Talk:Haim (band)/Archive 1

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

Indie Pop?

Can anyone explain why Haim are described as an 'indie pop' band? They are signed to a major label, and their album sounds to me like perfectly conventional mainstream pop music. I did look at the linked article on 'indie pop', but the criteria for putting bands under that heading seem hopelessly vague.86.143.237.228 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually their music is sold and labelled as "Rock". --181.64.89.242 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Dec 14, 2013 -- Agreed, and I am trying to get them labelled as pop rock instead. Nothing on the indie pop Wiki entry relates to Haim's sound, and Haim's own entry lists Stevie Nicks, John Waite, En Vogue, Fleetwood Mac, TLC, and Destiny's Child and others as influences. It goes on to say "their music sounds like folk-rock "with a few R&B/hip-hop stylings thrown in for good measure.'" Again, not indie pop. I've cited to a couple articles that explain how "indie pop" is a misnomer for Haim, and note that it's just pop that sounds different from what has been previously heard in the mainstream. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9750765/haim-days-gone-indie-rock-death-rattle http://www.refinery29.com/2013/10/55279/indie-rock-dead

Here's a new one: http://www.buffablog.com/2013/09/album-review-haim-days-are-gone.html "Though Wikipedia might classify the Haim Sisters as indie rock/pop performers, the L.A. trio seem pleased to keep their sound as far away from any expectations that labeling comes with. Although their synth-pop backing and eighties rock influences are slightly off-beat from the mainstream, HAIM very nearly come across as straight sugared-up pop. Though this is hardly a bad thing, it does seem to suggest how blurred the line between indie and mainstream has become, especially given HAIM's major label associations."

Other support: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/haim-mn0003051113 -- three genres listed, indie pop is not one of them http://www.allmusic.com/style/indie-pop-ma0000004494/artists -- list of indie pop bands, none of whom sound like Haim

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/days-are-gone/id681237313 -- Influences listed as "Stevie Nicks, Phil Collins, En Vogue, Shania Twain"

http://www.popmatters.com/feature/176889-the-indie-pop-of-2013/ - another list of indie pop bands, nothing like Haim

None of the album reviews cited in this article -- AV Club, Spin, Rolling Stone, Guardian, Independent, Ohm, NME, Pitchfork -- refer to Haim as indie pop.

For the person(s) resisting the pop rock label, please explain your reasoning. Billboard is not a credible source for what is indie pop -- it's a genre they don't generally cover. LaWeekly should know better, but they're not a music magazine. The major music magazines that cover mainstream AND underground music -- AV Club, Spin, Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork, PopMatters -- do not see Haim as indie pop.

At some point this discussing may become moot, if more sources start defaulting to indie pop as a term for bands like Haim (as any discussion to prevent Bush or Smashmouth from being labeled as "alternative" became at some point in the 90's). For now, it's just not that case that this has occurred. Indiesoc (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the arguments above are based upon original research. iTunes and the AllMusic sidebar cannot be used as sources for genres. The other sources you provided are unreliable (outside of Grantland), so we need more than that. The PopMatters list including bands "nothing like Haim" is again original research. At this point we have more reliable sources in the infobox Billboard and LA Weekly refering to the band as indie pop. Saying Billboard is not credible for anything music related is just preposterous. We do not give weight to sources that are music related, I would take Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe as reliable sources over PopMatters as a source any day of the week. All I need to see is reliable sources refering to the band as "pop" or "indie rock", I am still not sure which the above are arguing for, but whatever genre most reliable third party sources refer to the band as, that is what we will list them as. I will also notify the IP that was reverting you about this discussion Indiesoc. STATic message me! 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken about the original research -- again, this is my first time doing this. However, I didn't say Billboard was not credible for anything music -- I said it was not credible as a source of information on underground music. It is the music industry magazine, and most of its articles are about acts that have are or might be making money. As the Wiki article on indie pop suggests, indie pop has a 30-year history as a non-mainstream genre. I wouldn't consider iTunes to be credible, since they are in the business of marketing music and will apply whatever label suits them to do so.

At this point I was going to debate with you about the viability of Allmusic, Pop Matters et al as a resources vs. Billboard and La Weekly. But, since the cites below establish that Haim is a pop rock band and not an indie pop band, I will save that discussion for another day. (Nutshell: writers on music sites are far more likely to be experts on something like this than someone who writes for LA Weekly or a mainstream newspaper. Also not clear to me why Allmusic sidebar does not qualify.)

As I wrote on your talk page, you are asking me to prove a negative -- that Haim is NOT indie pop. The articles referenced below will demonstrate the absence of that term for this band, while pop-rock is used at least 5 times by my count. NOT ONE of the reviews I looked at (totalling maybe 30) used the term "indie pop" for the album of band. Hopefully this is sufficient to outweigh the 2 (lower quality!) references to Haim as an indie pop band.

Spin -- "Haim's 'Days Are Gone' Is a Canny, Calculated Burst of '80s Art-Pop Perfection" "Haim are a band of three sisters from Los Angeles who make cool, wholesome pop-rock." http://www.spin.com/reviews/haim-days-are-gone-columbia/

The Observer UK (The Guardian) -- "Those allergic to smooth pop-rock may find Days Are Gone hard going." http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/29/days-are-gone-haim-review

Drowned in Sound -- "Days Are Gone caters very specifically fans of slick Eighties pop-rock and little else." http://drownedinsound.com/releases/17871/reviews/4146922

Under the Radar -- "HAIM bounces from strength to strength on a pop rock journey that hits on nearly 20 years of touch points." http://www.undertheradarmag.com/reviews/days_are_gone_haim_columbia_album/

Consequence of Sound -- "The tormented pleas of their diamond-cut pop rock" http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/album-review-haim-days-are-gone/

Pitchfork -- "Haim's impeccably crafted mix of influences—soft rock's incandescent glow, R&B's sensuality, the spiky-yet-polished effervescence of pop-rock" http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18574-haim-days-are-gone/

Independent UK -- "pop-rock of 'Forever' and 'The Wire'" http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-review-haim-days-are-gone-polydor-8842277.html

Time-Out -- "Haim’s rock-pop sound (think ‘Tango In The Night’-era Fleetwood Mac) . . . Not only does it contain a handful of the most radio-friendly songs of the last few years (‘Forever’, ‘Falling’) it packs in some fantastically crunchy R&B bangers as well." http://www.timeout.com/london/music/haim-days-are-gone-album-review

Tiny Mix Tapes -- "STYLES: soft rock, pop, R&B" http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/haim-days-are-gone

Stereogum -- "There’s nothing remotely indie rock about HAIM." http://www.stereogum.com/1488272/premature-evaluation-haim-days-are-gone/franchises/album-of-the-week/

"The release of these three California sisters' debut album catalyzed some internet handwringing about what does, or does not, count as "indie," so let's get this out of the way real quick: Two of these sisters were in a teenpop band -- svengali'ed by Richard Marx, of all people -- who had a song on the Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants soundtrack. There ain't a damn thing indie about them. What they are is a smart, versatile, idiosyncratic, show-offy pop group . . . ." http://www.stereogum.com/1567541/the-50-best-albums-of-2013/list/attachment/haim_days/

Rolling Stone -- "their charming debut recalls the dancy side of Eighties Top 40 radio as an AstroTurf Eden of chewy synths, neon-cheese guitar quake and slick, airy melodies." http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/days-are-gone-20130930

NME -- "Their early, critically adored mix of rock'n'roll guitars and '90s R&B harmonies is toned down in favour of straight power pop, full of '80s flourishes. The thundering drums on 'Running If You Call My Name' is totally Phil Collins, while 'If I Could Change Your Mind' is adorned with the kind of glistening synths that wouldn't be out of place on a Whitney Houston record." http://www.nme.com/reviews/haim/14835

