Talk:The Vandals

Song meaning

In one of the Vandals' DVD's commentary, Joe Escalante and Warren Fitzgerald discussed the meaning of "Ape Shall Never Kill Ape" (among other songs) and Joe said it was an anti-abortion song. Joe elaborated by saying something along the lines of "I'm only against the abortions that kill babies". I am not sure which DVD as they were all stolen. Here are the ones I owned: Oi To The World, Sweatin to the Oldies, and the Show Must Go Off. I would guess it was the last one. Ryratt 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was Live at the House of Blues, and the topic is addressed in that article. IllaZilla 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "Ape Shall Never Kill Ape" in that article. Ryratt 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article. They didn't perform "Ape" on the live album. Go to Live Fast, Diarrhea. Under "Song information" it mentions that in the Live at the House of Blues commentary Escalante mentioned that the song had something to do with abortion. IllaZilla 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves?

Is this a joke? If not is there any more info?

Quick Google search reveals "Did Keanu Reeves really play with The Vandals? "He played bass for us one time when I was at a wedding. It was just for a party." [1] Epitaf 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He filled in at the one show you mention and therefore falls under the "notable fill-ins" section. IllaZilla2 08:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

They appearantly consider him a former member of the band. http://www.vandals.com/html/faq.htm re: "What ever happened to all the old guys in your band?" Ryratt 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, he filled in at 1 show. The statement in the FAQ you mention is clearly sarcastic and meant as a joke. Therefore he falls under "notable fill-ins" and is listed as such. IllaZilla 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of plagiarism

Someone keeps editing/reverting parts of this article to versions which favor the original early 1980s lineup of the band, marginalize their post-1980s work, and make allegations of plagiarism against band member Joe Escalante (the entry for Escalante experiences similar issues). This should stop for several reasons:

1. The edits you make provide a less complete, less accurate description and biography of the band than the current version.
2. Your references to allegations of plagiarism do not cite or link to any reliable sources. They link to a personal website with no citations, and to a barely-legible newspaper article with no publication title or date, so it cannot be verified (and believe me, I've tried searching for it using an LA Times article search engine).
3. The edits you make pose some rather serious allegations and could be interpreted as libel.

If you are going to add this kind of information you need to provide a verifiable citation. Personal websites and scans of articles do not qualify. You should find citations for your article and/or court documents, or at least a link to a reliable news source with further information. You should also add the information in a manner that maintains the article's neutrality, rather than marginalizing the rest of the band's history to focus on your "controversial" information. IllaZilla2 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (whoops, thanx)

The edits are more accurate, not less. The version IllaZilla2 favors is essentially a whitewash that covers up all negative press and/or controversy surrounding the band.

There are no allegations of plagiarism in the article, there are simply references to the established fact that allegations of plagiarism have been made by former members of the band against Joe Escalante. Those references are cited, and if the newspaper article is "barely legible" then you should adjust your browser and/or your screen resolution, as it is perfectly readable in a browser that is not set to resize images.

I was able to read the scanned article, but again it is missing the date and name of the publication so it becomes impossible to verify. I'm not trying to whitewash anything or or ignore any facts, and I'm certainly not trying to "cover up" anything. It's just that, other than the personal website that this version links to, I can't find any evidence of the allegations referenced. All I'm suggesting is that you cite and/or link it to a reliable news source or, in the case of the court documents, a public record (a link to an image is not a citation, see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Obviously there's not much available documentation of early '80s punk stuff (interviews, credits, etc.) that hasn't been subjected to 25+ years of revisions, but the newspaper article and the court documents linked on the vandascandal site are from 2002 so they should be easy to reference. If you have access to the original article or some court documents then they can be cited and a "References" section added. I am completely willing to include information about the plagiarism allegations in the Band History, but it should be properly cited & referenced as it is somewhat controversial subject matter.

I feel that my introduction to the article is more complete, and that most of what is in this version's "biography" section is covered more thoroughly in my "band history" section. This version states that "[t]heir more recent works...did not have nearly the same impact as did the work of the original band" and that "[t]he band is not entirely well-respected in the punk scene." These are opinions that are impossible to verify. What constitues "impact" of the albums? To my recollection they didn't tour as much behind them as some of their '90s albums, but if you're talking just in terms of sales figures or chart positions then we should include some numbers. Your opening paragraphs set a negative tone, suggesting that the post-1989 version of the band "replaced" the original lineup (the lineup actually fluctuated as members came & went over a number of years), and that the current incarnation is "not well-respected" & is inferior to the original lineup. This sets a biased tone that goes against NPOV. My version looks at the band's entire history, including both the original lineup and the one that has been in place for the last 17 years, while your preferred version focuses only on the first 4 or 5 years of the band and marginalizes the rest of their history. --IllaZilla2 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, some of what this version says about Ackermann is incorrect, or at least confusing. He didn't leave the band around the same time Stevo did (~1984), he remained for several more years. He was still in the band for the recording of Slippery When Ill in 1989 (I have the album, he's credited & appears in photos), and continued playing shows with them. This is obviously confusing, as 1989 is also supposed to have been when the "reunion" show took place. Did this happen before or after Ackermann left the version of the band with Escalante in it? Is there a date for this show? IllaZilla2 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No time to answer all of your questions at the moment, but the article appeared in the L.A. Times on April 6, 2003. It isn't appropriate to link directly to the L.A. Times archive of the story, because access to articles in their entirety is not free. You can verify the existence of the article here: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/321738681.html?dids=321738681:321738681&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+6%2C+2003&author=Steve+Hochman&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=E.43&desc=POP+EYE

