Talk:Gnarls Barkley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Amateur Reviews

Since when was wikipedia a site for amateur reviews. I'm taking it out. --Gantlord 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing your an adolescent, why else would you make thoughtless comments rather than placing your own oppinion. Unless you have come here to cause an arguement, which i will need to report you if so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.163.82 (talk • contribs) .

What Gantlord did was absolutely correct. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If he hadn't removed it, I had. --Fritz S. (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fritz, I'm glad you've stepped in here. I don't understand why this could be interpreted as "starting an argument". There is no emotion nor even opinion in my original post. The only thing anyone could rightly complain about is the fact that I carelessly omitted a question mark in my original post. I chose to explain what I had done when I could just have edited it out without comment. I do not appreciate being threatened with the wikiPolice for choosing to uphold the most central of tenets of wikipedia, namely that material appearing in it should be derived from reputable sources exterior to wikipedia. The thought has just occurred to me that it is only my posting etiquette and not my actions in editing the original article to which you object. If that is the case then I only wish you could have pointed out this minor slip in wikipedia etiquette is a more reasonable manner. To start threatening to report me on the strength of this seems excessive. I am not an adolescent, I am a professional who really should be working right now. As you have threatened me in your post, I'll make a little threat of my own, made to no-one in particular. The next time I feel I have to take 20 minutes out of my working day to defend myself over a 30 second edit will be the last time I ever participate in this little project. One more imperfect editor with the best of intentions will have fled wikipedia's growing cabal of self-serving pedants. --Gantlord 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fritz i will be more explicit, the message i wrote was meant to be a view that Gnarls Barkley will become the biggest selling artist of 2006. Im sorry if my message had the wrong connotations, but my comment was not meant to be judged as a "original thought" but rather stating what i feel is becomming obvious (4 weeks atop UK charts). Best intentions intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talk • contribs) .

This actually had nothing to do with your comment here on the talk page (I assume it was you who added the comment at the top), but with this edit to the article by 81.97.40.195, which Gantlord removed. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i guess we all make mistakes just i thought he aimed the "amatuer review" comment at me. Apologies all round.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.152.203 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, I'll sit down now too... :-) --Gantlord 11:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Barkley

Not a reference to Charles Barkley? Seems highly unlikely. --Richy 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

of course it is, but there's no meaning behind it... they don't sing about dogs who play basketball, for example. -209.174.140.100 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the name is pronounced "Charles Barkley," exactly like the basketball player's name. If that can be confirmed as true, a small footnote indicating that would be helpful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.68.237 (talk • contribs) .

Nope, that's wrong. It's more like "Narls" or even "Niles". --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the bands name has nothing to do with the basketball player and may be a reference to a tree, or something of the like - Gnarls as in gnarls/knots on a tree and Barkly as in the bark. --58.178.80.57 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Added it in, as confirmed on MTV news (was a verbal offline reference, though). Drdr1989 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again, as the band denied it being conected to Charles Barkley both in the Observer Music Monthly interview quoted in the article, and in the New York Times interview.[1][2] --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that the band didn't deny it. I just stated that it was a pun on Charles' name - which, duh, it is. The band can deny all they want, but a normal mind can read through the fine (or in this case, very conspicuous) print. Even Charles is already flattered with the use [3]. Nonetheless, I didn't put the pun deal back on, since leaving it off won't change the pun issue. Drdr1989 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as I felt it contradicted the part in the Career section (and because Trivia sections should be avoided)... How about we put the whole name thing in a seperate section, along with a note about its origin (from the NY Times) and Barkley's reaction? --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a great idea, especially since alot of fans inquire about Charles-Gnarls thing. Drdr1989 19:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

it is a pun, in the article they refer to prince gnarls, and bob gnarly. prince charles, bob marley. end of discussion. they are not connected in any way to charles barkley.

I can't image how that POSSIBLY implies no connection with Charles Barkley. All it implies is that they ALMOST had a connection to Prince Charles or Bob Marley. If it's a pun, that's a freaking connection. Dabizi 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"The similarities between their name directly references to Hall of Fame basketball player Charles Barkley as stated by the band."

Regardless of its veracity, this is a bad sentence. The subject (similarities) doesn't match the verb (references). Also, if you are going to say "between their name" you need to say between their name and what, like "and that of Charles Barkley". Also, it wouldn't really be the similarities that reference the name Charles Barkley, but the name Gnarls Barkley which references it. The similarities are the way by which the reference is made. The "to" is also redundant when using "reference" as a verb. I'm not going to edit this since I'm not in on this argument and will probably never come back to this page. But if it does belong, I would just say something simple like "As stated by the band, their name directly references Charles Barkley."--Lf1033 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are credible resources that confirm the fact that the name "Gnarls Barkley" has nothing to do with the basketball player Charles Barkley. CeeLo and Danger Mouse did an interview with Esquire Magazine (I have inserted it as a citation in the article), that states that the band name has nothing to do with Charles, or anything for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slappadabass (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If it makes 7 weeks

If Gnarls Barkley make Number 1 for a 7th week they make chart history as only 39 other artists have ever made 7 consecutive weeks running.(Within England) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.163.114 (talk • contribs) .

Coming up page

my space has a list of their upcoming appearances - Conan show! any one want to list them here? Extremeweb 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid having too much information about upcoming appearances. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

An offical announcement (and considering how closely they work with Myspace, it's official enough) that something will happen is not speculation or divination, the crystal ball rule doesn't apply. Whether it's info too trivial to put on the page is another matter, they're bound to do a ton of more performance in the future and advertising tour dates doesn't seem encyclopedic. hateless 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test

I'm not really a big fan of R&B, but when I saw the video for "Crazy", I was amazed by the Rorschach inkblot test effects that were in the video. I'm dissappointed that eMpTyV never listed who produced or directed the video. Who is responsible for creating such an astounding video? --Bushido Hacks 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Hales. See Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song). --Fritz S. (Talk) 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hooray. Could someone revert it to the previous version?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.42.230 (talk • contribs) .

seriously, im pissed!