Talk:The Chicks/Archive 2

message: Though minor, I changed the "Landslide" reference to credit Fleetwood Mac instead of Stevie Nicks. Ms. Nicks did write the song, but it first appeared on Fleetwood Mac's self-titled album. Crediting it to Ms. Nicks may cause confusion, especially considering the fact that she has had a solo career outside of Fleetwood Mac. If the Dixie Chicks had covered "Hard Day's Night," I'm sure that we'd credit the Beatles, not Lennon/McCartney.
What do you all think?
:People credit Lennon-McCartney all the time.  This could go either way, it's no big deal.  Wasted Time R 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landslide Credit 

message: There are a few red links that I'm not sure will ever turn blue on their own.  Laura Lynch left the music business entirely, and while Robin Lynn Macy has remained interested in her music, she's not been active to a level where she's likely to become commercially popular any time soon.  While Patty Lege is playing in Nashville these days , she's not likely to break out, either.  Both the Domestic Science Club and Big Twang have disbanded.  And Crystal Clear Sound, the recording studio where the Chicks cut their first three albums, isn't a major player outside of Dallas.  Most of these links have no references outside of this article and the articles for the indie albums (only exceptions are DSC and CCS, both easily fixed).  Despite my personal connection to the subject, I recommend de-rezzing the links -- but I want to bounce it off other interested readers first. --Robertb-dc 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Voodoo4936 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just as I was about to to in and start delinking, it appears that Laura and Robin are included in the new Template:Dixie Chicks.  There's already a note on the template's talk page about removing them, though -- and I've seconded the motion, for the same reasons as above, though I suggested that the template note "Current members".  It does add a twist to the issue, though.  --Robertb-dc 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muddying the waters further, someone has created a two-sentence article on Robin.  And one of the two sentences is incorrect.  Now, someone will have to go through the VFD process.  I'm going to go ahead and get rid of the links (there have been no objections), but I don't have time to figure out VFD at the moment. --Robertb-dc 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article on Robin Lynn Macy looks quite nice!  Too bad I just eliminated a bunch of links to it.  I guess it was just the Danger in the Air. :)  If you're willing to build Robin's article, please feel free to undo my unlinkage. --Robertb-dc 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Link removal? 

message: I removed this recently added language and had it immediately reverted back.  I'll not play revert games over it, as I realize this is a collective process.  I will however make my reasons plain for doing so.
The primary reason is that I think it's absolutely an appeal to a non-NPOV.  When the controversy first occured, the primary objection among detractors was that the president had been criticized "during a time of war."  That is was "on foreign soil" was secondary.  Certain people did cite that, yes, but primarily commentators and after the fact.  And also this was used primarily as a wedge, again, after the fact, to try to whip up sentiment against the group.  Personally, using it at the top of the entry feels like what it was used for in the first place: an appeal to a non-NPOV.  I think such terms are better used under the "Controversy" section when they can be better placed in context. --Dh100 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you convinced me, I've rereverted.  Wasted Time R 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As I said, my intent isn't to move it off the page entirely, but to have it put someplace when it can have context supplied. --Dh100 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "On Foreign Soil"

