Talk:Anti-Flag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Maxist[edit]

Is there a reason that someone placed Anti-Flag under the category of American Marxist? Is there documented proof somewhere that the band represents marxist views? 108.2.124.115 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandising and socialism[edit]

Perhaps the largest criticism of Anti-Flag is that while they claim to have far left-wing ideals, perhaps akin to socialism, they are happy to sell their merchandise and records at a price. It's a tad hypocritical, when they've aimed songs at money greedy corperations previously, yet they have no qualms with making money themselves.

Anti-Flag is the only major-label band I know that sells its albums and T-shirts for $10 at their concerts. This contrasts strongly with the prices at most concerts, where sleazy merchandisers charge more, knowing that fans will be so excited about the concert that they'll pay inflated prices. Sylvar 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that practice sleazy though? You're exploting a hole in people's reasoning? More power to you. Rational consumers will wait until later to buy something. It's the same as any convenience store or supermarket with magazines and such near the cash register, they're exploiting impulse buyers. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

critique[edit]

'In 2005 Anti-Flag announced that their new album will be released early 2006 under RCA Records. The band said that they want their music to be heard. RCA is owned by Sony BMG, one of the largest corporations in the world. Many fans find this decision hypocritical due to Anti-Flag's previously overt anti-capitalist lyrics.'

Yes while it can be said that Anti-flag signing to this lable is hypocritical, some punk bands like The Sex Pistols argue that they are not afraid to break into the mainstream ie; appearing on Top of the Pops, signing to a major lable, because it is the best way to get their ideas into the mainstream, which considering that punk is a potential pollitical idealolgy is important within pollitics and gaining movement for the punk scene.--Snowy Mcintosh 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That (among other things) is why the sex pistols are an aweful band. I don't think the sex pistols had any kind of ideology beyond reactionary nihilism. The fact of the matter is, anti-flag has not only signed on to mainstream labels but also toned down their lyrics and music over the years to more mainstream levels. They went from "kill the rich" to "power to the peaceful". They went from "...and they still had the nerve to ask who I was voting for" to supporting punkvoter. Their old stuff was good, but over the years they clearly sold out.
If you want to spread an idea, do it by engaging the general public in a decentralized manner, don't think a few catchy slogans played on the radio will make a huge difference.The Ungovernable Force 01:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They've always been political infants, and the fact they even sell CDs (as opposed to giving them away) is hypocrisy. Signing to a major record label is ridiculous in terms of their supposed beliefs. GreatGatsby 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have enough money to obtain, make and then give away cd's without starving to death, then yes. I don't think there is anything wrong with selling cd's, but it should by DIY and no more than a few bucks a pop to cover expenses. Profiting off of revolutionary ideas is clearly selling out. I guess the best way to do revolutionary cd distro would be to shoplift tons of blank cd's for burning, but that is kinda risky. The Ungovernable Force 04:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly hypocritical. You can work within the capitalist system while attacking it.
True. Look at Chumbawamba. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, signing to RCA is hypocritical after taking an anti-capitalist stance. The difference between Anti-Flag on a major label and the Sex Pistols on a major label is tht the Pistols never took an anti-capitalist stance or released an album about being on an indie label (Underground Network). Also, I agree with .The Ungovernable Force somewhat, because I think that worldwide change starts with individuals, not musicians. I think that an indie label can better promote real change than major labels because I think people who listen to music on indei labels, especially punk, tend to care more about the ideas, as opposed to the typical mainstream listener, who usually is only looking for a catchy beat to dance to. So the indie labels get to the listeners and the listeners carry it out into the world. Also, if some people believe that a major label can better promote ideas than an indie label, maybe it's true. But, Anti-Flag have featured their songs on several video game soundtracks. If anyone thinks THAT isn't profiteering, i strongly disagree.--User:Mitchbradt

If "many fans find this hypocritical" or anything like that is going to be in there, it better be cited. It's a completely speculative statement otherwise, despite the theoritical basis for any accusations of hypocrisy anyone might have. And it'd be nice if someone could phrase it without using weasel words. Cheeser1 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


biased[edit]

This article needs to be changed to a non biased pov. It seems the author has just put his opinions down in place of an actual article.


