Talk:Green Day/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pop Rock

The genre box should say Pop Rock because they have done pop rock songs such as "When I Come Around" and "86" and it shouldn't say Alternative Rock because they ard one of the biggest rock bands in the world. James P Twomey 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are huge doesn't mean they aren't alternative, and if you look at some of their song structures, they are rather alternative. Also, I think they're more hard rock than punk rock at the moment. User:KingRantheMan 14:09, 22 March 2008 I would argue that the songs that you listed fall under the pop punk category (which is already listed as a genre), rather then pop rock.Jacknife737 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"86" is pop rock, not pop punk. Listen to most of the singles on Insomniac or Dookie and compare it to them. Also, most of Warning and American Idiot is pop rock. And they are not alternative rock, they're probably the biggest rock band in the world.James P Twomey 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well again, just saying that those songs are pop rock, doesn't necessarily make them so. I think that you'll have to source pop rock to have it included within the article. The band certainly has pop influences, but i strongly disagree with the claim that they are pop rock. Also i don't understand your claim that they shouldn't be considered alternative rock, because "they're probably the biggest rock bands in the world", many other bands such as Nine Inch Nails and The Smashing Pumpkins are immensely popular and are also considered to be alternative rock. Jacknife737 01:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

nirvana is considered alternative rock and they are one of the most popular and well known rock bands around.. disappearing one. 09:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana is A.) Not alternative, but grunge, and B.) They're nothing anymore, the band seperated more than 10 years ago. Alternative rock implies that said rock is the alternative to the mainstream. Green Day is the mainstream. 68.205.33.22 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Nirvana's alternative rock too. Also had strong elements of punk and heavy metal. 99.150.127.83 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Rock is a genre. It doesn't matter how popular a band is, whether they do or do not fit in that genre. Green Day is NOT part of that genre. They are not Punk Rock at all. Some of their earlier work is sort of Pop Punk, but for the most part they are a purely Pop Rock band. That's all there is to it. People who call Green Day punk are usually the same idiots who call Fall Out Boy and Good Charlotte punk. And don't give me any of that shit about their "old stuff", because it's pop. I don't see why I'm even bothering. Half the genres listed on this entire site are wrong. Skinny Puppy did barely any Industrial, Fall Out Boy is not Pop Punk, and Green Day is not Punk. 72.94.149.141 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is amusing that people are responding to a six-month old thread. Secondly, opinion does not matter. Verifiable sources do. If it can be sourced, it can be included, if it is your opinion, that is all it will remain. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Green Day is and NEVER will be pop punk. Pop punk is bands like blink 182 and good charlotte - they sing about hating teachers and shit - green day sing about hating politics and stuff like that...so either list them as punk or just be an idiot. User:58.111.154.169 20:52, 13 June —Preceding comment was added at 10:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

More than 95% of Green Day's songs have a punk structure to them. The progression of the power chords in their music make melodies that have pop influence. If you add pop and punk you get pop punk. More recently, they have had more of a rock influence than pop. If you add rock and punk you get punk rock. Style and attitude wise, they have punk assets to them; From the way the act on stage, to how they think, it's punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SineBot. It's simple mathematics, **** it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.61.141 (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre

iF YOU WOULD ACTually listen to some ramones songs. you would know that green day is quite similar to them. If ramones is musically considered punk. then green day should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.9.86 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

if you look closely,punk rock, is listed as one of the bands genres Jacknife737 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Day has large elements of Emo music. The band, itself, has become a more emo band, dawning eye liner and what not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.44.2 (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I tryed changing this earlier, but was sent a message saying not to by some pissed off fan. I think it's fine that punk rock is listed as one of their genres, but maybe is shouldn't be the very first genre described as their sound in the article. the way wikipedia works is that in the info box, it lists the genres a band is by first to last; first genre meaning thats what they play the most, and the last genre being what they play not so much. therefore, i feel its appropriate to change the order of their genres listed, so that Pop-punk is first before punk rock. I think it's pretty obvious that Green Day is loads more pop-punk then they are punk rock. -JamesK —Preceding unsigned comment added by James K (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Green Day and I was not pissed off. When you changed the genre order in the infobox, you did not explain your edit and you didn't bring it up on the talk page. You also didn't respond to my message asking you why you changed the order. I had no idea why you changed the order and therefore reverted it because I felt it was pointless. Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes - ~~~~. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^╦ѦᴌҜ/_{ᴐʘᵰ╦яﺇß$}) 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the genres and their orders is good as of now. No need to change it for the moment. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversation is getting interesting, moving away from the fanzine tone. Rock is art, but it is also business, very big business. All rock, including punk rock, is always, already "sold out." When you're commodifying rebellion itself to sell to, let's face it, fourteen year old white boys, as Spinal Tap once put it, there are things you don't want them to know about their idols. And that's the "pop" quality which everybody above is right to be sensing. Here's stuff that appears on the internet, but not on album jackets. Don't just look at producers, look at the artist managers that the young, broke bands trust. Green Day's early style and pose owed an embarrassing amount to their first artist manager, Elliot Cahn, who also managed Rancid, and other major California punk bands that he finally helped "go public" as it were. Who was Cahn for those Bay Area frat party bands to respect him? A lead guitarist who had played Woodstock, the Woodstock movie, and the Fillmores, a co-founder of a group with a long running hit TV show that Green Day had grown up watching. What wouldn't fit the "punk" brand was, that group Cahn co-founded, and was music director for, was Sha Na Na. You can see Cahn playing Walk Don't Run onstage at Fillmore East on Youtube before Sha Na Na became marketed as a TV comedy act outright. You'll see the resemblance to mainstream Green Day retro songs. Sha Na Na's secret was discovering a retro act had to play every song as the audience remembered it, not as it was. Cahn always arranged their music to play at twice the speed of the original and with two or three times the volume. Cahn himself was careful to stay in the background rather than ruin it for the fanzine readers who wanted to believe in "punk", but you can google his name and find it all in print. Cahn left after Dookie, when the Green Day stage personality is fully formed. Meanwhile, you all suspected something like this, and you got it right. Profhum (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think just calling them "rock" on the main article is too vague for a band like Green Day. They are a punk rock group. They began as a punk rock band and still play primarily punk rock songs. They are still "punks" and still support punk rock causes like 924 Gilman. "Rock" should be left to the generic and unclassifiable, Green Day is definitely a punk rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.171.91 (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that stylistically many of their songs are punk, but according to Wikipedia, that dosn't mean they're punk. I have a quote from the "punk rock" article that I linked into from the Green Day page. "Punk embraces a DIY (do it yourself) ethic, with many bands self-producing their recordings and distributing them through informal channels.". Green day is possibly the least DIY band that I have ever seen. After achieving very limited success, their album Dookie was propped up by MTV to sell more copies of their albums. Or take what's already written in the main article, "Dookie became a commercial success, helped by extensive MTV airplay for the videos of the songs "Longview", "Basket Case", and "When I Come Around"". By keeping up the Punk Rock as a Genre wikipedia is contradicting itself. That said, I agree that they do emulate Punk stylistically. That's why I think Punk Rock should be removed entirely from the Genre section and added to the Musical Styles and Influences section already in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.69.103 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Embracing a DIY ethic is indeed a common characteristic of many punk bands, and not of some. Sex Pistols and The Clash both signed up with major record labels. To demand a do it yourself approach to call a band punk rockers is not a commonly accepted definition. I think it's better to go with the style of the music as such. The "What is Punk" debate will not be settled here - or anywhere else. -Duribald (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

dead skin on trial

What does that mean?--69.113.129.244 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it's along the lines of 'beating a dead horse,' i.e. a pointless examination, but i could be wrong. why are you asking on the talk page, btw? songmeanings.com is a good place for this. :) 67.64.119.116 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

i don't know a friend asked me that question and when i told him i didn't know he told to ask it here.--69.113.129.244 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead skin on trial means all the narrarator's mistakes are up for public review. most of the time they are criticized. Silverzone (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

he woz stoopid init —Preceding unsigned comment added by GowsiPowsi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

dead skin on trial is a lyric from Good Riddance (Time of Your Life) in case this gives a bit of a point to you being here--Greenday21 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

But Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are generally for topics directly relating to improvement of the article. Edit: User talk pages exempt. Ss112 (Talk here!) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Kiffmeyer versus Al Sobrante

Unlike Tre Cool and Mike Dirnt, Kiffmeyer does not typically use his alias. I believe the article should reflect the name commonly used by the performer professionally, rather than an occasionally used nickname.Theplanetsaturn 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's credited as John on 39/smooth, so I'd agree. Hoponpop69 00:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So if no one objects, later today I'm gonna change the article to mention him as his birth name. Hoponpop69 19:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still gonna have his nickname somewhere, though, right? If so, good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New link I added...

