Talk:Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead

Contentious copy is track listing, in the public domain.

Edit warring about bootlegs

Can we stop the silly edit warring please? Or I shall have to notify an admin :p--feline1 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do. If you continue putting up a bootlegged album over which there has been much family pain and struggle, I wouldn't mind at all having an admin involved. Stellabystarlight (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem rather confused about what wikipedia is for. It is an encyclopedia, not somewhere for you to advertise album releases on Amazon. In any case, I have logged into http://www.prsformusic.com and search their database for the album: the Harkit releases of 2010 were licensed by MCPS. They are thus obviously not "bootlegs". The 2012 editions by Poppydisk are not licensed, so they are actually infringing!--feline1 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you're not Harket itself, and as a member of the family, perhaps you don't know the history of what has gone on for some time over this unauthorized album. No matter what license Harket managed to get and however they/he managed to get it, they did not get the rights from the actual family and Vivian Stanshall's trust. When found (and that took some time, interesting in itself) Harket said they did not know VS had a family. Interesting since that information is easily found. The family then asked them (or him?) to either remit the proper royalties or cease and desist. They were told "it would be looked into." Nothing was ever heard from Harket again. The Poppydisc reissue (already out) pays royalties, and is in complete compliance with the Stanshall family. If you would like to go to an admin over this, please do. Or I will if you prefer. Stellabystarlight (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is any of the above backed up by independent reliable sources? Gingergeezer.net appears to not be independent. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I, as a member of the family and therefore privy to private information, keep a bootlegger from writing what they like on this page? There is correspondence from solicitors but this is not available online. If it's not available online as a "citation", does this allow someone to write what is to their benefit on this page? Harket has been a source of frustration and sorrow to the Stanshall family for years and now we can't even get rid of them on a wiki page. If feline is an innocent editor and believes s/he is simply writing the truth, s/he has no more than I do. Except that Harket obtained a MCPS... but did that without the right to do so. If it all comes down to who is telling the truth, I think the family would rather have the whole article deleted than have a bootlegger allowed to appear honest and upright.Stellabystarlight (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked with Poppydisc Records re MCPS. There is no such thing as an MCPS license. They merely collect mechanical royalties. They do not give some kind of abstract permission. Poppydisc is a member of MCPS.Stellabystarlight (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nothing do to with Harket Records. Perhaps you should review WP:FAITH. Perhaps you should also review MCPS's pages about licensing CD and vinyl releases of copyright musical works http://prsformusic.com/users/recordedmedia/cdsandvinyl/Pages/cdsandvinyl.aspx . Harket would have obtained a Audio Product license from MCPS by, erm, applying for one, and paying for it. Like every other record label in Britain. As to having the article deleted because of your "frustration and sorrow", that is not a valid criterea for article deletion. As for how you go about libelling a record label on wikipedia when you have only "correspondance from solicitors which is not available online" - simple: you don't. If you have a case against a third party, you pursue it through the courts, not by make unsubstantiated allegations on wikipedia. You have also violated WP:3RR. You are on your way to a editing ban if you do not start behaving yourself.--feline1 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether you are or are not Harket/Harkit. Just as so much written, who can really tell? MCPS is NOT proof of an authorized release; it's simply a way of being paid for what one releases whether allowed to release that material or not. But, to be fair about your claim of libel (until I can find an online citation), I shall remove the word "bootleg" from the article and leave it at that. Stellabystarlight (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You will probably be blocked from editing due to violated WP:3RR. The content of the article will be determined by consensus amoungst neutral editors, not by what you unilaterally decide. See also WP:OWN.--feline1 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stellabystarlight (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

