Jump to content

Talk:Bee Gees/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Gibb brothers' childhood in Brisbane, Australia

The article says the Gibbs lived in Redcliffe. This doesn't seem right to me. I thought they lived in a rather dreary suburb called Cribb Island (now part of the Brisbane Airport). Can anyone enlighten ? 136.153.2.2 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question above - Yes they did live in Redcliffe, at 394 Oxley Drive to be exact. I'm not sure where this Cribb Island bit came from. Perhaps it's true, but the house in Redcliffe appears to have been their first place of residence upon emmigrating to Australia. This is only an hour's drive from where I live on the Gold Coast in South East Queensland, Australia (I must take a drive up there sometime and see if I can feel their presence, so to speak). They also lived in Maroubra in Sydney later on, among other places. See http://www.beegees-world.com/bio_tour.html User:Lmb71 12:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the fan page - seems they moved around a fair bit, so maybe they did live at Cribb Island too. Clearly the family was struggling and moving from one rental property to another. The fan page pictures are not original 1960s pictures, despite being in black and white. The picture of the Redcliffe racetrack has a sign that indicates that they have "Pokies" (a form of gambling machine I think the Americans call "slot machines" or "poker machines") - these were illegal in Queensland until the late 1980s. The same old Holden car in that photo is also in the other B&W pics. 136.153.2.2 07:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe they lived in Cribb Island for a time, but I have no source to prove it. This is very unencyclopedic however I had a friend, who I've lost contact with, who went to school and was in the same class as Robin and Maurice. My friend lived in the suburb of Hendra as a child, which is quite close to where Cribb Island used to be. For them to all be at the same school suggests that they lived in the same general area. Redcliffe, on the other hand, is not part of Brisbane and lies to the north - not far away, but children living in Redcliffe would have been unlikely to travel so far to school. I think they moved around and lived in both places (and others too probably) at different times. On the subject of Cribb Island - when it was being razed for the development of Brisbane airport there was some mention in the media about the Gibbs having lived there. Rossrs 10:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my info is similarly unencyclopedic - I knew someone who lived in the suburb who told me once that the Gibbs lived in the street behind where she lived. I also remember the newspaper articles referring to the destruction of the suburb and its connection to the band. I guess someone will need to check the Courier Mail for around 1980. 136.153.2.2 11:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

no mention of "To Love Somebody" from 1967? PMelvilleAustin 10:50 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

They had plenty of commercial success in the 1990s. I'm not sure of the purpose, and therefore the validity, when documenting someone in an Encyclopedia, of comments about being popular now or "losing" etc. How is it relevant to facts?...DW

I'm not sure what you mean. Not speaking with regards to the Bee Gees specifically, of course the level of a band's popularity is relevant to the facts -- the question is whether it is done in a NPOV fashion. I believe I wrote this article originally, and if I was unduly harsh, please correct as necessary. Tokerboy

What I'm saying, is that in this field, success for a year or two is the norm. It is extremely rare for an artist to last for years, let alone decades. Saying about the Bee Gees that: "A few albums and multiple compilations followed in the 1990s, but the Bee Gees had lost any critical viability and any chances of further commercial success" is improper criticsm in an encyclopedia to begin with. Articles should deal with the facts and time frame of their career in an NPOV manner. References to length of success should be in the context of an achievement not a negative comment if they only achieve the norm. On a simpler level, we don't say that a man died after only living for 72 years because that is the norm -- what is expected. However, if he died at 37 or lived to be 108, then we comment in their encyclopedia article. ...DW

Bill Gates?

"They gained the attention of a radio DJ called Bill Gates and gradually made a name for themselves for their harmony singing and Barry's songwriting" - Is this a joke, or was there truely a radio DJ nammed Bill Gates. Well, I heard from the BBC once that they were named after their manager's initials, _Bill Gates_... so the part the DJ part must be true. It seems that someone has currently vandalized the name to show _George W. Bush_. Now that I cannot believe.

Bee Gees stands for Brothers Gibb - so the _Bill Gates_ thing (and the _George W. Bush_ thing) is a joke. This is not a joke. Bill Gates, (not the Microsoft one) 'discovered' the band. The name Bee Gees comes from an almalgamation of the initials in Brothers Gibb, Bill Gates, Bill Goode (an Australian DJ, who supported them), Barbara Gibb (Their mother) and Barry Gibb. Originally they were called the BG's. Mark Ronan

Mark: that's quite perfect! http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discographie_des_Bee_Gees 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.beegees-world.com (I'm one of the four webmasters, indeed) :-) S.K. "Juke Box Cannon Ball". :-) Stephan KŒNIG 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Originally called the BG's, eh? Really? With the misplace apostrophe? HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

  • As the band's proper name is simply "Bee Gees", there is no need for the "The" in the title. Snow1215 18:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support move - certainly seems to be the case from their album covers. sjorford →•← 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Support move to make inline linking easier. Jonathunder 04:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
    • Support move. Their first two albums used "The Bee Gees", but since then it seems to have been "Bee Gees" all the way. Here are more album covers. --GauteHK 12:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

The article makes an error early on by saying they are from Douglas, Isle of Man, England. The Isle of Man is not England and not even part of the UK. If you don't believe me, look it up in Wikipedia. So I hope you don't mind if I delete the "England".


Music from "Saturday Night Fever" and the Academy Awards

In 1978, while the music from "Saturday Night Fever" was dominating the media airways in the USA, the Academy Awards for Motion Picture Arts and Science nominated for best original song from a movie: a song from "The Slipper and the Rose"; a song from "Pete's Dragon"; a song from "The Rescuers"; "Nobody Does it Better", (from "The Spy Who Loved Me"); and the winning song, the title track to "You Light Up My Life". So many people were upset, (and said and wrote so), that none of the original songs from "SNF" were nominated in the best song catagory, (and the first three songs named were), that the following year, 1979, a section of the show was dedicated to popular songs from the movies that were not nominated for an Academy Award. Sammy Davis Jr. and another person, sung some of the ignored songs. It was a Very long segement of the show from a group of people who did show a preference to music that came from, (or sounded like it came from), "Disney" type movies in the past. Elvis Presley certainly knew what it meant to have a popular song from a motion picture not nominated for an Academy Award.204.80.61.10 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

David English wrote (for Bee Gees World)

Maurice Gibb was not only one of my closest friends, over 30 years he became like a brother to me. I last saw him at the wedding of Barry Gibb's two sons on Miami Beach before Christmas. He was in great spirits, larking around, having fun and enjoying life. He was slim and tanned and looked great which makes the details of his death even harder to take in. I've been in constant touch with his family since he was taken into hospital and I've been shocked to learn just how ill Maurice was. The family are drained at the finality and suddenness of it all. Barry and Robin's mother, Barbara, is with them. The hospital is down the road from their homes and is where their children were born. Now they're at Barry's house trying to come to terms with it all. Barry was asleep when I called yesterday. His wife Linda said he was devastated. He can't believe it has happened. I will always remember Maurice, or Mo as I called him, for his sense of humour and his ability to mimic other people's voices. He was zany, like Ringo was with the Beatles, witty and a bit of a court jester. One of my favourite memories is driving over Sunny Isles Bridge in Miami in 1975 with the Bee Gees after spending a day in the recording studio. They heard the rhythm of the wheels on the road, looked at each other and realised it was a great groove. We drove back to the studio and came up with Jive Talking, just like that. When they were in the studio, they were like three pieces of a jigsaw because they fitted together so well. You would have Barry and Robin coming up with the words and Maurice with his keyboard or guitar developing a melody as the man in the middle. After Saturday Night Fever came out, I remember walking around Times Square in New York with Maurice. We saw a neon board which showed five of their singles in the Top 10. He smiled and said: "Not bad, eh?" Talk about understatement. One of the funniest times we had was in the 70s at the Intercontinental Hotel in Paris. I was looking over the balcony of our room and for some reason decided to circle along a ledge. One by one, Barry, Maurice and Robin followed. When we came to the next suite, we looked in and saw a couple making love. The woman looked up and, with an expression of total disbelief, saw a madman followed by three Bee Gees inch past, 100ft above Paris. We saw her the next day on the plane back to London. Maurice told her how nice it was to see her with her clothes on. I last spoke to him on the phone two weeks ago. He was fine and talking about how he had just been paintballing. The fact that he was so active makes his death all the harder to come to terms with. My thoughts are with his family. His wife, Yvonne, is devastated. It must also be very hard on his children, Samantha and Adam, who were working on an album with him just before he died. The Bee Gees drew their strength from being a family. I'm sure they will use that strength to get them through the days ahead. But things will never be the same again." Provided by Stephan KOENIG BGW Webmaster (22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Andy Gibb

Thanks for clearing up that "Andy Gibb" concern. Yes, it is true, he was NOT a Bee Gee. Hucz 06:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Andy was not technically a Bee Gee however he would take the stage with them on occasion. Jtpaladin 13:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I am concerned that this article is becoming biased, due to sentences such as the following: "They sang tight three-part harmonies that were natural and infectious, and their sound was instantly recognizable." I strongly feel that the article should be fixed to adhere to NPOV. --Daniel 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been cleaned up a lot, so hopefully if enough people pitch in, fixing the rest of it should be a blue milk run. --Bill (who is cool!) 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening line description (nationality)

