Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Changes to introductory paragraph

Re: changes to introductory paragraph. 1. I can't find one Eagles song about "Rock n Roll". I only left in the reference to cars because of "Ol' 55". 2. by the fourth album the country sound gone. 3. I can't think of songs like "Witchy Woman" as completely innocent. Jgm 19:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The entire Desperado album is about rock and roll. The outlaw is meant to be analogous to a rock singer.

About the references to the Rolling Stone Lists. Eagles are number 75 (not number one, that belongs to The Beatles) on the Immortals list (AKA the greatest artists of all time list) also, Hotel California is rated number 37 (not number one, that belongs to Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band) on the Greatest Albums of All Time list. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/the_immortals ˜˜˜˜

˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypluto (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The band name

The band is called 'EAGLES' not 'THE EAGLES' big difference.

'The Eagles' were a band in the 50's that originally recorded the song 'Baby What YOu Want Me To Do' later made famous by Elvis Presley.

I'd say it's a moot point. While the albums were consistently labeled as being by "Eagles", the band has consistently referred to itself (including in recent press releases publicising the upcoming tour and the official Don Henley site) as "The Eagles"; they certainly have never made an issue out of the name one way or another. I'd imagine that anybody looking for the article on the band is more likely to type in "The Eagles" which takes them to the band article; anybody typing in "Eagles" goes to the Eagle page which starts with a link to the Eagle (disambiguation) page which in turn links to The Eagles. So, since the band's official position on the name is vague I think things are best and most useful how they are now. Jgm 13:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fair point. The band's official website is EAGLESBAND.COM not THEEAGLES or anything else. The company that Henley and Frey own is Eagles LTD. If this is ment to be a dictionary and factual, the band should be called EAGLES, not THE EAGLES (the entry name EAGLES (band) ). Their first album is titled EAGLES, not "The Eagles". So I'd appreciate it if people stopped changing that to FALSE information. And I'd hope the person who erased that change would ATLEAST leave it be. Or atleast buy the album to see for him/herself or use google. Thank you. I like facts, I hope people who write entries would do too.
Excuse me but the Eagles are the 70's band that everyone thinks about when they hear it said. Who ever heard of a 50's band called The Eagles. Who would care. 50's music is tinny and hard to listen to anyway. 71.28.243.28 23:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
One of my friends would take exception to that. He is a fan of the original "The Eagles". RashBold 21:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the band name is "Eagles", not "The Eagles". Definitive evidence: check the picture that's illustrating our very article. You'll notice that the banner behing the very band says "Eagles", with no "the". This article will be moved momentarily, unless compelling evidence is provided otherwise, which I don't think will happen, being that the band's name is in fact "Eagles". Regards, Redux 01:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I can't find any album cover sporting the definitive article. So I say go ahead and move it. However for all bands whose title would take the form "{Noun}s (band)", the redirect "The {Noun}s" should be kept, as it will be the most widely query searched for by (and the most intuitive target for inbound links created by) the average user. BTW, The Eagles Greatest Hits, Vol. 2 should be moved at about the same time as it has no "The". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Move with caution - I have no objection to moving the article, and the grounds for the move appear techically correct. I would request that the person or persons doing the move ensure that it is done properly (retaining the page history) and completely (fixing all of the many double-redirects that you create). Engineer Bob 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It is done (the album's entry as well). I've taken care of almost all the redirects already, but the list is quite extensive, and it includes many mislinks, where the objective was to link the animal eagle, but it was in the plural and people just linked [[eagles]]. So this is something of a work in progress, although the more significative part of it has already been done by me. Regards, Redux 06:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of the album articles say 'the eagles', so they need to be changed too -- Tarquin 19:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to note that on the side of the CD version of the most sold album of all time in the U.S. it says "The Eagles: Their Greatest Hits". I know that the band is entitled "Eagles", but it is fairly clear how people could have made this mistake. Bsd987 01:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
it's not a major difference at all, as their de facto name is always 'the Eagles'. say "eagles are my favorite band" out loud. it doesn't make sense, and nor does this article. Joeyramoney 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say, "Eagles is my favorite band." But agreed, everybody calls them "The Eagles," and switching this article to be technically correct would just confuse everyone. (Joedelta) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.91.132 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You would not simply say "Eagles" if you were speaking, you would still say "the Eagles". The "the" is always implied when speaking, but their actual name is simply "Eagles". TheXenocide (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you folks realize that grammar doesn't come into play with a band's name? If you insist that it does, then why don't we insert a definite article when we refer to the name of a song or album? A band name is no different than the title of a song, album, painting, etc. I suppose we should go edit the article on Pink Floyd's "Animals" to refer to "the Animals" every time the album name is mentioned. Or maybe it's time to give up your misinformed grammar quest.205.211.133.129 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at the title of Don Felder's book: "Heaven and Hell: My Life in the Eagles". Is it "My Life in Eagles"? No, it isn't, because that is wrong. Anytime this ridiculous issue is raised there will be another editor that corrects it. Cheers... Doc talk 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
If you insist on being so adamant about something so blatantly incorrect, that's cool. Just curious, if grammar is what's at stake here, what would you do if a single artist's name was plural, as in Peaches? According to the "grammar" logic espoused here, all references on that page should refer to "The Peaches." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.133.129 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Not unless she and the rest of the mainstream media referred to her in that way. A better and more appropriate example would be Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are alternately called "the Red Hot Chili Peppers" and simply "the Chili Peppers" throughout the article. Should that article be changed so that every instance says "Red Hot Chili Peppers" only? I don't think it should. Again, the most important thing to remember is that WP follows the practices that the rest of the world does, and when the band and the media both refer to "the Eagles" then so do we. Doc talk 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Walsh, Organ Player

Sorry I'm new to this site otherwise I'd change it myself but Joe Walsh also plays the organ as well as the guitar (check the sleeve notes to any of the Eagles albums he plays on or watch the DVD they released recently and see for yourself). Randy Meisner is also a vocalist (he sang lead vocals on Take It To The Limit, Take The Devil, Try and Love Again, and Try and Love Again amongst others. (Sleeve notes of any of their first 5 albums will confirm this). I can't agree with the person who posted above that the Eagles country sound had gone by the 4th album - watch the Hell Freezes Over DVD on which Glenn Frey describes "The Girl From Yesterday" (off their 7th album) as a country song, I'd say that Lyin Eyes and After the Thrill is Gone (4th album), and New Kid In Town (5th album)are also Country songs but that's only my opinion.

