Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 3

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


Rename article to "The Eagles (band)"

It is obvious to anybody with the slightest amount of common sense that the article should be titled "The Eagles". 86.179.1.82 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to Glenn Frey ;) We can't change it to "The Eagles" simply because they never used a "The" in the band's title. It's their prerogative, and we can't change history like that. Doc talk 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just watched a two-hour documentary about the Eagles, mostly narrated by the band members. Every single reference to the band called it "the Eagles". Not one single time was the band called "Eagles" by any band member or anyone else. 81.159.106.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that not one official album lists them as "The Eagles", but always rather "Eagles". Steve Martin mentions his exchange with Glenn Frey over the band's name humorously in his book (p.136 of Born Standing Up). Our compromise is what every other source does: we assign a lowercase "the" in running prose. Capitalizing the "The" is as incorrect as omitting it entirely. Doc talk 02:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is an official album (for a foreign market) that begs to differ:http://www.allmusic.com/album/new-zealand-concert-mw0001296510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.169.249 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Overwhelming usage of "the Eagles" in every other situation trumps some typographical or design quirk on album covers for sure. The article title should be "The Eagles" with capital "T" by virtue of the fact that the first letter of article titles is always capitalised. 86.160.222.144 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is correctly named per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). If you have a problem with that policy you should take your discussion there. Piriczki (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
In fact, the convention that you refer to appears not apply because "a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article". However, even without that clause, this article is incorrectly named because it does not reflect the overwhelmingly prevailing name by which the band is called. 86.160.222.144 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not that this even needs to go to an iVote, but I defer first to their official website, and then to Rolling Stone[1] and allmusic[2]. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs to get with it. It's "Eagles (band)", as it has been. Doc talk 10:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The official website only uses the name "Eagles" typographically as part of a logo or design, as do the album covers. With the exception of certain special cases like this, NOBODY EVER calls the band "Eagles". End. Of. 86.128.0.250 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The official website uses their official name: "Eagles". It's really not up for debate that "Eagles" is their official name, and not "The Eagles". Deal with it like the rest of us have to ;) Doc talk 05:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a straightforward issue of grammar ~ not an issue of what the band's name is. The band's name is Eagles. In English grammar, however, it is usually, but not always, grammatically correct to put the before plural nouns. We would not normally write, for instance, that "Eagles toured Australia in 2009". We could do this but it doesn't usually sound right to not include "the" before a plural noun such as "Eagles" so we naturally don't do so. Therefore we would normally say "The Eagles toured ..." If the band were named "Eagle", however, then we wouldn't usually put "the" before it (but it could be correct in some sentence constructions). There are some natural exceptions to this principle. We would not say "The 1990 the Eagles' album reached Number 1." Instead we would say that "The 1990 Eagles' album ..." In summary: The band's name is "Eagles" (not "The Eagles") but it is usually correct to put "The" (at the beginning of a sentence) or "the" (mid sentence) before "Eagles" when referring to the band. (Phew!!!) Afterwriting (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well said! The IP is clearly on the same page with the true lameness (WP-only that I've found to date) of attempting to call them "Eagles" across the board, but hopefully will see the bigger picture as well. We include the lowercase "the", like everyone else does, and leave the mystery of why they never brand themselves as "The Eagles" to them. Doc talk 06:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That theory is just plain wrong. It is obvious after even a moment's thought that article-less plurals are commonplace in English. 86.151.118.91 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Prolly why the discussion is four months old. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be really nice if we could have a definitive answer wikipedia wide for this sort of issue. There's a list of guidelines for article names, but because it comes down to votes from people with different opinions, we end up with Carpenters being called "The Carpenters", the latter of which was never their name, and the Eagles as "Eagles", despite the band themselves calling themselves "The Eagles" in documentaries. So which is? Do we go by the official name or what people call them or what they call themselves? And if we are going to go with "Eagles", why not "Carpenters"? Or vice versa? In most places you can't have it both ways, but wikipedia almost encourages it. 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:36 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

RollingStone (source)

"No other band did as much to translate the explosively creative, politicized rock of the 1960s into the massively popular, de-politicized rock of the 1970s as the Eagles."

Reading this article I'm missing this fundamental aspect very much. 84.152.25.58 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's just one RS writer's spin on this band. Probably got paid decently for it. I wouldn't rewrite the lead in this vein, but that's just me. The article needs improvement from all volunteers, yourself included. If you need help, it will be given. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

An "Eagles" guideline?

After seeing various edits on this page and other Eagles related articles, I was wondering if we could have a page in Wikipedia that outlines the consensus for proper wording regarding the band name. It could be like a Wikipedia style guide; a "do's and don'ts" for the following:

  • "The Eagles" vs. "Eagles"
  • "the Eagles" vs. "The Eagles"
  • "The Eagles are..." vs. "Eagles are..." vs. "Eagles is..." vs. "The Eagles is..." (Yeesh, and we recently had that last one here at this article for several days,[3] the first words in the lead in fact!)
  • "Former Eagle Bernie Leadon..." vs. "Former Eagles' member Randy Meisner..." vs. "Former Eagles guitarist Don Felder..."
  • How to start a paragraph or a sentence with the band name and how to refer to the band in the middle of a sentence in running text.
  • Etc. etc...

I'm sure even seasoned editors with the best intentions have to stop and think about these things and get them wrong every now and then. Also when correcting edits we could then just refer to and link the guide page.

Anyone else think such a page would be a good idea?

Please, if there is a short and easy rule-of-thumb that covers all the above, then let me have it. Otherwise, please do not respond by listing the "answers" to the above issues. I am not after that. I'm asking if a page outlining the standing consensus for the above would be helpful. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You might find American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement useful. We could put some of these things in a FAQ section.--SabreBD (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree. I was going to say something about the fact that "The Eagles" is not plural because its referring to a singular group, despite the "s", (just like Jefferson Airplane, Styx, Rush, etc, etc is also not plural eventhough it's a multi-member group) but you seem to disagree with my "fact" so we obviously have work to do. Oh and I'm happy to be wrong - I'm an engineer not an English major so what do I know... Ckruschke (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I should have more of a point to not indicate one example or another as being wrong. My one parenthetical comment was meant to highlight the need for such a page; and indeed your post here also highlights that same need, regardless of whether you happen to be right or wrong. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Again - agree. And I was wrong (thanks Piriczki) Ckruschke (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
The page is not a bad idea at all; but I'm still hopeful that when allmusic says "were" instead of "was"[4], as well as Rolling Stone[5] and everyone else, that this not ignored for some bizarre MOS quirk that literally no one else follows. It's just plain common sense to me, but I have made this well-known, so I digress. Sorry :) Doc talk 02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just want to add to the discussion: for my home music library I got to make this decision for myself without worrying about convention, and I chose to leave "The..." off of the front of all the band names because for searching, The Beatles needs to be among the B-bands while The Eagles should be among the E-bands. Not that you should care how I did it, but thought I'd mention that in so doing I was faced with the conundrum of the band The The, and because I didn't have to worry about anybody else's opinion, it gave me great pleasure to treat them with my standard rule, so I put them in as "The", disregarding my urge to refer to them as "the The's". Seriously, I am telling this story just to inform the above discussion in case anybody thinks their own method is clearly superior, this is your acid test. 198.179.82.133 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Eagles redirection and disambiguation is scrod

"Eagles" vs "The Eagles" (and is it singular/plural) is nowhere near as important as "Eagle" vs "Eagles". At the moment, if you put "Eagles" into wikipedia search, it takes you to "Eagle"-the-bird, and from there you can click to disambiguate "Eagle", at which point you discover that you are a long way from finding The-"Eagles (band)". How about have "Eagles (disambiguation) separated from Eagle (disambiguation), where they each prominently-at-the-top point to each other? It used to be that way looking at history, but I clicked on the Talk page over there to see if there was any discussion about it, and it said that there was a discussion over here, but there isn't, over here is just the The Eagles vs. Eagles discuss. Wouldn't life be better if Eagles (disambiguation) was its own page, pointing at least to Eagle, Eagle (disambiguation), Philadelphia Eagles and Eagles (band) as a bare minimum? BTW, there is even currently a The Eagle page that's all on its own... 198.179.82.133 (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone already made two separate disambig pages (singular and plural). And The Eagle redirects to the DA page. I just added hatnotes to the disambig. pages so that you can flip from one to the other.
I haven't addressed the question of whether [[eagles]] should go straight to eagle (bird). To link to the bird, one could write [[eagle]]s.
Pelagic (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

How to end genre wars

It's just too easy, given the fine gradient of genre types that exist, to come up with dozens of genres that a band, with a long career, like the Eagles could be designated under. Boldly implementing the consensus decision which has worked well on other similar articles like Grateful Dead, I am cutting back the genres to just rock. It's a big enough umbrella to include the Eagles, and doesn't leave anything out. --Jayron32 19:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the template states "aim for generality" so following that guideline is certainly appropriate and non-controversial. Besides, the editors that focus on genres are typically the least knowledgeable and have little of substance to contribute anyway. Piriczki (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. Genre wars are rife on every single singer/musical group Wiki page that I follow... Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Editors have started adding more genres, with reliable sources backing them up. I thought the genre was to just stay as rock, but clearly some disagree... Shikari 123 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to add something to an article. Merely being in a reliable source is not a club one uses to win arguments. It is part of the evidence one uses to decide if information is worth adding. The other aspects of adding something to an article include relevance and overall quality of writing, and other such considerations. People should achieve consensus before adding these again, even if they find a source. --Jayron32 00:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shikari 123:: Thanks for the expanded "Musical Styles" section; the information removed from the infobox needed somewhere to go, and creating a section for it improves the article considerably. Well done! --Jayron32 22:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem, glad to have improved it! Shikari 123 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Shikari 123: How about you now resolve the cite errors that are at the bottom of the page, since you keep removing the referenced material that is supported by the citations? Doc talk 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No, because I wasn't the one who ignored the consensus and caused the errors. Shikari 123 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
When you revert, you are causing three glaring cite errors. You think the article should be left in this state because of your reversion? Doc talk 23:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Szymczyk Quote

There is a citation needed mark after the following: "Eagles Live (released in November 1980) was mixed by Frey and Henley on opposite coasts; the two decided they could not bear to be in the same state, let alone the same studio. "The record's perfect three-part harmonies were fixed courtesy of Federal Express," said producer Bill Szymczyk." Having looked into this, I can't find any such quote attributable to him - everything out there appears to be a mirror of this article. Don Felder's account is interesting, and what I think this "quote" should be replaced with. Frey quit the band; on pg. 214 of Felder, he describes the situation:

"Irving called us all up and and told us we each had to finish editing the live album without Glenn. I guess he of all people had seen it coming for years. Everyone except Glenn flew to Bill Szymczyk's studio in Miami and started fixing guitar parts, background vocals, drum parts and bass. Then we flew the tapes to L.A., where Glenn and Bill's assistant in another studio fixed his parts, then FedExed the tapes back to Miami."

Unless the quote can be tracked down, I think it's important to remove it and write something based on this referenced account. Doc talk 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Boo yeah: [6]. From the 2004 book To The Limit: The Untold Story of the Eagles. --Jayron32 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Doc talk 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Genres in the infobox

NAC: This is an easy close. There is unanimous agreement that the infobox only needs to list rock, and that the varieties can be listed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  • Should the infobox genre list all the genres also listed in the article, for which anyone could find a reference OR
  • Should the infobox genre parameter be reduced to the most general genre, in this case rock

--Jayron32 23:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support listing every genre referenced in the article (rock, soft rock, hard rock, country rock, folk rock)