Perhaps we could garner some form of consensus on how the Bee Gees nationality/origin should be described in the opening line. I personally favour "Anglo-Australian" but there has been others including the current "British born, Australian singing trio". Comments? Shadow007 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They were born on the Isle of Man, which is technically not part of the UK but a crown dependency. So, to be accurate, I propose "Manx-born Anglo-Australian singing trio". Brisvegas 03:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
A little clumsy but it'll do. It would be nice to have a few more than 2 people commenting on the issue though. Shadow007 10:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd stick with Manx-born Anglo-Australian becuase although it is a bit awkward, it is correct.To just call them "Australian" is misleading, I think. Tvoz 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead because I think using 4 words to describe nationality is unneccessary. According to WP:MOSBIO; Nationality: In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. The Manx and Australian connections are no where near as well known as the English one, and nothing has been removed as all is mentioned in the biography anyway. User:SteveLamacq43 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, User:SteveLamacq43 - but you see we've been discussing this here and in the page edits and you think the Manx and Australian are less important, but another editor last week said that it was clear that the Australian identification is more important, and I'm sure if we wait long enough someone from the Isle of Man will weigh in on the Manx id. So we pretty much agreed here - at least the only editors who bothered to speak to the issue when asked - that although it is a little awkward, the description "Manx-born, Anglo-Australian" at least is accurate and should satisfy all sides of this idiotic dispute. I myself would be happy to drop the "Manx-born" because it is included elsewhere on the page and actually I don't think anyone off the island thinks of the Manx connection when they think of the Bee Gees. But they certainly received fame in Australia and in my personal experience were generally thought of as being Australian - but much (not all) of their success absolutely came after they went back to England - so it's a tossup. By the way, do you know where they are "citizens" or "nationals" ? If not, don't assume. Citing that WP guideline isn't particularly helpful in this case anyway. So I am reinstating the agreed-upon wording and will happily remove "Manx-born" if there are no objections. (And since this very topic has been discussed here, I would think that the proper way to have proceeded would have been to add your point of view to this talk page rather than just going in an making a change as if it were the first time it was brought up. But that's just how I would have done it, fwiw.)Tvoz 01:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I'm not sure you couldn't have been slightly more polite in your reply, you tell me not to assume. I assumed nothing; the fact that none of them spent more than 4 years on the Isle of Man mean that's not really worthy of being included in a brief description of their nationality, spending only 12 years in Australia and with no indication or mention that they actually obtained citizenship (even if they did, it would probably have been withdrawn due to recent/ish reforms) renders that similarly uncontestable. With the facts that they were always introduced as English, and have pretty much lived there since the 60s, I assumed common sense would prevail. I would also appreciate it in future if you aren't so quick to shoot down ideas. SteveLamacq43 21:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2 years on I have to say that the 'Manx-born' part is probably the most important. The place of birth is always important (any article on John McCain always highlights that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone for instance). Trying to blend the Manx connection with Englishness is deeply insulting for the Manx nation. Why can't we mention all 3 connections? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeadia.--Xania talk 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, the Bee Gees were/are English. I'm saying it because that's how they refered to themselves in several interviews. I lived in Australia, does that make me Australian too? No. Obviously they were born on the Isle of Man but I know they consider themselves English or British or whatever. To be honest, in some of their interviews, they didn't have the nicest things to say about their time there trying to get a hit. I'm Irish so I can be objective and unbiased. As for Andy Gibb, I do believe he considered himself Aussie or at least acknowledged his ties with Australia. But I understand why Aussies want to claim them. If they had spent anytime here in Ireland, we would be doing the same.........like we did with Oliver Reed.....honoury Corkman! Just my two cents!--Ian Hoare (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You see, the factions here all have strong feelings about how to define them, so after much discussion we agreed to say "They were born on the Isle of Man to English parents, lived in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester, England, United Kingdom and during their childhood years moved to Brisbane, Australia, where they began their musical careers." That covers all three bases, is accurate, and does not make assumptions about their nationality, ties, or citizenship. Still seems to me to be a good compromise. Tvoz/talk 03:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sadly, someone's vandalised the entry describing where in the UK the Bee Gees moved to (from the Isle of Man). I assume it's meant to be Chorlton-cum-Hardy but I can't be sure.

P.S. Are you the real Steve Lamacq who has a show on BBC Radio 2? If so wow.

Meltingpot (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not mentioned in a description of their nationality, actually, it's mentioned as their place of birth in their initial description. As I said, I also think it is unnecessary in the intro sentence and will happily remove it, but when it was removed in the past - look back at history - it was promptly reinstated, presumably by a fan of the Isle. As for Australia, I believe you when you suggest that you never heard them being identified as Australian, but all I can tell you is I did, many times, in the US - that is how they were identified, as an Australian group. And Andy Gibb was touted as an Australian singer. As I mentioned, another editor last week felt that they should be identified only as Australian, not even Anglo-Australian, let alone English. So do you see the problem? I am not shooting down ideas - I posted a long explanation for my reinstatement and half-agreed with you, if you read it. WHat I said is that since this has been a point of contention - as evidenced by the numerous edits about this as well as the lengthy discussions on this talk page - I think the proper thing to do is to talk about it some more (even though I do think the point is so trivial as to be a major waste of time), rather than just going in and changing the text. If there was a shot at all it was not at your idea, but at your method. And I'm sorry if I seemed impolite - this may be a difference in perception because of our different backgrounds - in America I think my reply would be viewed as restrained and polite, but apparently to your ears/eyes it was not. That wasn't my intention. Tvoz 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


See? Even as I was writing the above, the earlier editor (Drmagic) came in and changed it back to Australian, which I am going to revert in a moment - I would guess he hadn't seen this discussion. So this is why I say we have a situation, and Anglo-Australian may be the only way to satisfy both. Tvoz 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be inclined to ignor Drmagic, as is clear from his edit history he has decided to awkwardly edit a couple of pages I recently have, following a disagreement on another page. Anyway, it's not encyclopaedic for it to be written in a way to appease everybody, so I would suggest trying to find a source, probably an interview, in which the brothers describe themselves as one nationality; English, Manx, Australian or whatever, and have that as the definitive answer. Saying that, I have no idea how easy or difficult it will be to find one; I guess there's only one way to find out though. SteveLamacq43 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't disagree with your point, except that I'm not exactly trying to appease here (I guess it sounded that way though) - I actually think both points of view have merit which is why I'd go with the Anglo-Australian type of construction (and maybe drop the Manx in the first sentence). As I said, if you had asked me before this discussion started where the Bee Gees were from, I would have said Australia, based on how I recall them being promoted in the 60s, and I also totally see the logic of considering them English so the dual wording does make sense to me. I've looked a bit and haven't come up with anything on the web to answer that question yet - maybe you'll have more luck.
By the way, Olivia Newton-John may be relevant here: she is considered Australian as well, and her WIki article calls her "English-born Australian" or words to that effect. Her bio says she was born in England, moved to Australia at age 5 and moved back to England at 16 where she began recording - a pretty similar story to the BeeGees, and she's listed as Australian which might be how she self-identifies, I don't know. But on a quick read it appears she only lived there for about 10 years, like them.
As for whether this editing is personal, I have no idea and don't want to get into it. I do know that I am trying to reach consensus among different points of view, on this exceedingly minor point - and as I have said, there was some fussing about it a couple of months ago and it settled down with the awkward wording, because it is accurate. So I hope we can drop this quickly and move on to something more substantive. Tvoz 16:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be good to have a consistent approach but unfortunately different editors look at different articles and come up with different compromises. There was a substantial debate over Nicole Kidman with the result that she does not seem to have a nationality, although someone decided that "Kidman holds dual citizenship as both an Australian and an American" covered everything. (I disagree, but....). Meanwhile Mel Gibson, who has a similar history to Kidman (born U.S., raised Australia, career started Australia, moved to U.S., now resides in U.S.) is described as "American-Australian". Olivia Newton-John is similar to the Bee Gees, except for a few differences - the Bee Gees left Australia and never really looked back. None of them has resided in Australia since the late 1960s - even their parents followed them to the U.S. Newton-John's father was Australian, and since leaving Australia, Newton-John has maintained very close ties : her family is in Australia, she owns a substantial business enterprise in NSW and has also maintained an Australian residence since the 1970s. Plus she always refers to herself as Australian. So yes, a good example on the one hand, but not so good on the other. With these 4 articles, a similar type of history has been depicted in 4 different ways, and each way is as incorrect as it is correct.
I think it might be useful to find someone among our editors, who has some kind of experience in geneology and see what would be the "correct" way of describing them. Rossrs 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: Be careful what you wish for - in an interview they might well identify themselves as American, since some or all lived in Florida! Tvoz 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually - beyond my joke about calling themselves American - we need to keep in mind that a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to be presenting the point of view of its subject, it's supposed to objectively report the facts. So it doesn't matter if they fell in love with Miami and think of themselves as Floridians, or if they hated Australia, or loved it and want to be thought of as Australian or not. The best we can do is look for multiple sources and try to present the facts as even-handedly as possible, but keeping in mind that sometimes both points of view in a dispute need to be accommodated when there's no definitive answer. (And I'll bet you that whatever we agree on, in a while some other person will come along and not read these lengthy debates and just change it. That's life on Wikipedia, and not worth getting riled up about.) Tvoz 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try English-Australian and see if that sticks, pending someone's coming ujp with some actual reference rather than personal preference. Tvoz 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Folks, we've been trying to find some wording to fit in the first sentence that will correctly identify the BeeGees' origins, but whatever is posted is changed shortly thereafter by someone else - obviously there is a difference of opinion here about how to describe this group and we aren't getting anywhere. So rather than reverting again I'm proposing the wording that I just posted which is totally accurate and I hope will satisfy all concerns so we can get on to more substantive issues - the article can use more work on things that actually matter. I've removed the entire phrase from the first sentence and made a slightly longer second sentence that briefly lays out their origins - born on the Isle of Man, lived in England for several years, moved to Australia where they began their music careers, returned to England from where their worldwide success was spawned. This is stated briefly in the first paragraph, and the details follow, as they should, in the main part of the article. Please note that WP:MOSBIO (which is a guideline, not a strict rule anyway) allows for nationality to be in the first PARAGRAPH, not necessarily the first sentence, so I think this remains consistent to Wikipedia biography style, but explains their particular backgrounds accurately. I hope editors here will agree. Tvoz 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Some situations can't be put into a neat little box, and this obviously is one of them. What you have written is more accurate and more descriptive than any tag that could be applied regarding nationality, in my view. Well done. Rossrs 06:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The nationality sentence is way too long. I propose : "They were born on the Isle of Man to English parents, lived in England and moved to Australia during their childhood years, where they began their musical careers." This sentence is already long enough and satisfies all three "factions". Remember this is just an introduction. If you want a full, detailed history, you go to the history section. There are many, many artists who begin their careers in a country, before reaching global success once they start releasing in the US (or the UK)-in fact most non-american singers famous world-wide do.

If you read it again, the extra bit makes the sentence less fluent-grammatically it shouldn't be a semi-colon but a new sentence. it is long and unnecessary. If it satisfies all 3 factions who want isle of man, england and australia, then shortening it for encyclopedic purposes is the wisest thing to do. Binks 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I really never thought all that verbiage was needed, but it was a compromise between the folks who insist that they are an Australian group and those who insist that they be called English. The English folks felt strongly that the success they had came from their time in England, and the Australians correctly note that they began their musical careers down under. You can see the discussions above, and go back and read the edit summaries if you like. So the consensus was that although the sentence was a bit long, it was accurate and most importantly it stopped the edit warring. I happen to like the semi-colon construction, but I don't think it's essential - I'll change it into an extra sentence if that will satisfy - but I think we want to retain the essence of the wording that stopped the great wars of the Fall of 2006. PLease see if you can live with it without the semicolon - this section has been stable for a while and I would hope to keep it that way. Tvoz |talk 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

all im saying is yes, the english people can have it in the article. But it should be later in the article, not the intro. Intros, by definition should only be a short bit of info. Besides, if you look back, (not trying to offend you) but only one person agreed with the new ruling. There didn't seem to be any edit wars when i shortened it. Binks 10:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it reads well now and explains the ambiguities of their particular history. I feel that it should be mentioned in the lead section - briefly - and further discussed in the article as part of their history. It seems to be a convention that nationality is mentioned as one of the first major points in an article, and although their history is a little more complex than most, it can still be adequately addressed. I think the recent changes have been quite subtle, and that previous versions of the text were also acceptable. The only bit I quibble with is that they found success "when" they went back to England, which is not correct grammatically. "After returning to England", or "following their return to England" would be better so I'll change that little bit. Rossrs 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm just saying this doesnt belong in the intro and should be later on. If you did the same here, you would have to change the pages of nearly every article on a non-us singer who found world-wide fame once they released/moved to america (and most of them are). If you need further proof, look at actors. People like say Eric Bana started out in Australia, but became famous when he moved to America and acted in Hollywood films. Every actor/actress only has world-wide fame if they move to America but you don't see every article being changed. I think for consistency/precedent purposes, you should leave it out. Binks 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) says that nationality should be covered in the lead section. I disagree that you would have to change many biographical articles. Eric Bana has not claimed to be anything but an Australian actor so I don't think he's a good example to use. The fact that he works in the US doesn't change his nationality. On the other hand, the lead is meant to summarise the article, so Bana's article should (and does) state that he started in Australia and moved to the US where he achieved even greater success, simply because that is a crucial part of his story, though not relevant to his nationality, which is Australian. I don't see a problem here. Rossrs 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that he works in the US doesn't change his nationality". That is my point exactly. Yes nationality should be covered, and all three were. the "they achieved worldwide success when they went to England" has nothing to do with their nationality. It's exactly the same as saying every singer and actor moving to America-DOES NOT change their nationality; and thus is irrelevant. "They were born on the Isle of Man to English parents, lived in England and moved to Australia during their childhood years, where they began their musical careers" is more than enough to cover nationality. Like you said Bana's article should and does say he achieved greater success in the US. i'm not saying the beegees article shouldn't mention, nor as im saying they weren't English. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the introduction as it is irrelevant to nationality. Binks 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We're deliberately not using the word "nationality", we're just explaining their slightly complicated trajectory to acknowledge that some people would call them Australian and others would call them English (plus a few who wanted to call them Manx) - the idea is to clarify and give information to readers, not to strictly adhere to a formula that may not work in every single instance. MOS guidelines do not prohibit saying a bit more than the usual in the lead when circumstances are complicated. This wording is accurate and doesn't violate any hard and fast rules that I know of, so why not leave it alone with Rossrs improvement of "after"? Tvoz |talk 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

yes i realise some people want english, others want australia, some want manx. but it was ALREADY established they lived in England. i'm saying the next sentence is irrelevant to the intro. Yes you can have it-in the rest of the article, that's what it's for. By taking it out, they will still be manx/british/australian but will be more consistent with other articles. as i said, it is stupid to say they found worldwide success by moving out because EVERYONE does. Are you going to change the Beatles article to say although they started in England they achieved world-wide fame after their stint in the US? the sentence serves no purpose and should be taken out to shorten the intro. Their background is long enough.

Basically i'm merely saying that we should take it out for encyclopedic purposes-ie keeping the intro, an intro. Nowhere am i taking away from their Manx or English heritage/nationality or their "complex history" which is your main argument. Binks 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was the English-chauvinists who were insisting on claiming the Bee Gees as English, and the Australian-chauvinists who objected. Me, I'm a Yank, and I really don't care. So if these nine words bother you so much, and you think they make such a huge difference in keeping the intro an intro - which honestly I think is a silly thing to say - so be it. I think you've put way too much importance on this, but I don't want to argue over such a trivial matter. Just want to say that your view of what an intro shoudl be is basically just that: your view. There are no rules here that require it to be the way you want it to be. Tvoz |talk 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing Quotations

Twice in the last few weeks some perhaps well-meaning editors changed the quotation I posted from the Bee Gees' Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Citation, for which I included a reference. This is an actual quote, not a matter of opinion as to whether someone else should have been included or someone left off. It's not subject to editing. I added a hidden note on the page for anyone who doesn't read here, and would like to reiterate that direct quotes are not to be changed in any way - unless they are misquoting. The quote is: "Only Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks and Paul McCartney have outsold the Bee Gees. " yes, Garth Brooks, not ABBA, these folks. Please leave it alone. Thanks. Tvoz 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bee Gees More Than A woman

Did the Bee Gees record this song secretly without Wikipedias permission, or has it been omitted deliberately?124.177.248.128 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about finding the stats (which I don't have handy or I would) and posting them instead of making a snarky comment? Someone made a mistake. Let's shoot them. Tvoz 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that "More Than a Woman" was even released as a single in the UK or the US. It certainly didn't chart in either place and at that point in music history for a Bee Gees single to not chart, is impossible to comprehend. So why does the song need a mention? The lists are for singles released only. They have recorded numerous songs, so why is this one in needed of recognition. On a side note, it was released in Australia as a single where it was a minor hit. But yes, one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit anything, and that should reduce the number of unhelpful comments on talk pages. Rossrs 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, "More Than a Woman" was not released as a single in the US, even though heavy Top-40 radio airplay as an album cut would have assured yet another #1 hit. The Gibbs noticed that Tavares' version on Capitol Records -- also on the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack -- was moving up the charts and opted not to compete with it. Cheemo 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. That makes sense. It's a shame Tavares version wasn't a bigger hit, and it's surprising. Considering that the Bee Gees songs from Saturday Night Fever, as well as Yvonne Elliman's "If I Can't Have You" all made number one, along with the Andy Gibb singles, and even Samantha Sang made top 5, and Tavares only got as high as #32 on the US Billboard chart. Rossrs 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I also want to point out that I made a correction in the article.I had to correct the misinformation about the song More Than A Woman.In the article,it previously stated that the Bee Gees own version was the flipside(a.k.a.B-Side)of the "Stayin' Alive" single.That is false.The Bee Gees own version was relegated as an album track only while Tavares' version was the hit. "Stayin' Alive"'s true B-side was their version of the song that Yvonne Elliman would make a hit called If I Can't Have You.It always pays to buy records.

I just thought that I would clear that up.Frschoonover (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with a link?

I added Billy Corgan and Robert Smith to the "songwriting success" cover section, but Robert Smith's link goes to a disambiguation page. It should actually go here [1] but I'm not sure how to link there directly without changing the name in the text. If someone can fix this it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Squidge37 17:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I disambiguated the wikilink to Robert Smith (musician)in section /* Songwriting success */
The correct syntax to do this is [[Robert Smith|Robert Smith (musician)]]
You may enjoy the Wikilink Syntax Help page at Wikimedia.
Jerry lavoie 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of the name

It seems that the article contradicts itself in saying that "The group's name is derived from the initials "B.G.", primarily standing for Brothers Gibb." and then later "Gates renamed them after his and Goode's initials – thus the name was not simply a reference to the brothers Gibb." So I guess it should be edited in one of the places.

Musically ut 16:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be "The Bee Gees"

The title of the wiki article should be "The Bee Gees" because the proper name of "Bee Gees" is "The Bee Gees". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.37.0 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

You may want to create a re-direct of "The Bee Gees" to this article since "the" is usually dropped in titles. Jtpaladin 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There already is a redirect. Tvoz |talk 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[out] Further on this - the proper name of the group is not "The Bee Gees", it is "Bee Gees", as evidenced by a look at their album covers. So, I have returned the "The" to "the". They are not The Beatles. Tvoz/talk 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Song Tears - 'Unknown' song accreditable to the Bee Gees?

I have barely found a mention about the Bee Gees' song Tears. Did they actually write it/perform it? Searching for its lyrics in any mainstream search engine returns few results. You can see a sample of its lyrics in this link, for example.

This is all I know about the song. If you want to help, post your suggestions, and any known information you may have (album, date of release, chart position, etc.). --Logariasmo 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't search in here, where I would have found it in the album One.--Logariasmo 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

falsetto

I think the falsetto started in 1969 from the album Odessa on a song called "Melody Fair". Ace1Nano 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While many of the harmonies feature falsetto voices (especially in their 60s songs), the use of the falsetto as a lead was not entirely explored until Barry's discovery in the mid 70s. This has been well documented in interviews as being specifically attributed to the song "Nights on Broadway." -DavidFedor 07/17/2007

Bee Gees not on iTunes in the US?

Does anyone know why the Bee Gees are not on iTunes in the US (perhaps elsewhere)? I know this usually goes at the pump or the research request pages, but I thought here would be the better place. Thanks — Xoder|✆ 14:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Disco

Guys, how could you leave out the fact that the Bee Gees also sang Disco music? It should have been listed in the "Genre" section. I added it in. Even if you look at Disco, the Bee Gees are prominently mentioned as is the SNF album. Jtpaladin 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) jamayne is the best at druming

They did not sing disco music, they never meant it to be disco. Robin stated that in a interview.Jeneral28 (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:BeeGeesSpiritsHavingFlown.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bee Gees origen

It said that they originated from Australia, but I found out that they came from England. They should research what they did and make sure its facual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infomantoday (talk • contribs) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about this - look in the Talk archives - and it was agreed that we would not use the "origin" field because there are three places that can claim them, and it is clearer to so state in the text as we do. There were edit wars over this, with people promoting them as Manx, English, British, Australian, and I think even American,so this solution seemed best. I'm removing the "Origin" field from the infobox again - we're not required to use all fields. Tvoz/talk 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The template page, which lists each field and gives a community-decided instruction as to how to use the field, says for "Origin" - "The city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career, should it not match the location of their birth). If the city is not known, specify at least the country. " In this case the city (Brisbane) is where the group was founded, and it does not match the location of their birth. Yes, Infomantoday they came from England, but they founded the group and first performed in Australia. "Origin" is assumed to the origin of the group or entity, not the birthplace of its individual members. What if the group wasn't comprised of brothers and the members were born all over the world? I think User:Tvoz has done the right thing in removing the field, as it's not mandatory, and for some strange reason this is a contentious subject. Rossrs (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the origin or the birth of the group occured while the British born members had moved to Australia. Would that change the debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.204.37 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

References very definitely needed

The whole section, "Here are some other musicians who backed up the Bee Gees live and in the studio:" should be deleted unless someone can come up with reliable references. I could put Mickey Mouse's name in there...--andreasegde (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the red-linked names, but those that are still there should be referenced. (There is no reference that Carlos Alomar played with the group on his Wiki page, BTW.)--andreasegde (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andreas- actually I thought Mickey backed up The Beatles... (Oh, and I agree that refs would be great) Tvoz/talk 08:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can do a great version of "We are the children of the wo...r...ld", (with harmonies, of course...) Mickey Dolenz is the son of Ringo. Whoever doesn't think that Tvoz is great should be hung from the yardarm... :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Former Members

