Jump to content

Talk:George Harrison/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

please add?

Could someone who is knowledgeable about this perhaps add a list of those Beatles songs that were written by George Harrison? Thank you. Iris Anthe (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Iris Anthe

--84.142.246.184 (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Collaboration on turning this into a Good article

I notice this has recently had a quick fail for a nomination for GA. I would be interested in working this article up to GA status. I place the criteria for GA here, and people can work towards each criteria and then tick them off. SilkTork *YES! 00:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a good article?

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

There are sections which are a bit choppy with a series of short clipped sentences and short disjointed paragraphs. This needs attention, but generally overall the prose is acceptable. SilkTork *YES! 13:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

It is well sourced. SilkTork *YES! 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

There is a reference section. Inline citation is taking place, but some sections still need attention. Without appropriate citation it is difficult to be confident there is no original research. When all statements have been checked and either removed or sourced, then all these criteria will have been met. SilkTork *YES! 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

At first sight the article looked broad in coverage, but as I have worked on it I have found that some areas needed building, and there may be more areas that need coverage. I also wonder if some sections (the cars for example) are needed at such length. Be good to have other people looking over the article to get a balance right. SilkTork *YES! 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
All aspects of his life are now covered, and there is a fair balance between his Beatles career and his solo career, and the other interests he had, including his personal life. SilkTork *YES! 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

It is neutral. There are no huge claims. He was a modest guitarist, and that is reflected. SilkTork *YES! 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

I've checked back in the history and the article is stable. SilkTork *YES! 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I just went through and checked the images - one didn't have a valid FUR, so I removed it. It all seems fine now. There aren't many images, but we've only got 7 available. Dendodge TalkContribs 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Well done. It sometimes helps to look through related articles (such as the guitars Harrison used, or people he knew or cars he owned, etc) to see if there are images there - or at least on Commons - that could be used. SilkTork *YES! 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] That's fine - it's 'The Concert for Bangladesh', which is the full name of the concert.

  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]. <ref>,<ref>, I can't find any, but I could be wrong
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]15
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dendodge TalkContribs 14:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Going for FA is probably a bit much at the moment. It's been demanding enough checking enough details and shaping the article to prepare for a pass at GA. The bigger the subject, the more difficult it is - and George Harrison is fairly big! I notice that most FAs are on small, slightly esoteric subjects, like obscure architects, for which the choices on what material to include, and how best to present the meager information is rather simpler! Tasks still to do on this to get to GA, is to expand (but not too much) the Beatles section to give a balanced overview of their history - at the moment it is very patchy; to finish tidying up the later life and making sure the material goes in the right sections; to look again at the sections to now reduce them down a bit, if possible; to supply references for those statements identified with a fact tag, and for other paragraphs which have no reference source; to see if any more images can be found; to see if there's any material which can be cut as not important; to read through to ensure there's a fair balance, and that less important aspects of his life haven't been given more attention than the more significant aspects. SilkTork *YES! 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

the "notable instruments" section of the info box

thanks for all the very fine recent improvements to the article, but: it seems there's some disagreement again about what belongs in this field of the info box, so it's no doubt best to discuss it here on the talk page to see what the consensus is. i'm totally in favour of a detailed gear section in the article, but have always understood that the "notable instruments" sections of info boxes are supposed to be limited to just a couple of models of outstanding historical importance. i'm not questioning the accuracy/reliable-sourceability of a longer list of instruments - but it's my understanding that exhaustive/extensive lists are not the point of the info box. Sssoul (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same understanding, according to the template description: it is supposed to be: "Particularly noteworthy models or custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". The text is the place for details about instruments played - "notable instruments" in the infobox is very specifically defined as per Template: Infobox Musical artist#Notable instruments. Tvoz/talk 09:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The difficulty here is that the sitar is an instrument "with which the artist is strongly associated". If the purpose of the noteworthy instruments section is to highlight those instruments for which an individual is particularly noteworthy then the sitar certainly fits that and more. It is demonstrably more closely associated with Harrison 91,000 ghits than the examples given in the Template - Hendrix - Flying V,13,200 ghits and Toris Amos - Bösendorfer piano 5 ghits. The template has two instrument sections - a list of instruments that the musician used (such as voice, Moog synth, ukulele, etc - instruments that one doesn't think of when thinking of Harrison) while the notable section is for those instruments for which the musician is most associated. Harrison is in the sitar player category because of his very close association with that instrument. If there is some doubt about the nature of the instrument "with which the artist is strongly associated", then the guidance in the template needs addressing to ensure clarity. I can't possibly image it to mean simply "brands" rather than instruments as that would simply be subtle advertising. I would suggest adding the example of Harrison and the sitar to the guidance to indicate that the intention is for assocation with an instrument not simply a brand. SilkTork *YES! 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have suggested some new wording: Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist#Notable_instruments. Clarity would be welcomed, given that there appears to be some misunderstandings happening. SilkTork *YES! 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
i agree that the instructions for this field need clarifying, but still think what you're suggesting is a misunderstanding. have you had a look at this field in other guitarists' infoboxes? the "notable instruments" sections list one or two very specific makes or in some cases - like George's "Rocky", "Lucy" and rosewood Tele - particular instruments.
i hope some more guitarist-project editors will chime in so that we can clarify this. Sssoul (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By the earliest and clearest discussion from the guitarist project as to proper use of the notable instrument field... the field was never intended to be used as a gear list. It is intended to be used for unique, sometimes singular, instruments that the subject of the article was well known for. By that rule the only instruments that should be listed are Rocky and the Rosewood Telecaster. But in support of the other instruments the Rick 360/12 does have some significance because it was his use/sound that inspired Roger McGuinn, inspired the SoCal chimey country rock sound and jangle pop. The LP and the Gretsch really don't pass the criteria for inclusion in the field. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here I am again jumping into a fairly old discussion, who wants new boy's eh? Well on this point regarding noteable instrumentson a par with Roger McGuinn and the Ricky 360/12 there are BBK King and the ES355 ( Lucille) Jimmy Page and the LP STandard ( and quite a few others, but Gary Moore,peter green,slash( although his main instrument is a copy)Steve Croppedr and the telecaster, dennis coffey and the Gibson Firebird, Anthiny wislson JAmes Blood Ulmer, Ted Nugent and Russel Malone and the Gibson Byrdland. There are noteable players notable for playing noteable guitars. There are combinations of Guitarists and guitars that have paired up after their unique noteability arose for ther reasons that their current or concurrent work together. The semantics on this don't i think add to a general sense of what is inportant to a particular Guitars appeal and history. AN article on the Les Paul Guitar could start and end with Les Paul it's creator and arguably most famous/eminent player. It's history however has evolved through its association with the Blues revival/british invasion with Clapton and later page and then further in the 80's/90's with Slash and blues again now with Joe Bossanamma(sic) The Gretsch company make a wide range of models and it does seem to me that The White Falcon at one time the most expensive production guitar in the world would qualify in any list of noteable instruments important in genres such as Rockabilly, Country, surf etc. There are other players that make Gretch guitars noteable that is not to say that Gretx=sch have reached icon status with any model outside of the Whit Falcon. The LP is however a modern Icon as are the Fender Telecaster and Stratocaster. Other groundbreaking and important models include the Gibson ES335, Gibson Firebird, Gibson Byrdland, Fender Jaguar, some PRS models (Not my field) If a definition of a field is so exclusive as to include just one entry would it not become an entry? RogerGLewis (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

