Jump to content

Talk:Van Halen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.86.22.253 (talk) at 04:34, 27 February 2011 (→Eddie Van halen: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleVan Halen was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 5, 2005Good article nomineeListed
March 31, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Mitch Malloy Edit War

The one item I could add is there are pictures of Mitch Malloy at 5150 studios with Eddie Van Halen. That does not corroborate that he was invited to be in Van Halen, but could be seen as visual back up that he was at least considered and that his claim that they recorded a few demos of him singing Van Halen songs to be at least feasible. Not sure if this helps. Either way, interesting part of Van Halen history. Soxpert (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Soxpert[reply]

This article has undergone an edit war over the verifiability of "Mitch Malloy" being a member of Van Halen. There has been no independent confirmation by the band or any articles from reputable sources to back up this claim. This article will retain the NPOV tag until this issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.74.234 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "melodicrock.com" reference provided by Fate Forger does not conform to WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES. The claim is made by the subject himself and is self-serving and involving a third party. There is reasonable doubt to his claim because there is no independent confirmation by the band or outside sources other than his interview. Furthermore, the website cited is promotional in nature and lacks evidence of journalistic standards. Wikipedia's policy of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" is here for a reason, and if Mitch Malloy was indeed a member of Van Halen, there should be plenty of corroboration. Please provide a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know it is not an article but an interview, but there are lots of other parallel interviews which state the same thing. Now I think there's not a lot of sense in all of them being totally made up. Just google it up and you'll see it yourself. Then you can maybe add some other reference. I do agree on one thing though: Malloy was part of the band for a very very short time.FateForger (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response has offered no foundation for your argument that Mitch Malloy was a member of Van Halen. You have not countered the violations of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES. Your "I don't think he'd lie about it" defense is ludicrous, to say the least. Recitations of the original claim by the subject in other interviews with equally disreputable websites do not constitute reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies. Please provide a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who originally added Mitch Malloy o the former band members, so in the end I do not really care. Since there is not an official source but only interviews he released (which are not conform to WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES), if you believe it should be deleted please do it. In the end, was nearly unimportant. If you do delete it, though, remember to clean up the article on him too, because there is the same info and the same source, and keeping them would be contradictory. I personally believe what Malloy states is true, but I understand the sources are not appropriate. You decide, I call myself out of this fuss caused by an irrelevant detail.FateForger (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is out. Anyone who continues to add this information to the article without reliable sources will be blocked for edit warring and WP:BLP violation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why is he still listed as a former member?Jablomih (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because Mitch Malloy has a lot of free time on his hands? But seriously, the article lists 2 references for his claim: first, the VHND.com fan website (which, by the way, only says "[Malloy] revealed that he was actually given the job before Gary". It does not include ANY other form of verification, and certainly nothing from the other members of Van Halen.) The second source is the 2007 book "Everybody Wants Some, The Van Halen Saga", by Ian Christe. Does this book contain ANYTHING besides another claim from Malloy himself?? If the book doesn't contain sources that are up to Wikipedia's standards, then I think this article should be locked. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The /Google preview for this book does not appear to contain verification from Michael Anthony or anyone else in Van Halen. It simply repeats Malloy's own claims. 216.65.144.24 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is semi-protected, since it's mostly anons that wander in and add the information. It could be Malloy himself for all we know. Maybe they'll get bored and find something else to do. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This "Mitch Malloy" thing is really ridiculous. There are absolutely no reputable sources and every time someone says there is one it's," Michael Anthony or so-and-so confirmed it, I'll find the interview," and that's all we hear. You won't find it because no interview exists. The only thing Michael Anthony said is that they were looking at other people besides Gary Cherone. Ian Christe's source is the same "Mitch Malloy" melodicrock.com interview where all this self-serving nonsense started, which as one person stated already, violates two of wikipedia's most important policies. This article needs to be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.6.190 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth

The stars would have to be perfectly aligned for David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen to actually complete and release an album, putting a name on the album that they just entered the studio for is ridiculous.Soxpert (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Soxpert.[reply]

Van Halen is planning to release a new album in 2011. Someone added to the Discography section that the album would be called, "Mammoth." I don't understand why somebody would post that. I don't even think Van Halen has come up with a name for the album yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.112.113 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Van Halen came up with the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.223.180 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they have or not decided on a title, and regardless of who came up with it, we don't post information that is not backed by reliable sources, and we don't post predictions about the future. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Someone posted it on Wolfgang's page, why can that stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.212.82 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't, unless some adds a citation. That one mentions a specific possible source, so I tagged it as needing a citation. Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67.86.31.81 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC) But what about Guns N' Roses?[reply]

Years Active

It says that Van Halen has been together from 1972-present, but didn't they break up some time in between that period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.112.113 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I guess there are no stupid questions, just stupid people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.243.96 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were several reunion attempts with David Lee Roth until the reunion in 2006. And there was a reunion with Hagar in 2004. But they never broke up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.187.94 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen were inactive for many years, you'd have to call it a hiatus that just wasn't announced. It's always a tough zone to call out though, because if they put out an album suddenly, and claim to have worked on it in that time, suddenly those years become active years. (68.198.115.240 (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Dumb ass

We have an idiot who changed the main picture and now it says, "Picture taken by myself in 1983." so fucking annoying. change this now.

Dumb ass

we have an idiot who changed the main picture and now it says "photo taken by myself in 1983." immature loser. change this back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.115.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo description wrong

The discription of the logo includes the sentence, "The new logo retained elements of the original, but now the lines extending from either side of 'VH' wrapped around and formed a sphere." The bars are not a sphere. They form a ring around the central planet.128.157.160.13 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Van halen

didn't eddie die? include this, people! A REUNION IS NOT HAPPENING IF THE LEADER IS DEAD

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_Halen&oldid=416152283"