When you return from your editing block, I hope you can help improve the article with some verifiable reliably sourced material (WP:VERIFY). For instance, I think it is notable (see WP:NOT) that this album was deleted by the orignal label (Warner Bros) so quickly, and remained unavailable for about 35 years, until re-issued by Harket in 2010 and Poppydisc in 2012. It would be interesting to know why that happened: what did Warner Bros do with the rights? Did they refuse to license them to others? Did the rights expire are revert to the Stanshall estate after 35 years? What happened to the original analogue master tapes? etc etc. This would be interesting and illustative example of what can happen to commercial recordings. ANd what about the original songwriters and musicians? Harket licensed their release via MCPS, so songwriters would have been remunerated - Poppydisc haven't. Neither release seems to have been registered with PPL, so the original musicians won't be getting performer royalties.--feline1 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Stellabystarlight, it seems to be that you have returned from an editing block to continue with precisely the same sort of biased, conflict-of-interest-based editing that you displayed before. Are we going to have to refer you to an admin again? If you continue to violate wikipedia policies you may be banned for a longer period or even indefinately.--feline1 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Good evening both of you. Hi Stella, it's always nice to see new editors on an article - although it appears you've had a baptism of fire - let's see what we can do to sort through the issues on the article. The article is in poor shape, and will certainly change significantly, but for certain policy reasons that feline (Hi Feline) has alluded to, I'm going to ask that you to keep on the talk page for a little while so that this can be sorted out. So firstly - if you can give us a (short) example of some content in the article that you think shouldn't be there we can start to build a dialogue - does that sound good? Fayedizard (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Fayedizard. I'm not home and my connection is erratic at best. But what you offer sounds wonderful. I'd love to sort this out, even bow out of the whole thing if it comes to that. The interesting thing about wiki (which I love and couldn't do without) is that it requires online citations to "prove a point." The citations, by merely being online, are not necessarily correct. But to those of us who KNOW something about a topic like this (me, for instance, being part of Vivian's family) it's frustrating. We see incorrect or biased or even blatant attempts to sell something go up on a page and can do nothing about it. The family knows Harket Records had no right to release this album. The family, owning the rights, knows it's never signed any agreement with Harket Records. The family knows it only found out about Harket by concerned fans reporting the album had come out. The family had never received any royalties. They also know that when contacted (a long and difficult process), the chap representing Harket claimed he had no idea Vivian had a family. (All he had to do was google Vivian Stanshall.) He also said he would "look into the situation." The family has never heard another word from him. Yet feline says Harket's release is not a bootleg and s/he (and what seems a sock puppet) keep trying to keep Harket on this page. Feline cites that Harket registered with MCPS and this makes them legit. MCPS does not "register the right to release an album." As an organization, MCPS is only a way for Harket to get paid for releasing/bootlegging someone's work. It's illegal NOT to register with MCPS. Not only that, but only one song was registered by Harket with them. To release an album requires, not MCPS, but a contract with the owner of the material, in this case, the Stanshall family who received the rights back from Warners long ago. Feline also claims that Poppydisc is the bootlegger because they did not register with PRS, England's Performing Rights Society. But anyone in the business knows that the record company does not do this. The musicians involved do this. (Harket didn't register with PRS either.) All this is available offline via the various bodies. Poppydisc (alerted to Harket's efforts here) has been checking it all out, having a long and respected affiliation with each and every one of the proper authorities. They've also reported Harket Records and if whoever Harket is hasn't heard from MCPS, PRS, and PPL by now, they soon will. That is, if Harket Records can be found. Therefore, the answer to your question is: I should like to see a bootlegged album off this page. And I thank you for your kind and respectful tone. This whole thing has caused the Stanshall family much sadness. Stellabystarlight (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this company [1]? One of the album covers there looks quite familiar. A search on wiki gives 18 hits. 109.153.214.88 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I guess that's the correct spelling. And they're STILL selling Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead without a penny in royalties to the family or the right to do so... and yet they've been warned. I intend sending this to Poppydisc right now. Thank you! Stellabystarlight (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"We offer a licensing and synchronisation service ideally suited for film and commercial production, and recognise that finding the most appropriate background music or ‘bed’ is an essential part of the presentation.

We offer all genres of music including classical favourites.

... telephone Amanda or Michael on ...."

