Talk:Sex Pistols/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

sex pistols new album 2009

Do a Google Search for that term and you will see many articles highlighting the possibility. Not just a rumor; should it be included? --Tubularbells1993 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use for the infobox image

Seeing as the band has performed as recently as last year, is the fair use rationale for the infobox image really valid? The bands is still semi-active, so presumably a free image could be created for infobox purposes and thus the current image fails WP:NFCC criterion #1. I realize that Sid Vicious is dead, so we can't create a free image of him, but we could presumably create a free image of the band with the present lineup (Rotten, Matlock, Cook, Jones) which is their original lineup anyway and just as significant historically as the lineup with Vicious. I hate to be a fair-use nazi in this case, but it just doesn't strike me as meeting "the rules". Anyone else have thoughts on this? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this case constitutes a clear common-sense exception to "the rules". The Sex Pistols in their original incarnation (or rather, two incarnations) were one of the most significant bands in pop music history. In historical/cultural terms, their reunion gigs have been utterly insignificant. In this case, the gap between those two aspects of their history is so great--AND their image was so central to their significance, to a much greater degree than most other pop acts--I believe we'd be doing our readership a serious disservice by representing the group with an image of its current incarnation in the infobox. DocKino (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a certain historical significance to having an image of the band from the '70s somewhere in the article, I don't think that having that image in the infobox, where its purpose is merely visual identification, passes NFCC and meets Wikipedia's goal of providing free content. In the case of active bands, NFCC treats them just like living persons: Fair use always fails if free equivalents are available. There are free images in Commons category:Sex Pistols (some of which I uploaded yesterday after a search through flickr) that could be used in the infobox without any copyright concerns, and I think that overrides any fair use rationale. It is the same people, doing the same thing, they are merely older and dressed differently. For a historical fair-use image to pass NFCC, there either has to be commentary of the image itself, or the persons have to be deceased. I wouldn't be at all averse to having a fair-use image of the band in the article body, next to a referenced discussion of their "look" and image (after all, that was central to their significance), but I just don't the image we have now, in the way it's currently being used, would stand up to scrutiny from an NFCC standpoint. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the image passes NFCC criterion 1, I just noticed that the image has virtually nothing in the way of source information (let alone rationale)--which, of course, you properly tagged. I'll see if that can be tracked down (the original uploader is long-since inactive). I also realized that the image does contain other valuable visual information--Jamie Reid's historically noteworthy logo. Let's see if we can get anyone else to weigh in on the NFCC issue. One immediate concern is that--even accepting your argument--none of the available free images of the band is of encyclopedic quality. (There are some terrific recent free images of Lydon himself, but they're not appropriate for the band article's infobox).DocKino (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 1 or 2 that, I think, properly cropped, could serve well. There were many pages of possibly free images that came up in my search, and I have to resume my efforts tonight. Hopefully I'll find something of better quality than the ones currently in there (I got through about 150 of a total 750+ search results...it's slow going because I have to check that the licenses are the ones allowed by commons). At the very least I hope to end up with 1 or 2 that would be good for the article body. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great. And I've turned up something that looks like it's free, chronologically desirable, and appropriate (if not perfect) for the infobox: from Jon Savage's England's Dreaming, an example of "U.S. publicity" for the band: a Warner Bros. poster published in November 1977 that shows the entire band (though small, beside a larger shot of Rotten). The image, which evidently shows the entire poster, reveals no copyright insignia or other notice, which would make it public domain per U.S. law--by two months! (Template:PD-Pre1978). This conclusion is further supported by the fact that out of approximately 250 images in Savage's book, this is one of only about ten that is not accompanied by a copyright identification. DocKino (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent. What page is it on? I've got the book at home amongst a pile of others I'm using for my long-delayed, oft-procrastinated masters thesis. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In the St. Martin's Press, U.S. paperback edition, it's on the last page of the color image portfolio between pages 282 and 283--facing page 283, basically.DocKino (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look at it after work. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well unfortunately I left my copy of England's Dreaming at my parents' house so I won't get a chance to check out the picture until the weekend. However, I did finish going through my Flickr search results and uploading a bunch of free Sex Pistols photos to Commons. Unfortunately none of them are really crisp, high-quality but I think there are a couple that, properly cropped, could be serviceable for this article. Unfortunately there were none from the one time I saw them live (at the KROQ Inland Invasion, Sept. '02). Here are what I think are the best of the bunch:

• 
  Unfortunately Matlock is out of frame and you can't see Cook very well (but then you can never see the drummer well in these kinds of shots).
• 
  Not fantastic resolution, but at least you can see all 4 members.
• 
  Jones' back is to us & Cook is again obscured by intense lighting, but I think it's one of the better shots of Matlock & Rotten. But for those heads in front...

--IllaZilla (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

About the first gig...

...the text says, "Before the Pistols could play the few original songs they had written to date, Bazooka Joe pulled the plugs as they saw their gear being trashed". The sources for this sentence are apparently Strongman, 106; John Robb, 116-120 and a link that I can't open. But some part of the sentence seems to be wrong: ...as they [= Bazooka Joe] saw their gear being trashed. – Savage, p. 142, quotes Paul Cook saying, "We had carried the equipment over from Denmark Street...”; furthermore, Adam Ant says (p. 142 too): “they [=SPs] had very expensive equipment and it didn't look like it belonged to them". – This is confirmed in Lydon's book (Coronet, 1994, p. 103), where Cook says again: “We rehearsed across the road and wheeled all the equipment down Charing Cross Road about six in the afternoon. We set up and played for twenty minutes”. – So whose gear (if any) were the Sex Pistols 'trashing'? Could someone please check the sources on the mentioned part of the sentence? Cheers, --Fernando H (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

EMI

Article makes no mention of why they left EMI ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.202.151 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please read the subsection EMI and the Grundy Incident. After the discussion of the Today show encounter with host Bill Grundy and its effect on the band's reputation, the subsection concludes with this paragraph:

Following the end of the tour in late December, three concerts were arranged in Holland for January 1977. The band, hungover, boarded a plane at London Heathrow Airport early on 4 January; a few hours later, the Evening News was reporting that the band had "vomited and spat their way" to the flight. Despite categorical denials by the EMI representative who accompanied the group, the label, which was under political pressure, released the band from their contract. As McLaren fielded offers from other labels, the band went into the studio for a round of recordings with Goodman, their last with both him and Matlock.

All clear? DocKino (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

active in 2007?

were the sex pistols active in 2007 ? Schnickelgroover (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

January 17, 1978

Is there a source for the fact that the band split up exactly that day? Clausule (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the source is cited right there at the end of the passage: Savage, Jon, England's Dreaming, pp. 463–464. Similarly, Rotten's announcement of the breakup the following day is cited: Savage, Jon, England's Dreaming, p. 464. DocKino (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that! Clausule (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Initiated Punk in England?

Not really. The Ramones brought Punk to the UK from America. The Pistols were obviously a huge part of Punk history, but to say that they "initiated" Punk in the UK is completely erroneous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the Damned released "New Rose" a month before "Anarchy in the UK"'s initial release on EMI, so if anything, this is the first widely available punk single in Britain. StanPomeray (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Pistols formed in '75, the Damned in '76. benzband (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Ramones were no doubt a big influence on the British punk scene, particularly in 1976 (the time of the release of thier first album and first live shows in London), but the beginnings of the 70's London punk scene go back as far as 1974 (or earlier), long before The Ramones first visit. Mick Jones' first band, the Delinquents, played in a glam-influenced style that they described (on their first flyer in 1974) as "punky." Shortly thereafter, Mick Jones Formed The London SS, with Bernie Rhodes (close associate with Malcom McLaren) as manager. The London SS would be the band that eventually became the Clash and would also act as a feeder band for the Damned and Generation X. The Sex Pistols were also around at this time with Malcolm McLaren as their manager (or at least assisting with their management). It was while Malcolm McLaren was in the US working with the later remenents of The New York Dolls, that Bernie Rhodes temporarily filled in as acting mangager of the Pistols. It was during the Rhodes' time with the band that they found Johnny Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) to be their singer (1975). Chrissie Hyne had moved to London (from Ohio) and was closely involved with this circle. The London 70's punk scene was already underway. Bands such as the Sex Pistols and London SS were already active at this time (1975). But, not enough has been said about Mick Jones' role in helping start the London 70's punk scene (as well as mambers of the Damned and Generation X who had been in The London London SS: Tommy James, etc.) But, I can't say that The Damned, as a band, preceded the Sex Pistols in any way, shape or form (even though they got an album realeased sooner). It was the Sex Pistols' first gigs in 1975 and early 1976 that really got the London scene going--before the formation of the Damned. The Sex Pistols were definitely not the first punk band (niether were the Ramones). I've gone to great lengths (in other threads--see talk sections of Wiki articles, "Punk rock" and "Garage rock") to demonstrate how punk started in 1963-1967, not the 70's. However, London SS and The Sex Pistols were primarily responsible for the emergence of the 70's punk scene in London, just as The Ramones and a couple of other bands (slightly earlier) got the scene going in New York. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Silly Thing

Before I get to the subject at hand, I'd like to thank the writers/editors of the Sex Pistols page. It is beautifully written, well-researched and comprehensive, one of the best rock music articles I've read on wikipedia.

I do, however, believe that it was Paul Cook, not Steve Jones, who provided the lead vocals for Silly Thing on the Great Rock-n-roll Swindle Soundtrack. He is credited with the lead vocal on the double-album LP I bought in 1983 or 1984, and in the film itself, Cook is the one who is onscreen when the song is playing. I don't remember if he lip-synchs the song or not in the film, but if you listen to the LP, it is easy to distinguish Cook's voice from Jones' voice. Jones sings on "Lonely Boy"; his voice is deeper, less breathy.

when you google "Silly Thing vocals", four entries come up, three of which credit the vocals on Silly Thing on the soundtrack album to Paul Cook:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22silly+thing+vocals%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I'm not certain, but I believe a second version of Silly Thing was recorded with Jones singing lead vocals; perhaps it is the single version that is listed on the fourth google entry.

Once again, thank you for this article. Tim Fister (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Wiki's "Great Rock-n-roll Swindle" article, Paul Cook is credited with the vocals for Silly Thing.

Is anybody watching this page? Does anyone have a problem with editing the article to change this? Tim Fister (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We do list Cook singing it in the film. Does the article you're referring to have a good citation for him singing any other version? DocKino (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Cook is listed as the singer of "Silly Thing" in The "Post-Rotten Sex Pistols singers" section, but the article credits Jones as the singer in the "Post Break-up" section:

"Jones singing an original, "Silly Thing" (number six);"

There are no references listed in the Wiki article "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (album)" except "The Swindle Years" from the Cook & Jones Website.Tim Fister (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the page following "The Swindle Years" on the Cook and Jones website, and it appears that the single version that was a hit in England had Jones on the lead vocal:

"Silly Thing" (advert pictured), was re-recorded with Steve taking vocal duties from Paul who had sung on the album cut. It was a powerful performance, making no. 6 in the charts in April . Although uncredited, bass was played by Andy Allen who would perform the same duties for The Professionals.

Do you think the article should be edited to show there were two versions of the song? The information presently there is essentially correct, but appears to be contradictoryTim Fister (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?

