Talk:Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band

message: 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)
replies: text: Wasn't Innes always the more amenable and conciliatory? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Kerr Falls Out 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Link deactivated. HippyGumbo (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenny Williams 

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

message: 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. , can you help? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prose 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: OR

message: 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)
thread_title:  Active 2006–2019?