This wasn't meant to be a list of all the instruments each person played. Meisner should have "vocalist" mentioned, but organ player or whatever the term for Joe Walsh is unnecessary. His playing of the organ is for studio work. In concert, he is the band's bassist. You don't mention every instrument each person plays; just look at the liner notes for R.E.M.'s Out of Time and you'll see just how impossible that is. Additionally, nowhere in the article did it say that the Eagles' country sound was gone by the fourth album. The article states that the band gravitated towards rock, and that is true. Bsd987 11:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In concert I thought that he was lead guitarist and Timothy B Scmidt was the bassist. Wally 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Tim plays Bass on all their songs. Joe plays lead guitar on a lot but Stuart Smith, and Glenn Frey also play lead guitar on some. Kelpin 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the Eagles live 4 times and can assure you he played organ at each every one of them. Also if you watch the Hell Freezes Over and Farewell Tour DVDs he plays organ on them as well. As for not listing every instrument - the reason I mentioned this is that you have Don Henley down as a guitarist - although he does play guitar he is primarily the bands drummer - Joe Walsh plays more organ than Don Henley plays guitar!

Platinum Eagles

I've heard they got the RIAA's first platinum album, but not the year. Can somebody confirm & include? Trekphiler

Also Their Greatest Hits is the best selling album of all time in the U.S.? Why isn't this included? --Drowse 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
They also had the first album to be certified diamond (10 million) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.49.25 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Link hit singles?

I'm not up on the "official rules," but shouldn't the songs under hit singles be hyperlinked to articles if they exist? e.g. Hotel California, which I found difficult to get to from the main page. Garble 22:23, 13 Jan 2006

Interpretation of the songs

I removed all the different interpretation of the songs as they are not supported by any documents. For examples, I heard so many different interpretations of Hotel California (reference to the State, the US, an nut-house in Ventura County, the 666 Beast, the Music Industry, ...), that short of actual "official" interpretation by the original song writer, it is not factual. Tony Bruguier 17:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Added vocalist on Leadon

Added vocalist on Leadon's "instruments"

He sang lead since the 1st album (and backing vocals of course). Eagles songs he sang lead on include "Train Leaves Here This Morning", "Earlybird", "Twenty-One", "Bitter Creek", "My Man" and "I Wish You Peace"

Verify tag

Hi all,

I recently put a verify tag in this article and I have been asked to say why I did so. My first concern is about the billboard results. Look at this edit. It is probably a mistake/vandalism but I didn't find a good source for this. The second concern is the "Success & breakup" section. The whole thing may se some quotation but the one sentence that bothered me was: "Only three more songs until I kick your ass, pal"; it'd be great if we have a source.

Tony Bruguier 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I researched your chart position question on AllMusicGuide.com and uncovered the facts -- "Hole In The World" did reach #5 on the Adult Contemporary chart, but was only #69 on the Hot 100, so the last editor was correct. I'm going to check a few other singles to confirm that they reference the proper chart, then remove the {verify} tag from that section.
Based on your comments above, I'm also converting your {verify} tag in the History section to a few {fact} tags on the handful of quotations that appear to need a source. That will make it easier for readers and other editors to identify the disputed content.
-- Engineer Bob 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Why does the article say "Eagles are" if we are talking about a[n American] band? It should say "Eagles is. . ."; one wouldn't say (in American-English anyway) "Nirvana are a grunge rock band from Seattle", I mean, we are talking about a group after all, not a plural category. Basically, if we are going to adhere to the fact that the band name is "Eagles" and not "The Eagles" we ought to be consistent and also refer to it as "Eagles is an American. . ." 71.76.135.102 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Such is the way of the world of non-definitive-articled-pluralized band names. The band themselves (in interviews as well as more formal press releases) have never hesitated to use the the with the band name to make conversation easier, even as they avoided it on album covers and the like. We should follow suit. Jgm 01:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Eagles are a kind of bird. the eagles are a band. in common diction, there is always a "the" placed before the name. just saying "eagles" doesn't sound right at all. similarly, the band name is plural, so it's the eagles are.Joeyramoney 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
american english, and probably any other kind of english, dictates that plural bands are referred to as "were". it's a very simple matter of agreement between the noun and verb. nirvana is different because they have a singular name instead of plural. "the eagles was" sounds extremely awkward. 67.172.61.222 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not always true, it's a matter of the country of origin. For instance, Iron Maiden is singular, but since they are from the U.K., the article reads: "Iron Maiden are a band..." Also, the word band is singular, so it should be The Eagles is a band... the band name being plural shouldn't change the rest of the sentence because it is just a name for a singular object. The word class is an example because a class is a group of people, but you would not say physics are a class or social studies are a class. 24.125.24.4 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Telstar (song)

Here's a question: Did the Eagles ever cover the song "Telstar" ? See Telstar_(song) and note that the list of artists who covered it includes "The Eagles (60s band)"

Just a thought. Can anyone confirm or deny this one?

That cover version was done by The Eagles (UK band), which was active in the 60s. I've fixed the link in the Telstar article. -Engineer Bob 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits

There were a recent bunch of copy edits, some of which were incorrect - I've changed them back, assuming I saw all of them, and would ask editors to check guidelines and the rest of the article before making wholesale changes. For example, album titles should be in italics and song titles in quotes, and then there is the matter of "Eagles" vs "The Eagles". I personally think it sounds absurdly awkward to say "Eagles" alone much of the time, so I didn't change back those recent edits, but they weren't done consistently either so I did attempt to make it consistent. As for commas outside of quote marks - see WP:MOS. A much more important guideline, however, is WP:BLP which requires citations for claims about living people, particularly claims that could possibly be libelous. And also the universally agreed on style rule that if you say "Joe said recently" or "Jim has said" etc., you need to provide citations for those quotes. This article has a number of both problems, and I've added {{CN}} or {{fact}} where I noticed them. I think editing energies would be better spent trying to track down some citations for the claims and quotes than on debating the use of the definite article or placement of quote marks. IMHO. Tvoz 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

T.N.T.S.?

In the article for the album On the Border, the vocal credit for the title song says "Lead vocals by Don Henley and T.N.T.S.". Who or what is T.N.T.S.? I asked in the talk page of that article awhile ago, but haven't received a response yet so I figured someone here might be able to help. - Ugliness Man 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a response on the album's talk page. -- Engineer Bob 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

trivia section

I have nothing against trivia (although some wikicops are allergic to it) but I removed this trivia section because it is either already included in the article, unverifiable gossip and speculation, or idiotically trivial - I' ve noted as such below. Do other editors agree?

