Talk:Bee Gees/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name of the band

Page title should be "THE Bee Gees", not "Bee Gees" alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.0.206.164 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? If you check LP covers since 1967 and onwards they don't use "The" in front of "Bee Gees". Ferdinandhudson (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Using album covers is not a strong enough argument. There are many groups that have a "the" in the name but don't (always) have it on their albums. I'm not on one side or the other on having an article in the title (of the article). I think there probably should be one, but it doesn't really matter. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What did the band consider themselves to be? That's what should be used here. But if it's unclear it's best left completely blank. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Article titles cannot be left blank. But you're replying to an old thread. See #Name of the band, again below. Rivertorch (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Thanks :) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

a harmonic "soft rock" act in the late 1960s

I think it's WRONG . The Bee Gees plays Pop ,power pop , psyche pop and baroque pop songs not Soft Rock ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.247.229.246 (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Deceased

To the best of my knowledge, this is still consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I see that there are 3 cats having to do with England, and 2 for Australia. From what I can tell, they have lived in the US longer the UK and Aus. combined, so why would there not be any that are "American ___"? --Musdan77 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a tricky one as per the Archive section. I see though that the "Origin" section in the infobox is blocked out. However, that's the easist one to decide since we're talking about a group, not the individual members. Their origin (ie. where was the group formed) is Australia. As for what to put in the lead is far more tricky since thay've been based in the UK, US and Australia at different times in their career. For example, Boney M were comprised of West Indies-born members, but they are a German-based group. For the Bee Gees this is far more difficult.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Name of the band, again

I think it is clear the preponderance of reliable source 'texts' (as opposed to headlines) support naming this article The Bee Gees (similar to The Rolling Stones and The Beatles). If I hear no strong objections I will move the article in the next day or so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit hasty. Maybe better to wait and see if there's consensus. Providing actual evidence of the preponderance of reliable sources would advance your position more than a claim of it. My take: while these things aren't earth-shatteringly important either way, I don't think "the" is an official part of the name. The sources I consulted suggest it isn't, anyway. They include AllMusic.com (widely cited as a reliable source for musical artist info on WP), Rolling Stone (unquestionably a RS for our purposes), and Billboard (ditto), as well as the biography section at Robin Gibb's official site. That the cover art of all but their first two albums omits the definite article may strengthen the case a bit more. WP:MOS says that an "authoritative source will determine whether the word 'the' is part of a band's name" but offers no hint of where to find such a source. So I would oppose the move unless you provide clear evidence to counter the above. Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to see proof of this so called preponderance of reliable sources that UnitedStatesian hints at. They have not used the definitive article for a very, very long time and I see no reason to change the band name. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment UnitedStatesian - please provide several examples of this preponderance for the group to weigh against the established sources that Rivertorch has listed. Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Just adding my 2¢, a brief glance at song copyright records and the band's trademark records seem to show "Bee Gees" (with no "The") as the official name. I haven't looked at how the copyright notices within the notes from any of the albums have it, but my guess is that they will be the same. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

More 2¢, I just watched a Bee Gees documentary and it looked like their album covers from the 60's all showed "The Bee Gees". Not differing with the comment above, just noting what I saw. Ckruschke (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

The overwhelming majority of their albums didn't have the band name as "The Bee Gees", and that includes the 60s albums, exclusions being "Spicks and Specks" and "Life in a Tin Can". You may have been seeing them showing artwork for the singles in that documentary though. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Members Timeline

I think a members timeline should be made, like the one on Jackson 5 article. I'm talking from a reader POV, I came here to read their history but with so many past members and such a long history it's hard to see who joined/left when. Krystaleen (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Were they Jewish

Yes, were the Bee Gee brother's Jewish. I seem to recall Maurice (How Jewish is that name) wearing a baseball cap with a cross and roses wrapped around it which was quite tastefully done. BUt then again that doesn't mean anything Joey Kramer from Aerosmith is Jewish and he wears shirts with crosses on them. Can anbody help a brother out? No Jive Talkin'...* (Wink, wink) (120.149.119.87 (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC))

I remember two kids in Catholic school with me, geological ages ago, both were named Maurice. *Obviously* they were infiltrators, with their Roman Catholic parents, born of Roman Catholic parents, yea unto the seventh generation was it so. (VEG)Wzrd1 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong names

In the pictures you have confused Maurice and Robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.74.38 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any misidentification - which picture are you talking about? Tvoz/talk 04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Records sold

The lead mentioned over 120 millions while further down in the article it states over 200 million sold. Both entries are sourced, but there is some further explanation/research necessary here. To the very least both figures should be mentioned together in the same place (the lead).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this - fixed now. Tvoz/talk 02:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comma

