Talk:Mission of Burma

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative music C‑class Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view other past collaborations in the archive.

Mission of Burma in 1979

Raw...exciting...totally different....see video clip at

www.kinodv.net

Please sign your posts, and that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia... even on a talk page. Folkor 06:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the contribution to the page itself at first. Sorry. Still, the link didn't seem to actually contain any footage of Mission of Burma, and thus I removed it. Folkor 06:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

While this article provides a nice "music review" insight into Burma, it's confusing when looking for history of the band.

This article is atrociously AMATEUR. Do a little homework before you start name-dropping, kiddo -- ya come off even more clueless than the reviewers at Pitchfork... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishanthrope (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts, and if you feel so strongly about the weakness of the article, please fix it up for us. I don't know enough about the band to be able to, but it sure sounds like you do. Folkor 06:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by this article hoping for some account of what happened at their last show with Negative Fx in 1983. Apparently Negative Fx had their sound pulled and there was a riot. It seems to be indicitive of the hardcore scene's hostility to Mission of Burma, but I am not sure what role Mission played in this fiasco. The incident was mentioned brefily in the documentary American Hardcore (at roughly 53:40). I would love for this to be included, as it seems to be a big thing in the band's career, but I don't have the knowledge to do it myself. Mcor (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swope onstage

The fact that "Wikipedia is not paper" is not enough to justify this meaningless bit of trivia. Is it an essential introductory fact to Mission of Burma that Swope played guitar on Kinks covers 2-3 times? No. At best it's trivia, at worst it's blather. Either way, it's not needed. Bcarlson33 19:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blather, it's fact. Swope was meaningful enough to the band to merit quite a bit of mention in Our Band Could Be Your Life, a major source for this article, and yet he almost never appeared on stage. It's not so trivial, then, to explain what he actually did when he was on stage, is it? The fact that Wikipedia is not paper is a counter to the ridiculous claim that this fact "It belongs in the MoB book, not an introductory article." This article is not an introductory article, or if it currently is, there is absolutely no reason why it be seen or treated as such. siafu 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically in agreement that there's little reason to cut that sentence out. There is a lot of cleanup that could be done on this article but I think there are lots of other less meaningful things that should be cut first. Clarifying Swope's role in the band is somewhat important, although the Kinks thing is a bit silly. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any part of the line in question is silly; it's a perfectly good line that delineates the role of an oft-overlooked member of the band. Folkor 06:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folkor's argument is "the line is good because it's a good line," though. That's not a justification. The line does not clarify what Swope did in the band- it very clearly states he only did this a few times. Should the article also contain anything that any member of the band did onstage 2-3 times? Breaking a string? Taking a sip of water? Spitting, perhaps? Also, to siafu's comment: the fact that something appeared in Azerrad's book doesn't mean it belongs here. This is not Azerrad's book, and all facts are not created equal. Bk0 is right- this is silly and doesn't belong here. Bcarlson33 11:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not about spitting or breaking a string. The sentence says that when he appeared onstage it was usually to play guitar on covers. Why that's being considered silly, I'm not sure. Still, no justification has been presented for removing it other than Bcarlson's personal opinion, it happens to be true, and it happens to be relevant as Swope almost never appeared onstage and explaining what happened on the rare occasions when he did seems important to me. Folkor's argument actually contains some words, which if you read them, you would find that instead of a tautology it amounts to saying that it's a good line because it explains an "oft-overlooked" piece of information. siafu 14:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point here. The point I was making was that Swope appeared, like, three times onstage. Each time it was for some jokey encore cover song at the end of a show. It was not part of his regular duties within the band and not representative of some important facet of the band. If the standard you're using for whether facts should be included are that a) they're true and b) they're "oft-overlooked," then why not include how many times Miller broke a string onstage? I'm sure he did that more than two or three times, and it would qualify as an "oft-overlooked fact." The sense I'm getting here is that a handful of MoB fans find this fact interesting and therefore it is important information. That's not the point of a Wikipedia article. If this must be put somewhere, put it in an article about Swope; it's a level of meaningless detail that is simply not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Bcarlson33 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I got your point the first time, and since then you've just repeated it with different false analogies. The standard I'm using is not that it is simply true and oft-overlooked. Every band breaks a string, but not every band has a phantom member who only appears on stage a handful of times, and only to perform for a "jokey encore cover song". The fact that Swope appeared onstage only a handful of times and only for this specific reason is what makes this a notable piece of information. He was in the band, and listed as being in the band, and yet never showed his face, making the few times that he did and what he was doing those times important. The fact that it was "jokey" is something to smile or laugh at, but not relevant. siafu 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"He was in the band and did something a couple times" still doesn't disprove my example. Roger Miller was also in the band, and he did not usually break strings, but sometimes he did. By your own criteria, Miller breaking strings is just as important as Swope playing covers a couple times onstage. I reiterate: this is a factoid that is only here because a handful of MoB fans find it interesting.

Moreover, the argument you're making regards a part of the text I'm not disputing- I agree that it's a unique characteristic that a band member performed offstage. My point is that the phrase "rarely appeared onstage" more than fulfills the article's needs in this regard. "Rarely" implies "not often," so the reader understands that he was usually not onstage and only appeared a few times. Bcarlson33 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody who plays guitar onstage will eventually break a string onstage; every band with guitar players will experience a broken string. This is not notable. Not every band has a member who never appears onstage, and it's notable to point out that he did on occasion. Because he only appeared onstage to play guitar for a couple of silly covers, it's not trivial to state what he was doing on the rare occasions when he did. Your argument about breaking a string is notable by your criteria alone, and not mine. Moreover, the reason that the "factoid" is in the article is not established and an argument ad hominem does not strengthen your position, none of your arguments for removing this piece of information have extended beyond your personal opinion that this is "trivial" (since a false analogy is no analogy), and consensus is so far in favor of retention (3 to 1). siafu 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument stands up, you don't need to rely on telling me how many numbers you've got.

My argument about breaking strings being as notable as Swope's onstage appearances comes from the criteria I've read here. It meets the criteria people have set just as well as Swope being onstage.

But onto your criteria. First, I'm not arguing that the article shouldn't include mention of Swope not appearing onstage and never have; I don't know where this perception comes from. Second, lots of bands play silly covers; that in itself is hardly notable, and especially so when it happened three times at most. Third, a criteria of "details of unusual MoB moments" - that opens up the article to essentially anything that ever happened to the band. Usually they started their shows at 8 pm, but a couple times they started at 8:30. That would fit under your criteria. I would imagine doing about an hour of research would be enough to find a whole bunch of these, and they'd all fit.

My argument have remained the same throughout this discussion- that this is meaningless detail that fails to meet any standard of notability for this type of article. You say yourself, siafu, that the reason the bit is in there "is not established"; well, then, it has to be justified. No one has done that yet. Bcarlson33 13:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would not fit my criteria. You've repeatedly stated "by your own criteria..." and then proceeded to use nothing of the sort. I said that the reason it had been inserted is not established, and it shouldn't be as it's not relevant to anything-- it could have been inserted for any reason. What's being debated here are the reasons for retaining or deleting the comment, and those have now been clearly established.

Equating this to other trivial events is still a false analogy, and it's not going to sway me any more than it did last time. We're not talking about when the band started their shows, or if they ever broke a string, we are talking about what one of the band members did on the very few times he actually appeared onstage. We do say, btw, that Miller played the guitar and Conley played the bass. Simply saying that Swope rarely appeared begs the question: "Why rarely?" This sentence goes to answering that question by pointing out that when he appeared it was, in particular, to play guitar on a silly cover. Apparently you would prefer to be vague, and juding by the sheer amount of time you've spent arguing the case, think elaboration is downright dangerous-- this is a good reason to present a "what's it going to hurt?" argument, though it's hardly enough to stand on its own.

As for the following: "If your argument stands up, you don't need to rely on telling me how many numbers you've got." The point is that after posting no fewer than five comments you have not managed to change anyone's position. Unless you come up with something more convincing than the analogies, this is unlikely to change. Are you sure you want to continue? siafu 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous - it's a mere 20 words or so that explain the rare case that Swope would show himself; who exactly is hurt by retaining the line? It's true that breaking guitar strings is not notable. But a fourth member of the band making himself known at a show is a bit more important than that. Also, if the line was removed, it would seem vague that he rarely appeared on stage, as it would be unclear under what circumstances or for what reason he would appear on stage. Folkor 06:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the best argument to keep the line is "who's it gonna hurt?" then it definitely doesn't belong. Asking people to justify something in an article is hardly "ridiculous"; that's the process of writing and editing.

Now, to your points: the "fourth member of the band making himself known at a show"- by your own criteria, it's still no more notable in this article than breaking a string. As to the vagueness of the line being removed - people can go elsewhere to find the information if they want it. It's not a sin for someone reading an encyclopedia article to want more information about the topic - in fact, that's the sign of a good encyclopedia article. Let 'em find it in Azerrad's book, or even on the Swope page at Wikipedia. Bcarlson33 13:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case an unsolicited opinion from an uninvolved third party is of any use: I think it is worth mentioning (perhaps parenthetically) that Swope played guitar the few times he appeared onstage with the band. But mentioning that these were Kinks covers seems a little too specific in an encyclopedic overview. FWIW I might not have given it much thought had Bcarlson33 not pointed it out. As for the reader hypothetically asking "why rarely?" I thought the answer was established, i.e. that he was doing tape manipulations offstage. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the question was a bit misstated- better than "why rarely?" is "why at all?" siafu 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that grevious a crime to leave it, put it in the Swope page and leave the bit about the Kinks covers off. I would rather see it here, but I really don't have any reason for why except that I think it's notable. I disagree that my criteria also applies to guitar strings, as no one cares about guitar strings, but traditionally, people care about band members, but as I said, take it off if you're that convinced it doesn't belong. Folkor 06:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bcarlson33's comments of 8 March 2006 "people can go elsewhere to find the information if they want it" and "Let 'em find it in Azerrad's book": The problem is Aserrad's book is just plain wrong regarding Swope's onstage appearances, a fact that cannot be found anywhere online or in print, but one that most fans know to be true and to which the band would readily attest. I believe what is happening here is that this article is seen by some as an opportunity to set the record straight regarding the Azerrad book, which was not always accurate but is regarded by many as gospel. This rooting out of the truth should be recognised as A Good Thing, in that here is an example of the Wikipedia concept actually cleaning up misinformation disseminated by the regular press. That said, competent writing and composition are also Good Things. In view of that, it is probably sufficient to mention in the main article that Swope rarely appeared onstage, and move the nitty-gritty about how many times and on what songs he played when he did -- since it was a rare treat -- to an article about Swope himself. WildShovel 10:58, 22 March 2006 (EST)

This is acceptable to me, for whatever it's worth. Bcarlson33 04:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, me too. Folkor 01:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lineup

Is Clint Conley still with the band? When I saw them in July, there were three guys on stage and he wasn't one of them -- they even mentioned his absense right before "Academy Fight Song" --♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them a few weeks ago, and Conley is still with the band. Warnerj5000 20:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mission of Burma. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mission of Burma. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]