Jump to content

Talk:The Chicks/Archive 2

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

I was surprised to read this part:

"By April, (Not Ready To Make Nice) was a hit on country radio and on country and Hot AC video television, albeit in Canada. American radio proved less receptive."

Really truly? What's the deal here? 3 years have passed since the controversy and much has changed.

The approval ratings of the president Maines criticized back in 2003 have dropped below 40% in 2006 and show no signs of shooting back up anytime soon. Shouldn't that mean that 60% of Americans now see things more or less the way she does, and have no reason to drive bulldozers over her CDs?

American radio stations need only look at the success of acts like Green Day, Pink and Audioslave, none of whom have kept their dislike of the Bush administration a secret. They have no reason to be afraid of a second public backlash if they play the singles from the current album.--24.36.179.114 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing country music with rock and pop music. The country music audience is the 35% that still support Bush, so country music won't play the Chicks. Whether rock and pop stations do remains to be seen, but the Chicks don't really fit that format either. Their best chance is probably with adult contemporary, where "Landslide" was a big hit. Wasted Time R 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
awesome, thanks for stereotyping country listeners. that's exactly what corporate program managers and djs are doing when they don't play it or stop playing it because a small percentage complains. if you follow your stereotype, it's their kids that are dying in iraq, they'll be the most pissed off when it's all said and done. what will be of your backwater-hicks then?
I think the stereotyping and silliness can stop now; the AP is reporting that "Taking the Long Way" hit number 1 on the Billboard country chart, and additionally is number 1 on the overall chart. (See here for details). Something tells me that after getting their latest Billboard, country radio programmers will lose their reluctance to program their stuff. --Dh100 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is referring to the radio airplay of the latest single, "Not Ready to Make Nice", which actually hasn't lit up the airwaves (I believe it's down in the 40's somewhere). The Billboard album chart is another story. Voodoo4936 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The arguing about "why" the album is doing how it's doing doesn't belong here ... this page is for discussing the article and how to make it better. If you have reliable sources for explanations of the album's success or lack thereof, by all means, put them in. Lawikitejana 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to predict the future...

I couldn't help commenting as read the following in this article on April 29, 2006...

"By April, the song was a hit on country radio and on country and Hot AC video television, albeit in Canada. American radio proved less receptive. However, with strong digital sales, the single made an impressive debut on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 28, the week's highest new entry for the week ending May 6, 2006".

Well, since that week isn't even here yet... You add it up... Just out of curiosity I checked the Billboard charts... no Dixie Chicks in the top 100... Oh yeah, thats next week....

It's a shame that their careers are were so impacted by something political they said. If you choose to bring political views into the public arena, you must be prepared to face the people that don't agree with you. I hope such a talented group can rebound from this and bring us more the kind of wonderful music they have bought us in the past. Best of luck to them.


Um... You DO realize that Billboard Charts are released online about 9 days before they're in record stores, right?

Personally, I'm more concerned as to whether or not the controversy has begun to affect their music. "Not Ready to Make Nice" is just one song, butI'm wondering if it reflects the whole album.

Landslide Credit

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)

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 [1], 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)

Sounds fine to me. Voodoo4936 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Atricle is better now.No? 205.188.117.8 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fan site criteria

I'm going to post a note on User:Botilda's talk page about his her addition of dixie-chicks.biz to the Fan Sites list. Leaving aside the bad grammar and exclamation point in "The newest source to Dixie Chicks on the web!", the issue is whether a brand-new fan site is appropriate to include in Wikipedia. I wish him her the best of luck, but I'd suggest Botilda promote his/her site on more appropriate forums, like dixiechicksfans.net. --Robertb-dc 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Robert :)

I tried to reach you through an e-mail account I found on your DC site, but it turned out to be unvalid.

It might have been a bit bold of me to add my site to the list of fansites, but it just didn't cross my mind that it would be considered inappropriate as I'm concerned promoting the girls and not myself. I guess you are a devoted fan contributing all that stuff to wikipedia about them and if you don't think the link is appropriate I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

I did read the linking rules: Request to add a link to your site from a Wikipedia article The content of Wikipedia pages, including external links, is determined entirely by our volunteers rather than any official editorial team. You may wish to read our guidelines on external links.

But I do see your point with my site being brand new and not offering as much content as some of the other sites. I wanted to let you know I have contacted the various DC sites like you suggested and I'll wait like everyone else to get my site listed at some search engine so fans can access it from there. I never intended to be inappropriate and I'm sorry for my bad grammar. ^^

Ann Irene

"Botilda 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)"

  • I appreciate the feedback. At this point I won't add a link to the site on wikipedia considering it's brand new, but if anyone else wants it to be there as it keeps growing that would be OK by me. ^^ Once again, sorry for the self-promotion.
~ Botilda 09:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is going to be an ongoing issue as the new album is coming out next week (5/23/06). In fact, another new fan site has just been added to both this article and to Natalie Maines. I'm hoping the rest of the community will weigh in on the issue, because I'm not comfortable cutting out every new link that pops up -- especially since I have a link in the section, myself, and I don't want to be accused of conflict of interest! --Robertb-dc 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Since noone has joined in on the discussion yet, I am giving it a go again! :] I've been working on the fansite 24/7 and will continue to do so to make sure I've earned my spot :) I added my link at the _bottom_. If anyone feel like it shouldn't be there, remove it and post here. Thank you.
~ Botilda 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Out of the blue, I found a link to the official policy: Wikipedia:External links. It has just one little paragraph on the topic, which suggests "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." That might be a bit restrictive. In the case of this page, you could make the argument that each site contributes a unique perspective, with some (like dixiechicksfaq.com and my own site, dixie-chicks.com) more like a reference than a "fan page". I don't think there's any action warranted against the large list of fan sites currently listed in the Dixie Chicks article, though new additions may face a more difficult hurdle than before. --Robertb-dc 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"On Foreign Soil"

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)

Ok, you convinced me, I've rereverted. Wasted Time R 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

Gay Icons? revived discussion

Like I said in the archived discussion, the chicks have a lot of lesbian fans, so should they be added to the list of gay icons? Does this page count as proof? It is a gay-related page....

Lady6String 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I found thisarticle as well.

70.48.34.13 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that category doesn't exist anymore! Sorry for all the trouble I've caused...

70.48.34.13 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Gay icon" connotes (though not neccesarily denotes) that they themselves are gay. To the best of my knowledge, they are NOT, so that's not a good idea, or rather, wouldn't be even if the category were still available. In any case, I'm not sure, but I think that in order to fit the label of "gay icon", they'd have to be famous in large part because of such a fanbase, and that's so untrue in the case of the Dixie Chicks as to be laughable.
More to the point, however, I have to say that - without proof that they're widely considered to be "gay icons" - trying to label them "gay icons" is almost as bad as equating American Democrats and liberals with being all homosexual, something that is annoying enough (and annoyingly common enough at times, believe it or not) in regular political debates without encrouching upon music fandom as well. The Dixie Chicks are most popular nowadays with Democrats and "liberals" rather than Republicans, and I'm sure that due to Bush's stance on gay marriage and the Chicks' general disapproval of him, that there are some gays that have tried them out and become fans... but that doesn't make them a "gay icon", sorry! 63.21.62.213 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks received support from left-wing people

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)

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)
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)
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)

I don't think I assumed that at all. I think the article seems to imply that by only citing the reaction of their country/conservative-based following. The point you make only adds leverage to my claim that reactions from both sides of the political spectrum should be mentioned. -- Andrew Parodi 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

None of this is explicitly stated, but to anyone with any analytical capabilities it is quite clear what is implied. Bush is a conservative Republican. Would liberal Democracts be offended by the Dixie Chicks' negative comments about Bush? Who would be angry about negative comments about Bush? Why, the conservative Republicans who support Bush, of course. By deduction, when you say that they lost members of their core audience, you are implying that aspects of their core audience are conservative Republicans who support Bush. So, while the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are never used in the article, they are certainly implied.