Tears before bedtime, one fears... 109.153.214.88 (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Stellabystarlight, I am sick to death of your repeated violations of WP:FAITH and personal attacks on me. I am not "a sockpuppet". The Harkit release of that album exists and as such there is no reason not to include it on the album's wikipedia page. Your muddleheaded attempts to misquote me above are somewhat risible since what I actually said is there mere inches above for all to read. Your notions of MCPS, PRS and PPL are extremely confused, bordering on just plain wrong (and also largely irrelevant to the article). I don't see anything in what you've just typed to indicate that you have any grasp of or any intention of adhering to a whole raft of fundamental wikipedia policies.--feline1 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So, is the Harkit issue a bootleg, or not? By the way, I think it would be wise if we all used Fayedizard as a mediator here. 109.153.214.88 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is wise too. Stellabystarlight (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To Fayedizard: My "notions" come straight from real ongoing correspondence with the organizations involved, prompted by this "war" on wiki's site. And each is now alerted to this situation... not to wiki's page on MOUA, but to Harkit's actions releasing an album they had no right to. I did not say Feline was a sock pocket. I was referring to someone else who'd recently popped up with no contributions here on wiki but this particular page. I do admit I wonder why Feline is so invested in Vivian's work, but I know why I am. If a calmer head would moderate, I'd be entirely pleased. Stellabystarlight (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "mediation" on offer about adherence to basic wikipedia policies. You do not go around insulting other editors and calling them sockpuppets. By the way this site is called "wikipedia", not "wiki". --feline1 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither will Fayedizard be able to "mediate" about whether the Harkit CD "is a bootleg". All they or any other editor can insist upon is that any claims made in the article are backed up by verifiable reliable sources. The Harkit CD is a commercially available product, that is verifiable. If there is a court judgement made in England & Wales about it being a "bootleg", then that would be verifiable. The fact that there isn't would suggest either your claims about it being a bootleg are baseless, or your legal team are incompetant.--feline1 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't really post this, as the PRSforMusic database is not open to non-members, but here is a screenshot of one of the entries for Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead, showing clearly how Harkit Records have licensed their release of the album http://www.feline1973.talktalk.net/feline1/umbrellasMCPS.png Poppydisc records have NOT licensed their release of the album. To therefore claim that the former is a "bootleg" but the latter is not, is palpably absurd. If the Stanshall estate are not receiving mechanical royalties for pressings of the Harkit release, it will most likely be down to their own administrative incompetance in keeping Mr Stanshall's PRS & MCPS account details current. Which would be commensurate with the amount of half-baked drivel typed above by Stella...--feline1 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, but someone is a bit mean-spirited. And with no interest or connection to Harkit? Interesting. A lovely day to you. Stellabystarlight (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any interest in or connection to Harkit Records. I have told you that more than once and yet you persist with your insinuations. Conversly YOU clearly have a self-professed interest and connection with the other release! And yet you're the one casting aspertions. This is ridiculous. Editors shouldn't have to be subjected to this crap.--feline1 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying again

Apologies people, I was at a different part of wikipedia for a while - let me try that again... but I'm going to do it a little differently to see if we can avoid the issues above... Let's just look at the lead...

Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead is the 1974 debut solo album by British musician, writer and comedian Vivian Stanshall. Stanshall had been the frontman of The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, a British rock group notorious for its riotous stage act, involving comedy and theatricality. His solo career was haphazard, but, after a celebrated cameo appearance on Mike Oldfield's 1973 multi-platinum Tubular Bells, he was signed to Warner Bros. to make this album. The album featured various former members of The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band (Neil Innes, Bubs White) and Traffic (Steve Winwood, Jim Capaldi, Reebop Kwaku Baah). It sold poorly upon release, with only an estimated 5,000 copies pressed before it was deleted. It remained unavailable until its reissue on CD in 2010 by Harkit Records in the UK. This excellent quality CD (there were no masters to work from, a fact explained in the accompanying booklet with highly informative and amusing notes by Dutch dada-ist Freek Kinkelaar) also features two bonus tracks not on the original LP- "Babtunde" and "Lakonga". The album's title is a reference to a game played by members of The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band when travelling between concerts, in which players made up ridiculous interpretations of road signs. ("Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead" was a Stanshall favourite as an alternative interpretation of the sign meaning "road works ahead".)

