Talk:Poison (band)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Poison (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Initial message
there was also a german black metal band named Poison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.159.146 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2005 (UTC)
Changed
Changed "Glam Metal" to "hair metal". Since Poison became known as as part of the late 1980s early 1990s scene in Los Angeles, it is not appropriate to refer to them as glam metal. Glam metal belongs to the 1970s and early 1980s and did not emerge in LA.
Glam rock belongs to the 1970s, glam metal was prevalent in L.A. in the mid to late eighties. Hair metal is not a genre, it's an insult.
The first heading on this article is disgraceful. this is nothing but an advertisement for the band. Are there record company executives editing this page? Or is it you Rikki??
22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
STOP DELETING THE GENRES. Poison is 30 years old, I doubt they are coming out with new music that puts them in a new genre. There was no 'hair metal' genre at the time of their inception. So yes, they were classified as something else. Obviously, by today's standards Poison (or even Black Sabbath) are not considered Heavy Metal. But at the time, Poison was considered Heavy Metal. So let that genre stand. If there is a new category that you want to include them on, please do so. But leave the existing genres alone! 2015/10/30
Article POV
I have an extreme disagreement with this line from the opening of this article "With more than 14 million albums sold in the United States alone, the band is one of the most commercially successful rock acts in history." I think this is, while not quite violating is highly pushing the non point of view policy that Wikipedia prides itself on. I think a much better way to express this would be something like: 'One of the most successful Glam Metal bands of the era,' or somewhere along those lines. But to say that Poison is one of the most successful rock bands ever, is just plain ludicrous when compared to the success of bands like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, or Van Halen. In adition, much of this article is written in an excessive fan pov format, making the entire article unsuitable for an encyclopedia entry. Avador 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)\
The Beatles are from the United Kingdom. U2 is Irish. Led Zepplin is British. Posion is American and like it or not, Poison is one of the most successful rock acts in U.S. history. Poison is group from the U.S.
Led Zepplin, U2 and The Beatles are three of the most successful non-American rock groups in U.S. history. Then again, no one comes close to having the success of the Beatles on the charts- except Mariah Carey and Madonna.
I would have to agree that Poison is one of the most successful rock groups in U.S. history. The ballad "Every Rose Has it thorns" reached #1 and they had top ten singles in Talk Dirty To me, Nothin' but a good time, Unskinny Bop and Something to believe in and three multi-platinum albums. Flesh & Blood, Look What the Cat Dragged in and Open Up and Say Ahh all reached the top 3 of the Billboard 200 albums chart. Poison might not measure to bands like Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Aerosmith or Van Halen. Poison was one of the best hair metal bands. In 2006, music tastes have changed and I'm not sure there's a market for Poison now. Then again, I miss the old days when Poison was on top.
Bullshit! 15 million is nothing compared to other bands. Guns N' Roses and Motley Crue were arguably the two most successful 80's hard rock bands, though gnr came at the late eighties.
Surely Van Halen are a hard rock band that sold more albums in the 80s than poison (1984 alone probably outsold everything they did in the 80s)!
Are the tour dates really necessary? Shouldn't you have to go to their official website for that kind of stuff?LanceManion1973
The linclusion of tour dates in an encylopaedia entry is extremely inappropriate. If Poison's management want to promote their tour, they should fork out some cash for bandwidth for their own website.
This is one of the most poorly-written, fawning "fanzine" articles I've seen on this site. While I can't say I expected much from this band's fanbase, it could certainly have been done with a bit of objectivity, couldn't it? "Which featured several great songs...". Really? Come on... BarstoolProf 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Barstool prof
Poison are shit, there nothing more than a video pop rock band!!! Even CC knows this.
Poison HAS a Website
Whoever the user was that said that Poison should "fork out cash" for their own website. Well, Poison has a website. As does every single person in the band. They are listed on the External links section for goodness sake. If you can't do that much research before spouting off, I don't think you should be adding any contributions to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Sivazh 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to clarify that the reason the cover of the album "Open up and say Ahh" was controversial was not only that it had a woman in devil make-up but the woman was Bambi Bembenek. This woman had been convicted of murder and there was controversy surrounding her. many people felt that it was a marketing move. any attention is good attention for sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.174.214 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sivazh the Marketing genius
Ah Sivazh! You must be the marketing genius who put the tour dates on there in the first place! No doubt, you are also the advertising guru who continually places BILLBOARD-SIZED pictures of Poison's new album on the page. Maybe you should go to a dictionary and: 1. look up the word "encylopedia"; and then 2. look up the word "advertisement"; then 3. see if you can detect a difference between these two concepts; 4. see if you can see the irony in your comment about who should be making contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.200.242 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
lol poison are editing there own page.