Support listing only rock

  1. --Jayron32 23:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. --Shikari 123 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. --Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. --Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  5. --Doc talk 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  6. --♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  7. --Herostratus (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Do not favor using the "genre" line articles, especially when contended. Too simplistic and debatable and leads to endless sterile debate, and would be fine with "leave it blank". If you are going to have a value in the info box, make it the broadest category reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  8. --Alsee (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I like how the current version has the broad Rock category with the see_below link. That seems to be the best way to handle the complex answer for genre.
  9. From my reading of the sources (and my modest knowledge of the topic) like many bands they had a lot of influences and went through different phases. Though some of their music (or even whole albums) might be classified as folk rock, or soft rock, etc., the band was always a rock band. Rock (see below) makes sense to me, as well. Lagrange613 03:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  10. I can't remember which guidelines page talks about this, but one of the music-related pages explains that the "genre" field is to be kept as simple as possible. "Rock" encompasses all the styles being considered, and doesn't really detract anything from the article.--¿3family6 contribs 13:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  11. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The fact that the Eagles have covered so many rock subgenres, such as hard rock, soft rock, folk rock, country rock, rock and roll, R&B, pop/rock, and disco (I have reliable sources for every single one of those, I'll list them here if questioned) means that, like with any other such stylistically wide-ranging rock groups such as Queen, the Beatles and the Kinks, the Eagles' infobox should just use the obvious umbrella term for all these, "Rock". This will prevent genre wars in most cases, and will ensure that none of the Eagles' genres have been left out. Shikari 123 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this position. I think having soft rock and hard rock follow each other in the genre field is especially silly, as they would appear to cancel out. "Rock" covers it. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. While as a huge Eagles fan I would argue that the Eagles did often include hard rock and soft rock songs back to back, a newcomer to the band's music may not know this, therefore the two genres following each other in the article would look silly. Shikari 123 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe to be extra safe we could link the paragraph describing the different musical styles in the infobox after having just "Rock". I dunno. Please note what they do on Allmusic for this band under "Artist Information". They list their "Genre" as "Pop/Rock", and then list the various "Styles" (including "Psychedelic/Garage", which I find just a little absurd).[7]. I'm not suggesting we do this on WP, but it seems to further support listing one genre in the infobox and expounding on the styles elsewhere. Doc talk 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The article already does that. There's a section in the main text devoted to musical styles. AFAIK, it's always been there. The issue is not that paragraph, it's just reducing the clutter from the infobox and to remove the temptation for the genre warriors. --Jayron32 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If you put (see below) after "Rock" in the infobox is what I'm saying. A direct link to the paragraph in the infobox to clarify things for the reader, eliminate clutter, and discourage adding more to the infobox. Doc talk 02:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Point of order: I would like to ask Jayron32 to move the majority of text from the RfC top section down into this discussion section. The RfC should be a simple, straightforward question: Should A or B? It should not come after a strong argument for one side. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed per request. Fair enough. --Jayron32 04:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

#1 album of all time - unsubstantiated

There is a claim I removed about "Greatest Hits' being the #1 album of all time. There is ample evidence this is NOT true: qv. List_of_best-selling_albums and the extensive list of refs on that article.

If a single Rolling Stone article from the early 2000s says something different, then that is not enough to overturn to consensus of references elsewhere. Manning (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The text you removed was "Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975)" was the "best selling album of the 20th century in the U.S." The reference you removed was "The Eagles: Twenty-Six Million Served" Rolling Stone (January 20, 2000) "The California kings' Greatest Hits is honored as the century's Number One best seller"... "With 26 million copies shipped (compared with Jackson's 25 million), the Eagles' anthology was recently awarded that honor by the Recording Industry Association of America." Piriczki (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point - that 15 year old claim is disputed by numerous other resources (including RIAA), all painstakingly cataloged in the above article. Unless you can demonstrate why this single RS article takes precedence over the numerous other references, it cannot stand. Manning (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a simple misunderstanding. This archived CNN article, retrieved by a simple Google search, seems to clear up this dispute entirely. It confirms that the RIAA did indeed officially honor the album as the "top-selling album of the century", but it only factored in US sales. The article specifies that Thriller sold 6 million more copies than Greatest Hits in terms of worldwide sales. I originally missed what Piriczki was saying too, but they do in fact specify "in the US", a claim that appears to be correct, despite the fact that it's not the greatest-selling album of all time (this claim is not being made at all). Are we good here? Swarm X 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please read this newspaper article. It states "The Eagles are soaring into the new millennium with the best-selling album of the century. The Eagles Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 was honored Tuesday as the top-selling album of the 20th century. Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, presented a plaque to band members Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Don Felder, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmidt." Please explain why this award from the RIAA for the best selling album of the 20th century in the U.S. should be removed. Piriczki (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm fairly certain it was just a misunderstanding. Manning apparently thought the claim "of all time" was being made, which is understandable. Swarm X 17:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll assume that means I can restore the information to the article without fear of being blocked. Piriczki (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Swarm X 03:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

shouldnt we add the genre soft pop country rock in info box

shoundnt we — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.142.217 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you : genres such as "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" are already mentionned (and correctly sourced) under the section "Musical style". Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

I restored "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" in the infobox and removed "rock" because several IP adresses have already tried to restore them and because the Eagles are mainly associated with these three specific rock subgenres, which are already sourced under the section "Musical style" and for which many sources exist (including sources I didn't include in this article but that I added in another related list). Other genres mentionned under this section (blues rock, rhythm and blues, funk, pop rock, disco and bluegrass) are not representative of what the Eagles play, as these are genres they experimented with one or two of their songs. Synthwave.94 (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to change the genre from just "rock" which was decided last year at Talk:Eagles_(band)#RFC:_Genres_in_the_infobox, then start a new RfC. Consensus was quite strong for just rock. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for adding Country rock and some support for Soft rock though not as much as Country rock. AlbinoFerret 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It was decided last year to keep ony "rock" in the infobox. However "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" were recently restored by several IP adresses after being removed from the infobox and it seems appropriate to mention them in the infobox instead of simply "rock".

Based on the recent changes in genres and on sources I provided below, the question is :

  • Would it be possible to mention "soft rock", "country rock" and "folk rock" in the infobox instead of simply "rock" ?

