Jump to content

Talk:Van Halen/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Reunion Tour

They're holding their press conference right now, and officially announced the 2007/2008 Reunion Tour. Someone should edit the article to mention this.

Other editors have updated the article. VisitorTalk 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Anthony commented on his blog (http://madanthonyblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/thanks-for-support.html) that he was not asked if we wanted to participate in the 2007 reunion. Anthony also provided a polite recommendation of Wolfie: "It's not that I'm not touring with Van Halen because I'm going out with Sammy, I'm going out with Sammy because I was not invited to do the VH tour. Sammy told me that if I was asked to be part of the VH tour and decided to do it, it would be totally cool, and it would not tarnish our friendship in the least!! Well it's not to be, and life goes on. I'll still be out there with Sam, and I can't wait to do some partying with all of you. One last note from myself to all the Van Halen fans out there who will be attending their shows...Wolfgang is a great kid, so don't judge him too harshly. I'm sure he'll do just fine!!" (The elipsis is in the original; nothing was skipped in this quotation.) Individuals posting reply comments to Anthony's blog generally described his bass playing and singing as integral to the band, and appreciated his professionalism throughout what they saw as his unfair exclusion from the reunion.

Not sure if this is too long a quote or OK to include as is in the article.

Also, I wonder if the rumors that the band will use pre-recorded vocal harmonies (including Anthony) in the 2007 reunion concerts merits inclusion. 

VisitorTalk 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed

I am bad at writing a good fair use thingy for images. Someone find us a picture of Wolfgang Van Halen, and a good one of the 2004 tour (present one sucks) and put it up. Please.(The Elfoid 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Why not just contact the band or their publicist and get some free images? See WP:ERP, or User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No reply! I doubt they want to remind us the 2004 tour happened anyway (The Elfoid 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC))



Genres

Is this still an item of contention, or can it be archived now? VisitorTalk 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim to know much about the difference between Hard Rock and Heavy Metal, but this seems to be getting changed on this page a lot, and it seems that other than people saying thing s when they edit the genre section, it is not getting talked about.

From what I understand, heavy metal is a sub-genre of Hard Rock, so it is possible for music to classify as both. Going by the wiki definition of hard rock, I would say Van Halen is definitely hard rock all the time, but when I think of songs like "On Fire", "Atomic Punk", "House of Pain", or even "A.F.U. (Naturally Wired)", I think that it would be possible for these songs to be also considered Heavy Metal, because I have heard Heavy Metal in the past that was not as hard as these songs.(Axcess 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Van Halen are pure, straightforward Hard Rock and nothing more/nothing less. All Music Guide isn't the most credible of sources.(Unsigned)

Simply making a statement doesn't really prove anything.(Axcess 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

While the difference between hard rock and heavy metal may not be noticeable for some, keep in mind that "heavy metal" is not just a genre of music, but also a term to describe bands such as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Diamond Head, and the likes, because they technically don't belong to any of the sub-genres of metal (except early Maiden was NWOBHM). With Van Halen being much different from those bands and the type of music they play, it would be much more reasonable to not associate them with heavy metal. They influenced metal bands, sure, but like AC/DC, that doesn't make their music heavy metal.

As for the pop rock piece, they did use pop hooks for their songs, in a similar vein to many of the hair bands of the 80's. Yet those bands all fall under the hard rock / glam metal category, which I think Van Halen should too. Glam metal is different from heavy metal, in the sense that it sounds more like rock than metal, and many of their Sammy Hagar era songs would fit that description.

Heavy metal is not a sub-genre of hard rock either. Hard rock is a sub-genre of rock, and while metal may have also started out as a sub-genre of rock, it has become it's own genre.

The two issues here are some people calling them pop rock, some saying heavy metal. I will deal with the former first. While the issue at hand is metal, the band being called pop rock is one worth sorting out as well. Before I start I'll say I'm not the world's biggest Van Halen expert (I own Van Halen, Van Halen II, 1984 and 5150, the Twister soundtrack which features Van Halen and have heard the two new songs from Best of Vol. 1 and the three new songs from The Best of Both Worlds as well as a few others - I have heard songs from all the albums but don't know all of them so well.
The problem is that Van Halen began as 100% pure hard rock, and in the mid-late 1980s morphed into something heavily keyboard orientated, with far softer vocals and lighter tunes. I'd say you could call them pop rock at that point, but Van Halen fans view this as offensive. The reason the tag is so repeatedly removed without it being put on the talk page is they see the idea that rock could be pop (which creates up a stereotypical image of a singer on stage who can't play an instrument, writes none of his songs and is surrounded by synthetic waffle in their minds) is a horrible insult which people appear to take personally.
Personally I suggest we label it as pop rock then have in brackets (mid-1980s - late-1990s) as something of a compromise. The band had 3 number one singles in a row in the mainstream rock chart in 1986-1988, and again in 1991. Three songs in the period 1984-1988 made it into the US top 100, one topping it (Jump - and that song stayed there 5 weeks!). That's suggesting popular. Their albums consistently charted well when they released too. Despite charting better their sales slowed down; Van Halen's earlier albums continued to sell but charted less successfully. Top charting but fast vanishing albums are a common feature of pop music.
Robert Christgau called the 1984 album pop as did Rolling Stone and All Music Guide. All are respected sources cited throughout Wikipedia and used as valued reviews of Van Halen's own albums. Rolling Stone later said in the F.U.C.K album's review that Van Halen were ageing pop artists. So All Music is not the only source suggesting this, and the band's sales information suggests similar. A further source is Amazon.co.uk's official album reviews. As a website trying to sell the music it may be biased, but it too refers to the music as pop or 'heavy pop'. Many websites on the band's biography state among it's covers before they began writing their own material were numerous soft pop songs too - though none specify how they were played it shows pop's influence on the band.
Now onto heavy metal. Once again, all the sources I cited refer to Van Halen as metal. Personally I feel this isn't true, 1984 has no metal at all in it, and none of the albums released since do either. The earlier work it can be argued over, I'd be inclined to say it's not metal but support for the idea is strong anywhere but among some fans on Wikipedia. Another source on top of the others is Yahoo music.
Regardless of people's personal opinions, I feel I provide enough respected sources that we must put up both pop rock and heavy metal, probably bracketing that the metal era was earlier and the pop later. I will find my sources when we reach a decision.
The band shouldn't be labelled as glam metal. That genre's most dominant figures are Motley Crue, followed by bands like W.A.S.P., Ratt, Twisted Sister. You can't really call Van Halen terribly similar to that. Some of Van Halen's releases were glammish but I'd say they're a band that heavily influenced glam metal rather than were a part of it.
solution:
  • Hard Rock
  • Heavy Metal (early material - late 70s, early 80s)
  • Pop rock (mid 80s, 90s)
(The Elfoid 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
I believe they are a hard rock band plain and simple. But I also believe that Wikipedia is based on verifiable references and not editor opinions so my personal thoughts mean nil. They are referenced as a heavy metal band(not just AMG but many books as well) so the genre should be valid. I DO think that... no matter what concensus is reached... that NO superfluous 'year-year' pigeonholing should be added to the infobox. Trying to define years for genres is as POV as the genres themselves. It looks stupid when it appears in section headings and it looks just as stupid in infoboxes. The rule of the infobox is "keep it brief". Adding "years" or "deceased" or "who played what instrument" into any infobox is just cruft and overkill. Details belong in the article, not the infobox. What ever genres are chosen... do not add year durations as was suggested earlier. It's an encyclopedia... not a book report. 156.34.209.221 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, I only suggest the thing with years as an attempt to reach compromise because some people just won't accept things. (The Elfoid 01:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
I think many people see glam metal and heavy metal as synonyms. Correct me if I am wrong cause I wasn't aware of things at the time, but in the 80's many people simply referred to glam metal or hair metal as simply "metal". As a result, people think glam metal is heavy metal. I often listen to Stryper, and they sound a lot like, and were directly influenced by Van Halen. I also listen to a band named Guardian, who's first album sounds even more like van halen than Stryper does. Whenever I look up these bands, they are always listed as heavy metal.
As much of a taboo Glam metal is, I think it could cover the heavy metal and pop rock categories. When i think of pop rock i think of the stuff i listened to in the late 90's. that stuff sounds nothing like 1984, its much MUCH more 'popish'. I would say i strongly disagree with saying van halen is pop rock. I think glam metal is closer, and would rather it said glam metal than pop rock.
I say:
  • Hard Rock
  • Glam Metal
Also, it might be worth while to change the genre to only hard rock for now, because it would get the people on the heavy metal side of this argument in here and talking, after they see the comments.
(Axcess 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
Slightly off the VH specific topic... Glam metal isn't a musical genre or style. It's a look. To say an artist played glam metal is actually saying the artist played heavy metal... and they had big hair while doing it. As I mentioned before... the whole point of the genre field is to be brief/direct and cut the fluff. Read here for more information on field usage and proper formatting. Hard rock, heavy metal, pop metal, glam metal...etc, etc, etc... in the end they're all just subgenres of Rock. The genre field is the instigator of more edit wars than just about anything else on Wikipedia. Whatever concensus is reached... it probably won't last long... they never do. :D . 156.34.209.221 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Quote from info box genre guidelines:
The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop).
In light of this i propose a solution.
I think we all agree that:
  • Van Halen is Hard rock
  • Van Halen had an infuence on the Heavy metal of the 80's (tapping and what-not)
I think we should:
  • Set the genre equal to Hard rock and only Hard rock
  • Archive this dicussion when it is finished
  • Place links to this discussion on the talk page and in comments in the code surrounding the genre tag
  • Create a subsection of the "influence on culture, music, etc" section called "Influence on Heavy metal"