Please don't yell at me for this but I added a link to the Green Day Idiot Club, I know there is already a link to greenday.net, the 'fansite' but the IC is a 'fanclub' and it is the 'official fanclub'. Please say if you think this is incorrect. --The cheese master 04:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben Myers and his book into Refs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagesh (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullet in a Bible

Why is Bullet in a Bible not listed under discography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.147.110 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because only the studio albums should be listed there. This is standard for every band who has a seperate discography page. Hoponpop69 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New info on album

Here's some new info on the album, work it out on the article the best you can. It's from the newest edition of Rolling Stone. scan Xihix 04:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

some info at last... i was scared for a while--Greenday21 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Timmy Chunks

He should be listed under one of the "touring musicians" sections (I presume former, since I don't think he's been working with them recently). Can anybody track down a source? (Not that the other entries are really properly sourced either...) --Cheeser1 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section here, I'll note, for discussing the inclusion of this former touring musician. As an alternative to repeatedly removing verified information from the article. --Cheeser1 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing GD as post-grunge and alternative pop is a bad source...

Please speak out here [1]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Hoponpop69 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A larger conversation on this has opened up here.[2] Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GD Are not even CLOSE to either of those genres. That source lies.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

shenanigans

Why does everyone seem to keep forgeting this album? It's a real album released in 2001-2002. Google it if you don't believe me. picklefishman Nov. 3, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking why it's not in the discography, it's because it's a compilation. Zazaban 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Shenanigans" is a full release 2002 not long after "International Superhits!" which is the compilation disk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.151.233 (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Shenanigans" is a compilation of B-sides from the singles, isn't it? Snooasaurus (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. It also includes one new song and contains other rarities such as a cover of a Ramones song.  Orfen  ^T • _C 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Day vs. Sweet Children

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. Please stop ignoring a reliable source.Hoponpop69 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has ever heard of Berkeley? That's closer. As far as the rest, I am not ignoring a reliable source. That should be clear as I have always kept the basics of Livermores story in my edit of the actual page. I am arguing against the inclusion of specific information not relevant to the article. Based upon one individual interview. Livermore claims a specific origin for the band. Nothing in my edit contradicts his retelling. I just left out the unnecessary, and frankly somewhat preposterous aspects of his retelling. The more detailed aspects of the interview are linked within the article and we don't require those details here.Theplanetsaturn 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all when did he say this Oakland thing, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.[3]

Secondly what you are doing is deleting sourced content, based on your own original research. The interview with Larry appears to be a reliable source. You are claiming that he is lying because you know first hand that GD and SC where two different bands, and based on that removing source content. You are using original research to justify your edit.

What part of my edit to the page was unnecessary or proposterious? Here is what it reads:

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show in front of five people at a party. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."

The only thing in there that seems like it might be unnecessary is the Shea Stadium quote, and that was there before I edited it. Hoponpop69 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the majority of preposterous information was not included by you either. However, I still contend some of the information in your edit is unnecessary. I'm in favor of leaving out how many people were allegedly at the show and what the show was for. This material can be readily found within the cited interview. And I wish you would stop using the word "lying". It's a loaded word that is a bit strong for this scenario. I think Livermore was exaggerating. At least in my mind, the word lying carries the suggestion of malicious intent.

In answer to your question: The quote about coming from Oakland is one commonly pulled during point of origin disputes for the band. During a well documented show, Billie apparently claimed the band was originally from Oakland. I'm simply using it as an example of how just because a person makes a claim it is not automatically valid. We're talking about a topic that is not well documented and is subject to unreliable memories and personal interpretation. We have exactly ONE source on this. Livermore. Not a member of the band, mind you. Just Livermore. I believe his basic recollection should be included in the article, but I don't think it and it alone, should be used as the definitive reference for the history of the band on Wikipedia. The version of the article I edited does not contradict his information or remove it as a source. It simply takes the elements out of the main article. This is wholly independent of my personal knowledge or anything that can be construed as original research.

Otherwise, there is the separate issue of the marijuana origin for the name. I don't think your source on that is strong and suggest we leave it as "allegedly".Theplanetsaturn 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask for a mediation.Hoponpop69 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we could work this out ourselves, as we did in the past. It shouldn't be that difficult to come to a mutually agreeable choice of wording within the article that satisfies both of our preferences. You don't appear to be willing to do this and instead are allowing this to be a larger debate than is necessary. Fine. If it's that important to you to include every minutiae of information in the actual body of the article, go for it. I will reiterate a final time in the hopes that you will see the logic of my position: I am not suggesting the inclusion of information that contradicts the statement by Livermore. I am not suggesting the deletion of the source, so it remains accessible to anyone who wants to read the detailed recollection by Livermore himself. I simply do not believe that the main body of the article needs to include Livermores personal and unsupported history of the band as definitive fact. We need to have the basics (how he was impressed by their performance, and on those merits agreed to work with them), and that's really it. Because that's the only thing he can speak on definitivly. Why HE acted the way HE did in regards to the bands personal history.Theplanetsaturn 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll try to find some common ground before asking for a mediation, how does this sound:

""Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 the band recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby, Sweet Children changed their name to Green Day."Hoponpop69 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I edited it a bit. Let me know what you think

"Larry Livermore, owner of independent label Lookout! Records, saw the band play at a very small show early in the bands career. Livermore was impressed by the performance. The band, he said, played the show like "The Beatles at Shea Stadium". Subsequently, Livermore signed the band to Lookout!, and in 1989 the group recorded its first EP, 1,000 Hours. According to Livermore, Mike, Bille and John changed the name of Sweet Children to Green Day shortly before the albums release in order to avoid confusion with another local band by the name of name Sweet Baby. Allegedly, the name Green Day was chosen to reflect the groups fondness for marijuana."Theplanetsaturn 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "Larry Livermore, owner of Lookout! Records, saw the band play an early show and signed them to his label. In 1989 they recorded their first EP, 1,000 Hours. Before 1,000 Hours was released, the band dropped the name Sweet Children, according to Livermore this was done in order to avoid confusion with another local band Sweet Baby. The band changed their name to Green Day, allegedly due to their fondness of marijuana."Hoponpop69 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That works well enough for me. Thanks.Theplanetsaturn 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRIof3KnpBAHoponpop69 01:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you want to make edits that reflect this interview, I won't alter it. It's still innaccurate, but if that's the history the band is going to purport, what can you do? However, it does seem to clarify that the band was called Green Day at the time of the show in the mountains, and in fact never did any "official" shows as anything other than Green Day. So I guess the link supports different points of both our positions. Thanks for drawing my attention to this.Theplanetsaturn 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Foxboro Hot Tubs

A Nwe band called Foxboro Hot Tubs has posted some songs in their site, and it's rumoured (and pretty obvios, specially for the voice) that this is another Green Day "Hidden Side project" (Like The Network, before American Idiot)

This hasn't been confirmed, but it's almost a fact that Green Day is somehow related to this band 200.59.44.237 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to verify this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

myspace - clearly Billie guardian mtv punk news eonline ultimate guitar yahoo there are some source, i think this should be included in the article.

The Lookouts

Should we include Tre Cool's pre-Green Day band "The Lookouts" in associated acts? It seems pretty major to the band because members of The Lookouts helped them produce their early albums and are apparently are large enough for an article... what do you say? BobHiggs (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should. Both Mike and Bilie Joe have other bands listed, Tre' Cool Should to.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Fair use rationale for Image:Lookoutgd.jpg

Image:Lookoutgd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

A free image of the entire band would be very welcome. I just removed a no source image and moved up the Mike Dint one to replace it, but that's a poor substitute for showing the whole band. Superm401 - Talk 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to improve this article, we need a picture of the band. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, it will get deleted. Zazaban (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GreenDayAuthority.com has a bunch of un-copyrighted pics, does that help? heres a link to gda :link —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i just added a pic called GreenDay2008.jpg to the article, but if its copyrighted please remove it. i think it is not though.SkaterBoy182 (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

American Idiot and the emo phase?

WTF? Green Day arent emo!! Amercian Idiot maybe is a little more Alternative Rock than their previous albums, but emo? it's bullshit! i'm sure that this change were made by a Green Day hater... i will put again American Idiot and renewed popularity over "the emo phase"... if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 09:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, Green day is not emo (screw the eyliner!) But i disagree about the alternative rock. They are punk rock.--71.183.217.40 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)greenday21

Some of their stuff is alternative. sorry.--Greenday21 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Green Day is definetly not emo. And yes, some of their songs are alternate rock. While as a majority of others are punk rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.183.165 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with Brandon Flower's statement. I mean really, it was the American Idiot world tour. Which means they go and promote their songs all over the world. Even in places like Germany and England. Why would they skip over playing the songs they are touring for? It's called a world tour for a reason. Something the Killers wouldn't know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.231.247 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

this is stuiped,i mean people acctually have lame proof about mcr,fall out boy and panic!at the disco being emo but greenday and blink 182 are just labbeled emo because,of course they are pop punk/punk rock. everybody has known greenday for years before the emo genre turned into a retarted tag for bands.they are almost as old as emo!and the old greenday didn't sound like the early emo bands that were moss icon,rites of spring and sunny day real estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

do yourselves all a favor and shut up.emo is a very hard to define genre.it should be counted that american idiot had all the lyrical and visual keys of modern emo.but it shouldnt be called that because the original genre(the more definable one) simply cant be attributed to greenday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.30.43 (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Visual?How Should that Mean Anything?Robert smith looked goth/emo.but the cure were around long before emo. Technically,all bands are emotional in lyrics(the smashing pumpkins do often sing about 'bleeding things',however they aint emo),its a sound with hardcore elements. greenday are not what i would call 'hardcore'.they for they are not 'emocore'......you know what,it doesn't matter the fuck any more modern emo is a crap label for either pop punk bands or ____core bands,it ain't a genre anymore.emo is dead!

