matter. I'm sure I've said this before but look at My Chemical Romance. There is a section there about how their vocalist hates the term emo, and doesn't consider the band emo at all. However, several verifiable sources say they are, and that is why the genre remains. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You should skim through LaraLove's comments, she had great points; I read the entire archive two-three months ago. Lara was a big contributor to the page years ago and has since stopped due to too much editing controversy, kind of like me. It's such a shame that tabloids would label the band "emo" when they're not; bands like The Get Up Kids would be more "emo". Composer Patrick Stump doesn't even draw on those influences, his influences include the likes of David Bowie and Michael Jackson, not the sort of blink-182. Emo has been tagged here for reasons other than sound. Just maybe "emo" in their early beginnings with Evening Out with Your Girlfriend but that's more pop punk/punk rock. As is the fact that their music does not fall into the emo genre and there is sourced information mentioning that emo is being placed on bands not for their music but for their fashion style, showing of emotion (which means mainly Pete Wentz's eyeliner, dress code and hair), etc. For the purposes of this article, it needs to focus on musical genre and nothing more. Certainly all can be explained and sourced in the body. "Emo" shouldn't be completely cut out of the article, but it all needs to be explained. For the infobox, however, there is no appropriate place for emo. It is disputed, it is not reflected in their music and the template itself calls for generalization, something that is, unfortunately, ignored widespread across this project. Putting "emo" in the infobox takes the term out of context, for the purpose of the article it should be included in the musical style section or criticism/dispute. At the end of the day their sound (backed by many print sources) is pop punk. Even "I Don't Care" has been likened to glam rock and arena rock (not emo), with "I'm Like a Lawyer..." and "This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race" have been compared to R&B and Maroon 5. A print source, "Finding Emo" by Jay Rath, Wisconsin State Journal: "...acts such as Fall Out Boy, Dashboard Confessional and My Chemical Romance all became known as emo, even though one could argue that there were differences in their music." Additionally, there is not even a clear definition of "emo" and it would take substantial prose in the article to qualify it. As I said, it should be discussed in the article but putting it the infobox is a misleading out-of-context summary, and there is a verifiable soure that backs up the sort-of misuse of the term. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "kind of like me", are you saying you are a victim of controversy? While in the same edit repeating an action that I warned you is considered bad manners? Are you saying you are no longer editing this page? While your recent edit is what sparked this discussion? I'm confused, but if you are done editing this page then there is no need to continue this discussion.
I'm not going to go through the archives again. If you summarize Lara's points here I will read them. If you link to them I will at least skim, but I don't think that would be as good for a clear discussion.
I appreciate the effort you put into the rest of your post but it is all meaningless if you do not relate it to Wikipedia policy. Please become familiar with WP:V. To summarize: If there are good sources referring to the band as emo, then for our purposes the band is emo whether it is true or not.--Taylornate (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw Jer's reply to my post and replied to that while changing the section heading, I missed your comment at that time. No, I'm not completely done with editing the page. My points integrated with some of Lara's are in my comment above, also dealing with your last point. Yes, it integrates Wikipedia:Verifiable. Noreplyhaha (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could you be a bit more direct in your application of policy? If you mean this: "there is a verifiable soure that backs up the sort-of misuse of the term" then I'd have to see the source but using it to remove emo sounds like WP:synthesis.--Taylornate (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This article on "emo" mentions that acts like Fall Out Boy are labeled "emo" despite differences in their music , and the Wikipedia page should be focusing on their sound, not what their fashion statement is. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That article says the band is known as emo which supports keeping it in the article. Any conclusion that the article does not explicitly state would be WP:synthesis. If you are going to make a claim as to what the article should or should not focus on, then you need to cite Wikipedia policy. This is my fourth time in this discussion asking you to do so.--Taylornate (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia policy mentions what infoboxes should contain. Data should be "comparable" and "concise." My source above and argument is being completely ignored. You haven't shown one source that explains why they're labeled emo, and this Wikipedia page uses a source from 2006 that calls them "emocore" which isn't even "emo." Music media has taken to labeling every band with any variation of long titles, black hair, eyeliner, hoodies, emotional lyrics and whatever trait they have, as emo. Nothing in policy says that every genre they possibly fall into has to be listed in the infobox. My source is evidence for the use of the term requiring necessary explanation, and there is no room in the infobox to qualify it.Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your point about the infobox needing to be concise. Emo is concise.
I addressed your argument above by telling you it is moot without application of WP policy.
Per WP:V, we only need to show that they are called emo. We do not need a source explaining why.
That source could easily be replaced with one of many others that call them emo, such as the one I put in the infobox and was removed.
Again, if there are good sources calling them emo, then that is enough to include it.
Your source is not WP policy and does not constrain us. As I said, that would be WP:SYNTH.--Taylornate (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is about their music, and I have a source that says although Fall Out Boy has been labeled emo, an individual can argue differences in their music from the labeled genre. This places the emo tag in dispute and requires text to qualify it, and infoboxes are required to be an "at-a-glance" summary. Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You still wouldn't need to remove it from the box. You can leave it in the box and explain in the body of the article. That's what a summary is.--Taylornate (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A 'summary' is a shortened point of the body text, but the use of the term "emo" is not established in any of the the body paragraphs, and even if it was, wouldn't be representative.Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is, and if it wasn't, you could add it. That's what I said.--Taylornate (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "Fall Out Boy has also been described as pop rock[59] and emo[60] and cites emo group The Get Up Kids as an influence." How the term "emo" is (not correctly) applied to the band is not established in the article. Therefore putting emo in the infobox does not summarise the article properly. What I think is happening is: they're labelled emo but sources say that it's incorrect, but let's put it in the infobox as a summary anyway. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What? That isn't what I said and I don't really understand what you are saying.--Taylornate (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We have a source that says that Fall Out Boy's music is not "emo." What if we had many sources calling them "death metal" and then there's one that says they aren't death metal at all. Would we stick the death metal claim in the infobox? Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I personally hate this policy because it allows things like this, but WP:VNT pretty much says, if there is a verifiable source for it, than its acceptable to add it, so yes, if there were many sources that said they were death metal, despite it being beyond obvious that they aren't, it would be allowed in the infobox.