What do you think?(Axcess 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

"Correct me if I am wrong cause I wasn't aware of things at the time, but in the 80's many people simply referred to glam metal or hair metal as simply "metal"."

That is correct. In the USA at least, it dominated metal so much that the rest of the scene faded away totally until thrash metal clawed it's way back up to the surface in around 1987.

"As much of a taboo Glam metal is, I think it could cover the heavy metal and pop rock categories. When i think of pop rock i think of the stuff i listened to in the late 90's."

Eddie Van Halen did the guitar solo on Michael Jackson's Beat It in 1984. Beat It was a crossover pop/rock song really, that's what it was like in the 80s. Other stuff often considered pop rock is The Beatles, The Kinks from the 60s etc. Pop rock's a very open to debate classification though so I understand why it might be a hard tag to add.

KISS were both glam and metal, Van Halen can be called glam metal if they are I guess. I definitely feel just saying hard rock isn't enough.

EDIT: I forgot to sign! (The Elfoid 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Adding Insult to injury, heres a quote from *Shudder* Bubblegum Pop.
Also, some bands not known for bubblegum pop nevertheless released singles that arguably fit the genre, some becoming chart-topping hits. For example, the 1980 single "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" introduced The Police to an international audience; the single "Jump" from Van Halen's 1984 became a standard for televised sporting events; and in 1988 lead singer Joe Elliott proclaimed "I'm hot, sticky sweet/from my head to my feet, yeah" in Def Leppard's "Pour Some Sugar on Me", a pop-metal hit with obvious influence from "Sugar Sugar." While these artists generally share little in common with the bubblegum pop of the 1960s, the lasting impact of that genre can perhaps be seen in the structure of these songs, if not the sound.
Im suddenly getting an idea of how some other people might see my favorite rock band. We could put bubblegum pop as a genre and see how long that lasts. j/k
Axcess 13:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When trouble like this arises, a paragraph on 'genre dispute' is usually created. We should do that, listing genre as 'hard rock' and 'disputed subgenres'. It's the only way to make sure people just stop arguing permanently. Even if we reach a decision people'll keep editing it.

Van Halen, like Kiss, Def Leppard, and the hair bands, belongs under the hard rock category, or glam metal. They're much different from pop rock, and are no where near metal, despite having influnced metal bands. I could settle for the disputed subgenres, but I'll tell you for a fact that it's wrong to call Van Halen pop rock or heavy metal. They may have slight elements of it, but that's not enough to qualify. Just look up each and everyone of Van Halen's albums. They're listed as hard rock, and only hard rock. I can't understand why it would be different on the band's Wikipedia page.

The thing is heavy metal is a clearly defined genre, while hard rock is more a broad term for bands that, well, rock hard. Van Halen is definitely a heavy metal band. Sources are pretty much on consensus the matter. For a few examples (largely because I don't want to trawl through the sources I used), look at the mentions of Van Halen in Heavy metal music. WesleyDodds 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are all for the band's earlier era. At their most influential (when Eddie liked just playing guitar, the band had Roth singing, when they did albums more frequently, and Anthony was a real member of the band instead of a fake half-member like he was 1997-2006 before being kicked out) the band had clearly got traits of heavy metal. My argument is that the band changed. "Why can't this be Love", "Dreams", "Summer Nights" and "Love Walks In" on the 5150 album are all hard to call metal songs. And that was just early in the Hagar era.(The Elfoid 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Van Halen are definitely not metal. While they were labeled as metal along with Kiss, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, and Deep Purple in the 70's, they aren't considered metal anymore. They were all hard rock. Not metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.225.143 (talk) 01:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Actually plenty of people would say none of those bands are metal bands, or ever were (KISS and DP are debated, most people agree Led Zep and Aerosmith aren't metal) but they all did metal songs in their career. Cream performed heavy metal sometimes (Sunshine of your Love etc) but were never an actual metal band. (The Elfoid 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

That's just plain wrong. Seriously before this discussion goes even further people need to take the effort to explore the available sources. All books that deal with metal I've read explicitly label Van Halen as a heavy metal band, in particular one published in 2003. WesleyDodds 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Having some metal songs doesn't make them a metal band. And even then, I don't know of any metal Van Halen songs. Could you tell me which ones you consider metal?

The books that state Van Halen and other hard rock bands as metal are doing that because mainstream media such as MTV have labeled them as metal, and at one point in the 70's and 80's, were considered heavy metal because of it. The music they make isn't heavy metal. Just like Bon Jovi, Kiss, Deep Purple, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, and others are labeled as heavy metal too on their Wikipedia pages.

What defines metal has changed since then, so all of those including Van Halen are hard rock. Even though newer sources say that they're metal as well, they're going by what they used to be considered.

Pop rock is a different story. Van Halen, even in their David Lee Roth days, used pop hooks. Countless other hard rock and heavy metal bands used pop hooks. That doesn't make them pop rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.225.143 (talk) 03:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Robert Walser's Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music (1993) has a chapter detailing how "Running With the Devil" contains various musical trademarks of heavy metal. And that's one of the few academic studies of the genre from a musical and sociologicl perspective. I also don't see any proof that Van Halen is no longer considered a metal band; Allmusic lists them as such, and Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal (2003), while it does not consider Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple wholly metal, does consider Van Halen one. The definition of metal being bandied about here has more to do with personal bias rather than a proper consideration of reference material. WesleyDodds 05:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One song that has metal characteristics isn't enough to make them a metal band. However, it's hard to disagree when so many sources claim they're a heavy metal band. Just know this: the music they make is hard rock, and only hard rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 17:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Someone tell me how 5150 or Van Halen III are metal (The Elfoid 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Not all of a band's output has to be "heavy metal" for it to qualify as heavy metal. The Red Hot Chili Peppers would be an example; their output might no longer be funk metal, but they are a funk metal band. CloudNine 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of Van Halen's songs are metal? I own every album from Van Halen 1 up to 1984 (Hagar I didn't like too much). Nothing on any of the Van Halen albums is metal. We know that if people are calling Van Hagar pop rock, it can't be metal either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 23:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The question is, "How are you defining metal"? "Running With the Devil", "Ain't Talking About Love", "Jamie's Cryin'", "Unchained" and tons of others are metal songs. WesleyDodds 03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Not all of a band's output has to be "heavy metal" for it to qualify as heavy metal" my point was that while you can't be pop rock and heavy metal at once, the band achieved both at varying times. I can feel some metal in the early albums but by Van Halen III there was none whatsoever.(The Elfoid 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Running With the Devil, Ain't Talking About Love, Jamie's Cryin', and Unchained aren't metal. They're hard rock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 16:17, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