Hi Tvoz. To me, it is pretty clear that there is no need for a comma in the case in question. However, I fully agree that linguistically what appears or sounds clear, correct or obvious to one person is often not the same to someone else. But as you can see at serial comma, the overriding justification for a serial comma is to deal with (or introduce) ambiguity when one (or more) of the elements in a series could refer to the same entity, as in "a car arrived and out climbed Paul + a plumber + John", where "a plumber could refer to (apposition) Paul (or even John). In a straight "banana + apple + pear", there is no possibility that any of the elements is an apposition of any other, therefore, "banana, apple and pear" would not require a comma. The Bigg brothers are banana, apple and pear — don't know which is which, though. ["Smiley"]. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Gibb cause of death

This article says Maurice died from a heart attack. The Wikipedia Maurice Gibb article says he died of cardiac arrest. A heart attack and cardiac arrest are not the same. Bunkyray5 (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The source cited in the present article says heart attack, and we follow the source. Will take a look at the sourcing in the individual article. Tvoz/talk 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't nationality mentioned?

It should say, just like every other person or band, that "The BeeGees are an English band...." Why isn't it mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.116.114 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Although the men were born on the Isle of Man the group was formed in Australia. Later in life they all lived in Miami. This seems to cause edit wars and it was decided to leave the origin field blank and explain the facts in the text. Look in the talk archives. GroveGuy (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Like

Agreed. (Although, to be precise, men aren't born—even on Man!) The brothers did live in Manchester for a while, but that was before they were a band, so "English band" wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Best if the article doesn't try to specify, since the band's nationality cannot be summed up adequately in one word. Rivertorch (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

They were from England so it should say English. Please add it on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.165.233 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but it's more complicated than that - GroveGuy (talk · contribs) and Rivertorch (talk · contribs)'s responses above are exactly right. The explanation in the text spells out their background more clearly than any one word description could, and that solution did put an end to the edit wars between Manx, English, and Australian factions - not to mention the Floridians. Sometimes you have to think outside of the box, and it worked here. Tvoz/talk 21:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to the categorization, the appropriate solution if they're from multiple places is to categorize them in the national subcategories for all the countries that pertain — both Category:Pop music groups and Category:Rock music groups are categories that must be kept as empty as possible of individual articles, with as close as possible to all articles being diffused into the subcategories — although I grant that the pop category is not fully diffused at this time, with a grand total of ten other bands sitting alongside them because the appropriate national subcategories don't exist yet, as things now stand the Bee Gees are the only band in the entirety of human existence who are sitting directly in the undifferentiated rock category at all. And that's not appropriate. Being claimable as from more than one country means that a band should be subcatted as all the claimable countries, and not that they should be left in the undiffused parent instead — if they can really be claimed as Australian and British and American due to the migratory complexities of their lives and careers, then that means they properly get subcatted as being all three of those things, and not that they get some unique "transcending nationality entirely" exemption from the way all other bands are supposed to be catted. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with their being in multiple national origin categories, but for that to make sense, it would need to be all of their origin locales (i.e., Isle of Man, Australia, England/Manchester, USA/Florida). Of course the above discussion is about the text, particularly the lede, and the infobox. The edit wars over this were counter-productive and got us nowhere - when we settled on the current wording all of the factions were more or less satisfied. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Influences

Oasis were heavily influenced by The Bee Gees. Surprising but true. Noel and Liam have both said in interviews that they listened to the Bee Gees 1960s greatest hits album, endlessly, while writing and recording "Definitely Maybe" and it was influenced heavily by the early Bee Gees psychedelic sound. Along with the Beatles obviously. Would be nice to add to the article. As it's a surprising fact! 81.140.63.228 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search but I only found that the Gallaghers saying they liked the early Bee Gees music but there was no mention of it influencing their music. But if you can find a "reliable source" to back it up, then it can be added to the article. Kerry (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That would more appropriately belong in the Oasis article, not here - this is talking about who influenced the Bee Gees, not who they influenced. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Song catalogue section

Information in this section would be better suited in the articles about the albums dicussed than the main Bee Gees article. Any thoughts on that section? saltystrawberry (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC Removing British from everything Gibb

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.