Music-Ohm -- "It’s something of a surprise, then, to hear them sounding like mega-selling country-pop star Shania Twain." http://www.musicomh.com/reviews/albums/haim-days-gone

New York Times -- "'Days Are Gone' is as convincing as any major-label rock album this year, especially its first half, which is slick, confident and winningly breezy." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/arts/music/the-blow-and-haim-release-new-albums.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1387150515-v81JXNaTc68g1fZl+JfU1w

Further, I saw NO references to Haim being indie pop in any of these articles or the dozen of other reviews I did not list here due to lack of a useful quote (including LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Clash Music, Paste, Mojo, Slant Magazine, The A.V. Club, The Quietus)

So, it seems like the pro-indie pop camp has managed to cherry pick a couple references to indie pop, while the overwhelming majority of references do not use that term. If a genre is mentioned, it is pop-rock, soft-rock, R&B, synth pop, art-pop. Further, "slick," a word that is the antithesis of indie pop is used repeatedly (original research, I know).

Thanks for notifying the other IP. Indiesoc (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The AllMusic sidebar should not be used for genres see WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES#Sources to avoid. The a large amount of the quotes and sources you cited do not use the word "pop-rock", you are just synthizing what the sources say, concluding they mean that. I will admit quite a few do say pop rock. But, all the sources are just reviews of the album, we need sources refering to the band in general, not just their opinions of single body of work. Please do not change the genre again until consensus is reached. STATic message me! 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me which part is synthesis? If I refer to the Allmusic biography of the band that describes them as a "polished mixture of Fleetwood Mac-inspired rock, '80s synth pop, and '90s R&B influences such as Destiny's Child," does that not establish that they are a pop-rock band, or would that be synthesis? Seems like a deduction to me -- is that the same thing?

In any case, there are still several sources here that DO use pop-rock. The Spin reference refers to the band, not the album. And why exactly is their sole full-length album not representative of the band itself? You also haven't addressed the fact that the cites DON'T use indie pop (proving a negative here). It's as if you're treating indie pop as the default, when in fact it is a sub-genre of pop-rock and should therefore require more than a couple sources. Though I realize we need a cite for the Wiki entry (though most band entries I've seen lack this), the fact that Haim are overwhelmingly referred to as anything but indie pop seems like it should be sufficient to foreclose this issue.

Anyway, here are a couple more cites (along with the Spin cite) referring to the band rather than the album.

NPR -- "HAIM works in that most vexed and scorned of genres: pop-rock." (Written by Ken Tucker, "the first rock critic to become a Pulitzer finalist" (in 1984).) http://www.npr.org/2013/10/02/228464541/on-days-are-gone-three-sisters-haim-it-up

The Observer (Guardian UK) -- "long-haired sisters from Los Angeles who play pointy, 80s-indebted pop-rock" http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/22/haim-sisters-days-gone-interview (Also: "Their sound has not quite united critics – was this "west coast rock layered with R&B" or a "winning update of 80s US mainstream pop"?")

Another Spin cite -- "Haim (rhymes with "lime"), the pop-rock band she co-founded with her two older sisters" http://www.spin.com/featured/haim-spin-2013-october-cover-story/