I'm watching 1967 top of the pops where the Bee Gees preform Massachusetts, and noticed they play with a fourth member, cited here as Colin Petersen. It took me a while to figure this out, and I was wondering why the "former members" list only includes the Gibb brothers when others appear notable. Is there a clear policy on whether or not someone was a former member? 98.206.169.106 (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the band is no longer active it has to stay at former members (Not current). What I would do is search for reliable references on other notable members if there are any. Knowledgekid87 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, they were Colin Petersen (a former child actor) and Vince Melouney, who certainly performed with them on TOTP, and, I presume, live. Whether they were actual members of the band at the time is, I suppose, up to the Gibbs themselves to say, as opposed to being merely session musicians drafted in. --Rodhullandemu 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Colin Petersen appears on both the ablum cover and back of Best of Bee Gees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.29.155 (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy gibb and his participation as a Bee Gee

Was andy gibb a member of the Bee Gees? the page says so, but his bio here in wikipedia says that it was supposed to be one of them, and it was decided but he died before he get in the band. "Just before Andy's death, it was decided by the group that Andy would join them, which would have made the group a quartet. This did not come to pass, however. The Bee Gees' following album, One (1989)..."

I have no account in english wikipedia, but i have to put my opinion here :) 190.21.203.219 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this many times. Andy was not a member of the band. Tvoz/talk 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This section does not cite any reliable sources that deal with the subject of the BGs' cultural influence (aside from, you know, selling music). Therefore it violates WP:OR. Allowing lists of pop-culture reference to develop in this manner all over Wikipedia would constitute indiscriminate information-gathering, so it is a violation of WP:NOT as well. I am going to remove it. WillOakland (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just your interpretation of OR and popular culture references. Making your statement and saying you're going to delete it, before there is any discussion, is edit warring and not acceptable - as you are well aware of. Do an RfC if you like, but don't just land here and delete material, some of which was sourced. Tvoz/talk 00:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you have complaints about "allowing lists of pop-culture references" all over Wikipedia, this is surely not the way to go about clarifying guidelines and policy. There is no emergency here - and no agreement across the project that I'm aware of, that these should be removed wholesale. Tvoz/talk 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:OR is that articles and sections should not be created (or kept indefinitely) without any reliable secondary sources. I would like to know how your interpretation differs. There is no requirement that every removal of a section from an article must be discussed for the sake of discussion. If you disagree with the removal, then tell me how you disagree, otherwise you're just engaging in disruption that might or might not have a point.WillOakland (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on OR policy is that it is intended to prevent people writing articles about their unpublished pet theories or "things made up in school one day". I don't think it's meant to cover unsubstantiated assertions; our guideline for that is verifiability policy, which says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". That likelihood obviously has to be objectively assessed, or one crazy editor could hold a whole article to ransom by challenging any unsourced assertions, such as "water is wet". In the case of Trivia and Popular Culture sections, this kind of addition is rife, but to my mind does not give any editor licence to delete sections wholesale without achieving consensus. That can be done either beforehand on the talk page, or (as we have here) as part of WP:BRD. As I have said before, "surgery is OK; butchery is not", and this essay iw worth reading. --Rodhullandemu 18:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rod - that is how I see it too. I'm sure the section can use some work - certainly would like to see more citations - and I'd welcome citations that talk in a more general sense about the importance of the Bee Gees to the popular culture. But I do not think we need sources that tie each instance specifically to the meta-concept that they were influential. I am not sure this is actually BRD, since there was no problem on this article regarding this matter before WillOakland arrived, but discussion is fine and I'm all for getting some help in seeking citations. And thanks for the pointer to the essay - this article does not have a "trivia" section, it is a section that includes references to the group in the popular culture, which indeed is one of the suggestions for handling trivia given in that essay. So I don;t think we're so off track in this article. As it says, there is no deadline, and no reason to wholesale remove the section. Tvoz/talk 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Metal roots

This isn't mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.147.70 (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bee Gees are about as metal as Britney Spears. Any website that suggests the Bee Gees weren't brothers when there is evidence to the contrary and states that this so-called "metal" album is one of the most "influential metal albums of all time" when no one has ever heard of it fails to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability in my book. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the page header: "Last Update: April 01, 2009". I think that says it all. --Rodhullandemu 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most curiously influential metal albums of all time" - not "most influential". Also, this site is dedicated to bands that are traditionally considered metal, even band like Killing Joke was only recently added. In any case, no one needs to get that offended by this, even if this somehow turns out to be the truth. Kakun (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Matter of Opinion?

please check "...as brothers, their voices blended perfectly, in the same way that The Everly Brothers and The Beach Boys did."

This is an opinion and not fact on THREE counts --72.14.110.25 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinions from reliable music journalists are citable, but Goggling this does not pin down an original source, although if it's an opinion from a reliable music journalist, it can be cited as such. In particular, the opinion "they make such acts as the Beatles, the Everly Brothers, and Simon & Garfunkel — all noted for their harmonies — almost seem arch and artificial." from Allmusic (by Bruce Eder, a respected reviewer) is validly citable. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did read this point in a reliable source, but have had trouble tracking it down - will add a {{cn}} if not there already and try to find it - or else re-word. But would appreciate it if we leave the phrase in as is for now as it makes an important and valid point. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it important? If you can't find the source don't use it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs) 23:21, May 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but having text with a citation request is perfectly fine for a while. As I said above, I am trying to locate the source from where I got that, and if I don't find it I'll reword it. With all respect, I've been editing this article since October 2006 and have the most edits on it, so I think I've earned the courtesy of waiting with the tag. And by the way - Brian, Dennis and Carl Wilson, the core of the Beach Boys, were indeed brothers, and I'm reinstating that wording pending finding its source. Tvoz/talk 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all the Beach Boys were brothers. There was no core for the BB, it was a toss up between Love and B Wilson. Also other "sibling" bands sang tight harmonies but such lines are not mentioned in their wiki pages.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC

It's really not relevant what other pages say - I said that I read this in a source (I believe it was in a book) and I'm looking for the cite. It may be your opinion that the Wilson brothers were not the core of the Beach Boys - or that somehow Mike Love was the core - but many others would vehemently disagree, especially in terms of their harmonic sound. Like the source I am looking for. Since you seem hell-bent on edit warring about a very minor point that has had a "cite needed" tag for just a few days (since you're so interested in other pages, look around and you'll see how many in the encyclopedia have that tag up for years, not days), I'm not going to continue this now. But your repeated reverting instead of just discussing it here is not the best way to edit. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I did find a blog post making the same point - here - as a blog it's not the best source for our article, but it is written by a musician and underscores the point. I'll continue to look for the original source which, as I said, I think was in book not a magazine/newspaper. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder why we're spending so much time on a minor detail- bands have always attracted comparisons with others, so there's nothing new in that. I think we should ask "what does the reader get from this?", and if readers come here with zero knowledge of Bee Gees or any of the others mentioned, well it ain't gonna help them anyway. It only makes sense to have this for someone who has heard of the Everly Brothers and/or the Beach Boys, but their own articles won't assist beyond saying "noted for their close vocal harmonies", which apart from that is beyond explanation in words. I suggest we just remove it, move on, and stop Hunting the Snark, because this is just another Boojum. Rodhullandemu 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rod, the tag has been up only for a few days - I asked as a courtesy that the sentence be left with the tag, pending my finding the source or re-wording the text. Nothing out of the ordinary about that - Jeneral is the one who's edit warring over this. As for what our readers would get from it - apparently that blogger cited above also found the point about familial harmony to be of note, and I think if I can find the original source - if it is as I recalled it - the point has a valid place here. My experience here has been that an editor who's been with an article for a while is given a little courtesy in matters like this, but I don't know what I could have been thinking of. Courtesy? Not on your life. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to be critical of any editor for their edits, far from it. If it's thought to be an important enough point, by all means, pursue it; personally, I think it adds little, but then I am used to fighting bigger battles. Meanwhile, I tend to your point of view that the tag should be left until the matter is resolved, and edit-warring over it is ultimately unproductive. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with you the Beach boys were not "brothers"--theirs voices may blend harmonically but the Wilson borthers had distinct differences in vocals from the others. If you can't find a source, leave it out first. I was told quite rudely by other adminstrators that that they way things work here.Jeneral28 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So much for seeking consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Jen, please give a little leeway for other editors to do some proper research. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll give leeway but other wiki editors don't seem to do so with some of my edits.Jeneral28 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Break up with Stigwood

I feel that there should be a section on their break up with Stigwood in the 70s/80s.Jeneral28 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Documentary

There was a 90s/2000s documentary on the Bee Gees detailing how "we might never see a Bee Geess aganin" and lots of stuff on Maurice alcohol fight.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please identify members

On all of the photographs on the articles, the captions presented are very short. It would be helpful if each of the Bee Gees members is identified by name in the photos. I would do this, but I don't know the Bee Gees well enough to recognize each of the members faces. -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Living Eyes album

I heard on a BBC radio 2 documentary aired on 30.08.2010 that the CD Living Eyes was the 1st CD ever played to the public. It was on the BBC Show Tomorrow's World. I have added a line reflecting this in the 1980s section. There is also mention of this if you look up 'CD' on wikipedia. Mark Ronan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.216.232 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced before I saw this- I will check out the sources. Rodhullandemu 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Source found here: Bilyeu, Melinda (2004). The Bee Gees:tales of the brothers Gibb. Omnibus Press. p. 519. ISBN 9781844490578. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Rodhullandemu 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Songwriting Success" section - some citations needed???

There seem to be a lot of artists cited in this section, including Elvis Presley, that are given as having covered Bee Gees songs.

Can any one verify which Bee Gees songs were covered by the artists given? In the article these are: Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, Al Green, Eric Clapton, Lulu, Elton John, Tom Jones, Nina Simone, John Frusciante, Feist, Billy Corgan, Michael Bolton, Robert Smith, Ardijah, Jinusean, Faith No More, and Destiny's Child.Agbiscuit (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bee Gees. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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) 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

Megglen4077 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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) 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

Please replace The Gibb sound was inescapable. During an eight-month period beginning in the Christmas season of 1977, six songs written by the brothers held the No. 1 position on the US charts for 25 of 32 consecutive weeks—three of their own releases, two for brother Andy Gibb, and the Yvonne Elliman single.

with

The Gibb sound was inescapable. During an eight-and-a-half-month period beginning in the Christmas season of 1977, seven songs written by the brothers held the No. 1 position on the US charts for 27 of 37 consecutive weeks—three of their own releases, two for brother Andy Gibb, the Yvonne Elliman single, and Grease, sung by Frankie Valli. [1] 2601:680:C103:C870:A4CE:BA4A:61A0:BAF5 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles_of_1978
checkY I edited it and added - thanks. Tvoz/talk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bee_Gees/Archive_1&oldid=1136557248"