btw the emo tag only became recognized to the society of MY life in 2006,american idiot was released in 2004.everybody loved it not thinking about how they looked etc. etc.....Two years later-people don't want to listen to my chemical romance because they are 'emo',its retarted,nowadays its only a tag,a stereotype,a fad. we all just refered to greenday as a punk rock band,a few years later as we look back its emo but mcr get all the attention.its dumb,immature and stuiped.people have got to grow up--Nirvanarox55 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Name Green Day

Green Day comes from slang that the band used to describe a day were they didn't do anything but smoke weed. (PnJunkie (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

LOL serious did they actually say that--Greenday21 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

LOL

"Green Day, often misspelled as Greenday" --apparently even at their own concerts judging by the photograph. Mwv2 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.greenday. net

Nobody can edit the article until this link is removed. I cannot find it. Please help, I need to fix the link to Nimrod. Zazaban (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have now removed all the blacklisted links. Go ahead and try your edits again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Insomniac Sales

On the RIAA official site it says that "Insomniacs" official sales are 2x Platinum, not 7x Platinum. I noticed, however, that a source stated that the band had sold 7 million copies of their album in the US, which contradicts what the RIAA says. Personally, I'm going to trust the RIAA, but I'm not the only person here. I reverted the link and made it reference the RIAA, and removed the instance of "7" and changed it to "2" on both this page, and "Insomniac"'s page. Is everything OK?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RIAA is the only organization that certifies records in the US, so if they say 2x platinum, that's how much the album has been certified for. However, this number is with few exceptions more than the actual number of copies sold; RIAA certifications actually count how many albums are shipped to retailers, not the number of those copies sold. Regardless, it's doubtful Insomniac has sold an additional five million copies since American Idiot came out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite skeptical about lots of the sales numbers posted here and on the discography page. Jacknife737 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Drummer

"When John decided to leave Green Day for college, another drummer joined named Dave E.C.. He was only in the band for a few weeks when he decided to leave and then Tre joined."--Green Day Authority. Should this be mentioned?--Greenday21 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

No. Unless you can find a more reliable source, but even then I don't really think it is very notable really. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

yur right. to hell with it. its not worth the time to look for another source.--Greenday21 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

I disagree. Fan sites are usually pretty reliable, and it's part of the band's history.

it was a few weeks. he never recorded. i dont even know his full name--Greenday21 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

The Killers' member

He said that the people in germany and england didn't see it the same way, but I think it's entirely possible that the message caught on just as much there as it did here in america, given that the song can be seen as an attack on American imperialism, it could be argued that the people over there singing it were objecting to the influence that america's pop culture has on the world. Bit ironic, given the band that wrote the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.4 (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography Table

A user remove this table constantly due to "uneccesary information", i think the table it's right... check it out.

Year	Title	Notes
April 19, 1990	39/Smooth	Debut album on Lookout! Records, later to be combined with Green Day's Slappy and 1000 Hours EPs into the compilation album 1039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
January 17, 1991	Kerplunk	Second album on Lookout! Contained the original version of the song "Welcome to Paradise", which would be re-recorded for Green Day's Dookie.
February 1, 1994	Dookie	Green Day's major label debut. Moved 15 million copies around the world and launched the band to international fame. Won the 1995 Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album
October 10, 1995	Insomniac	The band's second release on Reprise Records. Represented a shift towards more aggressive playing and darker lyrics, which are seen as a response to the backlash received from many hometown critics due to commercial success.
October 14, 1997	Nimrod	Experimental album in which the band branched off to other genres including hardcore punk, surf rock, instrumentals, and ballads.
October 3, 2000	Warning	Only major-label album not to achieve at least double platinum status in the US. Represented a further extension of experimentation from the time of Nimrod.
September 21, 2004	American Idiot	Comeback album after master tapes of their original seventh album (So-called Cigarettes and Valentines) were stolen from their studio. Launched Green Day's first Top 5 single, "Boulevard of Broken Dreams".

I would put it again, if someone wanna made a change, please discuss about it here.--Maul_day (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was removed because the information was already stated elsewhere in the article not because it is incorrect.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The separate discography article provides all the necessary info. The discography section of the main article only needs to be very simple and brief - there is no point duplicating so much info. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation

In the last paragraph of the band's history there's the name Jon Stewart when there should be Billie Joe Armstrong. Can someone change this, please? 88.112.107.109 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. -skaterboy182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

EDITING

Can somebody tell me why there is no "edit this page" tab at the top of this article? I want to add a better pic of Green Day and can't seem to do it. Help!

Link to picture I want to put in:

http://www.newyorkrock.com/img/2000/greenday2a.jpg Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

wait a few days and your username will be recognised and the edit tab will appear.--Greenday21 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

"Anti-American" label

I question the neutrality of the criticism section, in which one person is quoted as criticizing American Idiot for being anti-American. The fact that the article's author did not include any remarks from Greenday to counter the criticism makes it seem as if the "anti-American" comment is justifiable. I think the author needs to include any quotes or links to videos in which Green Day discusses the political content of their album. I personally feel it is an exaggeration to label American Idiot anti-American. Obviously, the author (and the critic) did not take into consideration the politically tumultuous time period in which this album came out, nor the possibility that the term "American Idiot" refers to a specfic type of an American--not America in general. As proof, I cite the lyrics & video for the song "American Idiot", and the songs "Holiday" and "Jesus of Suburbia."

So please authors, do your homework. In this day and age, you ought to be careful with the labels you give people in regards to their political beliefs, as it can prove detrimental to their dignity, and their careers.

krj3550 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj3550 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

i say, the people who think greenday is anti-american should just well so and so. this is not true, greenday are NOT anti-american because they ARE american! DUHHHHH! f-ing retards!! SkaterBoy182 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Er...yeah...that has no bearing on how they feel about America. I'm an American, and I quite frankly think the entire country is in need of a good nuclear bombing. So your point really proves nothing. No offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

other members

who are the ppl at 0:05 and 0:15 Here? i sure dont recognise any of them as being green day members! lol SkaterBoy182 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a fan forum. Please take questions such as these to message boards related to Green Day. This talk page is for discussing the content of the wikipedia article. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

MTV Punk

I think Green Day should also be categorized as MTV Punk; the article itself refers to the fact that Green Day's profile was established there. This would itself would narrow down the term's Pop Punk or Corporate Punk, considering Green Day has no credibility within any Punk fan base outside of the MTV inspired Punk poseurs.

MTV Punk is not a music genre. Jacknife737 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Green Day/Genre disputes for an archive of the whole Punk Rock/genre debate.  Orfen  ^T • _C 06:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Are any of these pictures copyrighted?

This one? This one? This one? This one? This one? This one?

Or any others on the site?

please let me know. SkaterBoy182 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've already explained on your talk page, you should assume that any picture you find on the web is copyrighted unless it's explicitly licensed as otherwise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. SkaterBoy182 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

greenday.net says we can use their group pics... "FREEZE FRAME! It's the GreenDay.Net picture archive, filled with pics from their childhoods to the Warning tour. Check 'em out, print 'em out, and hang 'em on your wall! And hey, feel free to borrow 'em for your site as long as credit's given when credit's earned." so look into it! lol -SkaterBoy182- (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

green day picture

Ther should be a picture of green day performing live at a recent concert like bullet in a bible or american idiot. Not nimrod. 76.235.235.106 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

greenday.net says we can use their group pics... "FREEZE FRAME! It's the GreenDay.Net picture archive, filled with pics from their childhoods to the Warning tour. Check 'em out, print 'em out, and hang 'em on your wall! And hey, feel free to borrow 'em for your site as long as credit's given when credit's earned." so look into it! lol -SkaterBoy182- (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "happenednext" :
  • Guitar Legends. "[http://www.greendayauthority.com/TheBand/articles/guitarlegends/page8.jpg What Happened Next...]." Retrieved on [[20 August]], [[2007]]
  • Reflecting on the period, Armstrong told ''[[Spin magazine|SPIN]]'' magazine in 1999, "I couldn't go back to the punk scene, whether we were the biggest success in the world or the biggest failure ... The only thing I could do was get on my bike and go forward."<ref>Smith, RJ. "Top 90 Albums of the 90's." ''SPIN.'' August 1999.

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source note

The website "Green Day Authority", which is used a few times as references in this article, is not a reliable source as it is just one person's opinions. -- RyRy (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Children band members

"In 1987, Billie Joe Armstrong formed Sweet Children with Mike Dirnt. In the beginning, Dirnt and Armstrong were both on guitar, with another person on guitar, and Sean Hughes on bass. After a few gigs and a demo recording, Armstrong and Dirnt joined up with drummer John "Al Sobrante" Kiffmeyer in 1988. At the same time, Dirnt switched to bass and they became a 3-piece band. They changed their name to Green Day in April 1989. Tré Cool replaced Kiffmeyer in late 1990 when he left Green Day to go to college."

Why are these additional members, the original third guitarist and original bassist Sean Hughes, not on the former members section of Green Day, when the tenures 1987 to present, associated with the forming of Sweet Children, are there? Also, as it states Kiffmeyer joined Sweet Children in 1988, not in 1987. Also apparently this guy Dave E.C. played drums for a few weeks in-between John departing and Tré joining.