Support

Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion of aforementioned terms (we can have an educated vote after we make a list appropriately) due to the fact the band's "style" of rock clearly (as attested by numerous sources) underwent a transition. The infobox needs to reflect this. Stating just plain rock appears narrowsighted, especially when you compare the Eagles to bands such as ACDC. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose unnecessary clutter when it can simply be summarized as "rock". I also concur with Binksternet's comments below. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment. The RfC is not worded neutrally, as it makes the argument for one side. The list of sources supporting other genres should be moved to the discussion section. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Synthwave.94, for moving the arguments down into the discussion section. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I oppose because

these three proposed additions are not equally represented in the literature. 'Folk' and 'soft' rock are found far less frequently than 'country rock'. I'm also opposed because the Eagles have been described primarily as a rock band, even the most successful rock band depending on the measurement method. It's true they started out with a country rock sound, but they soon centered on rock. There might be songs with a folk rock genre, but the band themselves did not thus become a folk rock band. Similarly, there might have been songs described as soft rock but the band is rarely called a soft rock band. Much more often it is described as a rock band with early roots in country rock. It is trivially easy to find a few dozen sources in which the band is simply called a rock band, which is an indication that the rock genre is more strongly represented in the literature. If another genre might be added, it would be country rock (early), but I still prefer rock. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"The Eagles have been described primarily as a rock band", but many other rock bands such as AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. were also described as simply "rock" by numerous sources. Just because there are sources which described the Eagles as simply "rock" doesn't mean genres in the infobox should be reduced to simply "rock", because you can easily find sources for specific rock subgenres a rock artist is often associated with as well.
"It's true they started out with a country rock sound, but they soon centered on rock.", "Much more often it is described as a rock band with early roots in country rock." : where does all of this come from ? Can you provide a source for these arguments ?
"The band is rarely called a soft rock band" : really ? Are you sure of what you're talking about ? Several references, including books such as Chris Smith's The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Rock History: From Arenas to the Underground, 1974–1980 (p. 88) Christopher Knowles' The Secret History of Rock 'n' Roll (chapter "The Eagles"), Peter Buckley's The Rough Guide to Rock (p. 1151) and Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s (p. 78, along with "country rock"), as well as a guide to the soft rock genre, explicitly associate the Eagles with the '70s soft rock genre. Moreover several of their biggest hits, including "Hotel California", "Take It Easy", "Best of My Love", "The Long Run", "One of These Nights", "New Kid in Town", "Peaceful Easy Feeling", "Take It Easy" and "Tequila Sunrise", were all described as "soft rock" by various sources. Regarding the folk rock genre, the band was described as such by some sources and Country Music: A Biographical Dictionary, says that the band "was formed out of the Los Angeles folk-rock scene of the late 1960s and early 1970s", which means the band is not completly disconnected from the genre. Additional sources I mentionned above are enough to prove the Eagles were associated with the folk rock genre (NB: if you think reliable sources are limited to published books then you're wrong. Rolling Stone South Africa is, for example, more than acceptable to support the genre). Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's limit the discussion to sources that describe the band's genre rather than the genre of an album or a song. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The band and several of their albums/songs were called "soft rock" / "country rock" / "folk rock", so it doesn't change anything at all regarding what they usually play and are known for. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Country rock band" gets quite a few hits in reliable sources. The others not so much. Maybe we could compromise on including "country rock"? With a source, of course. It doesn't seem particularly undue to mention this genre. I can't really say that I care a whole lot, though, so I'm not going to argue endlessly about this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding "country rock", but also "soft rock". Several books and other reliable sources explicitly associate the Eagles with this genre. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment An infobox is not an article, the article is the place for nuanced information about different influences, stages, albums etc. For that reason 'Rock' seems adequate, possibly 'country rock' if very widely used. I can think of musicians whose work has been described as being in umpteen genres. An infobox can never be a complete account. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I know it. I only suggested to add the rock subgenres the Eagles are best known for and for which I managed to find many sources. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I may have over reacted, I think there is a general tendency on WP to cram too much into 'info boxes'. I think a consensus is building here for 'C Rock' and 'Rock'. I looked at a few musician articles, Van Morrison's genre list is like an article, Paul Simon's includes 'Folk' and 'Pop' (fair enough), then 'Rock' (questionable), then 'World' (Graceland? 'World' is a dubious category at the best of times, but a couple of albums working with non-US musicians? 'El Condor Pasa?), without trying too hard I could probably think of umpteen other PS influences. Music journalism has a tendency to produce endless 'sub-genres', which are often only informative to the initiated. However everyone can ignore my opinion if they wish since I rarely read music articles anyway, as I already decided what I think about most of these people circa 1975! Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Note that unless there are unsourced, there's nothing wrong about adding subgenres in artist's infoboxes. Template:Infobox musical artist#genre doesn't even say they are forbidden ; it only says : "The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (...) and preferably use 2-4." Therefore changing "rock" into "country rock, soft rock, folk rock" perfectly respects this specific point and it's perfectly representative of the Eagles' overall work. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Glenn Frey - former member?

I see that Glenn Frey has been demoted to "former member" status. I suggest that he be moved back to "current member" until we see that the band releases more music or performs more shows without him. Right now, we don't know if the band has died too. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Frey is clearly a former member, like Brian Jones in The Rolling Stones infobox. If the Eagles folds, then the rest also become former members like The Beatles infobox. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@WWGB: I first posted a comment on Template talk:Eagles#Glenn Frey, and then noticed the same issue here so I posted again. I should have only posted in one place, and apologize for the duplication. The Stones performed at a concert two days after Jones's death. Therefore, I agree that Jones quickly became a former member of an existing band. Have the Eagles made any statements about continuing (or not continuing) as a band? GoingBatty (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The Eagles have made no statement about their future. Regardless, Frey is no longer a member. If the Eagles disband, then we will call them all former members. There's no hurry about that though. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you; but the method of listing members' of a dissolved band has been left up to the discretion of a consensus by Wikipedia, i.e. a band that is inactive can still have 'current members' if Wikipedians decide that the classic line-up of the band was important enough to warrant it (as is currently the case with Nirvana, with similar issues occurring for The Beatles and Queen to name three). Personally, I disagree with the notion that we should give fans the choice in the matter as Wikipedia as the facts are the facts, and Wikipedia is meant to be an 'encyclopedia' after all; but that's the way it works at the moment. In any case surely if we're going to list the 'classic line-up' under 'current members' we'd have to move Schmit into 'former members' and Felder and Meisner back into 'current members' as I don't think anyone can argue the fact that the Hotel California lineup is the most iconic one; if only for the outstanding amount of success that album had. Kind regards, 86.189.140.198 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope that an official statement is released soon that the Eagles are not going to continue after his death. Then all of them can be put in the past members little thingy in the infobox. It's depressing that this is even an issue. Doc talk 08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
We don't even have any guarantee that they are going to split up. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Henley, Schmit, and Walsh team up with Leadon and take the band back on the road again for a 'final farewell tour' or something like that. I hope they don't do anything of the kind unless they bring all of the members' on board and I can't see any of the Eagles beside Leadon and Meisner ever taking to a stage with Felder again. In the end it's up to them what they do. 5.80.227.39 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Henley said in an interview a few years ago that he was going to leave the decision up to Frey as to when the Eagles would fold and retire -- implying that he would not go on without him as a member. I think that the band will disband, but are waiting until the mourning period for Frey is sufficient to make the announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.25.65 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"Eagles" vs. "The Eagles"

A Language Log post today by Geoff Pullum, "Glenn Frey and the band with the anomalous name", points out

the odd fact that the band Frey and Henley co-founded had a name that nobody ever gets right.
Steve Martin reported in his autobiography Born Standing Up that Frey insisted the name was "Eagles", not "The Eagles." Thus the band had settled on a name that was supposed to be what The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) calls a strong proper name like Azerbaijan, which takes no the, not a weak one like (the) Azores, which must have a the.