What if we have a verifiable source that mentions that the band is called "emo" but don't have that in their music? I don't mean to completely omit the label but it can all be explained in the Musical Style section. This way it won't be completely right to put it in the infobox. Get what I'm going at? Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I got what you were saying before, and I'm pretty sure I've said it already (too lazy to look back at all we've said) I think just having it in the musical style section is perfectly fine, its not one of their defining genres, the current ones were fine. I'm not opposed to removing it from the infobox. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 05:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rejoining this discussion got me in the mood to watch random FOB videos, and I came across this [3].. where Patrick clearly says they were an emo band. Again, still don't care whether it stays in the infobox or not, just thought it would be something interesting to add to the discussion. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't even a defining genre then why does it need to be included? 'Pop punk' pretty much sums it all up, then Infinity and Folie have more 'pop rock' and 'alternative rock' to them. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've watched and read many other interviews of Patrick Stump. He didn't know what "emo" was when people started labelling his band that in the mid 2000s. He thought it was a mispelling of "elmo" (as I did too). He doesn't care what the group is labelled as long as they made the music that they felt was fun. If you look at the band now (they're on hiatus and not broken up so are technically still current), Stump is pop/R&B "smart pop", Wentz went electropop/electro dance, and Hurley and Trohman joined hard rock and hardcore punk bands. How "emo" does that sound? (rhetorical question). Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The way you are deciding it's not a defining style sounds like WP:OR.--Taylornate (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There are heaps of sources that call it only "pop punk". Noreplyhaha (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Same for emo...--Taylornate (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead trimming

The lead has been recently heavily condensed. I think it is too short. I want your opinion on the changes.