Because Wikipedia aims to be neutral, I think it is only fair that if you are going to imply (or state outright) that aspects of their core audience are conservative Republicans, then you must do the same with regard to their audience members who are liberal democrats who were not offended by their anti-Bush statements. If the anti-Bush statement is notable enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, and the pro-Bush conservative Republican reaction to those comments is notable enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, then why not the reactions of those who were not offended and in fact agreed with what they said? To me, including both sides is the only thing that keeps the intro truly neutral. -- Andrew Parodi 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, my point still stands. Liberal Democrats and apolotical people are hardly going to be offended by anti-Bush comments. It is most likely people who are not apolitical, and people who are not liberal democrats, who are going to be offended by such comments. The intro refers to such people without using labels. But I have chosen to use those labels here for clarity. And I certainly understand that it is possible to be "mixed" with regard to politics. I've heard of cases of feminists working with rightwing Christians with regard to anti-pornography legislation; typically, rightwing Christians and feminists have little in common.

I'm not interested in forcing labels on anyone. All I'm doing is saying that the labels are implied by the way the intro was written before I came along and balanced it out with regard to the support they were given when they made those comments. I'm satisfied with the intro as it is now. -- Andrew Parodi 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, you know, you have to watch out for us Liberal Democrats. We take our Chicks very seriously. -- Andrew Parodi 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats are not the people who would purchase 'The Dixie Chicks', even though they will publicly laud them. They destroyed their careers through stupidity! [01:51, 2 August 2006 66.30.204.238]

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)

I thought i'd just point out that among the "left wing" who supported the Chicks was none other than Merle Haggard http://www.merlehaggard.com/merles-editorial.html

Random views

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)

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)

Why is it ?

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)
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)
Don't feed the trolls. Wasted Time R 12:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Record set?

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)

Fiddle vs. violin

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)

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

Vandal watch

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)

Yup. Wasted Time R 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Acts Against the Dixie Chicks

It should be pointed out somewhere in the article that the death threats and other scare tactics deployed against the group's members because of their political views are acts of terrorism on behalf of some of the Dixie Chicks' disgruntled ex-fans, who supposedly do so as a backlash of the Chicks' criticism of George W. Bush and his war in Iraq. Heheh... Who woulda thunk it? Terrorist cowboys! Cparker 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be pointed out, because you're using a definition of 'terrorism' too loose to be useful. Wasted Time R 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Fellas fellasn fellas, you're both right! We can point out that death threads have been issued against them, but not mention the word terrorism. Mathiastck 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is terrorism... Just because conservative-minded people did it, doesn't mean its not terrorism... KKK- terrorist, NRA- terrorist, abortion clinic bombers- terrorist....

To call it terrorism would be very POV. Not that I personally agree with the bashers but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:NOT#SOAP

Dylan Slade 17:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not buying the albums of this group is not terrorism. When fans don't like conservative performers for saying things to which they object, why doesn't the word "terrorism" pop up at that time? Utterly stupid nonsense. Jtpaladin 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

From wiktionary:
The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
Seems like death threats for saying something about a political figure fits the definition of terrorism to me! Maybe next time you feel a need to chime in, you should fully read and comprehend what is being said about the subject at hand. Cparker 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

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)

  • I've seen them being added one by one, and I agree that most of them are probably violations of WP:EL and WP:NOT. I have to hesitate to revert them, though, since my site (dixie-chicks.com) is one of the links, and I don't want to be accused of favoritism. I don't think you'd want to get rid of them all, though; my site has historical information, dixiechicksfaq.com has an exhaustive faq, and dixiechicksfans.net is arguably the most comprehensive of the "fansites". --Robertb-dc 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Fansites removed!

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)

Removal of "cross-section"

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)

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)

What happened to their sales in 2006 and 2007?

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).

Good question. Xiner (talk, email) 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd also be interested to know about sales in the south, as well. I remember reading that concert tickets didn't sell especially well in the south, but it wasn't that much different than the rest of the country, I don't think. Is there even a way to know about album sales in a geographic area?