I'm not suggesting we put this into the article. As Pullum explains,

Everyone feels they need to supply a definite article for Eagles. And there's a reason for that. Once you look at the relevant grammatical constraints of English you see that Frey was really swimming upstream.
As CGEL explicitly says (page 517), "Plural proper names are always weak."

There's discussion and counterexamples in the comments, but Pullum's reasoning stands up pretty well.

--Thnidu (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Interesting post - I've mentioned it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Glenn_Frey_and_the_band_with_the_anomalous_name. Thanks for sharing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"We're the Eagles from Los Angeles, California" ~ Glenn Frey
Piriczki (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Piriczki: Source? --Thnidu (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Don Felder's book

There seems to be an excessive reliance on Don Felder's book as source for the article. Not saying that the facts are necessarily untrue or inaccurate, but given that conflicts between him and Frey and Henley and the circumstances of his leaving the group, I'm not sure relying on someone who might have a skewed view on the band would be the best approach. I have no problem with statements that are facts, but I would think trying to find an independent source would be preferable for some of the sentences. For example here - "Meisner decided to skip the song due to his flu, but when Frey aggressively demanded that he sing it as an encore the two got into a physical confrontation backstage and Meisner left the venue." It doesn't contradict the essence of what I have read on what happened, but using someone who might not be well-disposed toward Frey as a source would not make it seem neutral. At least I should think it would be better phrased as "According to Felder..." when someone is characterized as doing something "aggressively". Hzh (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 March 2016

Please fix the split sentence created by this edit. If we prefer having 2 paragraphs in Frey's death section, move "At the 58th Annual Grammy Awards" to the second paragraph, or delete it. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Status of Bernie Leadon

I moved him into the current members area since Joe Walsh first mentioned, and then various radio stations confirmed, that he was back in the band. I see now he's been moved back to former members. If I or somebody else were to find an article that said he was back in the band, then could be moved into the current members area? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but not some blog or rehash of the Walsh statements. Something official, say from the official website or a quote from Henley, Frey and/or Leadon, would do nicely. Please keep in mind the Mick Taylor example, as I assuredly will. A recent article on this states: "Leadon will be joining them on stage during Eagles tour dates for the History of the Eagles tour. Current Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh is scheduled to perform with Leadon."[8] Note the "current Eagles guitarist" bit. Like Mick Taylor rejoining the Stones, Leadon is a "Special Guest", and not a full member of the current Eagles lineup. Doc talk 07:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess we will see this weekend when the tour starts exactly how to iron out his status. But I will cite the example of Pink Floyd during The Wall Tour. Richard Wright was not a full-fledged member of the band; he was kept on as a session musician. Even during the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason he wasn't a member of the band. But yet, every fan considers him to have been a member the entire time. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
There are legal (i.e. financial) considerations for a band to determine whether a former member becomes a full-fledged member again, despite fan opinion. There is no evidence out there to support that Leadon will be anything other than a "Special" or "Featured" guest. You are strongly encouraged to find sources that contradict this, confirming him as a full member of the band. We are going to go the correct route with this. Doc talk 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed another attempt to include Leadon as a full member of the Eagles. First we're going to look here, the official Eagles website. "The Eagles – Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit – will perform classics spanning their career, including some that have never been performed live...", etc.[9] Please note that Leadon is not listed as an Eagle on the band's official site. It's not an oversight on the band's part. He is a featured guest. That is all for now. Doc talk 09:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I found a YouTube video of Heartache Tonight from last night and Bernie Leadon wasn't part of that portion of the show, however I found an article in which it was implied Joe Walsh was more or less in the shadows for the first half of the show. So, what does that mean if a member and a "non-member" were more or less absent for half the show? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, there are contracts that have legal purposes for a band to include anyone as an official member. When Felder rejoined in 1994, he was unequivocally a member of the Eagles again, because the Eagles said so themselves. This has not happened with Leadon, and is very unlikely to happen. Walsh is a member because the band has him as a member. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to count Leadon as a current member when the band basically says he is not (based on their official website). If they ever do, I will try to be the first to add it. Doc talk 05:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Note - I have now reverted attempts from two more IP editors to include Leadon as a current member. We are not going to contradict the band's official site on who is a current Eagle. It's not up to us to do that. Make no mistake about this. To add Leadon as a current member is original research, which is not tolerated. I will (get ready for it) take it to the limit to protect this factual distinction. Doc talk 09:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He is on tour with the band; is there any way one could make the distinction that he is a special guest touring member in 2013 and still leave him in former members? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I did take a good look at the official site for the band, and it looks like it serves no purpose other than push merchandise and ticket sales without giving a detailed biography. Plus some official sites take awhile before updating any detailed info. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The official site could use improvement, particularly with a biography section, but we can't do anything about that. It also has photos of the band at various stages of their career, and Leadon isn't in the current lineup.[10][11] If they update it to include him as a current member, it would be great: it's certainly not like I don't want him to be a current member. We have to stick with the facts, and the fact is he's just not considered a current member by the band that is hiring him for their tour. As to making a note of him as a special touring guest: the only place I can see that working is down at the bottom under Past Members, maybe adding a note of it. Certainly not in the infobox, as it doesn't seem feasible or necessary. Doc talk 02:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Update - I was very happy to see that Leadon has been playing with them, and I'm hardly alone. In this article from November 7, 2013, it clarifies what I've been saying. "“Reunited rockers” may not be the most precise wording, as the Eagles’ founding guitarist Bernie Leadon has not rejoined the group. (He has made a few cameos onstage, though.)"[12]

January 2016

Leadon has once again been re-added by another editor as a current member of the band. Needs to be aired again. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for this? The Eagles website still does not list him as a member. He should not be listed as one until a good source says he is. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's use the statement issued by the band announcing Glenn Frey's death as a guide. It was signed by his family, manager, and bandmates, which included Bernie Leadon. And consistently it's been implied that he's back in the band's core lineup, not an additional musician like Steuart Smith. So I say go with it.Bluorangefyre (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Re "consistently it's been implied that he's back in the band's core lineup"? I would like to see those sources. WWGB (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The page has been semi'd for a month, maybe this will be "officially" sorted out by then. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If The Eagles website doesn't list Bernie Leadon as an official member, then he shouldn't be listed as one. If someone can find a good source saying that Leadon has rejoined the band in the wake of Glenn Frey's death, then maybe we can re-add him as a current member.--Kevjgav (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to use the Eagles website to end this debate, but I can't find anywhere on the Eagles website where they list their members, other than the post about Fry's death. GoingBatty (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody edit the timeline to indicate Leadon performing guitar and vocals at the 2016 Grammys? I'd do it but have no clue how. Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bluorangefyre:  Done. GoingBatty (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Bluorangefyre: My edit was reverted by User:80sMetalHead. Maybe that user can make an alternate suggestion for you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Try this on for size: AC/DC announced Axl Rose would be joining as a vocalist to complete their tour commitments. They went ahead and called him a full, honest-to-God member even though he's a fill-in vocalist. So, if we're to go by that example (unless there is a consensus to call him a touring musician or guest), couldn't we consider Bernie Leadon as an honest-to-God member of the band again? Bluorangefyre (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Don Henley said "Bernie Leadon is definitely on this tour".[13] So he was a touring member. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gallery in the members section

This isn't the norm for band pages. I think this will need discussion and consensus, hence my starting this discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot say I am enthusiastic. Pictures are primarily meant to support the text, this seems like it makes the pictures too prominent.--SabreBD (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would say that images of all the members are necessary to support the text, but how you do it is another matter. I have no problem how it was done in the past, even though I have no idea why only current members were shown. The problem as I see it is that there aren't images of Felder and Meisner in the article (others can be seen in the group image), and they should be introduced in some ways if suitable ones can be found. At the moment the article needs relevant images to break up the monotony of the text. See articles on The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. on use of images. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I think most editors would be happy with them throughout the text. I suspect the problem is that we do not have contemporary images of most of the members, so we would have to settle for late images, perhaps roughly placed at the point at which they joined. If no one strongly objects to that I will take a couple of days to see if I can scape up some contemporaneous and rights free images. I have managed to find quite a few in the past for other bands. Whether that works or not I would then come up with some suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ideally an image of the original line-up (or one before the breakup) would be perfect for the article, but such images that are free are hard to come by, and it would be fantastic if you can find them. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not found any more free images of the band yet, but since the article is currently closed to editing, I guess I will keep on looking for a bit.--SabreBD (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"his lost of creative control" should be "his loss of creative control"

Zalzoid (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you!. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Official status

There has been no "official" statement from the band as to their current status. "I don't think you'll see us performing again" is not an official statement. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Eagles have officially disbanded. Beach00 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Many bands disestablish without an "official" statement. They simply agree amongst themselves to stop recording and touring. If you listen to the BBC interview, Henley said more about the end of the band than you have quoted, such as "that was the final farewell". If you refuse to accept that the Eagles are finished until you see an official statement, you may be waiting until hell freezes over. WWGB (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, no matter the band, I don't think is not a statement written in stone. Besides, whats wrong with waiting for an official statement ? Mlpearc (open channel) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
This is like the dispute over if Bernie Leadon was a member again or not (which, by the way, if somebody could change the timetable to reflect he performed at the Grammy tribute as a member/tour guest, that'd be great). If it's coming from the one member of the band that was with it from start to finish in all incarnations that this is it, then this is it. Why even dispute it? And if they come back in 2018 sans Glenn Frey, then you can say they were active from 1971-1980, 1994-2016, 2018-present. Just my opinion. Bluorangefyre (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should infer things from a single interview when someone may still be upset (and Henley did sound like he was), and he was just offering an opinion which may be how he felt at the time of the interview, but it could very well change another day. If a band had stopped performing, then just say that, why say they broke up when there is no official statement that they actually did? I'm not sure why there is the need to rush to make such a definitive statement that is not wholly supported by the source. Personally I'd wait for some time even if no official statement comes forth. Hzh (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we can yet say with any certainty whether the band is no longer or might continue in some form in the near future. It is simply too soon. Until a reasonable amount of time has passed and further comments are made by band members we just do not know anything much and everything is still possible. So until we have a clearer idea we need to err on the side of caution in the article and maintain the status quo wording. Afterwriting (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I just hope nobody messes with the infobox, putting any "current" members back in. They're done, and Henley's statement isn't really that cryptic. The active years of the band need to end at 2016 instead of "present". And some other stuff that will be dealt with... Doc talk 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No one said that it is cryptic, just that it is not an official statement. Wikipedia doesn't really make definitive statement as a fact from something that is just an opinion of a person per WP:ASSERT, however significant that opinion may be. It would be different if a definitive statement like "it is definitely over" is made and agreed by most or all members of the band. We don't say "X is rubbish" because one important person says "I think X is rubbish". Hzh (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I personally doubt that the band will ever get back together. HOWEVER, in the absence of an official statement, I agree that we should not listed them as defunct. The other thing to consider is this: What's the hurry? We have a lot of time to see how this shakes out. If Wikipedia shows them as an active band for a time and then it later becomes clear that they broke up now, where is the harm? The article indicates that there is uncertainty regarding their future. That's enough for now. I think the problem are those people who rush to be the first to make a current events change in articles. Their fun has been taken away. As Henley and Frey once famously said, "Get over it." Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: if another member of the band, say, Joe Walsh, were to say the band was done, would that satisfy everybody? Bluorangefyre (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Time. Give it time.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bob Caldwell CSL I say we wait for a statement from the "Eagles" not an interview with a single member. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Henley interview, if you listen to it, he says the band is done at least three times, and last time I checked he was the sole surviving majority stakeholder in the Eagles brand per the History of the Eagles documentary and various other sources. Shouldn't that count for something? Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it counts for something but it is questionable whether comments made in an interview can be considered a definitive statement of fact or something said in the moment which might change after some further thought. Although the indications are that the group probably has now finished we simply don't yet know with sufficient certainty to state this as a fact. There is also a question of when and how does a band cease to be. When they have stopped performing is not the only criteria. I suspect that things will become clearer before too long. Perhaps there is some wording which can satisfy both sides of this argument? Afterwriting (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
In the interview Henley says "I don't think you'll see us performing again." That is not a declaration that the band is definitely finished. He did not say "We won't be performing again." Afterwriting (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
He did say more than that, in fact he said it in four different ways, including "I think that was the final farewell" and "that was probably it". With the Eagles history of 14-year hiatus, they might be back in 2030. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't you understand that the band is still currently active? As in Right Now, they are an active band. That's correct, right? Doc talk 07:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
IMO, no. WWGB (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"I think" and "probably" are hardly definitive statements. They are only speculations at present. We cannot make factual assertions based on speculations. Afterwriting (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is so unbelievably lame. This is going to be expanded. Are they broken up? Or are they not? Doc talk 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to discuss this in terms of Wikipedia guidelines rather than calling something "unbelievably lame". We don't really know if they have indeed broken up, we cannot assert as a fact what we don't know for sure, therefore it would be best to leave it as it is until a more definitive statement comes along. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are they "active" as a band right now? Doc talk 11:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
They appear to be inactive (no future show for the band is given in the official website, and only solo shows for individual members are shown), but that is not the same as broken up. At the moment there is a contradiction in the infobox and Band members section stating that they are all past members. Hzh (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
So is Frey an "active" member, or are they going to carry on as a trio? Doubtful. They are all past members now. Doc talk 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed doubtful that they will carry on as a trio, but that is irrelevant, we cannot state something as a fact when it is uncertain. There will come a point when it is reasonable to assume that they had indeed broken up, but that point is not here yet. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
We can't list Henley, Schmit and Walsh as the "current" members and move Frey to the "past" members section when we have Henley's statements on their continuation as a band. Do you think we should do that? Doc talk 12:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Death is certain, so Frey would be a former member, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only question is whether the other three are current members because we are not certain. Henley did not make a statement that is definitive. Hzh (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
If they are not an active band then their "active" period ends in 2016, not "present". You do agree that they are a) currently inactive and b) have no plans on being active again, right? Doc talk 12:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I said they APPEAR to be inactive, which is not the same as being inactive or not having plans on being active again. The point is about not stating more than what a source say, and not stating something as fact based on an opinion. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Would you list Henley, Schmit and Walsh as the current "active" members, or list all members as "past" members? Doc talk 13:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Short of a definitive statement, I would have left them as active. But personally I'd leave it as it is for now until this issue is resolved, just noting that as it is, there is a contradiction. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just find it odd that when Lemmy died, Motorhead was considered defunct as soon as one member said it was over. If it was fine in that instance, why isn't fine it now? I'd rather not have a double-standard here. The only way I can see the band continuing is if they perform at the Kennedy Center Honors, but did Led Zeppelin perform a few years back? Bluorangefyre (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that two band members of Motorhead made it quite clear that it was over - here, "Motörhead is over, of course. Lemmy was Motörhead", and here, "Unfortunately by now everyone reading this post will have found out that Motörhead is no longer." This is not the "I think", "I don't think", or "probably" that Henley used, so it is a different situation. The official website of Eagles seems to treat Henley and Walsh as current members because they list their upcoming solo shows (the website does not list shows of former members like Don Felder). I guess when the official website stops giving updates on shows of individual members we might consider that the band is gone. That might be one way of telling, since Henley did say in History of the Eagles that if they do break up this time, they'll do it quietly and not make announcement. He might not have been serious at that time, but still it is possible that we might not get any official statement. Hzh (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I find it interesting though the Nirvana (band) article lists members (as final members) of the band even though it is long gone. Hzh (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Nirvana thing is interesting, but that's a unique situation where you have a band that rose to "mega"fame only with certain members in place. We could look at The Beatles and see the same thing. Doc talk 05:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Henley said in an interview in the 90s that this was Frey's band. He said in another interview in the last decade that he would leave the decision to Frey as to when to call it quits. Eagles moving forward without Frey would be like the Beatles without Lennon. The surviving members of the band are pushing 70. Henley probably said "I don't think" because they might perform one last time at the Kennedy Center Honors that they postponed because of Frey's illness. At the Kennedy Center Honors hopefully the band will give an "official statement" and this whole issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.232.72.198 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pink Floyd without Barrett ? Sure am glad they went on Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Or, more to the point, what about Pink Floyd without Roger Waters? Bluorangefyre (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "I don't think" can be considered definitive when coming from an authoritative source such as Henley. Personally I think we should stop hanging on in there and put the band in the past tense on this page until an official statement is made to the contrary, put Glenn and Don in bold and the other erstwhile members underneath. I would strongly suggest this to whichever senior editor put the "do not change to were" bit at the top. Bostart (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Stated fact should be supported by source per WP:VER, at the moment the source does not state unambigiously that the band is over, and we should not over-interpret what the source says. Hzh (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Frey is still pictured as a "current" member of the band on their website.[14] What should we do about that? Hmm. They are no longer an active band, and it is assine to list three surviving members as being "current" Eagles. The Eagles are a brand entity like The Doors, but they are not an active band anymore. Doc talk 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
They are not current MEMBERS but current PHOTOS, that is, what the Eagles look like in the current era. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There are no "updated" Eagles photos with the trio. Frey is a former member and the three are current? There are no plans to continue as a band! Only the contrary! Doc talk 07:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't know this to be a fact. You are making an assumption. We don't deal in assumptions. Afterwriting (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm baffled people think they're still active, that comment was your statement to say it's over, just because it's not in a fancy interview or letter doesn't mean it isn't true. The Events of the Eagles official website only shows Solo performances. It's really quite obvious. CDRL102 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not that any of us think they are still active. I believe with great certainty that they are done. However, it does not hurt to wait a while. Frey just died 4 months ago. We can leave it as is until there is an official announcement or until enough time has passed that there is no doubt. Bands do have the annoying habit of resuming even after a key member dies. Why do we have to be in a hurry? Their nebulous status is made clear in the text. Relax.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've already pointed out that Frey is still listed as a current member on their official website. Right here. So he needs to be moved back to the "Members" section of the infobox. It does not matter that he is deceased: he's officially still a current member and not a past member. Get on it! Doc talk 07:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Where does it state current member? It may just mean the photos are current, and not from the 1970s. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. However, there's still no differentiation between a "current" lineup without Frey that would justify the surviving members being listed as the current Eagles without him. They are not an active band anymore. Doc talk 06:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Don Henley had an interview in Rolling Stone on June 10, 2016, discussing the making of all of the records. After discussing "Long Road Out Of Eden" he stated the following comment:

"But our fans have been wonderful. They've been loyal to the end, and sadly, this is the end. But what a ride. ... what a crazy, wonderful ride."

Here is the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/eagles-complete-discography-don-henley-looks-back-20160610#

"This is the end" is very definitive. I think it's really time to put the band in the past tense.

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locnar1975 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be the truly indisputable evidence, from the only source that could declare the band to be finished, that was required here. Good find on the quote, and I'm glad it's clarified for good. Doc talk 03:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)+
You should have waited for a consensus. You have made a unilateral decision based on your source. You may be right, but we are supposed to gain consensus before making such a change.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The one who approved the initial change was actually Mlpearc [15]. As you may know, that editor previously was erring on the side of caution [16]. The article is not under sanctions, so I don't think we really have to gain consensus; esp. in light of WP:BRD and WP:IAR. It's pointless to wait for consensus on something we all know to be true. Once the "smoking gun" proof of their breakup was found there was no longer a need for debating it. It's over. Doc talk 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of Mlpearc's approval. I know that you've been hot to trot about getting this change done, so I thought you may have jumped the gun, but I guess it's fine.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We're doing better than some of our better sources. Rolling Stone's bio apparently hasn't been updated in quite some time. "The band toured through 2008 and much of 2009, and have announced co-headlining 2010 tour of arenas and stadiums with Fleetwood Mac."[17]. Yikes. Doc talk 06:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I sent the RS editors an email suggesting they update their article. I'll post a response, if any. Doc talk 07:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Active?

"Years active" should be "1994-2016", not "1994 - present". Well, it's not sure did they disbanded, but it's sure they aren't active now. Sorry for bad English ;). 185.28.251.102 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been exhaustively discussed. See "Status" section above. The consensus is that short of an official announcement, there is no harm in waiting to see what develops before ending their career on Wikipedia.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There does not need to be an "official announcement", because that may never happen. Henley's statement in the interview, "But our fans have been wonderful. They've been loyal to the end, and sadly, this is the end." is not open to interpretation. The band has ended. We also no longer need talk page consensus to declare the band's ending. ...Right? I very sincerely hope that this issue is over. There can be no doubt that the band is done now. Doc talk 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the previous section. Everyone else thinks they're done too, we just see no need to quickly update that. We're prepared to wait for an official announcement or enough time to pass to make it obvious. That's all.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible reunion?

This was confirmed on Billboard recently ([18]). Do you think we should add that to the article if it is necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's always amusing that somehow a band has genetic code. How about a Beatles reunion with Julian Lennon and Dhani Harrison? WWGB (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't add it. But it certainly helps confirm that the band is definitely broken up when Henley says "the only way I would consider any kind of reunion, I think, would be with Glenn’s son, Deacon". Doc talk 07:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is pretty clear against one. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

– The band is consistently referred to popularly, and in the articles, as "The Eagles", and all other bands with definite articles in their names have their articles and discographies at those titles (e.g., The Beatles, The Doors) - though surprisingly not any songs or albums which have parenthetical disambiguators. I've listed it as contentious because the band's albums frequently - but not consistently - refer to the band simply as "Eagles". Their greatest host packages, for instance, include The Very Best of the Eagles and also Eagles Greatest Hits, Vol. 2. However, their official biographical documentary is History of the Eagles, and both the music industry and the band's two central musicians use the definite article in the band's name, as does the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Note: If this move goes ahead several categories will also need renaming. Grutness...wha? 11:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Eagles is the proper name, not The Eagles. People often get it wrong. WP puts out enough false information, I don't think that WP should knowingly put out false information by listing it as The Eagles. Kellymoat (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting then that both Henley and Frey use "The Eagles" as the band's name. Have you some definitive reference for the band's name having no "The"? Grutness...wha? 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually that's not true. All of the members use the very term coined by Frey himself when they named themselves Eagles upon the band's formation. You are the one who needs to provide a source that otherwise says, not Kellymoat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Early Whirly Birdie (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
See the sources I already have added doing so. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The last question asked to Henley and the last question asked to Frey in this interview both have replies where "The Eagles" is given as the name of the band. Frey also uses the full name in this article. Oh, and for good measure, to quote Joe Walsh, “I have the best of both worlds. I’m in a great band: The Eagles." You can also hear Don Henley talking about the band and using "The Eagles" as their name in this video. Have a listen, for instance, at 9:30 Grutness...wha? 00:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THE#Names of groups, sports teams and companies. "Conversely, some bands — such as Eurythmics, Eagles, Pixies and Odds — do not have the in their names, even though they may sometimes (or even often) be referred to as "the (Name)" in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary." The band doesn't use "The" on their website or social media. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 10:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamantly oppose. The band was, is and always will be Eagles. Here is one piece of evidence out of thousands [19]. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I say THE Eagles, but it's pretty clear the band chose otherwise. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Really ? we're here again ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally think it looks and sounds better with "the" but I just went back and checked my old records and written very clearly on the front with the album titles is simply "Eagles." A bit of OR, but per the link User:WWGB has provided anyone can have a look for themselves. I do not, however, understand how this is really different from the same question regarding The Carpenters. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • See my response to WWGB above. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Looks like all the sources using "The Eagles" - including the articles here, the band's own website, record sleeves, and three main members of the band quoted in interviews, were wrong. I'll just add a redirect for the book. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just watched the 2016 Kennedy Center Honors, and in a backdrop used in the final song, listing all the honorees, it clearly stated only Eagles. Plus the band members have often definitively stated the proper title should not include the article. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eagles_(band)/Archive_3&oldid=1136684988"