Talk:The Bachelors

Edit help request

{{Request edit}}

 Not done It is not at all clear from this Talk page what edit is desired. I remind all parties here to remain civil at all times and to avoid making legal threats on Wikipedia. Violation of these policies may result in editors being blocked from editing Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To Richard

Having not viewed the article on The Bachelors for some time I was shocked to find it much altered with changes which are basically untruths and containing gratuitous comment re. the involvement of a Mr. Kinsella, who I believe is the same Mr. Kinsella involved in dubious actions re. Robbie Williams.

Wikipedia is not a place for such comment and is meant as a factual truthful reference. It is not an advertising place for individuals.

I have corrected the article [The Split and Beyond] to reflect the truth of the Split and beyond. The neutral perspective.

All my information is from well documented and easily available in distributed truthful and official documents and is noted as such.

I have no knowledge of a Con Cluskey talk page. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Contributer67

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Contributer67" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer67 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On Con Cluskey's user page User talk:Con Cluskey he has written

I keep amending "the split and beyond" because I know the truth, as I was there. I also hold a document which John Stokes signed which firbids him to use the name The Bachelors. This is for your information only.

We did not lose a court case, as there was none! We applied to have a court case against John Stokes, but as Dec had not filled in the forms properly as he was out of the country on holiday, the Judge did not allow the hearing to go forward. These are the facts!

Con Cluskey

So, as you can see you do not agree with one of the principals in this matter. As a contributor to Wikipedia on many articles over several years I am more concerned that this article represents a true and verifiable record of the truth. I have ceased to edit the article - I do not know who Kinsella is, but notice you have no problem in libelling him above.

Please can you post your comments at the bottom, remember to sign your page comment (but not on the article pages).

What this article needs is a picture of the Bachelors in their heyday - back in the 60s/early 70s, and I am sure you can provide one for free use from your collection. If I can be of any help you can contact me on my user page. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the comment that 'you do not agree with one of the principals'. If you mean Con Cluskey as a principal, then any edit I have done is not different from what he says. There is no variance that I can see.

Mr Kinsella was featured in a major TV documentary on Robbie Williams and in law the truth can not be deemed as libel or slander.

The two Mr Cluskeys are very available to discuss their careers both by Email and in person as are the other experts on their career, John Leyland, Lynne Hayes and Paul Calvert. I have read their biography on the historical site and also the page titled John Stokes the truth. I have found them accurate and truthful.

I will look out a picture but I do not follow the copyright regulations and note that a previous picture was removed for what I understand were breach of copyright reasons.

Contributer67 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to above.

Peter Levinger the original lawyer from Sheridans who drafted the undertaking is also available. His phrase: "The Bachelors, or any colourable imitation" is oft quoted in law as the most explicit, all encompassing phrase in any undertaking in the High Court.

As a final note it should be understood that I see John Stokes quite often and have never heard any information from him to negate any detail given in Wikipedia as it stands today.

I have also been in the company of Mr. Kinsella, who again does not dispute the facts.

Contributer67 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

03.04.08 To Richoncho and Smackbot

It would appear that there are two contributors maliciously editting the Wikipedia entry re. The Bachelors.

Richoncho has declared previously that he will not edit further but continues to (see previous discussion entries) and Smackbot edits by entering malicious untrue statements.

All info as of 30.03.08 and now 03.04.08 is correct, verified and all the independent corroboration is freely available in the public domain.

Contributer67 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And I reinstated the conflict of Interest tag and the Primary sources tag. The reason is simple - you are referring to documents that are not verified by any independent third party that I, or any other Wikipedian can read and confirm your version of events as correct. Furthermore, you are only interested in editing this page. Where I have been able to verify your claims I have done so, where there is a conflict of interest I am now putting a warning sign for others to see. These tags stay until proven to be unbiased fact. This is why individuals should not edit their own articles, but have every right to ask for controversial parts of an article to be removed. When this section is proven to be unbiased and factual (and I repeat, "verified by unbiased third parties") the tags should stay. If you are unhappy with this you should appeal to an administrator. Fimally I have also reinstated the edit help tag for obvious reasons that would help your case as much as mine. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Richard Wilcox AKA RICHHONCHO

Please forgive my not fully understanding your rambling contribution.

I do not consider this to be a forum such as the news groups that you seem to habitually contribute to. I am only concerned with the true discourse of the history of The Bachelors. I do not wish to become involved in a vitriolic argument. Consider this as my final reply to you.

My edits are verifiable and true.

I do not understand your comment "I am asking for an independent, verifiable edit of the page." . All my personal edits are verified as shown.

"I haven't seen any unsubstantiated accusations about your behaviour, i.e. "foul unrepeatable language," the accusations are all yours."