And methinks the Dixie Chicks were overall a fairly pop band when they first got successul with Wide Open Spaces, and progressed to become even more pop to what they are now. And that community wouldn't hold what they said against them, as far as I can see (including the South)...Taking the Long Way was one of the 10 best-celling albums of 2006, and that's really hard to accomplish without southern buy-age.

68.229.164.101

List of appearances

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)

Best Selling Female Group Ever?

I dont think so. Everyone knows that title belongs to either Destiny's Child, the SpiceGirls, or TLC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LAUGH90 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Unsourced statements cannot replace a sourced one in an article. Xiner (talk, email) 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
They are the best selling Female Group ever. All the stats say so. (unsigned by 129.22.58.143 at 02:44, 14 February 2007)
This issue seems to depend on date. The Destiny's Child best selling is from 2005 World Music Awards. I would guess the date of the original Dixie Chicks best-selling would be around 2003. Xiner, do we still have the original ref for this info? ZueJaytalk 07:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't catch this convo earlier. Yeah, I've attached a 1996 reference for Destiny's Child, so I think the Chicks' website is out of date. Xiner (talk, email) 18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ya know, unless there's a source for "second best-selling" I don't think the article should read that way either. Can we just pick a significant statistical number that shows they have done very well, and place it there instead. Something like number of platinum records? Or Diamond awards? Or number of record/ticket sales? Perhaps current number of awards? There must be some way to quantify this without losing the intent of the line - to show they are a significant group in the music industry. ZueJaytalk 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Got a possible sol'n:
They have been the recipients of three American Music Awards, 10 Country Music Association Awards, and 14 Grammys - the last five of which were awarded in 2007.
What do ya think? ZueJaytalk 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As of June 2006, they've sold 30 million albums.[1] Xiner (talk, email) 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that would work well. I just reread the bit I suggested as if it were part of the intro - it generates too much redundancy. I like what you've got better. I say go with that. Is that 30 million total? And "Since" or "As of"? ZueJaytalk 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
30 million in total before the explosive comment.[2] Xiner (talk, email) 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That source is a blog, probably doens't meet ref requirements - do we know where the blogger would have gotten that info. So, we could say "They have sold more than 30 million albums during their career." ZueJaytalk 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Argh, what shoddy work I did. Well, the first link clearly says that they sold 30m. Xiner (talk, email) 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe...It's funny what happens when we get excited about something - the minor oversights that creep into our work... I think the one-liner about 30mil albums would be the correct text to intro here with the first suggested ref attached. ZueJaytalk 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As per above discussion, the second sentence in the intro is likely wrong. Please replace They are the second highest-selling female group in any musical genre, behind [[Destiny's Child]].<ref>[http://www.sonybmg.com.au/news/details.do;jsessionid=F2A567AA7E961FD0D19BBB69F8FE2611.tomcat3?newsId=20030829002371 Sony], though [http://www.dixiechicks.com/06_historical.asp the Chicks' site] may disagree.</ref> by They have sold 30 million albums as of June 2006.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/06/15/bmdixie15.xml</ref>

Xiner (talk, email) 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed this discussion after editing the article. The claim that they are the second highest selling group is not factual - so is the claim that Destiny's Child are the highest. They recieved an award from the World Music Awards - but it is false; the award included solo sales from Beyonce, Michelle and Kelly and inflated the groups figures. The award is also highly contested because of the politics behind the decision; the decision to award Destiny's Child the title came from WMA committee headed by, you've guessed it, their record label CEO. Known sales figures show Destiny's Child have not outsold the Spice Girls. The IFPI European Platinum Awards show the Spice Girls have certified European album sales of 13million (8xPlatinum for 'Spice' and 5xPlatinum for 'Spiceworld') and Destiny's Child have 5million. In the US, DC have 17million, Spice Girls have 11million. In Canada, Spice Girls have 2.2million, I dont have an official source for DC at the moment, but its certainly less than 2.2m. The Spice Girls had sales of 35.2million album and 18.1million singles as of Febuary 2000 (and therefore excludes the sales from their third album and related singles). There is no evidence to support claims that any group - Destiny's Child or Dixie Chicks - have surpassed this. Rimmers 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I think we all agree on that now. Xiner (talk, email) 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Maines' vs. Maines's