What happened to this page's FA candidacy? The "identified" link goes to a prose review link, and there is no mention in the article history?? SGGH ^ping! 00:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's how it was done back in the "Brilliant prose" days ... more relevant is the FAR link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this must be an old FA. Thanks Sandy. SGGH ^ping! 07:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph about Sid's violence needs rewrite

The paragraph in the "Sid joins" section about his assaults (it currently starts with "Pogoing aside") needs a rewrite clearly separating what happened that night from what had happened before. Because of all the mixed tenses (simple past and past perfect) and "Pogoing aside", it currently reads as if on the night Sid joined the band he also invented the pogo dance, was arrested for the assault with a glass and served time, then later committed the assault. Someone who is familiar with the events should patch it up. I can't tell.--Atkinson (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was there the night at the 100 club when Sid invented pogoing and he really did invent it - as he pogoed and came down he was smashing people with his elbows - we were off to the side but this caused the crowd to keep pushing into us - which made my cousin keep spilling his drink (incidentally he was the guy in the Melody Maker photo throwing the punch at the Nashville pistols gig) - this happened about three times and then my cousin exploded and hit Sid - the crowd parted and my cousin,his mate and me (hiding behind) had an empty bottle in his hand saying right 'who's first' to all the punks who were thinking of having a go - well nothing happened and the crowd closed up cause my cousins mad when he's had a few lagers- its the Irish in us - fracas over and next Sid Vicious comes up to us in the crowd and says to my cousin 'Hey do you wanna join my band?' to which my cousin told him to f*ck off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.227.208 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Personel on NMTB

It's commonly said that a ot of never mind the bollocks was tarted up by Session Musicians, since the Pistols were so shit. I don't see any references to that in this article, or indeed in the album article itself.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because it never happened. Try to find a source for that rumor, then come back. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "were so shit" mean? If you mean they were unable to play, that's clearly untrue - Sid certainly wasn't up to it, but Steve Jones was (and is) an excellent rock guitarist, and did a large amount of overdubs to get the "wall of sound" effect you hear on much of the Pistols' work. Glen Matlock (whilst he was in the band) was also perfectly capable, and Paul Cook, whilst he may not have been the world's most accomplished drummer, was certainly more than adequate for the sort of sound the Pistols were trying to achieve. In the absence of Matlock, and to assist in filling in for the clearly (musically) untalented Sid, they did use Chris Spedding to add a bit of session guitar to a few tracks, but for the most part Steve, Paul, and Johnny created what you hear. Sorry to wreck the illusion! StanPomeray (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed unsupported statement

The phrase "they are regarded as one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music" was referenced to the band's biography on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (link). There is not a single mention of influential, history or popular music in the HoF article. This error was in the opening paragraph of a "featured article" that made it to the main page of this site. Considering how glaring this error is, I find it surprising that the article could selected for display on the main page even though it's been over three and a half years since it was last reviewed. For shame, wikipedia. --115.135.91.56 (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind your bollocks. The cited Hall of Fame bio begins like this:

Rock and roll was never the same after the Sex Pistols. They ignited the punk-rock revolution in Britain, and the reverberations carried to all corners of the rock and roll world.

And it sums up their impact like this:

What these four penniless punks had done was shock and upend the music industry, reclaiming by force of will a place within it for those who were young, restless, bored and angry. Punk-rock has never gone away since the Sex Pistols threw down the gauntlet, surviving over the decades as rock’s most combative and vital subgenre. It is hard to imagine Green Day’s "American Idiot” without the Sex Pistols’ “God Save the Queen” having come before it, and that is true of countless punk-rock recordings.

The statement in the lead section is further supported by many well-sourced passages in the primary text of the article, particularly the "Cultural influence" subsection. It ain't Wikipedia that's covered itself in shame here, sport. DocKino (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "they are regarded as one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music" is an accurate and appropriate summation of the statements provided by the reference in question. When a source is cited a verbatim representation is not necessary. J04n(talk page) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How does any of that statement even come close to the much broader claim that "they are regarded as one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music"? It is your own original research, your own original opinion that draws that conclusion. Not the hall of fame statement which does not even mention POPULAR MUSIC, let alone "most influential" or "history". --175.144.254.51 (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And there's very little in the article that even mention their influence on the music of other bands. Most of the stuff on the influence section is about their impact on culture - not "the history of popular MUSIC". Even if the Hall of Fame article supports the statement, you need to attribute the source of such a viewpoint instead of simply presenting a subjective opinion as an objective, universal fact. --175.144.254.51 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr 175.144.254.51, you correctly brought the point up here for discussion. Two other editors gave their opinions, then you discounted the opinions and reverted again. Talk pages are a place for discussions to take place that lead to consensus decisions. Let's leave the original version until a consensus forms to change it. J04n(talk page) 09:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we leave the blatantly erroneous information out of the article before someone can provide real, concrete evidence for the statement instead of relying on their own original misreading of an unrelated text? A fictitious "consensus" does not trump over the basic rule of verifiability on wikipedia. There is already plenty of well-deserved praises and compliments for the band on this article. There's simply no need to invent one. --175.144.248.155 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We all know what "fictitious 'consensus'" means: your argument failed to sway anyone. Obviously, "real, concrete evidence" has been provided. Your dismissal of it puts you in the minority position here. We all know what "blatantly erroneous" means: you no likee. Tant pis. Live with it. DocKino (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously cannot provide an explanation of how the source support the statement because the source certainly does not. If the source does support the statement, you should have no difficulty in explaining how it does so. The paragraph you quoted above can only be used to support a statement of how the band influenced punk rock music, not how they are one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music, a subject that the source did not even mentioned, let alone discuss. --175.144.249.108 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion: The quotations from the source provided above seem to me to adequately support the statement "they are regarded as one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music". If "rock and roll was never the same again", as the source states, then, ipso facto, they were influential, and in a way that most other groups were not. Similarly, creating a "combative and vital subgenre" that survived for decades implies a considerable degree of influence. The article refers to "the music industry" being "upended", which clearly refers to popular music as a whole, not to just punk. It also refers to the influence on rock specifically (again, not just on punk), which is a sufficiently large part of popular music that, even without the line on the music industry as a whole, this does not appear to me to constitute undue synethesis or original research.

