Talk:Badfinger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pete or Peter?

Peter Ham has always been referred to as Pete Ham (see for example http://badfingerlibrary.freeservers.com/SoloBadfinger/PeteHam/PeteHamLibrary.html ), so shouldn't we change that again? KF 11:01 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, KF. I've never heard him referred to as "Pete". In fact, I've never heard Tommie Evans referred to as "Tom" before either. Like them, I come from the Swansea area, and I was basing what I've written on little snippets I've picked up over the years. But it may well be the case that a lot of people called them "Pete" and "Tom" - you probably know more about it than I do. Can we have a redirect? --Deb

I don't think a redirect is necessary. I've just removed the two r's. And no, I don't know more about them than you do: It's just that on the LPs/CDs I have he is always called Pete Ham. Thanks a lot, and have a nice evening. --KF 19:17 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Although the article is under "Peter" Ham, the redirects have solved any issues. For Deb's reference, Apple identified The Iveys/Badfinger by first name when they started out, and they were "Tom", "Pete", "Mike", "Ron" and "Joey" -- so everyone knows Evans and Ham as Tom and Pete. -- AyaK (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I agree with the Jan. 2006 wiki message that the Badfinger information presented here is haphazardly pieced together. The general info is good, but there are far too many superlatives to suggest to the reader that it is objective. I don't know if it needs a complete rewrite or just some diligent editing.

Some diligent editing I think. I'll come back periodically, and good to see you've had a crack at it today too. --kingboyk 20:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a professional reading should refer to individuals by surname only once they have been identified by full names (unless there is a link attached). I made these changes where I could, and removed several redundancies. Some loaded adjectives were neutralized, unless they were attributed to a third party ("reviewers said it was wonderful," etc.). It still has problems with flow.

Good stuff. Please remember to sign your talk page comments by typing ~~~~. --kingboyk 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. I'm not normally a wiki contributor. Ronson. 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent edits. You might (or might not!) like to consider getting an account. It only takes a minute or so. Your call. --kingboyk 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I joined. Let's see how this works. ZincOrbie 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)ZincOrbieZincOrbie 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pete Ham merged

There was barely any information in the Pete Ham article that was not already covered in the Badfinger article. The only notable exception was the inclusion of his suicide note. Is this information really warranted, or does it fall under the category of 'morbid curiosity?' ZincOrbie 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's short. If it's genuine I think it should stay as it sums up his frustrations more eloquently than we could. --kingboyk 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I know it's genuine. The remark about "tragic irony" of Ham's early support of Polley can be left out. I know it is a fact as it has been stated by many, many people, but it's a little awkward here anyway. I'll see if I can source it and find some other place for it.

The removal of Ham's separate biograpy resulted in the loss of his birth/death information, which means anyone researching the man will not be able to use Wikipedia as a source of that information. People of less significant historical importance than Pete Ham have retained a listing. I note Joey Molland has retained a listing. --Anonymous 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That would need to be fixed then. We can also make sure that the Pete Ham redirect is all in the right categories, so people will still find him but will be taken to this page when they click on his name. The reason for the merger was this - that there isn't much which is verifiable and enyclopedic to say about Pete Ham which isn't also part of the Badfinger story. We can certainly think about this, revert if neccessary or at least ensure he's covered to your satisfaction in the article. Note that for a favourite band of mine you may not have heard of, there is a similar situation. To most long term fans of The Shamen, William Sinnott was the guy who made a big mark on the band, brought some soul to the band, pushed them forward. A lot of people regard Mr. C as a rapping Cockney wide boy. And yet, Mr. C has an article because he is notable for things outside that band whereas Sinnott (who also died early) is notable only for being in that band. So, what we've done here isn't unusual or illogical and certainly isn't meant as a slight against Peter Ham. --kingboyk 12:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for removing the Pete Ham article is that there is barely anything to be said about him outside of the Badfinger context. The same applies to Tom Evans and Mike Gibbins (although these two did have some minor exterior work). Both Joey Molland and Bob Jackson have extensive recording histories before and after Badfinger, either solo or with other bands. This exterior information can be pertinent but otherwise would not fit the Badfinger article. I am a huge fan of Ham, he's my favorite artist from the group, but his musical legacy is completely interwoven with Badfinger. ZincOrbie 23:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pete Ham has only one solo record fewer than Joey Molland does, thanks to Dan Matovina. At any rate, none of this addresses the peculiar lack of biographical information that remains about the man. When was he born? Where? Far less notable people can be found here with their biographical details intact. That the founder of an entire genre of music (PowerPop) cannot be is, IMO, a travesty. --Anonymous 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it a seperate article. I haven't restored any links. --kingboyk 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration Stephen. Although it is still debatable, I have no problem with a Ham article. I'll contribute to it as much as I can to make it worthy as a stand-alone. ZincOrbie 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

McCartney's piano

The version of this listing as I found it made two references to Paul McCartney playing piano on "Come and Get It" and another Badfinger track. The recordings themselves do not list such a credit, nor could I find such a credit in other reference books. McCartney played piano on his original demo for Badfinger, but I find no credit for him on the finished product. If there is a reference that proves his participation in the recording beyond being the producer, I'll reinstate the references. Rich 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim of McCartney's piano involvement on the two tracks comes from Ron Griffiths and Mike Gibbins. I believe (not sure) that Tom Evans also stated as much. You might want to check the link to Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger and query the author, Dan Matovina. He interviewed the three band members. There is also an unsubstantiated suggestion that McCartney does some yells and "whoops" in the background on the track "Rock Of All Ages," which many people claim to hear (including myself). At any rate, any McCartney connections beyond production is not a big deal. I don't see them as necessary.-- ZincOrbie 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and information here should be verifiable - which it would seem this isn't. --kingboyk 15:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, McCartney initially wasn't even credited as producer. According to Neil Aspinall (ref. biography), the Beatles were "modest" about their contributions to artist recordings. The original production credit for "Come And Get It," "Rock Of All Ages" and "Crimson Ship" was not stated on the singles or albums.-- ZincOrbie 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there were many performances not credited in those days due to restrictions placed on musicians by their recording companies. Clapton played on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" from the White Album and was never credited. I don't think George Harrison was originally credited for his slide guitar solo on "Day After Day" for that matter. Considering the involvement of the various Beatles in the career of Badfinger, it's not hard to believe that Sir Paul may have played piano on "Come and Get It".

Badfinger members

I added Bob Jackson and Joe Tansin as band members to the infobox. This should complete the recording history of the band - at least as far as composers. Although there were further recording members in the band between 1978 and 1981, their contributions did not involve any original compositions.

Where does it say that credited members of a band should be limited to composers? -- AyaK (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a YouTube video of a TV performance of Baby Blue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C53QAuOoSgc) where the right-handed drummer clearly is not Mike Gibbins (he played left-handed). A user comment says that "the drummer is rob stawinski, mike left the band briefly summer of 72". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.67.40 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Evans

The link on the Tom Evans name takes you to a baseball player (never heard of him actually). I don't know how to fix that.

I've created a disambiguation page, and also fixed the links here (or, rather, I'm about to!).

I wonder though about the wisdom of having articles/redlinks for each of the members of Badfinger. Are any of the guys notable for anything outside of their work in Badfinger? Will we not end up with either perpetual stubs or repeats of the info from this article? --kingboyk 17:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The only two members listed in the infobox who might justify outside pages are Joey Molland and Bob Jackson. Molland has a recording career outside of Badfinger (3 solo albums, Natural Gas, and Gary Walker & The Rain). Jackson also has an established outside recording history. Tony Kaye (who is not included in the infobox) also qualifies for an article because of his extensive history with Yes. In my opinion, Ham, Evans, Gibbins, Griffiths and Tansin don't require individual articles.-- ZincOrbie 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I created Bob Jackson and Joey Molland articles.-- ZincOrbie 18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Badfinger

I've created the above category and populated it with the relevant articles I could find. Please add others that you know about. --kingboyk 14:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Escrow amount

I am moving the discussion about missing escrow money to this talk page. I believe the best course of action is to access the actual lawsuit papers and check the figures. I can do this. Give me a little time, as this will require some analysis (legalese can hurt my brain!). ZincOrbie 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You recently edited some information pertaining to Warner Bros. and Badfinger and the escrow fiasco and I did some more research and found out more information saying that it was 600,000 not 100,000. For instance a Rolling Stone Article claims this

Still Badfinger's worst problems began when the Apple contract expired and the band signed with Warner Bros., which offered more money. Shortly after the 1974 release of Wish You Were Here, Badfinger's second album for the label, an audit of a band account that had held approximately $600,000 of advance money in escrow came up empty. Warner Bros. immediately yanked the album from record stored. It had been bulleting up the charts and selling 25,000 copies a week. Although the band members hadn't raided the escrow account and the money was later returned, the momentum had been halted. "It killed the album outright;" says Molland. "It broke up the band, and Pete died six months later

Again here from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll ...when Warner Bros., claiming (erroneously it would turn out) that $600,000 in a band escrow account was missing, pulled the album from stores.

If its alright with you I'm going to change the Badfinger article back to $600,000 and adding it was a false claim. If you have any issues with that please don't hesitate to tell me and I'm glad to see a fellow wikipedian steadfastly monitoring an article, for me I do Derek & The Dominos and I think its really beneficial when a person monitors an article, it helps prevent small vandalism that gets hidden and helps to ensure accuracy. Thanks again - Patman2648 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only tell you that the Rolling Stone article is based on off-the-cuff comments by Joey Molland, and it is certainly wrong. I'm sure other articles referenced Rolling Stone, but they would be equally wrong. It is an error that is feeding on itself.

