Talk:The Standells

message: They were from Los Angeles, NOT Massachusetts! Dirty Water was not written by them
:Both now corrected - although the article needs more references.
:Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After my clean up, both the above editors did a bunch of edits that undid a lot of it. I've reverted them. But, always aware of WP:3RR, I request that other editors keep an eye on. I don't think it's necessary at this stage to ask for protection. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential conflict of interest 

message: I am confused  by the latest edit by Standell66 adding in final para Although the Standells™ have gone through various incarnations over the years (with Tony Valentino being the only member to never have left the band), but, since he is not in the current lineup, did the band thus leave him?  Then there's the WP:PEA-worthy Their impact on the musical space-time continuum is immense, and the assertion of popular opinion  - clearly, the band's core line-up recognized by the public (and has secondary meaning).
Also the addition of tm and registration symbols throughout is just a little over the top, and I am guessing not in keeping with WP:MOS.
So I am fixing those things, and have also done a general clean up. thus. 
Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest standell66 edit

message: Much of the article is primary research, and thus subject to more scrutiny than usual as to secondary references. The good ones being, apart from the Burgess/Knowlin bio, the 2011 EPH and the 2004 LA Times, and also the (removed in the last edit) Garage Hangover. I've got a feeling this last one went because its version of the classic lineup omits  Dick Dodd. 
Larry Tamblyn did apply to trademark The Standells name  in 2009, granted in 2010. 
Reading the patent application, apart from the Burgess/Knowlin bio, it only makes reference to the band's facebook and, indeed, this Wikipedia article - but no further independent sources including the "dba" filed in the State Of California in 1964 mentioned in the article.
What would be great is if someone who has the book could go through and improve and thoroughly reference the article. 
Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: There's a little confusion over this. Chizoom removed the ref to the 2009 service mark application, inserting instead the generic http://tess2.uspto.gov/ search page to validate the 1962 date. That link, if searched, will lead back to the removed ref. The USPTO accepted the 1962 first use claim in Tamblyn's submission. This is essentially because nobody challenged it, I think. Other secondary sources should be found to corroborate the 1962 founding, if any. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, see below for a link to the story of a fake Standells in 1988. Perhaps this might go some way to explain the, otherwise inexplicable, emphasis by the WP:COI editors on mentioning the first use date. More likely it has something to do with the 2006 Anheuser Busch case, of which there is no evidence of settlement or judgement. There doesn't appear to be any evident dispute between members of the band over the use of the name. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hopefully some of the participants will explain here what it is that they are trying to achieve, so that an accurate version of the article, that meets WP's policy and guidelines, can be put in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1962 Patent claim

message: I wouldn't say that the 1964 photo shows the band to have particularly long hair, but I guess by American standards of the day it is. What's more interesting is this 1963 pic with the name spelled with a single 'l'. Is that a typo, or did the spelling change?  Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Old photos

message: Here's a few more that I haven't parsed as yet. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refs 

message: Ghmyrtle probably has more familiarity with style policy so I will be advised by his/her opinion but, to me, the article reads awkwardly with all the extra info, birth date + place, other band credits on every member. I think readers would be better served by a straight history. The further details of the band members should perhaps all be moved into a personnel section. I've started, but not finished, the job Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a matter of style as to how it's done - I'm not aware of any specific guidance, though I could be wrong - but I certainly don't see any need to take out the mentions of their birth details.  Biographical articles - and this is one - usually give those details, and in this case they are referenced.  I have edited many similar articles and included those details in the main text.  My personal preference would be to leave the references to the individual musicians as they were, in the main section - it seems very odd (and much more "awkward") to me to have them as an afterthought to the main text, when they can be incorporated in the general chronological flow of the text.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submit to your expertise. I just think if they could all be in the personnel section, it would allow the main body to flow better. Feel free to undo the changes I already made. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel Details

message: Reading between the lines I am guessing the reason that Standell66 is so concerned about the membership issue, in contrast perhaps to name ownership, is that there are certain monies, or potential monies, that are accruable collectively to the group, including income from future live appearances which trade on the long time reputation of the group. Thus asserting continuing membership status is important. This would be the 'legal' matter referred to. not surprising that there is not much sourceable info out there. It's not technically a disupute over the name, just over shareouts. There are precedents where there are touring members and non-touring members.Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only explanation that Standell66 has given is here - "Niether Dick Dodd nor Tony Valentino departed/quit the Standells. Nor did Tamblyn create the band name. This is all related to an ongoing legal matter re- an alleged unlawful and fraudulent application Tamblyn filed in trademarking the Standells; re- his alleged misappropriation of monies he has collected and not distributed to and which belong to other members; his intentional and malicious interference with other band members' rights to use the name and ability to do work, as well as re- other issues (eg- his wife is in alleged violation of California Labor Law in unlawfully acting as a talent agent without a license in booking shows and doing Standells business, and is an alleged conspirator in the aforementioned Larry Tamblyn acts). It is being alleged that Mr. Tamblyn and his wife are in violation of both state and federal law. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it have facts. The gords of edits that have been created by Tamblyn and his wife contradict themselves, have contradicted his own trademark application- as you can see for yourself- and are deceiving the public."  None of that is referenced, of course.  We have sources saying that the Standells (or, "a version of the Standells") currently comprise Tamblyn, Fleck and two others, but no sources stating that it currently contains Dodd and Valentino, or even any reliable sources stating that it is a matter of legal dispute, only a quote from Tamblyn alluding to the general issue.  So, we must, in my view, go with what the sources say.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I hadn't seen that. Makes things a bit clearer. I think, along with the fake Texas band, it might have the makings of a section. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think there's enough there for a separate section, especially as Standell66's claims are totally unsourced (and POV).  Tamblyn's perspective is included in the article - if other sources publicise a different view, they can go in as well.  The 1988 story could go in as well, though I'm not personally convinced it's particularly noteworthy.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: NAME:  I'd like to see some discussion about the name of the group.  At the time they were popular, there was a manufacturer of guitar amplifiers named "Standell"art, and I believe the band used these amplifiers, thus making them a product placement item.  L. Tamblyn in recent articles related to Dick Dodd's death, claims he invented the name because ...they stood around a lot in agents' offices waiting for work.... Anybody know anything about this?Daniel Sparkman (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Standells have claimed that there was no connection with the Standel company, and that they never used their amps.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Way after the fact: this is an area where the truth may never be known. I personally know of bands that did indeed use the name of an amplifier as the name of the group - The Royal Guardsmen (Vox had an amp named Royal Guardsman), West Minist'r (regional band - Vox again: amp named Westminister), The Buckinghams (Vox again) and Dual Showman and the Kilowatt Pioneers (regional band - Fender amp named Dual Showman). The question, of course, is if they will admit the amp name was the inspiration for the group name. For some cases I suspect it was and some cases may be purely coincidence. In my experience, band names were difficult to decide upon. I had always assumed the Standells took inspiration from the amp manufacturer since others at the time in the early 60s had done something similar.THX1136 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Standells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080420052105/http://www.klifhistory.com:80/pgthree.html to http://www.klifhistory.com/pgthree.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified