Talk:Eagles of Death Metal

Title

AFAIK, the band's name usually don't have "the" in it (as on The Strokes, The Hives etc.), just Eagles of Death Metal. —mikko (speak) 09:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Yeah, that's what it says on their album.--Richy 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Band name

In a recent phone interview with LA.Weekly.com, when asked "I know you get this all the time, but what’s with the band name?" Josh Homme replied by saying, "We were four grown men in a completely dark VW bus listening to Vader, the metal band. And we were all a little bit out of our heads, and I started laughing because it takes such a commitment to play death metal. You really gotta go for it. We said we should play death metal, but it should be like the Eagles of death metal. Then Jesse spit graham crackers all over me cause he was laughing so hard." Just thought I would bring that to everyones attention. Thanks for listening, J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.66 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can verify this we can add it to the article PrettyMuchBryce 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.laweekly.com/music/music/live-sexy-love-sexy-rock-sexy/13020/ is the site where the interview took place. However, I just remembered, keep in mind that Josh Homme does have a notorious reputation for misleading the media at times. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.51.194 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• originally: English of Dearth Meatball — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.208.54 (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Band Member Names

I took out band nicknames because of the incredible number of vandalism being submitted. Joke names, etc. Tentonbricks 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, any word on when Joey Castillo drummed with them? We can't have the band forming in 1998 and then later in the article say that Joey drummed for them in 1994, especially since in 1998 they didn't even have a drummer yet - just a CD player with drum beats. Tentonbricks 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Castillo is playing with them on the Heart On tour. Just saw them last night. Amen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.73.160 (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing band

Eagles are one of the few bands that I like, that nobody I know has heard of, I ask my friends and they are like, who?

FYI Wikipeida discussion pages are for discussing changes that you think need to be made to the article, not for general chatter about the band. 144.124.16.28 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~ How is this alternative metal??? Burnthewitch 11:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anything related to Macintosh: vandalism?

Riddicule

Anyone ever heard this band called "Pigeons of shit metal" like I heard it on Tripple J. Enlil Ninlil 06:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Help Citing

I just added the comment regarding the new album title. Unfortunately, I do not know how to cite the origin of the fact. The website/interview that I got it from is http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/10/15/queens-of-the-stone-age-six-pack/# . The title of the new album is the second or third thing mentioned in the video interview. It would be very helpful if someone with more Wikipedia experience could assist in the citation. Thanks.

Why not cite it exactly how you did it here? This is just as useful as any kind of citation figure. There's no forbidden citations... Only legally-inadvisable content.

ps: "Speaking of...": So just HOW do you cite your _own_ self?! How did your unsigned request here not get tagged by the "unsigned contribution" bot?

Or is "(blank)" your actual registered name (in which case I am feeling way jealous)?

[edit: nope, bot's broke]Hilarleo (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ALL MAN

From the article intro: "...Hughes is known and somewhat loved by fans for his over-enthusiastic interaction..." -
*Somewhat* loved by Fans?! Thou doth protest too much, methinks. Maybe we could just get right to the point here. We should just insist "Hughes is funny- but not queer... not that there's anything wrong with *that*" 8-D Hilarleo (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bootleg/Live at Slims

On the Wikipedia page for the EoDM album "Peace Love Death Metal", it is preceeded by the bootleg recording of "Live at Slims", yet there is no reference to said bootleg on this page. I'm quite the Wikinovice, so could someone see to making the necessary changes so the two articles are in correlation. Meursault's Advisor, 23.42 7/03/2009

Protection?

This page might need to be protected for the time being until more details about the attack come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectorenjorlas (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already requested protection at WP:RPP. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

missing members

Apparently some members haven't been located after the Paris attack.

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/eagles-of-death-metal-paris-terror/ (Last updated Nov 13, 2015, 6:42pm CT)

173.228.123.250 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is reporting their merch manager Nick Alexander was killed in the attack: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/eagles-of-death-metal-merch-manager-nick-alexander-killed-in-paris-attack-20151114 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Threats to bataclan wording

Don't you think "because it was owned by Jews" is wrong as a reason for the Bataclan having received threats? In the old owner's own words, it's probably because they are openly pro-Isreal in the Palestinian conflict. Sure, that is mentioned in a sub-sentence, but the paragraph still sends the wrong message. On top of that, why is that piece of information even on the EoDM page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.64.224 (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Two of the refs stated support that statement, while describing the venue as "openly pro-Isreal in the Palestinian conflict" is not. Poliocretes (talk)

I would also advise caution about the Israel stuff. Like, the stuff about their issue with Waters and the BDS campaign wasn't there prior to the Paris attacks. How much of this is recentism and how much is original research/synthesis? Also, how much of this is off topic (the details about the threats to the Bataclan theater are straying from the EoDM). Finally, we have no evidence so far that the terrorists even knew who the Eagles of Death Metal were, let alone of their stance towards Israel. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Bataclan statements can go, they belong on the venue article. A little trickier with the show they played in Israel info, though. That made the news before yesterday's attack, so it might be deemed relevant to the article regardless of the events in Paris. The show in Israel, btw, as quite awesome. Just sayin' Poliocretes (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on board with the section about their performance in Israel if this is a part of the discourse surrounding the band. As of this posting, what seems most out-of-place to me is this sentence at the end of the section about the attacks: "The Bataclan has been the subject of numerous threats for years because it was owned by Jews for decades (until September, 2015) and often held pro-Israel events, including celebrations for the Israel Border Police." First off, I think we're getting tangentially further away from the EoDM. This would certainly be relevant in an article about the Bataclan or the attack itself, but here? I'm not sure. Second, the sources are dubious. There's an article entitled "Was the Bataclan targeted for Jewish ownership and support for Israel?", which is speculation. Another one is just a YouTube video of guys in keffiyehs hassling people outside the Bataclan at some prior date. Maybe the video is revealing, but unless a reliable secondary source says so, then it's just some editor's opinion/synthesis of information. Finally, the line "including celebrations for the Israel Border Police" could be perceived as trying to insinuate something without coming out and saying it. I'm sure it was added in good faith, but I'm worried about how it might look. If we're going to have this line, I would like a (sourced) explanation for what makes these celebrations worthy of being singled out. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, removed it. Poliocretes (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. The material is already in the Bataclan article, where it belongs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Islamic State, unlike other jihadist groups, isn't particularly focused on Israel or Jews. Their official policy is to take control of Muslim-majority areas before going after "infidels", and this means that (as they themselves have stated) their plan will be to first target Hamas and the PA (whom they view as "apostates") before going after Israel. This sentiment seems to be reciprocated by the Israelis, who have stated that they don't view IS as very much of a threat and are far more concerned with Iran and Hezbollah. So it seems highly unlikely that the Israel/Jewish angle played any role in the assailants' motive to attack Bataclan. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The standard for Content is adherence to published reliable source, not engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, eg editors making judgements and analysis about whether "jewish ownership" is a factor in past threats on Le Balaclan to override multiple news stories about militant groups who have stated that this was their reason they contemplated violence against the Venue; or evaluating the relative anti-Jewish bigotry of Daesh (aka ISIS), or guessing whether the anti-BDS statements and actions of Eagles of Death Metal actually influenced the attackers in targeting their concert. Such speculations, unsupported by reliable sources, are not supposed to influence editorial decisions.

The history of the band's interactions with BDS and Roger Waters are well-documented and very relevant to the article. It is best to include the material, without any WP:SYNTH, and let the readers be informed of the facts.

Ronreisman (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion about the appropriateness about including this well-sourced information, we appear to have reached consensus that it should be included in this article. If anyone has any further objections, please note them in this talk page. Please do not remove sourced Content from the article without discussing the reasons on this talk page first, please.

Ronreisman (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Its clear there is a consensus not to include the info here. -- Moxy (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Moxy, et al:

I disagree that that there is a valid consensus 'not to include and invite discussion so that we may resolve this.

The bottom line is that most of the reasons presented above for not to include appear to be WP:OR, not supported by reliable sources and in some cases in direct contradiction to published content in those sources. Here are some specific reasons that support this contention, eg: "

• Poliocretes: "Don't you think "because it (Bataclan) was owned by Jews" is wrong as a reason for the Bataclan having received threats?"

• Tigercompanion25:""including celebrations for the Israel Border Police" could be perceived as trying to insinuate something without coming out and saying it."

Although I agree that the thought that the ethnicity of owners should never be a reason for threat or political opposition, the fact is that numerous reliable sources have published accounts of a Jihadi who admitted that he planned to attack the venue and gave his reason that it was owned by Jews. In this case he did not say the motivation was due to the venue's activities (eg Gay Night, or their numerous Israel-oriented events), and instead specifically cited Jewish ownership as his motivation. I share Poliocretes revulsion of this reasoning, though we must respect the content of the sources, even when those contents strain our sense of reasonableness.

The same reasoning applies to Tigercompanion25's comment, insofar as there are numerous articles that have reported these facts, and the facts of the matter are certainly different from the speculations. In any case, the edits do NOT state or speculate that the murderous attacks are in-fact related to the previous threats. The edits simply state the relevant facts that the venue has been threatened and states the reasons for the threats.

That being said, I agree that (at present) there appears to be consensus among the editors that we should separate the 'threats against the venue' from threats and confrontations involving the band, since this article is about the band and not the venue. This consensus may be revisited in the future, however, as more information is published in reliable sources. There are several such sources that clearly associate the threats made against both band & venue for their support of Israel, and technically citing these sources and representing their contents is fair play and clearly not WP:SYNTH. Still, until agree with the other editors that these points are not essential to an article about the band, and so there is no pressing need to include that content.

Please note that the edits (recently undone because this talk-page discussion may not have been completed) did NOT mention the threats against the venue (Bataclan) and instead only noted the confrontations with BDS and Roger Waters.

I did not, incidentally, quote any of the threats and vile insults directed against Eagles of Death Metal on several Roger Waters fan websites, or on several BDS websites, including admonitions to boycott their music and stage demonstrations at their concerts. I don't think that such material is appropriate, since citing them would be WP:OR until some independent (journalistic) reliable source publishes this information it cannot be properly cited. Does everyone agree with this distinction?

In case the other editors are interested, we are fortunate to have the actual statements by Jesse Hughes on videos that have been posted on YouTube. His position is VERY confrontational, and it's no wonder that so many BDS and anti-Zionist activists have reacted by panning the band. We can't say that in the article, of course, since it would be WP:OR, though it's still interesting (and entertaining :-) to see what (and how) the frontman said:

"Jesse Hughes, Eagles Of Death Metal Tell BDS And Roger Waters Where To Go, Israel July 12th" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF4nkbEXHhI

Also, although the following information does NOT belong in this article, as a courtesy to a fellow editor (FiredanceThroughTheNight) their statement "the Islamic State, unlike other jihadist groups, isn't particularly focused on Israel or Jews" is contradicted by numerous published reliable sources. Daesh (aka ISIL, ISIS) has recognized an anti-Israel militant group in Gaza & Sinai, which used to be called 'Partisans of Jerusalem' and now calls itself 'Vilayeat Sinai.' In the January terror attacks in France, after Charlie Hebdo was hit, a gunman then murdered Jews in a Paris Kosher Supermarket located in the 'Jewish Section' of the City. Relatives of the gunman left France and were given sanctuary by Daesh (aka ISIS) in Syria. There are numerous articles about this, although they make for some very grim reading.

Of course, this info does NOT belong in this article. I'm only mentioning it as a courtesy to other editors who may have an interest in this subject.

In summary, I propose to restore the content about the band - which does NOT mention the threats directed against the venue. Do we have consensus that this is reasonable?

All the best.

Ronreisman (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I'm following Wales's 'Be Bold' advice for editors and adding the Content back to the article. if this action is 'too-quick' and editors object, then I apologize in advance for unintentionally offending anyone, and invite further discussion.

All the best.

Ronreisman (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stop edit warring and claiming you are within Wiki policy. You are not. And YouTube isn't a reliable source and etc. etc. as everyone else has already told you. Dave Dial (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain -- civilly and without ad hominem insults or threats -- why you believe that I am not within Wiki policy. Also, 'everyone else' has NOT already told me any such thing. Consider what two other editors have written in this section (note: Tigercompanion25 & Poliocretes: please make sure I'm representing your views accurately):

Tigercompanion25: "Ok, I'm on board with the section about their performance in Israel if this is a part of the discourse surrounding the band."

Poliocretes: " A little trickier with the show they played in Israel info, though. That made the news before yesterday's attack, so it might be deemed relevant to the article regardless of the events in Paris."

As noted above, I agree that the info about Balaclan, although mentioned in numerous published articles about the band, does not need to be included in this article. There appears to be a consensus between three of the editors, however, that the account of what transpired during the show in Israel is appropriate content. Please do not push your POV, undo edits that three different editors have indicated is relevant without explaining your actions on this talk page first. I would also appreciate more civil communication, though any kind of explanatory communication that explains your reasoning and engages in dialog would be beneficial. Thank you in advance.

Ronreisman (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that there are three editors (Poliocretes, Tigercompanion25, & me) who have voiced support for including the Content on the conflict with band's anti-BDS statements & stance (although we're in agreement that there's no mandate to mention the Balaclan in this context, even though reliable sources have been published which *do* make this link) and two editors (Moxy and DD2K, aka David Dean) who are opposed. Do we all agree the the current vote on this is 3 in favor and 2 opposed? It would be good if the editors could confirm or amplify their positions, and (of course) other editors are invited to voice their opinions so that we may establish broader consensus. Ronreisman (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps best you do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment so things are more clear (as in more editors explain the problems or merits). Should post the text that we are talking about. As of now there is no consensus -- Moxy (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I've never done this before, and am at work right now, so if you're familiar with the process and inclined to post this, it would be great. If not, no worries. Thanks for the suggestion. All the best. Ronreisman (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can do this....but what content do you believe should be added (with sources)....so i can show this in the RfC.. -- Moxy (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I just made my first RfC to the Dispute Resolution Board! I'm in notifying the other editors now. Thanks again for the helpful suggestions. All the best. Ronreisman (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Anti-Israel Boycott - Roger Waters

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.

---

Is the conflict between Eagles and Death Metal and and the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) activists (eg Roger Waters) over their performances in Israel, and the band's strong public confrontational statements against BDS and support for Israel relevant be mentioned?

• Should the following below be added to this article? prepared by --Moxy (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC) as per Ronreisman previous attempt in wrong location

The band performed at the Barby Club in Tel Aviv, Israel, in spite of pressure from anti-Israeli Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists. Roger Waters sent a letter to the band which reportedly demanded that they boycott Israel. Hughes publicly commented on Waters' letter at the Tel Aviv concert, saying "I would never boycott a place like this ... You know what I wrote back? Two words ... Never waste your time worrying about what an asshole thinks about you.” Hughes repeated the obvious two-word profanity to the cheering crowd. During the show he said “I’ve never felt more at home in my life”

• "Concert review: The Eagles of Death Metal". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved July 12, 2015.
• "Paris attacks: Eagles of Death Metal defied pro-Palestine boycott movement and Roger Waters to play Israel". Retrieved November 20, 2015.
• Jesse Hughes, Eagles Of Death Metal Tell BDS And Roger Waters Where To Go, Israel July 12th" youtube.
  — User:Ronreisman

Previous talks can bee seen above at Talk:Eagles of Death Metal#Threats to bataclan wording and at Talk:Roger Waters#Conflict with VIctims of November 2015 Paris attacks

Policies relevant and referred to or cited during previous talks - WP:NEWSEVENT - WP:BLPGOSSIP - WP:SYNTH - WP:NOTNEWS - WP:BLPPRIMARY - WP:NOTSCANDAL - WP:OR

Polling discussion

• RFS Yes it should as long as it has citations that are reliable Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - appears relevant to me —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The Conflict with BDS & Waters has been covered by multiple Reliable Sources and is certainly relevant to the band's history. Ronreisman (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Comes entirely too close to "connecting" a living person with the terrorist act currently in the news. Thus, violative per se of WP:BLP and not subject to editorial discretion. Collect (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Collect. Not only it this not subject to editorial discretion and should not be in this article per BLP, the amount of synthesis to connect two events using a non-reliable source(YouTube) furthers the rejection. At least to those editors who understand Wikipedia policy. Dave Dial (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose synthesis and BLP sensitive material is simply not what we are looking for here.-- Moxy (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not for a BLP article. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Inclusion would be tantamount to perpetuating shoddy sensationalist journalism. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as long as no synthesis connecting the Tel Aviv performance to the Paris massacre is included. What Jesse Hughes said about Roger Waters and the BDS movement in Tel Aviv is well documented in reliable sources and merits inclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Even though there are reliable sources supporting the statements, I do not think that this type of information belongs in a BLP. Like another used has already mentioned, the suggested material comes too close to connecting this living person to a recent terrorist attack that is being covered daily in the news. The material is just too sensitive and should not be included. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Collect and Focus are 100% correct on this. Swarm ♠ 00:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a brief mention of playing in Israel despite calls to boycott in the 2013 to present section, not the section on the Paris attack - and no need to go into all the detail of the letter and the response. Jerusalem Post gave coverage in July, and The New York Times felt it deserved mention: "On the night of the attack, the Eagles of Death Metal, an American rock band, was performing. The band had recently defied a music industry boycott and played a concert in Israel." Fences&Windows 14:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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.

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the 7th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 887,314 views for the week November 8 to 14, 2015. The attention was a consequence of the November 2015 Paris attacks. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Past members and contributors

I think former official members and former contributors should be divided into separate sections. Does anyone know which are which? Charles Essie (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)