Talk:10cc/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 10cc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I'm not in Love

"I'm Not In Love" got back in the charts in 1995 with a diffrent version of the track, making #29, have added this to text as the current wording was wrong. 69.204.6.21 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just thought i'd explain the general cleanup tag. The article needs a re-jig of the biography, really. As it is at the moment it isnt really NPOV ("boasted a wealth of talent"), and it isnt clear what happened when. It also needs images and an infobox. I would do the infobox now, but it isnt clear when they were together, when they were split (did they split in the 90's?), and who was in the band when. -- jeffthe jiff 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm working my way through this now. Hopefully the chronology is a little easier to follow. The liner notes to a recent CD on their early Strawberry Studios output is a valuable source of info on their early career, including the wonderful song "Umbopo" which they released under the name of Doctor Father. I'll move on to this in the next few days.Grimhim 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably more work to do yet, but one question: can 10cc be said to be an existing band? The intro should probably refer to them in the past tense, while the sections dividing the stages of their career should probably note their demise after the "Meanwhile" album.Grimhim 11:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another question: is art rock an accurate description of their genre? Wiki's definition of this term includes Brian Eno, Pink Floyd and Genesis, but after How Dare You, 10cc was a pure and simple pop band. There was precious little art rock on Look Hear? or Ten Out of 10. How precise should we be ... "the band was initially art rock but later in its career was pop"...? Grimhim 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Following what was obviously a premature nomination for Good Article status, I've decided to work my way through the article again, boosting references as I go. I have to say I'm a bit bothered by the look of the Prehistory section, which I think has too many subheads and is too cluttered. Does someone want to work out a solution? It's not easy because of the separate, but often intertwined careers of the four members, but two pivotal points are their work at Strawberry Studios and the release of Neanderthal Man. Grimhim 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on this myself to try to improve the flow and reduce the subheads. Essentially I've now got Godley, Gouldman and Creme's work together in all their projects from 64 to 69; then we cut back to Stewart, which leads on to Strawberry Studios, then the gradual involvement of all four of the boys there, which led to Hotlegs and then to 10cc.

The one drawback of this is that we have Gouldman working with Godley and Creme in '69 before we mention his work with the Mindbenders in '68, but it's one necessary flashback, I guess. All up, I think it reads a little better now and reduces the amount of skipping back and forth between the two sets of players that existed in the previous edit. Grimhim 12:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Members

Rick Fenn

Is Rick Fenn since 1976 until now a (current) member of 10CC, cause this Wikipedia Website says "Second lineup, 1976-present"?
At which 10CC albums was Rick Fenn involved?

-- 84.138.107.68 from 07:29 ..., 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

10cc got thier name from same place as Lovin' Spoonful. One spoonful (tea spoon) is the equivalent of 10ccs. It takes 10ccs or a Lovin' Spoonful to knock a chick up. Chris66 September 9 2006

It's one of the stories, but is there a reputable source?Grimhim 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a mishearing of an urban legend. See [1] for a debunking.

Does this band still exist?

There's no suggestion that 10cc will ever record or play again. Gouldman is touring with former 10cc members as "Graham Gouldman and Friends" and Eric Stewart is doing his own thing. Hence my usage of the past tense. Grimhim 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

10cc are touring as "10cc featuring Graham Gouldman and friends". See http://www.the10ccfanclub.com/htm/framsne.htm. Therefore I think the band still exists, in name at least. Cpc464 11:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I can't argue if that's what he's calling his band. I'd clocked GG & Friends in under Gouldman's own Wiki entry, so I'll update the 10cc entry to note Stewart's absence from the band since 1995 and the fact that a slightly altered lineup has been touring with GG since 2004. Grimhim 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to this vexed question again. I think the infobox is better left with the band finishing in 1995 and the band referred to in the past tense. The intro to the article and "Later work" explain Gouldman's actions in touring since 2004 with a lineup of his own making and Stewart's clear opposition to this. Stewart, who is half-owner of the 10cc name, believes the band no longer exists, hence Gouldman's careful skirting of the issue when touring.Grimhim 07:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He should have called it 5cc lol. In seriousness though, there needs to be clarity on this matter. If the band exists, de facto, then the article cannot say it ended in 1995. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Live discography

