Talk:The Doobie Brothers
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Musicians||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 NPOV Violations
- 2 Fanisms & opinions
- 3 What's Happening
- 4 Origins
- 5 The album "On Our Way Up" is a bootleg
- 6 B. R. Cohn Winery is part of Doobies history
- 7 Sibling Rivalry
- 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Minutedooobie.jpg
- 9 Citations & References
- 10 Former Members
- 11 Top image
- 12 Puffery
- 13 define "slinky" or add ref
- 14 Membership timeline
- 15 the/The
- 16 Non POV question
I have written a substantial portion of this article and most of my non-NPOV fanisms have been properly edited or removed over time, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Recent edits have added substantial non-NPOV opinion regarding Michael McDonald and Sibling Rivalry. I modified it once, but the user essentially reverted my edits and restored his strong, non-NPOV opinions. In my view, this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy and allows a single user's opinions to hijack the article. However, since I am not interested in engaging in running combat with other users, I'm going to leave it to someone else to decide whether the article, in its current form, is consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I have added neutrality disputed tags to the most egregious passages. Somebody deleted my neutrality disputed tags without really changing the non-neutral POV of the statements. I've added them back. Users' opinions regarding the relative quality of various Doobie Brothers albums are not neutral facts - they are your opinions. I like Sibling Rivalry better than Brotherhood; you hate Sibling Rivalry and say Brotherhood is the best album since Vices. Those are just our opinions based on our musical taste.
Just curious, how were your NPOV comments regarding Sibling Rivalry ok to keep in the article, & other's NPOV remarks, (whether they be about Sibling Rivalry or some other aspect of the band), "had" to be removed? A bit disingenuous on your part it seems. Also, go back & read everything I posted, I thought Brotherhood was their best album since Livin' On The Fault Line, my comments regarding Brotherhood & Vices were on the Tom Johnston led versions of the band, not overall.
I had a colorful rejoinder to your accusation that I am a liar, but the moderators removed it. Without using any more expletives, I'll just say that I do not restore my non-NPOV comments after other users remove them, whereas you seem to be monitoring this page and restoring your non-NPOV remarks constantly. Your opinions, whether widely shared or not, are not facts. Note to Wikipedia moderator - this is not vandalism, this is a constructive discussion about Wikipedia's NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you misunderstood the differences between disingenuous & being a liar, which I never accused you of.
You seem to think since you "created" this article, that only you are entitled to post anything on it, & often in doing so expose your lack of knowledge, (beyond the general) regarding the band. Just FYI, I don't monitor this page, (but obviously you do, as you continue to edit according to your wishes, disregarding facts that are given many times over), but I do a lot of article writing & editing on many Wikipedia pages, not to reflect my own bias, but to clarify so many poorly researched & completely inaccurate articles. The article on Fred Lorenzen, (former Nascar racer), needed so much editing that I basically had to write a new article to correct all of the inaccuracies therein.
I do keep tabs on the various articles I've contributed to, to ensure that the facts I post aren't removed or distorted, & than any new information I have is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't create this article. I don't revert edits to my content. I don't report my opinions as fact. I pretty much don't do anything you accuse me of. I have not provided significant editorial content to this article in months. The only thing I've done is add neutrality disputed tags to your opinions. You remove the tags and leave your opinions. You are attributing other authors' edits to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC) By the way, I know a hell of a lot about the Doobie Brothers, jerkweed.
Fanisms & opinions
In describing "What a Fool Believes", this article claims "A glance at the sheet music for this pop gem quickly impresses one with the degree of musical complexity the composers managed to pack into a #1 pop hit, an almost unheard-of blend of sophistication with accessibility". I'm not sure if the articles' author was being sarcastic here or really believes (as fools often do), that this pathetic piece of disco drivel has some hidden musical merit. At least the early Doobie Brothers songs were original and good listening (o.k., maybe this one was easier to dance to).18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This really is a good, enjoyable and very informative article, but it has a number of POV opinions rather than fact-based material and contains a lot of statements not cited/verified by legitimate sources. I removed one statement entirely concerning Simmons' resignation due to his alleged remark/feelings about essentially being in "The Michaal McDonald Group", which may be true if you look at the last album credits, but it's not sourced. I also adjusted one statement about "The Doctor" being "China Grove" in reverse, which is not true; being a musician, I can verify that based strictly on the 30-second clip on Amazon as I can't find my "Cycles" CD at the moment and it's not a cited statement anyway. If you find a legitimate source to back these claims up, add them back with the citation added for them. For the record, I didn't add the header at the top of the article, so I'm not the only one who feels the article needs sourcing badly, but I really do enjoy it nonetheless; there are some really knowledgable die-hard fans contributing to this article indeed.--Bamadude 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of those that has contributed "POV" based material, but everything I have posted has been published in one form or another in various book, newspaper, online, and magazine articles over the past thirty plus years, (as an example the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia Of Rock & Roll had the comment about the Doobies basically being McDonald's backing band by the time of "One Step Closer" when Andy Newmark replaced Knudsen on drums on tour, that I added. I have a vast memory about the Doobies & their history, but I can't always cite the exact sources I quote from. As for the comment about "The Doctor"/"China Grove" similarities, though I didn't add it, both Tomy Johnston & John Hartman were quoted over the years regarding the similarities between the two songs, especially in the guitar chords, & the use of echo on the opening chords to both songs, & how the echo isn't used furtjer into the songs on the same chords, (read about their doing that for "China Grove", in the booklet to the "Long Train Running" box set for further info. Now, if you listen to "The Doctor", you can hear that they used the same effect. You don't need to cite any sources but your ears & your knowledge of music to notice that). Nothing I post is strictly "POV", but is based on knowledge & information I have about the Doobies and/or music in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesman Mark (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should mention their appearance on What's Happening!!. My foggy memory is that they had a two-part episode. The gang gets to know them and go to their concert, but Rerun accepts money to carry a tape recorder to the concert to make a bootleg live album and gets caught. The Doobies then have a long explanation of the moral of the story and Rerun tries to con out the bootleggers... Or something like that. Mpolo 19:34, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Very true. It was one of the first times What's Happening!! had important guest stars like that. The episodes aired in January 1978...and for the most part, you have all the details correctly. Rerun didn't do it for his own benefit, though; thugs basically told him to do it or else. Mike H 22:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Where are they from though? --22.214.171.124 02:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- San Francisco--Bamadude 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yacht Rock reference necessary at the end of the article.
Why haven't they made the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Not enough stability? They certainly have sold enough albums.
The album "On Our Way Up" is a bootleg
The album "On Our Way Up" I have learned to be an unauthorized release of early Doobie Brothers demos from 1970. As such I think it shouldn't be included and I am therefore removing it from the list. It's a bootleg in other words.--Peter Jensen 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
B. R. Cohn Winery is part of Doobies history
I have contributed a substantial amount of information to this entry, but several different people over the past several months have removed my references to the B. R. Cohn Winery on grounds that Bruce Cohn is "advertising his products" on Wikipedia. I'm a knowledgeable fan of the band and not affiliated with B. R. Cohn in any way. I personally find it interesting that he's carved out a niche as a successful vintner on the side, while still managing the Doobie Brothers full-time for 36 years. I don't understand how disclosure of this fact constitutes abuse or misuse of Wikipedia.
I must disagree with the opinion of whoever claimed that this was the best of the reunion bands albums. As one who has been a loyal fan of the band since their very first LP I found it to be the single most disappointing project put out by the band. The sound was thin and didn't showcase either Pat or Tommy's guitar work very well. It reminded me of Pat's solo album Arcade in terms of sound (which I believe was the reason that Pat's solo album didn't do well, since the single off it did well in the live shows where it had the thick, chunky sound people loved.). There are some good songs on the album however it certainly wasn't the best and the sales reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercwyn (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 November 2006
Fair use rationale for Image:Minutedooobie.jpg
Image:Minutedooobie.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations & References
It looks like there was a former members section before, but has since been removed. Infobox has a link that when I accessed it tried to go to #Former members or something. I just changed to the target to #Band because that's the closest thing on this page that resemebles without changing the link text. As it is now, though, is kinda misdirectional. If someone who works this page often could fix that up that'd be awesome.The freddinator (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is full of puffery, promotional language, and is generally in a non-NPOV state. I added the puffery tag because I don't have time at the moment to tackle it (it's going to be a bit of work), but it definitely needs a major overhaul. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ry Cooder is said to have added "slinky" sound. The use of this word can be traced to some music reviewers, but what place does it have here in a Wikipedia article without such a reference given that wiktionary.org is of no help. Is this a pastiche from uncredited music magazine articles? Who wrote "slinky" of Ry Cooder with regard to a side cut with this band?
I listen to Ry Cooder and "slinky" means nothing to me.
What is disturbing is to see the sheer bulk of this article with so little content by which a reader, say a classical musician, could form some opinion of what to expect of a recording by this "band".
Or is the article only intended for fans? Is there a Fan-pedia on the web?
G. Robert Shiplett 22:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
For this example I limited myself to five members, and used brown vertical bars to mark the period when they were disbanded.
You'll have to view the source of this talk section to see how how I did this, but here's the crucial bit of syntax to note:
bar:TJohnston from:1970 till:1977 color:yellow bar:TJohnston from:1987 till:end color:yellow bar:PSimmons from:1970 till:1982 color:green bar:PSimmons from:1987 till:end color:green bar:JHartman from:1971 till:1979 color:red bar:JHartman from:1987 till:1997 color:red bar:MHossack from:1971 till:1973 color:blue bar:MHossack from:1987 till:2012 color:blue bar:KKnudsen from:1973 till:1982 color:orange bar:KKnudsen from:1987 till:1988 color:orange bar:KKnudsen from:1993 till:2005 color:orange
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Non POV question
The following sentence seems to be blatant POV - "No fans of rock music were sad at the death of the band, nor would ever miss the soft-rock noodlings of a once-enjoyable pop group."
I was tempted to remove it, but after reading the "silliness" that has occurred on this article on doing this sort of editing I would rather give others a chance to offer an opinion before doing so. The ball is in your court, so to speak. If no comments are offered within 30 days or so I will remove the offending sentence. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Its full of garbage. They transitioned from AOR to soft rock, and were successful in doing it. Just like .38 Special. Please take out the trash.