message: I have added a reference in the opening paragraphs to the fact that the Dixie Chicks received support from left-wing people for their anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war sentiments. If Wikipedia strives for neutrality, then I think it is only fair that both aspects (the country backlash; the support from left-wingers) be mentioned. -- Andrew Parodi 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified your change to make it less specific to politics and to people.  The country backlash is relevant because it was their musical genre; it shouldn't be labelled as left vs. right, since that greatly oversimplifies things.  And mentioning Springsteen is too specific for the intro, which should be kept more general.   Wasted Time R 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. The only reason I mentioned Bruce Springsteen is because I felt that if I didn't list someone specific and then give a citation then my claim would be contested. My only point in this is that some people who had previously paid little or no attention to the Dixie Chicks (people generally considered "liberals" and on "the left") came to their defense when the lead singer made the anti-Bush comments. I think that's notable. Andrew Parodi 03:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point assumes that prior to the controversy, Dixie Chicks fans were mostly "conservatives". Actually, Chicks fans were mostly country music and pop music fans who liked themes of female-oriented adventure presented with sass. In other words, their appeal wasn't politically-based and thus extended across political lines. And the Chicks already had admirers in the classic rock world, include James Taylor and Stevie Nicks and probably Springsteen too.  Wasted Time R 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The full article does describe a number of different reactions to the controversy, but again, the political spectrum is irrelevant.  "Liberal" and "conservative" aren't mentioned in the article at all, except for one reference to "culturally conservative", which is somewhat different from the spectrum.  The intro, which is what we're discussing, simply says they lost some of their core country audience, which is undeniably true.  The political affiliations of that audience are immaterial.  Wasted Time R 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro does state that they gained new admirers.  But as for your conclusions: You have to remember that much of America is apolitical -- only 50% vote in Presidential elections, a good deal less in all the lesser elections.  Many Americans identify as moderates, independents, not interested, cynical about all politics, and so on.  TV cable news shows love to divide everything into liberal vs. conservative battles, but it isn't nearly that simple.  There are plenty of country music fans who are culturally conservative about patriotism, culturally liberal about women's roles, economically all over the map ... who knows what party they belong to.  The Dixie Chicks' music is similarly hard to pin down ... is "Travellin' Soldier" liberal or conservative?  "Top of the World"?  "Long Time Gone"?  These songs defy these foolish, oversimplifying labels, and I think the article should avoid them as much as possible too.   Wasted Time R 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we're in violent agreement :-)    Wasted Time R 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is astounding logic, dear anonymous! How then, do you explain me? I'm a liberal, registered as a Democrat... and LOVE the Chicks. And, furthermore, loved them LONG before they bashed Bush at any stupid awards ceremony. I've been enjoying the Chicks since they released "Wide Open Spaces". Because - SHOCK! - I DO buy country music, and I DO like the Chicks primarily for their music, which is almost universally good stuff, if you like that flavor of country (very bluegrass-influenced and somewhat folk-influenced, mixed with some pop sound; though the post-"Home" stuff is more like the pop of the sixties mixed with their old sound, which is definitely different but still somehow the Chicks) and don't mind singers with high-pitched voices (such as Natalie Maines). I'll admit that I like them as people even more since they stood up and voiced their anti-Bush feelings, but I have always loved their music, and might have bought them still even if they had said the opposite from what they did. I bought "Home" before I was really aware they'd done what they're now infamous for, and at the time, already owned both "Wide Open Spaces" and "Fly". I bought "Taking The Long Way" not just because I agreed with their political opinions, but because I had heard "Not Ready To Make Nice", which is a beautiful song and despite what a lot of people might assume, goes well beyond describing just the Chicks' circumstances (in fact, when I listen to it, I think of the Vietnam or Cold War eras more than I do of current events). 63.21.62.213 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dixie Chicks received support from left-wing people

message: 17-6-06 The chicks make great music but when they open their mouths its instant dumb azz.  It does not matter the topic they don’t seem that intelligent just good musicians that’s all.   [15:10, 17 June 2006 70.161.247.208]
That may be the point.  If they stick to music, they're not that bad, but when they try to politicize, they invariably open mouth and insert foot. If they want to be political, then fine, but they need to decide.  Kf4mgz 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they need to decide. It would be outrageous if they did both music AND had anything to say about the way their country is run. / Botilda 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random views

message: : I was there on the night Natalie Maines made her comment about Bush. All she said was that they didn't support the war and that they were ashamed that the President was from Texas. A lot of people took that to mean they were not patriotic, but this is not the case. there was not one person there on that night that didn't agree with what Natalie had said. The fact that they need bodyguards because of death threats saddens me, when people are persecuted for voicing their personal opinion. Whatever happened to free speech? Or can you only voice your opinion when it matches that of the President. Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free???--NeilEvans 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According the article, which has a cite for it, in July 2006, Maines said "the entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country ... I don't see why people care about patriotism"  I think the question about whether Maines is patriotic can now be laid to rest.LeoO3 01:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the trolls.    Wasted Time R 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, whenever I hear that phrase about not feeding the troll(s) it makes me want to digest my face. Can we just refrain from using it on Wikipedia please, it isn't smart nor original, so just leave it be. 88.109.45.10 15:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are the trolls that the phrase references.  Unfortunately, as they are still around, the phrase is still as valid as ever.  Though, by posting this reply, I think I just failed to heed the phrase's sagely annoying advice. --Robertb-dc 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it ? 

message: I just saw some video countdown that claimed Not Ready to Make Nice was the first video to be #1 6 weeks in a row since 2002.  Did I get that right?  Sounds noteworthy, providing contrast to the songs original reception. Mathiastck 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record set? 

message: I'd like to point out that on the main page it is listed that Martie plays both the fiddle and the violin.  Well, I guess it must not be known that the violin and the fiddle are one in the same.  It is the manner in which the instrument is played that classifies the music.  Also, the bow grip is much different with the two styles of playing.  Just thought I'd set that straight, because it's a pet peeve of mine.  The fiddle and violin are the same!  [04:17, 31 July 2006 142.177.243.109]
:I agree that they're the same ... but on the main page I only see her listed for fiddle.  Where do you see the violin?   Wasted Time R 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiddle vs. violin 

