Talk:Anarchy in the U.K.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sex Pistols#EMI and the Bill Grundy incident|a live television broadcast]] The anchor (#EMI and the Bill Grundy incident) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The song was covered by Megadeth

The song was covered by Megadeth on their 1988 album So Far, So Good... So What!, with famously incorrect lyrics ("...and other council tendencies" was sung as "...and other cunt-like tendencies.")

Wasn't the line "another council tenancy"? "And other council tendencies" doesn't even make sense. See also this page. --Saforrest 20:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Where I come from, "another council tenancy" doesn't make sense, either. - Nat Kraus e 05:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this is sex pistols song why is dave mustaine listed as the guy that made this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.104.114 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council tenancy refers to living in council housing, or social housing as it's known in the USA. At the time, the only 'council tenancy' you were likely to get in London would have been a in a run-down 'hard-to-let' tower block, or something similiar. In reality, getting your hands on a council tenancy was a dream for any single young man at the time. The alternative was either paying a high rent for a tiny private flat (apartment), squatting or sleeping rough. Markb 16:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Havent you noticed that a lot of the Sex Pistols' live songs sound a lot different than the corresponding album versions? I mean when I listened to the live version, I thought it was a different song.Ollie the Magic Skater 18:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that people did not like Motley Crue's cover? Please cite your source. 70.226.141.231 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag added - I agree it should be cited (I'm not personally too keen on the cover either - but no excuse!)... This article is way too full of obscure cover version trivia anyway - I will hopefully fix it up given time. It deserves much better than the current shabby treatment. --DaveG12345 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title track?

Why does it say that "Anarchy in the U.K" was title track of the first single, and not the first single?Tommy Stardust 06:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article relates to a song, and the song was the title track of.... etc. --DaveG12345 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Jelly cover

For some reason (apparently having no refs), an unregistered user insists on removing my mention of the Green Jelly cover, despite the fact that several other covers are mentioned without references. I'm not sure whether they are concerned I've just made it up or not? I'm looking for a reliable source online, and to date I've found a youtube video [1] It's also listed in the EveryHit database of UK chart hits. Listed on IMDB as [2] Listed on Amazon as [3]

Furthermore, it's mentioned in the wikipedia articles on The Flintstones, and the Green Jelly album Cereal Killer Soundtrack.

I appreciate that not many of those are suitable as reliable sources but I'm not making it up!!! Paulbrock 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again my changes have been reverted, as 'no refs cited'. Only two other covers have references yet people seem happy to keep the other covers. Paulbrock 01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source for the Green Jelly version here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6970230.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.140.208 (talk) 14:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Guitar Hero III: Legends Of Rock

Rather than continue the potential "revert wars" of recent days, please can everyone discuss this excitingly corporate but arguably somewhat pre-emptive video-game relationship to one of the most important songs of the late 20th century here.... Thanks... --DaveG12345 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following article: http://videogames.yahoo.com/xbox360/guitar-hero-iii-legends-of-rock/preview-531459 . Yes, Sex Pistols reunited to re-record the song, just for Guitar Hero III, because the master couldn't be found. That in itself is enough to warrant mention of GHIII in this song's article. Enough said. Ultrabasurero 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough i added the important info and took out the fluff.... 63.84.73.99 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Um...why does the reason the reason they re-recorded the song (GH3), keep on being deleted? It looks really dumb when the article says they re-recorded the song, but doesn't give a reason. Ultrabasurero 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even the first source given for the info lists the recording as the Guitar Hero III version. Ultrabasurero 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look dumb. If the master to a song gets lost then it would make perfect sense for the band to re-record it and i add the original link that is from a major mag. (spin mag.) and has direct quotes from the band (no need for 2 sources). Like i said above i added the important info and took out the fluff (this isnt about a videogame its about the song and i added the info about the song but if someone wants to know about the game then they are free to go to the games listing on this site). 63.84.73.99 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, even the Spin source lists the reason for re-recording it was for GH3. Why are you constantly denying this by taking info about the game out? The only reason they re-recorded the game because Activision wanted it in the game. That is the sole reason why there is even mention of a re-recording. This is relevant info even if you do not think it is. By only saying, "The surviving members re-recorded "Anarchy in the U.K." in 2007 because the master could not be found," you do not give a reason why they were even looking for the master. The reason why they are looking for it is relevant info, and yes, that reason is Guitar Hero. By keeping the statement how it is, you do not give complete information. Ultrabasurero 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before i added the important info and took out the fluff (Anything else isn't relive to the main topic.). Where did i say i denied anything about g3? Read what i wrote above (,Because i don't want to just rewrite it here,) and it will make clear why i removed what you wrote. 63.84.73.99 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please answer this then: why isn't the reason why they re-recorded the song relevant to the article? That's as relevant as it gets. Ultrabasurero 01:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's well cited that the group was encouraged to re-record in order to have the song on GH3. The way it reads without the GH3 mention, it feels like they just "happened" to want to remake it, which rarely happened without some sort of benefit (even if just for charity). To not say that this reason was GH3 is missing a key documented fact. --MASEM 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear by now that its not relevant to the song. The fact that they re-recorded the song is the key fact that is relevant to the topic. And anyone will know that there is more to it then just them getting together for no reason when they see a ref beside of it and if they can check the ref and see the facts and it will be clear to them why they did it. I really don't see why we have to go through this unless you just want to promote the game on as many pages as you can and if thats the case then your not really doing this topic or the site as a whole a favor because this isn't an advertising site. 63.84.73.99 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is trying to push the mention of GH3 as advertising the game. It just seems very silly that if a motivation for doing something is well established through reliable sources and can be included, there's no reason not to. It's like saying factually that "Country X went to war against country Y." and not establishing reasons why that occurred. There is absolutely no harm to including it (as in, no policy or guideline violation) and not including it could be considered a disservice to the Sex Pistols.