George Harold Harrison

Does anyone have anything certain on Harrison's middle name? Searches for "George Harold Harrison" give reliable sources who state that Harold was his middle name [1]. But an internet search throws up a few sites, most prominently shawstar.com - which the others appear to copy, which assert that his birth certificate doesn't use Harold. I have put Harold into his name as the most reliable sources give that, and no reliable sources mention the dispute, but have mentioned that shawstar disputes the name. I've not come upon shawstar before, and Wikipedia doesn't have an article on them. Who are shawstar? SilkTork *YES! 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very poor Alexa rating: [2]. Is it a blog? SilkTork *YES! 23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've definitely heard the "just George Harrison on birth certificate" story before, but can't remember where. (Sorry, not much help, I know.) There's certainly an assumption that he was given his father's name as a middle name, as that's common, but it may not be the case. Of course, we have to go with the sources. Just checked Bob Spitz, which I'm currently reading, and it gives George Harold Harrison.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just got hold of a copy of his birth certificate. That shows the name "George" only. However, that is a primary source, and we are not allowed to make our own interpretations from primary sources: WP:PRIMARY. I'll add an image of the cert to the article and make reference to it. But leave in Harold for the time being as that is what reliable sources say, and there must be a reason for that. SilkTork *YES! 11:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are Birth Certificates considered a "primary source" and thus not preferred? I see that WP:PRIMARY makes no mention of BMD at all. On which source does WP currently rely for birth, marriage and death dates? Surely, for legal and administrative purposes in the UK, there can be nothing more reliable? Since these documents are all theoretically in the public domain I see no need for any facsimile image to be added anywhere, but especially in the article itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should simply omit any middle name if there is dispute. Why the need to include it if we don't have more certainty? Ward3001 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the proposal to omit the dubious middle name as long as there's uncertainty about it. a footnote explaining that some sources endow him with this middle name but that the birth certificate doesn't show it would let readers reach their own conclusions. Sssoul (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
update: okay, i've gone ahead and made that change. every source agrees on the "George Harrison" part, so let's stick with that, and move the dubious middle name to the footnote. Sssoul (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as an extra data point, the London Gazette entry for his MBE list him as only George Harrison. These listings almost invariably use the full legal name, for example Michael Caine's knighthood was listed under his legal name of Maurice Joseph Micklewhite, though curiously his CBE was liste as Michael Caine. David Underdown (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, not only does Harrison's birth certificate list no middle name, but on his death certificate, a dash has been entered into the space for a middle name. Rich (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from Anthology

I've seen a few unreferenced statements which I remember from the Anthology TV series, which I have on video. I have not previously used these as sources since they were recorded from the TV, so are cut-short versions with ad breaks. I got the DVDs for Christmas, so I will sit in my bedroom tonight, on my laptop, watching Anthology to source this article. If anybody wants to review it for GA before then, please delay your assessment of the sources. Thanks! (Actually, I'm participating in the 2009 WikiCup, so it'd be even better if you could hold off until January =P) Dendodge TalkContribs 12:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I won't get round to it until at least tomorrow. Dendodge TalkContribs 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't get chance for quite a while now - you ight as well forget I ever made this promise. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs

I have put some more in, but I spotted a formatting problem with the books in "Notes" and "References". The books should go in "References" with publisher's number, and be shortened for "Notes".--andreasegde (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Beatles till there was you.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. SilkTork *YES! 10:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GAN comments

I noticed that this article was nominated at WP:GAN, and at least for now, I probably won't read through the prose and provide a full review. However, I did notice a few MOS-related issues that would come up in a GA review:

  • Per GA standards and the MOS, references should directly follow punctuation (when applicable), and there should be no spacing between the ref and punctuation, or between two or more footnotes right next to each other. I fixed a couple instances of this, but there might be more.
  • In image captions, and within the prose, there are simple hyphens (-) where en dashes should be used instead. If it's complete break in the sentence/thought, emdashes should most likely be used (WP:DASH covers that subject).
That's a FA requirement, not a GA requirement. The MOS issues related to GA are detailed above. SilkTork *YES! 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The "publisher"/"work" parameters in the references need to be fixed; what I mean is, for instance, news articles on websites that are technically part of a larger work (i.e., a magazine, newspaper). Those sources should be listed under the "|work=" parameter as opposed to the "|publisher=" parameter, which goes for all other websites that are not published in print.
  • Whenever possible, it's best to list the publisher/work in a ref by the source's official name (e.g., "The Times" rather than "timesonline.co.uk") and link to a Wikipedia article for that magazine/major website if one exists.
  • Also regarding url references, make sure that all of them are formatted with the {{cite web}} template, so each footnote provides the basic info (url, title, publisher, year/date & accessdate).

These are issues that'd come up in the pending GAN review, so hopefully pointing these out with time in advance can help the nominator prepare the article to become a GA. I can help some with these issues if you need a hand – good luck, hope this helps. :-) Jamie☆S93 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the standards you are applying to this article in terms of citations are FA level rather than GA. It is good to seek to improve any article, and there is nothing wrong with doing the work suggested. However, for passing at GA level it is GA level criteria that should be applied. GA level citation criteria is: "it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout" and "at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". There is a footnote expanding upon that: "In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article." The footnotes requirements are found here: Help:Footnotes which can be summed up as saying - use <ref></ref> and that "optionally" cite templates may be used, but they can make editing cumbersome. The MoS guideline on the layout of references can be found here: Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes.2C_Footnotes.2C_or_References and essentially says that the References section should come after the See also section, and that notes should come before external links. Having looked again closely at the GA criteria and the article, this article meets the GA layout requirements. SilkTork *YES! 10:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork, I hear what you're saying. Indeed, it does look like I'm holding the article to an FA-type standard here, and what I noted is not officially written anywhere in the GA criteria. However, if you look at the majority of recent music GAN reviews by fairly experienced reviewers, they will bring this stuff up even if you don't expect it (especially the work/publisher discrepancy, and if the citation templates are not specifically mentioned, however bare urls with no basic info about them shouldn't be permitted). Unfortunately the points I mentioned are mostly unwritten guidelines, but still regularly applied to GAN reviews - with some articles these issues aren't too hard to fix up, but since this is a fairly long one, I thought it would help to just drop some comments here as a heads-up. Some reviewers might not bring up this stuff, but just from what I've continuously seen, a good deal of the relatively experienced ones do. I don't mean to be too nit-picky here (although formatting quality is important), but instead just help by chipping in a bit on the GA reviewing process early on and give you time to fix these wikignomish issues. Of course, since what I said was based on observation, I wouldn't suggest that it be entirely dismissed, but feel free to do what you want to with the notes—after all, it's certainly not a formal GA review. ;) Take it or leave it, I'm fine with that...they're just some pointers. :-) Keep up the good work, Jamie☆S93 04:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'd like to make clear that this article passes on GA requirements for cite layout. It is the case that reviewers may sometimes introduce "unofficial" rules for assessing GA articles. However, we have a GA criteria, and articles for GA are matched against that criteria and no other. As has been said recently on GAR by Geometry guy: "GA is not FA-lite: we don't assess articles against the FA-criteria and then let a few things slip. Instead we assess them against a lower standard, but just as carefully." It is also worth adding that it is appropriate and encouraged for a reviewer to raise points about an article to help it progress toward FA status, which would include making mention of cite layout. I hope that helps. SilkTork *YES! 09:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