  • On the last night of an acrimonious 1980 tour, Glenn Frey and Don Felder spend the entire show making on-stage threats to each other. 'Only three more songs until I kick your ass, pal,' said Felder near the end of the set. The gig soon descended into a mass on-stage brawl which was only broken-up by a dozen roadies.
ALREADY IN ARTICLE
  • Don Henley was known as 'Nikon Don' for his habit of filming home movies with young female fans while on tour.
POSSIBLY LIBELOUS UNVERIFIED GOSSIP AND DOESN'T BELONG IN EAGLES ARTICLE ANYWAY - HENLEY OR NOWHERE
  • Glenn Frey now has Teflon lining in his nose due to his cocaine use, he used to arrange it in an aerodynamic crescent and snort it an eighth of a gram at a time.
POSSIBLY LIBELOUS UNVERIFIED GOSSIP AND DOESN'T BELONG IN EAGLES ARTICLE - FREY OR NOWHERE
  • Legend has it that a 'backmasked' message on 'Hotel California' says 'Yes, Satan had help. He organised his own religion. How nice it was - delicious. He puts it in a vat and fixes for his son and gives it away.' It was also widely believed that the sinister figures at the window of the 'Hotel California' album sleeve was Anton La Vey, founder of the infamous Church of Satan. Joe Walsh denies this saying 'It was just one of the publicity guys from Elektra, he was a little tired.'
"LEGEND"? PURE SPECULATION AND SO WHAT
  • Joe Walsh ran for U.S. President in 1980 and vice-president in 1992 under the banner 'Free Gas for Everyone'. He also once wrecked a hotel with a chainsaw in an attempt to convert four separate rooms into one larger suite.
FUNNY IF IT WEREN'T SO SAD, BUT ALSO UNVERIFIED AND DOESN'T BELONG IN EAGLES ARTICLE - WALSH OR NOWHERE
  • Itailan footballer Roberto Baggio is an Eagles obsessive, he learnt all the lyrics to 'Hotel California' at ten.
YOU MUST BE KIDDING.
  • Glenn Frey featured in an episode of Miami Vice and did an advert for Pepsi.
OK, BUT INCOMPLETE (DIDN'T YOU SEE JERRY MAGUIRE?) AND ANYWAY IT BELONGS IN FREY NOT EAGLES

--Tvoz | talk 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I pretty much agree with your reasoning on all points. Also, the backmasking thing, if there's any merit to it at all, belongs in the specific article for that song, rather than the band's article. Nearly every noteworthy song over the last 40 years that has been the target of accusations of backmasking is a song that has a Wikipedia article of its own. - Ugliness Man 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course you're right about that - backmasking is interesting stuff, and I don't care that it's speculative, but I'd hope there was more than "legend has it" - lots of things have been written about "Paul is dead", for instance, that talk about "turn me on deadman" etc - I hope they are referenced so people can read more about it, not just rely on the recolection of a Wikipedia editorTvoz | talk 18:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto from me. Trivia sometimes has its place on Wikipedia, but none of the stuff you deleted belongs in this article. Thanks for doing the cleanup, and for stating the reasons so clearly. -- Engineer Bob 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
sometimes it's easy Tvoz | talk 18:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Long Road OUT OF Eden or The Long Road TO Eden

...I see an article edit today changing the name of the new album from "The Long Road TO Eden" -->to--> "The Long Road OUT OF Eden"
Does anyone know for sure? I've heard credible sources for both (the Single is definitely "TO") so I didn't want to revert the edit by 24.89.247.99
Thomas Dzubin Talk 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Press are anticipating it to be the Long Road OUT OF Eden see: http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=2284

"Eagles is an American rock band"

am i the only one who thinks this just sounds ridiculous? does using such bizarre grammar help this article in any way?67.172.61.222 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

according to glenn frey, their name was "the eagles". i'm glad this was put to rest. 67.172.61.222 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the band name does not contain the definite article. No matter how much Glenn Frey uses the article, the band lacks it in all official contexts. And no, there is nothing semantically or grammatically odd about "Eagles are an American rock band", since we all know that Eagles is the name of this band, not The Eagles. Therefore the case of definiteness (familiarity) or indefiniteness (unfamiliarity) should not be an issue, since we all have already established the name of the band to be EAGLES without an article before we use the indefinite form in this article. If we've already established familiarity with the indefinite Eagles, there is nothing odd about keeping continous reference to the same first mention (Eagles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.161.250 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

who was The polack who sailed north?

I Just Purchased an original copy of The Long Runon Vinal. In the Runoff groove on side one is engraved "Never ley your monster lay down" and on side two "From the polack who sailed north". I have noticed that somone has included this on The Wikipedia page for this album. Is there anyone who can explain these insriptions to me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.27.54 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Bill Szymczyk (Eagles Producer) talked about these in a radio interview the run-off groove inscriptions feature in Joe Walsh and Eagles albums

Eagles Albums 

   * One of These Nights
         o Don't Worry---
         o ---Nothing Will Be O.K.! 
   * Their Greatest Hits
         o "Happy New Year Glen
         o ---with Love from Bill" 
   * Hotel California
         o "Is it 6 o'clock yet?"
         o "V.O.L. is five piece live" 
   * The Long Run
         o "Never let your monster lay down."
         o "From the Polack who sailed North." 
   * Eagles Live
         o Is It Illegal to Yell "Movie" in a Firehouse?
         o "Hello Federal?...Ship It!!"
         o "Not Tonight, Thanks....
         o ....I've Gotta Rest Up for my Monster." 
   * Greatest Hits Vol. Two
         o Lenny and Leon Say
         o ... "Everything Put Together Falls Apart"

Solo Albums 

   * Airborne (Felder)
         o All One's Life is Music
         o If One Touches the Right Notes and In Time 
   * No Fun Aloud (Frey)
         o J.R., Thanks for the Ball.
         o To Nellie and Millie With Love 
   * The Allnighter (Frey)
         o Go Tigers, Go Dolphins!
         o ..Time wounds all heels.. 
   * Barnstorm (Walsh)
         o "If they only knew how hard we work"-J.W. '72. 
   * The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get (Walsh)
         o "Y- Because we like you" 
   * So What (Walsh)
         o That's no Banany, That's my Noze 
   * But Seriously Folks (Walsh)
         o Luncheon Counter of the Deli Kind
         o "... Call It in the Air." 
   * Best Of (Walsh)
         o Q - What can you do for a dog with no legs?
         o A - Take him for a drag 
   * There Goes the Neighborhood (Walsh)
         o After 15 Years, I Still Can't Spell Szymczyk
         o Is It One "L", Or Two? 
   * You Bought It, You Name It (Walsh)
         o Welcome Lucy... 12-3-82 10'12 AM
         o "Are We Done Yet? ...Again?"