Dan Matovina and myself went through the lawsuit complaint by WB with a fine-tooth comb and there was never any claim about $600,000 missing from an account. What happened is that there were two escrow accounts set up by WB Publishing: Account 1 for $500,000, Account 2 for $100,000. The first account always had a correct balance in it, with deductions being made for two Badfinger albums. WB never complained about this account. The second account, however, was completely emptied - presumably by Stan Polley. Polley was allowed to make two deductions from the second escrow account, which should have left a balance of of about $83,000. So, in a sense, WB wanted to know where the $83,000 went.

When the dust settled in the late 1970s, the courts found Polley owed WB something like $45,000(?) (I can't remember now how they came up with a lower figure). But it has been a blatant falsehood for decades when people claim Badfinger was ripped off for "millions of dollars." When properly calculated, the actual figures are far, far lower. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We'd best collate a list of accounts from verifiable sources then (per WP:V) and if there's a discrepancy we can just note it in the article. Thanks for the input (and apologies to Kent for butting in on his talk page, I have it on my watchlist :)) --kingboyk 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when referencing information, Patman is correct. But there are many legitimate sources for faulty information. The cause has been Joey Molland's word being taken as gospel by reporters when the man is relying on a faulty memory, coupled with his tendency to exagerrate dollar figures. Believe me, Polley never stole "millions" from Badfinger, and Polley was never accused of taking $600,000 from WB. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I preempted it with a recent edit summary where I said that a music magazine feature based on interviews with band members is hardly a reliable source for fact. It might be best to find an interview source where Molland is cited as claiming it was 600,000 (and if he mentions Polley by name that would be good too) and we can quote him directly; and then find another source which disputes the figure. It's quite alright to be indefinite in our articles; if controversy exists we should document both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusions I think (WP:NPOV in a way). Do you know of sources we can use? --kingboyk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've changed the article to use the <ref> format (as used at Apple Corps).

There are many articles online citing the $600,000 amount, but they are always offerred in paraphrase. Some are culled from Molland interviews, and others are based on previous articles. Here's a link to a discussion board that comtains article snippets that is closer to reality (and you'll note they reference the actual lawsuit). You'll have to scroll down to Badfinger:

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=658752&page=81&view=expanded&sb=4&o=&fpart=2

I don't have my documentation handy to verify the amount right now, but I believe $183,333.33 is probably correct. I said $83,000, but it may be $183,333 because the two accounts were accessed by Polley. Remember, some deductions were legitimate although WB claimed they weren't. So the truth of the matter lay in the middle somewhere. If memory serves, Badfinger was allowed to draw escrow compensation for two LPs (Badfinger and Wish You Were Here), and for three LPs worth of publsihing (Badfinger, Wish You Were Here and Head First).

When I get a chance, I will reference my documentation and present it to you and Patman. We can then discuss how the WP article should be phrased. ZincOrbie 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ZincOrbie, I'll trust you wholeheartedly on the info, usually I just trust Rolling Stone because they're a reliable source unlike some funky internet website where I have no idea who wrote it or what his background in music is but I can easily see where Rolling Stone could have misinterpreted information. I'm glad I ran this by you so that I could find out the truth, Thanks and feel free to undo what edits I made toward the escrow information and send by a big article of the true info so I can learn for myself because I'm not very well informed on Badfinger and I hope to see you around again. Thanks again! -- Patman2648 19:07 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, from Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, page 227. On December 27, 1974, WB Music (publishing division) requested a writ of attachment from Badfinger for US$175,969.27. A Superior Court judge approved US$20,000, but the rest had to wind through the lawsuit. Matovina does not have the amount in the book that was actually claimed, but Richard Dilello cited it as US$183,333 from the court documents (see link higher up). In October 1975, WB Records (record division) demanded Polley return US $250,000 from a different escrow account, because Badfinger had not finished its contract with the label (page 304). This amount was settled out of court. On December 8, 1978, Judge Julius Title ordered that Polley pay back WB Music (publishing division) US$42,000. So... according to the courts, Polley took US$42,000 from WB Music that was not his. ZincOrbie 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stolen money

Although this issue hasn't come up yet, I would like to address it now since the missing escrow amount is being contested. Molland has often claimed Polley stole "millions" from Badfinger. His amounts have varied through the years (depending on the interview), but has generally fallen between $2 million and $6 million.

