Talk:The Honeycombs

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Accuracy of membership information
The VRTS ticket number is 2009123010034234.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Unique Bass drum sound[edit]

The Legendary Joe Meek by John Repsch, credits this sound to Joe Meek only. Please cite source for the group stamping on the stairs. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGNORE THIS! I must have inhaled mind altering substances-I was thinking of another song! The group did indeed stamp on the stairs, I have corrected article. Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nail down a date, please...[edit]

In the section "Discovery," the following sentence appears:

"One night the group, known then as The Sheratons, was playing in a London pub..." A few sentences later the year 1962 is mentioned. But this is in reference to another song and group. How's about an exact date for the first sentence, or at least a year, if not the month? Anyone?Kinkyturnip (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of membership information[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation received a letter disputing the accuracy of membership information in this article on 1/6/2010. Some material that did not cite to a reliable source has been removed in accordance with the verifiability policy. Please be sure that material on members relies on reliable sources. Self-published sources should be avoided unless substantiated by independent publications. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It came from THEIR OWN WEBSITE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.249.249 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely; please read the above comments and links carefully - this is an encyclopedia, not a blog site or a battle ground.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So am I right in believing that the facts are OK if a legitimate source (i.e. the band's own website) is quoted please?

http://vocalhalloffame.com/truth.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.249.249 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is substantiated by a reliable source that is not affiliated with the band, then it can be incorporated. Newspaper or magazine articles, for instance, reviewing performances of the band or reliable industry publications like Allmusic. The problem with self-published sources sometimes rests in determining their authenticity. I've tried looking for something in Google News that could be helpful, but I'm afraid I haven't located anything. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate the above comments - Self-published sources should be avoided unless substantiated by independent publications. When, as here, there is a blatantly obvious fight ongoing between various parties then, whatever is perceived to be the 'truth' / 'facts', so-called official websites are definitely the very worst source imaginable. Frankly, I have absolutely no allegiance either way, but what is certain is that Wikipedia is an inappropriate forum to fight the war. After almost fifty years, when less than 0.0001% of the world's population have even heard of The Honeycombs, the petty infighting will only be resolved when all parties are dead and buried. Can't be long, can it ?!

Of course, the latter comments are purely my personal viewpoint - have the warring factions tried the courts of law ? If not, why not. Probably because each side knows they can never 'win'. Therefore venting their spleens on Wikipedia is a seemingly simple alternative. Sorry I have seen it all before - see The Foundations, The Bachelors, et al.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that legal action has not been taken due to the costs outweighing the potential benefits. I personally think that only the original line up and the subsequent change of Peter Pye replacing Martin Murray should be included as legitimate line ups of the band The Honeycombs. Colin Boyd Rod Butler and Eddie Spence were not part of The Honeycombs they were part of The New Honeycombs and that ought to be made clearer. I cannot see the logic of removing Martin Murray from past members merely because he is still active with a new line up.Plantagenet KW (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the result of the request? Was the result really that the present cast had to be displayed in a prominent place, as if it is just as important as the Sixties cast? And moreover: in a lay-out that is out of tune with the rest of the article?

Sijtze Reurich (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a recent restoration by an IP. Thus far, no secondary sources discussing the modern line-up have been supplied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thehoneycombs.org.uk and thehoneycombs.co.uk: two websites, two line-ups, one name... Is this a sufficient reason to write that there are now two groups calling themselves The Honeycombs? (Who do not particularly like each other, but I'll keep that out.) Sijtze Reurich (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, though we want to be sure to retain what the secondary source says about Murray's status. We want to be careful to avoid undue weight to these new bands, though. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find a good third party source that surmised the whole situation. No luck yet. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit before I read your comment. You can remove my edit if you think it is unfounded. I too have been searching the internet for hours looking for someone who is kind enough to tell us what exactly happened. One website tells us Martin Murray was a member of the Honeycombs from 2004 to 2009. That's all. Sijtze Reurich (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's all good. I worry about original research, but it seems quite clear what the situation is with the competing bands. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The .org.uk site no longer functions and has already been removed from wikipedia. The .co.uk site is actually a fake site. The band does not exist any more and although there are gigs listed they are all made up. They all say 'sold out', or 'residents only' and none of them can be cross referenced to other websites such as venues etc. I won't pretend I am impartial, however the justification for including this site on wikipedia is pretty much non existent. If I delete it, though, I am just joining in the silly tit for tat war between bands.Plantagenet KW (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a band called the New Honeycombs on the road just to add to the confusion!(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.1 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these here are true fake Honeycombs (if you ask them they say they are a "tribute band"):facebook page (E-Kartoffel (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, despite their publicity being ambiguous on the subject, the New Honeycombs are not anything to do with The Honeycombs and cannot be taken as a legitimate line up of the band. They did play with Martin Murray for a while but that does not legitimise them as The Honeycombs. Plantagenet KW (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Boyd[edit]

Colin Boyd was a real member of The Honeycombs, he replaced Dennis D'Ell in 1966, he wrote and sang on the 1966 single "That Loving Feeling" released by The Honeycombs (not by The New Honeycombs), he also wrote and sang the projected next Honeycombs single "I Can Tell (Something's Up)". The allmusic bio is wrong in this case (E-Kartoffel (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yes in fact I would now suggest going further. I have been researching for my website and I now find that although the NME reported 29th April 1966 that the new line up would be known as "The New Honeycombs", in fact the last two singles released were both credited to "The Honeycombs". I can't find any evidence of the band ever using NEW although perhaps I just haven't looked in the right places yet. However I would tentatively suggest that "The New Honeycombs" should now be referred to as a MK III line up. Plantagenet KW (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murray[edit]

So if Murray was supposedly replaced in November 1964, then why is he still with the band in the top photo showing them at a gig a month later? And why is he still with them in this 1965 promo clip for their no. 1 hit single? --2003:71:4E07:BB07:D5EF:B007:F111:6745 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook page[edit]

https://www.facebook.com/thehoneycombs/ - is it official or a fansite? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]