Talk:The Chicks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Treatment of the controversy

The controversy deserves to stay here, as it affects the group's album sales and concert ticket sales, and the boycott of their songs by several radio stations. -- Zoe 02:27, 21 March 2003

So long as it stays under Natalie Maines as well as being on this page, all parties can feel that justice has been done. -- Tiles 05:45, 21 March 2003

Is it necessary to have changed "explain their position" to "salvage their reputation"? I don't know if it's that tarnished. Gary Glitter's reputation would need salvaging, as would Pete Townshend's if the child porn allegations made against him had turned out to be true, but the Dixie Chicks? I don't think their reputation has been hurt so much as to need salvaging. --Lukobe 22:36, 6 May 2003

I agree and have restored "explain their position" Tiles 22:46 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Useful source material on the controversy

[1] is useful for anyone working on this article. Kingturtle 05:02 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Very useful - I've added the awards they have received to date. None for Courage, yet. Tiles 09:08 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

good stuff Tiles Ping 09:20 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Another useful link which gives a different (non-American) perspective on the controversy [2] Tiles 22:04 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Do you want to add that to the article instead of just talk? -º¡º

Will do Tiles 22:17 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Article move

I've moved this from "The Dixie Chicks" to "Dixie Chicks" as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards. Hope all are OK with this -- sannse 12:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Clear Channel

There was never a "boycott" of the Dixie Chick by Clear Channel, nor was their music barred from being played on Clear Channel radio stations. In fact, Clear Channel's live entertainment division promoted over 20 of the Dixie Chicks show during the tour after Natalie Maines made her remarks.

The radio chain that did remove the Chicks' music from their stations for a short time was Cumulus. 22:00, 23 June 2004 141.225.50.114

Not entirely correct. A number of Clear channel radio stations did stop playing their music for a while. While Cumulas stations also stoped playing their music too, there are aple news stories about Clear Channel stations boycotting the Dixie Chicks. As I stated in my submission, their is a debate as to who initiated those boycotts though. Cab88 14:01, 24 June 2004, amended by 04:44, 2 October 2004 12.40.180.17

Individual stations may have stopped playing the Dixie Chicks for a while, but the true question is: did parent company Clear Channel boycott or ban their music? I have not found "aple [sic] news stories about Clear Channel stations boycotting the Dixie Chicks" despite Cab88's claim otherwise. —Mark Mathu Jan. 14, 2005

Why does entire page have to be about controversy?

Why does this entire page have to be about the Dixie Chicks and their political woes? These women have been bringing great music to the world for years and will continue to do so. Whoever is President and whoever is buying their stuff. I know I will count myself proud to be a Chicks fan, not because of what they believe, but because no matter what else happens, anytime, anyplace, they absolutely rock.

xenite_one_2001@yahoo.com, Terri D., Charlotte, NC 08:41, 22 November 2004 152.12.37.50

"Why does this entire page have to be about the Dixie Chicks and their political woes?"

Because this is an article about the Dixie Chicks. Not an article about how much the Dixie Chicks "rock." Besides, there is a section entitled "Group History," so the article is not entirely about their political issues. –Matt 09:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)(UTC)

What I'm saying (if you would bother to read the whole thing, and not just pick out certain words or phrases that support your point) is that nobody is talking about their comtribution to the music. They've brought a lot to country music and their sound has evolved and that is even worthy of mention. Also, what about all thier work with Rock the Vote and the World Wildlife Federation. Just because it's news to you, doesn't mean that it's news to the people who really are fans, or people who care in the least bit about the music. If you want to read about scandal, go someplace else. TD 16:52, 6 December 2004 152.12.16.46
There is probably too much on the controversy, which is now "old news". However, there is plenty of file room for TD to add to the article or edit the controversy material to capture the essence of the event and reduce to amount of detail. That would be more productive than over-reacting to Matt's response. Tiles 07:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In February 2005 I made edits that expanded the treatment of their music considerably, although by an amount-of-text metric there's still a big emphasis towards the controversy. Wasted Time R 13:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it true that most country stations still refuse to play them?

Is it true that "most country music stations in the United States still refuse to play the Dixie Chicks' music because their generally conservative listeners disagree with the women and would rather not listen to their music." ? Tiles 07:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they still are rarely played by CMT and country radio, but that could also be because they have had no new promoted material out since the controversy, so it's hard to tell. I've added words to this effect. Wasted Time R 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

songwriter?