Source http://www.webcom.com/triangle/eagles/

He said 'Monster' is a code word for getting drunk/high/partying

V.O.L. is 5 piece live refers too the song 'Victim Of Love' was recorded 5 piece (3 guitars, bass and drums) live

Is It 6 o'clock yet refers to the fact that the band were not allowed by Bill to drink/take drugs whilst recording until 6 o'clock Leighjackson 22:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not southern rock

Eagles are country rock, but they are not southern rock at all.

Don Felder, why?

Under former members, for Don Felder it says: Don Felder (1974–1980; 1994–2001), why not just 1974-2001. I mean i know the band broke up for 14 years but if that's the case why that's included, then I think there should be the others too, with 1971-1980, then 1994-present etc. or something like that. It seems to me like it's unecessary and should be changed.

Please give a reason when one reverse the Hit singles

Tablulated Hit Singles is much easyier for readers to make comparison and to pick up the greatest hit. If one wants to reverse it, please give its reason.

Time Line Issue?: The Long Run

According to the article on The Long Run, the album was issued on September 24, 1979. Yet, the section on The Long Run says that the band entered the studio in February 1979 and it took two years to make. I don't know the correct dates, so I'm not sure how to fix it, but I'm guessing it should read "February 1978" and "18 months to make."

Fan Sites

Several editors posting under their ip addresses keep deleting the Fan Sites from this page. I have asked them to explain their reasoning on here but they have simply quoted me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL . I can see nothing on this site which says we can't have fansites. However the page does say "Before making major changes, please raise them on the discussion page to ensure consensus." which has not happened. Would the editors who have removed the links care to give their reasons below please? Kelpin 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia DMOZ template has been substituted into the EL linkfarm to prevent users from re-adding links to their personal fan webpages. This has already been done on many other music related articles where external link violations are common.(see AC/DC, Motörhead ...etc). The DMOZ open directory project is free and open for any website owners to add their own personal pages and is Wikipedia approved. 156.34.142.158 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like some further explanation, please, as to why a personal fan page is unacceptable, especially when they offer a vast amount of content. As far as I can see, this has not been universally applied at all. I thought the idea behind Wikipedia was to provide as much useful information as possible, not just to be a duplicate of DMOZ. Have you even visited these fansites you've deleted?
Multiple reasons all guided by wp:el, wp:not, wp:rs and so on. 99% of all fansites are crap. Some are good though. And in the past 1 notable fansite would be allowed provided there was discussion and concensus among regular editors of the article in question. It was usually argued as well that, since many fansites contain copies of interviews and the interviews themselves could be used as refs... those sites would be allowed provided they were used as inline citations. However, the more this is discussed the more it is being rejected simply due to the fact that these fansite interview/article refs are actually copyvio content that the fansites are using without permission. Wiki-brass have, so far, not rejected DMOZ as an alternative.(it has a template) That being said Wiki may reject them someday. But for now Any/all fansite links can/are rm'd daily from Wiki-articles and replaced with the open-directory project link. In the end it's just passing the copyvio-buck from Wikipedia to dmoz. And if dmoz goes down... the dmoz links can be deleted too. Any link that is authorised by the artist can be added to the external links section. All others can be rm'd. 156.34.209.217 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
First, thank you for addressing my concerns. I am puzzled by the targeting of the Eagles page when many other artists' pages have been left alone. I saw no link spam. Indeed, I believe there were all of two fansites, both of which were high-quality. Frankly I consider the barrage of artist pages from sites like VH1 and AOL that someone added to be a kind of link spam - they all say the same thing and don't usually contain anything more than can be found in the Wikipedia article itself. You say that all others CAN be removed... but SHOULD they be? Perhaps there should be some discretion exercised to keep the 1% of high-quality fansites visible to people who want to learn about the band. As a Wikipedia user yourself, I'm sure you can understand the value of allowing quality links even if they don't have the official stamp. After all, Wikipedia itself has no official stamp from the Eagles, either.
I would like to also jump in on this discussion. I have a question to the editor who is deleting the link to the fansites. Are you an official Wikipedia representative?
I don't think he/she is, although he/she can correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps this dispute should be taken to someone who is.76.6.87.148 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also puzzled by the lack of consistency throughout Wikipedia about linking to fansites. They are allowed on many other pages, and I don't understand the need to delete them here. It would be helpful if the editor deleting the links could respond. I would also like to know if Wikipedia has an appeals process to resolve such matters. If this were official Wikipedia policy that is universally enforced, I would understand. But there are links to fansites all over the place on Wikipedia pages. I don't see why this one should be any different. Thanks.