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: With the release yesterday of the new Dixie Chicks documentary, Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing, there has been renewed interest in the group.  Not surprisingly, this has attracted the vandals.  I've reverted two blatant NPOV edits in the past couple of hours.  Y'all keep an eye out too, a'ight?  --Robertb-dc 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.   Wasted Time R 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal watch 

message: Is there any reason why there's so many fansites listed? According to WP:EL, one fansite link is appropriate. In my opinion, two may also be OK. I think nine may be pushing it slightly.
I'm sure they're not all necessary, after all Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a repository of links. I think the article itself provides more than enough required information, with the official links providing the rest.
Unless someone can come up with a significant reason as to why any of those fansite links are needed, I see no reason for them being in the article. —B33R(talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your analysis. WP:EL says fanlistings are "generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included", however in this case they almost certainly are informative and they definitely add to the article, so I've left three links. If anyone else has an opinion, feel free to leave it here. —B33R(talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "myspace" website because it is not an official website and at best belongs in the fan websites. Even so, there are plenty of fan sites and if you really want to see a bigger listing of fan sites, simply so a Google search. This webpage is not here to promote the Dixie Chicks. Jtpaladin 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell whether the Myspace site is run by representatives of the group or fans; if the later, I think it should be removed altogether, because it doesn't add much.  Another entry in the fansites list was an article, not a site, and I removed it.  Of the fansites remaining, http://www.dixie-chicks.com/ is the best from a research point of view, but all three seem deserving of staying.  One of them is run by an Iraq serviceman who hates Natalie Maines but wants to keep his site going nonetheless, which is certainly a perspective worth keeping.   Wasted Time R 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: An editor has removed *all* the fan sites, citing WP:EL.  I think he went a bit too far.  Other Wikipedia standards suggest a single fan site (dixiechicksfans.net is a good source for current info).  In addition, the two others link to information that is not available on the official site -- largely because they deal with issues the band wouldn't be expected to answer (dixiechicksfaq.com, "are the eBay autographs fake?") or that the band would prefer not to discuss (dixie-chicks.com, on the band's original members).  But I don't want to revert the change without presenting the issue for discussion -- after all, I own dixie-chicks.com, so I want to avoid any impression of conflict of interest.  --Robertb-dc 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites removed! 

message: I've pulled the following statement:
:(Tickets for their concert tour had gone on sale well before the controversy erupted, meaning a cross-section of their fans was at the concert.)  
There are multiple reasons for this being a bad statement.  First, it is original research.  Second, the fact that the tickets went on sale before the controversy erupted doesn't mean a cross-section of their fans were at the concert.  In fact, the "sold-out" status of the show only proves that they were popular before the controversy.  The fans that were unhappy with the political statements could have either sold their tickets to others, or simply not shown up.  If they sold 15,000 tickets, and only 10,000 fans showed up, it would still be considered a "sold-out" show.  Counting the number of tickets they sold before the controversy even hit the news is not a good indicator of the feelings of their fans about the controversy. Sperril 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the simple statement that tickets for the tour went on sale before the controversy erupted, along with a CMT biography cite that supports it.  There were not many no-shows for the tour, but you are correct that there could have been a lot of informal selling of tickets from people bothered by the Maines statement to people not so bothered, so I have left out my original conclusion about a cross-section being at the shows.   Wasted Time R 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "cross-section" 

message: I was wondering if anyone knew whether their sales in the south had rebounded at all? I was also wondering what kinds of numbers of people they were playing to compared with before the controversy. Also does anyone know how their record sales compare with before? I think this is relevant information that should be part of the entry. Has anyone in the south changed their mind on the Dixie Chicks after seeing the Iraq war go so wrong? After all, history is vindicating them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.103.57 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Xiner (talk, email) 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to their sales in 2006 and 2007? 