OK that works fine, exactly what I was looking for. I made some revisions and added sections to the band history: "Conflict over ownership" and "Legal and political controversy." The latter section references the LA Times article following Wikipedia's guidelines and the Chicago Manual of Style (see the footnote). I feel that the current version addresses the fact that legal allegations were filed and what the results were, while maintaining a neutral point of view. Thanks for providing the link to the article details. IllaZilla2 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)

Thank you IllaZilla2, it isn't the article I'd have written, but I do think it's pretty fair and much more accurate now. 72.93.221.185 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input too. I wouldn't have known about the controversy in the first place otherwise, and certainly wouldn't have been able to cite it. I agree it's a decent compromise and seeks to be as accurate as possible without taking sides. IllaZilla2 04:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is only one point that really bothers me now, and that is that the settlement made in the cross-complaint between Joe Escalante and his ex-bandmates was something that was forced on the ex-Vandals due to lack of funds. I would like that to be made clear, because glossing it over makes it look as though they lost on the merits of their case... there was no judgment, there was an out-of-court settlement, and that settlement was made ONLY because the attorneys demanded somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 up front to continue the case, and the ex-Vandals didn't have the money... because Joe Escalante had their money! 72.93.221.185 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. I'm happy with the current version now. 72.93.221.185 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Founding members

A small change made in the second paragraph, which referred to Joe Escalante as a "founding member" of the band. Escalante was not a founding member; he was the band's second drummer (this is made note of in a subsequent section of the entry). No founding member remains in the current lineup of the band. Sisu 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I went back to the previous version, then went at it again with a few wording changes. The sentence clearly says that Jensen and Ackermann were the "founding members" while Escalante was the "first consistent drummer." I changed the mention of Escalante from an "original member" to "early member" and clarified that he has remained through "all subsequent incarnations of the band." I think that's sufficient to clear it up.

Minor P.S.: any new discussions on talk pages should go at the bottom. See WP:TALK. --IllaZilla 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Why are they under both early and later punk groups?

Because the band has been around since the early 1980s. The original lineup was important to the early '80s southern California punk rock movement and released a significant record as part of that movement (Peace Thru Vandalism). However by 1990 the lineup had changed pretty much completely except for 1 member. The new lineup rose to popularity during the 1990s punk rock revival (the era of "later" punk groups), releasing several albums which were important to that era of punk rock (Live Fast, Diarrhea, Hitler Bad, Vandals Good, etc.). It's all in the band history section if you care to read it. Since the band essentially had 2 eras of significance, they fall into both categories. In the same way that they belong in several decade categories because they've been active for almost 30 years. --IllaZilla 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Steven Ronald Jensen merge

The article Steven Ronald Jensen contains no information that cannot be easily incorporated into this article. There is no sourced information that shows that Steven Ronald Jensen meets our notability requirements for stand alone articles as having any notability outside of his participation in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I will merge the articles due to no objections. Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. Good call. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweating to the Oldies was not released in 1991

I don't know where that unsourced information came from, but there are a number of reasons why this would be impossible:

• During the TSOL cover, they change the lyric "President Reagan can shove it" to "President Clinton can suck my dick". In 1991 Bill Clinton was a mostly unknown Governor of Arkansas, not President or even Presidential front-runner.

• They mention the Billy Ray Cyrus song Achy Breaky Heart, which was released in 1992.

• At some point in the album Joe says he has been in The Vandals for 13 years. Since he joined in 1980, this would place the recording of the album as 1992 or 1993.

• There are also numerous references to it being the holiday season and sometime around new years, which would mean the show took place in late December 1992 or early January 1993. This means the manufactured album could not have been released any earlier than 1993.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I just checked allmusic, and it says it was released in 1994.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Fear Of A Punk Planet released in 1990 or 1991?

Which year was this album really released in? I see an almost equal amount of resources stating each year. Google, Discogs, and the original Triple X release show 1991. Wiki, allmusic, and the band's bandcamp(says recorded in 90, not released) all show 1990. There's nearly an equal amount of press articles that state either year. I have checked the band's official site, Kung Fu's site, Wayback machine for both, and even messaged them via Facebook(which I am still awaiting a response) and I could not find any officially stated date except for the "reissued in 2000" tidbit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.91.72.130 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Vandals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130143335/http://warpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp to http://www.warpedtour.com/warpedtour/bands.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)