At any rate, everyone's time is better spent improving the article, rather than arguing over two words in the infobox. The citations should use the {{cite web}} (or whatever is applicable) template; it's a worthwhile task however. CloudNine 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A valid point. A genre dispute paragraph would take moments to write, I'll do it sometime. Right now the most important thing is sorting out the references - I just use the ref tag since I'm an idiot who can't do better, and it's messy (The Elfoid 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that reliable second and third party sources don't debate the band's genre. I've been trying to emphasize that. WesleyDodds 21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A section of the article adressing this issue would be great. It should make everyone involved happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 23:47, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Album reviews can be used as useable sources - many describe the change and difference in style over time. I can quote Axl Rose saying Van Halen were a true rock band. We can note that Eddie's guitar solo didn't look out of place on a Michael Jackson pop album. The solo output of Roth/Hagar could be used to note their natural variations as vocalists. The style of success achieved (sustained album sales and popular concerts compared to hit singles/charting albums supported by technically advanced stage sets) can be likened to pop or metal. The use of synthetic sounds, often associated with pop (I'm sure we can find a source saying it's a pop thing to do) could be included. There's the fact the band only ever called themselves rock. There's reliable sources for both metal and pop rock, and it's hard to be both. The band's lack of heavy metal style clothing can be noted upon, though Roth was closely associated with bands like Motley Crue according to The Dirt (Motley Crue book).

There's LOADS of evidence that the band's genre classification is all over the place, with stuff pointing in two quite clearly different directions (The Elfoid 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Album reviews are not reliable sources when determining a band's genre. They are reliable when referencing the critic's actual opinion, but the point of a review is to critically review a band, not to classify it. All of the points you listed are fine when addressing the band's style, but they have little to do with proper genre. The band's description of themselves as rock is inadequate (after all, heavy metal is a subgenre of rock) and their lack of traditional heavy metal attire is inconsequential (after all, the standard heavy metal look was barely coming together when Van Halen released their first album). The comment "There's reliable sources for both metal and pop rock, and it's hard to be both." relies on a POV either/or duality that is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. WesleyDodds 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well All Music Guide is trusted as a source, right? It has reviews that mention the changeover of genre.

Also things like the band's look and self-description can be used as reasons for the disputed opinion among fans about their genre, it's definitely something I've heard in discussions. The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (where the 'metal look' became best known) was roughly 79-81, the band had only done one album by then. Reliable sources is not what I would say there are - points which can be used to argue either case is what I would say we have.

Eddie's guitar solo-ing for Michael Jackson and the vocalists styles can be found on usable sources and used quite easily. Various other things (appearance, album sales/chart positions, opinions of other famous musicians or critics) can be used to contribute for the DISPUTE.

I am not saying we say they were both genres at different points in their career - just that it could be ARGUED they were leading to difference in opinion since it's somewhat borderline.

The alternative is put it as hard rock, which would lead to frequent edits by non-regular editors of the page and a continue debate. It's quite clear most of us don't want it to just say 'hard rock'. (The Elfoid 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

I wouldn't argue with calling them just hard rock. No one ever calls Van Halen a heavy metal band or pop rock band, they call them a hard rock band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 02:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure about pop rock, but I am sure that Van Halen is Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Glam Metal, Speed Metal, and Neoclassical Metal. They are Glam Metal because of their image and their combination of hard rock lyrics with highly distorted metal/rock riffs. They are speed metal bbecause of tapping, shreddind, and EVH's emphasis on speed. They are Neoclassical metal becuase of EVH's classical piano training which influences his guitar playing plus his use of keyboards.

We've been over how there's plenty of things suggesting that's not so already.(The Elfoid 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Listening to Van Halen's older albums, where is there metal? There's nothing metal about Jump, Panama, You Really Got Me, Unchained, Jamie's Cryin, Runnin With The Devil, or any of them. It's actually not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 21:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think that Van Halen is hard rock, pop rock, heavy metal and glam metal. All music guide says so and it's a reference. --JNCooper
Like most emo bands, the genre's disputed. On their pages, bands have accepted genres listed and a paragraph on genre disputes explaining why there's argument. We should do the same for this one. Headed "Heavy metal?". (The Elfoid (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

The article's lead

Any objection to changing the lead sentence from "rock band" to "hard rock band"? I think that's an especially important distinction for this band.

After "...being legendary," I would like to add a new sentence: "Throughout the changes of singers, the instrumental line-up of Eddie Van Halen on guitar and backing vocals, Eddie's brother Alex on drums, and Michael Anthony on bass and backing vocals remained constant, until Anthony was replaced by Eddie's son Wolfgang for the 2007 reunion." I think the band's membership is significant enough to include in the lead.

I would like to replace "the Roth/Van Halen/Van Halen/Van Halen lineup" with "a lineup of Eddie, Alex, and Wolfgang Van Halen, with Roth returning as singer." VisitorTalk 05:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We had that for ages, and I thought it looked kinda bloated myself. But it's no big change, so not too important to me if you want it that way :) (The Elfoid 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Eddie's cancer

Should there be a mention of Eddie's claim that his tongue cancer was, surprisingly, not related to his cigarette smoking?

Not really, didn't change his career at all.

Im sorry I didnt know where to put this but, there should be a mention that before mammoth eddie played the drums and alex played the guitar. But before long the two relized that the instruments were better for each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenius (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitch Malloy

There has been no independent confirmation that he was ever in the band other than what he himself has said in some interview. I think he needs to be removed as an official member until there is another independent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.113.17 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not been denied by the band, and it's mentioned in official books. I'm sure someone can find one (The Elfoid (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)0

There are no "official" books regarding Van Halen. The only source is what that guy said in an internet interview. My dog could claim that Van Halen approached him to be the lead singer and just because the band fails to respond doesn't mean that it is notable. There is no independent source for the information posted and needs to be removed, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.113.17 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it, but I've read interviews with Anthony where he mentioned him. (82.69.60.98 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

I've proposed that the Mitch Malloy article for deletion. It is poorly sourced and he himself is not a notable musical figure according to Wikipedia guidelines. I encourage you to join the discussion on the Mitch Malloy page. Eatabullet (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Planet Us

Can someone provide a link for further reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Us

Mitch Malloy was a part of Van Halen right before Gary Cherone, he never recorded music except demos, He would have been really good with Van Halen, I for one wish he would have stayed in the band instead of Gary Charon, we all know what happened there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.156.188 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Should photo captions indicate the individuals? For Panama, add: "(L to R): Alex, Roth, Eddie, Anthony," for Love Walks In add: "(L to R): Eddie, Hagar, Alex, Anthony," etc.

Shouldn't there be a photo of the Cherone lineup? NO! Please No! Let's all try to forget that mess!

Yes to both (The Elfoid 10:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Van Wetzel?

Did I miss something? Some parts of the article refer to the band as Van Wetzel, others refer to them as Van Halen. Was this a vandal or did I miss something about the band that the rest of the world doesn't seem to know about? --70.104.148.187 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Edit from original Author: It seems someone fixed the article, nevermind!

Genesis?

Is there a decent citation for the band wanting to call themselves Genesis? I've never heard of this and I find it unusual that they wouldn't have known of the pre-existing band Genesis since that band had already been around for about seven years in 1974. I read previously (in an old Hit Parader) that they considered calling themselves Rat Salad, after the Black Sabbath song. --Bentonia School 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the Rat Salad comment too. To be honest, I don't think it's important. I'll delete it, un-necessary clutter on a 60kb page. (The Elfoid 16:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

I heard about the Rat Salad Too. But the only other name I have found is MAMMOTH! I have never heard GENESIS and I don't believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.156.188 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitch Malloy sources

Has anyone managed to find any reliable sources to confirm Mitch Malloy was actually in the band? I have yet to find anything reliable from Van Halen itself or in any notable publication, i.e. Rolling Stone, Billboard, etc. Aside from one fluff piece in Melodic Rock where Malloy makes the claim and an unofficial Van Halen fan site claim, there doesn't seem to be any other source on the insinuation that he was actually in the band. Eatabullet (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Unbalanced

It seems that there should be a lot more content regarding Van Halen's most active years (1978-1996) than their currently is. For example, the albums OU812 and Balance are nowhere to be found, yet there are paragraphs upon paragraphs of Van Halen's inactivity in the 2000s aside from two tours. I recently joined the Van Halen WikiProject, so I'll try to remedy this when I get some time, but I'm probably going to need some help.

The bottom line: The periods from 1978-1996 need to be expanded and the period from 2000-present needs to be shrinked/condensed. --Abog 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Other Half

Someone make a page for them. I have no information on it and know it deserves more information online. (The Elfoid 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

I've actually started using this source to help me write a research paper on them. -Razorflame 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable passage

This passage bothers me especially since the source seems pretty weak as far as being reliable:

"Though the press reaction to the reunion was largely warm, the newly re-designed website sparked controversy when Michael Anthony was removed from the album artwork on the Van Halen album (replaced by an image of Wolfgang), and the group photo from the Women and Children First album was taken off entirely. The following day, the album covers were reverted to their original state without a word. The tour was originally 25 dates, but sell-outs and popularity has raised it to more than 40, extending into 2008."

It is sourced to this site which features a small image that may or may not have come from van-halen.com. It is impossible to verify now. The site is a blog which are not usually considered reliable sources. I think we should remove this passage. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I can find you sources like Rolling Stone, and other reliable ones. I think the only use of that one was it had the image - most mention it without showing a visual representation of the change. Just search the Rolling Stone site and you should find it in seconds. Don't worry. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Overdue subsection cleanup and other issues

I restructured the sections (an overdue repair) as the previous format left a TOC that was WAY too long. The subsections simply were required and made the article look more like a grade 8 book report than an encyclopedia article. There are currently 7 sub-sections under History. this should be trimmed down even further to about 5 simply for neatness and clarity. The influence section is tagged because it is nothing more than a trivia section. These types of sections appear too frquently in Wiki music articles and are just a place to cruft and fluff and add nothing as far as genuine quality. I re-titled the side projects section but, like the influence section, this one would be better off just being deleted all together. Detailed information about individual members and their side-projects should go in the articles about the band members themselves and have no real place here. "Detail overkill" across multiple pages which are are related to the same subject is not a good. The Eddie Van Halen pages talks about his extra-curricular work... so it doesn't need to be here too. I will remove this section later once I double check that it doesn't contain something thats been missed on the other band member pages. The writing style for this page needs lots of work. The very first paragraph of the history section starts out with 3 short choppy sentences that could be combined into 1 short and concise sentence that conveys all the information. this type of writing is prevalent throughout the entire article. It just needs a good overall cleanup... one paragraph at a time. With that said... in some cases not just sentences can be combined and shortened... 1-2 or 3 paragraphs can be given the same cleanup treatment. At almost 60K the article text should be trimmed down a bit. For the amount of text thats there... and the amount that could easily be deleted as useless... it shouldn't be too hard to get it down somewhere between 40-50K. Deleting the Side projects section and a massive cleaning of the crufty influence section should help. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, I had it at 39 at one point. But the reunion sparked a lot of activity, and it seemed to expand at an uncontrollable rate. I do think the side projects section, though perhaps alterable, is worth retaining in some form or another. I'll attack influence later tonight, one thing at a time I think. If anyone reading this focusses on that, then we move on together...it'll be simpler. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Made a start, got it to 53. I dumped some trivia on Eddie's technique in the Eddie Van Halen article, since I felt it shouldn't be deleted. It needs integrating into that article properly though, now.(The Elfoid 14:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

Mitch Malloy Edit

The sections on Mitch Malloy do not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. There has been no independent confirmation by the band or any other reliable sources naming him as a member. All sections in reference to this have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.79.25 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

March 11, 2008 addition without citation

Paragraph added without citation or sources. Any resistance to deletion? Wingnutrules (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A logo on a t-shirt compared to the official logo used on the website since 2006? Why did anyone change it? That logo even has "2007" on it, it's a tour logo if it's anything at all. The official Van Halen logo's the one used from 1978-1985, that they brought back for 2006. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Number 1 hits

"and have had the most number one hits on the Billboard Mainstream Rock chart."

Than what/who? It doesn't say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.100.37 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Glam Metal????

Could it be??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.214.241 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC) no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.8.93 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think glam metal is a genre that could be added to Van Halen. Van Halen showed little bits of glam metal elements in the 1984 album and in a few later ones, but they weren't noticeably glam like Motley Crue or Poison, so I don't think it could be added. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

I remember the song 'good enough' (hellooooo baaaaaaby!) from 5150 album is being heard when someone enters a bar/club in the movie 'Spaceballs' - can someone confirm this? add it to cultural references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.67.207 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Jan Van Halen, Mark Stone and Mitch Malloy

Since he played Clarinet on the recording of "Big Bad Bill" on the Diver Down album, and nothing else, I suppose that's why he was not included among band members. But then I see Mitch Malloy who (as I understand it) was only involved in some demo taping. Since Jan did end up on an album, does anyone think he should also be included on the band member list? Medleystudios72 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jan Van Halen should be listed. He was a guest musician. For that matter, get rid of Mark Stone and Mitch Malloy. It's not like anyone heard of this stuff until recently!

Should a section for "guest musicians" be added then, or is that too detailed? (BTW, please remember to sign your posts.  :) ) Medleystudios72 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys, Jan Van Halen was as much of a member of Van Halen as David Bowie was a member of Queen. It was a guest appearance. Nothing more, nothing less, no continuity. Stone was a confirmed former member of Mammoth, so keep him, but I'd get rid of Malloy. The only person who's confirmed Mitch Malloy as a member of Van Halen is Mitch Malloy. Saget53 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the comparison of Jan & David, hence why I didn't expect to ever see him listed as a band member. My point is that he had more right to be listed than Malloy in the first place. If any of them were to be included in the article, it would stand to reason to have either passing references or under a heading of guest musicians. My query is: is a "guest musicians" section warranted... Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Malloy should be deleted unless someone within Van Halen confirms that he was a member. Mark Stone should NOT be deleted because David Lee Roth confirmed in his autobiography that Stone was the original bassist. ScottSwan (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Stone is confirmed in several VH biographies and Alex refers to him by name in a VH documentary which can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeb38dOjtdw&feature=related 74.107.138.40 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hagar and Anthony have confirmed Malloy. Search VHND and you'll find a source.(The Elfoid (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
A search of VHND.com shows NO CONFIRMATIONS from Anthony or Hagar. Only self-promoting interviews with Malloy himself. If the Malloy claim is legit then it should not be difficult to find an authentic quote from Eddie, Alex, Michael, or someone else within the band. ScottSwan (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitch was confirmed by Mike Anthony in an interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.152 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

this interview must be cited or Malloy's name will be deleted again and again. Furthermore, the interview must confirm that Mitch WAS A MEMBER OF THE BAND, and not just a guy who jammed with them. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Malloy from Former members section, since there wasn't any confirmation from any member of the band that he was a Former member —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.172.96 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig up my van halen biography which Ian Christe (respected author) wrote. I'm fairly sure it confirms it happened. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "guitarcom" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://www.vhlinks.com/pages/interviews/evh/gu072378.php |title=Eddie van Halen |accessdate=2007-08-13}}
    • h{{cite web |url=http://www.vhlinks.com/pages/interviews/evh/gu072378.php |title=Eddie van Halen |accessdate=2007-08-13}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reunion Tour

"Van Halen's song "Hot for Teacher" is included in the video game Guitar Hero World Tour."

Man, this is way out of place. Not to mention, You Really Got Me is on Guitar Hero 2. Why is this here? 70.144.87.4 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New album

Please do not add information to this and related articles about the new album until it is confirmed in reliable sources. A single blog that claims Alex Van Halen leaked the name of the new album is not a reliable source. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthony's departure

Michael Anthony did not quit van halen! Depending on your sources, he was fired or replaced. Changed to "left". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.148.179 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'Look and Feel' of this article

This is a genuine question - not the act of a troll! How can it be that an article on one of the most influential and important musical acts of the twentieth century reads as though its been run through an online translation service? Some of this is barely coherent. I suggest that a wikiholic goes through this with a fine toothed comb and sorts it out - Van Halen deserve better than this garbage. 86.139.14.105 (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this. The feel of this article should flow much smoother. and yes, Van Halen does deserve better (KrisLiu5150 (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Agreed! (VanHalenman (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

Glam metal:Take 2

Shouldn't hair metal be in the infobox? After all they were one of its pioneers, sources back this up. Rockgenre (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Contract Rider: claim not supported by corresponding the Snopes reference

Section 5.1: "Contract Riders" Text at issue: "a member of Van Halen's road crew was nearly killed by shoddy workmanship on the part of a local venue...$85,000 worth of damage..."

