Talk:The Chicks/Archive 3

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

Archival

I've archived the talk page, which was getting a bit long. If you consider any of the old convos to be unresolved - I didn't see any but who knows - please feel free to move it back. Xiner (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Political Controversey Section

Weird this only mentions US response, I only heard of the group because of the controversy (which got them only positive publicity where I am - in Canada - and here it feels like this is what made them known, and how they became popular). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.102 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings all, the worst songs ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.232.154 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


I added the paragraph including the quote in which Haggard defended the DC. I had added an explanatory paragraph after the quote which was, however, deleted. It read:

Thus, in effect, American soldiers who fought and died in past wars had died to protect precisely the right of individual Americans to voice their opinions in good conscience. Haggard's clear implication was that, by attacking the Dixie Chicks for exercising that right, those who attacked them were effectively negating what Americans in past wars had died for. Haggard's defense of the Dixie Chicks was significant because, as a country artist himself, he was exposing himself to precisely the same kind of backlash by coming to their defense at a time when certain other country artists, as an angry Natalie Maines charged in the Dixie Chicks biographical video "Shut Up and Sing," engaged in opportunistic "pandering," seeking to exploit the controversy to advance their own careers.

I admit this is a bit long. However, I think it is highly relevant to the "political controversy" aspect of the DC entry, for two reasons. Haggard's quote, to my mind, can only be interpreted as I have above, and it is arguably the most important aspect of the political controversy which emerged out of the DC debacle. Second, a related and perhaps the second most important aspect of the controversy deals with that fact that such backlashes against public personalities who voice dissenting opinions in American society constitute not only a very real "de facto" limitation on free speech but are exploited by others for their own purposes.

If someone has some objection to the above paragraph, I'd appreciate some kind of elaboration or explanation. I'm happy to hear other opinions, of course. Perhaps it can be modified. But I think a flat deletion in the absence of any kind of rationale is unreasonable. In the absence of such an explanation, I'd appreciate it if the above paragraph and related links were restored. -- Thanks

Gunnermanz 06:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Gunnermanz, I didn't delete your paragraph. Here's my feedback, and I think all Admins. would agree... there's too much of a tone of Editorializing and that violates NPOV. Encyclopedic content must contain information from references that allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Saying "Thus, in effect, American soldiers..." OR, "Haggard's clear implication was that.." This A) implies the reader can not make such connections and B) You actually know what Haggard (in this case) meant; giving it an almost "term-paper" sound. (I admit, it's tempting to approach the material like that, especially if you've been schooled to do so, but if you want to make those comments, you need to find references from Merle Haggard (--or whomever), allowing them to draw those conclusions, or else trust the reader to have the intelligence themselves to do so. Remember, we can't do any research of our own. (By the way, he was not the only Country artist to boldly support the Dixie Chicks. Check Mary Chapin Carpenter (she wrote a song supporting the Chicks, called, "On With The Song), George Strait, and others, like Willie Nelson and James Taylor. If you wish, leave a note on my talk page, and I'll give you sources and explain further.

Where are your additions? I didn't see your name in recent page history. While I'm at it though, words like "steel guitar 'LEGEND'" Lloyd Maines are violations, too. You can call him "talented" or something but calling any living person a legend or icon isn't OK. And, someone added the description for the song "There's Your Trouble" as "bouncy" and another early song as "crowd pleasing"- not only not being NPOV, but also, the EXACT words I've seen on another site.. same sentences, so someone plagiarized it. I'd also be surprised if the paragraph beginning, "The Chicks also delivered gleeful revenge epics..." wasn't a completely plagiarized piece as well. Not pointing the finger at you, but I found both Emily Robison and Martie Maguire pages as stubs that were nearly all plagiarized, too, so if you personally did not write a particular piece and it hasn't a reference, please strongly consider deleting it. Without references the page can't stand anyway! --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Commander in Chief" reference

Hello everyone,

I firmly believe that Wikipedia must protect itself not only from the insidious encroachment of government and corporate "spies" posing as Wikipedians but also the encroachment of Orwellian "new-speak," and I suggest that the reference to "Commander in Chief" is one such encroachment.

Because someone inserted the above reference, I inserted this paragraph as an attempt to clarify this misleading and much-abused phrase:

In fairness, it should be remembered in regard to this criticism that, under the Constitution, the president is "commander-in-chief" of the military. He is the public servant of the American people. The Dixie Chicks were not serving members of the military but citizens of the United States. In this sense, they exercised one of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution: the right of citizens to criticize their own public servants who they feel abuse their powers or violate laws or fundamental morals in the name of the American people.

I think this is a fair statement in light of the way the expression "Commander in Chief" is abused. However, someone deleted it. If so, then I have deleted the original mention of the phrase.

The president is not an emperor. He is a public official. He is the public servant of the American people. He is not the "commander in chief" of the American people.

I insist that this phrase either be deleted all together or explained. To do otherwise is, I believe, to subvert Wikipedia's golden rule of NPOV.

Thanks,

--Gunnermanz 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Americans do not seem to understand that all heads of state are technically "commander in chief". Unless the country is a military dictatorship the title is honorary and practically meaningless, and the president/king does not have any role in the military hierarchy. Except in the USA, where American presidents have since Lincoln acquired a military role that is unique amongst ostensibly civilian governments.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Martie's last name

I found confusing the single unexplained reference to Martie's first marriage, to Ted Seidel, in the "A new singer and commercial success" section. While this is explained easily enough in the separate Martie Maguire entry, it needs some sort of clarification here. Something like this:

The new Dixie Chicks lineup consisted of group leader Martie (fiddle, mandolin and vocals), Emily (guitar, dobro, banjo and vocals), and Natalie Maines (lead vocal and in concerts, guitar). Natalie added a strong and distinctive voice to the sisters' musicianship and harmony vocals, and the combination clicked. [...then as a new paragraph...] Martie's last name is shown as Seidel on the Chicks' Wide Open Spaces and Fly albums. She was married to Ted Seidel between 1995 and 1999. She had married Gareth Maguire by the time of their 2002 album, Home.

Typofixer76 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I'm currently doing some work on [[Martie Maguire]'s page and will keep this in mind. -leahtwosaints66.200.121.179 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Highest Selling

This article starts with stating that they are the highest selling female group, because they sold 38 million records, however, the spice girls sold in excess of 53 million.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.26.196 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the Chicks are the highest selling female band of all time. The distinction that Wikipedia makes is that the Spice Girls are a girl group, not a band, because they don't play any instruments.--Dawn bard 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We're ashamed the section isn't split

You know that Political controversy section? I think it's notable enough to warrant its own article. I think it could work better alongside the article instead of right inside it. ViperSnake151 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs its own article as well. It's well-known enough that it deserves to be split. MegaZega93 11:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a newbie trying to put together Martie Maguire's page, and if I was to honestly try to delve into any of the political stuff, --I mean, there's enough for an entire documentary-- it would take up far too much room. --leahtwosaints (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The creation of the separate Dixie Chicks political controversy subarticle is okay, since it threatened to overwhelm the main article. But, the replacement of it by the tiny, two-sentence "Political controversy" section in the main article is no good. Read WP:Summary style: the "Political controversy" section has to be a good deal longer than that, so that someone who reads just the main article still gets a good understanding of what the controversy was all about. What's there now doesn't even come close to doing that. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NO MENTION of the Early Dixie Chicks?!

I can understand why the page for Natalie Maines would not mention the original line-up playing under the name Dixie Chicks, but surely, the BAND page with that name would include some mention of the two other founders of the band, and the three(!) albums they produced. I mean, really!! Check the Martie Maguire page, I'm trying to recreate that. I don't wanna mess with a page here that someone obviously created with a lot of care and attention, but the fact does remain that from 1989-1995 the band consisted of Robison, Maguire, Lynch, and Macy, before the Natalie Maines days. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FUTK

I think there ought to be some mention of the WONDERFUL FUTK t-shirt and the backlash as it has EVERYTHING to do with the Dixie Chick/ Toby Keith Fued and is part of their politcal controversy. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.208.120 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, and make sure to include that they did it remotely, that she covered the T-shirt with a jacket until they were on-air live. Also, that Toby Keith, the focus of the T-shirt, was the co-nominee that won Entertainer of the Year instead of them. Also mention that their song "Godspeed" fell off the charts in a week after the T-shirt was displayed. And, that she subsequently showed backstage footage of the decision to wear the T-shirt in their "documentary" where it's real meaning was discussed. Please include that she lied about that "meaning" when asked about it shortly after the appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.112.153 (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of the feud here, and a much longer description of it at Natalie Maines#Feud with Toby Keith, since the dispute was more with her personally than the group as a whole. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the "Girl Group" category

The "Category girl group" at the bottom of the page doesn't apply here, because the women play their instruments and the band was not founded during the 1960s. Please don't place it there again. --leahtwosaints (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chicks are not a "girl group" any more than Heart or Vixen is. GBrady (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a Big problem with Plagiarism here...

I wrote in January that I was uncomfortable about having seen certain sentences in the Dixie Chicks website before. I have found the source, and folks, the whole website has been built around a plagiarized stub. See this site here: [1] Read in particular, "The Sound" there. This stuff is all over the website. <slump>. What to do? Anybody know an Admin?? --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is a clear copyvio please remove the text and in the edit summary place source web site as I did in this edit, if you have any questions leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure the contents is copied from there and not vice versa? On top of that, the text on that page is GPL'ed so you shouldn't worry to much.

--Krautmaster (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What does GPL'd mean? I went back to the beginnings of the page- a few years ago, and discussed it with an Admin- Aleta Sing and she felt the material consisting of copyright violations needed to be removed. This particular fansite that I've pointed out couldn't have copied a (VERY) early wikipedia article on the Dixie Chicks because it existed back when all the Chicks' wikipedia articles were all stubs back then, and, also, nobody provided any references, and that's what makes an encyclopedic article.

I'm suspicious of the opening paragraph, too. Rarely have I seen any encylopedia use words like: "soaring" ballads, and "lively persona", instrumental virtuosity, "soaring ballads", "fashion sense" and outspoken political comments. If someone here wrote it, my hat is off to you!! But generally, doing this kind of work, we don't tend to be THAT creative in our word choices. I'm leaving it alone, but just want people to consider that its a possible plagiarization of another fansite. If they did it to one, why not others? Just food for thought. I'm gonna root out the offending sentences where I can prove it's been plagiarized, and reword those parts. Just wanted people to be aware, since I know we'd all like to see this as a GA article someday. Thanks. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found out about this "discovery" ... HOGWASH! These other sites are a copy of the Wikipedia article. They are allowed to do this, due to Wikipedia's license making its contents available to all. They are supposed to give credit to Wikipedia when they do copy it, but many don't. In particular, regarding "The Sound" section that was questioned ... I wrote every word of that!! That's my writing style, dammit, my words, my use of "Wide Open Spaces" as illustrative, my assessment of their different kinds of appeal, my everything! I've written lots of stuff on Wikipedia, and this is some of it. You want to see more? I wrote the whole Top of the World (Dixie Chicks song) article, which echoes some of what I wrote above. I wrote almost all of the Accidents & Accusations Tour article, which you can see being built up piece by piece in the edit history. I wrote the Without You (Dixie Chicks song) article. And so on. This irks me!! Wasted Time R (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK! So you are irked. Fair enough. The same has happened to me, both with the current intro here by a couple sites (Allmusic!) and there are several other instances- (an outdated Patty Griffin intro of mine on You Tube), plenty more of my own. When they stole your words, it had to be nearly the same time period exactly. I did look for the root of the writing. Please understand that I'd thought that, A) If someone here put enough into a page, they'd stick around and still be working on it (I really hadn't realized...) and B) I'd like to protect the work that is done here. Sorry. I was waiting for someone to speak up and it's just taken till now. We've talked, and I apologized, but will do so again. If it isn't copyvio, then it's all good, right? I mean, if you found something taken word for word like with the Sound on a fansite, what would you think? I'm sorry, mea culpa. --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, but ... If you're going to do a lot of work on Wikipedia, you'd better understand how it works. Nobody can "steal" our words! Our words that we write here are free for everybody to use for whatever reason they want. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. There are many "mirror" sites and "fork" sites that do this; see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. They are supposed to give credit to Wikipedia when they do so, but many don't; see lists like Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc. Your words on the Dixie Chicks could be excerpted from and put on somebody's website about something completely different, like travel offers; I've seen it happen.
That said, it's very unlikely Allmusic used anything you wrote. They have their own writers and I've never heard of them picking up WP content. Morever, their article on the Dixie Chicks was written around 2002, pretty much before WP existed, with only a couple of brief updates since (doesn't even mention the Maines controversy!). Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
As for "I'd thought that, If someone here put enough into a page, they'd stick around and still be working on it", sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've worked on a lot of different stuff over 3 1/2 years here and I can't watchlist all of it. It's not that I objected to my wording disappearing — once you stop monitoring an article you've worked on, you have to be prepared for everything you've done to be undone, that's the WP Law of the Jungle — it was just the insinuation that my stuff was copied from elsewhere. But let's move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre of the Dixie Chicks

I have reverted the genre of the band page, as it must be consistent with the individual's pages! Also, I believe the genres that the band plays are evident in the text. --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The genres currently listed in the infobox seem right to me: Country, Folk, Bluegrass, Country pop. But then the lead section says they are alternative country-rock, which seems like a stretch. Yes, they have some of the alt-country spirit in them, especially via Patty Griffin and Home. Yes, there's a little rock in them here or there, but not a lot. You could list those as additional genres, but they aren't the main ones they are known for. I know that genre descriptions easily get into edit battles, and especially so for artists that like to cross and blur boundaries (and that's a good thing), but at the very least the article has to be self-consistent. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Country pop probably adequately covers the country rock/country alt genres (which btw are descirbed as non-mainstream sounds, and the Chicks are predominantly mainstream). This has been changed so many times on Maines' page that I have started to ignore it! Not good practice, I know. In the intros, we could try "country music with infusions of other styles"... Hehe... That sounds kinda funny, but in the infobox for the country music article it says "Fusion genres" as well as "Subgenres". Maybe: "country music and its subgenres"? Ick, don't care for that one. Other phrasings? Maybe I don't know enough about the various country music genres to offer a constructive enough solution. ZueJay (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section that was here was way too short for an article of this size, inadequate in content, and out of compliance with WP:LEAD. I have expanded it, using some material that used to be in the lead. I am quite aware that lead sections can be difficult balancing exercises, especially in a case like this, where the musical and the political collide. Nevertheless, it has to be attempted. What was there before this was just pathetic. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving text from individuals' pages to band page this week (July 10, 2008)

I contributed a fair amount to the Dixie Chicks page over the last year, but finally shied away because it was becoming too long and the article needed splitting. Thus, the little I'd placed on Emily Robison's page (and before I was using my name, just an IP address), Natalie Maines's page, too, has been moved to the main band page between myself and User:"Wasted Time R". I'm still sifting through the bulk of the Martie Maguire page, which I flooded with main band page info, to keep safe, until everything (discography, documentary, and controversy found their way to more appropriate spots. It will take me perhaps this week to go through the band page vs. Maguire's page, so please bear with me. Meanwhile, some of the references are from "iffy" sources; I always knew I could find better ones later to replace them just to get the text in, so if anyone wants to do that, or use the wikipedia cheat sheet WP:CHEAT as a guide to pare down repeat references using less space, please do so! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When you're finished moving the Martie Maguire material in, say so here. I can work on improving the reference formatting, coalescing duplicates, etc; I've worked on articles with 350 references (Hillary Rodham Clinton), this one doesn't faze me ;-) As for the quality of the references, that's a legitimate concern; always look for better sources than fan sites, when possible. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we form a Dixie Chick workgroup?

Seriously! How is that done? Because I'm no admin or even a seasoned pro. I AM tireless cause I like seeing end results. Anyone like to join a work group? I keep thinking if some decent photos and soundbites are added to a well written page here, it would be outstanding!! --leahtwosaints (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see some other examples of musical artist projects in Category:WikiProject Music groups, but none are for country music artists. In general country music has fewer people writing about it on WP than other genres, don't know why. In this case, I doubt there's critical mass to start a group. As for decent photos, WP has very restrictive rules about images of living people; basically, photos have to be taken by us editors, whether at concerts, promotional appearances, or whatnot. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese Version

I probably should have put this is the Japanese version however the Japanese equivalent article is a directly translated version. Is this allowed I tried to find something on it but, no dice. cal05000 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, direct translation is permitted between Wikipedia articles in different languages, since all are under the same GFDL license. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Leggett" :
    • Leggett, Steve
    • Leggett, Steve [http://music.msn.com/artist/?artist=16649328&menu=bio All-Music Guide writer on MSN] (Retrieved 9 March, 2008)
  • "Elle" :
    • Elle Magazine.com [http://celebrity.elle.com/music_artists/celebrity-biography-Dixie+Chicks Dixie Chicks Biography (Retrieved 30, May, 2008)]
    • Elle Magazine [http://celebrity.elle.com/music_artists/celebrity-biography-Dixie+Chicks
  • "CBS News" :
    • Retrieved 3 February, 2008[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/02/entertainment/main191065.shtml?source=search_story Couples Shine At Country Awards]
    • [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/03/entertainment/main238081.shtml?source=search_story Dixie Chicks Riding High]
  • "Ankeny" :
    • Ankeny, Jason Retrieved 13 June, 2008[http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/dixie_chicks/bio.jhtml Vh1 Dixie Chicks Biography All-Music Guide]
    • Ankeny, Jason [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hzfixqw5ld0e~T1 Dixie Chicks Biography]
    • Ankeny, Jason [http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/dixie_chicks/bio.jhtml Vh1 Dixie Chicks Biography All-Music Guide]
  • "Willman" :
    • Willman, Chris 23 September, 1999[http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,84675,00.html Girls' Power The triple CMA winners tell EW Online about mattress dancing and other fun facts of life]
    • Willman, Chris Rednecks & Bluenecks: The Politics of Country Music By Chris Willman, 2005 pg. 21-23 ISBN 1595580174
    • Willman, Chris, July 27, 1999 [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,84547,00.html Fair Ladies The feisty trio tell EW Online they're no overnight sensation]Retrieved 8 July, 2008

DumZiBoT (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed up these. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Time to put the controversy material back in here

I do not think the split of the 2003 political controversy material to the separate article Dixie Chicks political controversy is working. Whereas once that material threatened to overwhelm the entire article, now the reverse is true. Leahtwosaints has greatly expanded some of the other sections of the band's history, but the controversy section here is represented essentially by two modest paragraphs. That's not nearly enough! The controversy was a major, major episode in the band's career, whose artistic, commercial, and political ramifications are still being felt. The uninformed reader would wonder what all the fuss was about in the "Return" section, given the lack of coverage we give what preceeded it.

If you say that readers can click the link to read the separate controversy article, well, in practice that doesn't work. If you use the viewing stats tool at http://stats.grok.se/, you'll see that for November 2008 (the most recent full month), Dixie Chicks got 58,000 views while Dixie Chicks political controversy got only 2,000 views. If you check, say, August, you'll see a similar ratio, 59,000 to 3,000. (This lack of readership in subarticles is a common problem across Wikipedia.) Clearly we can't pretend that the material in the controversy article should only be seen by 5% of our readers.

This article isn't too long now [24 kB (4135 words) "readable prose size"] to accommodate the subarticle material [10 kB (1773 words) "readable prose size"], and the total size will be less due to some duplicative material. I feel strongly that the controversy material should be merged back into here; if there are excesses in that treatment, we can prune it (just like we can with the musical sections here). But we would then have one unified article that covers all aspects of the Dixie Chicks' career. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, wasted time r. It is definitely easier to understand in the context of the Dixie Chicks as a whole. tedder (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I've now done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Death Threats

There is no evidence that the Dixie Chicks received any threat except the one letter Natalie Maines received. The reference used in the text is a quote from an interviewer, and is not substantiated by reports from law enforcement or reported in any other way as far as I can search. While it might be argued the woman in their movie who said they should "strap her to a bomb...." might be considered a threatening comment, it can hardly be considered a serious threat. If a legitimate source can be found for multiple threats, please, someone add the reference. Otherwise, the plural should be made singular when threat is mentioned on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.112.153 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the article to try to be more specific. There were general threats before the tour started, as reflected by this BBC News story from the time I've used as a cite. Then there was the very specific threat against Maines in Dallas that got the police attention, as reflected by this AP story from three years later. I don't know if there any law enforcement statements about any of the threats; it's the kind of thing the police often don't make any public statements on. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

more death threat reports, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12745436/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/25/usa.arts http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/maines%20husband%20recalls%20dixie%20death%20threat%20horror_1039707--81.233.32.209 (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


The first article is a generalized quote from Natalie Maines herself. The others are reporter's sensationalist recollection of the events years later. Despite there being not one legitimate reference for it outside of Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks themselves, this claim of multiple threats remains. While I wouldn't expect forensic evidence for every inclusion on this page, claims of such serious nature should require a bonafide, independent source that didn't benefit financially from the claim. It is readily apparent that inclusion of these "threats" as FACT is a willful deceit in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galentravels (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Cross

In the Political controversy/Battling back section, the following paragraph appears:

The Dixie Chicks controversy made it impossible for the American Red Cross to associate itself with the band because such association would have violated two of the founding principles of the organization: impartiality and neutrality...Should the Dixie Chicks like to make an unconditional financial donation to the American Red Cross, we will gladly accept it.