- I do not understand this statement. The foul unrepeatable language is recorded in Rec Mus Mak Songwriting. Any newsgroup comment is recorded and stored for posterity on the Internet and easy to access.

Please consider this as an and to any discussion re your evidenced biassed view of Dec cluskey and his involvement re. The Bachelors. Biassed, vitriolic opinion is not welcomed or respected on Wikipedia. (Contributer67 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Dear All again - Saturday 2 February 2008

I commented that there were mistakes in the Ian Whitcomb article used as a reference. In checking the Ian Whitcomb article just now it looks like it has been editted to give the accurate detail although there are tiny inaccuracies still but of little consequence. It is a good reference.

(Contributer67 (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Dear All - Saturday 26 January 2008

I have re inserted the information deleted recently. The references I have in my possession are well known to agents, promoters and venues who have had dealings with the act booked out by John Stokes and calling themselves The Bachelors. That is how I have copies. Any interested party in the Showbusiness industry will have copies. These references are easily obtainable and in the public domain. Therefore in my opinion the additions I made are correct, verified and show the up to date situation to any followers of the Bachelors.

In cross referencing the court undertaking and the court notes from the more recent case with the statement from John Stokes which seems to be part of a web site that does not exist in my opinion much of this statement is untrue, misleading and the link should not be part of this Wikipedia entry.

(Contributer67 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC))Contributer67

Hello, I believe that the use of the words in the section "The Split and Beyond" of "...and John was asked to leave the band." sounds a bit biased. It comes from the view that John was the wrongdoer in the band when a court did award him the rights over the use of the band name "The Bachelors" and also of the company "The Bachelors Ltd". In that case, it appears that he was in the right enough to have a court see things in his favour.

So I think a more neutral way of describing the split such as "The band split and after a court case, the outcome was that John Stokes was allowed the use of the band name "The Bachelors" and Con and Dec were allowed to continue as "The New Bachelors" or "Con & Dec, The Bachelors".

- Just some thoughts, Ipewho

I see what you mean, Stokes was the wronged party, and not only was he awarded the rights to use the name, but won damages as well. However, to get to the bottom of the matter independent verification is necessary. Something I can't find. All I can find is the Whitcomb article which I have already referenced. --Richhoncho 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have twice removed the claim by Con Cluskey that John Stokes does not have the right to use the name "The Bachelors" although reference to the court order is near impossible, I quote below from the the Con Cluskey's own Bachelors website, "DISCLAIMER: Please note that this is a historical site for reference only. This site does not purport to be a promotion of Dec Cluskey and Con Cluskey as 'The Bachelors'. Con and Dec [who recorded every Bachelors' Hit] are familiarly and legally known as Con and Dec The Bachelors." --Richhoncho 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(RfC response) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a very useful place to visit around this time of year. V-Man737 06:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Bachelors Greatest Hits.jpg

Image:The Bachelors Greatest Hits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This page has been continually edited by Contributer67 (who I assume to be Dec Cluskey) & Con Cluskey and continues to include opinions, unverified information, some of which is libellous. Furthermore the edits they are adding are, at times, contradictory. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not being a Wiki expert. My numbered reference edits could do with cleaning up but this is beyond my skills. I am simply a contributer who is interested in truthful description of the band The Bachelors. I assume that Richhoncho is the Richhoncho who features in a Google of the name Dec Cluskey in relation to music newsgroups. It appears that Richhoncho is involved in what can only be called a hate campaign with untruths and half truths some delivered with foul unrepeatable language. Any comment by him here must therefore be discounted as biassed.

My note above re my edits carries credence. I declare my interest in wanting a truthful description of The Bachelors by stating that I have followed their career in depth for over forty years and think of myself as five in the hierarchy of Bachelors experts. I have found the Cluskeys approachable and honest when confirming detail and references. www.thebachelors.co.uk is a goldmine for thopse seeking information on The Bachelors. I have not had any reply from John Stokes sadly. The web site promoting his efforts now seems to have disappeared possibly from legal action health or age.

I consider the Wiki entry for The Bachelors to be true with each statement of fact verified where possible. There is no opinion given or any important information unverified. I have re read the entry for any malicious defamatory statement [sic Chambers libel] and cannot find any. this now appears to be an unbiassed neutral entry for The Bachelors. Although the discography could be elaborated upon. This would need the assistance of expert number one.

It could be argued that the Ian Whitcomb reference article does not give an accurate summation.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Whatever. I am asking for an independent, verifiable edit of the page. I haven't seen any unsubstantiated accusations about your behaviour, i.e. "foul unrepeatable language," the accusations are all yours. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To Richhoncho alias Richard Wilcox

Please forgive my not fully understanding your rambling contribution.

I do not consider this to be a forum such as the news groups that you seem to habitually contribute to. I am only concerned with the true discourse of the history of The Bachelors. I do not wish to become involved in a vitriolic argument. Consider this as my final reply to you.

My edits are verifiable and true.

I do not understand your comment "I am asking for an independent, verifiable edit of the page." . All my personal edits are verified as shown.

"I haven't seen any unsubstantiated accusations about your behaviour, i.e. "foul unrepeatable language," the accusations are all yours."

- I do not understand this statement. The foul unrepeatable language is recorded in Rec Mus Mak Songwriting. Any newsgroup comment is recorded and stored for posterity on the Internet and easy to access.

Please consider this as an end to any discussion re your evidenced biassed view of Dec cluskey and his involvement re. The Bachelors. Biassed, vitriolic opinion is not welcomed or respected on Wikipedia. (Contributer67 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

I have re-inserted the edit request which you removed. I am looking for somebody to edit this artice who does not have a conflict of interest. That means neither you, Dec Cluskey, nor me, which is why I have ceased to edit the page. You can't even agree with your brother what the correct facts are. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

too much POV

I am sure I cannot possibly fathom how deep these feelings lie, but they have no place in the external links of a Wikipedia article, and I have adjusted the wording accordingly. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Contributer67 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC) 17th Sept 2008

Not sure what you mean by "how deep these feelings lie"? Nor do I understand POV? As the No. 4 in line expert on all things 'Bachelors' past and present I take a keen interest in 'correctness' and 'completeness'. Any links which I may have inserted have all been legally checked and in no way represents any personal feelings, perhaps just the personal feeling that the true history should be available to the public via Wikipedia, as it is a much used resource and I feel should reflect unbiassed truth at all times.

Unfortunately there is much vandalism by Mr. Richard Wilcox [Richhoncho] a well known self confessed critic of anything to do with Dec Cluskey.

Contributer67 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully, please. The problems is not the links, it's the obvious editorializing in the description of these links. 'Unbiased truth at all times' is best left to the author(s) of scripture; Wikipedia deals with the presentation of verifiable statements. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Say, Mr. Contributor67,

Where do you get off calling my edits 'vandalism'? Surely you understand what POV means, and that your editorial comments to those weblinks are pretty blatant and obvious examples of POV. Seriuosly, 'the evidential truth of the relationship' is an objective statement? Clearly there is a difference of opinion between former members, and I certainly don't want to get involved in a dispute between old men who should know better, but Wikipedia is not the place to have this kind of disagreement posted for the world to see. Just the facts, sir. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The descriptions are clearly unsupported (by reliably sourced) comments about the content of the site and must be deleted. (Note that the references refer to High Court proceedings in 1984, well before the existence of the WWW, so cannot possible directly refer to the contents of that site.) --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

References

It is time to clear up this reference section. Underneath the references were a few 'references'--not in correct Wiki format, since they weren't references to anything. In plain English: a reference gives a source for a statement; these 'references' don't have a statement for which they provide proof. I deleted one of them, cited a million times already in actual notes. Two others I cleaned up, that is, gave actual bibliographic information. But in a week I will come back to them: if the main author of this article does not state in the actual article a fact or two for which these books are the references, they will be deleted: they are simply too vague and too general. No reader can possibly figure out what they are supposed to find in there.

As a word to the wise: I shall also be going through the actual notes, since too many of the references are not in any kind of correct format, and only two of them are to be found on the internet (and that should be a given in Wikipedia). So Contributor(s), if you are attached to these references, you should make sure that they can actually be found by a reader who works from outside your study and away from your bookshelf. And yes, if you are a contributor, it is your duty to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for formatting and giving citations, whether you are a businessman or not. If you don't have the time to do so, you can't complain when they are formatted (or deleted) if they are not up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. I have made some edits, hopefully none is contentious, all with specific edit summaries so you can keep an eye. If my edits need pruning then so be it. It would be nice to have an ISBN No for "Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography" to confirm its existance. The references to "Contempt of court" should be removed immediately under WP:BLP but I don't think there is any value in me doing so - if Contributor67 wishes to continue to disparage his former bandmate at Wikipedia without independent 3rd party verification then perhaps the answer is protect this page. I'll leave any actions to you to decide. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is looking much better, thanks. See, I don't know anything about any of this. I have no interest in this band whatsoever, don't care much for this kind of music, etc. But I do care for some scientific objectivity, and I can't stand sloppy pages. So, that Local Dictionary, an ISBN isn't necessary, but publication information is necessary: place, publisher, year, and then page number. BTW, Wikipedia has a standard format for citing (I hope Contributer67 is reading this also), and I'm not an expert on it, but I'll copy one (ha, from the article on Al Gore) and insert it in the place of reference nr. 4, for the band name. The job is, of course, to fill out as much as possible, for all of those notes. Many of those notes are just absolutely uninformative, and aren't really references to anything because they are so incomplete.