---

Tvoz is removing British from group and the Gibb brothers saying in this discussion that they have consensus (claiming these two discussions [1] and [2]) However going through the page histories show they have been listed as British, and many editors have defended that information for years, including my self. I do not see any consensus to make the changes that Tvoz preferrs. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not a neutrally-worded RfC. Please consider rephrasing it neutrally and ending it with a simple question that users may !vote on. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to write it, whats your suggentions ? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For starters, stop personalizing it everywhere you write about it (e.g., your RFPPs, my talk page, your edit summaries, this rfa.) It's not what I "prefer", it's what has worked for years on the Bee Gees article, after much edit warring over Manx/Australian/British etc. This is really not about me. Tvoz/talk 04:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Any time an RfC is calling out someone by name, a mistake is being made. We closed WP:RFC/U for a reason. If you have what you think is good case for disciplinary action regarding a particular user, you take it to WP:ANI. With clean hand and WP:DIFFs to prove your case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove British

• Use consensus version that uses a sentence instead of one word. See discussion section below for why, but also consider this timeline:
  • born on Isle of Man in 1946 (Barry) or 1949 (Robin & Maurice), lived there until 1955 (9 years/6 years)
  • moved to England 1955, lived there until 1958 (3 years)
  • moved to Australia 1958, lived there until 1966 (8 years)
  • moved to England 1966, lived their until 1975 (9 years)
  • moved to US 1975, lived there rest of their lives - 2003, 2012, to date (Maurice 28 years, Robin 37 years, Barry 42 years so far)

It is complicated, and we found a solution years ago that is acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines and stabilized the articles, while giving more information to our readers than one word would. Why change this? Tvoz/talk 04:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have rarely found it useful to have a group given a nationality, but I have often found conflict and drama resulting from instances such as this where people argue over nationality. As the article currently stands we have a very factual and informative statement of the situation which surely cannot offend or irritate anyone: "The Bee Gees were a pop music group formed in 1958.... Born on the Isle of Man to English parents, the Gibb brothers lived in Chorlton, Manchester, England, until the late 1950s. There, in 1955, they formed The Rattlesnakes. The family then moved to Redcliffe, in Queensland, Australia, and then to Cribb Island. After achieving their first chart success in Australia as the Bee Gees with "Spicks and Specks" (their 12th single), they returned to the UK in January 1967, when producer Robert Stigwood began promoting them to a worldwide audience." Such a neutral and factual wording has existed on this article for quite some years. If the article is altered to give the group a nationality, that has the potential for future conflict as some editors might wish to change it to Australian on the basis that the group itself was formed in Australia and licensed there, even if the individual members of that group were British and proud of it. Others might wish to see them listed, as Britannia does, as Australian-English. Some editors from the Isle of Man might wish the band to be labelled as Manx - though I'm not sure how far that would fly. But we do get Scottish folk who resent it when people born in Scotland are listed as being British or worse still as English! The current situation works and is encyclopaedic. It's probably best to leave it be. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep status quo (i.e., do not mention nationality in lead paragraph). I wasn't planning to !vote in this RfC, since the wording is unacceptably misleading, but apparently that's not going to be challenged. Assigning a nationality to the band in the lead paragraph has been tried before and proven disruptive; let's not go down that road again. The article has been quite stable for years in basically its current form, and it has served readers well. Anyone curious about the location of the band at any point during the many years of its existence—from its origins in Australia to its first significant commercial success in the UK to its multiple decades of superstardom in the US—has only to read a little further. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is nothing wrong with how the article is currently presented. I prefer it to be explained this way with bands and other topics which have a varied international history. However I also have no problem with the compromise suggested below. It basically is saying the same thing as we already have, but might appease those insisting on British being made more prominent. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep Insert British

Note: Shouldn't this be "Insert British", as the article has not said British since at least 2006, which resolved what appears to have been an ever changing set of national descriptors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

YTvoz/talk 22:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• British - The norm is to provide a nationality, and this seems dominant in Google once you separate out the tribute show "Australian Bee Gees". I think technically it should be paraphrasing about where the group was based since the article is the group, rather than about the nationality of the individuals or where they lived before they were a group. I'd give more weight here to a book from the 1970s when they were widely covered for example. That 10 years ago the page couldn't pick so left it blank I give a minor weight. Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• British. In this list of "British" references from a Bee Gees Biography, there are three quotes from the band themselves where they quite clearly say they were British.[3]. If they say it, who are we to say otherwise? David T Tokyo (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• British. The world of the music business (as found in Variety, Billboard and other publications) and the more public media of the 20th century used the term British more often. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Passport. British citizens are British, rather than arguing, we should be finding details on their citizenship status. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  13:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Robin and Maurice are dead, so it might be hard to determine that. Barry reportedly has British and American citizenship. This is why we developed the narrative sentence description rather than the one-word approach which is not required. It has worked, keeping the article stable n this aspect for years.Tvoz/talk 08:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Compromise