I've nothing against these thoughts being admitted into the article, but they require a provenance that, at present, simply isn't there. Who is saying this?

If it was originated by a WP contributor/editor, it is off the rails. Up to the ellipsis it is opinionated (it is not for a WP contrib to rule on whether such an association would be a violation), and even after the ellipsis it is non-neutral. No contrib should ever (surely!) write in the first person – which that "we" clearly is.

Alternatively, if it is supposed to be a quote from someone (which I suspect is the case), it should (a) be in quote marks, (b) say who it's quoting. (And before anyone says "there's a citation reference next to it", there may well be, but it leads to a 'page not found', so it offers no clarification).

If it is neither of these, but a statement from a Red Cross member posted straight into the page, then it simply shouldn't be there. It's an article, not a forum.

I'm not taking sides here, I just want to know whose opinion it is that I am reading. Is anyone sufficiently familiar with this article to know what's going on, and tidy it up? Grubstreet (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quote from the national Red Cross spokesperson. I've clarified that and improved the citing to a newspaper whose link is live. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

There is a statement that clarifies this event on the RedCross.org site.<ref:http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d8b0f0454556e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD 

The article's wording implies the Red Cross's refusal of the DC promotional business offer was unique. While the spokesman and the website statement on this subject

certainly refer to the controversy at the time, it should be clarified that the Red Cross does not "endorse","embrace", or "promote" any organization other than itself. This is the meaning of their impartiality and neutrality policy as much as the avoidance of controversy based on the fact that they never have done such a thing. The Dixie Chicks implied (in their SUAS movie) the refusal was due to the President being the honorary chairman and that Bush was behind it, giving this subject significant importance to the controversy. This section of the article, as it stands, gives more credibility to the Dixie Chicks than the Red Cross in this matter and is tantamount to an indictment that the Red Cross was politically manipulated. If an independent and verifiable source exists that can say they were, then it should be included. Otherwise, the fact that the Red Cross lists the DC claim under "myths" on their website should be included, and the Red Cross statement included intact (not chopped up or concatenated) in this section.Galentravels (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Twitter Account

Should anything be mentioned about the band's new Twitter account? If anything, something should be mentioned about the background. Looks like a new album. [link deleted] ~ Shaf Girl [05:13, September 13, 2009 75.30.144.146]

Nobody knows which of them are fakes, perhaps all. So for now, no. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I would keep my eye on [2], which is where they are likely to indicate what their Twitter account is if they create a real one.--VMAsNYC (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sectioning

The changes by User:Ending-start to split off List of awards and nominations received by Dixie Chicks as a separate article were okay, but the revised sectioning just made things worse. Using album names in section titles is inherently uninformative – a quick look at the Discography section will tell you what the album names are, what the reader wants to know is what are the different eras of the artist in terms of artistic development, group membership, etc. That's what the section titles should focus on. What's important about Wide Open Spaces and Fly from a table of contents perspective is that the group experienced sudden massive commercial success, not that those were the particular titles. And section headers like "1992–93: Little Ol' Cowgirl, Shouldn't a Told You That and changes to the group" are just hopelessly unwieldly. So I've revised the sectioning to be more concise and to the point. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

quick change

the end of the quote was irrelevant and frankly a little propagandish

ps

this isnt the place to get into to it but i really like the idea of wiki, and want to get involved a little more. can any body point me the way? delete as necessary 98.210.196.18 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

First, I would create a user account and then go from there. Hobbamock (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The introduction includes the Dixie Chicks most well known negative accusation. Though they're known for the offense comment toward George Bush, does that mean we should discredit the band by putting that information prior to other significant detail? Such as their awards and achievements, which are not addressed until after the paragraph regarding their Bush comment. Many readers that see the page will have developed a bias toward the Dixie Chicks before they even get to know anything about them. While I do agree we should include this information because it is indeed true, I feel it should not be the headline of the article. Rather, it should be included in a more specific sub-section. Courtneyduval (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dixie Chicks. 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}}).

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) 06:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Dixie Chicks. 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) 16:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Chicks/Archive_3&oldid=1089881446"