10cc In Concert (King Biscuit CD) apparently was initially issued with incorrect liner notes, stating the concert was recorded in 1974. 10cc fan club [2] identifies other errors in the liner notes and concludes the concert was definitely recorded at Santa Monica Civic Center, Nov 75. Later reissues of In Concert correct the date. Grimhim 10:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Creme's spelling

I have reverted all the changes that added the accent to Lol Creme's name. None of the 10cc or Godley and Creme records used this accent; presumably they would have done if he considered it part of his name Grimhim 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that makes it sound like he's laughing out loud --- :) (Rlongman (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Amazon Trust

In a quest to find a copy of "Run Baby Run" by Amazon Trust from 1970, I came across this article. This was a few weeks ago. The biography stated that "Run Baby Run" by Amazon Trust was Hot Legs under a different name. As I know this to be incorrect I edited the reference putting in the correct details i.e. This was a cover of the song by a completely different group, comprising Paul Martinelli, Barry Martinelli, Alfie Ansell and me, Don Gallacher. This was not an ego trip, but as Wikipedia is the leading online reference work, I presumed accuracy was important. Whilst still looking for that elusive single I realised that all reference to Amazon Trust has now been removed from the biography and of course all other reference sites that take their info from Wikipedia. I would be happy to discuss this with any 10cc fans out there, but most importantly I am desperate to get hold of a copy of the single (it is the drummer's retirement party this Saturday). Dongee2247 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't help you with the single, and this probably isn't the best place to seek help in that regard. I deleted the reference to Amazon Trust from the 10cc article because given the fact they're not related, it no longer needs to be included. It's a good point you make that other online reference websites all seem to pick up from Wiki: a Google search of "Amazon Trust" +10cc throw up dozens of websites, but all have identical wording that was evidently taken from Wikipedia. If you're positive that claim was wrong (it sounds like you're in a good position to know, and I can't find anything that contradicts you) then it would be interesting to see where the claim originated. Good luck with your search in the meantime. Grimhim 11:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Amazon Trust was added by an anonymous user on April 22, for what it's worth. Grimhim 11:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The 10cc fan page at http://tencc.fan-site.net/strawberry1.html would seem to be the initial source of the info.

Awards

An anonymous user has added an exhaustive list of awards (gold, silver, etc) for 10cc albums, presumably for sales in Britain, though this isn't stated specifically. My view is that this information belongs, if at all, on the Wiki entry for each album rather than being a chunky list after the discography on the main 10cc page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums page and its archives contains no provision for such lists. I'll ask a question at the talk page for the project for any views. I'm inclined to simply delete the list. Comments? Grimhim 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom

I speedy failed this article because it lacks references. Please see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for how to create a good article. Teemu08 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I've responded to the lead section tag by reworking the intro. I think it was I who cut it back originally because it was getting a bit long, but I guess I overdid it. The recommendation is for an intro up to four paragraphs long that provides a "concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." I think this complies with this now, but I'll keep nibbling away at it.

I'll hunt down more citations as well. Grimhim 06:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Still active

Gouldman and his band are about to start touring the UK under the 10cc name. In some places they are billed as "Graham Gouldman's 10cc" [3] whereas elsewhere (e.g. [4] [5] ) there is no such qualifier.