Found these by searching for interviews, and skimmed the ones from publications/websites I had heard of. Again, I saw not one reference to the band being indie pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiesoc (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy to wait for the anonymous IPs to respond. How long do you typically give them in a situation like this? Indiesoc (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the reviewers in question are confusing indiepop with indie/pop. One thing is for sure - they are not "indiepop" and there seems to be some cherrypicking of reviews to advance the viewpoint that they are. I suggest we remove genre until we can establish consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The article goes on to say that they are most often compared to Fleetwood Mac. How is that indiepop? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, a Google search of "haim" and "genre" mostly shows how they are difficult to classify. I can find reliable sources to show that they are cross between RnB and folk if you like - it doesn't mean that we should classify them as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The thing about them being a cross between r&b and folk is silly in my opinion. That description appears in quite a few articles but it seems to have been simply repeated from the band's own marketing material. Obviously, my opinion that the description is inaccurate is "original research", whereas if a bunch of journalists working for accredited publications lazily repeat claims made in PR material, all of a sudden that is acknowledged fact. But that's by the by. As for the debate over genres appearing in the infobox, why not have indie/pop AND pop/rock, with each supported by a citation. If citations can be produced for both, why shouldn't both appear? Dubmill (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Indie *slash* pop is very different from indiepop, which is a genre in itself (and something that Haim are very clearly NOT). I think that this confusion is causing the issue here. It's times like this when we should be using sites like allmusic to define genre, which is subjective at the best of times. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and here's Billboard calling them a "rock trio". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
[1] this is a pretty interesting article about Haim's genre. It talks about how Haim represents a new genre that is label with "black term of Rock". I wouldn't called it Pop rock either. Haim sound is more simmilar to Vampire Weekend than Maroon 5 --201.214.27.179 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
What remains clear is that it is not "indiepop". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pop-rock is a broad genre that also includes the likes of Fleetwood Mac and Phil Collins, two artists Haim is frequently compared to. I've never seen "indie/pop" used anywhere, and in any case there is nothing indie about Haim. Even the Grantland article I cited to above addresses the issue as if they're being labeled indie, but does not explain what about their music would make them indie. If a secondary genre is used on the sidebar I suggest it should be contemporary R&B -- it's what I personally hear most of all on Haim's LP, and it is heavily supported by cites. Haim may sound more like Vampire Weekend than Maroon 5, but they don't share the elements of VW's music that make VW indie pop.
Here are two more Billboard cites, calling them alt-rock and a rock group.

Indiesoc (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion as there are virtually no reliable sources that catalogue Haim as Contemporary R&B. They may have some R&B influences but that does not make them R&B. Looking at all the controversy and the majority of sources I think labelling their music "alt rock" as first genre and pop rock as second seems valid --201.214.27.179 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how the sidebar is used. Contemporary R&B is one of the major influences on their sound, probably second after pop-rock, and frequently mentioned in reviews of their album. But you are right that they are not a Contemporary R&B "act." While I personally am fine with the alt-rock label, I can't say I saw that genre referenced much in the dozens of reviews and articles I skimmed over.

Indiesoc (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think soft rock, pop rock and contemporary R&B would cover their whole catalogue in a perfect way. These three genres seem to dominate most of the reviews, thus seem to be eligible and general. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
They sound nothing like soft rock live. You cannot inly based the genre on recordings. Regarding R&B again, they have R&B influences but they have not q song that sound like a pure R&B song. --190.44.140.162 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your logic suggests that if they have one song that sounds like a soft rock song then they would qualify for that genre. And on the album they have three that arguably qualify -- Honey & I, Go Slow, and Running if You Call My Name. Regarding R&B, Falling, Forever, If I Could Change Your Mind, and Days Are Gone sound at times like Pebbles, Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam, or Whitney Houston, along with much of what has been on top 40 radio for the past 10 years. Perhaps it's just mainstream pop, but the R&B elements make it a close call for me. Indiesoc (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to figure out they are referred to most in reliable sources. Such as "Haim the _____ band", and I can tell you right now R&B would not be the one filling out that blank. Alternative rock or pop rock seem to be what dominates the most reliable sources. STATic message me! 23:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is the "____ band" standard the one used for the sidebar, or just the descriptor at the beginning of the article?

Indiesoc (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Either or really. Is there a real need to specify a subgenre in the lead though? We can just call them an American rock band. I was under the impression we were discussing the genre in the infobox. STATic message me!
I assume that's some Wiki-wide standard? Good to know for future reference. I personally don't recall seeing many, if any, alternative references aside from the one I listed above. I did see a lot of folk-rock, pop, soft rock, and R&B in addition to pop-rock.