In short, this looks to be perfectly valid paraphrasing and summarising of the information in the source material. Anaxial (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Rock and roll is not the same as popular music, a much broader category that includes everything other than classical and folk. The Sex Pistols have had no influence on numerous other genres from jazz, country, heavy metal, progressive rock, industrial, disco, electronica, lounge, soul, R&B, funk, hip-hop, pop, etc. I think the problem here is that you people have a very narrow idea of what popular music is. The "music industry" is not synonymous with "popular music". One is about an industry, the modes and practices, the other is about a broad genre of music. In the same way, the "film industry" is non synonymous with "action films"; the book industry is not synonymous with "mystery novels"; etc. You cannot interpret one to mean the other. That IS original research and synthesis. This source can only be used to support a sentence such as "the band has been recognized by the Rock and Roll Fame for their lasting contributions (or influence) on punk rock music" or "changing rock and roll music". Not "one of the most influential acts in the history of popular music". The article does not even address popular music, let alone discuss anything about whether they were one of the MOST influential acts. That is your interpretation too. Just because one is influential, it does not follow that one is the MOST influential act. There's a difference. I could find an article saying so-and-so was influential on heavy metal music or country music but it does not mean that I can then use that article to say that so-and-so was one of the MOST influential act on ALL popular music. Once again, that would be original research and synthesis. --175.144.249.108 (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the Third Opinion given, you are welcome to request an RFC for wider input, or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. However, I would suggest that edit warring is unlikely to achieve your desired result, even if you believe (as stated in your recent edit summary) that the consensus here on the Talk page is a "fictitious" one. Anaxial (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear 175, you'd do well to check yourself. You decline to register. You shamelessly edit war. You employ an aggrieved, aggressive tone. Is it any wonder no one respects your sorry excuse for an opinion? DocKino (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. Your very first words to me were aggressive. You have reverted my change to the article five times already. So what's the difference between you and me? I might be an ip address but at least I'm addressing the issue while you're just ignoring it in favor of simply attacking me. Go read WP:OR. --175.144.249.108 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both getting on my nerves. The citation is valid, but it's clearly for rock music, not all music worldwide, so let's let Daddy change that one word and we can all be happy again, OK? SteveStrummer (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing that one word is certainly an improvement and I'm happy that someone else realises that the source does not remotely discuss popular music at all but just rock, or even more specifically punk rock. I still don't think the source article provides any sort of comparison for us to say that the band is *one* of the most influential act in anything but I'm not going to argue further about that. I will however suggest that the wording of the sentence be altered further to indicate who it is that regards them as such, i.e. "they are regarded by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (provide link) as etc." I don't think this makes the acclaim weaker. If anything, it adds more prestige by identifying the source of the viewpoint to be from an important institution like the Hall of Fame rather than some nameless nobody. --175.144.255.136 (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the long-standing language, which is not only the status quo but has also received the support of most of the involved editors. Remember, the lead section summarizes the content of the article as a whole. As I noted toward the beginning of the discussion, the statement is supported not only by the cited source but by other well-sourced passages in the primary text of the article, particularly the "Cultural influence" subsection, an advisory that appears to have been ignored. I have added two more citations, of material quoted in the primary text that supports the summary statement: reliable sources discuss the Pistols' impact in terms broader than simply "rock music". DocKino (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable sources discuss the Pistols' impact in terms broader than simply 'rock music'": notice how the "reliable sources" are all rock music authorities. Trouser Press, Rolling Stone, and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame can indulge in all the hyperbole they want - and they do, because it's their stock in trade - but it doesn't make what they say factually valid. Even as a lifelong Pistols fan, I see the insistence on this wording this as an embarassing example of wiki puffery. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel embarassed. However, the prevailing opinion still holds that the current phrasing is an appropriate summary. While we want to avoid rockist wiki puffery at all costs, the fact is that in contemporary terms popular music in the Western culture within which this encyclopedia is composed is largely identified with rock music. I note, for instance, the following from a textbook designed for students taking the London College of Music Grade Examinations in Popular Music Theory, Popular Music Theory: Grade 4. In "Section Four—popular music", under the topic heading "Influential artists", it reads: "So that you increase your general knowledge of the recording artists and performers who have had the greatest influence on the development of popular music, at this grade you will be asked questions about the following:" It then lists the Sex Pistols in a group that includes Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, and Pink Floyd (p. 28). The subsequent discussion of the Pistols includes these introductory passages:

The British group the Sex Pistols was a short-lived but immensely influential band which, in the 1970s, helped to create punk rock.... Punk opened the way for many people with musical ideas, but limited technical ability on their instruments, to form groups and record their music. Many styles of popular music, such as grunge, indie, thrash metal and even rap owe their foundations to the legacy of ground breaking punk bands—of which the Sex Pistols was the most prominent (p. 29).

This is the intellectual context in which the term popular music is used, and its application to the Sex Pistols' influence is evidently well-supported by a broad range of sources. DocKino (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, that would be a sound citation, so why didn't you put it in? SteveStrummer (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. So put it in. SteveStrummer (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you just use this London College book as the source instead of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame article in the first place? Then I would not have any problems with the statement as presented on this wikipedia article. If that's what the source says, so be it - the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame article didn't; this one does. Such a simple solution at your disposal that you could have resorted to instead of wasting time writing all those paragraphs trying to attack me. --175.137.79.78 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as is - per rationale already given by User:Anaxial and others, this is perfectly valid paraphrasing of the cited source. As for "Your very first words to me were aggressive", it should have been obvious to anyone with the remotest interest in this particular talk page that those words (while certainly providing a suitably robust retort to a belligerent cry of "shame", "glaring error", and "surprising that the article could selected for display on the main page"), were merely a play on the Pistols' debut album title. The joke was clearly intended to be enjoyed by all without exception, and was not in any way at the OP's expense. PL290 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pistols support Roger Ruskin Spear

Hi there it is never mentioned anywhere that the first time The Pistols played the Nashville it was supporting 'Roger Ruskin Spear/Viv Stansall of the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah band - I was present at that gig and it was well before the term 'Punk' was invented but has never been mentioned probably because they were almost unkown at the time - and my cousin who used to shop at Malcoms shop when it was called 'Let It Rock' knew about the band and we went and checked them out - John was wearing a red jumper that the wool was unravelling on dragging behind him onstage speeding out of his mind and they sounded great from that point on we followeed them - my cousin is the guy throwing the punch in the infamous Melody Maker picture - as soon as it went commercial and estate agents started turning up with safety pins in there jackets we were gone and the magic was gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.227.208 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting uncommented change to "US tour and the end of the band"

It has just been necessary to revert for the third time an edit to this section made by 70.79.75.159. The IP user has never commented on his or her desired edit, which was first reverted by Ian Rose on May 18. The IP user's edit is unacceptable for multiple reasons: (1) flu is an ordinary dictionary word, and shouldn't be linked (see Wikipedia:Overlinking#What generally should not be linked); (2) as previously explained in edit summary, the words recited by Rotten at the end of "No Fun", though they derive from it, are not the actual lyrics of the song; (3) the IP user's rewrite as a whole is verbose and crosses the line into original research and, as Mr. Rose put it, editorializing. DocKino (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve New

Can't be the late Steve New (guitarist in Matlock's post-Pistols band Rich Kids) be among the members? Yes, he was with them a very brief time, but he was considered to be guitarist alongsode Steve Jones.Francodamned (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As he never played a single gig with the band nor recorded so much as a demo with them, I think not. Anyone else have an opinion on this?—DocKino (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a hard call. If I read the article correctly, the band were not technically named the Sex Pistols when New was a member. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time trying to pin down exactly when the name was adopted, but it looks like the exact moment has been lost to history. The article is structured to indicate the best that we know: the name was settled on not long before their first gig in November 1975...and New left the band not long before that gig.—DocKino (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with including Steve New amongst the members is that if we're to consider this early incarnation of the band to be the Sex Pistols, then what about previous incarnations? Do we, for example, include Wally Nightingale as well? If not, why not? He was a founding member of the same band essentially, they just weren't called the Sex Pistols at that time (and it says pretty much the same on his Wikipedia page). So it depends on whether the first lineup to be known as the Sex Pistols is to be treated as a different band to the previous lineupes with the logic of "change in name = different band", or whether the previous incarnations are accepted to be the same band but with a different name. Burbridge92 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Caerphilly gig

Assuming the recently-added quote stays, note that the cited source reports that

The gig went ahead, not least because, according to gig-goer Dave Smitham, "the Castle Cinema's elderly lady owner... refused to be bullied by Caerphilly's worthies."

Might be a nice touch to include this, if it can be suitably reported/quoted (probably excluding mention of Smitham!). PL290 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McLaren & the New York Dolls

I see a bit of an edit war brewing between Jetblack500 and DocKino over the wording concerning McLaren's relationship w/ The Dolls. DocKino is holding with the previously accepted and sourced "informally managing and promoting" while Jetblack500 interprets the same sources to allow nothing more than "worked with" or "informally promoting". What is known is that McLaren took over styling the band to the point of costumes and the ill-received Soviet flag backdrop and thus at least to some extent directing their career, however briefly. This is within the traditional idea of management, given no superior authority - unless one reckons, as implied in the source, that the band itself was a higher authority. Personally I'm content with either but I believe the discussion should be widened to avoid a wasteful confrontation. I'll thus say:

• Weak informally managing - as that as succinctly as possible sums up the promoting, directing, and styling role. We don't need to go into detail in an SP article. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and would make two points about the cited Johansen quote.

• "I know he says he was our manager, but he wasn't really."—Johansen acknowledges that McLaren said he was their manager. Whatever else is the case, we can't simply reduce that to "he was not their manager". Should we judge this to be a serious clash of views between Johansen and McLaren, we would be obliged to invoke WP:NPOV and represent both views in suitable proportion; however, I don't think that should be our conclusion, because:
• "Well he never really managed us, strictly speaking. It wasn’t anything formal"—can this be read as anything but a statement that McLaren was their informal manager? (Consider, by way of contrast, the effect of the same statement applied to, say, Johansen's dentist.)

It seems that "briefly managing and promoting the New York Dolls" exactly describes it. The question of whether there was a formal management contract is an inessential detail in the Sex Pistols article. I personally prefer that wording, and feel the change to the more verbose "informally managing and promoting the New York Dolls for a few months"—simply to accommodate the word "informally"—is a backward step in terms of engaging prose. PL290 (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Official discography

The discography on the article features a lot of bootleg and unauthorized recordings. If you take a look at the discography section of the official website (here), you would find this:

The following is a list of official Sex Pistols releases (based around UK releases) Click sidebar links for further information…

SINGLES Anarchy in the UK God Save The Queen Pretty Vacant Holidays in the Sun

My Way Something Else Silly Thing C'mon Everybody The Great Rock n Roll Swindle I'm Not Your Stepping Stone

Pretty Vacant Live God Save the Queen (2002 Remix) Anarchy in the UK (Guitar Hero Version) Pretty Vacant (Guitar Hero Version)

ALBUMS Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols

The Great Rock n Roll Swindle Some Product - Carri On Sex Pistols Kiss This NMTB / Spunk (aka This is Crap) Filthy Lucre Live The Filth and the Fury Jubilee Sex Pistols Box Set

DVD Live At The Longhorn The Filth and the Fury Classic Albums: Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Sex Pistols The Great Rock n Roll Swindle John Lydon: The Best of British £1 Notes There'll Always Be An England

Therefore, I believe that the list of the releases not mentioned here should be deleted from the discography section as they do not belong to the official discography. --Milosppf (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The discography on the band's website is obviously selective and incomplete. The band does not determine what is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic discography; we do. If you can conclusively establish that any of the recordings we currently list are bootlegged and bootlegged only, I would support the elimination of those and those alone. DocKino (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The discography on the official website features the releases authorized by the band. You can include releases beyond the list but a certain distinction ought to be made. For example, the list features the live bootleg recordings Raw and Live, Agents of Anarchy, Live & Filthy which might be credited as semi-offical but certainly not official. They should at least be listed as bootleg recordings as opposed to the band authorized official live album Filthy Lucre Live.--Milosppf (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Book

Hi everybody, i have created a Wikipedia book on the Sex Pistols. You can find it at Book:Sex Pistols. If someone is interested could you please take a look? It seems like a good start to me. - Benzband (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

he's the punkiest

what's the matter with all you people trying to edit this page? dont you know only DocKino can do that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.90.205 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha :-) very funny… but actually DocKino is only protecting the article from vandalism. If you find your edits are being reverted, please consider the following:

1. Are these good faith edits you're trying to make? (as opposed to vandalism, etc.)
2. If so, maybe they aren't very helpful after all, and don't improve the article in any way even if they were meant well, but…
3. …if these are good edits that actually improve the article, and were reverted nonetheless, maybe there was something wrong in there. Please feel free to discuss any controversial edits on the article's talk page (but keep in mind the point rule)
4. Also, consider creating an account: this will hide your IP adress and make it much easier for collaboration on editing.

I hope this helped. Please also consider talking this over with DocKino on his talkpage. Thanks! benzband (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

On Bernard Brook-Partridge

I see there is some dispute about my putting in a brief description of who Bernard Brook-Partridge was. I do think it is important to explain more than that he was a "London councillor". There were at the time 2,100 people who could be described as a 'London councillor', plus 366 Aldermen who would on occasion be referred to as councillors. There was only one chairman of the Greater London Council Arts committee, and after May 1977 that was Bernard Brook-Partridge. As such he was the main spokesman in London on anything artistic, which certainly included music.

Can we track down the date he made his well-known comments quoted in the article? I think it was after the GLC election in early May 1977, but the article refers to it before that point. Incidentally, Bernard Brook-Partridge (who gives his recreations as "conversation, opera, classical music, being difficult") is alive and well at the age of 84 and living in Henley. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sam (and finding the date would be nice too :-) benzband (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

God Save the Queen

. Their 1977 single "God Save the Queen", attacking Britons' social conformity and deference to the Crown, precipitated the "last and greatest outbreak of pop-based moral pandemonium".

I'm not sure who writes these things, but it would help if they actually listened to the lyrics first. "God Save the Queen" does not contain any sort of attack on Britons, nor does it mention their social confirmity or deference to the Crown. Google the lyrics and find any part of them that mentions these aspects! The lyrics actually refer to the lack of any future for Britain and the fact that the Queen has (in the song writers' view) been made to look like a moron by her various governments. If it is attacking anything it is the system of government in Britain, not Britons. 12:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanPomeray (talk • contribs)

Intro summary

The Sex Pistols were a British (not English) band. London is the capital of the British Isles. They toured throughout Britain during their significant first incarnation. Their (band-approved)boxset was entitled The Best Of British. The members of the band originated from all over Great Britain.Charles G. Hart (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph says "[...] their initial career lasted just two-and-a-half years and produced only four singles and one studio album". Isn't the concept of initial career used here a bit suspect though? If only one member thinks the band is over and the rest keep working, he's wrong, right? 92.30.17.80 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

God Save The Queen chart position

Great article thank you but I think there is a tiny inconsistency as follows...

Under the "God Save The Queen" Section there seems to be some doubt about whether the single was in fact the Number 1 and there is reference to evidence that it actually was:

"With the official UK record chart for Jubilee week about to be released, the Daily Mirror predicted that "God Save the Queen" would be number one. As it turned out, the record placed second, behind a Rod Stewart single in its fourth week at the top. Many believed that the record had actually qualified for the top spot, but that the chart had been rigged to prevent a spectacle. McLaren later claimed that CBS Records, which was distributing both singles, told him that the Sex Pistols were actually outselling Stewart two to one. There is evidence that an exceptional directive was issued by the British Phonographic Institute, which oversaw the chart-compiling bureau, to exclude sales from record-company operated shops such as Virgin's for that week only."

However ... under the Singles Section, 'God Save The Queen' is listed as Number 1 with a subnote which seems to have no doubt that the single was Number 1:

" Often quoted as reaching number two; but it sold the most copies that week so is the actual number one single, even if it is not an official number one by the OCC (the OCC decided to exclude the single with a one-week rule change)."

In other words, in one part of the article there is evidence and doubt, whilst in another part of the article the evidence is now fact and there is no doubt. That is inconsistent and one of the two entries needs to be changed accordingly I think? Either it was Number 1 or it wasn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FillsHerTease (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the charts were compiled by the British Market Research Bureau who compiled the charts 1969-82, Gallup compiled them 1983-94 and the Official Charts Company since February 1994. The OCC had nothing to do with the charts then as it didn't exist! (Coachtripfan (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC))

Wording is hard to follow

On 10 March 1977, at a press ceremony held outside Buckingham Palace, the Sex Pistols publicly signed to A&M Records (the real signing had taken place the day before). Afterwards, intoxicated, they made their way to the A&M offices. Vicious smashed in a toilet bowl and cut his foot (there is some disagreement about which happened first). As Vicious trailed blood around the offices, Rotten verbally abused the staff and Jones got frisky in the ladies' room. A couple of days later, the Pistols got into a rumble with another band at a club; one of Rotten's pals threatened the life of a good friend of A&M's English director. On 16 March, A&M broke contract with the Pistols. Twenty-five thousand copies of the planned "God Save the Queen" single, produced by Chris Thomas, had already been pressed; virtually all were destroyed. This whole paragraph is extraordinarily difficult to follow. Are we doing a weird kind of WP:ENGVAR compliance, deciding that since we write about Tolkien's works in British English with Oxford spelling, we should likewise write about a rock band in the style that rock musicians write and speak? I can't suggest specific improvements because I can't even understand a bunch of what's happening here. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this entire article written from a USA point of view?

The Sex Pistols were a British phenomenon. This entire article is written from a USA point of view and in a USA idiom. Punk rock was started in Britain with inspiration from USA influences (just as USA bands were inspired by British bands in the '60s), and achieved significance (~in socio-economic/ political and commercial terms) in Britain long before it became any kind of significant influence in USA popular culture. I resent the USA flavour of this article and will devote time and energy to restoring the Sex Pistols' vital legacy to a more truthful British account.Charles G. Hart (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Brit punk-rock was started in England ... The Stooges, for example, preceded the Pistols by a decade and were an American band.104.169.26.177 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

British/English

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems like there needs to be a discussion on whether the band should be described as British or English in the lede. Well, the members were all born and raised in England. That makes them English by default, nationality, not ethnicity. Most bands from England are described as English rather than British on Wikipedia. WP:MOSBIO says "Ethnicity should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Being called English by nationality and not of ethnicity is valid. Does this need to be so controversial? TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI - "English" is not a nationality in any sense except "a person's subjective sense of belonging to something", whereas "British" is a nationality. For which reason, I personally think "British" covers things uncontroversially, whereas "English" probably doesn't. --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "English" is a nationality and yes, British is a nationality as well. However, British people who are born and raised in England are English. This is a fact. All the members of the Sex Pistols were born in England. The term, "British" is not really specific enough. It's like calling a Scottish or Welsh person British. Also, it seems Charles G. Hart, the user who keeps my reverting my edits without any real explanation is not interested in participating in the discussion or explaining why he/she thinks the Pistols should be called British other than the band toured throughout "Britain". TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TheOnlyOne12's logic; to call them English is not only accurate, it's also more specific. While it's not inaccurate to call them British, they were born and raised in the United Kingdom, specifically in England, which is a nation within a group of nations that form the ethnic identity. If all the members were born and raised in England then they are by definition an English band. If one member each had been Irish, Welch, Scottish and English we would call them British. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

TheOnlyOne12's attitude in reverting my previous contribution to this discussion demonstrates to me very clearly how much they desire an actual discussion. I won't be lectured by anybody about "facts" about "English nationality" if the lecturer is unable to produce any evidence for those "facts", and can only respond by deleting all disagreement. --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not a right or wrong question, it's a question of right or more right. It's not wrong to call them British, but why would you not be more specific? It's like calling Rush a North American band. Why not call them Canadian? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

But you see, that's exactly what it is not like. Not in any way whatsoever. --DaveG12345 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs here, but okay. Maybe it's more like calling Sublime an American band when they are more specifically a California band. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And the more you say "maybe it's more like" and suggest a totally irrelevant American-centric suggestion, the more you demonstrate you haven't a clue about the subject. --DaveG12345 (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And when edits like this are made, it doesn't help your cause either - it again makes it look like things are being pushed through regardless of discussion. [3]. --DaveG12345 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My cause? I think you should re-read WP:CIVIL, as several of your comments are directed at editors, not content. To clarify, no. Per WP:BRD, it's 1) bold, 2) revert, 3) discuss. It's not 1) discuss, 2) bold, 3) revert. Also, to say that current consensus is for British is to say that one voice in this discussion declares consensus. Well, let's let the 30-day RfC indicate where current consensus lies, shall we? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to come up with any "evidence" to support my claims because what I said are facts. Just look it up on the Internet. I just think it's more appropriate to call the band English because all of the members are English-born. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

DaveG12345, if you want some further proof about British/English nationality, please see WP:UKNATIONALS. This might help clear things up a little bit. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Some WP essay is no "proof" of anything. I have already noted what I think of your opinion on the subject. --DaveG12345 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

The purpose of this poll is to gauge the current consensus regarding referring to the Sex Pistols as a) British, or b) English. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Support calling them British

1. Flip a coin. This isn't worth arguing about, either is fine. I lean a bit towards British because it's a bit more common in US English and "English" could be taken as describing their language rather than the country. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Contra GabeMc, "English" being more specific does not automatically make it better. Why not call them a London band? Rather, I think "British" should be the default and we should go for "English" if there is a particular reason to. Lydon has Irish parents. They didn't call their debut single "Anarchy in England". Their immediate sphere of influence was obviously UK-wide. AFAIK, there's nothing specifically English, rather than British, about them. But I also agree that it's not an enormous deal. Formerip (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - The BBC does here, as does Britannica, and it's often known as the British punk rock movement that they ignited. That's what I see when doing Google searches for "sex pistols british" and "sex pistols english". GRUcrule (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Per GRUcrule and what I already said some weeks ago. --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - In the US, "British" denotes a location whereas "English" is usually meant to talk about language. Something like "London-based" would work too. (Later edit: my thinking was that the wording should be geared towards the greatest number of readers of the English Wiki, British readers would be a relatively small percentage.) petrarchan47tc 04:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - in the context of music, the term "British Invasion" is part of the lexicon. While the Sex Pistols are punk, they are also "British".Mattnad (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Support calling them English

