From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't like the merge idea; there are plenty of bands with articles, and Anti-Flag is much more notable than many of them. --Hojimachongtalk 20:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)


The subject matter is hardly encyclopedic, and the use of the term "pro-choice" is highly suspect. This article seems to be counter-productive to the purposes of a conservative encyclopedia. HeartOfGold 00:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

They're one of the most prolific (if not the most prolific) punk-rock bands ever. If any band is notable, it's them. I'm somewhat curious, HeartOfGold, what is your experience with listening to their music/researching their endeavors? --Hojimachongtalk 00:15, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I do not doubt that they are prolific or notable. But why do they need to be on conservapedia? The article on wikipedia looks fine.
I will answer your question. I listened to one song, tonight, via youtube, after I learned the pro-abortion correction was reverted. I am not a punk rock fan, but I do listen to a wide variety of music. The article in question seems to be more of a fan entry that is counter productive to what I thought was the purpose of this site. HeartOfGold 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

They are active in political activism. If we're going to delete liberal subjects, then why don't we delete Al Gore, John Kerry, or Democratic Party? DanH 00:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

That is a good point. But this article is rather soft on what seems to be a liberal political activists group. E.g., adopting the liberial preferred "pro-choice." HeartOfGold 00:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
That minor issue is being discussed on Aschlafly's talk page. --Hojimachongtalk 00:30, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
My last thought is that a) we should use the term Anti-Flag uses in describing itself, and b) I wasn't able to find a good self-description on their site... at least, not one that talks about abortion politics. I don't think it's an important part of their political identity. So, c) someone should just snip that part, and if someone else wants to put it back a good out would be to be specific, and say something like "the band performed at a rally for NARAL" or whatever. Dpbsmith 09:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

The site appears to be written by a fan, and has a POV in that manner. I agree, Heartofgold, that it does need a rewrite. This reminds me of when a Yankees fan wrote New York Yankees in a tone with such excessive praise that we ended up removing most of what he wrote. DanH 00:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Some other points. With regard to Al Gore, and other political organizations or persons. Those examples are either politicians or political institutions. A punk rock band is political entertainment. A better example would be an obscure spoken word poet (who may be notable in the world of the "spoken word"). Even so, I did try to find some other sources for this article, but all I found (after a brief search) were fans, except for criticisms by ultra-liberials that the band "sold out" by signing with a big record company. I don't think this group shows up on most conservative's radar (I had not heard of them until today, when I somehow came accross it, probably on the recently edited list). Consequently, while it could use a rewrite, I am not sure it will be able to achieve the balance you would expect on a conservative encyclopedia, short of conservative contributors listening to the music and writing an original critique (not something I advocate here). HeartOfGold 00:43, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

It certainly needs a rewrite. It's wildly opinionated, and mostly unsourced. Dpbsmith 09:19, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

The song "Right to Choose" is about Homosexuality and has nothing to do with Abortion. Look it up on their CD Mobilize. It is the 6th track and addresses homophobia. Freeman56 11:06, 15 November 2007 (EDT)