Though this may very well turn out to be in the previously referenced DLR autobiography, it is most certainly not stated in the Snopes article within its quote from DLR that a crew member nearly died in an accident also costing $85,000 worth of damage, and that such a combined incident resulted in the no-brown-m&m policy.

Rather DLR's text claims that lifethreatening conditions were a danger, so the M&M policy was instituted, and that Roth himself did in fact 'trash' a dressing room upon finding a brown M&M for "12 thousand dollars worth of fun". He then implies afterward, the flooring of the venue was found to have incurred $80,000 worth of damage because the local organizers had not verified that the flooring was capable of supporting the weight of the production specified in the rider, and that a newspaper reported that Roth himself had caused $85,000 dollar of damage to a backstage in temper-tantrum over the M&Ms.

The Snopes article itself claims to copypaste from the DLR autobiography, though this has not been empirically verified by anyone and no specific pages are referenced.

Resolution:

I have edited the text in question to match the claims of the cited materials referenced(just the Snopes page), but the DLR autobiography, "Crazy in the Heat" needs to be checked directly to ensure the claims of this wiki article are in line with the literature.

List of References at issue:

  1. 48 From "Crazy from the Heat" - David Lee Roth's autobiography
  2. 49(http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.132.195.124 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Those changes look fine to me. Thanks for undertaking this work. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dollhouse

"I can't fiddle with the mind until it's wiped clean. The human mind is like Van Halen. If you just pull out a piece and keep replacing it, it just degenerates." - Topher in Dollhouse s02e02 -Instinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.19.123 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious about the Van Halen III

There is a totally uncited section about "Van Halen III" (i.e., the lineup with Gary Cherone.) It says the band went into the studio (which is very plausible) and that they actually finished an entire album. This seems like a dubious claim given that they never released any of that material, and no explanation has been given of the decision not to release it. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

They did record and almost finish an album. They didn't release it because it wasn't very good, and Gary split from the band, so why would they release it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.68 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cathedral

Have had problems finding certain recording in bar and home juke box site. Weird how that doesn't work somehow. Jethroe Toes.75.200.176.160 (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual property

I removed most of this section, since it was completely uncited, and sounded more like the ramblings of a fanboy whacking off to a VH poster while typing. It even went so far as to say that Eddie's guitar is "arguably the most famous guitar in history". That would be incredibly biased, uses weasel words, and also impossible to determine, and there's no source to back it up. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Years Active

It says that Van Halen has been together from 1972-present, but didn't they break up some time in between that period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.112.113 (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No. But I guess there are no stupid questions, just stupid people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.243.96 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There were several reunion attempts with David Lee Roth until the reunion in 2006. And there was a reunion with Hagar in 2004. But they never broke up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.187.94 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Van Halen were inactive for many years, you'd have to call it a hiatus that just wasn't announced. It's always a tough zone to call out though, because if they put out an album suddenly, and claim to have worked on it in that time, suddenly those years become active years. (68.198.115.240 (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

Dumb ass

we have an idiot who changed the main picture and now it says "photo taken by myself in 1983." immature loser. change this back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.115.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mammoth

The stars would have to be perfectly aligned for David Lee Roth and Eddie Van Halen to actually complete and release an album, putting a name on the album that they just entered the studio for is ridiculous.Soxpert (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Soxpert.

Van Halen is planning to release a new album in 2011. Someone added to the Discography section that the album would be called, "Mammoth." I don't understand why somebody would post that. I don't even think Van Halen has come up with a name for the album yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.112.113 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolfgang Van Halen came up with the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.223.180 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether they have or not decided on a title, and regardless of who came up with it, we don't post information that is not backed by reliable sources, and we don't post predictions about the future. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Someone posted it on Wolfgang's page, why can that stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.212.82 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't, unless some adds a citation. That one mentions a specific possible source, so I tagged it as needing a citation. Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

67.86.31.81 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC) But what about Guns N' Roses?

What do you mean Guns N' Roses? 74.88.97.42 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo description wrong

The discription of the logo includes the sentence, "The new logo retained elements of the original, but now the lines extending from either side of 'VH' wrapped around and formed a sphere." The bars are not a sphere. They form a ring around the central planet.128.157.160.13 (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitch Malloy Edit War

The one item I could add is there are pictures of Mitch Malloy at 5150 studios with Eddie Van Halen. That does not corroborate that he was invited to be in Van Halen, but could be seen as visual back up that he was at least considered and that his claim that they recorded a few demos of him singing Van Halen songs to be at least feasible. Not sure if this helps. Either way, interesting part of Van Halen history. Soxpert (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Soxpert

This article has undergone an edit war over the verifiability of "Mitch Malloy" being a member of Van Halen. There has been no independent confirmation by the band or any articles from reputable sources to back up this claim. This article will retain the NPOV tag until this issue is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.74.234 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The "melodicrock.com" reference provided by Fate Forger does not conform to WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES. The claim is made by the subject himself and is self-serving and involving a third party. There is reasonable doubt to his claim because there is no independent confirmation by the band or outside sources other than his interview. Furthermore, the website cited is promotional in nature and lacks evidence of journalistic standards. Wikipedia's policy of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" is here for a reason, and if Mitch Malloy was indeed a member of Van Halen, there should be plenty of corroboration. Please provide a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I know it is not an article but an interview, but there are lots of other parallel interviews which state the same thing. Now I think there's not a lot of sense in all of them being totally made up. Just google it up and you'll see it yourself. Then you can maybe add some other reference. I do agree on one thing though: Malloy was part of the band for a very very short time.FateForger (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response has offered no foundation for your argument that Mitch Malloy was a member of Van Halen. You have not countered the violations of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES. Your "I don't think he'd lie about it" defense is ludicrous, to say the least. Recitations of the original claim by the subject in other interviews with equally disreputable websites do not constitute reliable sources under Wikipedia's policies. Please provide a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.162.247 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who originally added Mitch Malloy o the former band members, so in the end I do not really care. Since there is not an official source but only interviews he released (which are not conform to WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOURCES), if you believe it should be deleted please do it. In the end, was nearly unimportant. If you do delete it, though, remember to clean up the article on him too, because there is the same info and the same source, and keeping them would be contradictory. I personally believe what Malloy states is true, but I understand the sources are not appropriate. You decide, I call myself out of this fuss caused by an irrelevant detail.FateForger (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is out. Anyone who continues to add this information to the article without reliable sources will be blocked for edit warring and WP:BLP violation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So why is he still listed as a former member?Jablomih (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because Mitch Malloy has a lot of free time on his hands? But seriously, the article lists 2 references for his claim: first, the VHND.com fan website (which, by the way, only says "[Malloy] revealed that he was actually given the job before Gary". It does not include ANY other form of verification, and certainly nothing from the other members of Van Halen.) The second source is the 2007 book "Everybody Wants Some, The Van Halen Saga", by Ian Christe. Does this book contain ANYTHING besides another claim from Malloy himself?? If the book doesn't contain sources that are up to Wikipedia's standards, then I think this article should be locked. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The /Google preview for this book does not appear to contain verification from Michael Anthony or anyone else in Van Halen. It simply repeats Malloy's own claims. 216.65.144.24 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected, since it's mostly anons that wander in and add the information. It could be Malloy himself for all we know. Maybe they'll get bored and find something else to do. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This "Mitch Malloy" thing is really ridiculous. There are absolutely no reputable sources and every time someone says there is one it's," Michael Anthony or so-and-so confirmed it, I'll find the interview," and that's all we hear. You won't find it because no interview exists. The only thing Michael Anthony said is that they were looking at other people besides Gary Cherone. Ian Christe's source is the same "Mitch Malloy" melodicrock.com interview where all this self-serving nonsense started, which as one person stated already, violates two of wikipedia's most important policies. This article needs to be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.6.190 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this interview with Gary Cherone ends it. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/gary-cherone-reflects-on-his-three-year-stint-in-van-halen-20120210 Patriots49ers (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Genre

I reckon Glam/Pop Metal should be added as there are sources I can back it up with and they were also very influential on the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.181.234 (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one replies within a few days I will put up glam metal. Jamcad01 (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I just discovered the other day that when looking through the history of edits that someone originally removed it when it shouldn't have been. It was not reverted however. 58.178.236.204 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It clearly states that the note was added when glam metal was in the infobox. It was not reverted however. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are all you users so arrogant? --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the one being arrogant by going against consensus. This has been established. Are we going to have to topic ban you?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
This link clearly shows that when the hidden text was added, glam metal was already in the infobox. This edit shows that it was removed but the edit was never reverted. I've tried telling you guys this for ages but you never listen, that is why I'm saying you guys are arrogant and that is why I have added it in. I should point out that the hidden text was removed later on and replaced with an edit notice.--Jamcad01 (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Did it occur to you that the edit wasn't reverted because it wasn't in contention? It's very possible that no one had an objection to removing the subgenre. But the proposed re-addition was posted here in the notes for a consensus, and one has been given. It's not arrogance. Do you have a source that is not a prior edit of wikipedia saying Van Halen belongs in the glam metal subgenre? A real published source, not a blog? If so, by all means then, the subgenre addition is valid and please add the source to the references. Otherwise, you're just trying to wage a needless reversion conflict. Medleystudios72 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.guitarworld.com/top_20_hair_metal_albums_of_the_eighties?page=0%2C0 http://www.allmusic.com/artist/van-halen-mn0000260206 Sam Dunn, Metal Evolution Episode 5: Glam Metal, 2011 Is that enough sources? Also I'm saying people are arrogant because they refuse to acknowledge that it was removed and refuse to give a reason why it shouldn't be added back in despite what I've been trying to tell them. If they replied and gave a reason then it would all be fine.--Jamcad01 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's enough sources. Did you add them to the references section in the article? From what I can see, no one refused to acknowledge anything. Perhaps we all just didn't have a chance to comment further yet and suddenly came to find the insult of being called arrogant tossed at us instead - a tactic that doesn't really encourage a dialogue.
If you had the sources all along, you have the ability to add them to the article and edit it. End of needless conflict. On talk pages, no replies are guaranteed or necessary. If you're courteous enough to ask something before editing, fine. If a source exists, asking for a consensus is redunant. If a consensus is given and a source contradicts it, the source needs to be added to the reference section, a clear message on the talk page communicating that a source came to light to negate the need for a consensus, and a little patience exercised if someone reverts it because they might have missed your source. Simply explaining oneself without tossing insults at other editors will get much better results. Seriously.
Now, the original request was if it should be added and the first opinion given was the subgenre is derivative of the main genres and we want to keep the info box consise and uncluttered. So it seems no one denied that "Glam" wasn't relevant to the band's genre, just that adding it to the box may be construed as redundant and crowding. So the case to be made should probably have been for the addition of a single word not being too busy rather than whether or not Van Halen is considered glam somewhere along the way. If it is agreed that adding the genre label to the info box would clutter it too much, that's an aesthetic consideration and therefore, there's nothing wrong with adding a line to the article itself saying the band also fits under the glam subgenre with a footnote.
"Why are all you users so arrogant?" That's an all-encompassing statement and includes everyone. It included me. Really not cool.
I fail to see how the subject is so serious to garner such vitriol.
Medleystudios72 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You weren't part of the argument. I was only referring to the ones ignoring me. Also one of them opposed even after the explanation I gave. Maybe you are right, but it would still be nice for someone to acknowledge that it was already in the infobox. I should also explain that I re added it in before the opposed opinions. Even when the opinions came in they still didn't remove it until a user called Mr Pyles came and started reverting all the edits I did on most of the pages I make edits on simply because he was holding a grudge on me. So maybe not all the users were arrogant. They just didn't reply to what I said. My apologies to those users. --Jamcad01 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

hard rock should be the only genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Van Halen News Desk

Do they have some official status? They appear to be a fansite. If so, why are they being treated as a reliable source?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Update Photo

The picture of Van Halen at the top of the page should be changed. The current picture was taken during the 2007-2008 tour. Van Halen is back, and Eddie has long hair again, while Wolfgangs hair is much shorter. There are a lot of VH pictures that show the band during their show at the LA Forum on February 8, 2012. It's better to use one of these I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlCapowned (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a picstich of all 4 original members. This photo is much like the one on the beatles wiki page. Photo usage is approved by photographer Neil Zlozower who followed Van Halen as their personal photographer from 1978 to 1984. his website is www.zloz.com -Sam c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboob (talk • contribs) 12:41, 17 September 2012‎ (UTC)
You don't have Zlozower's permission...that makes it a copyvio.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

The Brother Van Halen were born in Netherlands is in the article, but I will guess they were in California before or by the time they were teenagers. - Never directly stated. This is a little confusing. I suggest delete the sentence over where they were born, and expect this get covered in the article that is a biography on them as a person/people. Wfoj2 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Van Halen were never broken up. This is asinine to have a timeline like this, it is a lie and against wikipedia standards. Patriots49ers (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The timeline doesn't say they broke up, it says they were inactive. They were, indeed, inactive. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your dates are so screwed up. You have them inactive when they were working with Roth in 2000-2001. Even when they didn't have a singer Ed and Al were working in the studio. Patriots49ers (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have other bands and artists listed as inactive when they have gaps between releases. Patriots49ers (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


You have the band listed as inactive when it stated on their website they were in the studio working on their next record in 2001. http://web.archive.org/web/20010604021137/http://www.van-halen.com/newsite/news.html Patriots49ers (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


If you two idiots want to make the timeline less informative, go ahead. I'm done wasting my time. Woknam66 talk James Bond 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Look we (or at least "I") don't mean to harass you. It's just that we believe that there should be consistency between Wikipedia pages. --Jamcad01 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That's obviously not true. You might be looking for consistency, but Patriots49ers clearly just believes that he is infallible, as indicated by the fact that he consistently turned Michael Anthony's bar light purple. Woknam66 talk James Bond 16:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've told him to stop doing it, so hopefully he won't do it anymore. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


The bar only got messed up because you kept screwing with it with your inaccuracies and edit wars. It wasn't less informative, it was innaccuarate the way you were doing it. But throw your temper tantrum if that is your thing.Patriots49ers (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't get your panties in a bunch. Woknam66 talk James Bond 20:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the Greatest?

http://stereogum.com/43591/vh1s_100_greatest_hard_rock_songs/list/

Numbers 36 and Nine are listed as some of the greatest ever. Should this get a mention, at least?Kude90 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Balance" and "Live: Without a Net" in the Discography

Two different users have added these titles to the Discography. They are not live albums. "Balance" was one of their tours, and Live: Without a Net is a video. There is a difference between tours and videos and live albums, and they are treated as such in Van Halen discography. The listing in the main article is only for live albums, not for concert tours and videos. I'm asked for consensus to leave these items out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct; a video is for a videography, and a tour is for a list of tours.Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Genres