1. Support. - They are both British and English, but since English is more specific, that's what we should go with. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. I don't have strong opinions on this matter. I was originally going to support "British", as it was the first choice offered and it seemed perfectly acceptable. However, out of curiosity, I checked Iron Maiden, The Cure, Pink Floyd, Blur (band), etc, and they all were labeled as English. Then I thought about it a bit more, and I figured English was perfectly fine, too. English, British, London-based, UK-based – who really cares? However, English seems to be the consensus for describing unambiguously English bands, and that's fine with me. Or just call them Earthlings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - per Gabe. Jusdafax 08:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- Yes, I shan't lose too much sleep whichever way this goes, but I think NinjaRobotPirate has got it right. I'd say "British" works best if different members come from England, Scotland, etc. Using a city seems too granular. Out of all the possibilities, "English" makes the most sense to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support, also per Gabe. Neither is inaccurate, but English is more precise. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• User:North8000. 1) Can we really flip a coin or is that some kind of lame joke? Because I'm not opposed to getting it over quick like that, but I also am not aware of any precedent for that in practice. 2) Per WP:ENGVAR, why would we use the most common term in the US, this is a British subject, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I think that both terms are fine and so for me it's a near-tossup. I don't think that WP:ENGVAR weighs in on this. I meant "flip a coin" whimsically but if the parties involved wish to, it can be done. I've seen it done using the odd/even attribute of an edit number. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cited ENGVAR because you said we should use "British" because it's the more common term in the US, but per ENGVAR, we should use the most common term in the UK for a British subject. I'm not at all opposed to flipping a coin, but I've never seen it done. FWIW, I tend to agree with User:SilkTork's comments below, but my experience has been that reviewers at FAC assert that English is more specific and accurate than British; indeed every article I have ever gotten through FAC used English, and that wasn't my personal choice, but rather I was corrected in that regard during an FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, from Jon Savage, England's Dreaming: British= 43 hits; English= 79 hits. From John Lydon, Rotten: British= 18 hits; English= 39 hits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• From John Lydon's book, page 184: "In our own way, we English people view music as our own personal, closely guarded secret." From the back cover: "Punk has been romanticized and embalmed in various media. It has been portrayed as an English class revolt and a reckless diversion that became a marketing dream." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on why bands are given a nationality. I know it's common, but I'm unclear on it. I tend to think it more helpful to state where a band was founded and/or emerged/developed, and where they achieved their greatest notability. The Sex Pistols were formed in London and initially achieved success/notoriety in the UK (not just England) before touring America and gaining international attention. Statements in articles assigning nationality to bands are unhelpful, uninformative, and - as here - problematic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork, I hear you on the diminishing returns of these types of disputes, however: the question here is not "should we identify their nationality", it's how should we describe their nationality. Every FAC that I have ever been to agreed with English when dealing with a British subject. To your point, are you suggesting that we should omit their nationality altogether? I.e., "The Beatles were a an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960."? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• To re-state my point; someone who is English is by definition also British, but someone who is British is not necessarily English. Therefore, English is most precise and it also conveys all the needed information, whereas to call them British does not answer a question about their country of origin. In other words, English conveys more information then does British. Also, when we write-out a location in the UK, we do not include the UK. E.g., the Beatles' place of origin is Liverpool, England. We do not include UK at the end, we write Liverpool, England only. This point has been made to me by numerous editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gabe. I prefer to be called English, it's more precise. Other Europeans rarely call us British. I feel indignant for Scots &c when they get called English, but that's for them to sort out if they want. Rothorpe (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sympathize with Silk Tork as to the difficulty in assigning a quality to a group of people. However in this case the issue is not whether it should be mentioned but rather which one it should be. Since all of the members were born in England, and the group was formed there, it makes sense to call them an English band.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• It gets extremely tiresome - not to mention rather offensive - to repeatedly read people on a website explaining to me what nationality I am "by definition". But anyway - never mind the idiots - the fact is, British is the nationality of the collective members of this particular band, and any further granularity is WP:OR. --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you might be most correct, but would you apply this to all UK bands? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we discussing all bands, or this one? --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a trap; I'm just curious if you feel it's especially apt for the Sex Pistols, but not necessarily all UK acts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We can probably discuss your curiosities elsewhere, but here we are discussing Sex Pistols. Presumably, you agree with me about this particular group? --DaveG12345 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we would treat this band any differently than the rest of the UK acts, which usually use English, especially when they are formed in London, IME. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sex Pistols Vs. THE Beatles

Not being funny, right, but this Wikipedia article is feeble. It's written in a glossy, journalistic fashion - "They were responsible for initiating...", "London's Chelsea neighbourhood", "the only talented guitarist who tried out". It's also riddled with factual inaccuracies and has a clear bias towards the idea that USA influences were predominant ("With the search going nowhere, McLaren made several calls to Richard Hell, who turned down the invitation"). I think the whole thing should be re-written from a British pov, preferably by people who know what they're talking about, not merely what Rolling Stone magazine has told them to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles G. Hart (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "The band rejected the honour in coarse language on their website" hahaha! Coarse language? That's British English!

I agree with some of this, but saying that the article has improved dramatiaclly since I was involved. I'm certainly for a re-wright RSP to a Brit & post-punk POV. Welcome on bord Charles. Ceoil (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised at just how toned-down the article was towards the Beatles. Here are some examples that counter the narrative: Irene Morra's Britishness, Popular Music, and National Identity: The Making of Modern Britain (2014) describes how guitarist Marco Pirroni witnessed the Sex Pistols kicking Beatles records around Vivienne Westwood's store proclaiming: "We hate the fucking Beatles". The second issue of Skum fanzine states how Sid Vicious defecated on the cover of the Beatles first album, when he first joined the Pistols. The current Wikipedia article is almost an apologetic, placing Beatles-lover Matlock on a pedestal, above the other band members. It's in a definite need of a re-write and I concur with Charles G. Hart's assertions of bias. PunksRocks (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a very accurate assessment - after all, this is a desperately minor band, despite the press hoo-ha over them. Trying to make a silk purse of a sow's ear is hardly encyclopedic, now-blocked sock puppet.104.169.26.177 (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

sex pistols Anarcho punk

Are sex pistols part of the story of Anarcho punk maybe even proto Anarcho punk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.21.58 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Very editoralised

This article doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; it reads like a mediocre music critic's editorializing. Can't believe this is a featured article. AHauntedMind (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"Got frisky with"?

The "God Save the Queen" subsection says, "and Jones got frisky with a woman in the ladies' room". The wording isn't exactly encyclopedic - is the event meant to be an "Oh God, but that was OK in the '70s" euphemism or something consensual? I've absolutely no idea from the current phrasing. JezGrove (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)