As for that contempt, well, I'll stay out of it. It's clear that it's not exactly Wiki-legitimate. But, eh, is it right? Is Stokes in contempt of court? Never mind, I don't really want to know I think. Problem is that it's probably not easily gleaned, no matter what C67 will say (evidential truth and all): it's a matter of interpretation of that court ruling, plus whatever happened since then and the interpretation of those actions. You are right, it shouldn't be here. But I'm going to leave that be for now. Ciao. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your work on this article is much appreciated - we are supposed to edit free of bias and that is something you are capable of doing. Your work on references is better than I can do! With regard to the books - it wouldn't be the first time that "Contributor67" has made something up to support his opinion and as I can find no other reference to this book anywhere on the net save here and mirror pages - it does make me wonder.

As for the contempt of court, I cannot ascertain the true position independently but as John Stokes' band has been touring for over 15 years as The Bachelors, the 2 bands share the same booking agents and there is a disclaimer at the bottom the Cluskey's site which reads "Please note that this is a historical site for reference only. This site does not purport to be a promotion of Dec Cluskey and Con Cluskey as 'The Bachelors'. Con and Dec [who recorded every Bachelors' Hit] are familiarly and legally known as Con and Dec The Bachelors." [1]. Furthermore even Contributor67 says that Stokes purchased the company called "The Bachelors Ltd" which suggests that Stokes had a right to the name. In any event if the Cluskeys have allowed Stokes to tour and make records as the The Bachelors for 15 plus years any Court in the UK would now assume that the Cluskeys have given their permission whether deliberately or by default. I also see Stokes is billed as The Bachelors for a gig on 30th September in England. Ultimately, I don't care what the truth is, as long as there is objectivity here at Wikipedia - and, as already suggested, would best be done by cutting "The Split and Beyond" to verifiable facts.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw those notes you referred to, and I also think that these boys should really just bury the hatchet and get on with it. Perhaps that whole split section should be split (I agree it needs to be cut, and part of it deleted, but I'm trying to preserve the peace for the moment), and then the last section, with that 2008 album and all, can be its own section unburdened by verification tags and what not. And yes, C67 is sloppy with references, plays fast and loose with evidence, and never met a value judgment he didn't think was objective truth. But let's let that be for the while.

You've done good work on those singles and EPs. It is looking better every time. I've found and added a reference or two for that 2008 album, and I'm trying to learn how Wikipedia references published material (not internet sources) so I can accomodate those two books. Over the next week I hope to be able to clean that up a bit--and in the end, what will be left, what will look and sound terrible and unreferenced, is that split-section... Keep up the good work. Now I'm going to play some hardcore music--"Danny Boy" is a bit too mellow for me. PS Look on the English Amazon site at the 2008 album, third review, comment thereon. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Again more good work from you, I hope that C67 appreciates what you have done. It's a matter of getting verified facts down, no more or less, opinions and unverified facts can remain on his website, but not WP. The most enlightening review at Amazon is from John Leyland, who, C67 named as the #1 expert on all things Bachelors. I think C67 is his own worst enemy. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I firmly believe that Dec and Con are in the wrong over much of the issues with The Bachelors and that they have a 'concealed way' of manipulating.

I challenge Dec and Con to explain why their web site is a historical reference and does not promote themsleves as The Bachelors. what have they got to hide?

Much of the pages on Wikilpedia seem to have been written by Dec and Con. I would suggest that John Stoke's silence is one of knowing he is right.

Lastly, Dec states that John rarely works. John's Bachelors top the bill in Theatres - Dec and Con seem to play working mens clubs

Dec and Con appear to be bitter elderly gentlemen unsigned comment added by Byrnecris (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

These statements are not helpful at all; whatever you believe is your business, of course, but it's not encyclopedic. You are, of course, welcome to contribute verifiable information to the article. Drmies (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Bachelors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tv.com/the-ed-sullivan-show/show/1156/episode_guide.html?season=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010213142/http://www.memorabletv.com:80/sitcomsuv.htm to http://www.memorabletv.com/sitcomsuv.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcharts.ie%2Fsearch%2Fplacement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113202959/http://www.norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=The+Bachelors&cat=s to http://www.norwegiancharts.com/search.asp?search=The+Bachelors&cat=s
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/artistinfo.php?id=1600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)