trimmed excess

i've removed the paragraph below from the "private life" section because a] there's already something about George's reaction to John's death earlier in the article; b] this paragraph doesn't read well; and c] most of it isn't actually about George. but here it is in case anyone feels like moving some of the details to the articles about John and/or Julian Lennon, and/or the one about John's death. Sssoul (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the early morning hours of 9 December 1980, Olivia received a phone call from Louise (George's sister) to inform her that John Lennon was dead, who then told George about the devastating news. In a 1982 interview with "Good Morning Australia", when Harrison had said as to how much it had cost Lennon's life, he said: "I think from both points of view, first of all, it was obviously, such a shock because assassination is something in which, you know, up until that time hadn't really got down to the at level. I mean, it was always presence, and leaders are not, and I wouldn't think, you know, somebody who's a popstar was important enough to kill. It's a terrible thing. I don't think anybody is important enough to kill, you know, really? In efforts, I can see why those assassinations were politically isn't stuff, just extremist. And obviously, if it could happen to him, it could happen to anybody, who gets up on the stage or who walks out of a car, and it was a bit scary from that side." Later he said of Lennon's son Julian and John himself: "Julian happened to be very talented, he was really good. He's got a lot of good tunes. He's only starting to do lyrics; but apart from him physically looking like John, a bit with his glasses and long hair, he really isn't anything like John. He's more like his mother. He's much of a gentler, softer person. John was like, hairy, tough. I mean, he had that ability to being gentle and soft, and was lovely. But he was acid, too. I mean that he gave that hard edge to The Beatles."

update: i also trimmed the "connection with other rockers" section from the article since it was poorly written reiteration of stuff that's already sufficiently covered in the article. Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As part of doing the GAN review, I saw immediately that those sections were ill-formed in content and structure. However, I thought there was some pieces of content within them that deserved merging into the appropriate place elsewhere in the article. I'll look more at it later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another GA non-review

I signed up to do the GAN review for this article, but alas it's clear to me that I'm over-extended and can't do a proper job of it. So I've taken my name off at WP:GAN, but kept its place on the Music queue. Also, my GA article writing and my GA reviewing both tend to me at near-FA levels, which I now belatedly see from above is not what SilkTork is looking for. I also realized that I'm technically in violation of the reviewer requirement not to have previously edited the article, although my work was done back in 2005 or so and I'm not sure whether any of it survives to now.

I did have some reactions, just based on the time I was able to look at it:

  • The "Friends of Rockers" section was a mistake, although some content could be salvaged and merged into appropriate other sections (I'll try to look at this)
I don't recognise the "Friends of Rockers" section. Was this something added since my last edit and then removed? SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
i think what's meant is the "connection with other rockers" section that i deleted a few days ago: [3] Sssoul (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done SilkTork *YES! 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Needs a better description of the 1970s solo albums than just chart positions and singles. Need to better describe the music, need to include his relaxation of his strident religiosity and incorporation of more humor in the Extra Texture/33 1/3 period, etc.
I'll look into this. SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Live performances" section shouldn't be separate, but instead that material should be integrated into the appropriate 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s sections, which should be called "Solo work ..." not "Solo recordings". There's too much breakup of normal chronological flow the way it's done now.
It's helpful to have the live performances together in one section. When people look at encyclopedic entries, they are often looking for one aspect of a topic - such as Harrison's live performances. The article is not intended to be a single read, like a book. Though it's pleasant for the reader who wishes to read it all in one sitting that it does have some form of narrative flow and unity of style, etc, it is not essential. Encyclopedia articles are a collection of data, organised in easy to find sections. Narrative flow is less important than finding the information quickly and easily. It is quite common to split aspects of a person's career into definable sections - the personal life section is commonplace for example, even though an artist's personal life will have an impact on their work. SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Having worked on lots of biographical articles, I agree there are always tradeoffs involved. The problem with this particular case is while that the distinction between professional career and personal life can be understood, the distinction in a solo career between studio recordings and live performances really isn't significant. I don't think there's any FA or GA article on a musician that organizes the two separately. In this case, it breaks up the reader's understanding of the arc of Harrison's post-Beatles career. The Concert for Bangladesh was a big success personally and artistically (even if the finances later got messed up) and, coming after All Things Must Pass as it did, probably represented the peak of Harrison's 1970s solo career. The Dark Horse Tour, on the other hand, got a terrible reception and probably represented the nadir of his 1970s solo career in several respects. Segregating this material out makes it difficult for the reader to understand this. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs a better description of his role in Handmade Films. What was his function, did he suggest or greenlight projects, what films did or didn't get made because of him, etc. This was a major part of his life during this period, and not enough attention is given to it here.
Agreed. I will look into this. SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Made clear his function. SilkTork *YES! 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Isn't #1, #13, etc. for chart positions discouraged, especially for British-based articles where the sign doesn't have that meaning?
I think # is standard usage on Wikipedia. It is an American thing, but I have no problems with it. SilkTork *YES!

 Done - I had a look at a couple of other articles on British music and they don't use # so I removed them. SilkTork *YES! 19:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Why isn't the Hunter Davies group biography one of the sources?
I don't know. Maybe somebody will add it. It's not a GA consideration. SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got more, and hopefully I'll be able to work on the article some to help improve it, especially on some of the above points. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Music Samples

I beleive there should be songs that were actually written by George Harrison. You know like the McCartney and Lennon articles. I have no idea why A Hard Days Night is even on his page when it was written by Lennon/McCartney. Till there was you wasnt even written by any Beatle at all. I know the samples showcase his "guitar playing", but why not put in Here Comes the Sun which has a very unique sound and was actually written by him, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps which "IS" his most famous song. Chasesboys (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrison's contribution to The Beatles far exceeds just the songs that he wrote, and it's a mistake to limit him in that way. Harrison's guitar work has little to do with who wrote what. Yes, "Here Comes the Sun" would be a good sample either for this section or the songwriting section, but "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is problematic for this section unless you can isolate Harrison's parts from Clapton's. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
We need to take care with using samples to make sure they are justified. This is particularly important with Beatle's material as they have always pursued protection rights to their songs. It is inappropriate for us to drop in music samples unless the article is talking about the song, and the sample is needed to illustrate the text. To include a sample of "Here Comes the Sun" we would need to make reference to it in the article. At the moment I don't think we write enough about it to justify using a song sample. I think we could expand the songwriting section a bit more; regardless of if we have the song sample or not, it would be appropriate to reflect on some of his later songs. SilkTork *YES! 11:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the book citing style for this article?