Indiesoc (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it should be one of those, besides R&B of course, they may compare or indicate their music was influenced by R&B, but overall they are never referred to as a R&B band. It is what they are referred to as, which is the most important, not what their music is influenced by. They seemed to be most referred to as folk-rock and pop(rock). I see no need to list four or more genres so I hope we can achieve a consensus to just list one or two of the most significant.STATic message me! 09:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
My point was that it's hard to justify an alternative label. I'm fine with just pop-rock. I can't say I hear much folk-rock, aside from on a track or two, and it's overabundance in the reviews suggests to me that the idea came from their promo materials. I also think pop is appropriate, supported by cites, and not redundant for pop-rock. Wondering if anyone else agrees with this.

Indiesoc (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Their name is pronounced HY-əm by the band members themselves as shown in this video clip. This needs to be corrected in the opening paragraph. The News Hound 08:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alana seems to be pronouncing it closer to the Hebrew would be pronounced, as in: [2] with an X rather than H sound.

GA effort

I was going to review this article, but saw things that I could just go ahead and fix. I'd rather just make it better than write out what to do.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Some GA reviewers do this, some don't. I don't think it matters either way as long as the article is improved. I think my main concern for the article is it's still a bit short, but for a band that's only had serious commercial success for a year or two that's probably less of an issue compared to some other band articles I've worked on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
If you start editing an article, you can't GA review it (in peer reviews, you can edit and review at the same time). I kind of feel bad, because now you guys have to wait for another reviewer, but at least it will be more likely to pass.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, Dr. Blofeld turns up and stalks my GAs before they get reviewed from time to time, but usually because I ask him to ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Awesome!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I noticed in a few places that inline citations are placed in the middle of sentences. They should appear after punctuation (eg. commas, semicolons, periods, etc...)--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything in the MOS to back you up? As far as I'm aware, you just need a good balance between ensuring the citations and the prose match up, and distracting the reader by little blue numbers every few words. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Guest appearances

It says that after two months she rehearsed with Julian's band. Then it says after "this" she toured with someone else. Does "this" mean after rehearsing, or after touring with him? Depending on what it means, we can either replace "this" with "rehearsals," or add a sentence about her actually starting to tour with him (like dates or on which of his tours).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We could just say "Following working with Casablancas", which avoids ambiguity altogether. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
That'll work.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Personal lives"