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)

Semiprotect

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)

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)

The Bush-Texan passage

The article clearly states that Maines is the Texan native; that Bush is from Texas (he live there since age 2); offers a link to Bush's bio page, where users can find out more about where he was born (CT); doesn't say that Bush was born in Texas; doesn't say that Bush is a Texan native. There is NO need to "clarify" the situation. If you disagree, please don't use the article page for your POV. That is not the place to argue about it. Please do it here. Xiner (talk, email) 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Even user categories are adopting the "from" convention now so that people who aren't born in a place can claim it as theirs. See this discussion, for example. Xiner (talk, email) 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, Xiner, you're either being dishonest here by attempting to misrepresent my edit or you are suffering from an exceedingly bizarre misunderstanding. The sentence I added simply said "Although to clarify, U.S. President George W. Bush is not a native Texan or Southerner, but is originally from New Haven, Connecticut." Now obviously, there is nothing "POV" about that unless you are here claiming that something within that statement is untrue or an opinion. But obviously it is perfectly true and an objective fact.

Wikipedia in an encyclopedia. Hence, its purpose is to educate people. Most people in the U.S. and the world believe that Pres. George Bush is a native Texan and Southerner, and are not aware that he is originally from New Haven, Connecticut. Given Natalie Maines's comment on this matter, it seems quite likely that she also believed at the time of her comment that Bush is a native Texan, otherwise a far more trenchant comment by her would have been to point out that Bush is not a native Texan (or indeed, Southerner), as she is: since the entire point of her comment was to distance herself as a Texan from Bush, due to what she perceived as Bush's immoral conduct.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia most definitely ought to have, e.g., a short sentence clearing up such a common misconception, especially since it detracts nothing from the article. Many people reading that quote by her are unlikely to click on a George W. Bush biography and read it closely enough to find out that he is originally from New Haven, Connecticut. Again, as an encyclopedia, the whole point is to educate people and clear up ignorance and common misconceptions.

So indeed, my factually true and non-point-of-view sentence adds value to Wikipedia's Dixie Chicks article, since it will clear up the misconception by many readers of said article that Bush is a native Texan and Southerner which otherwise would not have been cleared up without this sentence.--209.208.77.104 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have consistently misrepresented what the article says about Maines's statement and about Bush's origin. You have said that she said he was born in Texas, which is not true. You've said that she said he is a Texas native, which she also never said. She said that the president, whose page is being linked to, is from Texas. No one is saying ANYTHING about anyone being a Texas native. Xiner (talk, email) 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Either you have reading-comprehension problems or you're being outright dishonest in your claims, Xiner. Never in that sentence by me does it state--let alone imply--that Maines said that Pres. Bush is a native Texan, or that she said that Pres. Bush was born in Texas, contrary to your utterly false claims here about my edit that "You have consistently misrepresented what the article says about Maines's statement and about Bush's origin. You have said that she said he was born in Texas, which is not true. You've said that she said he is a Texas native, which she also never said."--209.208.77.104 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing your statement achieves is the impression that Maines said something that was untrue. In fact, you asserted in your edit summaries that what she said was indeed wrong, when all she said is that Bush is from Texas. He lived there since age 2, and I still haven't read an argument about that. The only Texas native is Natalie Maines, and the article makes that perfectly clear. Xiner (talk, email) 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Here once again you are displaying your reading-comprehension problems, Xiner. What my edit summaries stated is "Pointed out that G. W. Bush is not a native Texan, and is originally from New Haven, Connecticut in the 'Political controversy' section; as from the quote, some may be mislead to think he is." Never did I say or imply that what Maines said was wrong. And the sentence that I added to the article is the following: "Although to clarify, U.S. President George W. Bush is not a native Texan or Southerner, but is originally from New Haven, Connecticut." Of which is perfectly true and an objective fact. Nor does it imply that Maines said that Bush is a native Texan, since Maines's quote is already provided. Rather, it clears up the commonly-held misconception that Bush is a native Texan and Southerner.--209.208.77.104 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know what's going on, please note the "to clarify" or "in fact..." phrases in all these edits[2][3][4]. The phrase implies incorrectly that Maines said Bush is a native. Xiner (talk, email) 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, Xiner, you are displaying your reading-comprehension problems here. The "In fact" statement is not by me, but by 68.158.208.83. I already told you the sentence that I added, which is the following: "Although to clarify, U.S. President George W. Bush is not a native Texan or Southerner, but is originally from New Haven, Connecticut." Of which is perfectly true and an objective fact. Nor does it imply that Maines said that Bush is a native Texan, since Maines's quote is already provided. Rather, it clears up the commonly-held misconception that Bush is a native Texan and Southerner.--209.208.77.104 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you that this is a page about Dixie Chicks, and NOT the guy from Texas? Thus if you want to clear up any confusion about Mr. Bush, please do it on his page. May I also remind you that all three IPs are adding practically the same sentence. Please read WP:DUCK and WP:3RR. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheh! Well, the article I read, without the "clarifying" sentence is clear, reads well and does not discuss where President Bush was born in any way as it is not particularly relevant to the particular comment Maines made. I understand that you (209.208.77.104) want it to be clear that President Bush was not born in Texas, but that does not mean he would not consider himself from Texas. If clarification regarding where he was born needs to be made, it should be done so on his biography page. Thanks ZueJaytalk 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia in an encyclopedia. Hence, its purpose is to educate people. Most people in the U.S. and the world believe that Pres. George Bush is a native Texan and Southerner, and are not aware that he is originally from New Haven, Connecticut. Given Natalie Maines's comment on this matter, it seems quite likely that she also believed at the time of her comment that Bush is a native Texan, otherwise a far more trenchant comment by her would have been to point out that Bush is not a native Texan (or indeed, Southerner), as Maines is: since the entire point of her comment was to distance herself as a Texan from Bush, due to what she perceived as Bush's immoral conduct.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia most definitely ought to have, e.g., a short sentence clearing up such a common misconception, especially since it detracts nothing from the article. Many people reading that quote by her are unlikely to click on a George W. Bush biography and read it closely enough to find out that he is originally from New Haven, Connecticut. Again, as an encyclopedia, the whole point is to educate people and clear up ignorance and common misconceptions.
Thus, my sentence adds value to Wikipedia's Dixie Chicks article, since it will clear up the misconception by many readers of said article that Bush is a native Texan and Southerner which otherwise would not have been cleared up without this sentence.--209.208.77.172 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Three IP addresses? There are only two IP addresses for the edits which you mention: 209.208.77.104 (which is the IP address my edits appear under) and 68.158.208.83 (which is someone else, of whom I do not know and is unconnected with me). And obviously I cannot be responsible for another person's edit when I was not a party to it. Concerning WP:DUCK, I wholeheartedly agree that a spade is a spade: you have repeatedly made factually false allegations regarding my edit, so what does that make you, Xiner? And since when is making factually false statements--as you have repeatedly done concerning my edit--"encyclopedic," Xiner?--209.208.77.172 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You said earlier that this has nothing to do with what Maines said. Again, you are misrepresenting what Maines said. All she said is that Bush is "from Texas", which is correct because he lived there since age 2. Any other misconceptions about the man is to be discussed on his article page. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT BUSH IS A NATIVE TEXAN, SO NO ONE NEEDS TO SAY THAT HE IS NOT A NATIVE. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are here again making factually untrue statements regarding what I said. For one, I never said "this has nothing to do with what Maines said," or anything to that effect. Second, I have never "misrepresent[ed] what Maines said." I have repeatedly already told you the sentence that I added, which is the following: "Although to clarify, U.S. President George W. Bush is not a native Texan or Southerner, but is originally from New Haven, Connecticut." Of which is perfectly true and an objective fact. Nor does it imply that Maines said that Bush is a native Texan, since Maines's quote is already provided. Rather, it clears up the commonly-held misconception that Bush is a native Texan and Southerner, of which commonly-held misconception is likely to be reinforced in said people's minds when they come across a statement such as Maines's.--209.208.77.172 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No one ever said that Bush is a native. This is not a page about George Bush. There is nothing to clear up, and your "clarification" only serves to muddle what Maines said. I've yet to see an argument to the contrary. Xiner (talk, email) 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've added the info, which I consider info creep, to the main text. What do you think? Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the IP editor is insitent, I think the compromise is ideal. ZueJaytalk 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur w/ user:Zuejay. Ronbo76 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As I said previously, I don't think this information is frivolous, because if one were to ask people around the world where Pres. Bush was born most would no doubt say "Texas." Living in the U.S. as I do, my experience has been that most here think that Pres. Bush was born in Texas. Again, as an encyclopedia, the task is to educate people and dispel ignorance. Many people who read this article aren't going to bother to click on the George W. Bush link and read it closely enough to find out where his birthplace is. I also regard it as quite germane to Maines's quote, as the entire point of her quote was to distance herself as a Texan from Bush, and Maines is a native Texan. So pointing out these facts can shed new light in the minds of the readers as to their considerations of her remark.--209.208.77.172 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you are agreeing to the proposed compromise. Xiner (talk, email) 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate your thoughts on that matter, as I don't know what you're talking about, Xiner.--209.208.77.172 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Everyone else seems to understand what the compromise is. It's funny I was supposed to be the one with reading comprehension problems. Need I point you to the sentence after Maines's comment? Do you agree with it or will you keep inserting your favorite sentence there? Xiner (talk, email) 20:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence I now read after Maines's quote is "The comment about President Bush, who moved to Texas from Connecticut at age two ..." This is how the sentence was, pretty much, as I read it when I made my first comment today above (exactly, it was "The comment about President Bush, a long-time resident of Texas transplanted from Connecticut at age two ..."). So please be more specific and verbose as to what your vexation with me is concerning this matter, Xiner, as I hardly see how any of this demonstrates a failure of reading or understanding on my part.
From your comments, it seems that you are imparting to me some viewpoint or position you have me categorized within your system of thought. And having here failed to live up to your categorization, you have thought that I am guilty of some contradiction or lapse of attentiveness. What I will say to you on that point is that I follow the truth to wherever it leads me, of which doesn't fit me within any popular postion.--209.208.77.172 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree with the passage in question as it stands? If you don't answer it in the next reply with a simple yes or no, I'll abandon my assumption of good faith on your part. Xiner (talk, email) 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The assumption of the good faith of mine is not logically connected to an answer of "Yes" or "No" on my part to your above question. That's the logical fallacy known as a loaded question. My first comment today began with the sentence "Thank you" regarding what had been decided on, and my following sentences merely reinforced why I thought this decision was a good thing. Yet you expressed vexation with my reply--why that is, I still do not know, as you have yet to adequately explain what your problem with my reply was despite my repeated inquires as to why. So I remain in the dark as to what exactly your problem is. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me.--209.208.77.172 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the 68.* IP agree to the change? Is it a different person? Xiner (talk, email) 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are you asking me that? I already told you (and everyone here) the following: "209.208.77.104 (which is the IP address my edits appear under) and 68.158.208.83 (which is someone else, of whom I do not know and is unconnected with me). And obviously I cannot be responsible for another person's edit when I was not a party to it." So to answer your latter question, yes, 68.158.208.83 is a different person from me. I do not know him and he is unconnected with me (other than in the pantheistic/panentheistic sense). To answer your former question: I don't know.--209.208.77.75 12:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reset margin & discussion Forget the antagonism for a minute... The current passage reads: "The comment about President Bush, who moved to Texas from Connecticut at age two, was reported in The Guardian's review of the Chicks concert." Is this passage adequate to satisfy everyone's desire to: (1) clarify that Bush is not a native Texan, and (2) prevent information creep? ZueJaytalk 07:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That would float my boat but best to include the direct quote (which I imagine is pretty much what you put here) as italized or bolded text. Ronbo76 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: The reference to here means this talkpage. Edits in an article should follow normal Wikipedia manual of style edits. Ronbo76 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted that line from the page. I'll offset it next time. ZueJaytalk 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't italicize or bold the quote without specifying that it wasn't in the original (since Maines spoke the passage, she didn't typeset it in such a manner). As I've said regarding this matter on the Operation Northwoods Talk page:

[I]talics for quotations (displayed or otherwise) in the manner that [was just used] is flat-out wrong typesetting. The only reason one should use italics in a quote is if they appear in the original, or if there is something within the quote that one desires to highlight (in which case, if one adds italics one must detail which part of the italics did or did not appear in the original; to do otherwise not only is a classic example of bad typesetting, it is also regarded as a dishonest method of quoting).

--209.208.77.75 12:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Zuejay, I think everyone has chimed in and agreed except the 68.* IP which committed 3RR. Xiner (talk, email) 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag

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)

The infamous quote

According to the original Guardian story, Maines did not say the word "that". Since contractions are considered by some linguists to be separate words, are we sure that the "twelve words" include "that"? Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All the "quotes" I see of this do not have the "that" - one of the primary reasons I have stuck with the original source on this one. Was the original quote caught on film and used in "Shut Up & Sing," or somewhere else? ZueJaytalk 06:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've invited the author of the changes, User:208.58.7.191, to this conversation. I hope he/she can shed some light. Either that or someone owns a copy of the documentary. Xiner (talk, email) 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barring info to the contrary, I think it's okay to delete that word when the page is unprotected. Xiner (talk, email) 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I believe that many, if not most, linguists count "you're" as two words. Thus, the 12 words that the filmmakers may well not include "that". Also, the author of the changes has informed me that:
Re-reviewing and re-listening to the trailer (readily available on youtube.com), Maines does not, in fact, use the word "that".
So I think the issue is cleared. Xiner (talk, email) 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the promo includes "that" in the caption, though I'm fairly certain Maines didn't say it. Xiner (talk, email) 02:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems so to me that the issue is resolved. Ronbo76 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Go with the original source that the American media picked up on. ZueJaytalk 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing a protected page

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)

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)

Needs urgent fix

This sentence needs to be fixed:

At the 49th Grammy in 2007, the Chicks won all five categories for which they were nominated, including Album of the Year, in a vote they interpret as partly a reaction to the storm from Maines' comment

what does "they" refer to? should it read "some"? or perhaps "many in the US"? --Ghormax 21:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The "they" refers to the Chicks, as intended. If you follow the reference there, you'll see their comments when accepting the awards. Xiner (talk, email) 21:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly clear - but there is potential for some confusion. Suggested re-wording might be:
At the 49th Annual Grammy Awards Show in 2007, the Dixie Chicks won all five categories for which they were nominated, including Album of the Year, in a vote the Chicks interpret as, partly, a reaction to the storm from Maines' comment.
The leader of the sentence "49th Grammy..." might need some more word-smithing. But, is the confusion on who they is alleviated? ZueJaytalk 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but while the sentence definitely needs work, I don't see too much of a problem with "they". After all, it's been used once before in the same sentence: ...Dixie Chicks won all five categories for which they were nominated... If there's no confusion there, why would there be confusion one phrase afterwards? Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2 things...

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)

I just re-read the article, and yeah, it's interesting, for example, which quotes are set apart from the text. Xiner (talk, email) 05:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Today's copyedit

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)
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)
To those who don't know what's going on, the page is fine now. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

February 17, 2007 unexplained deletion

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)

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)
Looks good to me as freedom of speech is mentioned in the new reference. Ronbo76 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Another improvement

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)
Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#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)
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)

The Chicks Return?

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)

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)
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)

Chinese interwiki

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)

Shut Up And Sing -- the references

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Chicks/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Both this page and the page for Destiny's Child report that they are the highest selling all female group, I can not correct as I am unsure which is correct--Rmyheart 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/06/15/bmdixie15.xml
  2. ^ http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=88109
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Chicks/Archive_2&oldid=1146020211"