• British, but explain. It's significant that they were not based in the UK through most of their professional career. This need not be in the lead sentence but in the lead section, something identifying them as British-born (the Isle of Man is British territory even though, like Scotland, it has its own institutions), having been largely US-based, and with additional details. Manx is a cultural identifier rather than a nationality for WP purposes, like Cherokee. It belongs in follow-on text, not the "just the basics" opening line.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: How, specifically, would you adjust the current wording to implement this? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm skeptical much of a change is really needed; just inclusion of "British" somewhere in the lead per WP:ABOUTSELF and MOS:IDENTITY – the Gibbs consistently self-identify/identified as British. If people insist on monkeying with the first few sentences, something like this might work: "The Bee Gees were a pop music group formed in Australia in 1958 by the British brothers Barry, Robin, and Maurice Gibb, and later based in England then the United States." Or something to this effect. I don't think this is really necessary, though. The lead already has all this info, just not crammed into the first sentence or two. The desire to do so seems to be a symptom of the "nationality-itis" that's plagued various lead, infobox, and flag-icon debates for years. I agree with Rivertorch below, "I still fail to see how the status quo version in any way diminishes our readers' understanding of the Bee Gees.", other than that the word "British" should be in the lead somewhere, in reference to the Gibbs. Identifying those born on the IoM as having been born there is sufficient for IoM stuff; we do not need to use "Manx"; doing so will not make the article clearer or better, just harder to understand for more people (and I say that as someone way more familiar with the IoM than average for non-residents of it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Just add in the lead that "Bee Gees was/were a British band" and cite the "British" to [4]. The other stuff about the Isle of Mann and Australia can be fleshed out in the lead and body. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this latest round of nonsense specifically started when someone inserted "Manx" again. You may think we "do not need to use Manx"and I totally agree, but the Manx chauvinists disagree. So I think we are better off leaving off all of those identifiers and sticking with the very clear prose - it's been the only way we've managed to stop the dueling nationality folks. Calling them a British band or the like, I'm afraid, will start it up all over again. (So why not just call them American in honor of the majority of their lives spent here?) Tvoz/talk 05:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

They should be called an "Australian band", simply because they had their first hit there... Isle of Man, England, USA, that's too complicated! Aussie first! --Io Herodotus (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This why we stopped boiling it down to one word! Tvoz/talk 08:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is disingenuous. The consensus supporting not including this information is currently on this talk page (from 2014). Also, FlightTime started it [5]. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the consensus clearly has been there for years. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nationality is a matter of consensus? Just how far do you think I'd get if me and my mates turned up at JFK, holding British passports and told the official there that we'd had a discussion and the consensus was that we were American? Nationality is matter of record, not consensus. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Bands do not have a nationality, individual people do. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll go along with that. You want to tell me how a band composed of three brothers, two of whom are twins, all of whom are from the same parents, cannot have a common nationality? David T Tokyo (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

David T Tokyo, everything at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus; it's arguably the most fundamental policy underpinning what we do. You've given pretty much a perfect illustration of a false analogy, but to answer your presumably rhetorical question, I assume that doubts raised about the validity of your British passports would lead to considerable discussion to get to the bottom of the matter. If you were lucky, you'd be released and on your way in half a day or so. Then again, you might find yourself put on a flight back to where you came from or even arrested and charged with making false statements. Fortunately, the stakes involved in this discussion are not so high! As WWGB noted, a band is not an individual. To expand on that a bit, legal or official nationality of a band's individual members is only part of the story here; there's also where members were living when they were born, when the band was formed, when it became commercially successful, when it achieved superstardom, and so on. Rightly or wrongly, in years past these factors led to innumerable instances of drive-by changes and edit warring, so the decision was made simply not to mention nationality in the lead paragraph. This has worked out rather well, not only for watchers of the article but also, more importantly, for readers, who have only to jump to the second paragraph to read about the geographic details. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, everything at Wikipedia is NOT a matter of consensus. For example, it is NOT a matter of consensus that Everest is the highest mountain on Earth, or that Hydrogen is the lightest element. Why is it not a matter of consensus? Because these are FACTS. Consensus only comes into the picture when facts are disputed.

To the matter at hand - the Nationality of the Bee Gees. THEY say (repeatedly) that they are British, THEY have been given a national award only handed out to British citizens. It matters not one jot where they live, how long they've lived there, who they've married, where they were born etc. I know this because I am a good example of it: born in Malaysia, lived out east, spent 20 years in London, lived in Tokyo, now living in Italy. But I am, and will always be, British. How do I know it? Because THAT'S WHAT MY PASSPORT SAYS. You may take a different view, but you would be both uninformed, speculating and, ultimately, dead wrong.