The last paragraph is clearly biased. It states "Many fans find this decision hypocritical" was there a survey, is there anything that can back that statement up? It sounds like some pretentious fan boy is upset that his favourite band signed to a major lable. So i am removing the "many fans...." statement, as there is no evidence to back that up. Jacknife737 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Flag's announcment of their deal with RCA includes the statement that "shit talkers will talk shit." Obviously they'd been getting flak for the decision (since rumors had been circulating around the net for some time). You are correct in saying that "many" is hard to back up, but "some" is not. Fightindaman 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax[edit]

Every now and again, people from all walks of life decide that what they are doing has been fruitless to that point and seek to change how they go about their business.

I.E. trying to promote change WORLDWIDE while being on an independent label. Anti-Flag made a calculated gamble to take on people who are going to accuse them of being sellouts in order to reach a larger audience. I'm sure in their minds, having a couple of hardcore fans who already get the message pissed off at them is a small price to pay for getting their point of view and information to the masses. For every "true fan" that is going to be choked by them being on RCA, they may create 100 new fans who all of the sudden realize what a travesty the government of the USA is.

That's my opinion anyway.

World Can't Wait[edit]

I removed this because I don't really feel that it's worth our time to post every piece of activism that the band's involved with in the article. The person who added this, by looking at their contribs, clearly has an agenda, and since this hasn't been a particular major thing for the band I don't really see any reason to include it. Also, external links should pertain directly to the subject of the article. Fightindaman 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left Wing[edit]

  • In what world are the politics of this band "left wing". They are at the most extreme liberal centrist with attempts at shocking lyrics.Tombride 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain? Because songs like "Kill the Rich" "We Want an Anarchy" "Free Nation?" "Police State In the USA" don't really sound like centrist views to me. I wish some of them would be, but they aren't. Also, they have claimed to be socialists in the past, and I think that immediately excludes them form the general "Liberal" label. 70.181.139.64 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say left-wing. They are fairly reformist though. Maybe use progressive/left-wing as a compromise. And I agree with the idea that they are out for shock value, but I don't think they can be seen as liberal, at least not their old stuff. Old anti-flag was pretty good, now it's just lame. The Ungovernable Force 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Progressive/left-wing" would be fine by me. 70.181.139.64 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I said before. Their politics are liberal with random attempts to appear dangerous or radical through sloganeering in a effort to project an image that sells records to their fan base of pre-teens. They've also advocated burning down librarys. So, unless you think that's part of their left wing beliefs...Tombride 17:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment that they are just trying to sell an image, and if you can source that criticism you could (and I would fully support you on this) make the criticism in the article. But it should say that they at least try to seem left-wing/progressive/socialist/whatever we agree on. The Ungovernable Force 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did they advocate burning down libraries? Also, they have referred to themselves as socialists before. I think its just easier to say left-wing rather than try and categorize them. Especially since most of their fans wont agree with you.

P.S. Sorry about reverting your changes without disscussing first. My bad. 70.181.139.64 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, and I found this on their website

"Question: what is anti-flag's political affiliation?

Answer: The members of Anti-Flag tend to prescribe to progressive, far left leaning political ideology. Anti-Flag have backed a number of political candidates in the past but overall tend not to back specific candidates. " http://www.anti-flag.com/GO50.php?offset=15

So that seems to be their offical word on it. 70.181.139.64 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. For lack of a better source from me that's going to be how it stays then.Tombride 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Progressive" and "far-left" are two totally different things. Progressive is universally applied to liberals (left-of-center), not people on the radical end of the spectrum. It's like someone trying to say we "prescribe to conservative, fascistic political ideology" in order to make their ideas seem less crazy. GreatGatsby 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why a wing?[edit]

in my oponion you are wrong gatsby. SEE POST ABOVE "LEFT WING". i think that AF is trying stop the "left wing" "rightwing" way of thinking. the seem to support more radical ideas but acctuly their retoric sounds a liltle like communism. 