Before: Fall Out Boy is an American rock band from Wilmette, Illinois, formed in 2001. The band consists of vocalist, guitarist and composer Patrick Stump, bassist and lyricist Pete Wentz, guitarist Joe Trohman, and drummer Andy Hurley. The band released five studio albums from 2003–2008. The group announced an indefinite hiatus in late 2009 asserting that it has not broken up, rather that the members are taking a rest and engaging in various side projects. Fall Out Boy was ranked the 93rd Best Artist of the 2000–10 decade by Billboard.[2]

With Pete Wentz as the band's primary lyricist and Patrick Stump as the primary composer, Fall Out Boy broke out of the underground music scene and reached mainstream success with their major label debut, From Under the Cork Tree. Released in 2005 as the follow-up to their 2003 effort Take This to Your Grave, the album won several awards and achieved double platinum status after selling more than 2.5 million albums in the United States. It spawned two top ten hits: the double platinum certified lead single "Sugar, We're Goin Down" which reached number eight on the US Billboard Hot 100 and the platinum "Dance, Dance". The group headlined tours around the world in 2005 and 2006 to support their record. In 2007, Fall Out Boy released their follow-up album, Infinity on High, to major chart success, debuting at number one on the Billboard 200 and selling 260,000 copies in its first week, with top five chartings worldwide. Infinity contained the hits "This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race" and "Thnks fr th Mmrs". The group released Folie à Deux in 2008 and further evolved their musical pallete.

Fall Out Boy announced an indefinite hiatus in late 2009, leading to breakup rumors. Since then, Stump explained that Fall Out Boy never broke up and are simply "on a break" while the members work on other projects[3] and commented that "Fall Out Boy is just not planning anything right now. I would be very, very surprised if we don’t do another record again". With the release of their 2009 greatest hits album, Believers Never Die - Greatest Hits, and in regard to the legacy of the band, Allmusic senior-editor Stephen T. Erlewine wrote that Fall Out Boy "seems like one of the quintessential mainstream rock singles bands of the 2000s."[4]

The members of Fall Out Boy have pursued various side projects during the band's hiatus. Singer and guitarist Patrick Stump announced his solo project in January 2010, and released his debut full-length studio album, Soul Punk, on October 18, 2011. Preceding it is an extended play titled Truant Wave. Guitarist Joe Trohman and drummer Andy Hurley formed The Damned Things, a heavy metal supergroup with members from Anthrax and Every Time I Die, and have released their debut album, Ironiclast (2010). Bassist Pete Wentz started an experimental/electropop band called Black Cards with lead singer Bebe Rexha and the group have been working on their debut album.

Now: Fall Out Boy is an American rock band from Wilmette, Illinois, formed in 2001. The band consists of vocalist, guitarist and composer Patrick Stump, bassist and lyricist Pete Wentz, guitarist Joe Trohman, and drummer Andy Hurley.

With Pete Wentz as the band's primary lyricist and Patrick Stump as the primary composer, Fall Out Boy broke out of the underground music scene and reached mainstream success with their major label debut, From Under the Cork Tree. Released in 2005 as the follow-up to their 2003 effort Take This to Your Grave, the album won several awards and achieved double platinum status after selling more than 2.5 million albums in the United States. In 2007, Fall Out Boy released their follow-up album, Infinity on High, to major chart success, debuting at number one on the Billboard 200 and selling 260,000 copies in its first week, with top five chartings worldwide. The group released Folie à Deux in 2008 and further evolved their musical pallete.