The bottom line is this: unless they changed their nationality - and there is not one shred of evidence to suggest they have - the Bee Gees are, and have always been British. Play your games by all means, insist that consensus trumps facts, but all you're ultimately doing is diminishing Wikipedia. If you want to make the point that they lived abroad, I'm sure there's space in the article. But it doesn't get away from the fact that they are British. And no amount of consensus will never, ever change that. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No, David, in fact, Barry is an American citizen as well being as a citizen of Britain. Two passports. The three of them were born on the Isle of Man (but not their brother Andy) and were awarded the highest honors that island offers, as natives - and there have been ardent voices here - most recently that re-opened this discussion - insisting on calling them Manx. Do you know for a fact none of them had Manx passports? And then there are the Australian chauvinists who insist they are Australian because of their youth there, I suppose. All three moved to America and as I said Barry is an American citizen. (I don't know about Robin and Maurice, both Florida US residents for many years). And let's not even get started about "English" vs "British", which distinction quite honestly I barely comprehend and frankly couldn't care less about. This compromise (a result of consensus) of not mentioning nationality in the first sentence but following immediately in the very next paragraph with a sentence that explains their origins, has been the best solution, which effectively ended edit wars over this minute point. What has changed that makes anyone think peace would reign if we called them British? Why are you so insistent on your own preferences rather than interested in the stability of the article, or the demands on its regular editors to monitor and adjudicate this? Tvoz/talk 04:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, thanks for reply. I'll take your last point first - I'm not insisting on anything. If I was I would have changed it, and I've absolutely no intention of doing that. I'm saying as forcefully as I can that when the Bee Gees themselves say that they're British, and do so repeatedly, unless it's quite clear they're mistaken - and they accept they are mistaken - it's both inappropriate and incorrect to say otherwise.

There's been a lot of discussion about living overseas, making it big elsewhere, the fact they're a band etc. etc. For me, this is both a canard and a slippery slope. It took me five minutes to work out that if I applied these principles elsewhere I could put forward a perfectly valid argument that Abba aren't Swedish and nor, indeed are either the Rolling Stones, or even the Beatles, British. I'm sure I don't have to tell you what a can of worms that lot would be to open up.

Let me dial it back a bit. I fully understand how edit wars can happen here on Wiki and have seen it happening myself many, many times. Nationalist pride, or whatever, wades into the argument and the next thing you know the whole issue is a mess that needs managing before the page combusts. As has been the case here, the issue is discussed and consensus is finally achieved. However, it never ends there; people (newcomers etc.) keep the issue alive by continuing to question it - all the more so if it looks like the basis for the consensus was to stop ongoing edit warring, rather than get to the heart of the issue. And that's what I believe we have here. A compromise that has ultimately ended up preventing people from describing the band the way they do themselves. And that cannot possibly be right.

I'll leave it there. Y'all know my points by now. Thanks for indulging me! David T Tokyo (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

My goodness, I've stepped in hornets' nests before, but this time it would seem that the nest has been placed on my foot. Maybe we're talking past each other, David T Tokyo. Let me try moving the italics to a different part of my earlier sentence: Everything at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus. Mount Everest and hydrogen are not at Wikipedia, but we have articles about them, and how we present information on them is very much a matter of consensus. Consensus doesn't change facts, but it does ultimately determine how facts are related in any article.

I guess you're saying that multiple nationality and British citizenship are mutually exclusive? I wasn't aware of that, nor was I aware that bands could formally have a nationality. I have no dog in this fight; I couldn't care less whether we label the Bee Gees a British band or, if we do, where we assign that label. I do care about the stability of the article, though. The bitterest, most longstanding disputes on Wikipedia involve matters of nationality, and for years now, this article has proven to be something of a success story in that regard. I find it sad that my attempt to preserve that success has been met with shouting and accusations of game-playing, and I confess that I still fail to see how the status quo version in any way diminishes our readers' understanding of the Bee Gees. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bee Gees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kdkb-fm.firstmediaworks.com/article.asp?id=579627
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026173253/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/CLIFF%20RICHARD/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/cliff%20richard/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603035832/http://www.coming-home.org.uk/content/robin-gibb-and-soldiers-concert to http://www.coming-home.org.uk/content/robin-gibb-and-soldiers-concert
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107030637/http://www.catsfield.co.nz/ to http://www.catsfield.co.nz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505120949/http://beegees.douglas.gov.im/ to http://beegees.douglas.gov.im/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105720/http://www.starclustermusic.de/artists/beegees/peterson/bio/peterson1.htm to http://www.starclustermusic.de/artists/beegees/peterson/bio/peterson1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

This is a great article. It's well written, it has an excellent structure and it's filled with very good information. I made some minor improvements, primarily to flow and punctuation. I have some comments for further improvement.

1. ""New York Mining Disaster 1941", their second British single (their first-issued UK 45 rpm was "Spicks and Specks"), was issued to radio stations" is followed later by "No such chicanery was needed to boost the Bee Gees' second single, "To Love Somebody", into the US Top 20".

My understanding is that New York Mining Disaster 1941 was the second single in the U.K. but To Love Somebody was the second single in the U.S.A. If that's the case, the second sentence should be clear and add "American" to add clarity.

