Talk:Noel Gallagher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Noel Gallagher has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greater Manchester (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Equipment section[edit]

The equipment section in this article needs to be taken out. Not only are list-y sections such as this avoided in high-quality Wikipedia articles (because they are cumbersome, prone to trivia, and should be converted to prose), but it's based on an unreliable source (specifically, a page on a music store website that tells you what you need to buy to sound like Noel Gallagher). WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the section is fine and should be left alone. Most guitar player articles have gear sections. For many readers it is the only thing they look for when they view an article about a guitar player. Leave as is. Wether B (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We can't just leave it alone. It is based on an unreliable source. And no, most guitar player articles do not have gear sections, because these types of sections often focus on trivial information. Note that Featured Articles John Frusciante and John Mayer do not have gear sections, because any relevant information about their equipment can be worked into other parts of the article in a well-written fashion. Additionally, when this article was listed as a Good Article, there was no gear section. This article has gone quite downhill since then. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not very good examples. Every notable guitarist on Wikipedia has an equipment section. Just because those two don't doesn't mean that it isn't a good thing. Clapton, Harrison, Richards, Page among the other hundreds of notables have these types of sections. I agree with the earlier post about that sort of information being the main thing many reader look for when they visit Wikipedia. If the only issue is the reference then simply find a better one. Lots of guitar magazines and books have all this information. The section could easily be expanded further. Peter Fleet (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not very good examples"? Those are Featured Articles, meaning they have been judged by a consensus to be among Wikipedia's best articles. That means they are excellent examples to compare other such articles to. Additionally, what is the proof that "that sort of information being the main thing many reader look for when they visit Wikipedia"? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the section blanking which went against the growing consensus here to keep. I also tagged it for more references as mentioned earlier. Also did some minor wording and grammar fix. More is needed. Just to appease the one editor who wishes to remove the section entirely. When looking at several other notable guitarist articles I note that emphasis is placed on the artist's guitars and equally on the choice of amplifiers but not so much on their use of effects unless it is a specific effect that the guitarist is noted for using. (like Hendrix and his fuzz pedal or Frampton and his talk box) This section here is a lengthy list of pedals but has no real bearing on Gallagher as a guitarist. It could be removed if others agree and a consensus is reached to do so. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
All contested information based on unreliable sources must be removed, whether or not editors want to keep it. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't make up the rules. If that were the case music articles would not mention genres anywhere and most political articles would be blank. I agree that the section should stay. And I support the suggestion to remove the effect list unless a specific use of an guitar effect was significant. An article in Guitar Player Magazine a few years ago said that during Oasis' mid-late 90s peak UK guitar sales would increase of whatever instrument he chose as his main concert guitar during that time. That, despite the fact that as a guitar player himself Gallagher is poor-to-mediocre at best, shows an extremely weighted influence. The section would be better served if it were prose. The Keith Richards article has a very good section on guitar use and it is written in standard prose with inline citations. That is how this section should be set up. It will also cut the overall length of the page down by quite a lot. Fair Deal (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making up rules. Everyone needs to review Wikipedia policy on citing sources and verifying information in articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference for some of the equipment included in the section. The section does not mention the Princeton which Gallagher speaks about in the interview. The article, surprisingly enough, does not mention the Stratocaster which was a gift to Gallagher from Johnny Depp. The section should include that little bit perhaps with more detail about the instrument from another ref. The effects section can just have some hidden code added to it so that it is still there to edit but not viewable in the main page. The ref above does mention one effect in some prominence and could be fleshed out later. A guitarist article is enhanced greatly by a good gear section since that is part of the character of any guitarist in the first place. John Mayer playing a Strat is just good advertising for Fender but, in the end, means nothing. That the Frusciante article doesn't have a gear section is a glorious faux-pas which should be corrected. His choice of equipment is one of notable about him as a guitarist. His infobox doesn't even include an instrument field??? There is no sense in trying to edit it though. One of the regulars on that one has issues on it. This one can still be trimmed into a good gear section though. Gallaghers done dozens of interviews about his hardware. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the section yet again after it was blanked against consensus to keep. I can recall the Guitar Player comment about the UK sales incease. I believe it was part of the opening section of a larger piece on Oasis. I cannot find the copy for now but when I do I will post the issue and page number here. I support removing the effects sectionas mentioned by previous editors. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe the ongoing blanking of the section to be 'vandalism' as it was labeled in the last edit summary. But it certainly is ignorant of the ongoing discussion. The is a clear consensus here to keep it. And the subject is an active one pertaining to the addition of references to support the section. Every good guitarist article should have an equipment section or it is ignoring a key part of the subject's character. Two examples have been pointed out showing featured guitarist pages that do not have this sort of section (although one of those pages is listed at the Musician Project's to-do list as needing one so obviously, featured or not, it is still wanted information) Where there are 2 examples that don't have this information. There are several dozen musician pages that are ranked as good articles that have their equipment use detailed.(insome cases its the largest section on the whole page. Noel Gallagher's selection of guitars is a lot more notable than any thing else. In the end the section should be cut down to show just the notable bits. And I agree that the section should be written in prose rather than a list. But as an ongoing work in progress further "vandalism" should be avoided until the section is finished to everyone's satisfaction. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I hacked the section down to something more bearable. BTW the original information was based on this link (posting so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. It is a very detailed piece of work and has images to back up everything that was in it. There was whining over the fact that it was a blog re-posted on a sales website and I support that references shouldn't come from this type of source. However, since the link does contain actual pictures.... and a picture cannot be disputed... the content contained therein is valid and so, if a better refer can be added to support, the priginal blog link can certainly be re-included... simply because the pics are all their and no one can argue with that... not even Wikipedia editors bent on removing encyclopedic content. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reference from a sales vendor RockStarGuitars Apparently Mr. Gallagher has sold at least 6 instruments through this business. And for the non-guitarists who haven't a clue about this business... they are right up there with Gruhns and similar businesses which restore and sell vintage music hardware. Everything that comes through them has to have valid proff of pre-ownership, obviously, or no one would buy from them. This link can stand as a reliable source for anything specific on the pageso go ahead, fill you boots. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I know it's been awhile since it's been discussed here, but I've recently revamped and updated the equipment section. I agree somewhat with the criticism of lists, but in this case I feel it's justified. The article isn't lacking biographical information, and the equipment section - which is anecdotal, to be sure - is near the bottom. It lets the guitar geeks, like myself, have their fix too.Alex MacPherson (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have time to wade through the discussion on this topic, but for what it's worth, I came to the talk page in order to request that this very discussion be had, specifically about the amplification section. I believe it is too trivial to be in the article, let alone to have a section dedicated to it. I looked for policies to back me up, and came up with due weight.

Dedication to Richard Ashcroft[edit]

There was a lot of debate about what song from What's the story was actually dedicated to Richard, however i happen to have a new version (which i don't know wether is different to the original) of the album. It specificly says that Cast no shadow was dedicated to the genius. I have made all necassary changes and added a reference i uploading to image shack. Hope this helps Tukogbani (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2009 (GMT)

There has never been a debate about it> I brought the album at the time and it says on my sleevenotes that Cast No Shadow is dedicated to the genius of RA. (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Peggy Gallagher acquired a legal notice of separation from her husband in 1976. Sixteen years later she finally left him, taking the three boys with her"


By 1992 (1976+16) Paul would have been 26, and even Liam would have been 20. Why were they being taken away by their mother at that age? The Liam Gallagher says "When Liam was 10, Peggy took the boys and moved away from Tommy." which sounds more likely. Can someone with access to the John Harris "Britpop" book check the reference? Rojomoke (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well someone (an IP address with no other edits logged) changed the sixteen to a six, which makes more sense. Rojomoke (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Couple of things: Noel has quit Oasis before, as has Liam. I don't think this bears mentioning in the article just yet -- certainly not with unsourced conjecture, based on what Liam and Noel's row of the year 2000 was about. Hrhadam (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

But hey: hasn't it been stated more recently that Noel didn't actually quit? I don't really know if he wanted to take a break, but I heard it wasn't true he left. Can anyone confirm it? (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
He posted a statement saying he quit, but this has happened before. As of yesterday, Liam Gallagher said the band will go on, and said Noel and himself will be meeting on January. It just doesn't sound like Noel is gone forever, at all. They've both quit numerous times. I suppose its fine for the article to reflect Noel's quitting, but its just so non-final, moreso than a Brett Favre retirement statement. Hrhadam (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As i have been told before the most up to date information that can be reliably sourced goes in the article, no matter what might be predicted to happen in the future.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC))


Gallagher was born in England of Irish parents; the source that was in the article states that he feels he has "Irish blood in him" - which having Irish parents is of course true. But the last thing that makes him is "British" - Ireland isn't part of Britain. He's either English or English/Irish - the latter would need a source, and the fact he has Irish parentage is already mentioned. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher was born in England, which means he is of English nationality. I suppose he could identify secondarily as "British" because that would technically be true since England is a part of Britain, but the fact that he has Irish parents has no weight into making him British first and foremost. The source submitted by the IP address user is not reliable in the end.MauriceAgrippa (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter for Noel/Liam to choose their nationality, as they are entitled to both Irish & British passports. Their bloodline and ancestory belong to Ireland, their place of birth is England. An example is that Shane MacGowan (Pogues)is an Irish singer born in England. An opposite example was the Duke of Wellington who was born in Dublin but considered himself British "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse". So it`s a matter of choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A commonly held, but false belief. Wellington never actually said that. Rather, it was actually Daniel O'Connell who said of Wellington - "To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse". Wellingtons family was Norman, and likely in Ireland since the 12 century. Micielo (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

His nationality is British, and British people born and raised in England are English - this is an absolute fact. His ethnicity is Irish/British. We put nationality in the lede, not ethnicity. Whether it should be English or British isn't something I'm prepared to waste too much time over, but he isn't an Irish national.--Michig (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that we're still suffering with edit warring over this, here's some sources stating that he's English: [1], [2], [3], [4], and here's Noel speaking about Oasis : "Well biggest English band in the world. We've done our bit for British music.". --Michig (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The children of Irish parents are Irish nationals from birth. It doesn't matter where they are born. As stated above the Gallagher's have dual citizenship from birth. What passport they have is up to them. They could have either a British one or an Irish one or both. Oasis are an English band since they were formed in Manchester, England. This makes them part of the British music scene. This doesn't mean that the members are exclusively English/British. The following hints at Noel seeing himself as being Irish over English. "I do follow England because they have some good players. But when push comes to shove, I'm in the Ireland end. I've always supported Ireland since I was a kid.": [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTWSYFree (talkcontribs) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The last comments are complete and utter tosh. People do not have Irish nationality if they are born in the UK, even with Irish parents. If they were born in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Historically part of the United Kindom of Great Britain & Ireland they would be allowed Dual citizenship. If going somewhere on holiday once every few years is a pre-requisit for nationality accreditation then most of us Brits are Spanish. Don't talk utter rubbish. It is important to remember one thing, He was speaking to Irish media. He was playing the make people happy game. Hes 100% English but likes to be controversial (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check your facts before accusing somebody of 'utter tosh'. You are an Irish citizen at birth if at least one of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland. It's not that rare of a phenomenon. Several countries (including the UK) allow citizenship to be passed from parent to child, irrespective of the child's birthplace.TTWSYFree (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty funny...[edit]

"This is certainly controversial. Indeed, between 1997 and 2000, there appear to be no extant records of what Gallagher was playing through or even whether he was consistent in his choices, or in fact, whether Gallagher existed."

It's from the end of the first paragraph of the equipment section. Obviously, it should be removed, but I think it's a comment on the poorly-sourced nature of the whole section, and I think that should be taken account of also. (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

done, perhaps you could help find sources then? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


This article needs a complete re haul. Reading it feels like you're jumping between an encyclopedia entry, a detailed biography, and a tabloid. I've attempted to clean up a few of the new sections, but the Oasis section needs to be drastically shortened. The article is about Noel, not Oasis. That's what their article is for. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First time to this article and the most notable improvement would be making the intro at least 1/3 shorter -- a "concise overview" per WP:Lead. I see several details which don't belong, like the whole second paragraph and much of the 3rd and 4th. -Anon98 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing I find very annoying is when we have the definite article, "the" spelled with a capital letter (T) in the middle of a sentence because someone has pasted it in without making the adjustment of changing it to a 't', e.g. ...'The Beatles' instead of 'the Beatles'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Liam vs. Noel Gallagher[edit]

In the section on "Controversy > Liam Gallagher", I find it quite confusing to refer to "Gallagher", when that might actually be either of both brothers. Maybe in this section "Liam" and "Noel" should be consistently used, to refer to either brother respectively? I am not even sure I understand that whole section sufficiently well to do the clean-up myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

MERGE Proposal - Terry Kirkbride[edit]

I'm proposing to merge Terry Kirkbride, who only appears notable as the drummer (and only other musician) of Gallagher's tours (see Guardian Article), as a line or two in this article. Comments? EBY (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that works. You merge duplicate biographies about the same person, not biographies of two different people. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Terrible idea. Take Kirkbride's article to AfD, but don't merge it into a separate BLP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life/Religion[edit]

The inclusion of Carry Us All in the list of songs that are mention God is technically correct by misleading with regard to the wider point being made. The point being made is that despite his statements saying that he does not believe in God that this lyrics suggest an sympathy for religious belief. The lyric of Carry Us All is "But faith in any god is gonna bury us all" which does not support this point. Carry Us All should be removed from this list or the section should be expanded to include Carry Us All as a counter pointer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benedictarf (talkcontribs) 10:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Noel Gallagher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)