Razor romance
Communism == radical left-wing. You lose. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

criticism[edit]

Should it be noted that there is alot of criticism within the punk scene that Anti-Flag doesn't know what they ar talking about, and that most of there lyrics are just meant to be shocking, or just ramble on about how the government is run by "facists"?

  • Maybe, but their ramblings are downloaded and played on radio a lot more that my ramblings. 118.208.143.202 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you talking about? 

whoever wrote that statment has two problems with that statment

1 it is not the porpouse of wikipedia to determin if a band "knows what they are talking about" and 2SIGN YOUR FRIGGIN WORK!!! Razor romance 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Criticism from arrogant snots. What do they mean anti-flag doesn't know what they are talking about? Anti-Flag is probably the only political punk band I've run across that backs nearly everything they say up with some form of evidence or at least cites resources. Plenty of punk bands go on about the government being run by fascists but don't back it up. At least anti-flag backs it up. 12.156.166.47 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a band supposed to back things up? I've never heard 'footnote one!' at the end of a line, and then have them expound that point at the end of the song....sure, I suppose you could cite resources in your CD art, but consider the ratio of the number of people that buy the CD, versus how many people hear the songs? The lyrics are ultimately all that matter. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Actually Anti-Flag has essays either band members wrote or that they were fond of posted on their website and in CD booklets. For example, their essays and ramblings section.Vigilarts (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in their CD booklets. Just because you've never seen a CD of theirs doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anyway, a bunch of "haters" doesn't warrant a mention in a Wikipedia article. And please be mature, Wikipedia is not a place to argue opinions99.54.188.176 (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless critisisms[edit]

"Perhaps the largest criticism of Anti-Flag is that while they claim to have far left-wing ideals, perhaps akin to socialism, they are happy to sell their merchandise and records at a price. They've aimed songs at money greedy corporations previously, yet they have no qualms with making money themselves."

I deleted this because Anti-Flag have never stated that people should not be able to profit from their work.

Also, they do give large amounts of money to very important causes. The African Well Fund, for example. I just had to add that.

Singles[edit]

There should be a singles section

lebo[edit]

haha, if you think mt lebo is affluent... oh boy. upper middle class, sure, but affluent? ha.

lol, this person doesn't understand how money works. yeah bro, 80k a year is affluent. if you swing on over to the demographic section of the lebo page, you'll see the median income for a family is a but a few dollars below that. must be nice to hang out with so many money-ed peeps, broseph. must be nice to have no concept of the real income of real americans. must be nice.

Albums[edit]

Someone should put together a Albums section. There's quiet a few.

Hey. It's the wikipedia. If you care about it, you do it :) 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sellouts?[edit]

I don't really own for blood and empire, so I can't say whether or not they sold out with it. But I do know that The Terror State is a shining example of what a deftly political punk album should be. It cites problems in the world, gives evidence to support these problems, presents the message in an angry yet intelligient manner, manages to have catchy lyrics without being wishy washy, and gives us a little direction as to what to do about the world. It is one of the best punk albums I've picked up in a while and has some of the best lyrics I've ever seen, from any genre of music.

Whoever says anti-flag watered down their lyrics by going from "kill the rich" to "power to the peaceful" is a moron. Either you haven't actually heard the song or you are just a war mongering rebel without a clue. What's wrong with a little pacifism? Must all punks be violent rebels? Can't we have some punks that believe in a little peace and unity?

I also see little problem with switching to a major label or making money off the cds. A poor person can do little to change the world, especially if he is starving. Look at Black Flag for crisakes. They were highly DIY and they practically starved to death their entire careers! On the other hand, signing to a major label allows you to broadcast your views to a wider audience. You can call it hypocritical that they denounce capitalism and then take part in the system, or you can call it ironic that they are seeking the collapse of the system that has latched on to them. To destroy your enemy, get close to him right? As for making money off their junk, even highly DIY bands like Against All Authority and Black Flag charge circa 10 bucks per cd. It's impossible to cover cost of manufacture and feed yourself if you charge less than that! It's not like they live in mansions or drive corvettes or anything! It is especially hard to hand out cds for free or charge small amounts of money if you are trying to circulate your material among a wide audience like Anti-Flag is.

Also, let's be fair. Anti-Flag is anti-corporate, but corporations are a lot larger than a group of musicians making money of their music. Anti-Flag's money is money earned for a job well done, not money stolen, like the giant corporations tend to do, which is what anti-flag speaks out against. Learn the difference between earning and stealing. It's crucial. 208.191.84.241 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Punk rock extraordinaire[reply]

Yeah, I don't think they're sellouts either, really. If Justin's words were true, that's the kind of contract I'd like to see all artists getting. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the genre... I'm nonplussed[edit]

Someone changed Anti-Flag's genre from 'political punk rock' to 'political rock'. This seems more than a little pointless since Anti-Flag's genre isn't even under debate. Maybe labelling a disputed band like AFI that way, but Anti-Flag? I think everyone can pretty much agree that anti-flag is a punk rock band. I reverted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.191.86.76 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, I will revert. If someone doesn't know what punk is, they can wiki it and find out.

Ok, further. I can understand saying Anti-Flag are a little more pop-oriented than other punk bands, but to call them pop/punk is childish. They fit none of the musical requirements for pop-punk. The biggest difference between pop-punk and 'true' punk is that pop-punk is 100% non-political. Any band that even begins to approach political issues begins to shed the label pop-punk. As clearly political as anti-flag is to call them pop-punk is just plain stupid. Thus I am removing the pop-punk label under the genre box.

--I think Anti-Flag could definetely be classified as melodic hardcore in addition to being political punk...feedback? - Razorhead


"Pop punk" and not "Punk Rock". That's my opinion. --154.20.58.130 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to call them pop punk. But then again, I have heard Bad Religion called pop punk. I truly don't see them as melodic hardcore. That would make them Melodic hardcore punk? Because they have varied in the years but still keep the punk attitude and mentality and show the roots in some songs. I think a lot about being punk is an attitude. They fit in. I have heard them called Avant Garde, and I see how those who do have come to that conclusion.--Blckhawk1234 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revamp[edit]

HI guys, I recently saw this article needed a huge revamp. So i decided so set up some sound sample, a new lead, and a references section. If you guys could join in that would be great. Also, the references seem to be unfunctioning. Does someone who knows how to make these refs work step up? It would be immense help. Thanx --Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ☎/ ∑ 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Thetic.[edit]

Can nobody find any information on him? The other members each have a page, but his redirects back to the band's. Cheers, Crassic! 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He definitely needs a page, or else he might cry himself to sleep at night. I don't know enough about Anti-Flag to make a page on him, but someone must...

EDIT:I can't seem to find much info on him with Google. I see why no one's made a page. Hmmmm.... CrayZsaaron 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat has done a few interviews in somewhat recent years that might help someone create a page for him. [1] [2] [3] JennBingman (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://shaleroracle.com/635/arts-entertainment/anti-flag-drummer-pat-thetic-talks-politics-music-activism/
  2. ^ https://crypticrock.com/interview-pat-thetic-of-anti-flag/
  3. ^ https://rocknyc.live/pat-thetic-of-anti-flag-talks-politics-punk-rock-and-activism.html

Genre[edit]

I changed streetpunk to political punk because they signed onto a major label so they arent street

