Talk:Public Enemy

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


Band Name[edit]

New album, Loud Is Not Enough, was released April 1, 2020 under the name Enemy Radio, not Public Enemy Radio as earlier promos had stated it would be. This seems to imply it was changed due to Flavor Flav's lawsuit over Chuck D's use of the "Public Enemy" name for this project. However, as with Flav's status there isn't anything definitive in the music press just speculation. --WarEqualsPeace (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– This seems like the main subject for "Public Enemy" (capital P, capital E, with no article). We have three articles with that name: a 2002 Korean film, a Belgian TV series, and this article. Other items in the disambiguation page are lowercase, "The" Public Enemy, plural, or about subjects we don't have articles about. Both the movie and the TV show are English translations, but even if they weren't, this still seems like the main subject. As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the usage is much more likely (it gets about 37x as many pageviews as either of the others) and it has long-term significance being widely considered immensely influential/important in hip hop, American music, 20th century music, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - WP:NOPRIMARY and no benefit to be gained from intentionally adding ambiguity. -- Netoholic @ 02:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Looking at pageviews, this looks to be primary even considering lowercase usage. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looking at pageviews backs up the nom's assertion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Pageviews going back several years supports the nom's assertion. --HugoHelp (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear primary topic, by both usage and long term significance, for the title case name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the above. Fight the power! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced band only sticks out if removing Public Enemies (2009 film) from consideration. Still rather too generic, and (band) is not a mark of shame on a band article. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't actually need to remove that one, because there is no universe in which it is a potentially competing title for the name "Public Enemy."--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, i don't think caps is enough to DAB in this case, and (band) at the end helps the average user disambiguate better.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Any user bothering to capitalize both words is almost certainly looking for this article. This is the epitome of a primary topic for this particular title. The opposition doesn’t seem to understand and appreciate the benefit of taking users directly to the articles they’re searching for rather than making them wade through dozens of entries on a godforesaken dab page. —В²C ☎ 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Capitalisation is a terrible disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is capitalization a terrible disambiguator? Do you disagree with DIFFCAPS? “The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for.” In this case if someone types “Public Enemy“ (both caps) in the search box don’t you agree they are most likely looking for this article? —-В²C ☎ 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I certainly support DIFFCAPS, I'm not sure if its sufficient to allow the capitalized term to go to a different article, Friendly fire/Friendly Fire seems to work best, maybe move the band up the DAB if needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like "I support alphabetization, but only when it doesn't use the alphabet". The only reason Friendly Fire is a disambiguation page is because there's no main topic for that capitalization. So the relevant question here is whether this Public Enemy is the main topic for capital-P capital-E Public Enemy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the're completely different things, one thing is not having a primary redirect to the general concept and another is having a different topic at the Title Case version. I completely agree that the general concept isn't primary for the title case version but I'm not sure the band is so it might be best to keep the Title Case version as a DAB. Just because Portland, Oregon isn't the primary topic for "Portland" doesn't mean that Portland, Maine has to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Netoholic. In addition, the group are named for the concept, which is properly at the top of the da page currently arrived at. Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may recognise that the concept should not be capitalised. Well done. The point here is that most readers will neither recognise the significance of the difference nor whether the concept should or should not be capitalised: in fact they are not even thinking about either. Unknown unknowns make for an awful disambiguator, as Necrothesp has pointed out. Cambial Yellowing❧ 15:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't sound like that at all. That's just you grossly misrepresenting the argument I made because you think it will help you win support. It won't. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Most of the oppose arguments aren't really arguments either. -- Calidum 02:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has some serious inconsistencies.[edit]

Opening says the group consists Chuck D and DJ Lord but the member list has their musical director as well. I noticed this comment on the member page "Unless it is officially confirmed by Public Enemy themselves, or Flavor Flav himself, whether or not he is still a member of the group, DO NOT re-add him from past members to current members. Additionally, Khari Wynn is still officially the current music director, DO NOT delete him" It is my understanding that Flavor Flav is still a member as he is all over the new album, and that the musical director does not count as a member. Griff still performs with the group sometimes and is listed as a member on their facebook(as well as Flavor) so not sure how to handle that, but he didn't leave shortly after he rejoined like it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.85.122 (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we create a new section about their musical styles and who influences them?[edit]

I’ve seen some articles that at least did their best to get in-depth with it. We don’t have to do it now. But, it could definitely be a suggestion. 76.174.128.213 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Enemy&oldid=1194428675"