This should really be clarified in the article text, as readers may wonder how a band that has been defunct since 1995 is able to play concerts in 2007. 217.155.20.163 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd think it's clear enough. Stewart is quoted as saying the band is finished as far as he's concerned; the intro and the "later work" section says that Gouldman continues to tour sporadically with a band billed as 100 featuring GG and Friends. I'll add Stewart's comment about the demise of the band to the intro, but otherwise readers should be able to discern that the band is no more, but Gouldman continues to trade on its name with a new touring band. Grimhim 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was actually at one of these gigs on Monday night - the tickets say 10cc, the band was announced as 10cc. The "Graham Gouldman and Friends" phrase may have been added to tour posters to placate Stewart, but it seems fairly clear that Gouldman has other ideas - he certainly made no effort to suggest that the band on stage was anything other than 10cc ("We did this", "We had this hit back in 1972", etc.) This may be the source of a dispute between Gouldman and Stewart but objectively I see no reason why the "Gouldman only" incarnation of the band is inherently less valid than the "Gouldman and Stewart but not Godley and Creme" one. It's the classic Ship of Theseus dilemma. 217.155.20.163 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn, I must confess. Maybe I'm a purist by insisting on some vestige of the original lineup to validate the band as the continuation of 10cc. On the other hand it's true Burgess began recording with Stewart and Gouldman in '77 on Deceptive Bends, and within another album or two many of the current "10cc" were in there too. Wiki editors seem split on this: bands such as Gerry & The Pacemakers, Herman's Hermits and The Platters are listed as bands in the past tense, even though incarnations of them still tour, albeit with one original member; The Troggs and The Searchers are referred to in the present tense for the very same reason. Anyone else have a preference? Grimhim 04:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

10cc were never a "progressive rock band". Discuss

Check the description in the infobox. Progressive rock? I think not. According to the Wiki entry,

"Progressive rock bands pushed rock's technical and compositional boundaries by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus based song structures. Additionally, the arrangements often incorporate elements drawn from classical, jazz, and avant-garde music. Instrumental songs are more common, and songs with lyrics are sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands used concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme."

Sure, The Original Soundtrack was a concept album with some music that strayed from chorus-verse, but the existence of a concept album within their catalogue does not elevate them to prog-rock status (Hello, Sgt Pepper?). For the most part they were precisely commercial pop/rock. They were never in the realm of the prog-rock masters such as King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, Emerson, Lake and Palmer etc with their symphonic grandiosity. Nor, I think, did they ever claim to be. Any disagreement before I change the infobox? Grimhim (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hayward

On "Blue Guitar", the sounds that weren't Justin's were all 10cc's. (Rlongman (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Band Name

Does the band name really stand for "10 cubic centimeter of semen"?? Is there any record of the origin of the band name? --Electron Kid (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone, original research

Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, not a fan magazine, so the style of writing needs to remain factual, without drifting into a chatty tone. Also note WP:RS, which requires articles to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Information drawn from personal backstage interviews does not qualify. Grimhim (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct grammar

I changed the first two words from "10cc are" to "10cc is" as it continues "an english art rock band", and subject and predicate should agree in number. Someone's changed it back to "are" again. This is clearly wrong, but I see no point in changing it back and forth, so what's the justification for "are"?

I just noticed that The Beatles article starts in similar manner, are all group articles similarly wrong?

Peter Ward 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In British English, band names are plural nouns. Articles about British bands are written in British English, therefore, the correct grammar is "10cc are..." Not so much "clearly wrong" as "correct". This also avoids the clearly hideous "The Beatles is..." Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A band name is singular, one band. Where do you get the idea that band names are plural?Peter Ward 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I don't know what to say if you didn't understand what I said the first time. Here [6] is the Guardian style guide - scroll down to "band names". If it's good enough for a national newspaper, it's good enough for anyone. Do you really think that "The Beatles is a band" is good grammar? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't getting notification of changes to watched pages, and only check occasionally, added to which I thought I'd get email when something changed. No matter, I just sorted out an RSS feed so I can keep up now. But to get to the point, yes, I do think "The Beatles is a band" is good grammar, as "The Beatles" indicates a single band, the fact that the band name ends in 's' notwithstanding. Nor do I consider the Guardian, or any newspaper, to necessarily be a worthwhile guardian of grammar, and I stick to my belief that the verb should agree with its subject in number. But seeing as I appear to be alone in being able to count how many bands I'm referring to I'll let it pass, although it grates. Peter Ward 16:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