I've added a query here [1] it would be useful if all parties concerned would post their views here. Thanks. Kelpin 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done so - thanks for making the query. I also think it would be helpful if our anonymous editor would reply. Sodascouts 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Please consider that both Kelpin and 156.34.' are doing what each believe is in the best interests of the wikipedia and there is no need for a "quick fix", consensus should be allowed to form on this page. I personally haven't checked to see how much stuff this site has that the wiki doesn't have, if there is significantly more encyclopedic content on the link then the info should be brought into the article and the link used as a cite. If there is only marginal encyclopedic information difference but the site provides things that other sites cannot then there may a good argument for its inclusion. If the link provides less encylopedic content, has nothing different to offer than other then the dmoz (which I believe also includes that particular link - though I haven't checked it today) should be used, it has become a near default position for band articles for it's inclusion to prevent overly long lists of links that provide less/little different content. Please bear in mind what an external link is there for, for more information that either cannot be brought onto wiki or is unsuitable for wiki but pertinent to the subject of the article. The argument that lots of other pages happily accomodate fan site links is not a good argument as the only fan site link (by default) that should be linked is the band's official fan site, any others are up for discussion. Should a consensus be found for the inclusion of the site, it is not usual to seperate links unless there is a large amount of linking and it would be confusing to find what you're looking for.--Alf melmac 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a LOT of information on the site [2] and it is updated on a daily basis with news about the band. To include all this information on the Wikipedia entry would be a full time job. If 156.34.142.158 wants to commit to update the page daily with it that's fine but I certainly don't have the time. Also quite frankly the amount of material there is so voluminous that I'm sure someone would complain that the article (s) were too long if we put it all on Wikipedia. The link is one of the links listed on DMOZ but it is buried in amongst 28 other less useful sites - and it is unreasonable to expect someone using Wikipedia to trawl through the lot to find this one. Kelpin 15:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Having given this some thought I think 156.34.209.217 makes a good point. Many fansites are a waste of time and add very little to an encyclopedia. If you look at the DMOZ entry for the Eagles [3] there are certainly quite a few on there. It is therefore precisely for that reason that one or two quality fansites need to remain on the page AS WELL AS the DMOZ link - I would suggest [4] is certainly one that should stay. That way any user who only wants 1 or 2 alternative sources can go to the pages listed on the Wiki entry and and anyone who wants to delve a bit deeper can look at DMOZ. Kelpin 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If 1 fansite were to be allowed via concensus(which is acceptable by WP:EL) then eaglesfans.com would be the sight I would choose. I do not believe it needs it's own "fansite" sub-heading. And this site would only be allowable in the main band article and not on any individual member articles. 156.34.142.158 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. Kelpin 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a nodding of heads, including mine. Both sites were removed as "link spam" represses chuckles I'd add the link into the article referencing here.--Alf melmac 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
One site is better than none, and I'm happy to see the link included. However, why only one? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that any fansite that meets the above criteria can be listed? I am glad that we are going towards a nodding of heads; however, I don't believe everybody's nodding yet! 24.206.150.214 05:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Policy is sensible on this, as 156.34 points out, agreeing on a fan site with consensus is acceptable with respect to the policy on using external links in articles, it's to stop having way too many links, I see no harm in discussing an appropriate link in addition to the links that are encouraged and expected, are you not nodding your head that the link suggested is the best one to choose then?--Alf melmac 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that the site currently listed be REPLACED with another site; I was talking about an addition. I understand that we don't want a horde of low quality links. In the case of the Eagles, though, that's not going to happen. The Eagles have only two fansites as of now. Perhaps one day that will change, but at this point, if both links are included, Wikipedia would have a comprehensive listing of Eagles fansites. ;) I do believe both sites meet the above criteria.76.6.87.148 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't fully get your intent then.--Alf melmac 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts about the addition of the second site? 24.206.228.4 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new section below for that debate as I think the principal issue has been resolved. Kelpin 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Link To Eagles Online

24.206.228.4 has suggested above that the page should include a link to this site [5]. Can everyone who has a view on this make their comments here so we can try and reach a consensus on this rather than have another edit war.

My feelings on this are Weak Include the site is certainly not spam (the reason cited by some editors for taking all fan sites out). It includes a photo gallery which would probably never get included here because of all the Fair Use rules (which I don't pretend to understand), but most of the rest of the information is already included here or is included on the Fast Lane [6]. Kelpin 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