message: Just recently deleted a bit about an appearance the Chicks made in 1994 that just hangs out there in the article. It's not tied in to much of anything. Should a list of the most prominent appearances made by the Chicks be included? It could be placed under that heading. Made it easy to revert if there's significant disagreement with this change. [BTW what are these numbers in parantheses under my watchlist? for instance, the Chicks page is currently -149 ? ]
--Zuejay 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of appearances

message: I remember changing Maines' to Maines's a few times, so here's just a note to please remember that. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maines' vs. Maines's 

message: Due to recent vandalism, this article is being reviewed for protection from changes by unregistered and new users. Please feel free to comment here. Hopefully, the semi-protection, once in place, can be removed shortly. ZueJaytalk 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that legit edits wait until the article's semi-protected, or till tomorrow, because the IP vandalism is making good edits go bad. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect 

message: Please do not post the tag on a well-refenced article unless you discuss it on the talk page first. If you have a problem with anything, please discuss it with other editors. Xiner (talk, email) 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The POV tag 

message: I'm sorry it got to this. Here's how to request a change on the article, which will be protected for two days. Xiner (talk, email) 14:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the best way to expedite unprotection is for everyone, including the IPs, to agree to a compromise. I'm sorry for my part in this. Please? Xiner (talk, email) 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing a protected page 

message: First, I would like to say that the article is biased towards critics the the Dixie Chicks. 
Second, and unrelated, I would like to know how long the ban from editing will last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomfrenchie (talk • contribs) 
:Protection will last two days. If you have any problems with the article, you may suggest the improvements as discussions are pretty much the only thing anyone can do right now. Xiner (talk, email) 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on which way your axe is gored, this article is going to be a lightning rod. The talkpage needs to get back to being a forum for improving the article. Just my two cents. . . Ronbo76 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 things...

message: I think I did a boo-boo. Looks like I was working on copy and editted over another editor. My apologies. I tried to correct it but I think one citation is off. I will not touch the article until another editor reviews it and hopefully corrects it (thus, saving my bacon). Know what you call sliced pig frying on the griddle? Bacon. I just told you that (j/k). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 
:Could you take a look at the paragraph that starts with "The album contained additional tracks"? I can't tell what was changed there between your first copyedit and my latest one, but otherwise I think it's fine. Xiner (talk, email) 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the history diffs and click the buttons to do a side-by-side comparision, in one version you deleted part of the part. My edit re-inserted what you deleted in that paragraph. My subsequent re-edit tried to repair that but I may have screwed up the citation. Thanks, Ronbo76 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To those who don't know what's going on, the page is fine now. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's copyedit 

message: The last part of the third paragraph was deleted this morning. It was part of the reference and read in a vote they interpret as partly a statement for free speech. 
The cited article reads directly, "It was sweet vindication . . ." which IMHO could be interpreted as what was deleted without explanation.
I do agree with the second deleted portion as it is an unsourced POV statement. Ronbo76 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted a new reference with the relevant quote and restored the first passage. I hope it's ok. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me as freedom of speech is mentioned in the new reference. Ronbo76 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[February 17]], [[2007]] unexplained deletion 

message: I do not have time this morning but I would recommend that all the song titles in the Awards section be italicized like the rest of the songs. This would make one of the final copyedits IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 
:I was searching WP:MOS the other day and couldn't find the relevant text for song titles. Xiner (talk, email) 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style %28music%29#Classical music titles Song titles are enclosed in quotes. True titles of song cycles are italicized]. I have to admit I have seen song titles treated like articles and classical music titles, meaning they are italicized. A good example is Madonna (entertainer) where it is a slight mix that seems to follow MOS convention. Ronbo76 16:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, actually, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (music)#Popular_music says "album titles should be in italics, and song and single titles should be in quotes". Xiner (talk, email) 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another improvement 

message: What is this some sort of periodicle? It reads like some sort of book. Trying to grab your attention pshhh.... 70.162.43.130 04:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern is noted. I will look at it as this is the talkpage for improvement of their article. Ronbo76 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the referenced paragraph. Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic in its articles. What you see here should/would appear in a good encyclopedia. Sometimes fansite type material slips in. However, all editors (including me) have to balance the article using Wikipedia's neutral point of view. That means you should see a pro/con type arrangement to each article meaning they are balanced writings. Sorry if this articles does not tickle your fancy. I would gently suggest you do a search and find a fansite that meets your needs. Ronbo76 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chicks Return? 

message: Curiously, zh:南方小鸡 and zh:狄克西女子合唱團 are duplicate articles on zh.wiki. I've dropped a note in their community portal discussion page about the need for a redirect. The former name is more descriptive and more accurate, so unless there's a good reason to change it, I'd like to keep it that way. Thanks. Xiner (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese interwiki 

message: The reference http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/182/know-your-right-wing-speakers-laura-ingraham isn't about and doesn't mention the Dixie Chicks or the documentary -- why is it there at all?  Furthermore, are there any references which  actually indicate that the phrase "Shut Up And Sing" was taken from Ingraham's book?  The only references I can find say that the Chicks got it from some of the hate mail they received.  The available references don't support the text -- I'm changing both. -- ArglebargleIV 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shut Up And Sing -- the references 

message: Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment