Talk:The Chicks

Requested move 26 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 07:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Dixie Chicks → The Chicks – Let's do this the appropriate way. Considering the previous move discussion was closed as "moot", I'm starting a new discussion since the page has now been moved back to its previous long-standing title. There is no reason why the title of this article should still be under "Dixie Chicks" or "The Dixie Chicks". They have officially changed their name and we should follow suit. As pointed out in the previous discussion, WP:NAMECHANGES states: "If reliable sources are using the new name, Wikipedia should use the new name". "(The) Dixie Chicks" will still redirect here if the article is moved to "The Chicks", so no reader would be lost or looking for the former. There is honestly no sensible reason why this should still be at the old title. AshMusique (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: There can only be one open move request at a time on a talk page. Since the earlier request proposed this title, Dixie Chicks, it has been closed and this request will remain open to determine the highest and best title for this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the official name has changed, WP:RS are reporting the change and then referring to them as "The Chicks" from then on (e.g. ABC, Fox News). There are many examples of new names of people or entities being announced and then quickly becoming the common name (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner, COVID-19 pandemic, lots of women who marry and change their names); and I can not think of any comparable name changes which did not pass into popular use (there is Cat Stevens, but that is not really comparable because it was 30-odd years before he released any music under his new name). So I can see no good reason to think the new name will not become the common name, so WP should follow all the WP:RS and use the new name. Adpete (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom, WP:RS, Lady A and well, common sense. Glen 07:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support' per nom. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Consensus was quite clearly being established in favour of the new title, and the revert of the move and RM closure was counter to that. Nzd (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note I see that tags haven't been added and this hasn't been relisted at WP:RM, suggesting that the procedure wasn't followed correctly. Could the requester or an admin fix this? (@AshMusique:) Nzd (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nzd: per WP:RMUM and WP:TITLES, consensus must shown before a move. I've added the proper RM notice to the top of this so it will appear listed at WP:RM. -- Netoholic @ 12:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's the name of the band. Parabolist (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. So obvious and uncontroversial, does not require an RM. WWGB (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support For something else the policy might be to wait, but in this case it's common sense that they'll now be referred to by their new name, which is already happening by RS. Not sure why the previous discussion was closed as "moot" when the consensus was clearly in favor of The Chicks. Johndavies837 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• strong support The Chicks is now officially their name and as such it should be moved there - when companies change names, we move them, why is this any different? Praxidicae (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support because, eh, what? That's their name. Glen, I move-protected for ten days in the vain hope that we'd have a regular discussion which wouldn't be closed prematurely--any time that discussion was closed properly, the officiating admin could have undone that protection and moved it. That was my hope anyway, haha. Instead, it was moved for no good reason, and a discussion that could have undone that was closed for no good reason. Thanks for your note, Drmies (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support and I think this snowballs at this point.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support "The Chicks" is their official name, and the article should reflect that. I don't see any policy that could justify keeping the article at Dixie Chicks. I also see that there was consensus for keeping the page at "The Chicks (band)", so I do not agree with the snap decision that was made to have moved the page back. Vmanjr (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm quite distressed to see the fanatic rush to change this title. Yes, they announced a name change, but per WP:TITLES policy (specifically WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:NAMECHANGES), we do not immediately use the "official name" and instead wait to see how sources develop after a name change and weight them accordingly. This was only just announced (as of this timestamp, less than a full day), and every source which uses "The Chicks" also uses "Dixie Chicks" (because, of course) which is evidence a name change is not immediate per "reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well". There are -no- sources which use unqualified "The Chicks", and that may not come for months. I feel like Wikipedia, in this rush, is playing into the politics of this issue and the marketing/public relations of this band by rushing to judgement, and throwing out our standards in the process. This has already spurred a move war on this page, leading to its move protection, and has spread to its subpages. I'll point out that the first suggestions were to move to The Chicks (band) and now the proposed The Chicks, so even in the haste of it all we're not giving this due, careful consideration. I oppose any type of early closure on this because doing so would simply reward this rushed behavior and set poor precedent. -- Netoholic @ 13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC) (edited)
