Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protection

I've protected this page, because there seems to be an editwar over what URLs should be included in the external links. I guess we should put it to a vote so this dispute can end.

User NCC17 and Cirreus want the section to look like this:

“

• AC/DC at the Open Directory Project
• Official AC/DC Site

”

Whereas several others want it to have it looking like this:

“

• Official AC/DC Site
• AC/DC at the Open Directory Project
• AC/DC at Rolling Stone
• AC/DC at MusicBrainz

”

All those wanting NCC17 and Cirreus's layout vote here

• NCC17 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Bretonbanquet 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Soleil Noir 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• t(-_-t).tekwon 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

All those wanting the other layout vote here

• No-Bullet 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• HK51 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• BuBZ 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sabrebattletank 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• 62.101.75.108 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Anger22 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Raull 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record

For the record, Circeus suggested the above compromise in regards to Fair Deal's previous complaint over the links. If you call in an administrator to settle things as Fair Deal did, you ought to abide by their decision.NCC17 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Rolling Stone Magazine has no business being linked on AC/DC's page

From a review of the the RS Record Guide:

" The first page gives us reviews of albums by Aalon (who?), Abba, AC/DC, Ace (Aalon’s partners in oblivion), Johnny Ace, Ace Spectrum, and David Ackles. The high-scoring album on the page is The Johnny Ace Memorial Album (at 4 stars), while the low-scorers are the three AC/DC albums High Voltage, Let There Be Rock, and Powerage, all of which get a “box” (not even a single star!), meaning:

“Worthless: records that need never (or should never) have been created. Reserved for the most pathetic bathwater.”

Damn, that’s harsh. Sure, High Voltage is no conceptual disco set in a futurist urban landscape, like the 2-star-rated Cream City by Aalon, but it’s the AC/DC of the Bon Scott era, the source of some surprisingly heartfelt lyrics and arguably Angus Young’s most bluesy-nutso stage, that the RS Guide has just blithely dismissed as offending “anyone within sight or earshot.” By comparison, the AllMusic Guide (AMG hereafter, representing current conventional critical wisdom unless I disagree with them) gives the AC/DC albums 4½, 4½, and 3½ stars, respectively."

[1]

NCC17 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I never agreed with the rankins of the magazine, but still, we need to have the link on the page, it's a must. We can't leave out the link to one of the most well known sites just because we disagree with their rankings.

By the way, the official page is www.acdcrocks.com, when you search for ac/dc on yahoo or google it says: "Official site of the classic heavy metal band, AC/DC. Features biography, timeline, photos, merchandise, and tour information." [2]. Also, in non-official pages, acdcrocks is listed as the only official link. [3] No-Bullet 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with No-Bullet on this, just because we disagree with their rankings doesn't mean we should leave out one of the most well-known sites, it's not really showing a NPOV is it? And yes, acdcrocks.com is the official site, accadacca.net is not. Oh, and stop using your sock-puppets to vote, it's not really fair. HK51 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is not a nuetral source when concerning ac/dc. the magizine has consitintly since there first review of high voltage shunned and delibratly underrated and belittled the band, often ranking the bands musics and member noticably below reason in th epov of rock listeners and not nessesarly AC/DC fans. - Ishmaelblues

Can you verify this "deliberate"-bit? Anyways, I'm just going to HK51 here: just because we disagree with their rankings doesn't mean we should leave out one of the most well-known sites.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know why Rolling Stone needs a special mention. In the UK at least, the mag is meaningless - and since they do nothing but slag the band off, what does it add to the article? Nothing. And why should it get a mention when many other mags / sites don't? I don't think reviews have any place whatsoever on Wikipedia anyway, even links to them. It's impossible to keep a neutral pov when you have links that are clearly biased in one way or the other.

The two sites being talked about are both just record company sites, and one is no more official than the other. This is a band that discusses nothing, tells you very little and answers no questions, so any notion of an "official site" is fairly meaningless anyway. The Epic one is just trying to sell stuff. Bretonbanquet 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

read the ac/dc bio on the stone site http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/acdc/biography its full of back handed insults an attempts to make the band seem smaller than they are. the magizine is woefully pov and not wikipedia quality to use in this case -ishmaelblues

Not only is it clearly impossible to accomodate the linking of reviews with the neutral POV policy, but Rollingstone is hardly considered respectable by anyone in either music criticism or cultural studies, anyway. It's not a matter of disagreeing with their rankings, even, but rather that they are an institution who has always moved with/embraced fads in music, and of zero worth to anyone interested in it with any seriousness. In any case, no one can correctly claim that such a review of a band's career, positive or otherwise, fits with neutral POV. AC/DC's own official site, informative or otherwise, should be included however because it is the band's official internet presence.

--Soleil Noir

Dispute resolution

Could an editor or user with better knowledge than me look into having outside parties look at this article? I admit that I'm not a Wiki-Lawyer, but it is my understanding that there is a process to take these disputes to a higher level and involve outside, uninterested parties. I think one of the issues that we need to look at is what the definition of a current member is and is not when it comes to bands. I would also like to have outside people looking at the article to address the concerns of the user named Bark. Thank you. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

I think it would probably be best to let the RfC play out. It's only been a few days. I know I don't check Wikipedia on a daily basis, and waiting for more opinions is only beneficial to the discussion at large. I have faith that all concerns will be addressed and play out. One thing that I think we should all be able to agree: This is ALL Phil Rudd's fault. --Bark (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. The problem on this page isn't his fault. Other editors on this page, please feel free to contribute any evidence that you may have to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBark. There has been far too much socking here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you that I'm not Mr. Bark. I looked where you show similar interests between us. I do find that interesting, but I guess in a world of 1.2 Billion English speakers, it's entirely possible that there are two separate people here with similar tastes and views. You are correct that I have signed as Jack Sprat, as I did for many years, but I changed to Jack B. Nimble on an AC/DC fan site and started using that here as well. It makes it easier for me to use the same name across the board, especially since this is an AC/DC matter. You seem to be quite good at knowing which channels to go for help. Maybe you could ask for uninterested parties to come in here and settle this "drummer" dispute as well? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

FYI, the investigation came up that we are UNRELATED. I am not a sock puppet, for the record. Peace and love, but I have too much to do. I've been posting here for about a decade. Now with the ad hominem attack out of the way, can we get back to discussing the issue at hand? --Bark (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempt at resolution

I'm sorry to make another section, but everything up above is very muddy and hard to follow along with. I have read the body of the article and while I don't really have a problem with how the article is worded (it doesn't seem very up to date though - no mention of Coachella, brief mention of the Grammys, etc.), I still have an issue with the sidebar and listing Chris as only a live member. I looked up the definition of member in the Cambridge dictionary and it says: (noun) a person or thing that is part of a group. Would Chris not be part of the group, even if temporary? On the sidebar, you have two choices, Member and Past Members. Doesn't it seem wrong to list him as a past member when he's currently a part of the group? Is there an issue with having both Chris and Phil listed as members together since there hasn't been any resolution on Phil yet? Could we not move Chris back to past members should Phil return?

The second issue I have is listing Chris as a current live member. Again, he is doing more than just live work. He is also doing publicity photos and has done the music video, "Rock the Blues Away." I can see the reason for not wanting to remove Rudd from the list of current members without anything concrete from the band. The band doesn't give concrete answers very often. When Rudd was fired in 1983, it was a tiny blurb in a magazine article. I'm not even saying that he's fired or that Chris is permanent at this point. Nobody knows. I am not opposed to keeping Rudd as a current member. I wonder if there's a way to have both Chris and Rudd listed as current members that we can all agree on? Chris is, without a doubt, doing all the duties that Phil would be doing if he weren't absent. I'm not looking for an either/or here, but a compromise where we can reflect actual circumstances in absence of any real information from the band. I want it to be factual for younger people and casual observers who may be exposed to the band for the first time, coming here to this site, to understand what they are seeing in the band. They may ask, why is Phil Rudd listed in the album, but this bald headed guy is playing drums? Does this article explain that? Yes, very vaguely in the narrative, but it doesn't very well in the quick look areas like the sidebar and down in the members section.