I have removed this section per WP:BLPGOSSIP, specifically "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The first might be possible, the second may be okay, but the third probably isn't. If it isn't related to their musical career and hasn't been all over broadsheet newspapers over months if not years, it shouldn't go in. Compare and contrast with Paul Gascoigne, who (personal opinion of course) hasn't done any professional football related activity for 10 years, yet it's that that forms the bulk of his article, and rightly so. Take care when writing about living people and never ever ever cite The Sun or the National Enquirer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Point taken—see what you think of the pared down version. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit better, but I've parked it in the "legacy and influence" section as I think a separate "Personal lives" section is just going to be a honeypot for drive-by editors to add gossip. Unfortunately that's the price you pay for being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I only mention the relationship due to Swift's massive status in 2015—anyone else would not be notable, I think. But Swift's monolithic position in the continually evolving global music industry is of a unique nature at the time of the edit. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I was hoping more news would filter through from reliable sources about album #2, but at the moment, Haim's second album would be deleted per WP:HAMMER on sight. When or if it's in a position to not do that, that would be an appropriate time to plumb it in here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that is fair. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Haim (band)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    No copyvios detected, only some Wikipedia mirrors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    "... while Donna won a contest on The Gong Show in the 1970s covering a Bonnie Raitt song." - I'm assuming that this means that she was a singer, but an instrumentalist could cover a song as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gone with "singing", which is the exact word the Guardian source uses. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. "He is the son of Three Dog Night's Danny Hutton[15] and former member of the band Wires on Fire, who knew Este socially." - who knew Este? Hutton, or Wires on Fire? If that latter, wouldn't it be the members of the band who knew Este?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The Salon source says "and floated in Este's social orbit" - I've copyedited this to make it clearer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Final paragraph in the present activity section is a single-sentence paragraph. Merge this into an existing paragraph. There is another paragraph like this in the "Musical style" section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, but by adding new content, due to the "moving target" nature of this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Much of the Reception section is more like the musical style section. Also, this sentence, "The group have become friends with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, and together they have visited Catalina and Maui, Hawaii.[53]," is out of place, as it does not belong in this section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
What's the best section for this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question. I'm not sure. I'm thinking it might be best to mention this, maybe with some wording changes, in the part where the "2014-present" section mentions Haim's appearances on Taylor Swift's tour.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Citations do not follow a consistent format. For instance, reference 3 reads ""Jewish singers Haim tipped as Sound of 2013". The Jewish Chronicle.]", reference 4 reads "Dodero, Camille (30 September 2013). "Falling for Haim". Spin. Retrieved 21 October 2014." and reference 5 reads "Campion, Freddie (February 28, 2012). "Band of the Week: HAIM". Vogue (New York City, USA: Condé Nast Publications). Retrieved December 12, 2012." The second and third examples both are acceptable, but the citations should follow a consistent format. Also, the Spin citation doesn't italicize the publication, and the Jewish Chronicle citation has a stray bracket.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I don't believe this is actually part of the GA criteria, as far as I can tell you just need inline citations, and only then to information challenged or likely to be challenged, although for an article about a group of young, living people, that's more or less everything. Then consistent citations are part of the FA criteria. Still, it won't hurt to take the wikifork and the wikitrowel to this lot, so I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The criteria link to WP:IC, which states "There are many ways to add inline citations to an article. Each is acceptable under Wikipedia's citation style guideline, but a single article should use only one type." If this does not apply to GAs, I apologize for bringing it up here, but I figured since the criteria link to that guideline then what is given there is a GA requirement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally I will list any work that I think will improve the article, then fall back on the GA criteria if things become difficult or onerous. In this case, the work was a bit too gnomish for my liking, but I've swapped all citations over to US dates now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    All content is cited to reliable sources.
    There are some deadlinks, I will list as I find them: http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/music/soundcheck-haim-7682181.html
That's a 503 "Service unavailable" error to the London Evening Standard website. Given the history of the newspaper, I'd be amazed if that was permanent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it works now. Sorry, I was doing this review right before I was on for my shift at work, so I rushed a bit at the end of the session and left things hanging.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. This brought up a 404 error, though: http://www.mumfordandsons.com/news/usa-stopover-shows-announcement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think I added this, but generally I avoid citing official sites, as apart from being primary sources, they tend to deteriorate into dead links far too quickly when compared to news or magazine sites. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. C. No original research:
    All content cited to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article stays within scope, covers only major aspects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    B. Focused:
    Focused on subject, no extraneous detail.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral, fair representation. Analysis and reception is all supported with reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars or other major disruptions in the article's recent history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images are licensed under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are relevant, high-quality, and have suitable captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Overall: A bit of work needed, but mostly there.
checkY All issues resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Pass or Fail:

Good to get a clean bill of health on "stability" - since the group have been nominated for a Grammy, the results of which are (IIRC) being announced today, the viewing traffic has exploded (it's on about 8,000 views per day at the mo) and as you can see from the history, keeping the article at GA status on the queue while defending it from good faith but non GA compliant edits from IPs and newbies has been .... challenging! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For stability, I'm willing to overlook passing instances of vandalism or editions of unsourced content. If things are rolled back very promptly, I'd consider the article stable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, I'd have done more but the article seems to be hit by vandalism or at least unsourced BLP violations as I write this..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Article is under protection now, so this should ensure stability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I asked for it ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note if article is nominated for FA