2. "double A-sided single "Jumbo" b/w "The Singer Sang His Song""

What's "b/w"? Use words. Y

3. "Petersen played drums on the tracks recorded for the album but was fired from the group after filming began".

Why?

4. "During this era, Barry and Robin also wrote "Emotion" for an old friend, Australian vocalist Samantha Sang, who made it a top 10 hit, with the Bee Gees singing backing vocals".

The article on Emotion says only Barry was singing.

5. The article says "Also, in 1998, the brothers recorded Ellan Vannin for Manx charities". Later, it says "Ellan Vannin was recorded in 1997".

The article on Ellan Vannin (poem) says it was recorded in 1997. Y

6. "The Bee Gees have signed a new distribution deal with Capitol Records, bringing them back to Universal".

Instead of "The Bee Gees" I think "Barry" is more appropriate since both of his brothers passed away by 2012. Y

7. "Singer-songwriter Gavin DeGraw spoke to the Bee Gees' influence with their own music as well as their songwriting".

Spoke "to" or "about"? Y - "SPOKE TO" IS AN IDIOM, BUT I CHANGED IT FOR CLARITY

ICE77 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this - editors will go through your suggestions and corrections. Tvoz/talk 02:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The BeeGees were without question a UK group

It is honestly beyond me why this has become an issue here; beyond me, except for acknowledging that there might be one or two curious Australians who wish, on the flimsiest terms possible, to suggest that The BeeGees were not a UK band. Going by sources, it would not be difficult to find 100 citations (be that by the Times, the Guinness Book of Records, you name it) referring to the Beegees as a British group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsega (talk • contribs)

Well, in fact it is not "without question". I'm afraid you may not have followed the long history of the writing and editing of this article: there were edit wars by people who felt as strongly about their opinion as you do about yours - people who insisted they were an Australian or Manx or British or English group - there's also an argument that they are American, seeing as 2 or 3 of the 3 had dual citizenship and lived in the US longer than anywhere else. Our goal here is clarity and sometimes using a sentence to describe something is preferable to boiling it down to one word, particularly when there are valid arguments all around. So we were able to successfully stop edit wars that waste editors' time and reduce the value of the article in the process, by having an explanation rather than a word. That's why we have the edit notes that you removed. Consensus rules here and the relative stability of the article once consensus was reached, pretty much proves the point. Consensus can change, and discussion here on Talk always an option - but ignoring and removing edit notes is not the way to do it. Tvoz/talk 05:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

a fannish thought

Does anyone else think the "OMG Robin quit the group!!!" narrative a bit overblown, seeing as he was gone only from May 1969 to June 1970?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

old fancruft remains fancruft

The opening line (paragraph, actually) of subsection Odessa, Cucumber Castle and breakup was

By 1969, the cracks started to show within the group, as Robin began to feel that Stigwood had been favouring Barry as the frontman.

As this was entirely unsupported, it appeared to be a blatant POV problem, and I removed it. It was restored by Tvoz with the justification that

This wording has been in the article since 2007 - reinstated and requested citation

which fails on two counts, the first being that trash is not at all justified by having not yet been properly disposed. Secondly, WP:PROVEIT clearly says (my emphasis) that

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Restoring it without a citation — as was done — runs entirely contrary to that policy, and putting up a little "citation needed" pennant is disingenuous at best, seeing that

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

Fortunately enough, a source for the conjecture was soon provided by another editor… except that not a word there substantiates the fanboy statement that the cracks started to show, which is blatant foreshadowing, a literary device that DOES NOT belong in an encyclopedic article. I removed that clause.

Having browsed the cited source, some of the turns of phrase seemed somehow familiar; it appears to have supplied bones of Bee Gees, for instance how

the Bee Gees' second single … "To Love Somebody", a soulful ballad sung by Barry, has since become a pop standard covered by many artists

resembles

Their second single - To Love Somebody, co-written by Robin - became a pop standard and over the years was covered by hundreds of artists

which, while not word-for-word pilferage, strays up to close paraphrasing ("the superficial modification of material from another source") of which Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing says Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy.

Another example that caught my eye was how

In 1988 … Andy, their youngest brother and a solo star in his own right, died at the age of 30 from myocarditis - an inflammation of the heart muscle. / One, the Bee Gees' 1989 album, featured a song dedicated to Andy, called Wish You Were Here.

resembles

On 10 March 1988, younger brother Andy Gibb died, aged 30, as a result of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle…. The Bee Gees' following album, One (1989), featured a song dedicated to Andy, "Wish You Were Here".

There is reason to believe that Bee Gees is shot through with this. I recommend side-by-side comparison with cited sources, particularly the shoutouts to seven BBC News articles.

The lists of Touring musicians and Guest musicians are entirely unsupported, and any editor would be well within right to remove them immediately.