I will also point out that most individual songs within WP that have been in the various GH games have included the fact they are in the game, since that's a referenced culture use of the song. All the statement about re-recording for GH3 does is killing two birds with one stone: the fact it was rerecordable, and that it appeared in the game. --MASEM 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, its more like saying (factually) that a king or prime minister died from chocking to death on his supper and not mentioning what food he ate...is what he ate really that important?, no of course not. The important thing is that he died from chocking to death (a war would need great detail while this would only need the essential details.). And its the same here, the important thing is that the sex pistols remastered the song and there is a ref for anyone who disputes it and needs to see a ref behind it. And it wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't pointed out on the gh3 page that the sex pistols re-master the song. Why? because that isn't relevant directly to the game because it doesn't have and any real impact on the game. And if i or any other person went there and put up a fight to have that fact put on that page i wouldn't blame someone there for acting the sameway. Because your suppose to write facts not only in way thats relevant to the topic at hand but must also write them in a concise (Free from all elaboration and superfluous detail- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise) manner that brings out those relevant facts and doesn't take the point out unnecessary fluff. This makes 7 or 8 times or more that ive had to prove this point and it shouldn't have to be pointed out anymore. 63.84.73.99 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather bad example in more ways than one. You're talking about something that happened accidentally, of course there's no need to go into the details of how that accident came about because likely it is impossible to determine reliably exactly what happened. However, when there is a motivation behind an action and it is well documented, it is important to note that. --MASEM 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say "And it wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't pointed out on the gh3 page that the sex pistols re-master the song. Why? because that isn't relevant directly to the game because it doesn't have and any real impact on the game" is completely false also. It has a very big impact on the game. The quality of the game is greaty increased when a master is used instead of a cover. The fact is that it is pointed out on the GH3 page that Sex Pistols re-recorded the song, because it was big news, and even garnered attention in the media. Ultrabasurero 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be relevant because what he ate at the time wouldn't have any true wight to the topic at hand. Lets say that it happen within modern times and they have videotape for ref. of what he was eating. It still wouldn't be necessary to point out what he was eating on the main page because the relevant fact is that he died from chocking and you could lead them to the videotape by a ref. . And just because something doesn't happen by accident means that every irrelevant detail should be included on the main page and just because something is documented doesn't make it relevant enough to be included on the main page (remember about being concise). 63.84.73.99 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I complete agree that articles must be kept from getting unrelated fluff. However, given that Activision approached Sex Pistols to see about master tracks for this song, and because of that request, the group got back together to rerecord it, that is absolutely not unrelated to the song. If you're not going to mentioned GH3, then there's no reason to not mention the group getting back together to record one track. Leaving off GH3 is telling half the story about the rerecording, and is not being truly factual. I really do not understand why you feel GH3 should get absolutely no mention in regards to the rerecording. There is no harm in adding it, and it helps to support WP's goal to build the web. --MASEM 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when Activision asked the Sex Pistols to re-record the song for Guitar Hero it isn't relevant. So by 63.84.73.99's logic, if "Anarchy..." gets recorded again for charity, the charity shouldn't be mentioned because it isn't relevant. If the President of the US or Queen England asked them to re-record it, it isn't relevant as well. By his logic it should be stated that it was just re-recorded without giving any following information. Ultrabasurero 17:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by your logic, maybe we should remove what other bands covered "Anarchy..." for. It could be said that Megadeth covered the song, but apparently it isn't relevant for what they covered it. We should just remove all other information and just say, "Megadeth, Motley Crue, Tito Larriva, and Anna Tsuchiya covered it." Also The Damned's New Rose has absolutely nothing to do with "Anarchy...". That should be removed as well. Ultrabasurero 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important fact in all of this is that the master of the song was lost. and thats what was added. And if that hadn't happen then none of this would be necessary to add to the main page. Remember about being concise?. And lets face it a song being in a videogame isn't of historical precedence but the master being lost is. 63.84.73.99 (17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The master being lost isn't the important fact. The important fact is that Sex Pistols re-recorded the song for Guitar Hero. If they weren't using the song in the game, and they found out the master was lost, it wouldn't be important. Here's the chain of events: 1). Guitar Hero wants "Anarchy..." master 2). master can't be found 3). Activision asks Sex Pistols to re-record 4). Sex Pistols agree and re-records. Ultrabasurero 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you look at the "new rose" mention it has to do with "Anarchy in the U.K."'s historical linage in punk rock's begins. And since "new rose" was 1st then "new rose" has historical precedence and is relevant to the song. And as for the covers being more concise, yes, that is a good idea. One admin has already thinned out that section already and said that nomore covers should be added. But alot more should be done. 63.84.73.99 (18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Then answer this: Why did they need the master? If Activision didn't need the master they probably would not have recorded the song. The only reason they needed the master was for the game. Since it wasn't found, Sex Pistols re-recorded it. If they chose not to re-recorded it, a cover would have been made for the game, and would then be put in the cover section with reference to Guitar Hero. And by saying all this, "Anarchy..." recorded by the Sex Pistols themselves has more precedence over any cover, which is why Sex Pistols re-recording it for the game is such a big deal. Ultrabasurero 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was done for a videogame is an interesting to some people. but that in its self doesn't give it historical precedence. Like it has been said before the fact that the master was lost was what is historical important to "Anarchy in the U.K.". (63.84.73.99 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So because it was re-recorded for a video game doesn't make it important? Ok, what reasons for re-recording are important? If re-recording for charity or some other cause, would that be important? By your logic, no. Ultrabasurero 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your logic. Why is it more important that the master was lost than they re-recorded the song specially for a video game? The fact that they re-recorded for a game goes hand-in-hand with the master being lost. Ultrabasurero 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did you delete one of my discussion entries? Specifically the entry at 18:28. Ultrabasurero 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No in fact it would not be historically important. look at all the times u2 and other bands have done things for charity. If you were to list everything a band like say u2 has done for charity then it would take up half the page. In other words just doing something for charity doesn't make it truly historically relevant to the band (even though im sure it would be important to all the people that care about that cause) or one of their songs appears in a videogame. Charity work happens all the time when it comes rock bands and lots of rock songs have appeared in videogames. This isnt a site about creating lists and citing every small detail about things its about crating a concise factual linage about about different subjects. I really dont see what more i need to say to explain this to you or the other guy. And i honestly dont mean this in a mean way but it seems like you guys are just trying to get gh3 the game mentioned on the main page because i think someone who was truly nutral would have seen the reason why the game wasnt metioned and could have seen that the ref could would have filled in the blanks for anyone that didn't believe what was being said. (After all whats the use for ref.'s if your going to write everything on the main page and they are expected to take it at face value then whats the point of ref.s?) (63.84.73.99 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Are you talking about entrys on the desscussion board because i only deleted entrys of yours on the main page. two different times when i went to save my entry's and the page refreshed maybe something happened with the servers. (63.84.73.99 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Lets say that it could be proven with a ref that Abe Lincoln was Abraham Lincoln was wearing pink underwear the day he was shot (I know he wasn't im just using this to make a point). Well, some people would freak out about that and it would be locked in their memory of his death just due to the fact that they wouldn't picture him wearing such a thing. But i don't think anyone who truly is neutral about the subject would care if that fact wasn't added when the page talks about his death. Its the same about the videogame in relation to to them re-recording the song. Sure, some people are up in arms about the pistols doing re-recording it for a videogame, but that doesn't make it of historical presence. The fact that the master has been lost is whats imporatnt to "Anarchy in the U.K.) just like Abe Lincoln dieing would be whats important to point out on his page not the color of the underwear he was wearing. (63.84.73.99 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, amazing argument over the inclusion of an interesting, established fact, well-referenced. That said, I find it amazing that they agreed to do so. The Activision suits must have just kept adding zeroes to the licensing agreement 'til they said 'ok then'. Or they asked McLaren his advice... Centrepull (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is Sex Pistols' re-recording of Anarchy in the UK for Guitar Hero 3 relevant