Right now, the article uses the band name as a plural noun, although technically in American English collective nouns are nearly always used in the singular. For GA criteria this is not necessary, as it is a stylistic issue, but if this article is an FA it should conform to American English standards. For the record, I, as an American, often use collective nouns as plurals, but apparently in formal American English this is incorrect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that :-/ .... does that mean the first paragraph in the lead changes to "The group's pop sound on its studio work stands in contrast to the more rock-based music of its live shows"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Though you could re-phrase it to "the pop sound performed by the sisters on their studio work stands in contrast to the more rock-based music in their live shows."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

87.204.163.90 (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (Redacted)

 Not done Unsourced and defamatory information about a living person is completely against policy. Thankyou for demonstrating why the article should remain semi-protected. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Bunch of idiots"

Now, personally, any band praising David Cameron is either naive, a secret Tory, or worse ..... but @Mimi C.: can you explain why you removed reliably sourced content stating an opinion? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was worded in a way that made it sound like a great number of people thought it ill-advised, when only one person was quoted in the reference. While Wikipedia accepts different opinions in articles, the sentence has to be properly worded to correctly reflect the reference. Wikipedia is neutral in its POV. --Mimi C. (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It only says "the move was ill-judged" and explains who said it. The prose in the two sources describes it as such cf. one of the source saying, verbatim, "The move was met with a great deal of controversy from fans and critics". Nobody copyediting the article to good article status has had issue with this. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to find criticism of their TV appearance apart from Johnny Marr, but I'm having trouble. Could you please point to various reference that bolster the claim "the move was met with a great deal of controversy from fans and critics," Thanks! --Mimi C. (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's in the first of the two inline citations given, search for the phrase and you should find it. I appreciate sometimes it's difficult to find where a fact is cited, and I've asked this more than a few times myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw the phrase in the article, I was simply asking if there were other articles/references supporting that claim. I searched for further criticism of their appearance, and I couldn't find any.--Mimi C. (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Jewish Musical groups"

I removed this page from the category "Jewish musical groups". Though they fit the category in theory since all three sisters are Jewish (by ethnicity at least, none of their religious preferences are publicly known), it seems that that category is mainly reserved for bands that make Jewish music. Of course, despite being composed of Jewish members, Haim is a mainstream band that makes secular music with no kind of religious overtones, so I don't think they fit. I replaced it with the category "Jewish American musicians", which I think is more appropriate, since it just acknowledges the subject being of a Jewish background, regardless of the content of its work. 24.192.200.97 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. It depends what Category:Jewish musical groups is supposed to be? I see the Beastie Boys are in there (under the sub category Category:Jewish hip hop groups) Similarly, Peter Green, who grew up in the East London Jewish community but otherwise is a blues man, and Gene Simmons who is proud of his Jewish heritage but is otherwise a straightforward rock musician has several "Jewish" categories. Perhaps a discussion on the category itself is warranted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There must be a better picture of them than this.

Haim on stage

This one is shit. Richard75 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There's this one, but that's it for free images. Anyway, if you think the current image is bad, don't look at Paul Gascoigne. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Would this be a better image? It clearly shows all three members. File:Haim-01 v 9jan13 b.jpg -NicholeC
I've just nominated it for deletion; I don't see where the image was placed under a free license. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haim (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid gossip

@Bangabandhu: An encyclopedia reader does not need to know which band members are dating who. Save it for Heat magazine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Alana Haim

Hi everyone, I noticed that there is no page for Alana and Este Haim. I am interested in creating a page for each as Danielle has her own, but when I tried to create one for Alana, the link redirects to the band members page. Would it be appropriate to create a separate page for Alana and Este? If so, could someone help me to create the pages in a way that would not automatically redirect people to this page? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholeC (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@NicholeC: The basic guidelines are on this page, specifically "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Danielle has her own page because she has done side projects and noted session work with other bands and artists. Her sisters, as far as I know, haven't, so they get redirects to this article instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello just wondering if the guidelines still apply, since Este has collaborated with Scarlett Johansson's band in 2015, played drums on Lady Gaga's Joanne album (2016), and was featured on Ludwig Göransson's song "California Loco"(2016),and was even noted for playing tambourine on the song "Lay Me Down" a target exclusive song from Adele's "25" album (2015).Annacapcourse (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dash Hutton

Looks like he's no longer with HAIM; the drummer who has been playing since May this year is Jody Giachello. Whether that's a temporary or permanent thing I do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:63B8:3100:5DC3:711D:3068:4CA7 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello it does appear that this is a permanent thing, and Jody is their new touring drummerAnnacapcourse (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Why this comment: "The group's pop sound on their studio work stands in contrast to the more rock-based music of their live shows."