Matovina and I calculated Badfinger's income from 1970 through 1975, when Polley managed the band, and we were able to account for most of their recording and publishing income. Polley took a hefty sum from the band from these income sources, but it was a legal amount per his contract with the group - hence, very little could be considered "stolen." We were unable to account for the band's concert income, as the receipts are no longer available, and they were handled through Jeff Franklin's company. We were, however, capable of putting together a ballpark figure based on ticket sales and group expenses.

The amount Matovina and I arrived at was somewhere between $800,000 and $1.5 million. This would be money that should have gone to the band but did not. Noteworthy here, band money also had to be divided five ways; 4 band members, plus Bill Collins (all equal splits, if not counting publishing splits). The amount we arrived at that Molland may have had "stolen" from him was approximately $100,000 to $200,000. The amount would be higher for Pete Ham and Tom Evans, due to the higher split they receive for Without You publishing (which is the cashcow for Badfinger).

I wanted to address this now in case it comes up later. If need be, sources might be provided to verify these calculations are close. ZincOrbie 18:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember Kent, we don't publish original research. A lot of what you are offering up falls very close to the line, if not over it. --kingboyk 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of why I am commenting on it here, instead of putting any info in the article. If the issue does come up later, I will find sources/publications for citation. ZincOrbie 04:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"They were all strict vegans"

I removed this statement from the lead; needs a source. I've read quite a bit about this band and never came across that. Only relevant Google hit appears to be Wikipedia. thx, Jim Butler 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen the "vegan" vandalism on other articles besides Badfinger. You are correct, there was nothing "vegan" about the band. This nonsense, unfortunately, will probably reappear in the future.ZincOrbie 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good to know. It's been in the article before, I'm fairly sure. Now we know it can be reverted on sight if it reappears. --kingboyk 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stephen! I'm slowly getting back online. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I saw some quickly-reverted vegan nonsense on a Beatles article and also on another rock band. Someone with a vegetarian agenda, I suppose. ZincOrbie 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Part Two

It seems the article has been getting a little awkward again recently. I will be spending some time (when I can) at cleaning it up, removing some redundancies and lingering POVs. Mostly, I realized the early Apple years was chronologically out of order, and I have attempted to correct this. Unfortunately, it changed the flow from "Panthers Iveys" to "Badfinger - Apple Years."ZincOrbie 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Badfinger

I reverted several edits made to the Badfinger article for two primary reasons: (a) They introduced 'terrific' amounts of POV, not to mention unsourced information, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, and (b) they included a great deal of typos. I am not normally the type to revert the work put forth by others, but the person(s) who made these recent revisions needs to pay more attention to detail and remain objective to the topic. ZincOrbie 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect for the 3-revert rule, and since the new editor obviously is unfazed by reverts (and does not read this discussion board), I guess the best strategy now is to wait it out until the editor's motivation wanes; At which time I will revert again. ZincOrbie 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If he's adding nonsense or slander, just revert it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the band to know if his contributions are good or not (although the English certainly leaves something to be desired). --kingboyk 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense or slander. The information (in my opinion) is peripheral to the overall biography, as well as inadequately sourced and poorly written. I suspect the editor is a youngster trying his hand at editing on a favorite subject. My hope is that his enthusiasm deteriorates soon - or he greatly improves his style and content. ZincOrbie 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Tough situation - I had similar with The KLF. A new editor's contributions were way below par (we were working towards FAs and his edits were barely coherent), but I didn't want to appear to be trying to own the articles. He got tired of it in the end though so hopefully the same will happen here. --kingboyk 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll never have to worry about Badfinger becoming an FA! :) Anyway, you're correct. I don't want to appear possessive about the article, yet nearly all of these recent additions are painful. I couldn't find a single edit that I felt was worth improving, much less keeping. I'll give him a couple weeks to lose interest. ZincOrbie 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

References

With proper references, and far more than there are now, ZincOrbie could easily take this to GA. Newspapers, books, web pages? Anything will help. (Good luck with the "monkey" on your back, BTW - my sympathies...) andreasegde 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You obviously know a lot about them (and you must have read it somewhere) so maybe you are having trouble understanding how to put citations/references in. I had to learn how to do it by trial and error a short time ago, BTW. Don't hesitate to ask for help, from myself, kingboyk or any of the others.andreasegde 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what "GA" is? The reason I am having trouble sourcing is because I assisted biographer Dan Matovina with his book on the band. During that process, I was interviewing and transcribing interviews with the band members, managers, record execs, etc. Most of the information was included in the book, although some may not have been used. Suffice to say that all of my sources are the biography Without You: The Tragic Story Of Badfinger. ZincOrbie 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"GA" stands for "Good Article", which is the second highest category of article on Wikipedia. The article must meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I'll work on it. -- AyaK (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandson

Hey there, my name is Lewis Griffiths, and I am the Grandson of Badfinger member Ron Griffiths. If there is anything I can do to help out on wiki, especially regarding Badfinger and it's members etc, then please drop me a message. Thanks. --Lewisjg 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Apple Iveys.JPG

Image:Apple Iveys.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Expansion

Having just acquired 'Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger', I'm planning a large expansion including inline citations... if anyone wants to help out, then cool. -MichiganCharms 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help out. There is quite a bit of good information in the book that could be useful here, it's just a matter of making it all fit without getting too long. What I had done in the past was to add various information, sleep on it for a few days, review the entire article, and then apply whatever compression is needed. At any rate, welcome aboard. ZincOrbie 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Gibbins on "Young Savage Florida"

I own a compilation CD called "Young Savage Florida" featuring two songs by Mike Gibbins. 1)Dream Harder (Ballad of the Red Coats), and 2)Layaway(http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=10:3pfexql0ldte). This should be included in the list of post-Badfinger albums. Come to think of it, maybe I should add it as a new compilation album. ----DanTD (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that it can be mentioned, but it is a "various artists" compilation and doesn't really qualify as a Mike Gibbins release. There are many such various-artist compilations with Badfinger members on them that have not been mentioned - including Joey Molland and Tom Evans doing a remake of "Come And Get It" back around 1979. Should Mike Gibbins get his own article some day, then I'd agree that "Young Savage Florida" is a worthwhile mention.---ZincOrbie (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. However I believe that Mike Gibbins did have his own article at one time, because I was specifically looking him up and was redirected to Badfinger. Perhaps I should just write the article on the YSF compilation, and include the Mike Gibbins link. ----DanTD (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a Mike Gibbins article at one time. It was little more than a couple of sentences, written as an obituary on the heels of his death. Considering the amount of solo material he released, I'd say he merits his own article. If you decide to recreate it I will assist you in filling it out.---ZincOrbie (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to recerate this, go right ahead. I'm going to start the Young Savage Florida article, and you can link that article on Mike Gibbins to it if you wish. ----DanTD (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rework of Badfinger (Dustygreen)

Dustygreen, I wanted to address a change you recently made that I believe will open a Pandora's Box. You added a section "former members" and have included people who did nothing more than perform live with some Badfinger outfit at some point in time. Using this criteria, you enable every two-bit player that ever performed a gig for the past 43 years to add their name to the list. I already added Steve Craiter, Bob Evans and Mark Healy to your section (off the top of my head). You could probably add about 50 more people as well.

I believe it is better to only list people who(a) Recorded and wrote material for the band, or (b) Only recorded with the band. This would keep the list close-ended. If someone notable toured with Badfinger (like Reed Kailing) he can always be added into the biographical narrative but excluded from the informational sidebar.--ZincOrbie (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the guidelines for Template:Infobox Musical artist, all Badfinger members should be listed as past members: "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field." Thus, I moved the list of members to the past members field. Right now, it includes the following: Ham, Evans, Gibbins, Molland, Griffiths, Jackson, Tansin, Kaye, Sherba, Bryans -- in other words, the people who were credited as members of Badfinger through Say No More. I'm not sure that we can say with any degree of certainty whether "members" after that time were or were not actually members of Badfinger. -- AyaK (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best compromise, although the band is historically only remembered as Ham, Evans, Molland and Gibbins (the unit that endured the longest, with five albums, and recorded most of their hit singles). But again, at least this sets a parameter to disallow the myriad touring musicians that performed through the decades. --ZincOrbie (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I actually like the "composer" criterion that someone above suggested (which would cut out Kaye, Sherba and Bryans), but it's not within Wiki policy, whereas a limitation to the album lineups is. For example, I don't want to include all the members of Joey Molland's Badfinger. Nothing against Joey, but it doesn't seem to me that his supporting musicians meet the "notability" criterion. -- AyaK (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is Stan?

He must be one of these two (86 years old, and my bet's on Scarsdale, NY).--andreasegde (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the one in Palm Springs, but could be both actually. I know he lived in Palm Springs as recently as the 1990s, but he was born in New York and may have relocated back there. Both persons being 86 years old means they are probably both him. ZincOrbie (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - Stan Polley died in July 2009. ZincOrbie (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We need verification on Kathie Molland

There is a buzz going around that Joey Molland's wife passed away recently. So far there has been no obituary or other official confirmation online with which to reference. Gossip within Badfinger newsgroups is not sufficient. ZincOrbie (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. It has been confirmed. ZincOrbie (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Source

Milwaukee Magazine recently ran an extended feature on the group's years in the United States that should prove a good reference for anyone looking to fill out that part of the article; just an FYI. 76.199.148.110 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck!