Is it relevant to include mention of Guitar Hero III in Anarchy in the UK, when Sex Pistols re-recorded just for the game?

No it is simply not relevant to the song and here is some of the reasons i have given before.

The fact that they re-recorded the song is the key fact that is relevant to the topic. And anyone will know that there is more to it then just them getting together for no reason when they see a ref beside of it and if they can check the ref and see the facts and it will be clear to them why they did it. I really don't see why we have to go through this unless you just want to promote the game on as many pages as you can and if thats the case then your not really doing this topic or the site as a whole a favor because this isn't an advertising site.

its like saying (factually) that a king or prime minister died from chocking to death on his supper and not mentioning what food he ate...is what he ate really that important?, no of course not. The important thing is that he died from chocking to death (a war would need great detail while this would only need the essential details.). And its the same here, the important thing is that the sex pistols remastered the song and there is a ref for anyone who disputes it and needs to see a ref behind it. And it wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't pointed out on the gh3 page that the sex pistols re-master the song. Why? because that isn't relevant directly to the game because it doesn't have and any real impact on the game. And if i or any other person went there and put up a fight to have that fact put on that page i wouldn't blame someone there for acting the sameway. Because your suppose to write facts not only in way thats relevant to the topic at hand but must also write them in a concise (Free from all elaboration and superfluous detail- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise) manner that brings out those relevant facts and doesn't take the point out unnecessary fluff.

It wouldn't be relevant because what he ate at the time wouldn't have any true wight to the topic at hand. Lets say that it happen within modern times and they have videotape for ref. of what he was eating. It still wouldn't be necessary to point out what he was eating on the main page because the relevant fact is that he died from chocking and you could lead them to the videotape by a ref. . And just because something doesn't happen by accident means that every irrelevant detail should be included on the main page and just because something is documented doesn't make it relevant enough to be included on the main page (remember about being concise).

63.84.73.99 (15:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A classic example of a false analogy there. --Neon white 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everyone can read your comments in the previous section. This is for outside opinions to contribute to the discussion. Ultrabasurero 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a larger article about this important song, it might be relevant to mention Guitar Hero III. In an article this size, mentioning Guitar Hero III would give the game's relationship to this article undue weight.

However the Spin source doesn't quite say what the article now implies it says, and that is a problem. They rerecorded it because Activision wanted a multi-track version, not because the band did. How about one of the following options?

The mention of the rerecording left out entirely, as not notable enough in an article this size

The mention of the rerecording in a sentence reading, 'In 2007 the surviving members re-recorded "Anarchy in the U.K." at the prompting of a videogame company.'

