Talk:Matthew Good

Wait, why is one fansite spam but not the other? --Alertstatblue 22:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the other site didn't even have any matthew good content on it. --mysteriousmanwhodoesn'tIDhimself ??:??, ?? ??? ???? (???)

There's been a lot of changes recently re: his blog, and about Amnesty International. The current state of the Amnesty International section of the article is horrendous and needs rewriting. As to the blog, I believe it is clear that we should not post the URL in this article. Does that also go for his wife's blog? I'm unsure. Discussion? --Yamla 19:23, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Good's request for privacy should be respected, so I agree the blog URL should not be posted here if it resurfaces with a similarly stated desire for confidentiality. Regarding his wife's blog, I don't feel it belongs. This article is for Good, not her, and she deserves privacy as well. Kurieeto 21:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

By the same token, there's no reason to add the recent garbage that's gone on in the blog / fan mill for the last few days. His post about leaving Amnesty was made in his private blog, and was clearly posted in the heat of the moment. Is he actually leaving Amnesty? Nobody can say so 100%, and he may change his mind once he returns from Europe. He can't exactly support Amnesty Canada while on vacation in Europe. Beyond that, notes about his current vacationing don't seem appropriate. If Lindsey Lohan goes on vacation in Fiji, should that go in her Wiki too?

Granted recent events, I think this entry should be locked until the mess dies down and until official answers arrive. There's too much back and forth going on between supporters and dissenters. ChrisB 06:14, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the suggestion of locking the article for some time. Kurieeto 19:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's a freakin' blog

Privacy? What the f*ck are you talking about? It's a f*cking blog. You know, an online journal. Somewhere for egotists to post their thoughts for OTHERS to read.

If it were truly meant to be private, it could have been made private. --

65.94.55.49, please sign your posts in the future. Also, Matt Good has specifically stated that his blog is not for general consumption. Although he could have used .htaccess or a similar protection scheme, he has chosen not to. It appears to be your position that we should not respect his request for privacy. Is that accurate? --Yamla 16:45, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Yamla, he asked for those whom he didn't invite to refrain from posting comments on his blog. If he truly cared about maintaining a level of privacy above and beyond that which he asked for, he could have implemented any manner of system to ensure that access to his blog (or comments on his blog) was limited to those whom he had invited. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the damned kitchen. Which he did. Probably a 'good' thing to do considering how erratic his last few posts were. --MattsLastBrainCell

Thank you! If this is indeed true, I would not object to us posting a link to his blog here. We may want to wait a month or so for things to quieten down a bit, however. However, I do strongly feel that we should wait a bit in any case to see if anyone has any counterarguments. --Yamla 19:35, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

When the latest blog started, he didn't tell anyone but a few friends. Jen linked to it by accident, then pulled the link. Not long after, a few people noticed that the "4 more years" picture on his website was linked to the blog and found it that way. At that point, Matt specifically told people not to tell anyone about the blog or link to it: "please respect my privacy". Later, Jen ran out of online photo storage space, so Matt allowed her to put pictures in his blog, which, in turn, allowed more people to find it. Matt relented, and said that they could read, but only those he invited could post comments. Finally, after the "incident", he removed all of the warnings and allowed people to run amok, then deleted the whole thing a couple of days later.

The way everything happened, I don't believe he was able to add a privacy scheme like .htaccess or a login utility. It sounds like while he's been away, he's only been able to update the /blog directory of his website, probably via Blogger. (He mentioned that he had to get the Universal web folks to move the "4 more years" graphic to the main directory. I suspect that his letting people run amok came after a phone call to Universal's web team to delete the blog folder, which would have been done first thing Monday morning.) The blog was never intended to be public, and the only public links to it (save Jen's early one) were made after the incident.

The "OTHERS" he wanted to read the blog were his friends, not his fans or anybody else. Strictly those invited. It just didn't turn out that way. --ChrisB 22:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm for including the blog link. If Matthew Good really didn't want others to find it he'd find ways to make sure no could find it- ways have been pointed out on this page before. Besides, for him to leave his blog on the Internet unprotected and asking others not to find it is like asking people not to photograph Britney Spears out for a jog in Central Park. He's got a right to his privacy but he's also got to be realistic.-RomeW 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

rodchester kings

why leave out all reference to the rodchester kings demo? whether matt says to include it or not, it's still part of his history. this is an encyclopedia entry, not a selective history. the subject should not be able to control what goes into it and what doesn't. Cazart! 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Demos

Chronological listing or not, it is disingenuous to list the early demos under the heading of the `Matthew Good Band`. The Band had nothing to do with them. I suggest listing them under the solo heading or including a new section altogether.

Disingenuous? This is a historical article. That sentence is there because the demos led to the founding of the band. They had little to nothing to do with the establishing of his post-MGB solo career. And there's not enough information about them to warrant splitting one sentence into a brand new section. In no way does it suggest that the demos or his stint with the Rodchester Kings were part of MGB - it's a one sentence summary of what came before MGB. -- ChrisB 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I'm not against there being a separate article for the Matthew Good Band, but stripping the content out of this article and sending it to that article is absolutely not the right way to do it, and doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. (See Wikipedia:Merge for a further explanation of why articles are often combined into a single entry.)

If someone wants to make a DETAILED article about the Matthew Good Band, then do so. Put it there. At that time, we can cull down some of the details in this article and refer to the new article.

But, until then, there's no need for two separate articles, especially when the content comes from the same article. -- ChrisB 06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculously stupid not to have separate articles. 24.141.153.56 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

privacy

I'm all for privacy, but I think it's ridiculous to not even briefly mention his wife or their recent separation. It's not like she didn't exist. Blogggg 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, that's why I looked him up on Wiki. I was just curious about the terms of the divorce and such, and it never even mentions that he was married. A little bit of bias on the fans' sides, maybe? I love Matt very much, and I understand it was a difficult thing for him, but I think this is wavering a but far away from NPOV for Wiki. ClockworkCompanionCube (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fights with other bands

I think we need a section here discussing his many spats with other Canadian bands. He's ripped- to my knowledge- Our Lady Peace, Big Sugar and Nickelback in very public fights, and he's probably slammed several others that I don't know about. Yeah, it's not necessarily positive but it is part of his story.-RomeW 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need an entire section for this, but it could be mentioned in a sentence or two that during his MGB days he was rather controversially honest during interviews and ripped these bands. I think we'd need a good primary source first, though (like a Chart interview or something). Lunapuella 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bipolar?

I noticed that this page is filed under Category:People with bipolar disorder. I have no idea whether or not this is true/significant/whatever, but in any case, it seems like if it's a big enough "fact" to warrant inclusion in said category, there should at least be some reference to the diagnosis in this article... ideas?

24.19.55.161 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true. He wrote extensively about it in a recent blog entry. However, I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it into the article. For now, I think we should just leave it.Davemcarlson 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Could the dates surrounding the release of Audio of Being and the dissolution of the band be clarified? The album was recorded in late 2000 / early 2001 and came out at the end of October 2001. Meanwhile, Dave quit MGB for a few days in August then it was announced in November that he and Ian had split permanently, and the band completely dissolved after the new year. The current wording of the section insinuates that there was a two - year delay in the announcement of the break - up. Angelicide 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled EP

Matt has announced on his website that he plans to release an EP with some unreleased songs on it. I think that an article should be started. I will make one as long as no one has any objections gravediggerfuneral —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)