The current list appears to reflect long-standing consensus. Let's discuss any new changes to the genres here. I will notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force of this discussion. — MusikAnimal talk 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. Don't put any stock in my edits on that particular issue. I was simply trying to discern and maintain the status quo amongst apparently widespread IP editor warring, which I had reported to another admin earlier today. I didn't know there was a consensus discussion buried somewhere. That should have been linked out here, so thanks for finding it. Is there a template for permanent Talk page archival links like this one, which are immutable above the archival process? Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess we could use {{consensus}} to link back to the discussion, but let's see what this one yields. If no one feels strongly about changing the genres we can stick with what we have. If I were to throw in my opinion, I'd say "arena rock" is a fitting genre, and some sources seem to back that. — MusikAnimal talk 04:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that "arena rock" is an experiential colloquialism which could be expounded upon in the body (as could anything), and "hard rock" or "pop rock" or "heavy metal" are objective (encyclopedic, library-based, archival, whatever the word is) definitions. So is there a Wikipedia guideline or policy on how many genres to include in the infobox or lead? If two or three, then I suppose "heavy metal", "hard rock", and "pop rock" are applicable as the complete gamut. It doesn't seem like there's much discussion to be had, right? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: arena rock is a compositional choice which shapes a song's structure. As such it is a legitimate musical genre. For instance, the composer who is writing an arena rock song will be thinking about simple but powerful musical lines as opposed to complex or technically challenging lines. Arena rock is every bit as much a genre as speed metal. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay, great. I didn't realize that because the arena rock article doesn't go into much detail, and I was just trying to faciliate some discussion here upon request. I just saw REO Speedwagon with Chicago last week, so I definitely got that arena vibe from REO. I was hoping that there's an exact guideline featuring a list of recognized or prominent genres and how many are customary. Maybe there's another arena/hard rock band who's at Good status, to look at. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
About the comment "arena rock is a compositional choice," can I, as a composer for my band that mostly plays in our drummer's basement, write arena rock for my band? I doubt many people would call that anything but pretentious. There is no universal agreement among music writers and professionals about arena rock being a genre. Yes, some RS do use it, but erratically, and in different contexts. Some call it a genre, others disagree. As far as I can tell, the term came out of the phenomenon in the early 1970s of bands (who played music of different genres) beginning to play in packed arenas, leading to new, energetic, and less intimate experiences for the fans and the musicians. (Roger Waters compares this phenomenon to the Nuremburg rallies.) That's a phenomenon that spans many genres. It speaks more to a band's ability to pack large venues than to what the music is going to sound like. It speaks to the live concert experience that fans can expect. I don't think we Wikipedians should be trying to define something that the professionals in the field have not settled. Dcs002 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force#Arena_rock_-_Genre_or_not.3F, which is why I find your comment above to be unduly dismissive. You saw that I brought multiple useful examples of "arena rock" being used as a genre, especially the book All Music Guide to Rock, and the C.J. Watson "family tree" of rock which includes arena rock on the same level as speed metal or soft rock. At that same discussion, you did not supply a single source to back up your argument. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's take this discussion back to the Music genres task force. A consensus there can provide the kind of guidance needed to answer the questions being raised here. Dcs002 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Malloy again and again

The Mitch Malloy claims just won't go away. Seems like he or his followers keep adding him to the list of "official" members of the band, even though no one in the band has ever corroborated his story. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about requiring sources other than yourself. But Malloy seems hell-bent on violating that policy to insert himself into Van Halen history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.8.237 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That he auditioned is not in dispute, but others did at the time, too. So the only real reason to note him and list him at all is his uncorroborated claims that he was offered the spot. Without independent corroboration from the Van Halen camp, or some other independent source (not an interview with Malloy, and not audio of his audition hosted on a fan site) that is meaningless. And regardless, he was never an actual full member. He never played a show with the band, nor recorded anything other than an audition demo. Any statement other than he was auditioned is undue emphasis at best, and blatantly false at worst. He should not be listed in the infobox, nor in the time line. I am removing those immediately as false. And we really need to decide if the audition is worth a whole section full of uncorroborated claims. My thought: NO! oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Malloy's assertion that he auditioned for Van Halen is also in dispute. A recording of him at 5150 studio does not mean he auditioned for the band. Steve Brown from Trixter has recorded with Eddie at 5150 studio, that doesn't mean he was auditioning to Van Halen's the second guitarist. No band member has corroborated this audition. Mitch Malloy needs to be permanently deleted from the Van Halen article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.187 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the timeline

Is anyone opposed to doing the above to the timeline? It gets the red bars out of Eddie's and the Bassists' bars which are a little confusing. I think it makes everything a little more informative and certainly easier to read. Note that background vocalists usually aren't placed in the timeline like they currently are as I have seen around the site. DLManiac (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. That Michael Anthony was the backing vocalist during his tenure with the band (and is sometimes regarded as a better singer than Dave) is a major part of contributions, and has been noted outright as missing in reviews for A Different Kind of Truth. Highlighting that role with an overlap bar makes sense. Especially if we are going to keep a multiple-colored bar for Sammy (which we should). Fact is, the lack of any mention of Eddie's keyboard playing, which is far more notable and historically significant than his backing vocals, is more disappointing. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the keyboards, and was considering mentioning it. However, I see a little ambiguity with having the overlapping vocals bar, when you compare this timeline to say, one like Styx's because they have three "lead vocalists" all listed as overlaps, and other members that sing background vocals are not listed in the timeline as such.DLManiac (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


I believe I have a better solution that solves everyone's worries! It includes Eddie being lead vocalist at the incarnation of the band, specific contributions for back ground vocals, and Eddie's Keyboard playing. Let's talk about it! The only thing in question is whether the keyboards end at the end of Gary Cherone's tenure or the end of the Sammy Reunion. Because no keys on A Different Kind Of Truth. Also, maybe how to include Dave's acoustic contributions, but I think those are probably too minimal to worry about. DLManiac (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I wouldn't end Eddie's keyboards, though. While A Different Kind of Truth may not have any keyboards on it, neither did most of the early albums, and he's still the keyboardist of record and may play them on tour (though I believe they may have a touring keyboardist for those purposes). It remains one of his roles in the band, though, and should be continued to present. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
He definitely didn't play them on the 2012 tour. They play Cradle and Jump with pre-recorded tracks. I'm gonna go ahead and throw this up there, extending the keyboards, and we can change it if we need to later. Thanks for the input! DLManiac (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sammy Hagar era:

There seem to be a huge number of "citation needed" supposed facts concerning the rift between Sammy Hagar and the VH brothers, I recommend removing them as their objectivity is clearly not neutral, and there are opposing views with citable sources from the press that contradict them.

I agree for the most part. If something is challenged and no one has provided a source, let's remove it. But please make sure to maintain the narrative and not just have a portion of the band's history missing just because a source is needed. I'd rather provide basic information and leave a "citation needed" tag. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Out of curiosity, is including the ongoing public "tiff" between members - current and former - appropriate for an encyclopedic article? Feels a bit like a fan magazine read to me.THX1136 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinda agree. I would say the criticism of DLR by Eddie may turn out to be important if it leads to another line up change. Unless everyone just grudgingly continues to work together, which would make this a non-factor in the long run. Either way it's still too WP:CRYSTALBALL. As for the criticism of Sammy and Michael, who really cares. We already know that they don't get along, that's why they're not in the band anymore. It's not news, really, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we really don't need to summarize every news story that comes out. I say we take it out. oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Since there has been no other discussion on this subject I have removed the paragraph on this subject. I've included it here for reinstatement if that is deemed necessary.
"Appearing in a cover story for Billboard published on June 19, 2015; Eddie Van Halen commented that Roth "does not want to be my friend… (His) perception of himself is different than who he is in reality. We're not in our 20s anymore. We're in our 60s. Act like you're 60." Eddie also claimed that he had to show Michael Anthony how to play, and that he assisted in creating the backing vocal sound the bassist is well known for. Anthony responded: "I am proud to say that my bass playing and vocals helped create our sound. I’ve always chosen to take the high road and stay out of the never-ending mudslinging, because I believe that it ultimately ends up hurting the Van Halen fans.”[85]"THX1136 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:TONE says we should keep the tone neutral, which means we don't tell the reader about all the biting little comments they say. We summarize instead, and if it's petty shit then we ought to keep it out. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"Van" Halen

Actually, whereas is correct to call the band "Van Halen", Alex's and Eddie's proper surname should be "van Halen" (sort key by "Halen, van") since they are Dutch native. Same for their father Jan van Halen who was a Dutch national. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All sources, including the brothers themselves, use the capital V and alphabetized it under V. To do otherwise would be WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that living in the U.S. since the 1960s made them drop the "v". Btw the Dutch article reads Alex van Halen and Eddie van Halen, since they are not American of Dutch descent but Dutch-born American nationals -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
We follow the conventions used by sources. I've never seen an English-language article about the band or either of the brothers use a lower-case v. The Dutch versions of these articles are very poorly sourced and use only English-language sources which read "Eddie Van Halen" etc. If anything, the Dutch articles should be corrected. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's the first letter of their band name so it would be capitalized for the MOS. The band also does not use a stylization of lower-casing their name MOS:LCITEMS as with k.d. lang. The places where the lower-case v would be appropriate is for their father's name or referring to their full name. But common name uses caps for Van. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, they spell their full names with a capital V, Dutch rules be damned. We don't tell people how to spell their own names. And we don't make stuff up. Spike is right. The article at the Netherlandish Wikipedia is wrong. oknazevad (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the members identify themselves by capital V, it should be fine. Dutch_name#Surnames shows usage of both capital and lower-case V depending on the person. So use what is most consistent with the media and sources. That the band's capitalization is questioned is rather peculiar. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking about the band's name which is correctly "Van Halen" and nobody discusses it. I was just wondering whether, being they born Dutch nationals, wouldn't be better respect the Dutch use of lower-casing the "Van". But of course that's not a war of religion, if the use in English is to capitalize the article I have nothing to object :-) BTW, the argument that they are their own source is weak. Steve McDowall learnt as adult that his own name was McDowall, not McDowell, in this case the correct source being not himself but the birth office of his native city :D (and, to make a personal example, I learnt at 15 that I have a middle name that was never used :-) ). -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
And I am saying that the brothers (and Wolfgang) never use the lowercase version and that is what we need to respect their spelling of their own name. Telling people how to spell their own names is stupid, rude, and insulting. As Angus notes, there is no consistent Dutch use to "respect". The McDowall situation is different; McDowall himself chose to use the "a" spelling, so we respect that. The Van Halens don't use a lowercase V, so we don't . Period. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Take it easy, are you Van Halen's agent? :D It's normal that Van Halen jr. has his name capitalized, being born in the US. Clearly as for McDowall I haven't been able to explain myself: is not that McDowall "chose" to call himself McDowell, is that he simply didn't know his name was McDowall. Simple and clear. As well as I didn't know I had a middle name until I was 15. The examples I made were not to contest van Halen brothers' right to name themselves as they like, was only for contesting someone's (HERE) assertion that "one is the best source of himself". Apart that this counterdicts the "third party source" policy here, the argument is flawed because one can ignore their real name until adulthood. That apart I just said that I have nothing to object, I am a longtime admirer of Van Halen, and I just posed a question from a broader encyclopedic point of view. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB would apply to information where the person states information about themselves, like their birthday / birthplace, or the "true" spelling of their name. WP:COMMONNAME, especially the Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes section has information about that. So if Steve McDowall wants his name spelled with an a instead of an e, and the media start adopting that, then it's fair to list as an a. The e is then treated as an alias link, although it doesn't need to be listed in the infobox if it's a typo by the publishers. Same with a publisher that might use MacDowall. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Associated Acts: Tremonti?

Tremonti should be under associated acts as Wolfgang Van Halen is their bassist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickolasOnWikipedia4 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected

I've indef'd the article as far as semi-protection goes. From what I can see, there's been a need for protection since the early days of Wikipedia, so this looks to be overdue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Glam Metal

Whoever is putting glam metal in Van Halen's genre list please stop. Glam metal is not listed on any of their albums, songs or individual profiles of the members so why is it listed in the bands page? They are not a glam metal band they are heavy metal / hard rock. They may have inspired glam metal but they are not a glam metal band. Thank you. Pinkzeppelin4 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is sourced to a reliable source. Now, whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant. But you do raise a good point that there seems to be a genre disconnect between the band article and the album articles, none of which are labeled glam metal. A check of the edit histories of those album articles would likely show a clear removal of the genre where it belonged. oknazevad (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

Please consider changing the website "van-halen.com" to "vhnd.com". This is a more up to date website. "vhnd.com" adds new content about the band and it's members frequently, unlike "van-halen.com". Benthrasher (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done vhnd.com is a fan-run news site, not the official webpage of the band. It is not correct to use as such. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs more sources

There is a good deal of unsourced material in the article. It has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@SunCrow:, I've taken care of all of the citation needed tags by either finding tags, or rewriting to remove inflammatory claims. Cheers DLManiac (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
DLManiac, thanks so much for doing all that work. That must have taken a while. There is still more unsourced material in the article, but that is a really good start. SunCrow (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

All the drop down tabs are gone??

Can someone fix the page? When on mobile everything runs together, it use to be separate sections, where you would click the section and it would drop down so you could read it, it’s quite annoying to have to scroll through everything to find the section I’m looking for. Spaceman1978 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

cancer

Eddie Van Halen died from throat cancer. So where the text was when Eddie died from cancer, add Throat Cancer so people will know on this article how he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoutubeFrezzy (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

change Years active to 1974–2020 Quantumcharlie (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done No official announcement of the band's dissolution has been made. I think it's pretty much a given, but that would be original research. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Need for update regarding his death

Years active and new section need to be added to reflect his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanrail (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly thought this had been updated a few days ago to reflect that the band was no longer active. This is much different than the Eagles continuing after the death of Glenn Frey, since every member but drummer has been replaced in that band. How can Van Halen carry on without Eddie? Bluorangefyre (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

there are ample sources to indicate their last public performances were in 2015. I think we can fairly put years active 1972-2015. Gjxj (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to second this now that when eventually the band announces that it's over, that the span should end in 2015 (rather than 2020). YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Concert tours

A number of tours have been taken down that are significant to the band's career. Most notably the "early years" page, and the pages for the World Vacation Tour, Balance Tour, and Van Halen III Tour are very significant, and could have benefited from some elaboration, which is now impossible as long as the pages are gone. Does anyone else agree that these pages should be brought back? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Under PAST MEMBERS: Eddie Van Halen is not a "past" member. He's the only true member. Technically, they are all past members since the band is no more. This is rather upsetting the entire community. Whoever changed Eddie to PAST member should be shamed for life. Tyroneasteele (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The man is dead. He can't be a current member if he's dead. oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

in reference to Cafe Wha? in New York: BLEECKER Street is spelled incorrectly. It is *not* "Bleeker street"

Bleecker Street is correct 2603:7000:5000:EC:E084:6257:5589:AF5F (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Vanhalen sold over 100 million records worldwide, not 80 million 2601:4A:8401:C3E0:2DB7:8C6B:D04A:CDF4 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Not doneNeeds a fresh citation. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

Vanhalen sold over 100 million records worldwide not 80 million. 108.36.162.99 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddy was born in Amsterdam

Eddy and Alex are both born in Amsterdam, not in Nijmegen. See: The Indo Dutch Roots of Van Halen and the Dutch Wikipedia page of Van Halen.

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

Iam Doug Messenger. I first saw Van Halen at the Rock Corporation club on Oxnard Stree in Van Nuys, Ca. It was in February of 1997. Here, you have me seeing them first at the Starwood in Hollywood. Not so. I was, however, at the Starwood later in the year (Aug.1977) on the night that Ted Templeman and Mo Austin saw them and wrote a letter of intent to sign them. Please correct.2603:8001:A000:C433:AD0C:8A0F:6D0F:C346 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 2603:8001:A000:C433:AD0C:8A0F:6D0F:C346 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox picture change

The band had disbanded in 2020, and the only heading photo is the last known line-up for the band. Do you think that the infobox should have the picture of the band from 1981 as seen in the History section? I feel like it should be in the infobox header as it is the most known line-up and the one that was the reason why the band was so popular. What do you think? HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

The Collection II is an upcoming box set release that has been in August of 2023 that includes a new compilation album filled with rarities from entitled Studio Rarities 1989-2004. The 5 album box set is set to release on October 6, 2023 via Rhino Records.

Link: https://store.rhino.com/en/rhino-store/artists/van-halen/the-collection-ii-5cd/603497832217.html 2600:1006:B1C8:2364:8C85:DCA:AE8A:F3CD (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

I just wanted to ask a question; what source states Van Halen was formed in 1973? Why was it changed to this when it was 1972 beforehand? Many sources I have found say the band formed in 1972, so what source states it was 1973? Ded Meem (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I can answer on this part with a book source provided below:
  • Renoff, Greg (2015). Van Halen Rising. Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-77041-263-7.
On pages 90-91, I read that it was in 1973 when the name "Van Halen" had formed after they were told to change their band's name (Mammoth at the time) by another band of the same name. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! Ded Meem (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Van_Halen/Archive_5&oldid=1230760225"