1 fansite is already 1 too many. Another isn't req'd. 156.34.210.158 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason most commonly given for removing fansites is that they violate WP:EL. That policy does give some guidance relevant to this argument - it says under What Should Be Linked "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." - on this basis The Fast Lane clearly should be included, and there is a case (albeit not as strong) for including Eagles Online. It does say that long lists of links should not be included but 2 links is hardly a long list. Perhaps you could tell us which part of the policy says these two sites should not be listed? Kelpin 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Setting side the obvious additions of more interviews, photos, and downloads that aren't on The Fastlane, let's concentrate on informational content. The following are three examples of information not on The Fastlane, nor anywhere else on the internet: 1) Eagles liner note transcriptions, which have already been used to improve the Wikipedia page (see Talk Box entry below this one). 2) A centralized list of every musician, engineer, producer, co-writer, etc. who ever contributed to an Eagles album (including short bios for many, with the addition of their specific interactions with the Eagles you won't find in places like AllMusicGuide) 3) ad-free, centralized lyrics archive, including songs which are too obscure to be on those annoying lyrics sites that you will force people to turn to if they are unaware of this resource. This is not a comprehensive list of information by any means, but I believe it is enough to demonstrate that the site is hardly a duplicate of The Fastlane. In fact, an in-depth analysis (which admittedly I'm sure you probably don't have time for) would reveal very little redundancy, except for some inevitable duplication of a few photos and articles (the majority are not duplicates). Therefore, I ask, what is the harm in giving Wikipedia users access to more information? Limiting it to one site puts a heavy burden on the site that you choose. No site can possibly be COMPLETELY comprehensive. And what happens if, in the future, a third site pops up that's even better than both? Do we have to hold another powwow to see if it deserves to be "the one and only"? Not to mention that such judgments are rather subjective, are they not? Also, let's step outside of the Eagles for a moment. By establishing this precedent of only allowing one fansite, you are creating a recipe for trouble. People with agendas will push for their site to be "the one and only" and there may not be a clear-cut "winner." Talk about an editing war, as each side gathers their friends to "vote for them" and make sure their site is the one that's listed. What a nightmare! 24.206.228.4 18:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now it seems that that the majority is OK with inclusion, as no one has been able to produce policy that says only one fansite can be included,and it has been shown that EaglesOnlineCentral.com fulfills the criteria of a "Site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." I appreciate everyone's willingness to discuss the matter rather than engage in an editing war. 24.206.228.4 03:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The second link proposed is not authorized by Eagles and contains copyright content that is being used without artist/author permission. It and any links similar to it will be removed for these reasons. 142.179.103.183 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither is the first link (The Fast Lane), but a consensus was reached in the above discussion that the first link be allowed anyway. Since the second link is no different with regard to copyrighted content and authorization, there is no reason to include the first and not the second. At least, there is none that has been given as of yet. BTW, I assume that when you stated that the link WILL be removed, you mean that it will be removed IF such is the community's majority consensus, in the spirit of Wikipedia's collaborative policy, correct? 24.206.228.4 05:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the opinion that the second link should not be included due to its unauthorized copyright violation content. I also feel the fansite that is currently in the main article should be removed for the same reasons. It is not authorized by The Eagles or its management and no permission has been given for use of any of its content. I am not sure where any concensus or community has occured here? Kelpin is the only regular user who had any support for adding fansites. And then there are 2-3 meatpuppet IPs that all originate from the same place and are all single purpose linkspam IPs with no other edits of any value on Wikipedia. No fansites of any kind should be included anywhere in Wikipedia unless they are authorized by the artists themselves. 216.21.150.44 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe Alf and the main objector agreed to the inclusion of The Fast Lane, according to the discussion above this one. Perhaps you feel that these are meat puppets? I think even a quick perusal of their user profiles would disprove that accusation. Therefore, I think it would be more productive to discuss the logic of the arguments rather than make those kind of accusations. While I understand the logic of your objection, I refer you to the discussion above this one, where you will see that the inclusion of fansites has reached "a nodding of heads." Therefore, the argument for the inclusion of EaglesOnlineCentral.com is a result of the inclusion of The Fast Lane, a fansite, as agreed to above. If The Fast Lane is there, the argument goes, then the second site should be included, too. I have yet seen no reason given as to why one should be included and the other not included, except that no more is "required." Well, NOTHING is required - not even one is required - so I would hope that objectors would be able to point to a policy that explains why one fansite is acceptable and two is not, if the second site meets the criteria given above. That's all I'm asking, yet no one has addressed it. I am hoping that those who feel strongly about this will respond, as you have, instead of simply deleting. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and I hope that our issues can resolved here without arbitration to everyone's mutual acquiesence, if not complete satisfation. I am pleased that the Eagles community even cares enough to engage in this discussion at all. As has been said before, we all hope to improve Wikipedia. I have nothing against editors who are violently opposed to the inclusion of fansites. I only wish to debate with them their interpretation of policy and hopefully reach an understanding. 24.206.228.4 04:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Since The Fastlane fansite remains and no one has been able to find policy that states only one fansite may be listed, can we declare a resolution to this issue? I realize this may not suit some personal preferences but I would think in such cases, policy would be the final word. Otherwise we will simply go around in circles. However, if indeed someone can find policy that only one fansite can be listed, I will happily cease this discussion. Otherwise, I will feel justified in adding the site back. 71.98.99.184 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The policy for not adding links to websites that host copyright content without permission is WP:EL. Specifically WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. It says:
Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
The 2 fansites argued over here, as with 99% of all fansites, are not authorized by The Eagles or its management. And neither post any shared licensing agreement for any of the copyright content that both contain. No fansites should be allowed here, or anywhere, for this reason. If you add these fansites knowing that both violate Wikipedia policy then you are violating policy WP:EL. And, as far as I can read in the Wikipedia rules, purposely violating Wikipedia policy and causing damage to the project is potential grounds for being blocked or banned. 142.179.221.7 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This issue has already been dealt with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eagles#Fan_Sites - and as long as The Fast Lane is listed - which it currently is - I feel confident that I will not be blocked or banned for adding the other one. In fact, I'm thinking of bringing this to arbitration, as this seems to be going nowhere. 71.98.99.184 02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the previous policy reference to be solid. The wording in the policy seems very clear. Do not link to sites that contain violations of copyright material. And by that wording all music fansites should be removed from Wikipedia unless the sites are supported by the subject artist to which some of them certainly are. 216.21.150.44 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Please cite 1 copyright violation on each site. Kelpin 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1??? Both sites contain hundreds of images, videos, lyrics and text that are unsourced and lacking any sort of permission. Pictures scanned from where? Taken by who? Lyrics that do not have "used with permission" tags anywhere. Video clips, interviews reprinted from magazines and newpapers used without permission, liner notes reprinted without permission. All copyright violations. Both sites clearly state that they are not authorized or affiliated with The Eagles or any of its members in any way, shape or form. And WP:EL states: Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. I do not single these 2 fansites out for deletion. I don't feel any fansites - for anybody - should be added to Wikipedia unless they are authorized by the artists themselves. 216.21.150.44 12:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Most people who set up websites that illegally distribute copyrighted material do NOT post their home address on the website as The Fastlane have done here [7]. The site's been going since 1996 - if the site did breach the Eagles copyright I'm sure they could afford a decent lawyer to get it closed down. The policy you quote talks about casting Wikipedia in a "bad light" if the Eagles don't have a problem with the site (and clearly they don't) why should Wikipedia? I think Common Sense WP:UCS says that this link does Wikipedia no harm so should stay. I am sure the policy you are quoting from was meant to stop links to music sharing sites (like Napster before they went legit) and if I saw a link to a site like that I would remove it. Is there some reason this is a problem in Canada? I've noticed that EVERY editor who has objected to this is posting from an IP address in Canada? Is there a legal problem with Fan Sites in the country? Kelpin 17:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You also seem to have confused a GUIDELINE with a POLICY. WP:EL is a guideline. Kelpin 17:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You would also be well advised to read WP:POINT. Kelpin 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
If we want to be complete sticklers, then any site that displayed unauthorized materials is violating copyright. By that definition, the Fast Lane, Eagles Online Central, AND Wikipedia itself are violators. Obviously, the definition must not be quite that strict - Wikipedia wouldn't have a guideline that condemns itself. The matter is more complex than artist approval. In an effort to understand the problem, I looked up "contributory infringement" and found some very interesting information. Here is the language of the law: a site can be found liable if it "induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct" of the primary infringer. "Such a participation must be substantial." [8]. Therefore, these two fansites do not threaten Wikipedia with contributory infringement in terms of intellectual property. Thus, Common Sense WP:UCS should be exercised here. Since these sites do not threaten contributory infringement, they are obviously not the sites whose copyright violations Wikipedia is concerned about, and therefore should be allowed for all of the various reasons that have been outlined in the previous two discussions. 71.98.99.184 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don Felder Talkbox

Someone has added Talk Box to Don Felder's list of instruments for 1974 - 1976. The only Eagles song I can recall that has a Talk Box in it is "Those Shoes" from their Long Run album - and I thought it was Joe Walsh who played Talk Box on that. I haven't reverted it in case I've forgotten a song - can someone remind me which song Don Felder played Talk box on? Kelpin 07:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Both Felder and Walsh played a talk box "duet" on Those Shoes. See Long Run Liner Notes (scroll down to "Those Shoes.")