As well, there are frequent liberties taken with the fannish canon, for instance

Stigwood proclaimed that the Bee Gees were "The most significant new musical talent of 1967", thus initiating the comparison of the Bee Gees to the Beatles. … "New York Mining Disaster 1941"… was issued to radio stations with a blank white label listing only the song title. Some DJs immediately assumed this was a new single by the Beatles and started playing the song in heavy rotation. This helped the song climb into the top 20 in both the UK and US.

which you might notice is a daisy-chain of unfounded conjecture, and NONE of the links gets a source:

• the Stigwood proclamation
• how that said "they might be the Beatles"
• the white label
• that "some DJs assumed"
• achieved "heavy rotation"
• where that was achieved (& for how long)
• that the song achieved chart status
• that the climb was aided by "this" — which could be the "Beatles" buzz, Stigwood's proclamation, having a white label, the DJs' gullibility, or the (undefined) "heavy rotation"

Clearly, the entire quoted passage ought be immediately deleted, right?

As Tvoz has indicated that such errors are not only long-lived but well-known, I recommend that these be resolved ASAP. If close-paraphrase sections are not rewritten and POV/OR esssayisms aren't sourced, then clearly the guardians of this article don't believe it's worth the effort, and the passages deserve swift deletion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the burden of proof for challenged text. And the too-close paraphrasing looks suspicious. Let's prune this article and rejigger it to meet modern Wikipedia standards. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Falsely attributed revision

I received a notification saying a revision of mine to the Bee Gees article had been reverted, but I did not make this revision. I previously noticed the change when I was notified of it (since I'm watching the page), and how inappropriate it was, but not that I was supposed to have made it. I'm changing my password and hope this will suffice to avoid further occurrences of such misattribution (there was another in the last couple of days, which I did not make and never would have), but I'm not sure it will since whoever's doing this might be within Wikipedia itself and thus presumably have access to my new password as well. In any event I regret the inappropriate change even though I didn't make it myself. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many labels listed?

Currently there are a fair few labels listed in the info box that has me scratching my head. Aside from the commonly attributed ones there are the likes of Philips, Mercury, United Artists and Brunswick which I question being listed there. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Lineup

Why isn't Andy included as part of the group lineup (first paragraph)? Minerva9 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably because Andy was never a member of the Bee Gees. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

As one of the lead editors of this article I have ignored this for a long time, but have to ask now: why do we have this timeline that is barely comprehensible and adds nothing? I'm not doing anything about it, but I am asking. Tvoz/talk 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

having found the timeline confusing as well i am going to split it into a time line of members and a time line of touring members to se if this improves legibility. Necron1050 (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Origins

Manchester or Redcliffe? G. Picanço (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That's arguable, like so many aspects of Bee Gees history. Barry, Robin and Maurice certainly performed as a trio in Manchester, but did not adopt the name Bee Gees until Redcliffe. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Which is exactly why we have edit notes asking people not to add anything into that field. Tvoz/talk 01:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Years active

Should the infobox report "years active" as 1958-2012, or with a hiatus as 1958–2003, 2009-2012? Better to avoid an edit war over this. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, I think it should have the split, especially because Barry and Robin talked as if they did not plan to perform again (but eventually did). I’ve recently learned that Barry and Robin did do two shows in 2006 together so those should probably be included as well. I know they were among a number of artists who collaborated on a song for charity in 2005 (if I believe), but I have not heard it so I don’t know if they sing together or separately (or if we should count it). I think the brief 1969/1970 split is too confusing to explain in the years active section, because it seems like sources differ if Barry and Maurice split in December 1969 or early 1970 (and of course they were reunited by late August, so less than a year regardless, if that helps). EPBeatles (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Band name

Shouldn't the band name be "The BeeGees"? We write, for example, "Apes, Pigs & Spacemen (a.k.a. AP&S) are a British rock band", and "Art Bears were an English avant-rock group", all without a preceding "The", and this is just fine. But would one write "BeeGees were a music group formed in 1958" without article?  --Lambiam 09:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say not. There are several bands (e.g. Carpenters, Eagles) which commonly appear with the definite article prefix, but who have specifically expressed that that isn't their band name. Bee Gees are one such case, even if the internet is riddled with references to 'The Bee Gees'. Michaelfromtheuk (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bee Gees 1992.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi Tvoz, you recently reverted my addition of qualifying the brothers as British and the band as being formed in Australian, stating that it goes against consensus. I believe my edit actually resolves that dispute (or at least doesn't violate any consensus that came from it), because it doesn't qualify the band's nationality—it's just two uncontested facts, which are that the brothers are British and the band was formed in Australia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith attempt - but if you look back at the extensive history on this subject, you'll see that in fact it is contested - for example, by the Manx faction - and we finally achieved stability on this matter so consensus to have it in this somewhat unorthodox manner is the best way to avoid needless edit warring. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging The Rattlesnakes (1950s band) to Bee Gees as it seems like most of the sources documenting the Rattlesnakes are almost exclusively due to the Gibb brothers or their later band, the Bee Gees.