More POV
But in an another direction: "Poison's music was characterised by relatively simple, catchy melodies and guitar riffs. The band's tunes often seemed less important than their garish costumes, overblown hair, feminizing make-up, and frenetic stageshow, all delivered via the metal-heavy MTV of the mid to late 1980s" So, I'm kinda disposed to removing this part.. Has anyone anything to say about this? Maybe the editor? --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Poison is a Hard Rock Band Too
Please Don´t Delete "Hard Rock" in Poison Styles, they play hard rock. It´s simply, hear Flesh and Blood, Native Tounge and Crack A Smile... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawncito (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Hard Rock had a citation requested a while ago and no one could find a source. This is why it keeps getting taken down. If you can find a reliable source then you can add it back. And generally most genres are not listed if only a few of the bands songs are in that style, as you have suggested in your above post.Hoponpop69 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There not hard rock as they are not hard lol, their lite 80s rock.
bla bla bla
Here is your "source"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hard_rock_musicians#P
Wikipedia thinks that poison is a hard rock band, and ask any people WHO KNOWS music...the first years of poison was glam metal, but they dropped the glam style to become a more traditional band, it´s simply, hear native tounge, you feel the change...
and you hear the new cover song of grand funk railroad?
and sorry for my english, i´m latin american, BUT i know the good music —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shawncito (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
Other wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.
It all depends on whether you consider their genre from a modern viewpoint or from at the time of their career. If you consider it from today's perspective, they would be considered as rock. In my opinion, they should be considered as heavy metal, as this was what they were considered as at the time of their career. I'm not going to change it until I get a verified source though. Heavy Metal Lego (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
more sources
here http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/gletter.cgi?Letter=P
Look the Band "POISON"
the album "NATIVE TONGUE" http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=Native+Tongue
the album "HOLLYWEIRD"
http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=Hollyweird
and Poison´s last album "20 years of rock" http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=290&CDName=The+Best+Of+Poison:+20+Years+Of+Rock
Ok thank you I'll put this into the article for you.Hoponpop69 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Poison000s.jpg
Image:Poison000s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2007-06-06T08:30:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Poison000s.jpg){kind=link}
Fair use rationale for Image:Poison.png
Image:Poison.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
/Archive_1#c-BetacommandBot-2007-12-05T19:53:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Poison.png){kind=link}
Fair use rationale for Image:Poison.png
Image:Poison.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Worldwide sales per album
Please, if anyone knows it, post them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKKDARK (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Boobs vs. Breasts
I nominate changing "boobs" to "breasts" in the article where an incidnet is described when Brett and Bobby poured hot water on a record executive. To keep it encyclopedic and somewhat newsworthy, insteatd of titilating (no pun intended), "boobs" shoud be changed to "breasts." In fact, I'll just change it anyway. Whoever wrote it documented it with what appears to be a reliable source that likley also used "breasts" instead of "boobs." Let's try to keep Wikipedia at above an 8th grade vocubulary, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.194.94 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
funny how someone deletes a post by someone who ACTUALLY knew the band when they were Spectres
I am not going to bother repeating what I wrote earlier other than to say that poison owes the sharks a few $$ for the rip off of thier song --talk dirty to me stole the famous riff from the sharks take me back to the water -- hey I was WITH the band when they heard the sharks play that song LONG before they became poison. I knew them personally and they were in my apartment many times in mechanicsburg right across from the paradise and i won't say what we were doing [brett and dave know it well] so you fantards who can't handle the truth can stick it. Oh and Rickki 'rheam' rocket used to do my hair at onstage hair design too. and they all had a thing for Sherri Billow -- lol. I think it is so funny that brett has managed to get his own show-- good for him.