I don't see how that's a reason to remove that label. See also Chumbawumba=anarcho=signed to a major. --Cheeser1 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of political punk as a subgenre- punk tends to be political in nature. I am tempted to change it back.Kurasuke 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you've heard of isn't really how we write things on Wikipedia. I've heard of it, it's a label generally applied to such bands (e.g. Dead Kennedys, Bad Religion, etc). See also [1] for an example of use in journalism. --Cheeser1 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Political punk isn't a genre. Streetpunk is, but Anti-Flag are by no means it. In fact, even "Punk Rock" and "Hardcore Punk" are stretches... I think "Pop Punk" is the only term which accurately describes them. --154.20.58.130 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me pop-punk is more blink-182/sum 41/green day/new found glory/simple plan like. I don't think Anti-Flag quite falls into the category that those bands fall into because there stuff seems to have more aggressive vocals, drum beats, and lyrics, though I do have to agree that some of their newer stuff has been more like pop-punk. According to All music guide they fall into the Punk Revival, Hardcore, and O!l styles[2]. Its important to note here that we are discussing subgenres. I think maybe the infobox should be changed to reflect that. As far as other sources I have seen anti-flag listed as everything from Rock & Alternative by AOL [3] to Rock/Pop by some site which was selling the "A new kind of army" CD (looking for the link, just had it up a minute ago.) --Nn123645 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No introduction.[edit]

We should add one, the article looks like a talk page. Zazaban 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vegetarians[edit]

THREE of the four guys are vegetarians. The article says all four are and I keep editing it but someone changes it back. Look at the citation, christ. I'm going to change it again and if anyone puts it back I kindly ask you to edit it for me.

Daniel willems (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to vegan because in many videos about how they are vegan all members are present and talk about it. Intill you can link me to an offical artical it will remain vegan and is not up for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frid2 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New album[edit]

Is there really a new album coming from Anti-Flag? There is something about blog reports from Justin Sane suggesting that they will leave RCA and make another album, but I have not seen any proof of that so far.Mattimis (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Was Lucy Fester a bassgitarist or a gitarist for the band? The article doesn't really explain that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubberink (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy played guitar. Justin originally played drums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks99 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

house flipping[edit]

can we talk about justin gentrifying hipster lawrenceville? man, i hate working class people, too. they get in the way of making money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.177.244 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can get a WP:RS to write about it! Would be very interested in reading more on this topic. Abeg92contribs 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REAL anti flag genres[edit]

Punk rock[1] , hardcore punk[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.214.78 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Flag. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Flag. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 23:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Flag. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Flag. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Flag. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Flag. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Flag. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good things must come to an end[edit]

Rest In Peace to Anti-Flag 2600:1004:B026:8CDB:5DC8:9E9E:CAA6:AA76 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning to »Dropkick Murphys support«: there was no show in Praque in July 2023, the show with DM was planned on August 21th 2023. bandsintown.com JKowar (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source for the accusations[edit]

Sports Keeda has covered these accusations. Is it reliable enough for inclusion? https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/pop-culture/what-justin-sane-do-allegations-explored-anti-flag-breakup-leaves-fans-distraught 174.251.64.219 (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations I included mentions the allegations in its headline. (It's the Stereogum article: "Anti-Flag Announce Break Up Following Possible Rape Accusations Against Frontman.") I would really like to add the allegations as an explanation for the breakup - like, in a vague way (like, "The band did not offer an explanation for the breakup, although media outlets speculated it could have been due to allegations of sexual assault leveled against frontman Justin Sane").
I'm just always nervous about accidentally perpetrating WP:BLP violations, so I don't know what appropriate wording would look like. But I really do think it's OK to add them at this point, given that reputable music news sites have reported on them. Afddiary (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris #2 Social Media[edit]

Page falsely claims Chris #2 deleted his social media. He didn't, Justin Sane deleted all his social media. 2600:1008:B1AA:58E8:D88B:7705:49DD:3518 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Chris #2 deleted his Instagram page; that's what the PunkNews article (which is cited for that information) currently reflects as well. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen any secondary sources reporting that Justin Sane deleted all his social media (even though I know you're right, and that's 100% true). But I don't want to insinuate anything unintentionally accusatory or malicious about Chris #2, so I'll just remove that part. Thanks for bringing that up :) Afddiary (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_rock#Characteristics was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_punk#Music_and_clothing_style was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Flag&oldid=1204891608"