Talk:The Graham Bond Organisation

Spelling

"The Graham Bond Organization [is the] official spelling, on all releases" was the edit summary by user E-Kartoffel. But how come I have releases where they are mentioned as "Organisation"? Not just reissues. And why was the remark removed that the name was often spelled ORGANisation or ORGANization on the group's albums? Please, in the future, discuss the move of a page on its talk page before doing it. Mark in wiki (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, leaving aside the complete ignoring of advisory Wikipedia procedures on name changes (because it may just be a case of 'being bold', the arbitrary change to Organization is out of order on factual grounds. The band was called both Organisation and Organization seemingly randomly throughout their short history. If E had bothered to check www.grahambond.net/ (and perhaps added a useful link?) they might have noticed this. As most of the major encyclopedic sources refer to OrganiSation (Larkin and the Record Collector articles for example) as did the music press in interviews and reviews (I've checked Rolling Stone, and some Melody Maker articles are available online, see link above), I'd suggest the page at least belongs back where it was.

However, it's a pretty poor article really; badly written and without much substance, no citations, and only a couple of discography links (neither of which carry a decent full discography anyway!) In my opinion pretty well all that needs to be said on the OrganiZation page would be far better being absorbed into the main Graham Bond article and ref'd to that subsection from elsewhere. I'll come back to it as it stands to at least have a go at tidying it up, but suspect I'm only going to ref it for amalgamation in the end, on the above grounds as per Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Perhaps others would like to comment first? Brieflysentient (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look at their original releases (Columbia, EMI) , please http://www.discogs.com/artist/Graham+Bond+Organization%2C+The They delibrately used the US American "z" in their name, though they are English of course. I am very sad that www.grahambond.net hasn't realised this fact already. The album covers (both with "z") were designed by group member Ginger Baker himself. He should know gingerbaker.com another press clipping (E-Kartoffel (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Funny that Ginger Baker writes the name of the band as "Graham Bond Organisation"... 131.211.44.65 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't logged in, but that ip-address is from Mark in wiki (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brieflysentient and Mark are both correct - the releases by the group used both names, but the "s" spelling in the majority of cases. E-Kartoffel is simply incorrect on that point. The band were British, and the usual British English (as opposed to American English) spelling is with the "s" not the "z". American sources (including Discogs) may well prefer the "z" spelling, but, per WP:BRITENG, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." So, the article should be moved back to the spelling with an "s", and then improved or merged (I'd strongly favour improvement rather than merging, by the way). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately avoided alluding to the UK/US s/z thing (although that drives me mad), assuming that's not the case here, although it may have coloured (sic) judgement. After much searching since last night I can't find any ref by Bond himself, or any other members of the band, to the anomaly of double spelling the band's name. Or any preference. Bearing in mind it occurred right through the band's career, they clearly weren't bothered (I'll refrain from any drugs remarks here ...).

It's unlikely it's just spelling error - too many places spelled it either way. However, most Melody Maker ads, posters and other gig paraphernalia I've checked leant heavily towards 's' not 'z'. As I said before, it's customary to use the 's' version in all the usual sources that mention the band. I'll add the wonderfully exuberant, if historically skewed, 'John Mayall, Bluesbreaker' by Richard Newman as a to hand example, written by someone who was there at the time (with the caveat that he does talk of Chris Drejar of The Yardbirds at one point - although I'm sure that's just a spelling mistake).

I'll also note, as Mark does above, that the Ginger Baker website referred to by E-Kartoffel refers to 'Organisation' throughout, even while providing copy of the album cover with the 'z' spelling. I'm a bit amazed that I never noticed before - I've had two of their singles and an album for over 35 years! But then again, that kinda lends strength to the 's' argument for me; that's how it's always been.

On balance, taking the evidence into consideration, I'm strongly for revert; it's only following the common usage. Anyone got the Record Collector article to hand (#38 - possibly October 1982?), which may shed further light - from the references I've seen, including the Record Collector index, that's titled 'Organisation' as well. Brieflysentient (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discography confirms the Record Collector Rare Record Price Guide 2010, that the "z" spelling was used for the first Decca single ("Long Tall Shorty"), but the "s" spelling consistently for the Columbia and Page One singles. I would endorse reverting the article to the old spelling, while keeping a mention in the article of the alternative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please revert back. So that would be The Graham Bond Organization -> Graham Bond Organisation? (It used to not have the article.) I guess we need to determine that too: GBO or The GBO. And after that, I guess we need to go to WP:RM with this. Mark in wiki (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that we should retain the "The", as per The Jimi Hendrix Experience for example, as it's part of the band name. Whether we need to go to WP:RM, I think, depends on whether User:E-Kartoffel reconsiders his position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible; but should it have some sort of time limit placed on it before reversion or WP:RM, to allow further input from others? Who's doing the reversion (have I just volunteered myself, or can I get out of it :-) Brieflysentient (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References are a problem

Thus far, of what was 5 references, two of them were mentioned twice as separate sources at different times, and two more really IMHO aren't usable references because they deal with the spelling of the name, and the sources only take you to the Google images pages. No specific results being compared with others! If you want to compare the name spelling, do it on the album or single cover pages or place those pics directly in the article. But to sum things up, I see two refs about the spelling of the band name and the other two about their discography! Whatever happened to biography text and references?! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Grahambond.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]