  • Netoholic, interestingly the only person who has brought "politics" into this is you. Glen 03:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh. This is a "fanatic rush". I don't know what particular thing you are defending here, Netoholic--policy? the honor of the Chicks? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Due care and consideration in accordance to our procedures and guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 13:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Can you offer an example of an official name change which did not become the popular name; in other words, is there any precedent to suggest we are being premature? And no, we are not playing politics, lots of other articles get renamed quickly after an official name change. Adpete (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Snoop Dogg announced a name change to "Snoop Lion" and then to "Snoopzilla." Reliable sources did not honor that name change and Wikipedia did not change the title of the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
          • That is different because Snoop was rather ambivalent about what name he should be called; "I can never get rid of who I am... I'm Snoop Doggy Dogg, then I'm Snoop Dogg, then I'm Snoop Lion. But it's all the same."Q&A: Snoop Dogg on criticism, religion, reggae CD - SFGate Adpete (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
            • If I'm reading the move log correctly, Prince (musician) has never been moved, as most reliable sources never took to using the symbol or the name "The Artist." 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
              • That's not a good example, either. Prince reverted back to using his name by the year 2000, while the article wasn't created until 2002. While I don't have definitive proof handy, I recall reputable news sources in the 1990s referring to him as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince. Vmanjr (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
              • When Sean Combs announced in 2017 and again in 2018 that he would be henceforth known professionally as "Brother Love," Wikipedia did not move the page. Tupac Shakur declared he would be professionally known as "Makaveli" before his death; Wikipedia does not use that as the name of the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
                • I'd encourge you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, specially WP:OTHERSTUFF. Glen 06:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
                  • There is really only one way to respond to the question "Can you offer an example of an official name change which did not become the popular name; in other words, is there any precedent...?" Also, several years ago, when Kanye West announced he was changing his name to "Ye," Wikipedia did not move the page. 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • We are not discussing a bunch of boofy rappers who change names more often than underwear. This is about a mainstream band that updated its name for ethical reasons, not some short-lived ego trip. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
                    • 2600:1010:B14A:F8EC:F42D:2EE0:710D:CD1A My question was about real world precedent (i.e., how the real world WP:RS refer to a renamed person/group), not WP precedent. Adpete (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
                      • Netoholic, I am sorry if this "fanatic rush" distresses you--still, I can't help but wonder where the fanaticism is. Has anything been burned down? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It is CRYSTAL to presume that the name won’t be picked up in use. “Popularity” has nothing to do with how common it is used. When continuing to use a name for something when you’ve already been asked not to use said name is utterly disrespectful and should not require discussion. How is it different for a trans person to go by a new name than a group of people changing their name? The fact that the default thinking is "Oh, they’ll change back, so why move?", when this has not been a recurrent outcome is utterly ludicrous. The only reason reliable sources would stop using the new name was in the unlikely event that the name would change back, but that’s not a good bet to take in cases like these.--BaseFree (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)— BaseFree (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Simmerdon3448 (talk · contribs).
• Oppose: It's actually CRYSTAL to assume that common usage will favour the new name over the name the band has gone by for thirty years. Zacwill (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• This has been debunked. Try again.--BaseFree (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Rather confused as to why a discussion needed to be done - Anyway support as per NAMECHANGES. –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose until common usage has been firmly established. Per WP:NAMECHANGE: "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." To make this move now, just one day after, would be WP:CRYSTAL. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME, which has not yet changed. – bradv🍁 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Gonna need citation on this claim--BaseFree (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A citation for the fact that "The Chicks" isn't the name used in the prevalence of reliable sources about this subject? – bradv🍁 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A citation that their name isn’t their name--BaseFree (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how this works. This is an encyclopedia - our content reflects what is written in reliable sources. At the moment, the sources continue to use the name that they've used for the past 30 years. Once that changes, we will follow suit. (Also, please stop screwing around with the previous discussion - we don't need two requested moves open at once.) – bradv🍁 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bradv, BaseFree was just another sock, but what happened was your initial comment was taken wrong: BaseFree (who was a sock of a none-too-bright editor) though your "which hasn't changed" referred to the name of the group, but you were pointing at the name of the guideline. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm not surprised that they were a sock. I am a little surprised that this discussion is going the way it is, since we don't usually move things until the COMMONNAME used in reliable source changes. Consider the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which announced a name change in 2018, yet we still haven't moved it after at least 3 RM discussions. – bradv🍁 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, that is odd, for sure. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: There is precedent for that with other bands. Coltsfan (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support with comment: If it's the official name now, sure, change the article. But one thing I don't think should be done (maybe it'll require an extra discussion?) is the replacement of "Dixie Chicks" with "the Chicks" throughout the whole article space itself. Since the band was known as the Dixie Chicks during the context of its founding, history, etc., I don't think we should change references to the band's past to the new name. Example: "The Chicks were founded by Laura Lynch on upright bass, guitarist Robin Lynn Macy, and the multi-instrumentalist sisters Martie and Emily Erwin in 1989." This is not how an article should be written - events from before the name change should reflect the name at the time, not the name used now. NomadicNom (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  While I agree with the sentiment, I think you picked a bad example sentence. When a restaurant is founded, it will always acknowledge the original name, whether the new name was just a shortening or a complete rebrand. “The Chicks was founded in X year as original name” is completely valid--BaseFree (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're correct, my mistake. I should have picked a better example. NomadicNom (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  The same goes for certain sub-articles like Dixie Chicks controversy which occurred long before this name change and is still the COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 16:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Very much agreed, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm referring to. NomadicNom (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: This is the name that the group is now identifying themselves as. There are plenty of sources out there verifying this. I think it would make sense to keep the original name throughout places in the article where it appropriate. However, when discussing their "musical style", overview, and "legacy", it would be best to use the name "The Chicks". ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support name change with "(band)". I think adding the disambiguation is a good idea since this is a new name and not the first singing group to use the name "The Chicks". I also agree that we shouldn't tear up the article changing the old to new name. Springee (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, per above, per WP:NAMECHANGES. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support WP:SNOW. Please also ensure that the speedy renames at WP:CFD get moved back to the standard, unopposed section after this is moved back. And also change instances of "The Chicks (band)" to "The Chicks". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom Tduk (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Get it done. After the initial move to "The Chicks", it was inappropriate for it to be moved back to be "The Dixie Chicks" again while such a move was still under discussion. Further corroboration comes from articles that are now appearing that use the new name in the headline and text, with "Dixie" appearing nowhere except in externally embedded videos. Let's get it done sooner rather than later, and minimize the waste of energy imposed by the wasteful and inappropriate reverse move. --Presearch (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • More sources that use The Chicks as the WP:COMMONNAME, so already being used in many publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support per points above. livelikemusic (TALK!) 13:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per above points. The name change is official. I do agree that the article should stay with "Dixie Chicks" in the running prose up until the name change , but one can make efforts to minimize its use to replace that with "the band" or "the group" as much as possible. --Masem (t) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above points. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Just make sure that the group's discography and band member pages include their former name as well, i.e. such and such is a founding member of the country band The Chicks, formerly known as the Dixie Chicks. They went by that name for years and is important to the groups history. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The most reliable source we have on this matter are The Chicks themselves. There is no basis for questioning their intentions, particularly because the change was due to ethical convictions. S51438 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as new official name.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as new official name, with use in numerous WP:RS, as a news search for "The Chicks" will show. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I know some say wait until we can establish that the new name is the COMMONNAME, but in my experience, that line of argument doesn't hold up when it comes to widely-known, popular topics, like this band, or for example, 20th Century Fox -> 20th Century Studios. There is a 100% chance that all sources will refer to this band as "The Chicks" going forward. They may also point out that "The Chicks" is formerly known as "The Dixie Chicks", but nevertheless, "The Chicks" is going to be the name of the band going forward, absolutely 100% guaranteed. It's not like there's some chance the new name won't catch on or be used. So there's just no point in pretending we're not sure what the common name will be yet because it's too soon. Similarly, one need not wait to see if the sun will rise before making plans for the day. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as the new official name. Leave "Dixie Chicks" as redirect.Gonzalo84 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per BradV. A band changing its name does not necessarily merit a change in the article name. The Jackson 5 has since changed its name for instance, but consensus supported keeping the old name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Renaming it before the name becomes common use in media is premature. If they disbanded in a month, the name would obviously be reverted to Dixie Chicks. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per obvious consensus, and per precedent of Lady Antebellum's article moving to just Lady A. The name of just "The Chicks" is so widespread that I even saw SiriusXM credit "You Were Mine" to just "The Chicks" earlier today. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - A redirect and hatnote will make sure everyone knows that they are on the correct page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2020 (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.