I don't want an edit war. I am not able to edit this semi-protected page or else I'd take a stab at it. Should a new section be added to the article to explain what is going on with the drummers the best we can without concrete information? It is a controversy, but one hard to find reliable sources because some news stories list Slade as the new drummer, others say he's filling in for Phil, etc. etc. The article writers don't even know how to word it. Nobody really knows. We could find reliable sources going either way. In conclusion, the reality is that Chris, at the very least, is filling in for Phil in Phil's absence. That doesn't mean that Phil is out. It doesn't mean Chris is permanent. But in reality, Chris has done all the duties that Phil would, not just live work. While the official statement mentions the tour, he has done more than just tour. As far as a future album, that we don't and cannot know. I'm not even sure if the band knows or cares at this point. They seem to be focused on their current tour. Furthermore, I don't think that question needs to be answered at this point for this article. Can we come to a compromise? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Jack B. Nimble

I'm OK with listing both in the sidebar, maybe with an explanatory footnote. For sure, listing Slade as past member when he is currently touring with the band looks weird.--Gorpik (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudd/Slade

I have reverted the edit that places Slade in the current line-up. Though I don't think Rudd is likely to come back, we can't change membership based on one live performance because we "think" it means he will do the whole tour. IMO its too soon to make a change and there is no source to support the edit. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd even go further. Is there any official confirmation that Stevie is now part of the band and Malcolm is not? The official website still lists Mal and Phil as band members, even though Mal will never play with them again. This may be not too different from what happens in Toto, where Mike Porcaro is still considered a band member in spite of him suffering from ALS and, consequentially, unable to ever play again. The band, obviously, uses other bass players, but they are considered stand-ins for the titular.--Gorpik (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, as stated in the other article talk page for three reasons essentially. (1) It's the de facto lineup. Press releases confirm the plan for the tour is Slade, not Rudd. Rudd's trial is still months away, so he's not going anywhere anytime soon. (2) If Rudd comes back, change the article again, but let's try to keep current with that latest information. (3) Not accusing anyone here, but IMO we should be weary of sentimentality affecting our judgment. For example, Malcolm: Founding member, long-time member, but not a current member. The same sentimental attachments can be given to Rudd for fans of the band, but if he's not banging the drums, there's no plans for him to bang the drums, and someone else is, he's not a current member. Just my two cents. --Bark (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Chris Slade has joined the band as a real band member and not just as a live member. He is seen in the new AC/DC music video (Rock the Blues Away)too.

I don't know if Rudd will return or not but it's a fact that Chris Slade is a band member now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No sentimentality on may side, at least. After all, I like Slade much better than Rudd. But it is not so unusual for bands to have musicians (recording or touring) who are not considered band members. What I am saying is: if the official web page says that the band is Johnson, the Young brothers, Williams and Rudd, Wikipedia should not go against that.--Gorpik (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There were severel statements that Malcolm and Phil are out of the band. The bands website is not the only official source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are those statements from official sources? If they exist, do they also say that either Stevie or Slade are part of the band? Not just "Chris Slade will play drums in the forthcoming tour", but "We welcome Chris back to the band", or the like. Darryl Jones has been playing with the Rolling Stones ever since Bill Wyman left, but he is not part of the band.--Gorpik (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The official facebook page from Chris Slade. Anyway when Rudd re-joined the band in 1994 there was no official announcement from the bands management too. Does that mean that he never really was a band member during 1994-2015? No.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 February 2015‎

Press releases and interviews are the most dynamic source of information, and AC/DC has issued enough of them for a reasonable person to conclude the official line-up is Angus, Cliff, Brian, Stevie, and Chris. Many are cited in the band's articles currently. Official web pages may not be as dynamic as you think, especially if the band in technology averse. There's no need to split hairs, IMO. There's a fair chance that right now the only band member from a legal standpoint is Angus! Everyone else came on board later, and Malcolm may not be of sound mind to effect any legal control. We certainly wouldn't just have Angus as the only listed band member. I just don't think we should retain out-dated information based on lawyering and arbitrary criteria (i.e. Some 19-year-old webmaster has to publish the web site update. Chris Slade has to complete the tour. Chris Slade has to be on a new album. Phil Rudd needs to be sentenced to a prison term. Etc.) when we can just keep it dynamic based on the press releases, interviews, and based on who are actually on the stage playing. Like I previously said, if things change, we stay dynamic and effect the change again. We aren't publishing a book with a deadline on a final version. We're updating a dynamic web site, and if we leave Rudd listed as the drummer, the article becomes intentionally inaccurate.--Bark (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are also official band photos with Stevie Young and Chris Slade. Another sign for their full membership in the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

we don't guess, or make assumptions based on photos or feelings etc. We wait for a reliable source. If you have sources for the changes please cite them. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe the source is cited. Rolling Stone just confirmed Slade is the drummer for the North American leg of the tour, at least. Rolling Stone's article also calls Rudd's previous comments of still being the drummer as dubious. So I ask you, do you have a source that Rudd is still the drummer as of February 5, 2015 or later? (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ac-dc-announce-north-american-rock-or-bust-tour-dates-20150211).--Bark (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Phil Rudd said earlier that year: "I wanna have my job back". His words were pretty clear about the fact that he is not in the band anymore. Chris Slade is the bands current drummer. And just because he didn't played on the new album it doesn't mean that je is just a live member. He is a real band member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp-1992 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know what we mean by providing sources or not, you could read WP:42 or WP:RS if you wanted to understand why you can't make changes based on opinion or rumour or intuition. The most important point here is that we are all required to edit by consensus. Please refrain from edit warring with other editors and provide reliable and verifiable sources to support the changes you wish to make. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's now all over the news that Slade has replaced Rudd for the forthcoming tour, finding references isn't hard. Can the infobox be changed now? Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stub Mandrel (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has expressed any doubt that Slade will replace Rudd in the forthcoming tour. The question is: is he a temporary or a definitive replacement? I have not read a line, barring speculations, to suggest that Rudd is out of the band for good. And neither Angus nor Brian have been too quiet recently.--Gorpik (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think those here who are reverting edits back to Rudd, stating "cite a reliable source," not giving what (in their opinion) would constitute as much (since there is obviously a disagreement as to what meets the threshold and what does not), not offering any potential compromises, not acknowledging the currently cited sources (and potential ones, i.e. I noticed my Rolling Stone link was ignored), and also not citing any reliable sources composed after February 5, 2015 that definitely states that Rudd is still the official drummer are treading close to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, maybe Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Edit reversions and citing policies in the face of edits that you disagree with (if you will indulge my previous two citations of Wikipedia policy here), are the beginnings of edit warring and not in the "spirit" of Wikipedia when there's no attempt to bridge the gap. I think it should be Slade, but I have not engaged in edit reverts. Therefore, I hope this still demonstrates my good faith. As a compromise, I would be willing to put an end date on Rudd's membership for 2015, keep Slade in former members and touring members, and then slap an outdated article banner here until such time that there is definitive word on who the official drummer is, i.e. list no current drummers. Would that be acceptable to all? Are there any other attempts at compromise here?--Bark (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that deliberately making the article out of date as a resonable outcome. What we know is that Rudd was out of favour due to unreliability during the recording of the last album, and that he is stuck in NZ and unable to tour at this point. We also know that AC/DC chose Slade for the live appearance at Grammy's and that he is commwncing the tour with the band. Personally I feel that having Slade as a touring member is the perfect compromise until Rudd's position is known. I'm pretty sure we treated Stevie Young and Malcolm in the same way until Malcolm's end was definitive. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(http://loudwire.com/acdc-2015-north-american-tour/) - To sum up, Slade has been announced as the drummer for the entire World Tour, not just the U.S. leg. Also, there is a publicity shot of the band, all five members, with Slade in and Rudd not. IMO, the Malcolm situation was different, as it was psychological/health related and details were released sparingly due to obvious discretionary concerns. Rudd's mess is a matter of public record. So, what's the criteria? What's the benchmark? Does he have to finish the tour? Does he have to record the next album, if there is one? Do the press releases have to say, "Rudd out/Slade in" for it to reach it?

Seriously though, if we are in a "cite your source" mode as the only response to requests to build consensus, cite a source published after February 5, 2015 that definitively states Rudd is AC/DC's current drummer. If you can't find one, he should not be listed here as the current drummer.--Bark (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bark: Chris Slade has been called a live member just because he did not played on the new album 'Rock Or Bust'. But he is not only playing live shows - he also attempts video and photo shootings. This is a very important point because a temporary replacement wouldn't be able to do that. Wasp-1992 (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, that is splitting hairs. I honestly don't understand the "retain Rudd" argument. There's no recent source to support the argument that he's still in the band. Given the circumstances, which are unique, I believe the "retain Rudd" requires the same level of citation as "change to Slade" does. Since this issue was born on February 5, 2015, the publication date of the citation needs to be on or after that date.--Bark (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that some fans from Rudd cannot accept that he was replaced by Chris Slade but this is a simple fact. -Wasp-1992 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Provide some reliable and verifiable sources to support your suggested changes or stop arguing. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/feb/13/acdc-confirm-chris-slade-will-replace-phil-rudd-2015-tour. Phil Rudd is not in the band anymore. Chris Slade is the current line up's drummer. Wasp-1992 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

that confirms he is a touring member, that isn't in dispute. Flat Out let's discuss it 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bb what are your thoughts here? The band is touring with Slade, Rudd's status is up in the air but seeing as they are only playing live for the foreseeable future (at least a year) it is possibly a moot point.Flat Out let's discuss it 20:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What is weird is that the Facebook page lists Johnson, Rudd, Angus Young, Stevie Young, and Cliff Williams as the current lineup; yet Slade appears in band photos. Will the band ever make an announcement about this issue? 173.51.130.250 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from a break. I don't see any sources saying that Rudd has left. Slade has been announced for the tour but not as a full-time member or anything else. As far as I can see he's a temporary member. Anything chucked into any AC/DC article without a reliable source will be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

How about an interview that the LA Times just did with Brian Johnson dated April 9th, 2015? http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-coachella-acdc-20150409-story.html#page=1 In that article, Brian Johnson states: "You pick yourself up, dust yourself down and just keep going," said the frontman, instantly recognizable in his trademark black T-shirt and flat cap. "You live on, and you have a wonderful memory of them always with you, but you're not going to stop doing what you do. Otherwise, you die inside, you know? And we would die — I would, if I didn't do what I was doing. There'd be nothing." He paused as though suddenly aware of how serious he sounded. Then he laughed.