Are there any points in this lead Stella (and only this lede) that you believe are incorrect? Fayedizard (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind what she thinks. Any editor should be able to see at a glance that "notorious" and "riotous" are hyperbole and also rather perjorative - probably the Bonzos article has a more sensible worded summary of that band which could be used. The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band is linked three times. And "excellent quality" "highly informative and amusing" and not exactly neutral language. The phrase "no masters were available" is also rather at odds with "excellent quality" - why weren't they available, and what alternative source was used to make the CD?--feline1 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Feline1 is right about the tone. That introduction is loaded with opinions: "haphazard", "celebrated", "excellent quality", and "highly informative and amusing". "It sold poorly" can stand because it's backed up with a quantitative measure: being pulled from the catalog after only 5,000 copies were pressed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there are lots of things wrong from the point of view of experienced editors - and those things will be addressed - but I'm trying to support a new editor who may have a genuine issue to resolve at the level of the facts rather than the language, and I think that giving a few days for that editor to respond is the decent thing to do in the circumstances. Fayedizard (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

She is not a new editor, she's been editing with a conflict of interest for years, and has resolutely refused to heed any advice or admonition on the subject whatsoever.--feline1 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So she has - apologies, I made an assumption there. (in any case, there has been quite enough time for a reply - I've removed some of the fluff, and I'm getting concerned about the lack of sources - not much turned up on a causual google...Fayedizard (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, the plain fact of the matter is that this album is not particularly notable. Vivian Stanshall is moderately well known as an eccentric musician (and certainly cherished and held in great esteem by his fans) but his band the Bonzos seldom achieved much commercial success, and his subsequent solo career was spectacularly unsuccessful. Indeed, one could argue that the most notable thing about this, his debut solo album, was the extent to which it not only sold poorly, but the record company responsible actually withdrew it from their catalogue after only 5000 copies were pressed and the master tapes appear to have been destroyed! So, there are not a great many sources to be had about it because it remained an obscure larely unavailable curio until two rival companies in 2010 and 2012 re-issued it (seemingly from remastered vinyl? as the master tapes are lost). I do think this situation is interesting (and thus arguably notable by wikipedia criteria) which is why I suggested to Stellabystarlight that she provides some info on it... but she has such a skewed and emotional agenda about it that I do not believe she has any interest in helping provide factual info on the subject.--feline1 (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you are very angry about this. I confess I don't really see much notability on the article - I wouldn't object to putting it forward for deletion on notability grounds. Fayedizard (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not very angry about any of this, I must admit. But I'd be very sorry to see it deleted, even it had no background informaton at all. The cover image, the track listing, the date it was made and the musicians on it, would certainly satisfy me. Ironically, we also stray into the territory of the "cult rarity" with this record - the fewer copies there are, the more notable a vinyl album can be, certainly for a collector. Notabilty isn't all about how high someting gets in the pop charts. Is it? (and if you think this article is poor now... did you see the version that I stumbled across a few months ago?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I AM personally involved with the Stanshall family and have never made a secret of it. I have just been informed by Poppydisc Records that MCPS (Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society) have withdrawn their mechanical license from Harkit Records, and that BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) are investigating Harkit Records in their ongoing anti piracy battle. It hardly seems right at this point to allow Harkit to delete the new and official Poppydisc release and replace it with their own now unlicensed release. I might also add that quite some time ago amazon itself removed Harkit Records Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead bootleg listing from both their US and their UK sites. This is easily verified by going to either amazon site and looking for Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead. One will find only used copies of the Warner release and the new Poppydisc releases.