I noticed someone placed a header on this article that it needs to be cleaned up. All I can say is "good luck." I have tried to do this numerous times but (unfortunately) it has been closely monitored by a rather weak editor for the past year. Any encyclopedic improvements made to it will be reverted fairly quickly. I finally gave up. ZincOrbie (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

GA

I am now working on this to bring it up to GA status.--andreasegde (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, you've been busy. I'm happy you fixed the lead regarding Evans discovering Ham's body. It's actually a confusing scenario and it could almost go either way.

Although the body was actually discovered by Ham's live-in girlfriend, Anne, she may not have comprehended what she saw. She immediately telephoned Evans. She was hysterical and he only recalled her screaming "It's Pete! It's Pete!" Evans didn't know what this meant. So he drove over to Ham's residence and ran through his house and found no one. He then ventured into the garage and found Ham's body (Anne was apparently in a back room of the house somewhere). Alone with the body, Evans checked his pulse, verified he was dead, and cut him down (although the police and coroner's office likely disapproved of that). At any rate, although Evans didn't "discover" the body, he spent some time alone with it before the police arrived. Evans' widow pointed to this as having a powerful effect on him.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They really were a doomed band.--andreasegde (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's getting closer to a GA. Just a slight problem with book pages.--andreasegde (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Perhaps we can police it for a while and try to keep it from becoming a mess again.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist.--andreasegde (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for a GA review now.--andreasegde (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speechless

A financial statement prepared by Polley's accountants, Sigmund Balaban & Co., for the period between 8 December 1970 to 31 October 1971, showed Polley's income from the band: "Salaries and advances to client, $8,339 (Joey Molland), $6,861 (Mike Gibbins), $6,211 (Tom Evans), $5,959 (Pete Ham). Net corporation profit, $24,569. Management commission, $75,744 (Stan Polley)". Although it is not known if the band members saw the statement, Collins certainly had, as his handwriting is on the document.

Jesus H. Christ...--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. This goes back to my position stated here (years ago) that much of what Polley was alleged to have stolen was actually contracted to him. A case can certainly be made that it was theft on moral grounds, but his take was essentially legal per contract.

By the way, I see you have elevated a link to Joey Molland's website as being an "official" link. He really is no more "official" than the estates of the deceased members who take umbrage with him, or (as example) that Roger Waters is any more "official" for Pink Floyd than the estates of Syd Barrett or Rick Wright are. I propose changing the title to reflect Molland's involvement, remove the "official" tag, and place it accordingly in the list sequence.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Go for it. BTW, George Martin once suggested that EMI give The Beatles a higher royalty rate, for "nothing" in return. He was then considered an outcast and almost a traitor by EMI staff.--andreasegde (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also moved the Biography Book site to the top since that is the most heavily-referenced source among the links. It seemed appropriate. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom Evans Myth

I removed a sentence regarding Evans leaving a suicide note. No note was found by family, friends or police in the aftermath of Evans death. The "you're next" line is simply a myth. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I also had a problem with that.--andreasegde (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Matovina book link

I just noticed that the "Matovina 2000" reference links are dead. Were these supposed to go to separate Google Books pages? I'm not sure how to affect the "sfn" source for these links. Thanks. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They're supposed to be like that, I think. I copied them from The Beatles' page.--andreasegde (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a bit of detective work, but they're fixed now.--andreasegde (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Data creep?

If this article continues to bloat on the basis of Matovina's book, we may as well cut and paste the whole darn book in here. Pzzp (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Only one book has been released on this subject. Personally, I find the book far more reliable than many of the magazine articles that have perpetuated myths about the band through the years. Better to be a condensed version of the book rather than strung-together magazine articles. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Orbie; there are 28 books listed in the 'References' section, which shows how many mention just one or two lines about Badfinger. What's wrong with citing a book, anyway? People have been quoting the Bible for years, no?--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there are 55 pages referenced from Matovina's book, and 135 references in total. 88 against 55 isn't that bad.--andreasegde (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was born a Badfinger fan so don't think that I'm an unfair critic. For perspective, both Ghandi and Rolling Stones articles have 138 references. Apart from the disproportion I see, maybe it's just me, but I think encyclopedic attributes of concision and brevity are getting short shrift.Pzzp (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a valid point, but encyclopedias have limitations because of paper, whereas this place does not. Maybe Ghandi and the Rolling Stones need more references? Nice that you're a fan, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike

Why doesn't Mike Gibbins have his own page? This would be pretty insulting seeing as how he was a member before Tom and Joey. He should have his own article even if it is just a stub saying what band he was part of and when he died. Terry Draper has one and nobody has heard of him and it's about one line long.--Canadian Reject (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why don't you start one? Get in there, and get your hands dirty. :) --andreasegde (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mike had a wiki article for a brief time a few years ago. The problem is that aside from his Badfinger work there was barely anything else to add, and the Badfinger article already covers all the relevant points of Mike's career. Even the articles on Pete Ham and Tom Evans feel padded to me because their stories are scant outside of Badfinger. -- ZincOrbie (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Badfinger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