The later part is too long the early part is too short
The article spends too long on the period 1991 onwards. The period up to and including the 1991 MTV Video Music Awards is of significance from a rock history perspective. The later material is fairly irrelevant and the fact is the band has languished in obscurity for nearly 20 years regardless of what is printed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.251.7 (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Tracii Guns/ CC Deville
Tracii Guns was a member of the band in early 2000. And Blues Saraceno left the band in 1996. CC returned that fall, but didn't tour or record until 1999.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.220.12 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 April 2010
C.C. Deville returned to Poison in 1996 not 1999. Blues left in 1996. Tracii Guns was a member in early 2000 when Bret Michaels and C.C. Deville had a falling out, but CC was back in a month. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.152 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment moved. All this would require reliable sources, and since other editors disagree with you, you are invited to provide them. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
METAL EDGE MAGAZINE, and I remeber when he returned it was 1996. The band just didn't tour until 1999.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
all articles & sources say that C.C Deville returned to Poison in 1999 not 96, bret and cc started talking again in 98 and recorded a song togeather for Bret's solo album and then he was welcomed back into Poison in 99, which is also when Blues Saraceno stepped aside.
No, Metal Edge Magazine reported his return in fall of 1996. And that song was recorded in 1996 that appeared on A Letter From Death Row. Notice in the lyrics he refers to the year "now it's 96 and there ain't none there"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Blues was still a member in 96 because the band was still hopefull of releasing Crack a Smile, which Blues played on but the label released the Greatest Hits album instead (with bonus tracks from Crack a Smile). The band (including Blues not CC) took time off in 97 and 98.
Blues left in 1996 when the album was shelved which was late spring of 1996. The band did take time off, but CC returned in September of 1996. The only reason why they took time off was because Bobby and CC wanted to do a reunion tour first, Bret and Rikki wanted to make an album first. Bret Michaels caved in in late 1998, so they booked the tour. Hell they were planning to do the Exiled From Mainstream tour in 1997. Also mentioned in Metal Edge magazine. Also how was Blues a member up until 2000, I didn't see him on stage in 1999 with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Tracii Guns was never a member of poison. (1 month of doing nothing woundn't qualify as being a member anyway) Anyone who changes it should have a reliable source to prove it, otherwise anyone can just make up whatever they want Niftey (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1 month of writing songs working on what became the 5 new songs on Power To The People, does count as a member.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are mean't to write your response underneath my section and sign it, not write in the middle of someone's section but anyway all of what you say in response is wrong except for the lyrics in the song, but the song wasn't recorded in 96 just because the lyrics mention 96, it was recorded in 98. (Bret didn't even know he was going to be making a movie in 96 let alone the soundtrack to the movie)
Anyone can say i remember this and i remember that(GIVE US A SOURCE OTHERWISE WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT - You have already been asked to do this), every article on the net says CC RETURNED IN 1999, Blues left in 99 before the tour and Tracii Guns didn't work on any song, i don't see his name credited on any album. Niftey (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The album "A Letter From Death Row was recorded in 1996, the movie was shot in the fall of 1995 (if it was shot in 1998 like you say, how did his hair grow back so quick for the 1999 tour? Like the lyric says ain't none there. He shaved it in the fall of 1995 for the movie.) They just weren't released until the fall of 1998. I GAVE A SOURCE METAL EDGE MAGAZINE!!! The articiles say that because the first thing they did together was in 1999, doesn't change the fact he returned in 1996, and Blues did leave in 1996, he started a band Gorgeous George. How was Blues a member of the band until 2000, like this page says? The page isn't fully accurate, cause Blues did leave in 1996. And just because none of the songs Tracii worked on didn't make an album doesn't mean he didn't work on an album, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So Tracii wasn't a member of Guns N' Roses or Quiet Riot either?
Sources www.metal-sludge.tv http://www.metalsludge.tv/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1065&Itemid=52 www.knac.com/article.asp?ArticleID=4688
More on CC returning in 1996 upon Blues' departure.