Changing Old References

Noticing that despite the article name being updated, the vast majority of internal mentions of the band within the article and mentions on other articles have not been updated. Is this just a clerical task nobody got around to, or was there a consensus against updating the name when talking about earlier work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Sandifer (talk • contribs) 20:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@El Sandifer: A change of name doesn't change what they were called in the past. Consider Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship. Even though there's a clear timeline of history for the band, different names are appropriate for the different eras of the band. So depending on the context, "Dixie Chicks" might be the appropriate name to be mentioned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The question, it seems to me, is what sort of name change we're talking about. That is, is The Chicks renaming more like Jefferson Airplane/Starship or more like a trans person? I'd argue given the reasoning—a specific desire not to associate themselves with the Confederacy—that it's potentially closer to the latter. El Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bluegrass!

The chicks are definitely a bluegrass band, not a country band.

A) They play acoustic instruments rather than electric.

B) They have no drummer, as is universal in country bands. 45.51.188.112 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you basing this just on original research, or has a reliable source described them as a bluegrass band? —C.Fred (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

All releases since Maines joined have featured both electric and acoustic instruments according to the liner notes. And all but one list a drummer among the personnel. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks vs Chicks throughout the article

It’s quite disconcerting to see The Chicks used throughout the majority of the article, especially if you’re reading sequentially. Wouldn’t it make more since to use Dixie Chicks up until June 2020 when they announced their new name? This can’t be contentious like using a trans person’s birth name, or is it? Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It was also inconsistent, sometimes using "Chicks" and sometimes "Dixie Chicks". I've edited the article to use the original name before they changed it. Popcornfud (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I see this has been reverted by @Georgia guy, who says it is the consensus to use the current name everywhere. Georgia guy, I am not seeing any discussion about this in the talk pages previously. Popcornfud (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were great. Much easier to read. I restored your edit. Thanks. Artificial Nagger (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see the requested move. Georgia guy (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the move discussion was about the article title, not how the band is referred to in the article itself. Popcornfud (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and your point being what? Artificial Nagger (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't want to say that they aren't the same band they used to be. We must use Dixie Chicks only when we're referring to the name, direct quotations, and titles of works. Georgia guy (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

First: Using the old name when the band used that name doesn't "say they aren't the same band", and no reader will draw that conclusion. I think the clearest way to approach this would be to begin the History section with: "The Chicks were founded as the Dixie Chicks by..." and use the name Dixie Chicks until the point when they changed their name.

Second: I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that matches what you're proposing. Wikipedia refers to Blink 182 as Blink before it changed its name, Meta Platforms as Facebook before it changed its name, Iran as Persia before it changed its name, etc. We have a policy for deadnames, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm not aware of any equivalent guideline or policy for bands.

Third: I don't see any consensus for what you're arguing, or any previous discussion of the idea, despite what you've said above. Please correct me if I missed something. Popcornfud (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The motivation for the change of name was the racist connotations that often accompany the word "Dixie", so there is that to differentiate this name change from those others. Also, I might find it more confusing if the new name weren't just a shortening of the old name. Heck, even before the name change fans and journalists would often call the band "the Chicks". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't typically avoid content because it is offensive or objectionable — per WP:NOTCENSORED. Popcornfud (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Needs citation re: the chicks. Additionally, we don’t see N-word used all over the nigger article. Artificial Nagger (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's just one anecdotal example but, this article from CMT dating to 2003 is titled "KEITH "EMBARRASSED" BY ROLE IN CHICKS FEUD". https://www.cmt.com/news/n6w3f2/keith-embarrassed-by-role-in-chicks-feud It's gonna be hard to search for this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not clear on the point you're making here... can you explain it some more? Popcornfud (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I was intending this as a reply to Artificial Nagger's comment "needs citation re: the chicks", which I had interpreted as a reply to my statement that "even before the name change fans and journalists would often call the band "the Chicks"" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks.

Yes, I'm sure the band were sometimes referred to as the Chicks in shorthand before they officially changed the name. I don't think that has any relevance for this decision, though. Popcornfud (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The shortened “chicks” usage is in the title but “Dixie Chicks” is used for the first reference to the band. At Wikipedia we don’t consider article titles to be “reliable”, because they are often not written by the author(s) of the article. E.g. some editor looking for impressions might take an article about the chicks playing for Irish policeman and title it “Chicks mix with Mick Dicks”. I’d click on it. However, I’m afraid the title isn’t suitable for Wikipedia editing purposes. Artificial Nagger (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Fresh Comment - The lengthy discussion above is passionate but it drifted from the main point. I suggest that everyone imagine traveling through time back to before this hubbub started. That is, the hubbub about the article's general text and not the article's title. Personally, back then I would have said "if it ain't broke don't fix it." If they're called Dixie Chicks in a paragraph about something that happened in 1989 when that was really their name, that's accurate. Maybe some folks find that annoying but maybe they could just let it go. A little annoyance only becomes a major controversy if you let it. Sit back and take a fresh perspective. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Some thoughts on the matter:
  • A band changing their name and people using their prior name is not comparable to deadnaming.
  • While it's commendable that they changed their name, it's still not like "Dixie" is comparable to some sort of racial slur or some sort of term that is to be outright avoided either.
  • That said, I'm not opposed to reworking some of the prose to cut down on its usage some either. Subbing in some more "they" or "the band", or seeing if some sentiments can be traced back more to a specific band member rather than the collective. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Personally I think we should use the original name when that was the name they used. I think it's clear, I think it's logical, and I think it reflects the truth of history. Popcornfud (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Me too, actually, I guess I didn't say that outright. My third bullet point was more about a potential third route that could help with appeasing people if need be, as a last resort if we need to. Kind of like that time at Sonic Xtreme, where we were having a hard time identifying a person's gender, and we ended up going with the solution of reworking it so gender wasn't really mentioned so it ceased to be an issue. That sort of approach. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I understand the logic there. I'm not too keen on that approach for a couple of reasons though. The first is that we're going to have to refer to the band name sometimes (we can't keep writing "the band" over and over again) so it doesn't really solve the issue. The second is that I think it will damage the prose for reasons similar to WP:ELEVAR — constantly writing around using the simple noun form. Popcornfud (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the change should still be retroactively honored. They removed the "dixie" in their name for the historically racist connotations it carries and, as such, why should we continue to put that in their article when they've chosen not to use it? Having a singular reference to "formerly known as Dixie Chicks" at the beginning is more than enough, in my opinion. There is literally no good reason to continue to use their old name, even when referring to them in the past. The only thought in my head as to why someone would want to still use "Dixie Chicks" is if they fail to grasp the rationale and general need for the name change. I would assume they're of Euro descent as well. Theoragon (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while and there seem to be no further comments. To me the consensus looks like it's leaning towards using "Dixie Chicks" — at my count four editors in favor of Dixie and two against. If no further discussion emerges in the next few days I'll go ahead and make the change. Popcornfud (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Last new comment was a week ago, so I have made this change. Popcornfud (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

need a revote

sorry, i don't know how to initiate this, but the name change clearly did not "stick". every time they're on tv, the promos say "Dixie Chicks", and, in fact, tonight's news is wall to wall with "former Dixie Chicks member dies". unlike Lady A, say, where the name change DID catch on with most people after a while.