General notes

Lead

• 01. "Picked up by The Beatles' Apple label in 1968, in 1969 they adopted the name Badfinger." - is this a sentence or a run through? Would consider revising to Picked up by The Beatles' Apple label in 1968, they adopted the name Badfinger, a year later. or something like that.
• 02. #1 - needs to be spelled out completely per WP:ORDINAL ---> "number-one"
• 03. #3 - needs to be spelled out completely per WP:ORDINAL ---> "number-three"
• 04. "Over the next 5 years" ---> Over the next five years
• 05. Wish You Were Here - needs year of release in (parenthesis) [sic].
• 06. "Polley's financial machinations, an eventual lawsuit raised by Warner against Polley over missing escrow account money, and Warner's consequent withdrawal from market of the album Wish You Were Here (seven weeks after its release), cut off the band's income and plunged them into disarray and despair." - this sentence is a bit too long, consider revising. Add some periods so it doesn't look like its all crumpled up.
• 07. "included damning comments" - what? maybe a typo. [It is the correct spelling].
• 08. "The next 3 years saw surviving members trying to rebuild their personal and professional lives against a backdrop of lawsuits." - consider revising to something like this The following three years, the surviving members had begun to rebuild their personal and professional lives against a backdrop of lawsuits.

The Iveys and Apple

• 01. Removed "," which is located before citation 5.
• 02. "It reached the Top Ten" - lower-case "top ten"
• 03. "but only #67" - spell out the number completely ---> "while it had peaked at number sixty-seven on the US Billboard Hot 100. The single had failed to chart in the U.K."
• 04. "a bold move at the time" - seems ORISH to me.
• 05. "The chart success of "Maybe Tomorrow" in Europe and Japan led to a follow-up single release in those markets in July 1969: Griffiths' "Dear Angie"" - would consider revising to something like this The chart success of "Maybe Tomorrow" in Europe and Japan led to a follow-up single release in those markets Griffiths' "Dear Angie", was released in July 1969.
• 06. "Maybe Tomorrow" - needs the year of release in (parenthesis) [sic]
• 07. Disc & Music Echo - needs to be italic.

Badfinger

• 01. "The release date of "Come and Get It" approaching" - would consider revising to something like this When the release date of "Come and Get It" was approaching,

All done.--andreasegde (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• 02. "it reached Top 10 throughout the world: #7 on the US Billboard chart on 7 February 1970, and #4 in the UK" - would consider revising to something like this it had reached the top ten throughout the world and number-seven on the US Billboard chart on 7 February 1970, and number-four in the UK - question, which Billboard and U.K. charts did they peaked at?
• 03. "The album peaked at #55 on the Billboard album chart in the US" - would consider revising to something like this The album peaked at number fifty-five on the Billboard album chart in the US - which album chart did it peaked on?
• 04. "No Dice was released in the US in late 1970, peaking at #28 on the Billboard album chart" - (1) number twenty-six (2) which chart?
• 05. "A re-mixed "No Matter What" was released as a single, reaching numerous Top Ten charts around the world, peaking at #8 in the US, and #5 in the UK" - (1) no need to space remixed (2) should start it off with A remix version of... (3) Top Ten shouldn't be capitalized (4) number-eight (5) number-five.
• 06. "The hit song from No Dice turned out to be "Without You", but not for Badfinger." - why?
• 07. "Harry Nilsson recorded the song in 1972, and his version became an international hit, reaching the Billboard #1" - spell out the number completely ---> "number-one"
• 08. "award for Song of the Year" ---> award for "Song of the Year"
• 09. "All Things Must Pass" - needs the year of release in (parenthesis) [sic]
• 10. "Imagine" - needs the year of release in (parenthesis) [sic]
• 11. The sentence in parenthesis, [sic] can be fit in the article. Just not in the style currently present.
• 12. "New York's Kennedy Airport" - needs to be linked to "John F. Kennedy International Airport" "unusual/unknown places"
• 13. ""Day After Day" (Billboard #4)" --> ""Day After Day" (peaked at number-four on Billboard)" - or equivalent.
• 14. ""Baby Blue" (US #14)" - same as above.
• 15. "The album reached #31 on the US charts." ---> "The album peaked at number thirty-one on the US charts."
• 16. "By 1972, the band were contracted for one last album with Apple Records." ---> By 1972, the band were contracted for their final album with Apple Records.
• 17. "(US #122)" - needs to be written out.