Notice the pronoun "them". 67.224.16.233 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Jack Sprat

Not even close to being a good enough source to say Rudd has permanently left. Johnson says "them" but that's not conclusively referring to more than one person, nor does it mention specifically who he's talking about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Phil Rudd has left because because of legal troubles. Chris Slade replaced him. Their live performance at the Grammys can be threated as a "official statement". Wasp-1992 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wasp-1992: No it can not, using the Grammy's performance as a reference would be an "Official assumption", and as you know we don't do assumptions. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a "assumption" because it's a fact. Chris Slade has written that the drums are under "old management" on his official facebook page one day earlier.Wasp-1992 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not go over old ground please. We don't make changes without consensus and consensus is built on reliable sources of which there aren't any. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I am just seeking the truth from facts.Wasp-1992 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What in the world... was the compromise we reached that ACDC now has 2 active drummers? Putting both Rudd and Slade in the info box is NOT a valid compromise. It is up to debate which one is the official member, but nobody thinks the band has 2 drummers. We must keep it at Rudd until the issue is resolved, as he is the most recent confirmed drummer. Joshua0228 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Why this case is so complicated? The facts are very simple: -Chris Slade appears on official band photos -Chris Slade is a part of the Rock Or Bust world tour. -Chris Slade even confirmed by himself that he is back in the band on facebook. Wasp-1992 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Look people it's simple, Rudd is the current drummer until an official word from the AC/DC camp is released, end of story. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone should ask them about that topic in a interview.Wasp-1992 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah. They won't talk about it. They are probably reading this talk page right now and laughing as their loyal fans duke it out over small legal technicalities. If I was Slade I would be laughing as people tried to figure out what I am. Joshua0228 (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"CHRIS SLADE is the current drummer for AC/DC. Previously drumming for Michael Schenker, Manfred Mann's Earthband, Uriah Heep, ASIA, Tom Jones, The Firm, Gary Moore, Jimmy Page, David Gilmour, Gary Numan, Olivia Newton John, Count Basie etc. etc" Source: https://facebook.com/page/about.php?id=250282005103235&ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_highlights Wasp-1992 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Flat Out let's discuss it 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bon Scott and Malcolm Young are still listed as members on the official website. Maybe the band has given them positions for life in the band, like they do to the leaders in North Korea (DPRK)? Why aren't they listed as official members then if we're going to use the official website as the end all, be all for defining who is a member or not? What the definition of a member is may be the better question here? Furthermore, the term being used in the article here is "current member" and currently, Slade is a member. To call him a former member like he is in the sidebar, while he's currently performing all the duties of the band's drummer reeks of politics more than reality. If some hipster from Coachella were to be exposed to the band for the first time, look them up here on Wikipedia, and see that Phil Rudd is the current drummer, would that make sense? It's not what they witnessed, is it? This article lists Slade as a former member. Maybe you want to call Slade, "Drummer pro tem" at this point until something more official, to the liking of the dissenters here, comes out. I certainly would not consider Phil a current member as he is not performing the duties of the band's drummer at present and Rudd himself stated he wants his job back, indicating that he no longer has it, but agreed, the band has been anything but clear about it. It might make better sense to list him in the current members list along with Slade, but notate it as situation undetermined. That would be a factual assessment of the current situation, and better than the current handling of it which doesn't represent what people would see when they actually go see the band this year, would it not? It's not as if bands haven't had two drummers before. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

We aren't using the official site as the "be all and end all." The infobox is a snapshot of information only, the band membership which includes a current drummer and a live drummer is contained in the body of the article and is supported by reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I read a piece of news about Coachella and it said something like: "Malcolm Young has been replaced by his nephew Stevie, while Chris Slade is filling in for Phil Rudd, who is currently having trouble with [...]". This also matches the line-up provided by the official Facebook page: Stevie is now part of the band, but Slade is just filling in for Rudd. Will this become a permanent replacement? Maybe there is not even a "permanent"; the band might call it a day after this tour, according to recent news. Now, adding a note to the infobox, beside Phil Rudd name, might be in order.--Gorpik (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The article mentioned where they said Chris was filling in for Phil was from MetalHammer and they were writing about an article where the Telegraph interviewed Brian Johnson. Nowhere in the original article was there a mention that Chris is just a fill in. MetalHammer Article: http://metalhammer.teamrock.com/news/2015-04-16/malcolm-inspired-ac-dc-world-tour Original Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11539723/Brian-Johnson-I-think-they-made-a-mistake-about-Jeremy-Clarkson.html

The article here on Wikipedia is factually incorrect by having the sidebar list Chris as a past member instead of current. As far as being a touring member only, that too is factually incorrect as he is doing publicity photos and music videos as well. He is doing everything that a band's drummer would do. The only question is whether he doing so temporarily or on a permanent basis, which is why I suggested the "pro tem" moniker in obvious futility. If you speak of consensus, then I ask you to read through all of the discussion here and it appears that the ones who are keeping the article as is, factually incorrect, are a couple of members with obvious Mod or Admin rights who are in the minority. Call it what you will, it is no longer a matter of editing by consensus, but by personal motivation and feelings on the matter. Phil may be considered by some to be the band's drummer "de jure", but Chris is the "de facto" drummer for the band currently. Anything that lists him as a past drummer is incorrect. By the looks of the arguments above, that seems to be the consensus of the majority. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Jack B. Nimble

Chris Slade is the current drummer, and Phil Rudd is the former drummer. Several reliable sources in media have been provided, ex. interviews, publicity photos, etc. The "Pro-Rudd" camp here drag their feet, claiming a standard has to be reached to justify the change, and yet fail to specify what the exact threshold is. I have asked numerous times for what it would take to sway their opinion, i.e. a conviction in the criminal trial, a direct quote from the band along the lines of "Rudd's out, Slade's in," a web site update (which still lists Malcolm despite the consensus that he is now a former member despite the site's information), Rudd spontaneously combusting, Rudd choking on someone else's vomit, etc. No response is ever given that contains a definitive metric. All that is offered is a non-response to specific proposed sources when brought up and an implicit, "not good enough, moving on..." This reeks of OWN to me as it's from the same couple of users and why I left the discussion months ago, as I recognized an exercise in futility when I saw it. However, I will again state my opinion that Rudd should be relegated to former member and Slade to be promoted to current member, and hope that my refusal to engage in edit wars displays my good faith effort. Peace and love, as per Ringo. --Bark (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Current drummer, current member, live drummer...they don't necessarily mean the same thing. Chris Slade is a hired hand in the same way that Chester Thompson has been a hired hand for Genesis since the mid-70's. Stevie is also likely a hired hand like Daryl Stuermer, too. Neither of these gentlemen would have been given any ownership in the band. AC/DC is a business from which certain core members will retain ownership & rights. Those stakeholders might be said to be the actual members; their say so is what matters. If Mr. Slade has to stop playing tomorrow, he would quickly see his income from AC/DC go to nil...meanwhile, Mr. Rudd and Malcolm don't have to do anything but will continue to receive some revenue provided they retain their part of the ownership. (Hint:It might be an improvement to the article if ownership details could be found). Would you concede that Mr. Rudd is still a member if he retains his ownership and voting/partnership rights in the band (assuming he has that still)?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia is based on facts and not on assumptions.Wasp-1992 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is based on what the reliable sources have published. Note that I'm not trying to press my conjecture above into the article but include it here so that those who are bent on changing membership to conform to what they perceive it to be may see this from a different perspective. The real details about all of this aren't really public...it includes articles of partnership, buy–sell agreements and other contracts which we aren't privy to. The "firing" of Rudd back in '83 is an oversimplification which summarized something more complicated for the public's benefit. I haven't seen a reliable source offer anything official saying Rudd is out now. Opinions from sources don't really change the status quo, do they?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again: Someone should ask them about that topic in a interview. Wasp-1992 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it's about who has ownership in the band? That's what makes them a member? You yourself admit that Stevie may be a hired hand, but yet he's listed as a current member, not a live member. How long can these convoluted excuses continue? I would think that a member of a band is the person who is performing the duties within the band. There are bands who have "part time" members, such as the Rolling Stones, but don't you think that there's a difference between Chuck Leavell and Chris Slade here? My solution, I believe, would depict an accurate snapshot of the band today, namely, having Chris as the drummer pro tem and Phil as situation unknown. How is that not factual? The only thing that I can see wrong with it is that it is hard to swallow for fans of Phil Rudd. That's not reason enough to hold this article up and refuse to make changes to reflect current facts. With regards to ownership, that information is seldom public knowledge, and certainly isn't public knowledge in this case. It's my understanding that Ace Frehely maintains or at least did have ownership in Kiss after he left, but was he still listed as a current member when Tommy Thayer took his spot? For that reason, I don't think ownership should define who is and who isn't a current band member, unless you wish to add a section to this article about band ownership and list the owners, if you could even get that information. Chris Slade is the current, meaning today, drummer of AC/DC. If Phil comes back, then Chris can return to the past member's column. Really, this shouldn't be about how to list Slade as his current position is quite clear. It is the position of Rudd which is in question. How should he be listed? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Jack B. Nimble

Chris Slade is now listed as a band member on the officiell website, while Phil has been removed. Malcom and Bon are also listed, but Malcom is confirmed no longer being a member and Bon is past away. http://www.acdc.com/us/theband — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.247.166 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Change in official website, Facebook change as well.

Phil Rudd has been removed from the official website and Chris Slade is now listed as drums: http://www.acdc.com/us/theband However, on the Facebook page, they list everyone as the "touring lineup": https://www.facebook.com/acdc/info?tab=overview Very strange wording on the Facebook page, but official page has Chris as the drummer. I think my compromise is still valid.

1.Move Chris to current member of sidebar.

2. Remove "live drummer" label below. Move Chris to drums under current members and have his start date as 2015, leave Phil as current member, put end date as 2014, but leave him as current member until further word comes down.

3. I would also suggest adding a section to the article regarding the drum situation to try and explain to those learning about the band, maybe for the first time, that it's a lot of question marks at the drummer position. Please add the following:

Drummer Situation

Due to problems with Phil Rudd not showing up on time for recording, not showing up for the music videos, “Play Ball” and “Rock or Bust”, and because of legal issues in New Zealand, Phil Rudd has been unable to participate in the Rock or Bust Tour or discharge any duties as the band’s drummer since November 2014.

References

Speculation regarding Chris’s return to AC/DC started shortly after Phil Rudd’s legal problems became public. In a December 2014 podcast by Chris Jericho, Jericho mentioned that he had it on good authority that Chris Slade would be returning to AC/DC.

References

Chris was photographed signing albums with the band on February 7th, 2015.

References

After the photo appeared publicly, Chris finally admitted that he was going to be the band’s drummer and admitted to secrecy surrounding his return, and stated that it was done for the right reasons.

References

Since Chris’s return, the band has issued a statement stating that, “Chris Slade will be on drums for the upcoming Rock or Bust world tour.”

References

Since that time, Chris has appeared in all promotional photos taken with the band and appeared in the music video for the single, “Rock the Blues Away.” On April 21st, 2015, Phil Rudd plead guilty to possession of cannabis and methamphetamine, as well as one charge of “threatening to kill.” He awaits sentencing on June 26th, 2015, but his attorney has stated that they will seek to have charges discharged without conviction.

References

On April 25th, 2015, the band have changed their official website to reflect Chris as the band’s drummer and have removed Phil Rudd. On their Facebook page, they list all of the members as touring members.

References

Neither AC/DC, Phil Rudd, or Chris Slade have commented on whether or not Chris’s tenure with the band will be permanent or not. No comments have been made whether or not Phil Rudd is still with the band.

---End Edit----

I will also add, for those who may think that I am a sock puppet, that I have finally registered for an account, so I will sign with my registered name, Jack Bee Nimble as Jack B. Nimble was already taken. I am the same person. Since I am a new member, I cannot edit the semi-protected page yet. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Jack Bee Nimble

The change in the band's website settles the issue, in my opinion. I would make the changes right away but, since there has been so much discussion, I'd rather wait for others to agree on it.--Gorpik (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? The consensus has been reached. The OFFICIAL WEB SITE now no longer lists Rudd. It lists Slade. Therefore, all prior concerns are out-dated. --Bark (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Can the semi-protection be lifted on this article? I'd like to take a stab at it and update it more than just listing Slade as the current drummer. Phil still hasn't been publicly fired. I am in agreement with Chris being listed as current drummer, but think Phil should be left as a current member on the sidebar until we hear further, and list Phil as status unknown, or something to that effect down below. The article can explain the situation to readers. I wrote the section up above that I'd like to weave into this article to help people understand what is going on. To be honest, it's pretty clear that Chris is the current drummer and has been since February, but what isn't clear is Phil's status. He hasn't done any drum duties since 2014, so that would make a better end date for him. I have a pretty good idea how to do it, but this article needs to be unlocked first so I can take a stab at it. I think I can do it in an honest, fair way that explains the situation to people coming to this site for information. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Jack Bee Nimble

There are always long gaps between drumming on recordings and live work- years at a time. That doesn't mean we just pluck the date they last picked up the sticks. If we did that every single member of the band would listed as starting and stopping. The end comes the balance of reliable sources support that. The reason this article is protected is (1) vandalism which has been a massive problem and (2) because inexperienced editors make wholesale changes against consensus - for example ignoring wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and choosing to document the end of a living person's career (yes, we have a policy on that) just because the situation is unclear. Flat Out talk to me 00:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Rudd wasn't replaced in 2014, so no, 2014 isn't a good date for him. He was effectively replaced the day of the Grammys. As you say, he hasn't been fired at all (yet), so the wording needs to be very carefully constructed, not least for legal reasons. Also, since he has not been fired, listing him as a former member is apparently inaccurate, not that accuracy would bother some of you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet I wholeheartedly agree. Some editors are more worried about what is aesthetically pleasing rather than going with accuracy. There is no time limit - we can wait for Rudd's situation to become clear. We are not a news site. We are not a fan info site. Flat Out talk to me 00:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy has always been my goal, which if you take a look, is why I am opposed to removing Rudd as a current member in the sidebar, despite my wanting to add Slade when he clearly was doing drum duties. Can you tell me specifically what drum duties Rudd did in 2015? Can you reliably source them other than Phil being listed in a clearly outdated website? The decision to have Slade return happened in 2014. Jack Slade, Chris's son told me that his father knew at Thanksgiving 2014 that he was returning to the band, not that I can reliably source that as it was a conversation between him and me, and therefore not in any article, but it is the truth. If I could reliably source it, I'd call for making Slade's start date in 2014, which is when he actually went to America after Christmas to start practicing with the band. That I can reliably source from Chris's Facebook page. It shows him in Las Vegas getting the very same drum set that he used on the Grammys, but doesn't say at that point that he's going to play with AC/DC. His wife's Facebook page does hint to it though. But, all of that being said, I am in agreement that a 2015 date for Slade is appropriate as that is when the band decided to make it known to the world.

I wonder if Bretonbanquet and Flat Out are able to take a NPOV on this article? I have make pretty concise and laid out reasoning for some time for Chris to be listed as the band's current drummer. I've even been accused of being a sock puppet! Chris started being the band's current drummer when he appeared on the Grammys. Phil quit being the current drummer either when he didn't show up for the "Let's Play Ball" and "Rock or Bust" videos in October of 2014 or when his legal problems became public in November 2014. He hasn't done a thing with the band since. Whether or not he is still a member is something that none of us know. Tell me where my statements are inaccurate. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Jack Bee Nimble

Jack Bee Nimble I suggest you have a look at my contributions]. You will see I work on hundreds of articles - I have more than 4,700 articles on my watchlist, do counter-vandalism, review articles for creation, work on BLPs, OTRS ticket desk etc. Bretonbanquet is a very experienced and respected editor. I am an experienced editor. We both understand how WP:BLP applies to articles that aren't biographies. What someone's son told you is not verifiable - see WP:VERIFY. I think it's fair to say you have made your point here, you called an RfC, and you are still rehashing. Continue to disagree if you like but to suggest Bretonbanquet and I are POV pushing is not appreciated. AC/DC is a featured article and there are always a number of editors that work hard to maintain the quality of an article. That doesn't mean to say they think they own the article - but merely they play a key role in maintaining content meets wikipedia standards. When you have a policy or a source you can point to, then please do so. Otherwise consider giving it a rest. Flat Out talk to me 01:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would not have to rehash if you would actually address points and concerns that I bring up instead of doing or saying nothing. Your words "not that accuracy would bother some of you." and "We are not a news site. We are not a fan info site." certainly aren't inflammatory, are they? This is why I wonder if you are coming from a neutral position or not? Every thing that you have brought up for keeping Phil as current drummer, I have addressed. You then say nothing. I never suggested that my conversation with Chris Slade's son counted as verifiable, in fact, if you re-read what I wrote above, you'll see that I said that if it could be verified, I would be pushing for a 2014 date instead of 2015. I'm agreeing on a 2015 start date for Slade. I really feel like I'm trying to be fair and accurate, but that I'm getting a lot of blowback from you. You're not addressing my points on matter of fact, but on vague technicality. How about answering my questions regarding what drumming Phil Rudd did in 2015? I read through WP:BLP and didn't see anything from putting Rudd's end date as 2014. To be honest, it's quite a voluminous article. Can you provide the specific rule that you think it infringes? Could you also address my question as to what I have written that you find non-factual? I would love to take this to a new level and have editors who have no horse in the race take a look at the article. I do not agree with Phil Rudd being placed in the past members column. Wouldn't you think if I had an axe to grind against him, or was just a cheerleader for Slade, that I'd be happy with the article as is? Whether you believe it or not, I am trying to be accurate. P.S., I suggested an edit to this semi-protected page and am I to assume that it has been answered in the negative because I have heard nothing on it? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Jack Bee Nimble

Rudd is a living person. We don't write anything about a living person in Wikipedia unless we know it is correct and supported with a reliable, verifiable source. Whether Rudd has drummed in 2015 is not the issue - the question is whether is out of the band. We don't publish that he is out if we aren't certain because that would be a BLP violation. This will all become clear in good time. You already listed the discussion at RfC which is for non-involved editors to give comment. It is clear you are editing in good faith but what you are trying to do is to take all of the available information and then interpret further meaning (see WP:SYNTHESIS. E.g. Rudd is in trouble with the law, Slade replaced Rudd on the tour, the website has Slade as a member but facebook is less clear - you are taking all of that information and interpreting it. Rudd will be sentenced soon and he will either be free to perform internationally or he won't and it is likely his ongoing role will be made very clear (I can see the headlines now "Rudd receives no conviction and demands his job back.") Flat Out talk to me 05:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself fully with Flat Out's comments and I think that any aspersions cast against him (or myself) in terms of our integrity as editors are way off the mark and should not be repeated. I particularly agree with Flat Out's last post – this is a very sensitive situation that currently includes an ongoing court case. Rudd's lawyer is arguing that Rudd's reputation has been severely damaged as a result of the baseless charge that was ultimately dropped, and if he can claim that internet sources like Wikipedia are saying that Rudd is out of the band when no decision on that has been made, he will do so to bolster his case. We risk contributing to the major confusion going on, particularly if Rudd's contract includes elements related to unfair dismissal and suchlike. I don't think I can be any clearer on that.

I think we can agree on Rudd's "end date" being 2015 and I think trying to be any more specific than that is not sensible. I agree that calling Slade a past member is unhelpful, and that calling Rudd a past member is similarly unhelpful. If the band has two drummers, so be it. It's happened before, and it was the same two drummers we're talking about now, i.e. when Rudd returned before Slade was let go. Flat Out's comment that whether or not Rudd has drummed in 2015 is not relevant is exactly correct. Rudd was still claiming to be a member of the band in 2015 and no statement was ever made to contradict that until Slade appeared for the Grammys. No statement has been made about the drum position in AC/DC beyond the end of the current tour. We don't even know if the band will continue at all after that point. What matters (and only this matters) is whether Rudd will return to the band or not after his sentencing. Nobody knows – not us, not Rudd, not Slade – even Angus probably wouldn't like to guess right now. So let's make sure there is no hint whatsoever that this switch is permanent.

I am not particularly a fan of Rudd as a person (although his drumming is beyond criticism in my opinion) and I roll my eyes at suggestions that I favour him in some way. I've never met him, although I have met Slade (in 1990) and found him to be a fantastically approachable and friendly guy as well as an excellent musician. I object strongly to any intimation that I am looking to belittle his position in the band. I am only interested in the facts as we have them, and not in extrapolating them into guesswork and synthesis. AC/DC have always been a pain in the ass when it comes to keeping us informed of what's going on in the band, and unfortunately our articles have to reflect that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

AC/DC's ambiguity is certainly not helpful. This is probably by design. It's their prerogative. However, the recent change on their official web site is a watershed. We all seem to recognize that. Now the burden becomes proving Rudd's still in the band if there is any consideration of listing two drummers. The official site does not list two. It now lists Slade and no other. Therefore if Rudd is still a member, why would the official site not list him? It lists Bon Scott (God rest his soul) and Malcolm Young, so they certainly could have retained Rudd on that page, if desired. His omission speaks volumes.

The exact dates to use are also problematic. Just a plain "2015" is probably best. The reality is we'll probably never be able to fine-tune the details of this situation until a tell-all book is published years from now. In the meantime, we'll just need to keep an eye on the official site, press releases, and other reliable sources. There may be more developments in the coming weeks or months. --Bark (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the burden becomes proving that Rudd is still a member of the band, as there has been no statement yet concerning his departure. Slade is a member, at least they've cleared that up – but as you've said, they list two members, at least one of which cannot possibly be a current member, so this casts enough doubt to make this a fairly unreliable method of deciding who's in and who's out. My post, and Flat Out's, above outline the importance of not synthesising the small amount of data we have into something that it isn't. This is a BLP and we simply cannot say something we're not sure about, and Rudd's departure certainly falls into that category, particularly while there's a court case going on. I really wish any AC/DC statement actually did speak volumes.

I agree with you about leaving "2015" as the best way to describe the date of Slade's arrival and Rudd's (temporary or otherwise) absence. I think the only way forward is to list both with as much explanatory text as we can provide. That is, until we get further information or that tell-all book... Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They do not list two members. They only list Slade, not Rudd. I do not see where you say, "they list two members," so could you please show where? I think we can merely omit him, as it is nothing more or less being offered by the official site currently, i.e. it is not synthesis. If there are any implications regarding his current status in the band, these implications reside solely on the official site. Therefore, I believe including him would be the synthesis of the available material, not omitting him. I also think it makes more sense to cite (prove) a positive assertion than to cite (prove) a negative one. --Bark (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

They list two members who are not members (Scott and Malcolm Young) – you said it yourself, so it's wherever you found it. This makes that list unreliable. I disagree with you about omitting Rudd as omission implies that he's left the band, and we don't have anything to say that's the case. That's not a list of current band members as proved by the presence of Scott and Malcolm, so it can't be used to say that Rudd has left. All we can use it for is to say that the official site does not list him, as that's the only positive assertion it makes, since there's no explanation whatsoever of why he's not listed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am confused as to why when Slade was not listed on the official site, there was no problem not including him, but now that Rudd is not listed, there is a potential problem not listing him? This seems inconsistent. We should appreciate that the band made significant web edits regarding the band's "members" consciously. There are only three kinds of changes the band could make to their official members page, drop someone, add someone, or leave someone alone. The band made all three edits: They dropped Rudd, added Stevie and Slade, and left Malcolm, Bon, Angus, Brian, and Cliff alone. (Obviously, there is no controversy in any way for Angus, Brian, and Cliff.) We need to accept these changes in good faith. Now there are no sources to document that Rudd is a current member, nor is there any source that he quit or was fired. The only unbiased way to document these facts is to simply list the band's members as per the official site, cite any press releases/reports in an accurate and fair way especially in regards to biographies of living persons, and omit any other conjecture. Regarding Bon and Malcolm, one could speculate that their positions are honorary due to the nature of their departures. Perhaps it is in order to create a third classification of band member, i.e. some type of honoris causa? For the record, I'm not sure if I would be in favor or against that third classification, but it warrants mentioning and maybe a discussion in light of the fact that after the most recent site edit, they are still listed. In any event, I believe going against the official listed lineup of their web site is problematic and just going with it is not. --Bark (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it a list of current members? Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The definitive one. It is their official site, is it not? --Bark (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So you say it's a list of current members, although one is suffering from dementia and being nursed round the clock, and another has been dead for 35 years. It's plainly not an accurate list of current members. Does their facebook page not list the Johnson/Young/Young/Williams/Slade lineup as a touring lineup? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Latin. 2. Not on Facebook. --Bark (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Latin? Check Jack Bee Nimble's post at the top of this section - looks like a facebook page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Latin, as in honorary members, as I previously mentioned above. Regarding Facebook, I am not on it, so I did not think to look. I know Facebook really likes people to join and limits what non-members can see, so I didn't really bother until now. However, I did just go to the link above for the band's official Facebook page just in case some content was available to me. It was. I still have no idea where you are coming from though. It does not list Rudd. It does list Slade. Once again, where are any current sources that state that Rudd is still in the band? I really think that the situation has developed to the point that there is no doubt anymore, so again I am not understanding your point of view on the matter. --Bark (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it say they're honorary members? Or is that synthesis of a source? What I'm saying is that there's no explanation on the official site regarding why those guys are listed and nobody else. I know AC/DC like to pretend certain people were never in the band, but it's not terribly clear what they're trying to achieve by that. Wikipedia demands clear sources. The Facebook page, by contrast, clearly states the Young/Young/Johnson/Williams/Slade lineup as a touring lineup, which is infinitely more helpful. That leaves plenty of room for manoeuvre regarding Rudd, who may or may not be simply an inactive member. We don't need sources to say that something is continuing to happen; we need sources to say something has stopped happening, i.e. Rudd is out permanently. I'm not seeing that. The official website "members" page may just be clarifying who fans are likely to see if they go to a gig. They may not be showing Rudd simply because he won't be at the gigs. They probably assume nobody expects to see Scott or Malcolm Young. The point is we don't know the rationale behind the choice of members they're listing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is a logical fallacy and not a very strong foundation for an assertion, i.e. "Because AC/DC didn't tell the public explicitly that Rudd has been fired means Rudd is still a member." Just cite a source subsequent to the guilty plea that Rudd is still in the band, if any exist, and your assertion is proved correct. --Bark (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you or anyone else add unsupported statements, I will take them out. I hope I don't need to translate that into Latin. The official website page titled "members" is not a source to verify any lineup of the band. I have never said Rudd is still an active member of the band; I am saying he has not been fired. No text implying that he's been fired is acceptable, unless you can provide a source to say he's been fired. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a deflection of my point to you: If you want to list Rudd as a current band member, cite a source that is not out-dated. If you don't, then we don't have a problem.--Bark (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, what you just said in the paragraph above is nearly the same as the compromise that I offered a little while back but got blasted over it. I think there is a difference between being a member of the band and being the drummer, singer, etc. Was Brian Epstein a member of the Beatles as some suggested? When we start throwing around words like "current" and "member" and "drummer", etc. I would be careful to say that Phil isn't still a current member absent of anything stating he is fired, but he certainly cannot be called the current drummer. His position is the drums and if he returns to the band, I'm positive that he'll play the drums, but he is not currently doing the duties of that office. I still say he quit doing drummer duties in 2014, but I won't quibble at this point. There is at least some rationale for keeping it 2015, albeit weak in my opinion, but there was none for keeping Chris as a past member when he was clearly drumming for the band.

I remain in full agreement, and even previously suggested, that we need to add explanatory text about the situation to the article. I will continue to suggest here that it be made it's own section. I edited Chris Slade's page a few days ago and I feel I did a good job on it by stating the facts, sourcing nearly every sentence, and I steered clear of saying that Phil was out. I only stated that Chris was drumming in Phil's absence and that Chris was also doing photos and the video "Rock the Blues Away". That is how I would suggest handling it here. Chris is the current drummer for the band, and he's filling in for Phil in his absence. In the text I would point out that nothing has been said about Phil's current status with the band. That is all true and I don't see how Phil can hold Wikipedia responsible for those statements which can be reliably sourced. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Jack Bee Nimble

It's impossible to say that Rudd isn't a current member without the obvious implication that he's been fired, and we simply cannot say that. Members don't have to be active in order to be members. Saying that Slade is currently playing drums for AC/DC is fine, but we don't need to put it any other way or talk about who's a member and who isn't. We really do just need to reflect what we have been told by the band. Rudd didn't quit anything, that's another thing that needs to be very clear. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rudd is about to spill in his so-called "war with angus" on Aus TV so I wouldn't be surprised if he hastens his official departure. Flat Out talk to me 22:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"War with Angus?" Really? Anything come from this? It sounds like there could be substantial material from such an appearance. --Bark (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

UInsurprisingly the media overcooked it. Rudd is saying he's ready to re-join the band and whining about his calls to the band being ignored and says its Angus' decision. Young just released the same statement from last November saying that Rudd caused his own problems and wasn't the Rudd they know and love etc Flat Out talk to me 03:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Angus' statement kind of reminds me of his and Brian's appearance on "The Howard Stern Show," last year. They basically said the same thing, i.e. nothing. The most substantial thing said was at the end of the interview. Howard asked a general question, "What is the biggest thing you learned from being in rock?" To which Brian jokingly quipped in his thick accent, "Yeah, never turn you back on tha drumma!" A funny joke but not really substantial. The band is obviously being discreet, but in my opinion there is a really good tell-all book here. Maybe one day? It would definitely help this article. --Bark (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

At risk of slipping into forum territory, I liked Young's quip when asked about the reported treat to kill, he said - not sure if he's threatened to kill his drug dealer or his dentist. Flat Out talk to me 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AC/DC's Current Drummer

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus in the discussion on who the current drummer is. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Is the current drummer of AC/DC Phil Rudd or Chris Slade? --Bark (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chris Slade. (1)Plenty of sources document the situation, i.e. Rudd is in serious legal issues, Slade is the drummer on a previous album, Slade is the current drummer touring, Slade is in the band's most recent publicity photos, etc. (2)If the situation changes, further edits can be made to reflect said changes. (3)I believe some here may have ownership feelings, using the term "consensus" but in reality mean "attrition" to keep the article to their liking, not stating what their personal threshold for making the proposed change would be in exact, SPECIFIC terms. --Bark (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The way we always handle stuff like this at articles like Toto (band) is that the "official" members are those listed on the band's web site. If they also have a revolving door of "touring" musicians, those are maintained in a separate section based on reliable sources stating who is touring with the band. It is always a challenge for Toto because they had a guy (Mike Porcaro) who they continued to list as the band's bass player even though he had not been active for many years due to health issues. If you apply that logic to this article, I would list Phil Rudd as the drummer (since if you go to AC/DC's web site and click "The Band", he is there as the drummer), and list Chris Slade as a touring musician. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Laser_brain, then Stevie Young should not be in, Malcom Young should be in, and Bon Scott should also be in...despite being dead! The web site is a bit problematic for this band, no? --Bark (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

RUDD! Slade is a fag. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MrBark might need to read WP:AGF – it's got nothing to do with ownership of articles and everything to do with WP:V. Slade was announced for the Grammys and the tour, not as a permanent member. Nothing whatsoever has been said about Rudd leaving the band. If you want exact, specific terms (if they're not obvious already), we need a statement from the band or possibly the record company saying that Slade has joined permanently or that Rudd is no longer a member of the band. I also agree with Laser brain's comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I'm trying to assume good faith, and that was where I began here on this issue. --Bark (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rudd. OMG! Mlpearc (open channel) 18:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It is Chris Slade. He is the current drummer as he is doing the job of the current drummer. If Phil Rudd or another drummer takes his place, he can be returned to past members category. The question is how to list Rudd. I say that you can keep Rudd as current member, but somehow state that he is not actively drumming for the band. It's like an employee at work. If an employee has to take time off for whatever reason for an extended period of time, the person who replaced them is either called a substitute or pro-tem. Chris is either the substitute drummer until further notice, or I prefer drummer pro-tem. Either way, he is the current drummer while Phil is either fired or on leave. The bigger discussion is how to list Phil, not Chris. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

He is the current live drummer. At this stage we don't know anything else. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, if he was only the "live" drummer, how do you explain that he is also doing all the photos and music videos as well? 67.224.16.233 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

Slade is a live drummer only because the album has been released and all they are doing is live work. Will Slade replace Rudd on the next album if there is one? Who knows. Will Slade do the whole tour? Who knows. We don't have a crystal ball. Flat Out talk to me 08:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that we do not know the future. You did not address the fact that Slade is doing photos and music videos which is more than just live work. If Phil Rudd had been injured and they needed a live drummer to fill in for him, odds are, the live drummer would not do the photos and music video. This is not the case here. Wikipedia is fluid and can be changed as circumstances change and Chris Slade is the current drummer for AC/DC as he is discharging all the duties of the band's drummer by definition. As to whether he would do the next album, you are asking me to look into the crystal ball and holding this article up by trying to predict the future. I say again, currently, Slade is the drummer for AC/DC by definition. He is also a current member by definition. Phil Rudd may be a current member in the band, but by definition, he is not the current drummer. He is not performing any of the duties currently. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

Until the band itself (or maybe the label) officially says otherwise... Rudd. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the Cambridge Dictionary, the definition of current is: (adjective) of the present time or most recent. Reference: http://dictionary.ca...

And the definition of member is: (noun) a person or thing that is part of a group. Reference: http://dictionary.ca...

Therefore, the sentence, Chris Slade is a current member of AC/DC is factually correct. I choose to exchange the word member for drummer (I don't suppose I need to look to the dictionary to define that) and the sentence is still factually correct.

It may be a sore spot for those who are "Ruddsters". However, this doesn't have to be a glass half-empty or a glass half-full argument. Sometimes the glass is twice as large as it needs to be, meaning, instead of arguing over semantics, there is a practical, and truthful approach to the matter. We do not know what Rudd's fate is nor do we know know if he is still a member. He may be a current member, but he is not the band's current drummer by definition. Chris's current status is not in doubt. Only his future. Therefore, it is possible to have Chris Slade listed as the current drummer as per definition, he is, and leave Phil as a current member, since we have no reliable source either way on his status. 67.224.16.233 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Jack B. Nimble

• This is getting very old and repetitive, I move (again) to close this thread. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updating the Article

Since I am still a "new" editor, I am unable to edit this semi-protected article. Could someone take a look at the section, "Rock or Bust, Rock or Bust World Tour, departure of Malcolm Young and Phil Rudd (2011–present)" and consider breaking it into smaller sections, and rewriting it in a manner that doesn't look like a bunch of snippets strung together? I would suggest a section covering the time between the end of the Black Ice World Tour and the recording of Rock or Bust 2011-2014, where they released Live at River Plate. It doesn't have to be a very long section, but then add a new section for Rock or Bust to present (2014 to present). The article also doesn't mention much about the tour, including the two shows at Coachella before heading to Europe. It could also be mentioned that the shows are all stadium shows with fireworks.

A link could be added to direct to the album:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_or_Bust A link could be added to direct to the tour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_or_Bust_World_Tour

I am a new editor, and I suppose I could go through the motions of a formal edit request, but last time I did that, my sources got all mangled up on this talk page and it would be better to have a more experienced editor tackle this until such time as I gain the privilege to edit semi-protected articles. Thank you. Jack Bee Nimble (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Jack Bee Nimble

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

add Heavy Metal to the genre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuhrman457 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 Not done - there has been extensive discussion on this point and consensus reached that heavy metal is not representative of what the majority of reliable sources have to say about the subject. Flat Out (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on AC/DC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081121044926/http://www.sirius.com/acdcradio to http://www.sirius.com/acdcradio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110225003421/http://sev.prnewswire.com/music/20090929/NY8281729092009-1.html to http://sev.prnewswire.com/music/20090929/NY8281729092009-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070704170535/http://music.yahoo.com:80/read/news/12027761 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12027761

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150331130621/http://www.downloadfestival.co.uk/lineup/index.aspx to http://www.downloadfestival.co.uk/lineup/index.aspx

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015

I am a massive fan of AC/DC but I would think the page would be more appealing if there was a more recent image placed at the top of the article, maybe something that shows Stevie Young and Chris Slade? 86.158.76.109 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Original Drummer missing from timeline

Colin Burgess is mentioned in the text but isn't on the timeline diagram. It looks odd to have a rock band wityh no drumm,er for their first year... can he be added? Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The timeline in this article is abbreviated for space/notability issues. If you look at the full timeline on List of AC/DC band members, you can see that he's there. Personally, I'm in favor of the status quo.--Bark (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Please change Ac/Dc's genres to blues rock, Classic Rock. They're not really Hard Rock. 75.90.79.117 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no such genre as "classic rock," and they most certainly are NOT a blues-rock band such as Ten Years After. 98.67.176.26 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Brian Johnson era

This part in the article says this era is the current one. With Brian out of the band this is no longer true. Please update the page to saying: Brian Johnson Era (1980 to 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.53.226 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I edited the eras. There is now a "Brian Johnson Era (1980-2016)" overlapping with a "Multiple lineup changes (2011-present)" era. I wasn't sure how to properly present them, but the band HAS been in constant flux for the last five years: since 2011, 60% of the group has changed (only Angus Young and Cliff Williams remain of the five members who played on "Black Ice" and its subsequent tours). Raider Duck (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Johnson Not Officially Out of AC/DC

Based on this recent statement issued by Johnson he is not officially out of the band. Axl Rose will be completing this tour with them but Brian (nor the rest of the band) confirmed his dismissal/retirement. Johnson did specifically say that he plans on recording in the studio (presumably with) AC/DC in the future and he hopes to one day rejoin them on stage. http://loudwire.com/brian-johnson-statement-acdc-departure/ sk8punk3d288 (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sk8punk3d288: You're editing against consensus at this point. Please wait until there is some agreement here before making this change. --Laser brain (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yea, it sounds like he might not be out of the band based on AC/DC's latest press release or the loudwire article sk8punk2d288 linked. If the official website lists him and not Phil Rudd, who was also ambiguous, perhaps we should leave him in until more information comes out. Deathstrike9k (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be about consensus, officially it has not been stated that he is no longer a member of the band. What has been stated officially is that Axl Rose will be featured as a "guest singer" and Brian plans on recording with them in the studio for future albums as a member of the band sk8punk3d288 (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that while Brian plans on recording with them, AC/DC's press release indicates a parting of the ways. The same thing happened with Rudd last year. Expect nothing but ambiguity from the band, and expect him to remain on the web site forever with Bon and Malcolm. Neither should be taken as solid footing for Brian's status here, IMO. Not being able to tour large venues could very well be a deal-breaker for AC/DC, as the big concerts are where the big money is made in music these days. I think his status can only be secured with a positive press release from the band indicating so. The de facto situation is that he is out of the band now.

I believe there is consensus that Axl is a touring member only at this point. The result of both developments is that AC/DC has no permanent lead singer anymore/yet. --Bark (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Except the most recent press release is the one that makes it sound like Brian will still record with them. It literally says "Finally, I wish to assure our fans that I am not retiring." - http://www.acdc.com/news?n_id=279 Deathstrike9k (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

AC/DC's website elected to reprint Brian's press release. The one by the band a few days before specifically says "We wish him all the best in...his future ventures." You don't normally wish someone the best in their future ventures if you're planning on working with them again. That phrase is roughly the equivalent of "Have a nice life:" in other words, a goodbye. And notice how even Brian's release doesn't say he plans to record again with AC/DC, just that he plans to record again. Raider Duck (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Care must be taken as to the source of the press release. Last year, Phil Rudd claimed that he was still in the band and would come back too. The band in turn removed him from their web site. Point being, Brian's press release as an individual is irrelevant. The band needs to press release something to the effect of, "Brian is our lead singer."--Bark (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See the next section. They are auditioning a possible replacement.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That article mentions no dates. This may have well been an audition for the current tour, before they settled on Axl. It is reasonable that they wanted a clone for a temporary replacement, but does not necessarily mean that they are looking for a permanent replacement.--Gorpik (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Johnson Departure

Brian Johnson is now a past member. The band made it official on their website: "AC/DC band members would like to thank Brian Johnson for his contributions and dedication to the band throughout the years. We wish him all the best with his hearing issues and future ventures." - See more at: http://www.acdc.com/news?n_id=278#sthash.7B3aER2S.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.25.65 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

On April 17th 2016, AC/DC announced that due to the degradation of his hearing, Brian Johnson had parted ways with the band in friendly terms. Johnson, who was with the band since the death of previous singer Bon Scott on the 19th of February 1980, has been replaced by former Guns N' Roses singer Axl Rose. The news came in the form of a statement from the band which listed various 2016 tour dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamezrodriegez (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd have Axl listed as a touring member or guest. Bluorangefyre (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Current and past members?

I'd be interested in collecting some comments and coming to a consensus about whether Brian Johnson should be considered a "past member" and Axl Rose a "current member". The language used in the press release indicates that Rose is helping them complete the tour. It feels like Johnson is officially out of the band (things like "we wish him the best in future endeavors") but Rose is an not an official full member. He seems like more of a touring musician. Thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Typical AC/DC, they never say anything in black and white. They haven't made it very clear whether Johnson is out for good, or if there's a way back in for him. I agree it doesn't look particularly positive for him. They were exactly the same about Phil Rudd; they still haven't technically sacked Rudd. If they made another album, then who knows who would be involved. Johnson was told to stop touring, not stop singing altogether, I'm sure he could record an album if they wanted him to. I also agree that it looks very much like Rose is a touring musician rather than a permanent member – the talk of him helping them "complete the tour" suggests no further involvement has been decided yet, which makes sense. If it's a disaster, then he won't be fronting them after the tour, I'd guess. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It definitely seems like Johnson is now a past member, but as you said, that doesn't make Axl now an "official member". It seems pretty clear that he's just a fill-in. The statement itself definitely leaves room for interpretation though... but the "future ventures" part in regards to Johnson I think makes clear that they consider their time with him over. --Beachdude42 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The "future ventures" comment does seem to indicate that Johnson is now an ex-member. It also doesn't stand to reason that they would record another album with him and then later tour with a fill-in.

(Sellpink (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC))

I'd vote for Axl being added as a current member. This is the same argument used during the whole Rudd vs. Slade thing. Currently, until further notice, Axl is the band's singer. Listing him as such has no bearing on whether or not the position is permanent or temporary. Brian Johnson is out. The statement from the band wishes him well on future endeavors. That's a statement you make when people part ways. How can Johnson be the current singer when it has been confirmed that Axl is the current singer? There will not be two singers for the band. Jack Bee Nimble (talk)Jack Bee Nimble —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think regardless of how Axl is listed (touring member classification probably makes the most sense in my opinion), Brian Johnson is pretty clearly now a former member. The band's statement even thanks him "for his contributions and dedication to the band throughout the years" and wishes him the best in "future ventures". That's PRETTY obviously a statement of parting. --Beachdude42 01:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdude42 (talk • contribs)

List Brian Johnson as a former member. The statements from the band make it obvious they consider him as such. AC/DC's website is no help: it still includes Johnson in its The Band section, but it also includes Malcolm Young (who now lives in a care facility) and Bon Scott (who's been dead well over three decades), too. Axl being listed as "touring musician" for now is appropriate, and he should also be added to the band's infobox in some way. Raider Duck (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there is an implicit class of band member in regards to AC/DC: Former members who have contributed so much to the band and who have departed in ways that are, in essence, bad luck and health-related. Bon and Malcolm obviously left the band due to tragic circumstances, both health-related. (For Bon, a fatal incident. For Malcolm, a heartbreaking condition.) Considering the recent press release concerning Brian, I think it's safe to say that he too is a former member, his departure was also health-related, he probably would still be touring if not for his health, and he will probably always remain on the band's web site as a member. In a nutshell, Bon Scott, Malcolm Young, and Brian Johnson will always be listed as band members just from an honorary title alone. This seems to be what the band does on its web site.

Now in regards to Axl Rose, he is definitely a touring member right now. (However, if this falls through without him ever taking the stage with them, he should be removed from the list completely and only mentioned in the body of the article. Once he appears on stage at a concert with them, he will forever qualify on the list as a touring member.) However, he's not on the web site, so he should not be listed as a full member. If the day comes when he is, then upgrade him from touring to full. There was a precedent set last year in the Rudd vs. Slade debate, which went on for a few months. Ambiguity was the reason, but once the official web site changed, consensus formed around it. After all, they actively took down Rudd and actively posted Slade. That's a conscious effort. If they eventually post Axl there, that too is a conscious effort and should be respected. --Bark (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So, a new news release from AC/DC and Brian state he's not retiring, but not playing big concerts for the time being. I can't tell if this 'not retiring' mean from AC/DC or from all music in general. http://www.acdc.com/news?n_id=279 Deathstrike9k (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no "release from AC/DC and Brian". AC/DC merely reprinted Brian's comments. Brian's words are his and his alone. That's an important difference. There was also no comment about, or from, Brian not playing big concerts "for the time being." (Sellpink (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

Userbox!

Just created a new userbox for AC/DC fan's:

This user is a fan of AC/DC.

Use: {{User AC/DC Fan}}

Infobox image.

Hello, i have added a recent and clearer image, with a caption and alt, of the group in the infobox. I have moved the previous photo to the Black Ice (2008–11) section.

Australian?

"AC/DC are an Australian hard rock band..." This quote is taken from the start of the article - but I'm not sure if they should be called 'Australian' when there are various members or past members who are NOT from down under. For instance: Bryan Jonson (from the North-East of England), Axel Rose (American) or Bon Scott, who might have lived in Australia and is buried there, but he was born in Scotland. It might be better to start with: "AC/DC are a hard rock band that was formed in Australia..."

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately we should reflect how our sources write about the band. If most reliable sources call them an Australian band, then we should too. Just a couple quick examples:

• Oxford Music Online (a curated music database) reads "Australian heavy metal band"
• Rolling Stone's bio reads "emerged from Australia" but doesn't call them Australian
• I performed several library searches and noted that AC/DC biographies and journal articles are always cataloged under Australia but found very few instances of them being called Australian.

Not sure if this gives us enough to have a discussion, but I'd say we're OK calling them an Australian band. I'm also OK with "AC/DC are a hard rock band formed in Australia in November 1973 by brothers Malcolm and Angus Young..." --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally, we're talking about the band as a whole, not the individual members of the band. The band was formed in Australia by Australians, regardless of where they were born. Scott and the Youngs were/are naturalised Australians. Later members don't really have a bearing on that, particularly Rose, who has only just joined and not even as a full member. It's a little like BLP subjects who take a different citizenship later in life – what counts is the nationality when notability was established. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, there first couple albums were only released in Australia. Of course, the tracks were subsequently released internationally. However, the genesis of the band is definitely in Australia, and that is where they rose to prominence.--Bark (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"AXL/DC"

A user is repeatedly inserting the following passage: "During the Rock or Bust World Tour tour, some AC/DC fans and medias funnily (and appropriately) renamed the band "AXL/DC"." Aside from being badly written, I believe this is trivia and not worth including in a Featured article. This user's normal operating procedure is to ignore WP:BRD and edit war whenever they are challenged, so I'd like to build consensus here one way or another. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic. Nuke on sight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Amusing...but no, not here.--Bark (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Amusing, encyclopedic and anyway... worth mentioning! Definitely here... HurluGumene (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not worthy of being included in this article. It is only a piece of trivia not relevant to anything important. Jack Bee Nimble (talk)Jack Bee Nimble —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Missing Albums?

How is it that with all the hits this page gets, nobody has mentioned that the AC/DC album "WHO MADE WHO" (1986) is NOT listed in the DISCOGRAPHY section? The album sold over 5 million copies (5x Platinum) so how was it skipped? Are there any OTHER AC/DC albums that are also missing from this article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Made_Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.26.145 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This section only includes studio albums of original material. Who Made Who was a soundtrack album made up mainly of songs taken from previous albums, with only two originals. There is an additional article with the full official discography of the band, linked in the Discography section of this article. Who Made Who is listed there.--Gorpik (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

At one point in time, I started compiling everything released for the timeline until I realized the fact above for myself. It saved time, effort, and avoided clutter when I did.--Bark (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition to AC/DC Legacy section

Over the past 25 years AC/DC has been one of the most monetarily successful bands worldwide coming in at 25th on the list of Top Live Performers from 1990-2014.<ref> <ref>Waddell, Ray. "Never Too Old to Rock'N'Roll". Proquest Databases. Proquest. Retrieved 6/10/16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Current AC/DC band members

AC/DC's current official band page (official source)[5] lists Brian Johnson as a CURRENT member of AC/DC, however, the Wikipedia article concerning AC/DC lists Brian Johnson as a PAST member (with no valid source reference(s)s provided). Nowhere in the band's official press releases or statements does it specifically state Brian Johnson is no longer part of the band. Hearsay from friends of Brian Johnson is not considered an official source. Please provide an official source for the recent update of the page or correct the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.174 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see all the discussion at Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2. This is well-covered territory. Their web site still lists people as members who are dead, so that's not really the definitive guide, and just because some PR person somewhere forgot to update their Facebook "About" page doesn't make that an authoritative source. Secondary sources about the band have said that Johnson is no longer a functional member of the band, however uncertain his future might be. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AC/DC/Archive 2]]does not provide any direct source from the band that Johnson is no longer in the band. In fact, all current indications point to him still being a member of AC/DC. Third-party hearsay is not a credible source. Just because a member is not functional at present in a band in no way directly translates to that member no longer being part of the band. Please correct the unsupported and unfactual edit!! 99.230.141.174 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

99.230.141.174 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

stylised as AC⚡️DC

It is very common to add a 'stylised as' note (stylised as AC⚡️DC) to names with unusual spelling. See for instance WALL-E and Spinal Tap. It was removed twice with the reason it was discussed in the past. The "discussion" entailed three lines of talk in 2012. That hardly counts as consensus, so I will reinstate it until there is a real argument here to not include it. Note that "may not show" was a thing of the past (notably WinXP/IE6 related) and unicode support is mature now. The actual sign is U+26A1 ⚡ HIGH VOLTAGE SIGN, which is pretty standard since Unicode 1.0. I'll note that the cited discussion used a different sign; U+03DF ϟ GREEK SMALL LETTER KOPPA, and wrongly asumed that would display as a square. Being a standard greek letter, that would not happen (but it is not the proper glyph). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary while reverting a second editor (me) on this was inaccurate at best. I quite clearly did not cite any five year old discussion in my edit summary (so you flat out lied in your edit summary), but gave you what I consider to be three real arguments. Per WP:BRD, you should have left it out while you discussed it here. That aside, I think the argument that the flash does not show for everyone is perfectly relevant – it doesn't show for me, for a start. Not everyone has the technology you seem to think they should have. Also, I don't consider it relevant to the very first sentence; it is not stylised as such everywhere as it is plainly not an unusual spelling but a specific character related to the band's official logo. In general text everywhere, and in fact in every instance outside the band's official logo, the flash is replaced by a plain slash. There is a section related to the logo in the article, along with an image of the logo itself, and that should be sufficient. I also disagree to describing the flash as a "high voltage sign" – I have never seen it described as such, and it is almost always referred to as a flash or a lightning flash. Note that I am discussing that here rather than edit warring over it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is how the symbol is called. Considering the source of the symbol, and the origin of the logo, it couldn't be anything else. (Note how the first album that used it is called High Voltage.) It's not a 'flash' or 'lightning bolt' (which are unsourced). The lead is ment to summarize the article as a whole, so mentioning the stylized logo is appropriate. As for systems; the only system I know that may fail is Windows XP with old fonts that have not been updated. Windows XP is 15 years old and no longer supported. So I'd like to know what system you are using? Some characters not showing is not a reason not to use them, as long as it does not mean the article becomes unreadable, and that is not the case. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

According to you. It can't be anything else? That's your rationale? The name of the album it was first used on can hardly be described as a "source", and in interviews the band members have always referred to it as a flash or a lightning bolt. You seem to think that the stylisation of the logo is so important that it should be in the lead of an article about a band; well, you'll do what you want so there's no sense in arguing. How dare anyone use an operating system that's 15 years old? Hell, what kind of stone age must people be living in? Screw those people, right? How incredibly snobbish. To me, it looks rather fanboy-esque to have that "stylised as" piece there, but it fits in well with the other terrible fan-mag AC/DC articles on Wikipedia. I note you never apologised for lying in your edit summary, what poor form. But not surprising. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to throw a tantrum, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. I'm following the MOS, perioid. And nowhere in the listed sources does it say "lightning bolt", period. Prove me wrong, but leave the personal attacks at home; you just lost any credibility. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should have started by being a little more accommodating, as would befit an admin (!). There was never any point in having a discussion with you, as you leave disingenuous edit summaries which you, tellingly, again refuse to acknowledge, edit war and make your own rules up as you go along. You had no credibility right from the off, and it was patently obvious you would never accept any argument you didn't like. You prove it every time you post. You must know very little about the band if you have no knowledge of the interview in which Bon Scott referred to it as a lightning bolt, and no, I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you. If you want to actually help, try dealing with the awful state of the content of AC/DC articles instead of strong-arming your way into adding cruft. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It actually is your job to find sources if you want to refer it as a lightning bolt. As it is now, it is unsourced. And I'm not going to discuss anything else; discuss the content, or stay out. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Waste of time on both counts. I have tried discussing the content and you are only interested either in your own ideas or misrepresenting mine and pretending you haven't, backed up with a little threat this time. I look forward to you addressing the content of this and other AC/DC articles with your expansive knowledge. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pioneers of music genres

I have been adding the category Pioneers of music genres more than one time, but Laser brain repeatedly reverted my changes, even when I was explaining why AC/DC are considered pioneers of at least one musical genre. Portal:AC/DC claims they're pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, while several sources call them pioneers of hard rock: [6] [7] [8] [9]. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:49CD:7AC5:67D5:A1BF (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, except maybe Blabbermouth but it's an article about beer, not a serious piece of music journalism. This is a Featured article, and we need a high-quality source describing them as pioneers of any genre. It also needs to be written about in the article. We do not place articles in categories to suit personal opinions. --Laser brain (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because a band is considered "influential" doesn't mean they're "pioneers". "Influential" and "pioneers" are not the same thing. As stated in the aforementioned category, "pioneers" are those who developed a specific genre, and hard rock was already developed by bands like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, before AC/DC even existed. Like Laser Brain said, not only are those sources unreliable, but they don't explain how AC/DC pioneered or developed a genre. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)