I'm having trouble figuring out what the book citing style is here. The "References" section contains full citations for the books, including publisher, year, ISBN, etc. But then all of this information is repeated on every single footnote that references a page in the book. This is a lot of needless repitition, and is not the way this is usually done in GA or FA articles. To take an example, the "References" section has "Leng, Simon (2006). While My Guitar Gently Weeps : The Music of George Harrison. Hal Leonard. ISBN 1-4234-0609-5." That's fine. Then there are a bunch of footnotes of the form "# ^ The Music of George Harrison: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, page 14, Simon Leng, 2006, ISBN 1423406095". Per WP:Citing_sources#Shortened_footnotes, the better practice is to shorten these to just author last name, short title (or year), and page number. Thus, this footnote would become something like "Leng, The Music of George Harrison, p. 14." If there is a Google Books link involved, as there seems to be in a lot of these cases, that can be placed under the page number, i.e. "Leng, The Music of George Harrison, p. 14." This would make the footnotes such much more compact and readable, with no loss of information. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - that's how we normally do it, this article's just been badly formatted in the past. I have an idea, so hang in there a few minutes. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a serious problem with how an article is cited, just as long as it is. However, even though it is not a GA criteria that the cites need to be in any particular format, it certainly helps if there's a compact and uniform navigation. I did once try to organise all the Google Book refs under one refname, but all that happened was all the refs went to the one page. The solution proposed above ("Leng, The Music of George Harrison, p. 14.") seems to work well, and I'm in favour of that. I'll look to use that format style in other articles in future. SilkTork *YES! 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who complained about current use here, I'll volunteer to convert them to use the short form. I did a couple just to show what it would look like. I was going to use last name, short title rather than year (the former is more mnemonic, the latter too academic), p or pp without period, page number(s), period. And the Google Books linking if applicable. This seems to fit the current article style and British English usage. But now I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles#Citations and I see that the recommended form for the project is last name, year, p no space page number no period at end. Looking at the Beatles main article and the three other member articles, I see that this form is followed ... some of the time. Any strong preferences for what to do? And yes, I realise this isn't necessarily needed for GA, but it's something that should be done. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no preference, and will go with consensus. I will probably make mistakes as I'm very bad on remembering sequences and had got into a habit of doing it one way which I now am changing. SilkTork *YES! 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Section headings

Continuing the GA Review comment on section headings:

Paul McCartney has:

1 Early years

2 The Quarrymen and the Silver Beetles

3 The Beatles

4 Paul McCartney (solo) and Wings

5 Solo career

  • 5.1 Reaction to John Lennon's murder

6 Orchestral music

7 2000s

8 Creative outlets

  • 8.1 Electronic music
  • 8.2 Film
  • 8.3 Painting
  • 8.4 Writing and poetry

9 Relationships and marriages

  • 9.1 Relationship with Dot Rhone
  • 9.2 Relationship with Jane Asher
  • 9.3 Marriage to Linda Eastman
  • 9.4 Marriage to Heather Mills
  • 9.5 Relationship with Nancy Shevell

10 Lifestyle

  • 10.1 Recreational drug use
  • 10.2 Meditation
  • 10.3 Activism
  • 10.4 Football

11 Business

12 Critique and achievements

13 Paul is dead rumours


John Lennon has:

1 Early years: 1940–1957

2 The Beatles: 1957–1970

3 Solo career

4 Marriages and relationships

  • 4.1 Cynthia Lennon
  • 4.2 Yoko Ono
  • 4.3 May Pang and the "Lost Weekend"

5 Political activism

6 Drugs, meditation and primal therapy

7 Humour

8 Writing and art

9 Pseudonyms

10 Death

11 Awards with The Beatles

  • 11.1 Solo career

12 Discography

13 Musical instruments


Ringo Starr has:


1 Early years

2 Musical role in The Beatles

  • 2.1 Drumming ability and appreciation

3 Other contributions to The Beatles

4 Personal life

5 After The Beatles: 1970-1984

6 Recent years: 1985-present

  • 6.1 Music: albums, concerts/tours, awards, appearances
  • 6.2 Other news items

7 Films

8 Television

9 Possibility of knighthood

10 Awards and recognition

11 Discography

12 Filmography

13 All-Starr Band editions


Each is different according to the needs of the individual. I am wondering what benefit for the reader has been gained by removing dates from the section headings. Though in themselves dates can be arbitrary, they also give an "at a glance" guide to which period the section relates. It's useful additional information. I just took a random look at several Featured Articles on musicians and groups, and they all use dates in the headings: Celine Dion, AC/DC, Woody Guthrie, Michael Jackson, etc. I'll restore the date headings, and then we can consider if there is a serious problem with the current layout. A chronological overview is useful; however, for getting quickly and easily to the detailed information one wants, then organised sections are more useful. The order of those sections is down to personal taste. Some people might see the benefit of grouping sections according to theme, others would see the benefit of organising them by importance, others might like to see sections close by the chronological events. Unless there is some distraction and confusion for the reader in the current order of the sections which impacts on GA criteria (and I can't see where that happens as the layout complies with Wikipedia:Layout), we could leave the discussion of reorganisation for another time as it is potentially taking us away from the main focus. SilkTork *YES! 12:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just shuffled some sections in line with previous comments to see how it looks. More shuffling may be needed. SilkTork *YES! 12:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Not to sound like a broken record, but one thing I think that all those others do is to deal with their solo musical careers chronologically. They don't see an organisational distinction in a solo career between studio recordings and live performances. So for example, the Lennon article places his Willowbrook concert and MSG appearance with Elton in sequence with the rest. To repeat what I said above, since it wasn't responded to, I don't think there's any FA or GA article on a musician that organizes the two separately. In this case, it breaks up the reader's understanding of the arc of Harrison's post-Beatles career. The Concert for Bangladesh was a big success personally and artistically (even if the finances later got messed up) and, coming after All Things Must Pass as it did, probably represented the peak of Harrison's 1970s solo career. The 1974 tour, on the other hand, got a terrible reception and probably represented the nadir of his 1970s solo career in several respects. Segregating this material out makes it difficult for the reader to understand this. And even in the current "Live performances" section, the material is presented out of order, with the Concert for Bangladesh last rather than first. I really don't get it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you've just put the Concert for Bangladesh in order (good). Now the other live performance material should just be merged into the appropriate places. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That may have sounded like a command, not what I meant :-) Actually, I thought of a new idea to do after merging in the live performance narrative. A lot of articles have a "Tours" section near the end, after the Discography, that lists the concert tours for the artist. We could have a section something like:

Live performances in solo career
  • 1971 The Concert for Bangladesh
  • 1974 U.S. Tour
  • 1986 Heartbeat '86, Birmingham
  • 1991 Japan Tour
  • 1992 Dylan Tribute Concert, New York

(Aren't there one or two Prince's Trust appearances also?) Anyway, this would give readers who want to see all the live performances at a glance somewhere to go, while maintaining the chronological flow in the main narrative. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

During the day, someone else began adding more information about the 1974 tour into the solo work section. It really became apparent that splitting out the live performances was just leading to duplication and confusion, so I did the merge and added the 'Live performances' section at the end, as proposed above. Hopefully this will sit okay with everyone. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On similar grounds, I've merged the 'Friendship with Eric Clapton' section into the rest of the article. As it was, it stuck out as an awkward subsection. Most of it was about their musical relationship, and the end of the 'Guitar work' section seemed like the best place for it, especially since it ended with his introduction to slide. (It would be good to add something on Clapton's influence on Harrison's lead style, perhaps, or something like that.) The rest of it was the love triangle aspect, and I moved that into the 'Personal life' section where the George-Patti-Eric thing is mentioned, and expanded that a bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The live performance section is a useful navigation tool. It should be in the article. It should be in every article about a performer who performs live. Live performances are distinct from studio recordings. I agree there is value in giving a general overview of a performers career - and I will be introducing commentary on the live performances within the chronological sections - as I will be introducing those aspects of his personal life that impacted on his creative work (such as his split up from his first wife at the time of recording Dark Horse), though for detail and focus on a particular aspect, then sections are needed. If you are concerned that you haven't seen live performances written about in sections in other featured articles - Alison_Krauss#Performances, Nine_Inch_Nails#Live_performances, "Weird_Al"_Yankovic#Live_performances, Tool_(band)#Live_shows should reassure you that this is seen as a useful approach. SilkTork *YES! 10:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I also restored the Friendship with Eric Clapton section as that is a significant relationship the details of which would be useful if gathered together. It is a viable research topic, and rather than having to read through the entire article to extract the information it does help to have it all in one place. The section can and should be expanded. The relationship they had is very noteworthy in that both of them contributed to work in the other's band, and they shared the same wife who it is claimed was the inspiration for notable songs from both of them. That Harrison denies the influence is also in itself worth commenting on. It is quite probable that people would want to come to this article merely to check out the story of their friendship, and to find out how intwined their creative and personal lives actually were.
That I have restored the sections doesn't mean that I think that Wasted Time was wrong to make the edits or to question the viability of the sections. I think it is appropriate to question, and to be bold and make the edit to see what it looks like. I think the points raised are valid points, and that I have restored the sections doesn't mean that I think the debate is over. I am quite happy to continue talking about the issue. SilkTork *YES! 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other articles, I'd seen the NIN one but forgotten it, hadn't seen the others. I think such a section would make sense for an artist that continually performs live during their career and has a distinctive style about those performances that doesn't vary much (sort of how it's used in the Tool article); the Grateful Dead, the Allman Brothers, and James Taylor would also be good examples. I don't think that's the case with Harrison; given that his live performances are few and far between, I think they are more significant from a biographical standpoint, as each occurred during an inflection point of his career. I wish that MediaWiki had an indexing system, like real books do; then we could present a coherent chronological narrative of Harrison's career, and readers could then look up all his live performances, or the story of his interactions with Clapton, or half a dozen other possible threads of interest, via index entries. I continue to be concerned that readers will get a very jumbled sense of what Harrison's career was like, especially in the 1970s, by reading this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary leg break

I'd like for us to address your concerns by building and developing the chronological sections to include mentions of significant aspects of his life - such as the Dark Horse tour - as I feel you are making an important point. However, I'd like at the same time to have easy to find defined sections for those people who simply want to know about Harrison's live performances. That he didn't perform much, and only toured USA once as a solo artist is a matter of interest to people. What I'd like is to build on that section, and to pull in material that may reflect on Harrison's attitude to live performance. When seen as part of the whole picture it develops a deeper understanding. This is the "quiet Beatle". This is also a member of The Beatles - a group that is remarked upon for having stopped doing live performances at a very early stage in their public career. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i appreciate all the good effort going into trying out different ways of arranging the material, but i'm still finding it inexplicably garbled - for example the way the section now called "later life 1988-2001" ("later career" would probably be more appropriate) goes from 1989 to 2004 (sic!) before mentioning the Traveling Wilburys (1988-90). can we try something more straightforwardly chronological, please?
and for the record i feel like i agree with Wasted Time R about how to treat the "live performance" information. Sssoul (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead image is badly screwed up

My sweet lord, that image is bogus. Check out the description page for the image.[4] Click on the source link, and you'll see an entirely different picture. I haven't got time to fix this, but it makes me gently weep.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The photo is totally legit (the source url on the image is obviously wrong). See here for the full image, from the Ford Library. An even funnier shot from the visit, with George jesting with Ford and with Jack Ford and Ravi Shankar in it, is on page 168 of Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, when I studied the window in the background I realized it was probably legit, but the description page needs to be fixed. I'll let you do it. Sorry for stalking.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
We used have a much greater picture. What happened to it? You can find it here. --The monkeyhate (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Death

This article doesn't even mention Harrison's death. What the hell is up with that?? Glandrid (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

yes it does - look in the "personal life" section. it's true that those paragraphs are not currently a subsection entitled "Cancer and Death" or something like that, and i understand why they aren't treated that way. but maybe Glandrid's comment illustrates why it might be worth considering. Sssoul (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue appears to be rectified now. Glandrid (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't see the point..

Can't see the point.. in placing the "White Album" pic on the page. It can confuse; but more importantly, doesn't serve enough of a purpose there. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added some text about the White Album being one of the peaks of the group using his songwriting, to better motivate the inclusion of the cover image. In part, I think this is used because it can be used; normally, album covers may only be included in articles about the album under the copyright fair use restrictions, but here the cover is regarded as not copyrightable, so the image can be used anywhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

the "associated acts" field

this field of the info box is not supposed to be a list of "artists/bands George played with", or even "artists/bands George played with a lot, befriended, etc". i've therefore trimmed it down to acts that George's involvement was crucial to (and i put them in chronological order while i was at it); it may be that Dhani's own career is developed enough that he doesn't really belong in the field either. Sssoul (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts gives the definition of this. Clapton might qualify under the "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together" clause. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
well ... not that many artists have had careers like Harrison's and Clapton's, so it's probably not strange if generalized infobox guidelines don't fit them too well. i don't think Clapton belongs here - listing Clapton along with the Beatles and Traveling Wilburys is even a bit insulting, as if Clapton doesn't have a career in his own right. and the info box isn't big enough for a list of "anyone George collaborated with on more than one occasion" - a line needs to be drawn somewhere. as noted above, i propose limiting it to acts that George's involvement was crucial to. Sssoul (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings about this field. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem edits

Note: The subject of the problem edits is the sock puppet discussed below. prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dmerkurev1 (talk · contribs) (also editing as 76.168.6.32 (talk · contribs)) has repeatedly added a nonsequiter "#1 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" in the middle of the second sentence of the lead. I have tried to get this editor to seek assistance writing because the edit makes no sense, disrupts the sentence, is not confirmed by the sources, and likely does not belong in the article at all. But he refuses to discuss. If someone could please remove this, as I am at the 3RR limit. And if someone can get Dmerkurev1 to cooperate by discussing on the talk page what he is trying to say, it might avoid problems in the future. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, discussion here on the talk page is definitely the way to do this, not edit warring. if Dmerkurev1 wants to try to clarify here on the talk page what he/she is trying to say maybe someone can be of some help. until he/she explains what he/she's trying to say, all i can guess is that he/she wants the article to mention that the Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (not as "#1", though!). that seems more pertinent to the article on The Beatles (where it's already mentioned), but if it belongs anywhere in the Harrison article it should go in the "Honours" section, not the lead. and obviously it would need to be adequately worded. Sssoul (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Knife attack

I was thinking about improving the section of the article discussing George Harrison's knife attack. Previously it has been difficult for the general public to obtain detailed information about this unfortunate experience, mostly owing to Mr. Harrison's increased seclusion immediately afterward. However, in a somewhat recently published diary written by Harrison's friend Eric Idle (of Monty Python fame), to whom George confided many things, the knife attack is told in full detail. The two men were apparently quite close, and Mr. Idle and his wife were invited to visit Harrison and his wife shortly after the attack. At this meeting Harrison related the complete story, with all the horrible, dramatic details, which Idle subsequently documented and published (in his blog, and then later in his book "The Greedy Bastard Diary: A Comic Tour of America", pp 277-278, Eric Idle, Harper Entertainment, 2005, ISBN 0-06-075864-3). It occurred to me that probably most people have not heard the details of this story because they have not read Idle's book, which is no longer in print, and which is probably the best documented evidence of this event, an event that was obviously an important moment in the life of this Beatle (perhaps equal in importance as the cause of John Lennon's death, for example). For all these reasons, I was considering putting the pertenant details of the knife attack as documented in the book here, in this Wikipedia article. What does everyone else think? prhartcom (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am also suggesting the following four edits. Doing these edits will: a) reorder a few facts and details on the page, presenting them in a somewhat more chronological order, and b) provide a place to insert the new section: "Knife Attack". What does everyone else think? The suggested edits are:

1. Remove the paragraph: "In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack" from the section: "Later life: 1988-2001". This is done because parts of this paragraph will be incorporated into the new section: "Knife Attack" (see below).

2. Split the section "Personal Life and Death" into two sections; the first: "Personal Life" and the second: "Death". The first section would end just before the current paragraph: "Harrison developed throat cancer" and the second would begin with this paragraph. This is done because a new section: "Knife Attack" will appear between these two sections.

3. The new section: "Knife Attack" is ~280 words. It is properly cited. It is inserted between section: "Personal Life" and the section: "Death".

Optional: 4. Remove the sub-section title: "Friendship with Eric Clapton" and incorporate this paragraph into the secion above it: "Personal Life". This is done because there is no need to call out this particular personal life detail (i.e. we do not call out the paragraph documenting the friendship with Eric Idle). prhartcom (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

all of the above sounds reasonable, but it's hard to feel very convinced without seeing the proposed new paragraph/section - the topic of the attack needs a light touch, i think; for me it's important to bear in mind that there are no doubt reasons the details have not been made very public. so it would be helpful if you could show us the new section here on the talk page before making the changes to the article.
meanwhile i've always considered the "personal life and death" header awkward (i understand why "and death" was added, but it sounds unfortunately like it means "personal death", as opposed to what?) and i agree that separating his friendship with Clapton into its own subsection seems odd. so those aspects of your suggestion make sense to me. Sssoul (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your encouragement Sssoul. Here is the paragraph. I have included every detail as related by George to his friend, but I have actually toned it down and used non-dramatic verbs and adjectives, etc. Here it is, and I appreciate your thoughts.prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home. [110] At 3:30 AM on 30 December, an intruder broke a window of George and Olivia Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames. The intruder, Michael Abram, began loudly calling to Harrison to come downstairs, waking the couple. George left their bedroom to investigate as the intruder continued to call for George. Having telephoned the police, Olivia left their bedroom with a fireplace poker to find her husband on their upstairs hallway floor and the intruder repeatedly stabbing him with a seven-inch kitchen knife. She struck the intruder on the head a total of fifteen times with the poker until he finally turned on her and knocked her over. Olivia lost the poker, recovered, and retreated to the bedroom where the man followed her. Although stabbed, George was able to get up and go to his wife’s aid. Facing the intruder, Olivia picked up a large Tiffany lamp and began to hit the man over the head again. The man took the cord of the lamp and turned on Olivia in an attempt to strangle her with it. She fled downstairs in search of their larger, heavier fireplace poker. The man then raised the Tiffany lamp and hit George over the head with it. George, fatiguing at this point, could only put up his feet in an attempt to stop several more blows. The attacker then left the bedroom and staggered downstairs to find Olivia, but finally collapsed on their balcony, remaining there until the police arrived. The attack had lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Abram would later receive twenty-two stitches in his head. George suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds, and head injuries. [new citation]
[remainder of excised paragraph from erlier section would then appear here, as follows] 35-year-old Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention.[111] Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.
thanks for using the talk page for this - i appreciate that you've toned it down but in my opinion it's way too much detail for encyclopedia purposes (even for a talk page, actually). Sssoul (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome; and I respect you very much; I am greatly appreciative of your comments. I wonder what others thoughts are, if we were to wait for them to also respond? You say "even for a talk page" after you asked me to include this here in the talk page, which I find odd. But I hear all too clearly what you say and I do agree; perhaps we can tone it down even more. It was certainly a tragedy in this great man's life and is hard to face these details head-on. But surely we the public have already waited a respectful amount of time and now we do have a right to know these details? Read John Lennon's article and you will see similar horrible details in the section discussing the end of his life; which I am grateful to have. Or do you mean too much detail for any article in any encyclopedia? Surely not, don't articles require detail? Anyway, as you can tell I appreciate you Sssoul and wonder if you would like to have a go editing my new paragraph yourself and post it here; I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prhartcom (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Another way of putting it: This unfortunate event happened. It is the truth. (Unless either man is lying and I don't believe either has a reason to do so, and that just leaves me and I certainly am not lying.) Unfortunately, this event is made up of many smaller events and it takes a few words to tell this correctly. These smaller events (the details) are what we are saying have a good chance of being lost to the world. But the important thing is to not hide the truth. The truth must be documented. Not much more can be removed from this paragraph without snipping away at factual truth. Please everyone, I respect your opinion; please respond with your thoughts, and then I can add this to the main article.prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks for being open to other people's views. yes, i suggested you post it on the talk page first, so that people could form an opinion, and now that i see it my opinion is that it's too much detail. just because it was horrendous doesn't mean this one incident should be recounted here in more detail than anything else in the man's life; we don't need to report every blow or what type of lamp it was.
i too hope other editors will give their views on this. when i have more time (later this week i hope) i can try editing it a bit - thanks for the invitation. Sssoul (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point about the lamp, ha, good catch. I want to do the right thing here. Yes, let us ensure together this story is in balance with the rest of the story of this man's life. I look forward to your edit, and to the comments of anyone else who wishes to chime in. Thanks to all.prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) sorry it took me a while to find the time for this, but below is my proposal for an edit. i propose putting the incident in its proper place in the "personal life" chronology, not making a separate section of it. i hope Prhartcom will see my points: going into any more detail in this article risks "glorifying" the attack, which no one here wants to do; we also don't want an encyclopedia article to seem lurid. providing the reference to Idle's book will direct interested readers to where they can locate more details if they require them. anyway, here's my proposal:

In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home.[110] At 3:30 AM on 30 December 1999 Michael Abram broke a window of the Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames and began loudly calling to Harrison to come downstairs. Harrison left the bedroom to investigate while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police. Abram stabbed Harrison multiple times with a seven-inch kitchen knife, puncturing a lung before Olivia incapacitated him with a fireplace poker.[your source] Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention.[the next source] Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.