Do they write their own songs? I was kind of hoping the article would say. NickelShoe 05:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Inside vs. outside songwriting is about half and half; I've added text to that effect. Wasted Time R 13:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

feel sorry

i feel sorry for the dixie chicks. I mean, they speak their mind and they are panned for it. I wonder if they came out and strongly in support of pres. Bush and his actions, that the dixie chicks would be even more famous and radios still playing their music. That just makes me hate conservatives American's even more :) 09:27, 6 December 2005 218.101.80.111

They'd be much worse if they were in support of pres. Bush. How do you think Liberals would feel about artists daring to line up with the same Conservatives you hate so much? Would you feel obliged to buy the material of an artist you used to like but which now you fully antipatize since you've come to know he is Conservative? Tell me the name of even one Conservative artist. They're all Liberals. Some fans of the Dixie are Conservative and are irked by them now just like you would be if the Dixie were Conservative. Deal with it. Get some consistency.

Ricardo Dirani 23:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ramones and Neil Young, among others, publicly came out for Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s (pre Iran-Contra - see "Rocket to Russia") and got plenty of guff for it from their fans, but no one threatened to pull their records, or in the case of the Ramones, their punk card. There are far right rock and pop artists such as Ted Nugent and Anita Bryant, just as there are others in country music who are on the left side of the isle. Country is most definitely not "all liberals". (See Lee Greenwood and Charlie Daniels.) Before his death, Johnny Cash noted that he did not "approve" of President Bush, and Willie Nelson has also been clear about that. More recently, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw - hardly raging liberals - publicly decried the government's lack of action post-Katrina. It'll be interesting to see how much core negativity remains towards the Dixie Chicks, when you need a scorecard to keep track of the administration's continuing scandals. Considering the low approval ratings and recent polls showing 50% very dissatisfied with Bush, there are plenty of Americans who find themselves ashamed of the president's track record now. 67.10.133.121 11:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted ridiculous

Deleted the following ridiculous addition to the article: " Why do you think the right wing party conservatives hatefd the sixties than evan to today? What kind of people hate peace and love togetherness? Are these people true Christians and follow the precepts Christ taught on the mount? Think the sixties, think a generation of angels. Think music, think God's messengers, think the Dixie Chicks." -meystingray 07:45, 8 December 2005 128.2.247.122

Gay Icons?

Do you think the Dixie Chicks should be added to the "Gay Icons" page? Although the girls themselves aren't gay, they have many, many lesbian fans. I was just wondering what everyone else thought.

Lady6String 21:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, since this is Wikipedia, you could always ask: is it Verifiable? If not, then default to "no". --Robertb-dc 23:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The material on Dixie Chicks conspiracy theories lacks any reliable source. My suggestion is that the material be removed, or redirected onto a separate conspiracy theory page. Morton devonshire 01:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure reorg

Note that in the last couple of days I've substantially reorganized the structure of the article. The old history->sound->controversy scheme (which I was one of the framers of) was not holding up well in the face of new additions, and several periods of their history were being shortchanged. The new structure is much more straightly chronological, which makes more sense given that they are now on possibly their third "sound", and that the group's history now depends in part on the after-effects of the controversy. Wasted Time R 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2020

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 section.

Procedural close. Obviously, the request has been granted and the page was renamed to "Dixie Chicks" as proposed; however, another move request has been opened, and there can only be one open request at a time on a talk page. It is asked that editors discuss a title change in the open move request below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Chicks (band) → Dixie Chicks – WP:COMMONNAME. There was also no discussion to move this article to its current title, The Chicks (band). I'm aware of the band's rebranding, but it has been known by its former name for 31 years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Soft Oppose. I'm not sure what range of policy may be relevant here, so the "soft" in my opposition is out of deference to the fact that I haven't look into such complexities. But everything else being equal, if someone stops using a name and requests others to stop using a name, it seems appropriate to call them by their new name, assuming people start using it, which seems extremely likely in this case (among the majority of fans and others).
    On a slightly different note, here's a data point of possible relevance: Two weeks after her marriage to George Clooney in September 2014, the page for Amal Alamuddin was moved to Amal Clooney (DIFF) despite the fact that she'd been called Amal Alamuddin for more than 36 years. Looks like it never provoked any controversy. So why should the change here be controversial? --Presearch (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
When I made my "soft oppose" above I was unsure about policy. But it is now clear that there are multiple supportive precedents and no one has offered any strong arguments against. It seems obvious that the name should be changed without delay to something like The Chicks, so my opinion has essentially transformed from soft oppose to Hard Oppose. Here are examples of mainstream coverage that use the new name - not yet exclusively, since the transition is new, but the mainstream media is using the new name: "A spokesperson for the group's label, Columbia Records (part of Sony Music Entertainment), told NPR on Thursday that The Chicks had no comment on the name change";[1] "This will be the Chicks' first album in nearly 14 years and will be available July 17."[2] --Presearch (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tsioulcas, Anastasia (25 June 2020). "Dixie Chicks Change Band Name To The Chicks". NPR.org. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  2. ^ Melas, Chloe (25 June 2020). "The Dixie Chicks have changed their name". CNN. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  • Oppose Makes no sense to keep it at the previous name when they've changed the name. Either way, The Dixie Chicks still redirects to this page. AshMusique (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose See WP:NAMECHANGES subsection of WP:COMMONNAME. If reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should use the new name. Here are two more in addition to that already cited on the page which refer to the band as "The Chicks": https://news.yahoo.com/the-dixie-chicks-have-apparently-dropped-the-dixie-from-their-name-170329276.html https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dixie-chicks-band-name-change_n_5ef4c6efc5b66c3126838037 68.101.205.36 (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm undecided on this right now, but let's not rush into this. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. However: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. It has been mere hours since the band changed their name - it might not last, and it's not yet possible to see how sources treat the name change going forward. Popcornfud (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Agreed, though that's more like Oppose for now. It seems definitive from their cover art change, but it was just announced, so we should give it time. Calbaer (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to The Chicks, there's no point of redirecting it here, and the other topics are secondary. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 19:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia didn't move Snoop Dogg's article when he renamed himself "Snoop Lion". Zacwill (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's funny you consider they will rename themselves as "Dixie" in two years. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Snoop Dogg specifically said Snoop Lion was his alter ego for a particular album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Another example is Malcolm X, whose article would be titled "Malik el-Shabazz" if we were to go by the name he chose for himself and not the name he became famous under. Zacwill (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that's an apt comparison. As the Malcolm X article notes, Shabazz was still widely referred to by the name Malcolm X even after adopting a new name. It's hard to imagine that will be the case here. Their new album will be released under their new name, and newsmedia covering them henceforth is likely to use their new name. dscos (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing whether the new name will supplant the established name in common usage. CRYSTAL. Zacwill (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If they ever change their name back to The Dixie Chicks, we can easily, very easily, change it back here. They have changed their name to The Chicks, this appears to be no mere publicity stunt and I say we should respect their decision. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think you should therefore change your vote to "Oppose", as I think you go against what the proposer says. Might just be a misunderstanding on your part.@TimothyHorrigan:--Ortizesp (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks: I changed my vote to "Oppose." I know they are female and I know they are liberals, but they still have the right to change their name without asking for anyone else's approval. 21:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support COMMONNAME and it is CRYSTAL to presume the new name will get picked up popularly at this time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reverting the change to allow for a proper discussion. This was made prematurely, but my !vote is for The Chicks (without "(band)" DAB). jamacfarlane (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, remove disambiguating parenthetical: It is CRYSTAL to presume that the name won’t be picked up in use. “Popularity” has nothing to do with how common it is used. When continuing to use a name for something when you’ve already been asked not to use said name is utterly disrespectful and should not require discussion.--BaseFree (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Gonna need to slap a major Citation Needed on that claim. Would you say the same about a trans person?--BaseFree (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That's such a ridiculous comparison. We're talking about a band's name, not a person undergoing transition. Also: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name... This implies that we must wait a while. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