Information about the rerecording being demoted to the already somewhat trivial Covers section of the article

What do the interested editors think? 86.42.124.92 21:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reason why it cant be included, it certainly is notable that the song was re-recorded. The sentence as In 2007 the surviving members re-recorded because the master could not be found. just looks odd and leaves the question why did they? as a large number of master tapes are lost or deleted and aren't re-recorded unless for a particular reason. --Neon white 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive given alot of reasons why it shouldn't be included (including addressing the issues that you have brought up). And, also, if your going to say that i have used false analogy 's then show evidence. (63.84.74.47 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Quite frankly you're arguments are a load of nonsense, there is no valid reason why this cannot be included which is why you have yet to come up with one that makes any sense, the text it's clearly relevant to the subject, it's neutral and is well sourced. You have stonewalled this discussion for long enough. I suggest you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and realize that you are disrupting the consensus. --Neon white 22:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly says they re-recorded the band's hit "Anarchy in the U.K." for the interactive video game Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. You cannot argue against that. It's not remotely a controversial fact. --Neon white 22:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputed that the source said that (that wasn't the point). No offense but it doesn't seem like you read all of the points put forth about this topic (from both 63.84.73.99 and 86.42.124.92) and im not going to repost the them here. And you just call what these people say nonsense as excuse to repost what you wrote but never try and give a real reason why their point is nonsense. And also if you want to bring up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT i think you yourself are in vialatiation of that rule if anybody who has contributed are because afterall you have came here and restored to name calling and accusing people of breaking vague wika rules and not really directly disputing anything that anyone else has posted. The rest of us are trying to resolve this and it looks like you are just here to cause trouble and disruption. And it looks like the topic had been resolved till you came along anyway. (63.84.74.47 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

None of the points you have made have any really relevance and therefore made little sense. It has been proven time and time again during the discussion that this is notable, you have failed to come up with any reason why it isn't other than the fact that you personally think it isn't, you have disrupted the discussion by going off on some, quick frankly, bizarre analogy that has no similarities to this case whatsoever. Therefore you are disrupting the consensus and removing sourced material. They aren't vague rules they are wikipedia guidelines for dealing with people who ignore common sense in order to make a point, which you have just proven by accepting that what the reliable sources says. That is the point. There are only two questions here; 1.Are the source's reliable? yes, that's obvious Is the re-recording notable? It was reported not only on SPIN but also on Billboard.com[4], Sky-news[5] and pitchfork[6] every single source specifically mentions, not only in the text, but in the headline that it was done for Guitar Hero 3. That is alot of notability in accordance with all guidelines. --Neon white 17:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agian your not reading what people have been writing on this topic because instend of trying to prove what facts people have past sighted you just say that what they are saying is nonsence and just their own options. If you would go back and read everything that people have written on this subject (all of it because you seem to think just one person is writing on one side of this subject) you will see that people have already stated why it gh3 should be inculded. here a hint ..... (concise= -Free from all elaboration and superfluous detail- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concise) ... So please read what has been written already (by everyone) on this subject and truly inform yourself and then maybe you will see why it has been removed and wont fill the need to resort to childish name calling and filling the need to acusse people of breaking every rule you can think of just as an excuse to try and scare them into not correcting your edit (or use that as a way to try to get admins on yourside). But you read what has been wrote and bring can bring up a valid reason why it should be included your welcome to(just dont get offended if someone brings up facts to dispute it. Its part of the process). And by valid i don't mean just saying for the 100th time that people that have wrote things to prove why it shouldn't be included are just doing so to their get own pov across. and by valid i don't mean just saying over and over agian "no your wrong" by valid i mean bring up the reasons given and given a fact to why they are wrong. And no offense but if you don't have cant take the time to do that then you shouldn't contribute to wiki because your not resolving anything your just causing mere conflict. (63.84.74.47 06:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Doing the recording for GH3 is neither elaboration (we are not introducing original research or speculation) nor superfluous (it is the reason the rerecording was done). Nor does adding what is basically 60 characters wrecking the article's conciseness - while there is WP:SIZE to consider, this article is nowhere close to breaking any bounds. Nor is this a POV issue - it is completely factual and backed by multiple reliable secondary sources.