71.98.99.184 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)sodascout

Fair use rationale for Image:Donfelder.jpg

Image:Donfelder.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JoeWalsh.jpg

Image:JoeWalsh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

True or not :

This part :

The tour to promote the album intensified personality differences between band members, made worse on the night of November 21, 1979, when Henley was arrested for cocaine, quaalude, and marijuana possession after a nude 16-year-old prostitute had drug-related seizures in a hotel room. Henley was subsequently charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. n addition, Glenn Frey and Don Felder had to be separated by police and fellow band members backstage at a 1980 fundraising concert for California Senator Alan Cranston. Frey claimed he confronted Felder after he heard him insult Senator Cranston under his breath.[citation needed]

was removed here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagles&diff=prev&oldid=169051515 , without explications. Do someone know if this event is real, and do you think it should be re-integrated to the article ? --Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl] (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't re-add it until it is sourced. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)



I Love eagles posted by mdk7798 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdk7798 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Band name redux

A good faith edit was made introducing a story by Steve Martin about the name of the band. Please see the "band name" discussion above -- the article is now titled correctly and uses the band name correctly throughout. So do we need to emphasize the point further? A comic's memoir quoting what a third party said 20 years earlier is not the strongest source and the quote as given is too long for the point it makes. But I don't mind the reference so much as the prescriptive tone here with the implication that saying "the Eagles", which is a natural way to do it and is often done by the band members themselves, is wrong. Also we would need to be careful to properly frame the story in reference to time as the band has softened somewhat over the years over the usage (as I point out above, "The Eagles" was used consistently in the band's press releases for the recent album). Jgm (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Desperado

The song was actually originally by Clint Black. Thats all i have to say about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.95.99 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! Black's version appeared on Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles in 1993. The Eagles' original on Desperado (album) appeared in 1973. WWGB (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The

I DON'T GET IT CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE BAND IS CALLED THE EAGLES NOT EAGLES. SO GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. Sunshineofyourlove12 1:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, stop shouting and take one of your pills. The band is known as Eagles: see their website where both the home page and the cover of the latest album refer to Eagles, not The Eagles. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course WWGB is correct. "The" comes before bazillions of proper nouns without being part of them. Thinks of sports teams: The Orioles play in Baltimore; the Red Sox in Boston; and ... yes ... the Eagles in Philadelphia! Can you imagine someone referring to Philadelphia The Eagles? Sfahey (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
What about The Philadelphia Eagles? 169.233.59.119 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

"The Eagles are an American rock band..."

Assuming we are using American grammar, would it not be "The Eagles is an American rock band..." because "Eagles" is the name of a singular band? 68.193.130.33 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. Some say it's an American English versus British English thing. Sure, the Eagles is/are an American band and so American grammar should apply, but many non-Americans will take an interest in editing the article, and apply their own understanding of grammar. There is a school of thought that you use "is" when referring to the band as an entity ("the Eagles is an American band"), and "are" when implying the individual members ("the Eagles are enjoying simultaneous solo careers"). But no doubt the introduction of the article will continue to bounce around. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I'd use "are". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Roots rock?

Would it be apt to classify Eagles as roots rock?--Marcus Brute (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Just calling them Rock covers it. It can be stretched to say they also played country rock, mainly Leadon's instrumental work, but still it was just plain ol' rock music. Roots rock is a term better used for modern bands. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article photo

Let's get a caption on this photograph to identify who is in the picture. Fdssdf (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Band name redux ("official name")

As I said a while back in the other Band name section: While the albums were consistently labeled as being by "Eagles", the band has consistently referred to itself (including in recent press releases publicizing the upcoming tour and the official Don Henley site) as "The Eagles"; they certainly have never made an issue out of the name one way or another. Changing all mentions of "the Eagles" to "Eagles" here is pedantic, creates a bunch of grammar oddities, and hurts readability. Jgm (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard rock

A good amount of The Eagles songs can definatley qualify as hard rock. Quote from Rolling stone, "The group's well-crafted songs merged countryish vocal harmonies with hard-rock guitars". source: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/theeagles/biography I think we should add it as a genre.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The band has very few songs that would be classed as hard rock songs. And even those songs would only be borderline hard rock songs. Life In The Fast Lane is probably the hardest song the band has recorded and even it is not a true hard rock song. It should be left out as per the template guidelines requesting that the field stay general. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
How is Life in the Fast lanes not a hard rock song? It's hard rock period. If it's hard it's hard, plain and simple.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the original poster that this band should be categorized as hard rock. In fact, I came to this page is anyone had any quibbles with the word sinewy, since that's already too "tough" for a soft-rock band like Eagles. I like Gavin Edwards quote: "In the steel-cage death match of tasteful ’70s rock bands lacking muscle tone" talking about Eagles and Steely Dan. Source: http://rulefortytwo.com/secret-rock-knowledge/chapter-8/steely-dan-vs-eagles/ JakartaDean (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Eagles vs. The Eagles

Perhaps the best way to deal with this is simply to only capitalize the word "the" at the beginning of a sentence referring to the "Eagles" (notice no caps on the word preceding Eagles), and to use Eagles instead of The Eagles in articles. This is all solved pretty easily using common grammatical sense...

With a name like Eagles, Beatles, Doors, Byrds, etc., plurality becomes a problematic paradox quite easily. The Doors are traditionally referred to as "The Doors" (not simply "Doors"), but one would not say, "Have you heard the latest "The Doors" album?" To make the name singular in this instance sounds strange, whatever the translation. "Do you know what my favorite "The Beatles" song is?" Sounds ridiculous. To drop the "The" off the band's moniker when speaking conversationally is simply natural, and note that all these band names end in "s". It's more correct to say, "Have you heard the latest album from the Byrds?", to avoid awkward phrasing such as, "Have you heard the latest Byrds's album?", or "My favorite "the" Byrds song is...". "My favorite "Eagles" song is..." sounds just as correct as "My favorite song the "Eagles" did was...". To say, "My favorite song "Eagles" did..." just sounds incorrect without "the", whether is is capitalized or not.

This seems to be the major issue. It's "Eagles", not "The Eagles", and we all know this. So refrain from perpetuating The Eagles, rather calling it "the Eagles" or "The Eagles, and refer to them in pages as such. — Doc9871 10:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone lists the group as "The Eagles". I don't see why we can't have a first sentence like "The Eagles are an American rock band..."Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 18:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I may change it soon and fight tooth and nail over it, because it does sound very incorrect the way it is. "Eagles broke up in 1980." Give me a break; this is gotta be the first to go. With a band name like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, you can say that, and it sounds correct. But with the Eagles having 1). a plural-sounding name, and 2). more than one band member, singularizing the band in certain tenses sounds awkward. Again, it's the Eagles (or The Eagles if starting a sentence) - not The Eagles. We'll fix this soon enough... — Doc9871 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc9871 (talk • contribs)