http://www.answers.com/topic/poison-game
http://www.artistopia.com/poison
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/poisonrules/history.html
The source you have given regarding Tracii Guns actually proves that your wrong, Yes they asked him to join but it never happened because CC was back so quick (Never official and he never got a chance to work on anything). In the article one of the questions to Tracii clearly says that it never happened (maybe you missed that part).124.180.196.148 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The links regarding CC are all connected to the Poison Wikipedia article and is not reliable because of the fact that anyone can make changes to Wikipedia and then those links will automatically change with it. Niftey (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just one of many source's regarding bret and cc not talking until 98 and CC rejoining Poison in 1999, just going by what seems to be written everywhere, yes a very odd few unreliable articles said 96 and this is what probably confuses some people. Why would they wait 3 years to tour for an album released in 96 if they were togeather again in 96,(Disagreements don't normally last 3 years coming from a band that loves to tour) this doesn't make sense, CC also formed the band 'Samantha 7' in 98. I don't think there's much more new to say on this. Niftey (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.livinglegendsmusic.com/library.php?groupID=1386
He was asked to join and he did, and they were writing songs for what would become Power To The People. He tyhen had to step aside for CC's return. Metal Edge Magazine and Bret Michaels were unreliable when they said CC was returning in 1996? And was MTV wrong too when they said the same? They almost went on tour in 1997, but Bret and Rikki were adamant about doing an album first. ALL FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.179.105 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
So where are your references that he rejoined in 1999, name them. They say he returned in time for the 1999 tour right? Implicating he joined again before the tour which WAS 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There's one reference above which is this one - http://www.livinglegendsmusic.com/library.php?groupID=1386 and another that's been on the Poison page for a while now, like i said before most articles are like this one and say he returned in 99, why is that ? Niftey (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is another http://www.sleazeroxx.com/bands/poison/poison.shtml. It says 1996, with this genre of music fansites are more accurate than any music journalism such as MTV or Rolling Stone. They all say 1999 because that is when the reunion tour started. So you are wrong it was in fact 1996 when the agreement was made for C.C Deville to return, I could hunt out my old Metal Edge magazine from 1996 and 1997. Why do these sites say 1996 (http://www.angelfire.com/wi/poisonrules/history.html http://www.answers.com/topic/poison-game), obviously it was 1996, but many mainstream sites say 1999 because that is when the reunion tour took place. And it was 1996, they almost toured in 1997.
Why do most articles say Bret and CC spoke for the first time in 1998 ? fansites are accurate and i've seen alot say 99 aswell and i disagree that music journalism is not accurate. You got to admit as i have that this is something that would confuse alot of people, because there are articles that suggest both but the majority (not just me) all say, spoke in 98 and rejoined in 99 Niftey (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how they could record Party Rock Band in 1996 without speaking. Then was when the song was recorded and both Bret Michaels and Rikki Rockett said C.C. Deville is rejoining Poison in 1996. Mainstream music journalism isn't accurate in this genre, there are journalists refering to Bret Michaels as former vocalist for Poison. It isn't confusing because he returned in 1996, sites say 1999, because they never did a huge announcement he was back and the reunion tour of 1999 was the first thing taht they did together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.158 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If the majority say 1999, why did you only quote two sources, one being a concert review from a fan. Name some sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.158 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
According to you fan sites are better anyway and the other source i provided is better then all yours which are mostly connected to wikipedia.
Your also the one that wanted to make the changes to the page in the first place without any explanations to your edits and never being loged on either, not to mention ignoring all the warnings from others which is why we are in this situation in the first place. All you needed to do from the very begining was to provide a explanation to your edits and give a RELIABLE source to the poison page, that proved the member section was incorrect instead of just ignoring everyone.(i wasn't the only one that noticed this)
So far you failed to prove Tracii Guns was a member of Poison (which is clearly not the case) and your sources regarding cc rejoining the band haven't been great, but you have maybe created some doubt. However Your the one that need's to prove otherwise not me and I would believe what your saying about cc (not sure about anyone else) if you provided a good source, but at the moment most sources are suggesting the members section was correct before you changed it. One of the reasons why we now disagee is the fact that there are sources that suggest both (although so far majority are 99 from what i see) and this is why a VERY RELIBLE SOURCE is required by you to prove everyone wrong. Niftey (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Some more sources that i see everyhere suggesting cc was back in 98/99, no earlier
http://www.onlinetickets.com/events/concert_tours/poison/tickets.html
http://glamrock.com/bands/poison/
http://www.rocknrollhell.com/poison/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.135.196 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sure they say that only because the reunion tour in 1999 was the first thing they did together and that was 1999, but he did return in 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.178.108 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
CC returned in 98 according to 90% of sources on the net which makes sense since the reunion concert was held in 99, about 10% say 96, gotta go with the majority.Niftey (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
But Blues left in May of 1996, he had a new band by 1998 called Gorgeous George, plus Poison announced CC Deville's return in 1996. Common sense would dicatate to anyone that it was 1996 when there are sites that source that. The other sites who don't know much about Poison mark 1998 because that was when they booked the reunion tour. Don't you want the page to be accurate? Do you want it to be a joke like you are making it? The fans and their sites and sites of thr genre know more about it then some site that doesn't even cover Poison. Patriots49ers (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I do want the page to be accurate, that is why i am trying to protect it from people like you who come along and start deleting stuff. Your the one making the article a joke by ignoring the original sources. Common sense would dictate to anyone except you that it was 98 when 90% of sites source that. CC was not back any earlier then 98 and it makes sense since the reunion concert was held in 99. Fan sites like your sources that say 96 are not reliable and it doesn't say anywhere in your sources when Blues left, infact one of your own sources say that poison toured in 96, which didn't happen, so that only proves how weak and completley unreliable your own sources are. I understand why people get confused because there are sources that suggest both but the majority and reliable sources that i've seen all say 98/99 like the ones you keep deleting. If you want to change and delete stuff then you need to prove it with reliable sourcesNiftey (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
CC was back in 1996. Are you a fan? I thought not. I was 16 and the Greatest Hits album was about to come out. The reunion concert was supposed to happen in 1997, but they couldn't get the money they wanted nor a promoter who would handle it and not make it a club tour. Plus the fact there was a dispute whether to tour first or record first. Blues was gone in May of 1996, go try to find old AOL folders when Rikki Rockett announced it. CC rejoined in September of 1996.Patriots49ers (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually i am a fan, but it doesn't matter if i'm a fan or if your a fan, because the bottom line is its about facts, and like i already mentioned fan sites and your memories are not reliable sources. Nobody cares or is going to write an article useing your memories. Blues was not gone in may 96. I also don't need to find anything or prove anything because your the one that wants to change the whole article so you can provide proof and RELIABLE SOURCES, and so far you have failed on both counts. You ignore the mistakes i already pointed out from your sources and you keep repeating yourself, provide RELIABLE sources not stories or your thoughts.Niftey (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You aren't a fan, if you are you are an idiot. I take it you didn't read Metal Edge? My memories are reliable, I am sure yours isn't. Why was it ok as 1996 for over a year, but changed to 1998 recently?Patriots49ers (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Your the big IDIOT who doesn't even understand what a reliable source means. Wikipedia is not going to take your or anyones memories as a source, what is it about that you don't understand. It means your memories are not good enough for a article. Provide reliable sources and maybe some people might believe your crap. The only person who is changing things recently is you, lets not forget i haven't deleted anything or haven't attached unreliable sources to the article, that was you. Like i mentioned if you wanna change and delete stuff that's been on the article forever than you need to prove it, but you can't seem to do that apart from talking about your memories which no one cares about. I really don't see the point in discussing any further because you ignore all the facts, keep repeating yourself and use the most weakest sources that are full of mistakes. You sound alot like the above guy with a new username who also kept deleting stuff and provided no sourcesNiftey (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Reliable source, no problem.
http://new.music.yahoo.com/poison/biography/ You can quit being a lil girl now!!!You were the buffoon ignoring facts. Patriots49ers (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You really are a big clown and now your deleting and changing even more things, just proves my whole point and your source once again proves your an idiot, Blues left in may 96 did he or by the end of 96 like your new souce says ? Blues was still in the band when the Greatest hits album was released. Seems like your memory is a bit all over the place. Check this source, its one of the ones you keep deleting, it may trigger some more memories for you. http://www.moondancejam.com/bands/2006/poison.html and another reliable source that can't be disputed (words from Bret Michaels) enough said http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/06/26/poison_singer_bret_michaels_holds_no_gru but i'm sure your gonna probably ignore that fact aswell and attach your unreliable sources again. Niftey (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Blues left in May of 1996. He was NOT a member when the Greatest Hits CD was released. Was he on any of the main pictures, was he listed as a current member in the linear notes? Yahoo music is a more repuatable source. You wanted reputable, I found reputable. No articile that you p[osted had anything out o Bret Michaels mouth, it was from the writer of the articile not him. 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You are so full of it, now your even arguing with your own source which clearly says END OF 96 not may, Blues is listed as a member, they all are because its a Greatest hits album and he was 100% a member when the album was released, THAT IS FACT. The article comes from Bret Michaels words and thoughts and is more reliable then all your sources put togeather. Also new found popularity didn't happen in 96 it happened in 99 after the reunion concert THAT IS FACT. Is there anything else your gonna delete or change. Maybe someone else should step in and check out this vandalism. This guy is even making changes to this discussion page, by changing the topics. Niftey (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Name origin
The article currently states:
- The name Poison was chosen after the band saw Spinal Tap in concert.
