Talk:Anti-Flag

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. --Hojimachong^talk 20:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Delete?

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? --Hojimachong^talk 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. --Hojimachong^talk 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)