Fresh Start

Now that a certain disruptive user has been blocked, perhaps a rational discussion regarding problems with this article can take place. The lead paragraph of this article is simply awful and needs to be completely rewritten. It is grammatically incorrect, poorly composed and uninformative. Why on earth does the lead need to mention three other bands, five musicians not in the Eagles, and a comedian, while the members of the Eagles are not mentioned? Also, the explanation of the origin of the name "Eagles" is woefully inadequate if not factually inaccurate. However, before the lead is rewritten, a consensus needs to be reached in a couple areas. First of all, and putting the naming convention aside for a moment, the first sentence should read "Eagles are". Subjects which are plural in form take a plural verb. It's as simple as that. It is not a matter of British or American English. As for the inclusion or exclusion of the definite article "the", the omission of "the" from the name is a stylistic choice and is relevant to wikipedia article naming conventions but that does not affect the appropriateness or necessity of having an definite article preceding the name in a sentence. In any number of interviews (see [9] [10] [11] and [12] for examples) the band members, including Glenn Frey, always referred to themselves as "the Eagles." Just to be clear, the name of this article should be "Eagles," the first sentence should read "The Eagles are..." and the group should be referred to as "the Eagles" in the body of the article. Piriczki (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. You got my vote here, but one question. The first time you write, "the first sentence should read "Eagles are".", but the next time you mention this it's ... "the first sentence should read "The Eagles are...". Which is it? I say the second (again, The Eagles & not The Eagles to satisfy and hopefully clarify for everyone). Doc9871 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I should clarify that. I was only addressing the correct verb usage and didn't intend to imply anything else, so yes, the first sentence should read "The Eagles are..." In the body of the article it should be "the Eagles" rather than "The Eagles" according to wikipedia naming conventions since they did not typically include "The" as part of the name. Piriczki (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Absolutely. I fully agree, and am glad we're fighting the good fight. May logic triumph over ignorance here...Doc9871 (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over Don Felder's autobiography Heaven and Hell: My Life in the Eagles, he always refers to the band as "the Eagles". And didn't Glenn Frey typically open their concerts by announcing "We're the Eagles from Los Angeles, California"? Piriczki (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
One need look no further than the band's website www.eaglesband.com. After a heading of "Eagles" further references are to "the Eagles". WWGB (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"To the Limit: the Untold Story of the Eagles" by Marc Eliot Source Question

I've started working on Randy Meisner's page, and I came across some odd discrepancies in this widely cited source. I'm wondering if there are any other opinions out there on the verifiability of Marc Eliot's book concerning, specifically, dates. On pg. 35: "Poco's November 1968 opening at the Troub..." Same page, a few sentences down: "Prior to Poco, the best chance any band had to make the mainstream leap came in 1968..." Then, Pg. 37: "In November, 1969, when Poco scheduled its debut at the Troubador..." And, Pg. 38: "In May 1969, one month after Meisner joined Nelson's group..." These dates seem a little off in more than one place. Don't want to cite an inaccurate source, published or not. Anyone out there know what's happening with this source? Doc9871 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is with "In November, 1969, when Poco scheduled its debut at the Troubador...". That is incorrect, it was November 1968. The rest of the timeline looks OK. Piriczki (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Piriczki (talk); I believe you're right. I working through 5-7 sources to get it right before I add stuff here, and conflicting sources pop up all the time. Right now I'm mucking through contradictory accounts of exactly when Randy quit music and moved back to Nebraska for several months to work for Deere & Company, before Rick Nelson called him, convincing him to return to L.A. and continue playing music. Frustrating, but worth get the sources together... Doc9871 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This web page may be helpful [13]. It might not meet WP:RS but it might help put other sources into context in terms of a timeline. I found an LA Times article on the November 1968 Troubadour shows that mention Meisner on bass/vocals and then the other site shows the first concert with Rick Nelson in April 1969. That should narrow it down at least. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, you have to search for Pogo, not Poco, to find the Nov. '68 info. Piriczki (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Sweet - thanks! I'll slowly and carefully keep building on this page, then move onto Bernie Leadon's. All Eagles articles should ideally be FA (considering the band's impact) - but there's only one way to do it, and that's to research and reference the hell out of it... Doc9871 (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell

In the "Don Felder sues the Eagles" section, it states "The American edition of Heaven and Hell is now slated for publication by John Wiley & Sons on April 28, 2008..." I think this should be changed to past tense if it happened, or otherwise changed if it didn't. Also, the Heaven and Hell page seems to have the wrong link for the John Wiley & Sons, but changing it would be silly if it didn't get published. Could anyone please help with this? GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just change it, man! Look up the ISBN, and it will tell you when it was published. You can help the best, because you caught the error. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eagles → Eagles (band) — Requested to avoid potential confusion with the bird (eagle), which, when Wikilinked in its plural form (eagles), inadvertently results in users being taken to this article. Rather than have this singular/plural situation remain, this article on the Eagles band should probably be moved to Eagles (band) to clearly differentiate it from the bird and avoid potential confusion (or, at the very least, to avoid temporary inconveniences). --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Support move to Eagles (band), cf. Category:Eagles (band). Thank you for nominating this. The singular form of a term which (in most common use) is a countable noun should have the plural as a redirect in article-space, and any unqualified plural-named category should pertain to same, cf. Category:Eagles being about the avian species. Singular form of such should not exist as a functional category, e.g. Category:Eagle which exists for disambiguation only. Other topics colliding with the primary sense should use the same disambiguation suffix in both realms generally speaking. See also: Scorpions (band). ―AoV² 06:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with reasons above. Piriczki (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, primary target would be the birds. Now can we do this with Sharks, which is a disambiguation page mostly listing sports teams? 90.217.146.89 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I would agree with either this or instead moving it to The Eagles, which currently redirects to Eagles. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The group didn't use the definite article "the" in their musical publications which is why the article is named "Eagles" instead of "The Eagles" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (articles)#Names of bands and groups. I think the article may have even been moved from "The Eagles" to "Eagles" once before. Might want to avoid that pitfall and just stick with Eagles (band). Piriczki (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent points. I'm in agreement. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. A good move for sure... Doc9871 (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support yes. —innotata 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Life in the Fast Lane" as catch phrase

This information is incorrect. I can remember this expression being used years before this song appeared. I remember distinctly when this song was released and I remember that the expression was already in common use at the time.

Also, see this from dictionary.com (allows citations)

Idioms & Phrases

fast lane

Also, life in the fast lane . A lifestyle that involves free spending and self-indulgence, and sometimes also dissipation and danger. For example, They're finding that life in the fast lane can be very stressful . This term alludes to the highway express lane used by faster vehicles to pass slower ones. [Colloquial; c. 1970] Also see fast track.

"fast lane." The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Houghton Mifflin Company. 16 Aug. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fast+lane>.

190.49.224.55 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're correct about the Eagles not "coining the term". Feel free to correct it with the reference - just not so many hyphens. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement

In American English, band names that are plural in form take a plural verb. Please refer to the following resources for verification and further explanation and examples: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Piriczki (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eagles_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=1144121768"