Lineups

(1987-1988) as "Sweet Children"

• Billie Joe Armstrong - guitar
• Mike Dirnt - guitar
• ???? - guitar
• Sean Hughes - bass

(1988-April 1989) as "Sweet Children"

• Billie Joe Armstrong - guitar, lead vocals
• Mike Dirnt - bass, backing vocals
• John "Al Sobrante" Kiffmeyer - drums, backing vocals

(April 1989-late 1990) as "Green Day"

• Billie Joe Armstrong - guitar, lead vocals
• Mike Dirnt - bass, backing vocals
• John "Al Sobrante" Kiffmeyer - drums, backing vocals

(late 1990, a few weeks) as "Green Day"

• Billie Joe Armstrong - guitar, lead vocals
• Mike Dirnt - bass, backing vocals
• Dave E.C. - drums

(late 1990-present) as "Green Day"

• Billie Joe Armstrong - guitar, lead vocals
• Mike Dirnt - bass, backing vocals
• Tré Cool - drums, backing vocals

76.227.110.225 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as im concerned, that is spot-on perfect, although i would say that in the beginning 'another person on guitar', should read 'another person on drums'. I believe that is correct. 81.155.31.212 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Green Day Fan Site - www.GreenDay.net

To the powers that be-

My name is Brian Gray, I am the webmaster for the Official Green Day Fan Site at www.GreenDay dot net (apparently the URL is blacklisted.)

I have run the site for the band for almost 10 years, and they constantly keep in communication with updates, journals, and family pictures.. I had posted a link to our site on EXTERNAL LINKS in the past, but some jokesters repeatedly took it down saying "no fan sites."

GreenDay dot net is the OFFICIAL FAN SITE, with constant updates from the 3 band members themselves and their familys, to ban the site is ridiculous. Now I find out the entire URL is blacklisted and I can't even type it in this letter. Can someone help?

thanks in advance

Brian Gray www.GreenDay dot net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartjimmy (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I'm sorry that you're experiencing so much frustration. From what I know, it is acceptable under wikipedia policy to add official fan sites to a band's article. Here are a few things that you can do to ensure that your edits are not removed:

1. Add an edit summary with a link to the WP:MUSTARD page. Specifically, to the external links section.
2. Discuss the nature of your changes and the reasons for them on the article talk page. This will give you a reference point to refer to in the event that people revert your edits.
3. Create a user account and make all of your edits from this account. This will help you establish credibility and will prevent your edits from showing up on the warning page of external editing programs. Other editors may think your edits are spam, since they are coming from an unregistered source. Creating an account, however, is not necessary, but only a recommendation in order to avoid reverts that are caused by a misunderstanding of the nature of your edits.
4. Also, sign your comments with "~~~~" so that people know who you are and the exact time of your post. It helps other users understand the chronological sequence of a conversation or argument. This is especially useful for conversations that take place between multiple user's talk pages.

Let me know if this helps. I am willing to help you further if it does not. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Emo Added

The reoson i added emo in the genres is because some of there songs are a little bit emo, like whatsername and blvd of broken dreams, so please dont be mad. i am a big fan.--Ryan Stinnett (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find a source saying the album American Idiot is considered an emo album, which is the origin of the two songs you mention. There cannot be original research in Wikipedia so there would have to be reliable source calling them emo. The consensus is that Green Day is a punk rock/pop punk/alternative rock band.  Orfen  ^T • _C 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Groves (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to call them "Emo". Weezer was emo. Emo has changed so much in the years. Emo used to be a nerdy look, now its a punk/goth spin-off. Whatsername and B.O.B.D. I guess are emo because of where they fit in their opera, they are supposed to be mildly depressing songs. --Blckhawk1234 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Related Projects

Green Day appeared in a 1997 episode of King of the Hill as a local band, Cane and the Stubborn Stainz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.118.66 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Post Grunge

AMG lists Green Day as post grunge, and some of their work from that era certainly could be considered part of that genre (Good Riddence and When I Come Around stick out) Considering that AMG is considered a reliable source, should this be added to genres? -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not belong in the listed genres, as the majority of their music would not fall under that category. If you feel strongly, you can add it within the "musical style” section, provided you have a valid source.Jacknife737 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

California Punk

I think somewhere in the begining of this article it should say something like "they helped revive popular interest in punk rock in the 1990s with fellow punk bands Rancid and the Offspring.

The picture?!

Why was the picture of Green Day removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.38.2 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was a copyright violation.  Orfen  ^T • _C 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre listing

This is so infuriating!! why dont band pages not show the genres of music they play anymore? Including this one.--Greenday21 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

You should vent your frustration here. We need to reach a consensus on the issue. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sales Numbers

I'm having a little trouble believing the number of albums listed in the article. It claims that the band has sold 65million worldwide, yet only 22 million in the US. The US is by far the largest market for CDs, yet only makes up 1/3 of total sales here. As well, the source provided for the 65 million is no longer in service. Can someone provide a more accurate source regarding the band's album sales? I am removing the old source, since it no longer exists. Jacknife737 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty believable, actually. If I recall correctly, they have a rather large fanbase in Germany, or England, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for update - Band Website updated

Green Day have moved their official website, can someone please shift all the links to it please? Also, With the new website they have tantalizingly announced 'World Tour coming soon' (Green Day Official Website Tour Page). Can someone please add this to the page somewhere, maybe under upcoming stuff? Cloventt (talk) 8 November 2008

= 08 or 09?

yeah i got into an argument on youtube about when the next album is coming out [4] can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T4k11 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for update based on AP article

Personally, form the info i gathered, it's coming out spring 2009, though, I'm afraid i don't know the exact month. http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan1.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan2.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan3.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan4.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan5.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan6.jpg http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x89/xFMRx/scan7.jpg

many things were mentioned in these scans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylstarks (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

Is his criticism really relevant? He's talked crap about lots of artists. Also "American Idiot" criticizes the media and the government in a post 9/11 world. I'd hardly call it "Anti-American." At the very least you should create a "controversy" section on his (Flowers) page for having ignited the "controversy".

album sales

The 65 million figure seems highly dubious. For most artists, especially American ones, the majority of their sales come from the U.S, so if they sold 22 million in the US then it's hard to believe over 40 million was sold overseas. Also, the link is dead for the US 22 million figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.26.160 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit Needed

After reading this article several times, it is apparent that a major editorial face lift is needed. This is most apparent in the number of gammarical errors in the first few paragraphs. Ralelen (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) By "gammarical" do you actually mean "grammatical"? Because that in itself is a grammatical mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.91.44 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

greenday.net

greenday.net will let us use their pics- "FREEZE FRAME! It's the GreenDay.Net picture archive, filled with pics from their childhoods to the Warning tour. Check 'em out, print 'em out, and hang 'em on your wall! And hey, feel free to borrow 'em for your site as long as credit's given when credit's earned." can some1 upload one or two? thx SkaterBoy182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaterBoy182 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Tour Information

In the last paragraph of the Middle Era: 1997-2002, it mentions the Pop Disaster Tour with Blink-182. "Despite the co-headlining title, Green Day would play each show before Blink-182, who at the time were experiencing more success."

I was at the Tinley Park, IL show on 6-15-2002 at the Tweeter Center and Green Day played after Blink-182. I don't know where this information was taken from but Blink-182 played at least one show before Green Day. --Johnhart24 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"This album is more... religious"

I can't find a source for this quote. It's cited as www.greendayauthority.com but it's not there. I found a blog [5] that pointed to this AP article [6] [7] that also doesn't have it. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"related acts"

Hi!

I think its has been proved that Op. Ivy(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Operation_Ivy_(band)) has been one of the greatest influences of Green Day; they cover their song "Knowledge" live, Youtube.com is plenty of videos of both bands feat. each other. Even Billi Joe was member of Rancid. Therefore, I think it would be fair to link to the "Operation Ivy" site.

Thanks in advance,

            Alvaro  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.77.111 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 

Shenanigans again

where the heck is shenanigans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.26.246 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Green_Day_discography#Compilations -Duribald (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammy awards amount is wrong

on the first section it says that they have won 4 grammys and they won 5 —Preceding gnatures|unsigned]] comment added by 68.174.246.123 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) GREEN DAY ISNT PunK ROCk

Whatsername unreleased music video

http://www.musicsrc.com/video/Green_Day_-_Whatsername_%28Official_Unrele.php?id=7F_9ND5SEDQ&artist=Green+Day&song=Whatsername Should we include this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.230.74 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason that it was unreleased is because it had absolutely no relation to the lyrics at all. The lyrics speak of thinking about a girl, you can't remember her name. This video is nothing of it. Kerrang86 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know anything about the storyline of American Idiot. LOLHI IM QWERTY 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Band Photo and Current Members

I think the band photo should be changed to one only featuring actual members of Green Day, not one with a backup preformer in the immediate foreground.

Additionally, when the current members are listed, Billie, Mike and Tre should be the only ones listed. They are the only actual, recognized members of Green Day. The three musicians listed under with would be better placed under a separate header that better describes their actual position, such as current backup musicians, or touring backup. They are not members of the band, they are hired musicians. RyanDPD (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Green Day finally add a fourth member? JoelleLynn (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, however Jason White does perform backup with them, he is not an official member, and isn't limited to just Green Day. AlexanderAwful (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a complete list of the additional (mostly on tour only) members:

Jason White (Guitar/Background Vocals) Jason Freese (Keyboards/Horns/Background Vocals) Ron Blake (Horns/Percussion/Background Vocals) Mike Pelino (Guitar/Background Vocals) Rick Davis (Guitar/Drums/Background Vocals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.64.104 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are all visible in the Bullet In A Bible DVD.

Also:

Jason White made a cameo appearance in the music video for When I Come Around. He was also playing as a regular band member in the music videos for Wake Me Up When September Ends and 21 Guns.

Kerrang86 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is listed fine on the sidebar, but further down the article the touring musicians are credited as "with". I really think it would be more appropriate to list them as touring musicians, because that's what they are.RyanDPD (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should mention that they have added another backup guitarist for the 21st Century Breakdown tour: Jeff Matika. Rock drum (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel I should add that Green day have added another backup guitarist for the 21st Century Breakdown tour: Jeff Mattika. Rock drum (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Green Day has ripped multiple songs

Multiple Green Day songs have been claimed to be rips off other songs (Particularly their most famous 3)

Wonderwall - Boulevard of Broken Dreams - By Oasis http://www.cinemablend.com/music/Did-Green-Day-Rip-Off-Oasis-2099.html

American Idiot- Doublewhiskeycokenoice - By Dillinger four http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5iCc9RS_zU or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advxtHtTkoQ

When September Ends - Its only time - Mark Curry (pointed out by El Hefe in the fatwreck podcast) http://www.amazon.com/Its-Only-Time-Mark-Curry/dp/B000008ERE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgTMZBv3Q_s - http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/window/media/page/0,,71695-2177828,00.html

-TheNinjaPirate (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.24.215 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC) 

At least with the first article, even the writers didn't believe Oasis. "Noel Gallagher hates Green Day. He hates the rockers so much, in fact, that he is inventing reasons to deride them." All we can mention is that HE believes that Green Day has copied Oasis music.

Using the other links would be original research and the claimed offense has to be covered by a reliable source. Likely, if the non-Green Day artists are not taking action (except for talking and talk is cheap), there's nothing there, which is why no one (aside from Rolling Stone and another article covering the Rolling Stone article) is covering it. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Oasis has recently broken up and Green Day is still going strong. Karma. -Kerrang86

Its noted in the wiki page for American idiot "The whole song is similar to the intro riff from Dillinger Four's "Doublewhiskeycokenoice", written in 1997."" and also mentioned here http://www.punknews.org/review/3383

Verbally (on the fat wreck chords podcast) El Hefe from Nofx claims when September ends it was stolen from his former band mate Mark Curry. He's a hardly known artist so I doubt he'd ever have a case. I don't know how citing audio sources works -TheNinjaPirate (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Boulevard of Broken Dreams is the exact same chord progression as Wonderwall. Its not proof they ripped it off, but its damn compelling evidence that should be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.26.30 (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Doublewhiskeycokenoice is actually played in a slightly different rhythm, and is also played a half note higher. While the beginnings are similar, they aren't even using the same chords. RyanDPD (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They've played together so its not far fetched to say it slightly tweaked version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.113.14 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention how 21 Guns takes from ELO's Telephone Line. A direct rip from that tune. --EchoRevamped (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

if you have ever noticed most green day songs follow the same riff the same riff used by nirvana in smells like teen spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana42642 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, do not hear any similarities between "Wonderwall" and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams". I suppose that they both have similar structures, but Green Day did not directly sample Oasis. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Breakout Success"

It is stated that a security guard mistook Mike Dirnt for a fan and "punched a few of his teeth out" when in actuality said security guard tackled Dirnt. This action slammed Dirnt's head into an amplifier which knocked out two of his teeth. -Daniel Zimmerman, Cleveland Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginwalker27 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel is correct. This is described clearly in every account I have read of the incident. Someone please change this.RyanDPD (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Add Template Singles

Would it be good to add the template single existing principal l article Green Day? That would be good to unlock the page and add a moment, because this template contains the Green Day's singles, which the other staff are not (they were, but now with the increase of which was single and to have this band, I wanted to sort better in another template for better viewing). It's singles template: Template:Green Day Singles. konahk4 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards section

This section should not be in the article without content. A simple link is not enough. There should be one or two paragraphs telling of the awards Green Day has won. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Most on Lookout Records?

Wasn't 39/Smooth and Kerplunk the two best selling albums on Lookout Records ever?--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how often 39/Smooth got sold, but Kerplunk got sold over 700.000 times, i guess. I think it really was one of the best selling albums on Lookout! records. But Operation Ivy's album Energy also got sold over 500.000 times, so I'm not sure whether 39/Smooth got sold more often. (and sorry for my bad english by the way)--GDallgood (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, Green Day's first 2 albums were the 2 most successful on Lookout!. Op Ivy's album Energy was the 3rd most successful.--GDallgood (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hughes?

Who is he exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.177.242 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the question asked above...who is Sean Hughes and why is he mentioned on the band's list of former members? -SAULGNRFAN

Sean Hughes is an old friend of Green Day and was a member of the band when they were first starting out. The book Nobody Likes You documents this and has quotes directly from him. He also appears in a TV special about Green Day (I believe it's Driven from Vh1. -RyanDPD —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanDPD (talk • contribs) 05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he was originaly the bassist, and Mike did rhytham guitar, but he left for some reason so Mike switched to bass.Qwerty McQwertyuiop talk

Green Day decided to kick him out because he wasn't good enough. Joseph507357 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Know Your Enemy

Dear Author,

Just want to let you know that the audio track you've included is playing the wrong song. That is Know Your Enemy by Rage Against the Machine that you have uploaded. Another great song, but not Green Day's version.

Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.200.249 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

idiot

a childish idiot has deleted the green day information and written:

"green day are awful"

talk about being a baby

i am not regestered so can someone report it and restore the information thanks!

ry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.168.32 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page. A bot reverted the edit a while ago. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

no, it hasn't been fixed. I just signed up to try and edit it back to the way it was but it wont let me edit it either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finksgirl (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it has been fixed. ClueBot reverted the vandalism at 20:34 (UTC). Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it very sad how some people on the internet think that only their opinions about a band matter. Kerrang86 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC) WOW what a moron. poor kid has no taste in musicDannymazz (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To be more balanced, "Criticism and controversy" section should also includes positive comments on the band

I think this section should be renamed "Critical reception" and includes positive comments so as to make it more neutral. According to this section, it sounds like the band only ever received negative criticisms, which is misleading. Laurent (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the section into the article itself. Hope I got it right - the paragraph about the criticisms of American Idiots went into "American Idiot and renewed popularity: 2003–2006"; and I've put the punk genre related criticisms in "Musical style and influences" (not sure about that one, but it seemed to be the best place for these criticisms). I didn't merge the comment by Noel Gallagher as it felt more of a rant than an actual criticism. Laurent (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be sources cited for the information you added to the musical style and influences section. This is a good article; I think we'd all like to keep it that way, by making sure to cite reliable sources for all possible information. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I haven't added anything, I've just moved paragraphs around from one section to another, so as to remove the "Criticisms" section. I agree that these paragraph, especially the one regarding the punk genre, should be sourced though. I've added some "who" and "weasel" tags where sources are needed. Laurent (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If I find the time, I'll look for sources for that content. For now, though, adding the tags was a good call. Hopefully, someone will find and add sources in the near future, as I likely won't have time to do so. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that that's what the "Criticism and Controversy" section is FOR? You don't add positive things about a band in a section like that. That would make it unneutral. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to be acting your age, you shouldn't be editing this article.--EchoRevamped (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when is controversy good?? 68.193.242.54 (talk)

The name

Where does the name Green Day come from? Should there be any mentioning about that?

Summer Song (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in one of the Green Day articles (i.e. Billie Joe Armstrong, this article, etc.) It said that "the band allegedly changed their name [from Sweet Children] due to their fondness of Marijuana", as having a green day would be to be stoned for like 24 hours (or something). --Zzguitar14 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd always wondered about that. There's a scene in 'Soylent Green' that has a sign "Thursday is Soylent Green Day" or maybe "Today is Soylent Green Day." In one shot, everything is cut off but "Green Day", so I started to wonder if they band got the name from that. tharsaile (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this! "TUESDAY IS SOYLENT GREEN DAY" with the words "GREEN DAY" appearing on a separate slate -- I would be very surprised if this was a coincidence. Still, it isn't proof. 95.91.86.150 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is either Billies or Mikes article that states they heard it on Sesame Street, and then it became sort of an in-joke for them. AlexanderAwful (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading a long time ago that when they were playing in high school a music teacher said to them that 'it would be a "Green Day" in hell before they were a successful rock band' (JMC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.30.42 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In interviews, the band has stated that Armstrong wrote a song called "Green Day" (from 39/Smooth) and Kiffmeyer wrote "green day" on the back of his jacket and their friends liked that name better, so the band's name was changed to Green Day (from Green Day's Behind the Music episode in 2001). --Blaguymonkey (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

American Idiot the musical

Berkeley Repertory in Berkeley, California (where the band originated) is currently putting on the premier production of the staged musical version of "American Idiot." It is directed by Michael Mayer, who directed the Tony-award winning production of "Spring Awakening" and was developed by Michael Mayer in collaboration with Green Day.