Please be aware that you are actually approaching ownership issues with this article - there seems to be a consensus to keep the GH3 ref from this discussion, and yet you keep reverting it. I'm aware that only a few people have voiced their thoughts, but regardless, you should not be editing against the consensus. --MASEM 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have demonstrated that it is notable, properly sourced and it isn't controversial, that is all it needs and there is a definite consensus now, you have again ignored me and failed to come up with any valid reason why you persist in removing relevant text (by valid i mean written in the guidelines, 'because you don't like it' is not valid), therefore i believe you are disrupting the consensus by ignoring the obvious validity of the text and vandalizing the article. I think it was necessary to remind you just how bad an editor you are being by pushing an illogical personal POV that contradicts wikipedia guidelines. --Neon white 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MASEM and Neon white are correct. The reference should stay. Torc2 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if the impetus for the rerecord was the game, that is a notable piece of the story. A famous song by a famous band included in a game is not uncommon these days, but a recreation of the song is. --Sonicwav 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to state earlier that re-recording of a famous song by a well-known is notable, but the IP user doesn't agree with any of the logic. Ultrabasurero 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is relevant. The information is about the song as re-recorded by the Sex Pistols, and as noted by a reliable source. The mention should remain. Nick Graves 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a sentence. No more. R. fiend 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but fucking megadeth

definitely a sex pistols song agree with the facts that maybe this was a cover but the fucking page for this article says this song was written by dave mustaine obviously wrong but i'm to drunk to fix this. sober people unite

Second UK punk single?

The article states «It was the second UK punk rock single, preceded by The Damned's "New Rose.» Theres a «citation needed» mark there, but no use, because that sentence is wrong. The Vibrators released their «We vibrate» in the middle (plus the one with Chris Spedding, «Pogo dancing»). Saludos. --Fernando H (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

megadeth?

ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.104.114 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm just saying that there is way to much attention to the megadeth cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.104.114 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a sex pistols song why is Dave Mustaine's name in this article

this song is historical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.104.114 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah and that whole mention of the damned has no citation24.63.104.114 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)fucked up[reply]

wow if there were no sex pistols music would suck24.63.104.114 (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)fucked up[reply]

The Megadeth version has a few amusing lines Mustaine made up. For example the line "Another council tenancy" is changed to "And other cuntlike tendancies" because he didn't understand what Lydon was singing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.251 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please expand this article?

This is one of the most important songs in Rock n Roll history. 80% of the article is about various cover versions. Really sad. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Omarcheeseboro

Unfortunately, facts about the song are a bit thin on the ground. The cover versions bit is a bit long.

Also, is that picture of the single's sleeve correct? As I understood it the original release had a plain black sleeve (and my - I believe - original copy sports said black cover), not the generic EMI sleeve shown. Srck (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover info

It looks like there was some more info added about the original version of song. Good job. Now how about really cutting out a lot of the info about the covers? Why is there a track listing of the various releases of the cover versions by Megadeth and Green Jelly? When someone is looking this song up, do you think they care that "Devil's Island (live)" was track #3 of Megadeth's German release of their cover? Or the complete listing of musicians on Green Jelly's cover? If anything, why can't those versions just have a brief mention here and a wikilink to their own articles?

If there's not a lot of info yet about the Sex Pistols song, fine. There still doesn't need to be all this info about the covers. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvets

Is anyone of the Sex Pistols mentioned Velvet Underground as an influence? Because somewhere at 2:10 of the song you can hear a guitar line very similar to Lady Godiva's Operation, a Velvet Underground song. 83.148.246.150 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motley Crue cover

Why is there no mention of Motley Crue's cover? It was significant cover/release. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black sleeve

So what's the relationship between this "plain black sleeve" and the generic EMI red/tan sleeve? I still have this single, purchased on the day it was released in November 1976 - and mine has the generic EMI red/tan sleeve. Was the black sleeve used on a subset of the original pressing? Or did it come later and has since come to be known apocryphally as the "original sleeve"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:A1E7:4F10:A95:1992:1F8E (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Anarchism (Viciousite)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anarchism (Viciousite). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. czar 19:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy

Maybe this article should contain the fact, that the band obviously didnt know, what anarchy was. They use in terms of anomy or chaos, which is the opposite of anarchy. KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]