Warner Brothers

• 01. ""Love Is Easy" (UK) and "I Miss You" (US), were unsuccessful." - not sure why U.S. and U.K. is in parenthesis [sic] here.
• 02. "A March 1974 concert at the Cleveland Agora was recorded on 16-track tape for a possible live album release" - (1) missing word "a" before the 16-track tape (2) 16-track tape --> sixteen-track tape.
• 03. "She remembered complaining that even though the band had had hit records" - remove repeated word "had"
• 04. "Polley began shopping Ham as a solo act" - what does this mean?
• 05. "Head First" - needs the year of release in (parenthesis) [sic]

A suicide, a reunion, and another suicide

• 01. "The single "Love is Gonna Come At Last" from Airwaves reached #69 on the Billboard chart" - needs #69 to be spelled out completely --> "...number sixty-nine on the Billboard chart(s)" - which chart(s) did it peaked at?
• 02. "This new Badfinger released their second album, Say No More, in 1981, with Glenn Sherba added on second guitar and Richard Bryans (Aviary) replacing Clarke on drums." - (1) is a contradicting sentence, since the next one says it was an LP record (2) Why does the sentence begins with "this new Badfinger released"? should start it out with "their second studio album" or something like that.
• 03. "reached #56 on the Billboard charts" - needs #56 to be spelled out completely ---> number fifty-six.
• 04. "Early in 1983, Evans and Jackson, with assistance from new member Al Wodtke (Kyx, Crow, Apostles)" - if not notable, per WP:BAND, then it shouldn't be in parenthesis [sic] rather revising it to ...new member Al Wodtke, who was in three previous (Rock) bands.
• 05. "Randy Anderson (Jesse Brady) of Minneapolis, Minnesota" - same as above.
• 06. "(see Badfinger line-ups below)." - remove this.

Subsequent Iveys and Badfinger releases and activities

• 01. Maybe change this section to "Legacy".
• 02. "A greatest hits collection culled from Badfinger's four albums" - is this a misspelled word? "culled" of "called"?
• 03. "In 1995, Molland was paid to re-record ten Badfinger songs, including their hits" - should it be written as so ", which included their hits"? Or is that not the case?
• 04. "In 2000, the "rough mix" version of Head First" - why is "rough mix" in quotation marks? - would want to explain that in the article if it was noted as so.
• 05. "(and inaccurately)" - don't see why this is in parenthesis, [sic] it can fit in with the article.

Post-Badfinger solo activities

• 01. "In 1995, Jackson joined re-joined The Fortunes" - well which one is it? lol
• 02. "7 Park Avenue and Golders Green" - both of these albums needs the year of release in (parenthesis) [sic]
• 03. "Young Savage Florida" - same as above. Was it released in 1996? - try not to confuse the reader.
• 04. "He then released 4 solo CDs" - needs 4 to be spelled out ---> "four solo CDs" - maybe instead of CDs would want to say studio albums.

Discography

• 01. Would want a table like many discographies on other bands and singers. Examples: Usher discography and The Beatles discography.

Pictures

• 01. All pictures (except the picture of the band in the infobox) fails WP:NFCC#3a. Consider removing them.

Final notes

The article needs some help. I'm going to ✗ Fail the article. Some GA-Class band articles (like Decapitated (band) and Aerosmith) can help to be model articles to [sic] this one. After you have addressed the concerns that I had [sic] stated above, you may want to nominate the article for a peer review. They will give you helpful tips before nominating the article for GA. This can help enhance your chances at [sic] GA status. Cheers, AJona1992 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected all of the above in the article that actually needed fixing, although it is perplexing that the reviewer failed this article for what were fairly minor problems that haven't taken long to fix. This is probably explained by the fact that the reviewer stated on his own talk page that he would be "on holiday" for one or two months, which gave him no time at all to deal with corrections. Unbelievable.--andreasegde (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand some of the GA critique, but some comments are simply personal preference. For one, Badfinger's discography is rather limited when compared to Usher or The Beatles. To incorporate the same format would be awkward. There would be more countries listed horizontally than recordings are listed vertically. And although AP format does demand all single-digit numbers to be spelled out (1, 2, 3 ...9), the organization has always accepted numeric symbols for two digits and greater (10, 11 ... 999). Further still, the reviewer appears to have trouble with certain words; for example, "culled" is an English word and derived from "culminated."

Andreasegde, I think you simply had bad luck on this one. Perhaps there is an appeal process for a different reviewer? -- ZincOrbie (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, Zinc, I know. :)) It was easy with a couple of other recent reviews, but I'll put this one down to the quirks of Wiki. Que Sera, and all that.--andreasegde (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I will now take all of the articles I have nominated for a GA review off the list. At some time in the future (when some good and reliable GA reviewers return after their summer holidays), I will nominate them again. The GA reviews have become a joke.--andreasegde (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)