Well, you don't really have a choice in letting it pass, as that is the grammatical fact. In British English, bands take a plural noun. You will not find any source anywhere to state otherwise. It does seem odd that you're railing against a law of the language, and that you think your grammar is better than that of a national newspaper, but it's your prerogative, I suppose. National newspapers are reliable sources, and you're not. With regard to the articles though, British band names will take the plural, according to the grammar of British English. I don't mean to have a pop at you, but maybe you think that the Beatles was also good musicians... Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite, which is why I said I'd let it pass, I have no practical choice. However, I can see no good reason why the principle that the verb should agree with its subject in number should be ignored, nor quite how newspapers became the arbiters of grammar, and I take "reliable sources" to mean more sources of information than style. Also, I suggest you look at, for example, Philharmonia Orchestra and Grimethorpe Colliery Band. Oh, and The Beatles was a good band; [the members of] The Beatles were, at the very least, decent musicians. The distinction in meaning is quite clear. Actually, 10cc was pretty good as well. Peter Ward 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

It is a principle, but of course there are exceptions to it, or at least quirks within it. The verb does agree with its subject in that "band" is an acceptable plural noun. Plural nouns do not need to have an 's' on the end to be plural. In British English, the word 'band' as a collection of people can take the plural. Band names themselves take the plural. I don't actually know why I'm trying to explain it, you've obviously decided that you're right and the English language is wrong (and that the nation's newspapers advocate bad grammar). Of course there are Wikipedia articles that differ, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority are correct, and you'll note that the relevant Wikipedia article itself makes it clear. I'm assuming you are American; you need to accept that other forms of English exist, and that they are as valid as your own. On an unrelated point, please sign your comments using four tildes at the end, to save the bot having to do it each time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've demonstrated the difference between singular and plural usage. There's no telling you. The nation's newpapers have their styles, that's all. And I'm english. I'm also signing my comments, where do you think my name, and the date and time are coming from? Why it then thinks I haven't signed it, I have no idea. I've reported it. Signature here-> Peter Ward 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

There's no telling me? You haven't produced a single source that backs up the point you're trying to make, and you seem to think everyone in the world is wrong except you. You also seem to think that both Wikipedia and the national press could get away with bad grammar in their manuals of style. I'm amazed that you're English and you think that "The Beatles is a band" is good grammar, and furthermore you want to labour the point in the face of as much evidence as can be raised. I don't know what to say except perhaps you should spend some time trying to search for any kind of academic source that says that band names take the singular in British English. It'll be a very long search. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd better go and change the entry for the Grimethorpe Band then, as I'm not going to as I'm sure there'll be screams of "it's singular". How many bands do you know called "The Beatles"? I only know of one. You have raised no evidence, only opinions, whereas I can point, once again to the principle that verbs should agree with subject in number, which you haven't disputed. A band is a singular entity comprising several members, when using the band name to refer to its members the plural is correct, otherwise it's singular. Really, I've only argued this point to see if you have any valid, grammatical reason for your stance, and you've come up with nothing. Newspapers? Pah! I've cited one, easily found, example in Wikipedia itself (I suspect there will be others, and I'm ignoring the "Orchestra" one, as that's a different word and might confuse the issue) to support me and you've waved your hands about. I'll leave it now as I've had enough amusement from this subject. Meantime, I'll try something else with the signature and see if that works. Peter Ward 10:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergward (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously anyway and I'm starting to wonder if you're having a little joke. You're taking a general rule of grammar and applying it somewhere where there is a concretely established irregular usage. A brass band is a different thing anyway, much like an orchestra, and I just don't know if it applies to those. I'm talking about pop / rock bands - similarly sports teams (in British English, it's Manchester United are leading 1-0, not "is"... though you will disagree). You appear to be someone who feels he doesn't need to provide any evidence for his claims. Yes, you've cited one, easily found, coincidental example in Wikipedia and completely ignored the grammar article that clearly states that what I'm saying is true. Why haven't you changed that article? You're also rubbishing the entire national press, which is a clear example of you ignoring a clear fact because it doesn't back you up, claiming that all newspapers and journals are grammatical dunces. In a few seconds I can find a couple more sources that back me up, but you'll say that they're just someone's opinion, and that you're right above everyone else, so I won't bother looking for more: [7], [8], etc. I think it's best that you keep speaking your American English, and the rest of us will stick to British English, but don't introduce your mistakes to articles written in British English, please. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter is the one to state a grammatical fact ; the usage you advocate is not law. The last two refs that you provide (Grammarphobia and "Separated by a common language", a hell of a lot more interesting than The Guardian's blurb) conclude that "it depends". A brass band and an orchestra are not "a different thing anyway", nor are other musical ensembles such as a duo, a trio, quartet, quintet, or any other group of people, such as a trade union, a political party, all of which (not "of whom") are referred to as "collective nouns" in your refs.