Certainly most bands will emphasize their more upbeat work live, but that is not something specific about Haim. I've seen them live and frankly the comment makes no sense.

Edit war: "Reception" section March 2018

On wikipedia, we don't include any "Reception" section in a biography about a band: those sections are present in articles about releases of albums. We try to build an encyclopedia and including in a biography, quotes such as "It'd be hard to truly dislike Haim. They're an eminently likeable, albeit slightly kooky, trio whose story already bears the frisson of legend" makes this article looking like a hagiography. Hagiography is when authors embellish the reception and neatly avoid to include any negative view. wp:neutrality is one of our rules. Some of the sentences from that section should be included in the "Musical style" section. This is why I had rearranged the section, moving the most neutral quote of the "reception" section to include it the Musical Style section [3]. This was reverted with the summary, "the layout has had consensus for ages" [4] which is untrue as there aren't any result of a consensus about this "reception" section, nowhere here or in the archive of this talk. Woovee (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Crikey, chill out and take a deep breath. See WP:Silence and consensus and Talk:Haim (band)/GA1. Reliably sourced opinions are fine to put in articles generally, but in this instance I feel they're best parked out in a separate section where they're obviously opinions. Other articles for more established bands have a "Legacy" section. For example, in Genesis (band) (one of my favourite GAs to work on), we've got "Genesis has had a hard time getting respect. In the early '70s ... it attracted an avid cult following but was largely ignored by the rock press and public at large ... Even in the early '80s ... the press was unimpressed, dismissing the group as easy-listening lightweights ... All of which, to be honest, has been grossly unfair to the group" and "Genesis were a daring and groundbreaking band (certainly in their early career)" which is hardly neutral, but it's obviously opinion. If the opinions break some (imagined) neutrality guideline, they shouldn't be in the article full stop.
"wp:neutrality is one of our rules." There are no rules here. Rather, we should assess each article on its own merits and not bow down to absolute dogma. Frankly I tire of editors who think everything has to follow the same format - a bit of common sense and weighing up values on a case by case basis is all is required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The result of a GA is not a consensus. A consensus is a decision taken by a neutral user, at the end of a discussion between several users over one specific issue. Here clearly, there was only one person that gave Ritchie333 a GA for their article. And an article may be reassessed at any time. This "reception" section makes this article look like a hagiography because the main contributor neatly avoided to include any negative view. If we include a reception section in an article, we must also include negative views as well from reliable sources. See wp:NPOV. It is not "Reliably sourced opinions are fine to put in articles generally" that matters, it is how they are presented. Woovee (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
So go find a reliable, independent source that says "this band are total shit" and add it to the article. Problem solved! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove some photos

I propose that some photos be removed from this article, leaving one group photo, and one photo of each individual group member. Currently there are multiple individual photos that do not add significantly to the article.Design (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The excess photos can be placed in Wikicommons.-Design (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Your personal opinion has been noted. The pictures are all on Commons anyway, as you can see via the link at the bottom of the page. Have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What's this?

Can somebody explain why this belongs in the lead. (Also bear in mind as this is a good article, it needs to comply with the manual of style for lead sections, and hence information should not be in the lead unless it is in the body, properly sourced, and of significant magnitude to mention there). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If you listen carefully to the video, it's NOT "ˈhaɪɪm/ HY-im" but (/ˈhaɪem/ HY-em). Dä Chronist (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haim_(band)/Archive_1&oldid=1125586379"