More information can be found here (http://www.berkeleyrep.org/tickets/sub_plays.asp#ai).

I feel this should be at least noted on the Green Day page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.18.183 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it shouldn't be noted at all. --EchoRevamped (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shenanigans?

Why is Shenanigans not listed in the Discography? Just wondering if there was a reason for it not being included. Gehrc (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That specific section only shows albums. Shenanigans is a compilation album that doesn't qualify as an album. However, it is listed in their discography article. AlexanderAwful (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the songs aren't from the other albums so you could add it Spank (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.21.154 (talk)

Alienated Fans?

The comment in the opening paragraph, "some of whom felt alienated when the band signed to a major label", is generic and not particular to Green Day's fans. The cite given (note 2, http://www.greendayauthority.com/TheBand/articles/guitarlegends/page8.jpg) - "Though many in the punk scene viewed major labels - and those who signed with them - with suspicion . . . " does not support the contention that feelings of "alienation" were experienced by Green Day's fans in particular. The comment should be deleted from the article.

Come On this band is not alternative

GREEN DAY IS NOT PUNK ROCK

Come On, this band is not alternative, You wouldn't call The Ramones, Cheap Trick and The Who.

"alternative", thats way excessive, and i'm removing the said reference.

you might as well call everything alternative at this rate.--DavisHawkens (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

um, well green day is alternative, and you dont have a lagidiment argument going. those bands are all totally different genres. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are definitely alternative rock. They have many of the characteristics. Anything that's punk or pop-punk is alternative to a certain extent at least. Rocker10000 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Put "members" section into an article

Many bands have this, such as Linkin Park, and there's a whole lot of things to list with this band when talking about their members. Now, I really don't care if anyone decides to make an article for it or not. I was just making a suggestion, seeing how lengthy that section is. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Macys Day Parade,Blood, Sex And Booze, Maria and Poprocks and Coke

Can someone please tell me why Macys Day Parade,Blood, Sex And Booze, Maria and Poprocks and Coke don't have their own page? They are singles(with physicall releases) they should have their own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because there isn't enough information on the songs? If you have any information about them, feel free to add a page about each. --The Banshee (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles for Macy's Day Parade and Poprocks and Coke were deleted for failing WP:MUSIC. Blood Sex and Booze was not released as a single, so would not pass WP:MUSIC either. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But they were released as promo singles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.150.159 (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kerplunk and 39/Smooth have not gone double platinum

In the "Middle era and fall from popularity" (which needs to be renamed, Green Day was never unpopular, just less so) section, it says, "While all of Green Day's past albums had reached a status of at least double platinum, Warning was only certified gold." This should be edited to read "While all of Green Day's past albums on a major label had reached a status of at least double platinum..." Somewhat minor but worthy of a change nonetheless.RyanDPD (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre of Green Day

Though I may agree with the term "Alternative," as wide and vague as it may be, Green Day is not Pop-Punk/Pop-Rock whatsoever (whichever term was officially used, they're one in the same almost). All Time Low and Fall Out Boy are the Pop-Punk/Pop-Rock scene. Green Day is strictly Punk Rock and (due to the association of punk rock to alternative styles...) Alternative. Slugger20120 (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that they should be listed also as hard rock since they have been included on Vh1's greatest hard rock songs and Vh1 Greatest Hard Rock artists. Aceman97 (Acemen97)

No, they aren't hard rock,it's just that many people associate punk with hard rock

Why don't you just put rock and punk rock they aren't pop rock or pop punk and the album's should say punk rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.37.141 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding punk rock as the first genre, because they have 2 alternative rock/punk albums and the rest of them, punk. The band is more punk rock than alternative.--Revilal90 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No grreen day,is not ounk rock or pop punk greend day is just emo rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.148 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of albums sold

A long time ago (probably at least a good two years, could be wrong), the article used to state that Green Day had sold over 65 million albums worldwide. When this link went dead, the reference stating that they've sold over 22 million albums in the United States was put into place. Now that this link is dead, shouldn't we just remove any number of albums sold from the article until we can verify it? 76.212.4.103 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources should not be removed because the link goes dead. The important thing is that the source is reliable and that it actually stated what is said in the article. -Duribald (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

However, the source for 65 million albums in the united states was reliable and when the link went dead it was removed. 76.212.4.103 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall it was removed mainly because some people thought the number seemed exagerated, and additional sources were requested. The link simply going dead is not reason for removal. -Duribald (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I used ARIA for their discography page. It's reliable enough, might need some reinforcement at some point though, since it's not a worldwide association. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Emo

Green Day isnt emo! they should change it back to the proper genres!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.72.227 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sell out"

"though categorised as a "sell out" band among the punk rock community." Both what constitutes a "sell out" and what the true "punk rock community" is are incredibly controversial, and possibly subjective. I do know that they have a reputation like what's described, but a)this needs to be cited, and b) it needs to be put in a much less absolutist, generalized way that reflects who has called them that and what exactly they said. There's a real circular logic problem to say that Green Day and their fans are not part of the punk rock community because the punk rock community doesn't consider them part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D prime (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "though they have been described as a "sell out" band by notable members of the punk rock community." I think if you're called that by a member of the Sex Pistols, it's notable, but this makes it sound less objective and universal. D prime (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In accordance with previous punk argument and they being sellouts, i believe that we should elimnate the punk rock genre from their infobox. 21:57, March 28 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.191.46 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Last of the american girls?

I don't understand how there is not a page for last of the american girls when there is a music video for it. Single or not, there should be a page that describes the music video...?? 68.193.242.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

How long ago did the music video come out? Like 11 days? Give it time, more things will be released about the making of the video, the meaning, ect and then someone will probably put up a page. Remember, there isn't a behind the scenes video like there is for Know Your Enemy, so info about the video is probably scarce. And why there needs to be a page to describe the video when you can just watch it makes no sense. Gardenofgibson (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The VIDEO makes no sense. Maybe that's why we need a page. Geez, no need to get an attitude. 68.193.242.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

If you've got songs like "i fought the law" and JAR in singles, last of the american goals should be in the single list a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.38.161 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Years active" bugged

It's bugged cause of a syntax error, replace

| Genre = [[Alternative rock]]<br />[[Pop punk]]<br />[[Punk rock]]<!-- DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION --> <br />[[Hard Rock]]<!-- Do Not Change Without A Talk Page Discussion

with

| Genre = [[Alternative rock]]<br />[[Pop punk]]<br />[[Punk rock]]<!-- DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT A TALK PAGE DISCUSSION --> <br />[[Hard Rock]]<!-- Do Not Change Without A Talk Page Discussion-->

—13souldealer37 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most of their songs are fast-paced and under four minutes."

Just like most of the content in the Musical Style and Influences section this statement is very opinionated and lacks any straightforward facts. I think that somebody who actually knows something about Green Day should be writing these articles and the should also have a lot of back up information. Just to top it of "under four minutes" is merely the correct way to describe somebody's musical style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russake (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Coopermac.rudyboy, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "Christopher" to "Charles" in the following sentence under Related Projects:

  Christopher Isherwood of The New York Times wrote an enthusiastic review for the Broadway production. 

Coopermac.rudyboy (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 17:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge from 21st Century Breakdown World Tour

I think this is a good idea, which would forestall deletion of that article. PROD reasons were as follows:

• Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours: No information other than a list of dates & locations. Concert tours are assumed non-notable unless aspects such as artistic approach, financial success, etc. are covered in independent sources. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are insufficient to support encyclopedic coverage

  — Jeff G. ツ 15:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that if we have to do a merge, it should be a merge with 21st Century Breakdown rather than with Green Day. Jackam05 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The AfD has closed as keep, so it does pass Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours. This shouldn't be mereged into the main Green Day article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A merge? That would be a long list of dates to include. If it must merge, merge it, like Lugnuts said, with 21st Century Breakdown. --99.241.135.158 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems silly to merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.154 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1987?

I have viewed many videos of their interview, and Billie always says that they really started playing in 88 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONN32-fvxUo), is the source credible which says 1987, because i would go for what Armstrong says instead of a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeanjones (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

87 is a common error in reports, 88 is the correct date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.38.161 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They formed in 87, but didn't start playing until 88. Joseph507357 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about when they "formed," might as well say when Billie and Mike met is when they "formed." The real formation is when they start playing, you're not a band if there isn't music being played. According to Billie they started in 88'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.244 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They play well before 87 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WdCxW6hz8o&feature=related Joseph507357 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gospel According To Jimmy

I heard from a friend who knows a guy who's cousin knows the band that Green Day's next album is going to be titled "The Gospel According To Jimmy" and will be released in early 2011. He said it will be another concept album and have something to do with American Idiot. I know this is probably going to be ignored or considered unreliable speculation, but I will find more proof if I need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.165.239 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• • i like the title but it seems that title you mentioned was too simple? i dont know if green day will really use thatChevron24 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, That's the name of a movie that's coming out. http://www.movieguys.org/movie-news/the-gospel-according-to-jimmy-worst-idea-ever/ Check it out, it's even on IMBD also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.93.41 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Since the primary genre for Green Day, as mentioned in the article, is alternative rock, shouldn't the intro be something like "Green Day is an alternative rock band......." ? LPfreak101 (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC) It's mostly agreed that Green Day is punk rock, so I think if most people agree with that then it should stay that way. Qwerty McQwertyuiop

Green Day's page

Green Day's page is now more reliable than ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevron24 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.119.2.140, 21 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please also include that Green Day has won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst International Band because I think the fans should know as much as possible about Green Day.

98.119.2.140 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)  Not done. No source and clearly incorrect as the Golden Raspberry Awards are for films. BOVINEBOY2008 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Day ranked 54 on Billboard artist of the decade 2000 - 2009

why is it not mentioned in this article?121.54.32.151 (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Band picture and Genres

Personally, i think that the picture on this page should be just of the three band members, not with a touring musician, also, i don't really agree with the Pop Punk genre, sure maybe some of their songs could be called Pop Punk, i agree with the Alternative Rock and Punk Rock, but i also think that maybe Hard Rock should be added, just my opinion, nobody has to agree with me. --Chickenguy12 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why add hard rock if they aren´t? Just to make people happy? Green Day has nothing to do with the AC/DC style, blues-influenced rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.20.184 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I disagree to the merger. Harsh Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

-- I also disagree. Why merge a worldwide tour with the main band article? 90.194.161.232 (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin

The band is from Berkeley. Why not change the origin ?--Revilal90 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hughes

They're missing one of their former members, who's name was Sean Hughes and who played Bass Guitar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior200 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Find a source and fix it. BOVINEBOY2008 04:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused... I heard Green Day was formed in Canada. Is this true?-- Platyfishkeeper ^chat 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

no East Bay, CaliforniaMoxy (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They are Canadian, American's always take credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.209.209 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only Mike is Canadian, but, they were all born in California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.244 (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's with all this alternative rock thing?

is it necessary that all bands formed after the 90's be characterized as 'alternative'. Does rock exist no more? Can't green day be called a rock band as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.41.254 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.186.174.47, 16 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

71.186.174.47 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC) change the pop punk and alternative rock to just punk rock

 Not done You need consensus before using this template. BOVINEBOY2008 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Show hits theaters

Green Day's new live album recorded in Germany hits the theaters. Check www.greenday.com for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

mentioning of NOFX in introduction?

I think that NOFX should be mentioned in the statement found in the introduction. My correction would be as follows:

As a result, Green Day was widely credited, alongside fellow California punk bands The Offspring, Rancid and NOFX with popularizing and reviving mainstream interest in punk rock in the United States.

Especially because NOFX is also from Berkley, CA. There also is no mention of NOFX in this entire article, and when I think of Cali punk bands who found mainstream success in the early nineties, I think of Green Day, the Offspring, Rancid AND NOFX. I'm sure many other people will agree. Not a big deal, but I find it important. Thoughts? - tbone (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done. No one seemed to object. - tbone (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, that NOFX is from Los Angeles and Only moved to San Francisco when Fat Mike went to college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.140.67 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

New Picture November 15,2010

Please add a new picture, because in this one, you cant see the band clearly. Make the picture: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/files/2010/01/green-day.jpg&imgrefurl=http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/&usg=__hPoEmh3Q7KfdIsOewm5UnJ3UTiw=&h=400&w=620&sz=103&hl=en&start=0&sig2=IHfX2I_hJiC4Sm8aDR3z3Q&zoom=1&tbnid=ll4p7f4qpunmcM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=208&ei=cPLhTLfvCo-gsQOSmJiHCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreen%2Bday%2B2010%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D809%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=132&vpy=131&dur=2176&hovh=180&hovw=280&tx=100&ty=99&oei=1PHhTIq9MJL0swP--tyaDA&esq=12&page=1&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0 Thank you, Mychemicalromance4EVA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychemicalromance4EVA ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 02:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright? Joseph507357 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Album

The Album Bullet in a Bible is missing from the album list

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bullet_in_a_Bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasonalskier (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's a live album. Joseph507357 (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Hey. I would love to review this article I'm afraid I will mess it up. I will try to help whoever with more experience comes by to review this. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 04:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Day/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try my hand at this and get a mentor. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Prose/MOS

Everything that was wrong with the prose from the last time this article went through a GA review looks done. The prose appears to be smooth and easily readable. In addition, there seems to be no huge copyeditng issues that jump out at me; however, copyediting is not my strenth. As far as MOS issues goes, the only issue I can find does not need to be corrected for GA status. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues

1. Dead links

Ref #32

Ref #60

Ref #72

Ref #75

2. Redirect Issues

Ref #30 needs to go to the exact page (Warning Review) not the general album review page.

Ref #33 has a similar problem. The exact webpage needs to be linked to.

Ref #62 is another one of those rolling stone pages that lead to the general listing of articles.

3. The Green Day Story link needs to say that it is an .rpm file

4. Link titles needed or need to be check

Ref #13

Ref #17

Ref #53

Ref #54

--Guerillero | My Talk 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For future information, some sections rely on Green Day Authority, a fan site, and may be challenged as a secondary source. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

6

Media Issues

1. No fair use criteria for this article on Basket Case1.ogg
2. No fair use criteria for this article on Working Class Hero.ogg
3. Media is "sandwiching" text in the Breakthrough success section _{Note: Compliance with MOS:IMAGES is not required for Good Article status - weebiloobil (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)}
4. Billie Joe Woodstock.jpg is from AP and is barred from wikipedia per WP:NFC#UUI

--Guerillero | My Talk 01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hey! Thank you for reviewing the article. That takes a ton of work and I really appreciate it. I will certainly try to fix the dead links and the link titles, as well as look for another source instead of Green Day Authority. I am a little busy this week with my exams, but I will do my best. Maybe I could recruit some help from other wikipedians. Thanks again! Oh and a side question, isn't the Billie Joe Woodstock picture okay because it is an image used for critical commentary on the concert discussed in the article? Basilisk4u (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was exam week for me too so I was a bit busy. From what I can see from the different MOSes no images that come from wire services can be used on wikipedia. The green day authority citations work for right now but i don't think they will if this article ever goes through a FA review. I am going to put this review on hold until 27 December, at the very earliest, for improvements. If it improves by then I will change the quality level of the article. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been working a lot with the dead links, but there are a few that I cannot find anywhere. Also, I am not exactly sure what the "Green Day Story" link is, could you show it to me? I really want this article to pass, but I am a bit worried I cannot find some of the needed links. However, I was able to make a lot of improvements on the other problems, which I hope will be taken into consideration. Thank you and sorry about the dead links, I will search for them far and wide. Basilisk4u (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Greeday story is this

The Green Day Story (Broadcast on Radio 1 Mon June 20, 2005) (Alternate Link)

It is in the notes section.

As far as dead links go they don't all need to be replaced if they are truly dead. The links that need the most attention are the pesky rolling stone links that go to the main review page. The other links can be see through archive.org. (If i can get the site to load through my net connection I will post the links. I agree the article has progressed by leaps and bounds. I am very impressed. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it so the link says that it is an rpm file. I was able to find one of the Rolling Stone links (#76), but I'm still having trouble with number 61. I have tried to look for the information from other sources, but they all cite the rolling stone source which has disappeared for some reason, which is a total bummer. Thank you for noticing the improvements, a lot of people have worked hard on the article, it really means a lot. If there are any more improvements I can make to the article before you make your decision, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Basilisk4u (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am stuck. This article is fairly close to being a GA. The prose brings up no glaring problems when running through MS Word and flows well. The images have been cleaned up. The only problem is the sourcing. I need a second opinion. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I understand you want a second opinion regarding the sources, and I'm here to oblige. I'll have a good look, and I'll be back within 24 hours with said opinion. Sorry to keep you waiting! - weebiloobil (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If I can drag out this to almost a full month then an extra 24 hours isn't going to hurt. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, late as always! I've had a good look at the sourcing, and below are the problems I found with the sources; not all of them are relevant to a Good Article discussion, so there is also a bit about what needs to be done. (Please note: I am referring to this version of the article)

• Reference 1 doesn't really need to be in the lead; the date of the band's formation is covered later in the article, and is referenced there as well
• Reference 2 doesn't mention either of the two statements that supposedly use it as a source
• Reference 3 doesn't mention the worldwide sales, only the US sales
• References 6 and 7 are the same
• References 9 and 10 don't mention Sean Hughes at all. Also, both feature a web address as plain text rather than as a link
• References 13 and 18 are the same
• Reference 21 appears to be broken
• The statement "In 2000, Green Day released Warning, a step further in the style that they had hinted at with Nimrod." is an opinion, and so should be sourced or removed
• Reference 28 is dead
• The first paragraph of the section 'American Idiot and renewed success: 2003–2006' is controversial and completely unsourced
• Reference 31 is broken
• The statement before reference 33 states that the Viewer's Choice award is "coveted"; this is an unsourced opinion
• Reference 35 doesn't support the statement that supposedly uses it as a source
• The statement "(the record has been since been beaten by Foo Fighters' 2007 hit "The Pretender" which reigned at the top spot for 18 weeks)" is a statistic and therefore requires a source
• Reference 38 doesn't actually contain the quote that uses it as a source, but instead contains a slightly different version
• Reference 41 is a YouTube link, but the reference description does not say this
• References 44 and 45 don't mention average ratings, but are instead individual ratings
• Reference 61 is dead
• References 70 and 71 don't mention December, despite the month being used in the article
• The section "The reviews of American Idiot: The Musical have been positive to mixed. Charles Isherwood of The New York Times wrote an enthusiastic review for the Broadway production. He called the show "a pulsating portrait of wasted youth that invokes all the standard genre conventions ... only to transcend them through the power of its music and the artistry of its execution, the show is as invigorating and ultimately as moving as anything I’ve seen on Broadway this season. Or maybe for a few seasons past."" needs at least two references
• Reference 72 now redirects to a pay-per-view site
• Reference 73 is dead

Whilst this looks like a lot, the only section of the Good Article criteria that refers to this is 2(b), "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The rest of the article is fine, and so my suggestion is to remove all the information that isn't at the moment properly sourced and clean up the referencing a bit, so the article can be passed; the problem bits can then be gradually reinserted when the source is fixed/replaced. Of course, this is only my opinion; feel free to ignore me if you want - weebiloobil (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to give this a few days. If nothing happens then I am going to need to not promote this article. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like I have a lot of work to do haha. I will do the best I can. Basilisk4u (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

After over a month I am closing this GAR. There has been plenty of time since this was put on hold. The article did not pass because of sourcing issues; however, with some improvements I am very sure it will obtain GA status. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

genre

can you please add the genre 'rock' to green day? although green day is an alternative rock group, punk rock is after all a genre of rock music. if not many than at least a few songs can be classed as 'rock' right? A big fan of green day i knew gave up listening to green day after finding out that they are alternative. He always trusted them as a rock group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.160.19 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Punk rock, pop punk, and alternative rock are all rock genres.Supahshadow (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. "Rock" should only be used when the sub-genres are disputed, which they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Hello, I can't edit this page since I am an unregistered user. But I noticed that at the top of the page it states that Tre' Cool joined the band in 1992, prior to the recording of Kerplunk, but Kerplunk was recorded in 1991, and Tre' Cool joined in 1990, right after John Kiffmeyer left the band. So could someone please change it for me? --71.54.207.51 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Agreed it should be changed.

1994 Live Album

Is this deserving of an article?: http://www.greendaydiscography.com/live_tracks.html It was officially put out by Reprise (check the copyright info on the back) and we have enough info from that site to write an article. 24.255.37.144 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even close to enough for an article.Joseph507357 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Paradise

Am I the only one who noticed that the "Welcome to Paradise" sample only plays through the left speaker? I think a new sample is needed. 24.255.38.190 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then post one yourself. - PM800 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. 24.255.38.190 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to post a fixed version and it sounds fine on my computer, but once I upload it the same left-speaker-only issue exists. –CWenger (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jaded in Chicago

Should there be a page for it.Joseph507357 (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not since it was never officially released on DVD or anything like that. I would make an article for it, but some moderator on Wikipedia will probably delete it so there's no point. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

New Green Day song

On Billie Joe's Twitter, he quoted this to somebody "Dear niki lee,awesome book! And there's a new green day song called "carpe diem".. What a strange world we live in. Xoxo bj" So there is a new song called "Carpe Diem" possibly for the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.234.196 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hughes

Green Day has never had a bass player other than Mike Dirnt, but someone put Sean Hughes in there as the bassist from 1987-1988 and changed Mike's tenure to 1988-present.

Could someone please delete Sean Hughes and change Mike's start date to 1987? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggyzocky (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You both are incorrect. Green Day had a bassist named Sean Hughes when it was first founded in 1987 and Mike Dirnt played guitar. Hughes left in 1988 and Dirnt then began playing bass for the band. There are many reliable sources that support this. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.197.17.161, 30 May 2011

Please change the second line of the third paragraph where it is mentioned that green day has won 4 grammy awards as they have actually won 5 of them.It is mentioned on the Wikipedia page "List of awards and nominations won by Green Day" that they have won 5 grammy awards.Also, it is a known fact that Green Day has won 5 Grammy awards and not 4........please correct it!!!

117.197.17.161 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a punk rock band. It is a pop rock band. (Edit Request)

Analysis of song style and content is more important than what the label says to market the band to middle schoolers. Proposing edit to first sentence of article to change the genre. Please change "Green Day is an American punk rock band formed in 1987" to "Green Day is an American pop rock band formed in 1987"

76.28.77.142 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Punk rock might not be completely accurate description of their more recent stuff, but it probably wouldn't be fair to group them in with the likes of Maroon 5 either. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

THE NEW SONGS

I added the new song titles and info of the show they were played it. As it stands, the list of new songs is a bit of a mess, so feel free to edit it or delete it. Cross Pollination (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.14.170.120, 3 September 2011

Green Day formed in 1989-presnt and 1987-1989 Sweet Childern 86.14.170.120 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, try to be more specific about what exactly you want changed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:28, 4 Elul 5771 / 09:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the "musical style and influences", there should also be a "Legacy" column in Green Day's wikipedia article.

Are you guys for real? I mean, you've mentioned the bands that were influenced by crappy 'rock' bands like Blink-182 and you forgot to mention Green Day's influence on the music industry! Come on, they've influenced a ton of bands like My chemical romance, Simple Plan, Avril Lavigne (i hate to admit this .. but well) , and Lady Gaga .. yes, her. She said that "Dookie" was the first album she went on to buy on her own. They've even influenced Blink-182 .. how can you just ignore the fact? They spearheaded the punk revival, and that's the reason why bands like Blink are still around. And one more thing, Green Day have sold more than 25 million records in the US .. and more than 70 million worldwide. Please update the article. Thanks. And here's the link to Green Day's MTV page .. it shows all the bands that were influenced by Green Day. You really need to add a Legacy column in this article. So please do. Also, the list of the polls they seem to win endlessly is also incomplete. God.

The link to Green Day's MTV page - http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/green_day/artist.jhtml

And here's the one for all the bands that were influenced by them .. the list is incomplete though .. you have to watch a LOT of videos and stuff to find out the ones left out. http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/green_day/related_artists.jhtml?follower=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj Punx (talk • contribs) 12:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gig 27 Oct

It says that they played a new song off their 9th studio album on the 27 October gig, Blue Moon of Kentucky. However, this is a COVER. They did, however, play more than 10 new songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorickF (talk • contribs) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012

"The band adopted the name Green Day, allegedly due to their fondness for marijuana." You could Change it to "The band then adopted the name Green Day, the name was thought to be inspired by their fondness for marijuana, which was later confirmed by Billie Joe Armstrong on an interview with the show "REAL Time With Bill Maher." or something to that effect. -proof- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG-1ibZOJzk 72.37.249.172 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see why that is necessary. There's already a source backing up the statement. Was this the first time Green Day had ever confirmed the origin of the name? That's not clear from the source. Mato (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

F Word Censorship

We really should not be exposing kids to the f-word so Awesome as F*** should be noted as such. Many kids are not even allowed to even read that word. I should not change it, so could someone change the name of the page as such. Green Day noted it as such. Besides, Wikipedia is meant to be appropriate for kids.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia is not censored. Besides it just a word. Joseph507357 (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Graphical timeline of band members

The graphical timeline of Green Day band members was removed as: "totally unnecessary in a band this consistent" 18:23, 29 January 2023‎ (UTC). For comparison, Metallica has been similarly consistent. Should an MOS be constructed to suggest when a timeline of band members may be considered un / necessary for an article? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

no put it back it is fine to stay there there are bands who are WAY more consistent than them 26dearalexande (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are worried about it not serving a use then touring members could be added. 80s Sam (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Green day Live 5 june 2013 in Rome.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the song from 39/Smooth on top of article

A user has added a redirect to the song "Green Day" from the band's debut album 39/Smooth. That song is a deep-cut, and a lot of the songs on Green Day's pre-dookie era are very obscure aside from Paper Lanterns, Going to Pasalacqua, At the Library, and 2000 Light Years Away, the last of which came from Kerplunk! I feel more discussion on whether this should be included should be made.

"Green Day" is a very, very obscure song to have a "for the self-titled, see..." tab at the top of the band's article. Anyone willing to provide input on this? AppalachianCentrist (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the "Green Day" and 39/Smooth hatnote should be removed. This is a minor song overall and an unlikely source for confusion, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Unconfirmed user putting false information about members

A IP-user seems to be putting false information about Jason White playing lead guitar in the band from 1999-onward. While he may have played it as a touring member, he was never an official member until from 2012-2016. Please put a note down about this, Billie Joe has been the only guitarist in the band since 1987-2012 and 2016-now. This is clearly sourced in the article. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

IP users make unexplained and often wrong changes to timelines and the article as a whole all the time. Just revert if they are adding factual inaccuracies. Like you said, it is sourced in the article. Bowling is life (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Why leave the yellow tour member color on the timeline at all then, shouldn't by your logic Jason White only be on the timeline at all from 2012-2016? Mighty Midas (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That issue has been resolved. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Green Day Greatest Hits" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Green Day Greatest Hits has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 2 § Green Day Greatest Hits until a consensus is reached. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 18:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)