Talk:Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bob Kerr Falls Out

Not sure , in the grand scheme of things , how important this is , but Bob Kerr's leaving the band , was not exactly taken as "nicely" as the article implies. In various articles "Legs" and Viv were noted as being extremely angry about him leaving. And , whereas , I cannot produce links , check the album. Specifically the booklet , on the Sam Spoons page , among his writings , "I will not speak to the vaudevilles". On the back cover photo - where Bob Kerr originally appeared - Viv or Legs pasted an image of a pair of lady's knickers over his face. ( Indicating he's a c*nt.). Not exactly the , "oh , well , go and do your own thing , then." , as mis-remembered by Neil Innes. 75.104.174.116 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Innes always the more amenable and conciliatory? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll … when all is said and done , yeah , Neil was the "nice" one , although some band members still seem to find him too much of a perfectionist and task master. ( No complaints here , he produces beautiful stuff. ). But , that said , Viv , Legs and Rod were apparently the real - outwardly - rambunctious members of the band! 75.104.175.124 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Williams

In a photo from the booklet of Dog Ends, Lenny Williams is a thin Caucasian, short in stature -- not a soul singer from AK, where the link points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.T.Buck (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Link deactivated. HippyGumbo (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last legs?

Is this band still going? The last entries at "Recent events (2008–present)" would suggest not. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

The prose in this article is awful, full of euphemisms and bloated wording. I've cleaned up a couple of the worst offenders, but frankly if I still had my copy of the Guinness Book of 60s music I'd be half-tempted to stick a bunch of dynamite under the article and rewrite it all from that. Martinevans123, can you help? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say "The Bonzo Dog Band: The adventures of the son of Exploding Sausage"? (- worth a look on YouTube, if you haven't seen it.) But sorry no, I'm still too busy ranting about an editor of 14 years standing who had too much cake and icing in their signature. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the prose is this awful (and it is, it seems like it has been written by a fan-club member, if there is one), then why can't the powers-that-be clip out the offending text rather than leave this head-trip of an article persist? CHCollins, Asheville NC, November 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.250.184.53 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OR

It wasn't me who flagged the article as a whole with an OR warning. But I approve. Not all did. Here's a comment:

The whole page contains nothing but Original Research? It might be useful if you could flag individual parts and/or itemize on the Talk page?

No, the page as a whole is marked with an OR warning. This doesn't mean that absolutely every bit of it is unsourced.

What is unsourced? Hmmm . . . let me invert that question and itemize what within -- as a conspicuous example -- the section Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band#Formation and early years (1962–1966) is sourced:

Quite a mouthful, that list! (Yes, the number of items in the list of sourced parts within this section: zero.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Looks like a lot of OR across the article. The template wording is quite clear, as it says "This article possibly contains original research." But the edit summary by User Chilly Penguin was "(Flagged whole page as Original Research)". The article has already had the "More citations needed" template on it since February 2013. It's easy to see where there are statements without supporting citations. It's sometimes less easy to see where there is WP:OR? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step it might be useful to clarify the exact nature of this recently added source for band mambers. It is a website? is it a book? is it both? is it something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That recently added source appears to be a single web page. This web page is uninformative. I'd drop it. Though possibly the person who added it meant "Some web page within the website of which this web page too is a part. But which web page? Sorry, I don't know offhand and I can't be bothered to look." (And that's putting aside questions about the reliability of the website.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The originally added url did not even resolve. I changed the link so at least the website could be reached. Yes, this is just the portal to that website, but if the website is entered, it's possible to see what appear to be separate chapters of a book, with images of successive pages? I assumed this was potentially a useful source of information for this whole article, so I was loath to immediately remove it wholesale. My rationale was "something is better than nothing". Strictly speaking, if you remove that source, you might as well also remove the text that came with it? I was hoping that the original OP might offer some explanation here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The website is bizarre. The text is a collection of graphics: here, we read that "Dave Christie's Dooh Dah Diaries" "are produced for the Members to enjoy and are not for public distribution". More details are in this PNG. I think it all boils down to: "People who want it, pay for it; all rights are reserved"; but can't say I've read the explanation in detail. What's certain is that Worldcat shows no library possessing a copy of any book with "doo dah diaries" in its title. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can now understand my level of confusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have been a bit sleepy yesterday, when I confused "original research" and "unreferenced". In self-defence, I'd say that "OR" is so often used on WP talk pages as a (jocular?) euphemism for "unsourced" that it starts to look like a mere synonym for this. "Research" aside, what is certain is that great chunks of this article are unsourced. I suspect that the sight of this unsourced (and rather chatty) material in turn encourages people to add yet more of the same. As the Bonzos recede into the past, the article risks slipping into anecdotage. Incidentally, I thought for a moment of a radical reversion to an earlier, sourced version -- but no, even the article a decade ago was mostly unsourced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It must be possible to cite and improve this article, I don't have any direct sources but I'm certain that even some of the Beatles books I have mention the Bonzos sufficiently in passing, as does Keith Moon's biography (he was drinking buddies with Viv Stanshall). I've tagged the article to remind me to do something about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Active 2006–2019?

Is there are evidence that the band has been active since 2019? Even then, it was just a "legal battle" over the name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]