The group announced an indefinite hiatus in late 2009 asserting that it has not broken up, rather that the members are taking a rest and engaging in various side projects. Fall Out Boy was ranked the 93rd Best Artist of the 2000–10 decade by Billboard.[2] Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead should be a concise summary and I support the trimming. You should really just hit the most important topics with maybe one sentence each. There should not be a lot of explaining or support of each idea.--Taylornate (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a few breakthrough singles should be touched on, one or three were significant. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How much coverage they have in the body of the article determines whether or not they should be in the lead.--Taylornate (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It goes on...I found This

Regarding using Mr Hamm's comment on a newspaper blog as a source, I cite this Wikipedia policy.

"Never use posts left by readers as sources."

Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe WP:ABOUTSELF is an exception. We aren't citing some random reader of that paper, we are citing Brandon Hamm himself. If you disagree then maybe we should ask for mediation.--Taylornate (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe "Never use posts left by readers as sources" negates the self-published policy. It states readers, not some random reader, and reader includes Hamm. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've posted on WP:3 because this isn't going to get anywhere with you two. Here is a link to the previous discussion on the same topic, for whoever views this from the Third Opinion. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Taylornate (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard. It's pretty hard to follow the thread of this discussion, since there are no recent edits to the mainspace article that I can look at, but let me just summarize what I understand the problem to be: someone put a statement that Brandon Hamm is a former member of Fall Out Boy, using this comment on a newspaper blog as a source. Another editor removed it as unreliably sourced, and argument happened over whether the source is indeed reliable or not.

If I have that right (please correct me if I don't), then my third opinion is that the source is not acceptable to support the statement. I'd like to sidestep the whole mess about whether WP:NEWSBLOG overrides WP:SPS (I don't think it always does, but neither here nor there) by pointing out this: per WP:SPS, a self-published source is acceptable as long as "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". The newspaper blog post is talking about the Chicago artistic community and the impact of regulations on it. It makes the Fall Out Boy claim only in support of this unrelated issue. If the main point of the blog post was that he was a member of Fall Out Boy at some point, then this conversation would be worth having, but it's not, so I don't think we can rely on it. I'd also say that there are some possible issues with "unduly self-serving," since he's using it to support his argument, and maybe "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" we have no evidence whatsoever that it actually is him (unlike the evidence we would have with Twitter posts) so it makes the source at best shaky.

TL;DR: my 3O is that the source is unreliable per WP:SPS point 3.

Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I agree with your summary of the disagreement. I disagree with your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF point 3. I think your interpretation is interesting though, and maybe we will need to ask for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. I think the intent is not to constrain reference to the entire source, but to pieces of information within the source. For example, this would not be an appropriate reference for information on economics of the arts but would be appropriate for what I have used it for here. If the intent is truly to make the entire post an inappropriate reference then I'd be a bit confused about the reasoning behind it. I acknowledge that you made a few other points and I'm willing to discuss them, but I'll defer so we can focus on your main point.--Taylornate (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll readily admit that I'm not 100% sure of my own interpretation of it, either. When I first read it, my reaction was as I described above; subsequent readings of it made me second-guess myself a bit, but I still feel reasonably comfortable in my argument, and I'm not really sure I follow your logic for its meaning, either, to be honest. The real point that I'm trying to make is that the sourced comment seems to say that Hamm was part of Fall Out Boy only in passing; it seems to make sense to me that such a statement would be less supportive, less official if you will, than a comment on some article saying, "I, Brandon Hamm, am a former member of Fall Out Boy. EOM" The latter has clear intent and meaning, whereas the former could be a mere exaggeration or stretching of the truth to prove a rhetorical point. In the source, his point isn't that he's a member of Fall Out Boy; his point is some other irrelevant stuff, so he's probably not too worried about the literal truth and/or ramifications of his "ex-Fall Out Boy" statement. That is, I think, the logic to which SPS3 is appealing. If you disagree, I am all for a clarification request; as I said, I'm not fully sold on my interpretation of it, either. I guess it all boils down to what the word "directly" refers to, and how strictly we interpret it.