i hope other editors will let Prhartcom and me know what you think. Sssoul (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me.--Designquest10 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Comparing the existing paragraph with the new proposed shows a difference of sixteen words, an improvement of approximately a sentence and a half. Hardly worth it. But suggesting it remain buried in another section goes too far and is highly suspect. I urge us all to realize this Knife Attack was quite an important event in George Harrison's life and is a part of history. I'm sorry it's lurid; I wish it wasn't. I propose the following; please do tell me what you think: 1) Go ahead and publish this smaller edit into the article, but in its own section. 2) Create a new article about this event, which will contain the missing detail.prhartcom (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
... his friendship with Clapton was an important aspect of his life and it doesn't require its own section, right? the same applies here, in my opinion. and expanding the paragraph - by however many words are required for a concise and encyclopedic account of the incident - isn't "burying" it; if the incident weren't of any importance it wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all.
it would be great if you would retract your accusation about "highly suspect" motives - my motivation is to keep the article well written, well balanced and encyclopedic. i assume that's your motivation as well.
let's wait a couple of days in hopes some of the other editors who frequent this page will express their views about how to proceed, okay? thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the relationship with Eric Clapton is very notable - the knife attack less so. The Clapton relationship had an impact not just on Harrison's personal life, but also on his creative - from the time of The Beatles through his solo career. The knife attack occured later in his life, and though it had an impact, it was of lesser overall significance. Various means of judging this are - Google hits: "george harrison" + "Eric clapton" = 761,000 hits; "george harrison" + "knife attack" = 622 hits. The friendship is mentioned in several books; somewhat fewer mention the knife attack. The friendship with Idle while not quite as notable as the friendship with Eric Clapton is certainly more notable than the knife attack. I suggest that the Friendship with Eric Clapton section be restored, and that the existing knife attack details remain as they are. Further details would be excessive and out of balance with the article. The paragraph, though, could be usefully moved from the current section to the personal details section. SilkTork *YES! 09:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a separate section for the knife attack; it should just be covered in the relevant section of his bio career. I think the description of it should be a bit longer that the Sssoul version but not as detailed as the Prhartcom version. I don't think there should be a separate section for the Clapton friendship either, but instead it should be covered in the relevant sections of his bio career and personal life. I think in general the sectioning in this article has often gone back and forth across the chronology too much and makes it hard for the reader to understand the flow of Harrison's life. That's why I think the attack belongs in a chrono bio section, not personal life. But every change to the sectioning I ever made here got reverted by SilkTork, so what I think hasn't had much effect on the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone: Sssoul, Wasted Time R, and SilkTork. I was hoping you last two would weigh in and I appreciate you doing so. I respect all of you since you edit Wikipedia more than me. Sorry about the motives comment. I think we can come to a consensus now and then I can finally add this event to the article. Tell me what you think:
1) We keep the Knife Attack inside another section as everyone has suggested, as giving it its own section gives this event more importance than it deserves. As Sssoul has suggested, that section should be Personal Life, and in the appropriate chronological location there, and which section is just before the section Death (the section where the event is mentioned currently seems to be about the man's career; if this event were to be located there it does not drive home that this event took place shortly before the man's death). Note: I always wanted a separate section because I could not find mention of this event in the article when I first went looking for it.
2) We keep the Knife Attack well under the original 280 words, as more detail would be out of balance with the rest of the article, but as Wasted Time R has suggested it should be a few more words than the last edit which adds only 16. Note: I always wanted more detail because the sole source of this detail was already out of print. My Final Proposal: We use the edit proposed by Sssoul, actually removing a few words about the "lung" and "downstairs", and inserting the following: "The attack lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Abram would later receive twenty-two stitches in his head. George suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds, and head injuries. [new citation]"
3) We leave the Eric Clapton relationship inside another section as Wasted Time R and I have suggested and as Sssoul has agreed. It does seem to deserve its own section but doing so seems to disrupt the chronological flow. This topic may need to be re-examined in the near future, as this whole article may need slightly better chronological flow, but I believe we are improving that now. Ta. prhartcom (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks for weighing in on this, SilkTork and Wasted Time R. and thanks for proposing a further compromise, Prhartcom. it sounds like we're on a good track, but: i feel that the number of stitches Abram got is not relevant to this article, and even sounds like the reader is supposed to feel sorry for him or something, so i'd be very grateful to leave that bit out. and wikipedia style calls for us to avoid first-name-only references outside of direct quotes, so the last sentence proposed would need to read "Harrison suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds and head injuries." Sssoul (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And good to know about the first-name-only references; thanks for that. prhartcom (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: The new cited reference includes the books.google.com link to the Idle book, unfortunately however the relevant pages are not part of the Google preview. prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks for making the change - i edited that one sentence a little to avoid repetition of the phrase "multiple times". in fact since the number of stab wounds is specified in a subsequent sentence, we might reduce redundancy even further by doing something like this:

In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home.[ref] At 3:30 AM on 30 December 1999 Michael Abram broke into the Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames and began loudly calling to Harrison. Harrison left the bedroom to investigate while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police. Abram attacked Harrison with a seven-inch kitchen knife, inflicting seven stab wounds, puncturing a lung and causing head injuries before Olivia incapacitated the assailant by striking him repeatedly with a fireplace poker. The attack lasted approximately fifteen minutes.[ref] 35-year-old Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention.[ref] Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.

does that work all right? again, my aim is to smooth out the redundancy, not to reduce the word count. Sssoul (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that first redundancy, I like it; then I was sorry to see that the discussion is not over yet when I realized I like your new edit too. Give me some time to consider it and I will more than likely make that change.
BTW, I must say I am really happy with including the "fifteen minutes" sentence; that really does take the place of all that detail I had originally; the reader can only imagine what must have happened during that extended amount of time (try imagining an attack on yourself lasting that long!) prhartcom (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks Prhartcom. the only other points i'd work on are minor finetuning:
  • technically i reckon we should say "before Olivia Harrison incapacitated the assailant" to avoid referring to her by first name only (in "while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police" it's justified, but the second time it's less clear that we have any reason for lapsing into informality/familiarity. (that one's my fault, sorry!)
  • the other odd bit has i guess been in the article for a long time: "Traumatized by the invasion and attack" - but "invasion" isn't really an appropriate word for a break-in, and "intrusion" doesn't work either. "Traumatized by the attack"? "Traumatized by the incident"? Sssoul (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK sure, perhaps we can change the second Olivia to "Mrs. Harrison"; I was wondering about that also, and I rather like the word "invasion" but we can change it to "break-in" if you believe it is better. You can take over completely from here on without discussion if you like, as I know you take the best care of this article. (This discussion is probably approaching the length of the entire article.) I am double-checking the existing and other sources regarding the attack and am finding a few minor quibbles; if I find any facts that need to be corrected I may also make the correction without discussion unless they are major changes. prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
it's always a bit tricky when writing about two people with the same surname, but "Mrs Harrison" wouldn't fit wikipedia's style - it would need to be "Olivia Harrison". i'll keep trying to think of a more graceful way to do it, but in the meantime i'll make that change and the "break-in" one. Sssoul (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break for "chronological flow" discussion

Just a note that "chronological flow" can be very helpful, but is not necessarily the way that encyclopedia articles are always constructed - certainly not throughout the article. This guide is useful. Bear in mind that people are looking for information - they are not settling down to read a biography, they are looking for an overview (the Lead) and then specific details which can be found in the relevant sections (such as Personal life and Live performances). SilkTork *YES! 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that guide that pertains to whether BLPs should be organized chronologically or by subject area. Nor do I think your assertion that users "are not settling down to read a biography" is necessarily accurate. People live their lives in time sequence, with something happening in area A at time T quite possibly affecting something happening in area B at time T + 1 (for example, how did the home attack change Harrison's music career or business activities? how did the breakup of this first marriage affect his songwriting? etc) Real biographies are almost always written in chrono order, for just this reason. I see our BLPs as short biographies that can take the same approach. With a good table of contents and some obvious reference sections (discography, filmography, election histories for politicians, etc), the reader can jump around or look up information that they are specifically interested in as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the points you raise, Wasted Time R. At one point I sat down and read this whole article. This is a well-written article which probably needs a better table of contents; that is to say it probably needs more sections and sub-sections--and then they should each be arranged chronologically. But I am not the expert at writing biographies. I just checked the WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIOG and neither speak on this. prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