To wit:

UK http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=Men+Opening+Umbrellas+Ahead&x=18&y=8

US http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=men+opening+umbrellas+ahead&sprefix=Men+Opening+Un%2Cpopular%2C291

I accepted this situation on wikipedia (the deletion of Poppydisc) to stand unchallenged for a few weeks as a number of people worked on remedying the situation. It is now being rapidly remedied. Stellabystarlight (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

All the Amazon links prove is that Amazon isn't selling the Harkit Records release. It doesn't necessarily indicate that Harkit's release was unauthorized. It would take a news story or a release from MCPS or BPI to verify that claim. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That information will be available very soon. Stellabystarlight (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just read all of this again. I did not write the florid praise of Harkit Records and I did not delete all reference to Poppydisc. As for feline writing: "who cares what she thinks?" - this is a calm fair objective editorial tone? Stellabystarlight (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was not any kind of editorial tone: it was not part of the article - it was on the talk page, discussing your conduct. Are you ever right about anything? --feline1 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I AM personally involved with the Stanshall family and have never made a secret of it. - a blatent and easily refutable lie, as evidenced by your previous talk-page claim that you were "just a fan" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stellabystarlight#Conflict_of_interest --feline1 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

have just been informed by Poppydisc Records that MCPS (Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society) have withdrawn their mechanical license from Harkit Records - well I have just logged into the PRS for Music database and Harkit's MCPS license for that album is still there, and there is no license for Poppydisc. Which would suggest Poppydisc's claim is total bullshit. More to the point, how is ANY of your above outburst supposed to demonstrate to the community that you do not have a Conflict of Interest in this article and should not be editing it? You have merely restated your Conflict of Interest with renewed vigour. Have you not read WP:COI as you have been advised to do? What part of that policy do you not understand?--feline1 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What is with you? Why are you so blatantly and intensely concerned with this subject and with me? Why are you allowed to be so abusive? I've done nothing more to you than wonder if you are connected with Harkit. This seems to drive you to outrage and insult. As for Harkit, all proceeds as it does in such matters. How is my writing factual info on an article conflict of interest? The only conflict of interest I can see is conflicting with you. You have never cited anything here to prove Harkit has rights. You've merely claimed them here on the talk page. Curiousier and curiouser. Stellabystarlight (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you've yet again featured Harkit as the primary record company involved with this album. You've removed the family authorized and legal version issued by Poppydisc even though amazon has long since accepted that Harkit is a bootleg and removed it from their sites. You've also done it as Harkit has had it's license removed by MCPS and as it's being investigated by BPI. You've said what I write is bullshit with no proof. My proof is forthcoming very soon. And your proof? You've done all this without citation and yet you insist you have nothing to do with Harkit. Golly, feline, what a fine upstanding wikipedia editor you are. I'm impressed. Stellabystarlight (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

How is my writing factual info on an article conflict of interest? - as previously advised, you need to read wikipedia's guidance on conflicts of interest at WP:COI and then you will clearly see why your editing of this page is problematic. Alternatively, if you are looking for a longer editing block that was previously imposed on you, continue to flagrantly ignore the policy, persist with your biased, unreferenced, unverifiable edits and to insult other editors. Your choice.--feline1 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively find, or even enable, some kind of publicly available source(s). You're not the only member of the family of someone who has a Wikipedia article and who finds their "inside information" actually counts against them. It must be very frustrating. But I'm not quite sure why you deserve such hostility here. Wikipedia rules are there to protect content, not to enable inexperienced or naive editors to be pilloried and abused. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinevans123, thank you so much. I shan't touch the article again until I have precisely what's needed to prove my assertions. It won't be long. And yes, it's very frustrating to be unable to include what I and many others know to be true, yet have nothing online to verify it. But I do see the problem. Private knowledge doesn't count if it can't be verified. I'm hoping others will leave the poor article alone as well. No citations come from anywhere at this point. I can also see how silly this seems. I have not insulted anyone. I've revealed my own interest and asked it to be revealed by feline. That's it. Nothing else. If it's insulting, and causes abusive behavior, to be asked if one is Harkit Records, I can only wonder about that.Stellabystarlight (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, sources can also come from print like books, magazines and newspapers, as long as they're reliable. Referencing them with {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} will make such statements verifiable. But you're correct about personal knowledge, that would be considered original research that can't be verified. Good luck.--Drm310 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is very good news, Drm310, and I thank you. I had wondered how I would cite the sources that are in the works. Stellabystarlight (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So have we reached a truce now, or has everyone just got bored / banned?