However, I also think that the other concerns about the source that have been raised are valid. At this point, I don't think there are any WP policies that are *definitively* broken with this, but there are quite a few that are bent just shy of breaking. I think that this is a time for some editorial discretion (especially since we're down to parsing the specific language of the rule text), which I'm sure is why there's some controversy about it. Given how this is our only source for the assertion, given its shade-of-gray (at best) usability, and (not least) the fact that it's been challenged by fellow editors in good standing, I'd say we're better off erring on the side of caution and leaving it out of the article unless (or until) we find a better source for it. Thanks as always, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that the holiday is over I should be able to respond within the next day or so. Sorry for the delay.--Taylornate (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This particular issue has become moot. Hamm has agreed to set up a verified Twitter account and make a public post about this. It should happen soon.--Taylornate (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That would fall under "Unduly self-serving." -Jer ^{Hit me up} 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How so? He's not asking for money, hasn't been in the music business since he left, and has no plans to return. It's not going to further his career in medicine or ethics. He's only doing it so the truth can be known. If he had any ulterior motive he'd be making some noise about it yet our discussions have made it clear that publicly he's mentioned it only a single time in passing.--Taylornate (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The way you put it, he will be making a twitter account solely to support his claim that he was a member of fall out boy. Is that not self-serving?

Also, he won't be able to verify his twitter account, so I'm still not sure if that can be used as a source. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a non-sequitor. If you don't know what the terms undue and self-serving mean then please look them up.[4][5] If after that you still feel the same way, then explain why—I don't think the burden is on me here. The entire reason I asked him to do this is because according to Writ Keeper's interpretation, the main reason the current source is unusable is precisely because its purpose was not solely to support his claim. So the moving target has taken a rather silly turn.

From earlier discussion it was mentioned that Twitter accounts can be verified. You're right, not just anyone can get a verified account. I'm open to suggestions on other ways for him to get a verified message out.--Taylornate (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just sticking a comment here to prevent the still open section from being archived. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got a few moments and feel that this issue needs to be readdressed as it was never resolved above. The online newspaper source is dodgy, and we both know that Hamm was never a member of Fall Out Boy anyway. He's not even mentioned anywhere else (not in any official band biographies such as by MTV, Island and Fueled By Ramen) and holds no musician credits on the band's releases. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. If it hasn't been resolved then why did you leave the discussion for seven months? After seven months of inactivity on a discussion you consider still open, why did you silently revert with no post to the discussion and no edit summary? This isn't even the first time you've done it. It seems like you were hoping it would go undetected. Now that you have posted, I don't even know how to respond because there is no new question and no new information. It is the exact same thing from the very beginning as if the whole lengthy discussion never happened.--Taylornate (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just get rid of Hamm; he was Never a member of the band. "Touring alumn" at most. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just saw and have to point out that Hamm's role in the band isn't even Mentioned in your source.Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you disputing that he played guitar? I don't think even Stump would dispute that.--Taylornate (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So you Know that he played guitar, but that's not verifiable by your source. You also Know that Hamm was "never a member of the band."Noreplyhaha (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So what are you proposing exactly? That we remove the instrument? I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing to make these statements that I know you are right or whatever about his membership in the band. It's silly.--Taylornate (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fact that Hamm was not a member of Fall Out Boy and that and there are not any mentions of him anywhere, aside from one source on internet that insists otherwise, but even that source fails to even include his role in the band. I propose we remove him from the list of Former Members. Why not? Noreplyhaha (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not stating the instrument does not logically support removing him. The rest of your post has already been discussed ad nauseam. If you've forgotten then please go back and find the Wikipedia policies I cited.--Taylornate (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So is it not true that you agree that Hamm's role is not validated by your (questionably self-published) source? I feel that that crushes the validity of it; and Hamm's Fall Out Boy statement was only made in passing and was indirectly related to issue in the newspaper blog. I was re-reading WritKeeper's contribution and perspective and he provided valuable insights, but rather than you replying to it, you wrote "This particular issue has become moot. Hamm has agreed to set up a verified Twitter account and make a public post about this. It should happen soon." I do not understand why the topic would become "moot" all of a sudden. I suggest you go over WritKeeper's second contribution on this matter, above. The burden should be on you to provide a strong source, since even current-member Patrick Stump disputes the claim. Furthermore, have you wondered why Hamm isn't mentioned anywhere (not credited on the self-released 2001 demo or 2002 Project Rocket/Fall Out Boy split EP)? Maybe it's because he wasn't a member (sarcasm). Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If there isn't further discussion on this against my previous post (I've given it a month), I would feel inclined to remove Brandom Hamm from the Fall Out Boy article. Else, the dispute resolution process would have to be elevated.Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hamm states he was in the band. He does not state he played guitar. Therefore the source supports him being in the band without supporting him playing guitar. I'm not sure how to break this down any further.

If you quote the exact post by WritKeeper it will avoid any ambiguity and be easier to respond to.

He is not credited because he left the band on poor terms. I have already mentioned this.

I have already given a straightforward policy-based answer on why the source is acceptable.--Taylornate (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

PUNK'D

Is there a mention of how Fall Out Boy were on Aston Kutchers TV series Punk'd? 178.16.10.150 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 397: / Line 397: @@
 ::I think a few breakthrough singles should be touched on, one or three were significant. [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 :::How much coverage they have in the body of the article determines whether or not they should be in the lead.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
+== It goes on...I found This ==
+Regarding using Mr Hamm's comment on a newspaper blog as a source, I cite [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs this Wikipedia policy].
+<blockquote>"Never use posts left by readers as sources."</blockquote> [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 06:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+:I believe [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] is an exception.  We aren't citing some random reader of that paper, we are citing Brandon Hamm himself.  If you disagree then maybe we should ask for mediation.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+::I believe "Never use posts left by readers as sources" negates the self-published policy. It states ''readers'', not ''some random reader'', and ''reader'' includes Hamm. [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 06:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+I've posted on [[WP:3]] because this isn't going to get anywhere with you two. [[Talk:Fall_Out_Boy/Archive_4#Brandon_Hamm_2|Here]] is a link to the previous discussion on the same topic, for whoever views this from the Third Opinion. -[[User:Jer757|<font color = "Blue">Jer </font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jer757|<font color = "Red">Hit me up</font>]]</sup> 06:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+:Thanks.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 06:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O noticeboard.  It's pretty hard to follow the thread of this discussion, since there are no recent edits to the mainspace article that I can look at, but let me just summarize what I understand the problem to be: someone put a statement that Brandon Hamm is a former member of Fall Out Boy, using [http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2008/05/background_reading_on_the_prom_1.html#comment-314099 this comment] on a newspaper blog as a source.  Another editor removed it as unreliably sourced, and argument happened over whether the source is indeed reliable or not.
+If I have that right (please correct me if I don't), then my third opinion is that the source is not acceptable to support the statement.  I'd like to sidestep the whole mess about whether [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] overrides [[WP:SPS]] (I don't think it ''always'' does, but neither here nor there) by pointing out this: per [[WP:SPS]], a self-published source is acceptable as long as "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source".  The newspaper blog post is talking about the Chicago artistic community and the impact of regulations on it.  It makes the Fall Out Boy claim only in support of this unrelated issue.  If the main point of the blog post was that he was a member of Fall Out Boy at some point, then this conversation would be worth having, but it's not, so I don't think we can rely on it.  I'd also say that there are some ''possible'' issues with "unduly self-serving," since he's using it to support his argument, and ''maybe'' "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" we have no evidence whatsoever that it actually is him (unlike the evidence we would have with Twitter posts) so it makes the source at best shaky.
+'''TL;DR:''' my 3O is that the source is unreliable per [[WP:SPS]] point 3.
+Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+:Thank you for taking the time to comment here.  I agree with your summary of the disagreement.  I disagree with your interpretation of [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] point 3.  I think your interpretation is interesting though, and maybe we will need to ask for clarification at [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability]].  I think the intent is not to constrain reference to the entire source, but to pieces of information within the source.  For example, this would not be an appropriate reference for information on economics of the arts but would be appropriate for what I have used it for here.  If the intent is truly to make the entire post an inappropriate reference then I'd be a bit confused about the reasoning behind it.  I acknowledge that you made a few other points and I'm willing to discuss them, but I'll defer so we can focus on your main point.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 15:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+::Well, I'll readily admit that I'm not 100% sure of my own interpretation of it, either.  When I first read it, my reaction was as I described above; subsequent readings of it made me second-guess myself a bit, but I still feel reasonably comfortable in my argument, and I'm not really sure I follow your logic for its meaning, either, to be honest.  The real point that I'm trying to make is that the sourced comment seems to say that Hamm was part of Fall Out Boy only in passing; it seems to make sense to me that such a statement would be less supportive, less official if you will, than a comment on some article saying, "I, Brandon Hamm, am a former member of Fall Out Boy. EOM"  The latter has clear intent and meaning, whereas the former could be a mere exaggeration or stretching of the truth to prove a rhetorical point.  In the source, his point isn't that he's a member of Fall Out Boy; his point is some other irrelevant stuff, so he's probably not too worried about the literal truth and/or ramifications of his "ex-Fall Out Boy" statement.  That is, I think, the logic to which SPS3 is appealing. If you disagree, I am all for a clarification request; as I said, I'm not fully sold on my interpretation of it, either.  I guess it all boils down to what the word "directly" refers to, and how strictly we interpret it.
+::However, I also think that the other concerns about the source that have been raised are valid.  At this point, I don't think there are any WP policies that are *definitively* broken with this, but there are quite a few that are bent just shy of breaking.  I think that this is a time for some editorial discretion (especially since we're down to parsing the specific language of the rule text), which I'm sure is why there's some controversy about it.  Given how this is our only source for the assertion, given its shade-of-gray (at best) usability, and (not least) the fact that it's been challenged by fellow editors in good standing, I'd say we're better off erring on the side of caution and leaving it out of the article unless (or until) we find a better source for it.  Thanks as always, [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 20:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+:::Now that the holiday is over I should be able to respond within the next day or so.  Sorry for the delay.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 02:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
+:::This particular issue has become moot.  Hamm has agreed to set up a verified Twitter account and make a public post about this.  It should happen soon.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
+::::That would fall under "Unduly self-serving." -[[User:Jer757|<font color = "Blue">Jer </font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jer757|<font color = "Red">Hit me up</font>]]</sup> 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
+:::::How so?  He's not asking for money, hasn't been in the music business since he left, and has no plans to return.  It's not going to further his career in medicine or ethics.  He's only doing it so the truth can be known.  If he had any ulterior motive he'd be making some noise about it yet our discussions have made it clear that publicly he's mentioned it only a single time in passing.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
+::::::The way you put it, he will be making a twitter account solely to support his claim that he was a member of fall out boy. Is that not self-serving?
+::::::Also, he won't be able to verify his twitter account, so I'm still not sure if that can be used as a source. -[[User:Jer757|<font color = "Blue">Jer </font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jer757|<font color = "Red">Hit me up</font>]]</sup> 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::No, that's a non-sequitor.  If you don't know what the terms ''undue'' and ''self-serving'' mean then please look them up.[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undue][http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undue]  If after that you still feel the same way, then explain why—I don't think the burden is on me here.   The entire reason I asked him to do this is because according to Writ Keeper's interpretation, the main reason the current source is unusable is precisely because its purpose was ''not'' solely to support his claim.  So the moving target has taken a rather silly turn.
+:::::::From earlier discussion it was mentioned that Twitter accounts can be verified.  You're right, not just anyone can get a verified account.  I'm open to suggestions on other ways for him to get a verified message out.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 00:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
+Just sticking a comment here to prevent the still open section from being archived. [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 02:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