frankly, i've never heard ANYONE say "the Chicks", except as a sort of ad hoc abbreviation, a la "the Stones". official name or not, the article should be under the COMMON name...which all those obits demonstrate is the old one. 2601:19C:527F:7890:F8B5:29C3:B9:65FF (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"the Chicks" is what pretty much every reliable secondary source useable on Wikipedia calls them now. Rolling Stone, BBC, CNN, ABC, etc. Popcornfud (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, BBC, and ABC are all using "Dixie Chicks":

"https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=laura+lynch"

CNN is using "Chicks", i will grant u that. also NPR. 2601:19C:527F:7890:F8B5:29C3:B9:65FF (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Which name sources are using in, like, the last four hours isn't a great indicator of long-term common use compared to the last several years. Sources are likely saying "the Dixie Chicks" right now because Laura Lynch was in the band when they were still called that. Popcornfud (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

that's a reasonable take, but i suspect it's more b/c they don't think the average reader will recognize the group name sans "Dixie". 2601:19C:527F:7890:F8B5:29C3:B9:65FF (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

They changed their name in 2020 to The Chicks apparently? The founding member who died was a member when the band was called 'The Dixie Chicks', so the news coverage makes sense. 2001:8A0:60B3:3500:299A:8C9A:A5AD:DC24 (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, of course we all recall that when john lennon died, every headline in the world blared "founding member of the Quarrymen assassinated".... *eyeroll* 2601:19C:527F:7890:F8B5:29C3:B9:65FF (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

If the Quarrymen had been more famous than the Beatles, then... Popcornfud (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

exactly! prior poster (and u last time) implied "name at time she joined" was a factor, when it really is not. media is using the Chicks' "old" name here simply b/c it is way more famous than their "new" one. 2601:19C:527F:7890:7468:A304:A37F:44F6 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The "band's name was [a riff on 'Dixie Chicken'], a 1973 album by the chooglin’ rock band Little Feat". They removed the word from the name when the released "Gaslighter" in June 2020 with the short announcement We want to meet the moment. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Laura Lynch's death

Popcornfud keeps adding Lynch's death to the 2016–present section (here and here). Lynch wasn't a member of the band when she died, she was a member of the Bluegrass lineup who left/was dismissed from the band in 1995 (not in 2005, as the Variety article falsely claims). If anywhere, the 1989–1995 section is where mention of her death belongs. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the first revert by me, linked above, undid an attempt to remove the mention of Lynch's death entirely. That's not the same issue being discussed here.

Lynch died in 2023 and the band issued a statement about her death in 2023. It therefore belongs in the 2023 section. It's an event in the band's history. Popcornfud (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

She hadn't been a part of the band's history since 1995. The statement belongs in the history section she was actually part of. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

By this reasoning (chronology, died in 2023 and the band issued a statement about her death in 2023. It therefore belongs in the 2023 section), we should move Lynch's 1996 and 2003 statements into the chronologically appropriate sections. I.e., the sentences In a 1996 interview, Lynch said, "It can't really be characterized as a resignation. There are three Dixie Chicks, and I'm only one" into the 1995–2000 section, and the sentence In 2003, Lynch said she had no regrets about leaving into the 2003–2005 section. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your logic — but it's not the same.

The quotes you cite are from people talking retrospectively about Lynch leaving the band. So that's where the quotes belong — with the coverage of that event.

Likewise, the quote about Lynch's death belongs with the coverage of the event of her death. Popcornfud (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)