September '12 thru to now is quite a long time, after all, what with all the talk of prompt legal action and the like.

NB: I have no personal connection to or interest in this on any side, having arrived simply through getting lost in the spider's web of wikipedia and then coming on the talk page to ask if there was any mileage in sticking in the connection between the album's name and the iconography on the cover, which might be lost on some of our international viewers. All the same, it looked like something fairly serious (if very niche) was in progress, and I'd be interested to see the resolution.

Cooler heads do need to prevail, however. Feline, I'm sorry, but, you were acting like a bit of a knob. You had valid points and seemed to have the article's wiki-validity at heart, but went off kind of half cocked against someone who really just needed to be asked to calm down. There are better ways to handle such a situation, as demonstrated by the mediator. Stella, again I'm sorry, but WP articles have to be cold, hard hearted, factual, and, unless there's good reason for it, unexpurgated - just because the 2010 release was from an opportunist label who maybe saw that both WB and your own claims to ownership/royalties had expired doesn't grant an automatic right to have it struck from the record... it does still exist, after all, even if, morally speaking, it shouldn't. It might cause you and your family grief to see it still listed here, but remain it must - with a suitable, referenced note that it was an "unofficial" release (such things do happen, and legally so, even if the morals are shady; e.g. much of Pulp's obscure back catalogue being re-released by Fire without permission or royalties granted after they became famous) ONCE the matter has been settled and suitable documentation exists. Otherwise, wikipedia would be full of holes. (Plus, to be a knob myself - as there was an accusation of your identity being in doubt, can you, in any way, prove that you are who you say you are, the same way you asked Feline to?)

From the way the trail went cold, and the article - when I first arrived at it - included both 21st century re-releases with fairly anodyne, even-handed, just-the-facts descriptions, I do presume that a compromise was reached and it was finally edited into a form that met with both sides' grudging satisfaction ... but is there yet more to tell?

(My own contributions have just been to add the note about its deletion and 3 1/2 decade gap from the open market, and tidying up some hiccups and typos left behind by whoever last edited it - haven't touched or tried to upset the balance of emphasis of any of the pre-existing factual info)146.90.183.108 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't call me a knob, you wanker.--feline1 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, not to reopen any wounds, but ... wouldn't THIS count as an unbiased, citeable source?

So I was looking on google for info on the album, basically to get a third opinion on the actual tracklist as the wiki page and the Harkit listing seemed to disagree slightly in the transcription of some of the titles (the Poppydisc one doesn't even have a tracklisting at all...), and, well, the very first article I came across other than an advert for M&S Umbrellas was this 3rd July 2012 article by Sean Bell on Popmatters:

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/160026-strange-tongues-vivian-stanshall-and-men-opening-umbrellas-ahead/P1/

(Which, for the record, regards the Poppydisc date of release as 5th June 2012 for the US edition, and 14th May 2012 for the UK one, and quotes some slightly different track names such as "Truck-Truck" and "Yelp, Bellow, Rasp, Etc.")

Some pull quotes:

"famously, when the bass player failed to arrive for a recording session, the West Indian taxi driver who had dropped off Winwood said that he could play and volunteered his services"

"infamously, when it came out in 1974, only 5000 copies were pressed before it was deleted by Warner Bros, following poor sales"

"When Warner Bros, already uncomfortable with the content of the album, decided to only press 5000 copies, not to release it in the United States, and to delete and abandon the whole mess as soon as possible, Stanshall did not take it well"

"it ... put an end to Stanshall's relationship with Warner Bros, and until this May, seemed to kill off any hope that subsequent generations might have the chance to stumble upon (MOUA)"

"we have ample cause to celebrate the fact that this May, after a lengthy struggle, a remastered version was released internationally by the UK label Rev-Ola Records with full cooperation from Stanshall’s family"

"Joe Foster (owner of Poppydisc), Silky (Stanshall’s daughter) and I worked as a team so this could happen. It began when something called Harkit Records bootlegged the album. (...) Silky and I talked to everyone we thought might know about what we could do (...) but got nowhere. It was heartbreaking. And then, along came (...) Joe Foster, who said the hell with Harkit, we’ll do it again on RevOla (...) part of his primary label: Poppydisc"

(above quote attributed to Ki Longfellow, Vivian's widow)

Does that count as a usable, citeable source, one wonders?

Again I emphasise my absolute independence of all this - I was born several years after the album's original release, and never heard of it until an hour or two ago. I only somehow got here because I was confirming with some idle clicks (from an article about Rutland Weekend TV, I think, and before that, well, I can't even remember... the IBM Thinkpad R50e?) that, no, I wasn't imagining it, the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band really was called that back when John Peel used to play them, that despite copious recent attempts to rebrand them without the "Doo Dah"... But all the same, I hate to leave the matter incomplete having stumbled across this other article (which no-one else seems to have, even though it was published some months before the argument started and is, after all, the top non-sponsored google result?!) which might help bring some resolution to the situation. 146.90.183.108 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I'm pretty sure THIS bit will raise some hackles though. The iTunes page (which I had open in another tab as I was still trying to take the pulse of the tracklist spellings) contains this little nugget on its sidebar:

"℗ 1974 Harkit Records"

...how do they figure that one, then, unless Harkit is maybe a long running imprint of Warner Bros which they stick their lower volume, less mainstream stuff on, and actually owned the copyright all along? 146.90.183.108 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

146, it's very hard for anyone reading this rapidly-added post, together with the previous one, to believe that you had "never heard of it until an hour or two ago." Who told you about these "old wounds" exactly? And isn't rather surprising that you open up with "September '12 thru to now is quite a long time, after all, what with all the talk of prompt legal action and the like"? That said, your suggested source looks reasonable to me. Not really copper-bottomed WP:RS, I'd say, but then how could it be for the sort of information that you seem to be so desperately keen to add here. By the way, I think Peel typically called them "The Bonzos" and of course continued to support Viv in his glorious Sir Henry years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What? Oh, don't start on me as well, Martin. I haven't come here for a fight. The fact that I'm including references and inducting people to make their own decisions, which the previous combatants rarely did (and also dug into both of them) should hopefully be proof enough of that. If it isn't, I'm not entirely sure what I can do to convince you.

I know something has gone on because I used my eyes and read through all (well, skimmed through and read the main points of all) of the above argument, and then saw what was written elsewhere on the various pages I ended up reading whilst trying to verify the rather typo-infested main text. You don't need to either be psychic or have an intimate connection with the full near-40-year saga of the album's release history (impossible for me, as I'm 31) to figure it out.

Yes, I genuinely hadn't heard of it before. Yes, when I listened to John Peel as a whipper snapper of some ten-ish years old on my Sony Dream Machine clock radio and then an all singing all dancing Amstrad Micro 1000 hi-fi, he did indeed call them The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band in full from time to time, as he was a nice guy who realised that his listeners spanned a large age range and may not realise who The Bonzos were, otherwise (or possibly it was Mark Radcliffe on Out On Blue Six? I was ten. Memories are slightly hazy). The same way he would use the names of other bands like Half Man Half Biscuit in full rather than just calling them "Biscuit" or something. Heck, I only found out that Ki was his widow between writing the above part and coming back here (I was about to stick that in as a note for those who were similarly as ignorant as myself until I saw your reply - itself suspiciously quick, I must say...). I knew the band mostly by name than by material - my most seminal Peel days weren't until the mid-late 90s, by which point the majority of the show consisted of other, generally newer stuff.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of argument or insinuation you're trying to make by quoting me back, by the way, especially not that part. What I pointed out was true - the last edits on this up until now were the better part of nine months ago, but the last few paragraphs had Stella mentioning that there was something, possibly legal action going on behind the scenes, and then... nothing. What did happen, in the offline world, regarding this? I don't know. Do you? If you do, fancy telling us rather than being a troll? It could've turned out in a variety of ways after all.

(And indeed, fancy explaining what's so suspicious with being "desperately keen to add (information)" to an open, user-contributed online encyclopaedia, particularly second-sourced, genuinely citeable information of the kind that was being clamoured for during the previous edit war (and in fact appears to pre-date it)?)

A lot of poison and bad feeling looks to have been flung around during the previous course of putting this short article about an obscure record together, with some deeply invested interests on at least one side. Please don't feel you have to fling more of it, at someone who's come along randomly and feels he may be able to help. You may be Lady Eboshi; I am Prince Ashitaka. Don't go accusing me of being in league with the Wolf Gods when I only just arrived in your sorry little warzone seeking naught but to see the truth, with eyes unclouded, and have nothing to do with either of you. (And if you don't get that, I'm sorry, I just saw the stage dramatisation of the film it comes from - feel free to go look it up yourself. And actually, thinking about it, I figure you might be more Gonza than Eboshi ... or possibly even a full reversal - San, or Moro, thinking I have a love of the Ironworks just because I happen to smell a bit too human).

And no, just to pre-empt a further question - I don't have a "proper" username. I'm on a fixed IP, so never felt it necessary to add yet another account name and password to my long list of things that I'll surely forget by the next time I have to use them; if I do something banworthy, then my IP gets banned, and I still have to live with it, me and no-one else. Thus I still feel it wise to act with some decorum despite only being identifiable by numbers... whilst you've got your name for all to see, and not even a pseudonym at that (or at least, so we have to assume in the first instance... I mean, to think otherwise would to harbour prejudiced thoughts re sockpuppetry, and that's just begging for trouble).

In short: Calm down, mate. It's not worth it.

Now, with that cleared away, is what I've posted and linked to there, and am about to further link to below (gimme a minute) worthy of consideration - on a level playing field, with heads as cool and unemotional as robots - as source material for stuff that could go on the main page and clear up all the hassle, or not? 146.90.183.108 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me to "calm down". Perhaps you're in league with the Wolf Gods, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, those paragraphs didn't come out as clearly spaced as I'd hoped. Rather lacking in whitespace and readability. I've now inserted some much needed forced newlines. The formatting will be a bit TOO sparse, but at least it won't look like it's been typed by a sugar-rushing five-year-old.

Anyway I actually came back to make a final edit dropping in some further links to things I ran across - again, entirely at random, no bias on my part, no nothing - whilst trying to determine what the proper names of certain tracks were (still not done to my own satisfaction; really what I need is a scan of the back of the album cover, and that doesn't seem to exist ... however, the main article list as I've left it seems at least close enough to the mark and mirrors the majority of online sources). If you doubt me, please, copy my method: type "Vivian Stanshall Men Opening Umbrellas" into the google search box in the most recent version of firefox, and middle-click to open all of the presented links on the first results page into new tabs, then read through them. If there IS any bias towards one side or the other, the fault is google's alone. I will say there does seem to be one, and you can probably guess what it is, but I make no representation as to its validity. I still support the inclusion of both versions on the page and a playing-down (or complete omission) of the controversy on the main article, as unless some legal action does take place, it's irrelevant to the business of describing the album itself, its release history and different versions, which is what the page is for IMHO.

So, right, here we are: Mojo article from mid-2008, with user comments spanning from about the time of publication through to 2012 http://www.mojo4music.com/blog/2008/06/vivian_stanshall.html

US Amazon page for the album, with a small number of user comments that seem to date from its original appearance in 2010 (on Harkit) through to some more recent point where the Amazon item's source switched to Poppydisc http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Umbrellas-Ahead-Vivian-Stanshall/dp/B007G5POBM/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

UK Amazon page, with more comments, and a similar revision history over the past 3 years. http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B007G5PLEM/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&pageNumber=2&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Aaaand that's it. I'm out. There may be more interesting things on page two of the google results, but the picture's not getting any clearer and it's almost midnight.

Enjoy and feel free to draw your own conclusions. Given the vast potential for abuse this subject seems to engender, I doubt I'll be back to read whatever I'm next accused of (presumably being an alt for someone or other), but I doubt I can proactively prevent you from wiki-stalking me on whatever other articles you can track my IP contributing to. 146.90.183.108 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What was it you wanted to add again? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)