Note: This was originally a merger proposed by @Josedm a few days ago but it seems like he abandoned it. OhHaiMark (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, my native language is Spanish and I don't know how to speak English well, so I didn't know how to do the whole procedure. I appreciate that you took the proposal since I didn't know how to proceed. Thank you @OhHaiMark. Josedm (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be far too much detailed material to absorb into this Bee Gees article. It is a classic spin-off article, not unlike Quarrymen vis a vis The Beatles, where a summary is in the main article and details in the daughter. Of course the references are to the Gibbs and Bee Gees but in my opinion the detailed content about this early group is best handled in its separate article as it is. Tvoz/talk 03:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tvoz so the article should have been proposed for deletion, since it mentions The Quarrymen, although they are essentially about the same thing, stories that are more like a chapter in a biography book than encyclopedic, the difference is that the Quarrymen made two professional recordings, Later the group reunited with the surviving original members, recorded and published albums and continues to operate today. I'll give another similar example: Smile, the band before Queen, also made several recordings, which have been published in bootlegs. The group reunited twice with its original members, on both occasions they made new recordings, the most recent in 2018. Against that, The Rattlesnakes loses.It didn't come to anything, in the same article it says that the first "real" performance was in 1957, the following year the band was already dissolved. To tell the truth, the article is not that long, it has a few very short sections that can easily be summarized or accommodated in the Bee Gees article. The Rattlesnakes was more of a hobby than something serious. Josedm (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Coincidence of timing of deaths of 2 of the drummers

"Drummers Dennis Bryon and Colin Petersen died just 4 days apart in November 2024" was added again in the Members section and I removed it for the second time. While this might be interesting, it is clearly coincidence as no connection has been made between the two incidents, and more importantly it is unnotable for the Bee Gees article. We appropriately do note their deaths in the lists - I added a source - and this coincidence has been mentioned in the individual articles about these two men. It is up to editors there to determine if it belongs there either, but not here. Please don't edit war over this. Tvoz/talk 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's meaningless trivia. Doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sales

Currently the articles is misquoting its sources. That aside you cannot cherry pick a sales figure simply because you believe it closer to be true or because it is closer to the certified sales figure. Instead you need summarize/compile what the best/most reputable sources state, in doubt that means you'll have provide several figures (for instance the range in differing reputable sources plus the certified sales figure. But what the article is currently doing is not in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been the subject of too many hours of back and forth on this article for years - honestly, at this point I don't even know what the "truth" is, but Wikipedia policy is not based on "truth" per se, it is based on reliable sourcing as Kmhkmh says above. The real problem, as I see it, is we have two wildly conflicting numbers in the same article right now, and we need to form a consensus of which data is the one we should go with. Any insights? Tvoz/talk 20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The only insight based on Wikipedia policy is going with most reliable/most reputable sources, if they providing conflicting information the article needs to reflect that. Meaning in doubt there is no need for the article to merely provide a single figure, but it can provide several or a range.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe we could follow the example of the ABBA page and include that the group's estimated sales range from 120 to 200 million copies worldwide (if that is indeed the upper limit). When I was reverting the references that lacked proper information, I accidentally left in the one mentioning 200 million—my apologies for that. What do you think? Markus WikiEditor (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I am fine with showing a range with good sources and a few words explaining that the data varies. In fact IIRC I think at one point we did have it as a range. No worries, Markus, it's easy to miss. Tvoz/talk 18:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're now consistent - Markus, there was another place with yet another sourced sales number - 250 - so I think we now have all of the refs consistently saying the same estimated range. Tvoz/talk 01:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! Markus WikiEditor (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Tvoz likes this.

It may be "consistent" now, but to very clear it is still a policy violation. What the WP page on the best selling artists does is original research (and as such strictly speaking a tolerated policy violation as well). However it might be tolerated or "accepted" for that page as it explicitly outlines what it does and the original search/assumptions are at least transparent to readers and the info might be regarded as useful to readers. However pushing those figures into other articles, when the original research is not transparent (nor is there any consent) is another matter and imho crosses the threshold where the original research cannot be tolerated anymore.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I:p.S. Sorry, I somewhat misread the new discussion above due to not checking the latest changes in the article. So my criticism above doesn't really apply anymore. A range based on what most recent "reliable" publications state is a compliant with WP policies and those who skeptical of those published figures (mostly label provided estimates) can simply add the certified sales figure in addition (rather than an (unpublished) educated guess what the "real" figure is).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)