So a band (which is a group of people) transitioning to a new name they chose themselves is different from a person transitioning with their new name they chose themselves? It is CRYSTAL to say they will stop using the new name without being prompted by the subject in question--BaseFree (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have moved back until this RM has consensus. jamacfarlane (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per argument aboves, as well as the rebranding of the Gaslighter project as "The Chicks," and the recent change at Lady A, brought on by the same reasons. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is already a band named The Chicks that The (Dixie) Chicks have acknowledged and thanked for granting use of the same name going forward. Therefore, would it not be prudent to have the old page (The Dixie Chicks) redirect to "The Chicks" and have not only a 'not to be confused with' and also a 'previously known as' statement? JustCMe (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The band changed their name with a formal announcement, and it would be completely improper not to reflect it due to the reasons they used to change it. Now, whether this needs to go to a different disambiguation due to the other "The Chicks" band, or is the primary "The Chicks" topic, that's a separate question. --Masem (t) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose, the band have officially changed their name. By keeping it at their old name, we prolong the common name misconception and people will learn the new name via the redirect and an appropriate message at the top of the page. Similar thing happened with Lady Antebellum who are now called Lady A. Additionally there is no reason or logic for the disambiguation. This page should be called The Chics.≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lil-unique1: It's Chicks not Chics. Spealling is key. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that the default thinking is "Oh, they’ll change back, so why move?", when this has not been a recurrent outcome is utterly ludicrous--BaseFree (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's bizarre that anyone would suggest the article should be titled with the former name of the band. dscos (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: There was no controversy with the renaming of their discography. Not sure why this has to be an issue? Lots of bands and artists change their names and there were probably no issue with some of them. The fact this has to be an issue is, for a lack of a better term, stupid. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - obviously "The Chicks" is their new name, and the name they themselves prefer. Not sure about dab page issues, but "Dixie" definitely does not belong in the title any more. Also I am seeing very strong consensus and I think it is time to invoke the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Adpete (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the conversation should shift to whether (band) is necessary--BaseFree (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment as both. In my otherwise irrelevant opinion (I do not listen to country), I think the title should be The Chicks (Dixie Chicks) —respecting their change, but informing the reader who is looking for them. Trillfendi (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be what the redirect is for--BaseFree (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been here long enough to witness some super specific titles like Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare). Trillfendi (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ’’’Oppose’’’ a “not to be confused with” would be sufficient. The article should reflect the new name. Themichaelpr0ject (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use The Chicks with no disambiguation. This is the primary topic. WWGB (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep at Dixie Chicks for now. In a few weeks or months we can reevaluate to see what reliable sources are doing, per WP:NAMECHANGES. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not an option. It’s ridiculous to quantify our wait in months when no reliable source is going to call them Dixie Chicks when the band doesn’t want them to--BaseFree (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Not only is it definitely an option, it's also the most sensible option. Zacwill (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed. It’s not sensible to defy common sense--BaseFree (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)\\
Agreed. WP:IAR. Adpete (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment No opinion on whether to move, but there in also The Chicks (duo), so this should best not be moved to The Chicks (band) if anywhere. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hard Oppose Sometimes the need for consensus gets in the way of common sense. Make the change. S51438 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No, discussion NOT closed. User:GeoffreyT2000, you were too quick on the draw, nor do I see how you get a support for moving it back out of this discussion with this set of votes. Now, I move-protected the article for ten days pending a real discussion and conclusion, so it'll be "Dixie Chicks" for a little while longer--even though that's completely silly, since that is not what they are called anymore. I mean, seriously, what works for William Bruce Jenner should work here. (Yes, I oppose too.) Drmies (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Funny, I used the example of a trans person (not a specific one, but just general) about 5 hours ago but I got told it was a "ridiculous comparison"--BaseFree (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice4What was wrong. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies Do we really need ten days? This seems pretty SNOWy to me. Glen 04:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Why on earth was the moved approved against consensus? This should be reversed. Their official site now uses the name "The Chicks" and there is no shortage of RS reporting the change. Are they any RS saying or even suggesting the change is not permanent? Adpete (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Because they couldn’t comprehend why moving to their new name shouldn’t need consensus. They assumed the journalists would continue to call them Dixie Chicks against their wishes. They don’t realize that moves like this don’t need consensus when a precedental, identical case just happened less than 2 weeks ago--BaseFree (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose For something else the policy might be to wait, but in this case it's common sense that they'll now be referred to by their new name. Not only by themselves but also by RS (as they're doing already). Johndavies837 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (edit conflict) per Lady A they have formally announced their name change. Move to The Chicks or The Chicks (band). Not even sure why this is being discussed. Glen 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It’s being discussed because someone thought it was worthy of one. That every move ever needs a discussion.--BaseFree (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
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.

"The" Dixie Chicks

While we're arguing about names: sources overwhelmingly refer to the band as the Dixie Chicks, not Dixie Chicks, and this should be reflected in the prose per WP:COMMONNAME. Popcornfud (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's more of a grammatical thing. Such as it's technically "the Disney Channel". 107.77.202.202 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This remark may not be helpful, but the use of "the" or "The" and/or the discounting of using either had a very long and contentious history on Wikipedia. It would be advantageous for y'all to look into that. We argued for several years about whether it was "The Beatles", "the Beatles" or the "Beatles". John from Idegon (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
John from Idegon, yep I'm well aware, and even wrote my own crackpot essay on the subject.
In this case all that needs to be determined is whether the band (before their name change) were referred to with the definite article or not. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes they were. So we should use it, reflecting sources. Popcornfud (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Chicks/Archive_1&oldid=1166163090"