So, from what' i've learned there :

The Beatles were…, because its (haha) name is "inherently plural", or,
The Beatles was…, because we're talking about a single unit.
the Beatles (George, John, Paul, and Ringo) are… (note the lowercase t), because this refers to the several members, as "the musicians", or "the French" (that's me BTW, but not from Bretagne).
Ramones is a defunct punk rock band, because of the absence of the definite article "the"
the Ramones (Joey, Dee-dee, Tommy, etc.) are almost all dead
10cc, while inherently a plural of cubic centimetres, would conjugate in the singular, as a single entity (i'm not gonna say unit here)

--Jerome Potts (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the fact that in British English, all band names take the plural. 10cc are a British band, and as per WP:ENGVAR, that's what the article uses. Are you suggesting that sports teams all take the singular in British English as well? Also, I don't know what part of "In American English, by the way, a collective noun like “band” is construed as singular. The Brits, on the other hand, treat collective nouns as plural." (as per Grammarphobia") leads to you conclude that "it depends". Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't play foul, your refs say much more than that : re-read them to the end.

Let's take "Arsenal was champion of <whatever league> in 19xx." Is this incorrect ? Or a newspaper headline : "Arsenal defeats MU." Never happens ? Over your dead body ?

Since you are so biased, i too am going to let it pass. Perhaps someone else will voice an opinion. --Jerome Potts (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because, particularly in the case of the Grammarphobia source, they are discussing American English. The other points you make do concern American English and they do address the glaring contradictions within American grammar concerning this point. Regarding your example, no, "Arsenal defeats MU" never happens here. Over anyone's dead body. It's always "Liverpool are leading 1-0", "Liverpool are going to win the league", "Stoke City are rubbish" etc etc when referring to the team. "Champion" is never used as a singular over here - "Arsenal were the champions". Likewise with the national team - "England are going to win the World Cup". This page from the Telegraph is full of examples [9], or this [10] and so on and so on. It works the same for band names here, [11], [12] etc etc. You will find plenty of uses of the singular, but not in British sources. We accept that Americans find this odd, but it is nevertheless how British English works. You may want to read the relevant secion ("Nouns") of American and British English differences. It's not a question of my or anyone's bias - try to assume good faith if you can - you won't hear me taking the American spelling of "colour" or "flavour" and suggesting that American spelling is wrong, or blindly refusing to believe that it's acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Jacob -sen or -son

Hi

I have just done a quick search for the correct spelling of the name, as Jdeacon rightly points out the name sort of should match the biographer (I say sort of in case that is the one incorrectly spelled lol)

The billboard.com website [13] has it as -sen for example as does allmusic.com [14] and the Guiness book of pop [15].

The only ones I can find that match -son are a few radio sites and a couple of publicly edited websites.

I have reverted for now until the matter can be properly resolved. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He is now an artist - here is a painting of Howard Jacobson by Stephen Jacobson [16] and he has his own web-site [17] Zooterkin (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But there is nothing on there saying that he is in fact the same person ? Nothing links him to the band so how do you know it is the same person? Chaosdruid (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[18]? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see anything on there that links them together, plus this website would not hold as much weight as the ones I posted above, [19] and [20]. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's weight and weight. I've always thought that -sen was the typically American spelling of the surname (as in the two American websites you've suggested?) and -son the typically British spelling (as in the lowly British one I suggested). But if he is now indeed a painter, his address, telephone number and email all appear at [21], so why not ask him yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Would that be OR? anyway the problem is that the correct version, at present, would be -son as that is what the sources said. Realistically the burden of proof lies with you I believe, as it would have to prove the two reliable sources were incorrect as well as giving you the opportunity/satisfaction to be able write to them and demand they change their text ! :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"SEEBS, DUDE", as the youth of today would undoubtedly have it, by Jove. But am tempted, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I will try and get to the bottom of this as well, it is an interesting point about the possible Americani~~sation~~zation.

I cannot even remember being that young lol, what the hell is "Seebs dude" lol, oh and I didn't notice the "lowly British", the British are indeed lowly, but that's only due to guilt at turning most of the globe pink and then giving it back again :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me. I meant the website, not the nation! "seebs" = "cba", apparently. But I'll probably email our artist. If he knows of a public source that settles the dispute, I don't think that would be WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now been in touch with Mr Jacobson by email and he has very kindly confirmed the spelling of his surname. He was a member of both The Mockingbirds and The Whirlwinds. We are discussing how the spelling could be verified for the purposes of this article. But since he has a more famous brother, Howard, it shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow ! Nice work :¬)

He can send a verification email to OTRS and that would suffice...Wikipedia:Contact_us

I look forwards to the final edits now we can lay that one to rest. You may also want to contact the two American sites and tell them they have it wrong! (I believe the Guinness book also will need contacting) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If Stephen Jacobson doesn't wish to be put to any trouble (which would be entirely reasonable), then what about this [22] source? Although it is a blog, it has a quote from the book The Guys Who Wrote 'em: Songwriting Geniuses of Rock and Pop by Sean Egan. But my Googling has also now suggested that Stephen Jacobson may well deserve a Wiki article in his own right. Any views? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(chrono)Sorry, didn't see that I'd sparked a discussion. On Desert Island Discs, Howard Jacobson referred to his brother becoming an artist. This is confirmed here - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-the-milibands-have-gone-against-nature-2095494.html The date and place of birth for Stephen Jacobson in the links I gave earlier tie up (4 years younger than Howard, born in Manchester). Zooterkin (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that sending the email you received in would perhaps be a step in the right direction if he does not want to do so.

AS for the blog, it is unfortunate that it is not a scan of the page, as obviously the blog editor could have changed anything in that text. The problem is that all these sources use different spelling, the Guiness book of pop would be put against Egans book. Unfortunately the blog additions, the wannadoo.co.uk seem to be gone now and Google does not give a readable preview of the book. Failing getting it in a library and checking it I cannot see what can be done apart from the man himself.

I would have thought that he would not want his name misrepresented in those other websites, nor the Guinness book and that he would have sent it in with no problem.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a reference to the Sean Egan book in the article here and have added a mention of Stephen Jacobson to Howard Jacobson. I have also emailed a suggested correction to Billboard, AllMusic and Guiness. I shall contact Stephen himself again to ask him if he thinks he should have a wikipedia article of his own. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Billboard say they can't amend anything - they get sent all their data from AllMusic. So they advise me to contact AllMusic! Martinevans123 (ta lk) 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol - but nice work, I hate it when people take bad info and then spread it around, it compounds misinformation...well at least it is ~~a step~~ a few steps in the right direction!

Thanks for your perseverance!

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)