+I've got a few moments and feel that this issue needs to be readdressed as it was never resolved above. The online newspaper source is dodgy, and we both know that Hamm was never a member of Fall Out Boy anyway. He's not even mentioned anywhere else (not in any official band biographies such as by MTV, Island and Fueled By Ramen) and holds no musician credits on the band's releases. [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 10:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
+:I'm a bit confused.  If it hasn't been resolved then why did you leave the discussion for seven months?  After seven months of inactivity on a discussion you consider still open, why did you silently revert with no post to the discussion and no edit summary?  This isn't even the first time you've done it.  It seems like you were hoping it would go undetected.  Now that you have posted, I don't even know how to respond because there is no new question and no new information.  It is the exact same thing from the very beginning as if the whole lengthy discussion never happened.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 22:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
+::Just get rid of Hamm; he was Never a member of the band. "Touring alumn" at most. [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+::I just saw and have to point out that Hamm's role in the band isn't even Mentioned in your source.[[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 05:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
+:::I don't understand your point.  Are you disputing that he played guitar?  I don't think even Stump would dispute that.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
+::::So you Know that he played guitar, but that's not verifiable by your source. You also Know that Hamm was "never a member of the band."[[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 07:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
+:::::So what are you proposing exactly?  That we remove the instrument?  I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by continuing to make these statements that I know you are right or whatever about his membership in the band.  It's silly.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 09:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
+::::::It is fact that Hamm was not a member of Fall Out Boy and that and there are not any mentions of him anywhere, aside from one source on internet that insists otherwise, but even that source fails to even include his role in the band. I propose we remove him from the list of Former Members. Why not? [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 12:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::Not stating the instrument does not logically support removing him.  The rest of your post has already been discussed ad nauseam.  If you've forgotten then please go back and find the Wikipedia policies I cited.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 06:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
+::::::::So is it not true that you agree that Hamm's role is not validated by your (questionably self-published) source? I feel that that crushes the validity of it; and Hamm's Fall Out Boy statement was only made in passing and was indirectly related to issue in the newspaper blog. I was re-reading WritKeeper's contribution and perspective and he provided valuable insights, but rather than you replying to it, you wrote "This particular issue has become moot. Hamm has agreed to set up a verified Twitter account and make a public post about this. It should happen soon." I do not understand why the topic would become "moot" all of a sudden. I suggest you go over WritKeeper's second contribution on this matter, above. The burden should be on you to provide a strong source, since even current-member Patrick Stump disputes the claim. Furthermore, have you wondered why Hamm isn't mentioned anywhere (not credited on the self-released 2001 demo or 2002 Project Rocket/Fall Out Boy split EP)? Maybe it's because he wasn't a member (sarcasm). [[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 10:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::If there isn't further discussion on this against my previous post (I've given it a month), I would feel inclined to remove Brandom Hamm from the Fall Out Boy article. Else, the dispute resolution process would have to be elevated.[[User:Noreplyhaha|Noreplyhaha]] ([[User talk:Noreplyhaha|talk]]) 08:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::::Hamm states he was in the band.  He does not state he played guitar.  Therefore the source supports him being in the band without supporting him playing guitar.  I'm not sure how to break this down any further.
+:::::::::If you quote the exact post by WritKeeper it will avoid any ambiguity and be easier to respond to.
+:::::::::He is not credited because he left the band on poor terms.  I have already mentioned this.
+:::::::::I have already given a straightforward policy-based answer on why the source is acceptable.--[[User:Taylornate|Taylornate]] ([[User talk:Taylornate|talk]]) 12:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
+== PUNK'D ==
+Is there a mention of how Fall Out Boy were on Aston Kutchers TV series [[Punk'd]]? [[Special:Contributions/178.16.10.150|178.16.10.150]] ([[User talk:178.16.10.150|talk]]) 18:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)