This seems highly unlikely to me, given that Spinal Tap is a fictitious band. Might somebody want to change this? 98.71.255.6 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. 98.71.255.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Couple of obvious subhead vios
"Recent events: Rocking On (2010–present)" -- both a WP:DATED vio (can't say "recent," "current," etc.), and "Rocking On" is completely not encyclopedic tone. Best to say something like simply "2010-on," or just collapse it into a "21st century" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
25 years?
"After 25 years, the band is still recording music and performing." Shouldn't we change it to 28, since they formed in 1983? or is 25 in reference to their debut album? - Tim, 3 January, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, because it says after 25 years, and this is their 25th anniversary tour, so no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock&RollSuicide (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Incoherent
Portions of this article are very incoherent and just seem to ramble into things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sequencing is a problem. Ex: In a section about the band in the 2000's, there is randomly placed a statement about songs from Open Up and Say Ahhh being used in a movie soundtrack. I've noticed a lot of these in this article that are just out of place an irrelevent to what is being discussed. Would someone please clean these up. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.116.34 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Poison (American band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150721144157/http://www.nzlive.com/en/nzlivecom/rock2wgtn to http://www.nzlive.com/en/nzlivecom/rock2wgtn
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130601182452/http://www.swedenrock.com/frameset.cfm?pageID=1&newLanguage=2 to http://www.swedenrock.com/frameset.cfm?pageID=1&newLanguage=2
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150608185537/http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/04/24/bret-michaels-still-in-critical-condition-according-to-his-official-website/?xid=rss-feed-tvwatch-Bret+Michaels%3A+%27Critical+condition%27 to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/04/24/bret-michaels-still-in-critical-condition-according-to-his-official-website/?xid=rss-feed-tvwatch-Bret+Michaels%3A+%27Critical+condition%27
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Poison formed in 1984, not 1980
Someone keeps editing the page giving the impression that the band formed in 1980, now there are no sources claiming it or no sources that I see. can anyone get on this75.155.46.228 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking through the article's history the established time-frame is 1983. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources claiming, glam metal band and 1984[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.46.228 (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 75.155.46.228 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Poison (American band). 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/20151208143104/http://news.sky.com/story/591346/heavy-metal-star-held-on-rape-charge to http://news.sky.com/story/591346/heavy-metal-star-held-on-rape-charge
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/hollyweird-mw0000218175
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113042858/http://www.blasting-zone.com/poisonright.htm to http://www.blasting-zone.com/poisonright.htm
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120710160922/http://music.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1195751.php/Poison%92s_Bret_Michaels_and_Bobby_Dall_clash_at_the_end_of_Atlanta_concert to http://music.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1195751.php/Poison%92s_Bret_Michaels_and_Bobby_Dall_clash_at_the_end_of_Atlanta_concert
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) 21:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Poison (American band). 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/20130725020825/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTopArt&action= to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTopArt&action=
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211112506/http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/celebrity.sex.tapes.20.228647.html to http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/celebrity.sex.tapes.20.228647.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210065900/http://www.melodicrock.com/reviews/poison-hollyweird.p3 to http://www.melodicrock.com/reviews/poison-hollyweird.p3
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721060214/http://poisononline.com/2008/07/27/new-poison-dvd-debuts-at-8-on-billboard-chart/ to http://poisononline.com/2008/07/27/new-poison-dvd-debuts-at-8-on-billboard-chart/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510003456/http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272631656.shtml to http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272631656.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024151926/http://www.sleazeroxx.com/bands/poison/poison.shtml to http://www.sleazeroxx.com/bands/poison/poison.shtml
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) 09:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Movie appearance
In the beginning of the 2010 comedy film Hot Tub Time Machine, Poison give a concert at the Kodiak Valley Ski Resort. Later they leave the place in their tour bus with John Cusack's date Lizzy Caplan. --Kolya (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Brayden Parker
Someone has gone through all the band's studio albums claiming a "Brayden Parker" played rhythm guitar on them. I removed the mention of Parker from the members list on the main article since the claim is unsourced, as to my knowledge, no one named Brayden Parker has ever been a member of Poison.
Source
- Nicholas 'Blaze' Baum - guitars (2018–present)
- Will Champlin - keyboards, backing vocals (2018–present)
Can someone find a source for this, I can't find anything to suggest these two were touring members Queenfan194 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)