His guitars

didn't he play on a Gibson SG on the beatles' rain and hey bulldog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.104.117 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

this fine site has details about that SG - i don't think it's the aim of this wikipedia bio to mention every guitar George used, but if you feel like adding a sentence about the SG (to the "Guitar work" section, not to the infobox!) maybe that site could serve as a reference. that site certainly deserves to be listed among the references and/or "further reading". Sssoul (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
update: i've just undone an addition of the SG to the "notable instruments" section of the infobox. the "notable instruments" section of the infobox is not meant to list every guitar in his arsenal. the SG may be worth mentioning in the "guitar work" section of the article, but it is not particularly notable and (as noted above) should not be in the infobox. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

instruments

harrison also could play the drums, henche him recording also drum tracks for back in the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.251.157 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewisohn in the Sessions book claims that Paul, George and John all may have contributed to the drum track on this song....(?). Radiopathy •talk• 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I always thought it was just Paul (sounds like it) but this is interesting because see the careful detail on this in the sadly unsourced second paragraph of Back_in_the_ussr#Problems_in_the_band. I wonder where this comes from. At any rate, if this is about whether to include drums among Harrison's skills, I would think the answer is no. Even if he did have a go once or twice, that wouldn't make it notable under instruments played. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's doubtful that George played drums on any Beatles song - or at any other time. Radiopathy •talk• 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Harrison's cancers

George's lung cancer was not the result of his throat cancer spreading. His death certificate says he died of metastatic lung cancer, meaning that the primary tumour was in the lung, and that that tumour metasticised to other parts of the body. The throat cancer had probably been cured. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment has no supporting references or documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy92834 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That info is in the article and supported with citations. See the "Death" section. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The user who posted that keeps vandalising the article, and changing the cause of death. Radiopathy •talk• 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You should both be blocked. Cut the crap. There's a content dispute; that's not vandalism. Stop edit warring and discuss the issue here. Until you resolve it, leave the article as it was. Sheesh. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh yourself. Take a look at the refs he's putting in, then read the content. He's reinventing Harrison's cause of death. Don't tell me it isn't vandalism. Radiopathy •talk• 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, I agree with you about the content, but I think Timothy92834 believes he is improving the article. In any case, the two of you have been acting like children and you should both be blocked. I am glad that Zero0000 protected the article but I am surprised he didn't block both of you. You've both gone way past 3RR and Timothy92834 reverted it after a sysop stepped in. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Guitars

What about George's Duo Jet? He used it quite a lot durnig the early 60s and was still using it when The Beatles broke America. Should be included. Radiopathy •talk• 19:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

it is mentioned - see the "Guitar work" section of the article. (if you mean it should be in the "notable instruments" section of the info box, the creators of that field often point out that it's "not meant to be a gear list" - it's for really *really* outstanding instruments.) Sssoul (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the infobox; George is seen in many pictures of early Beatlemania playing the Duo Jet; i feel that it's at least as notable as the Let it Be Tele. Radiopathy •talk• 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
my own strongest feeling about the field is that it should be kept as brief as possible. to me the Duo Jet is less "iconic" than the three listed - but Harrison is one of the musicians whose every guitar is notable just by virtue of his having played it, which can make it difficult to decide where to draw the "notability" line. i hope some other editors will chime in with their views. Sssoul (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

the April 92 concert

we've had B and R, so it's time for some D: i've edited down the account of George's last full concert to what's supported by the source cited, and hope any further changes to that bit can be discussed here - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was way too much uncited detail in the previous entry and your edit is much better. One problem: the source does not support that it was Harrison's last full concert. I've left that in, but it should be marked as unsourced or removed. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Closest friendships

Is it all right if we add back "and Eric Idle" to the sentence "He was close friends with Eric Clapton" in the lead? From Idle's biography it appears he was Harrison's dearest friend in the latter decades of Harrison's life, while Clapton was clearly just as dear a friend in the decades prior. Those two men were probably the sum total of his closest friends, and apparently consecutively so. prhartcom (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

... i guess i don't see why it's important enough to be in the lead - did the friendship with Idle have some impact on Harrison's creative output or ...? and is it a biography of Idle or his autobiography that this perception is from? Sssoul (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It is Idle's Autobiography I refer to, which I mention in the Knife Attack discussion above. I don't think the friendship between the two men had an impact on Harrison's creativity at this point in his life nor should one have anything to do with the other. The article documents the friendship appropriately and I am simply suggesting it is of equal importance to Harrison's earlier close friendship with Clapton. Thanks for your consideration. prhartcom (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks for clarifying. i think it's fine to mention the friendship in the article, but also think it's appropriate that it isn't in the lead. it might belong in the lead of Idle's article, if his autobiography indicates that the friendship was a major factor in his life, but that doesn't necessarily mean the impact was mutual, you know? i hope other editors will add their views. Sssoul (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be right. Idle may be lying. prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
... i didn't say he is or may be lying. yes autobiographies have a natural tendency to be subjective, but i have no reason to think Idle's autobiography presents anything other than his genuine perceptions. it just isn't clear to me why his friendship with Harrison belongs in this article's lead. are there other books that mention it as a particularly important factor in Harrison's life? it would be great if some other editors would add their views on this - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure the "He was a close friend of..." sentence even belongs in the Lead myself, but FWIW, Bill Harry's George Harrison Encyclopedia has an entry for Idle, which starts with the words "...who became one of George's close friends. [...] He was invited to induct George into the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame on 28 June 2002". PL290 (talk)

the associated acts field

we've discussed this before, but it's been archived; we might as well establish what the current consensus is. the documentation for Template:Infobox musical artist says:

Associated_acts: This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. This field can include, for example, any of the following:
  • For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
  • Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
  • Groups which have spun off from this group
  • A group from which this group has spun off
The following uses of this field should be avoided:
  • Association of groups with members' solo careers
  • Groups with only one member in common
  • Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
  • One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
  • Groups that are merely similar

the way i read that, the groups Harrison was a member of belong in this field, but neither Clapton nor Lynne fit. i am cognizant that Clapton and Harrison collaborated on various tracks over the decades, but did they release any joint albums, or appear as a duo or tour together? to me, that's what would make them "associated acts". as for Lynne, outside of the Traveling Wilburys, Lynne's main work with Harrison was as a producer, and that's explicitly mentioned as not what this field is meant for.
but it's often the case that these "generic instructions" can be difficult to apply to the highly exceptional careers of artists like Harrison and Clapton. it would be good to hear what other editors think about who should be regarded as George's "associated acts". Sssoul (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is the same: acts who collaborate in a work only credited to the main artist are not acting as acts but as session musicians so are not relevant for this purpose. PL290 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

those professional names in the infobox

can we put the names in the "alias" field of the infobox in some kind of sensible order, please and thank you? chronological order would be nice, starting with Carl Harrison ... but then as i was trying to confirm the chronology of some of the others, i realized that several of them are not mentioned at all in the article. the infobox isn't actually supposed to include stuff that isn't in the article, is it? it would be good to fix that; and meanwhile maybe we can put those names in order. Carl Harrison was the earliest; L'Angelo Misterioso was 1970; Hari Georgeson was first used in 1973 i guess? Sssoul (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

... someone who edits here must know the history of those aliases - at least i sure hope someone does! i've rearranged the three mentioned above; could we make sure the rest are in chronological order, please and thank you, and see if we can work them into the appropriate sections of the article? Sssoul (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth date may be 24 February

Bill Harry seems to have changed his mind between 2000 and 2003. In his Beatles Encyclopedia, on p. 492, he says 25 February, which the article cites along with Harrison's birth certificate. However, in his 2003 George Harrison Encyclopedia, on p. 52, Harry says 24 February, adding, "For most of his life he believed that he'd been born on 25 February." It sounds as though the wrong date was entered on the birth certificate and it should be 24 February, and this came to light later. Without further elaboration I'm loth to change anything but I'll watch out for more info on this - anyone else have anything about it? PL290 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It should not be changed. Birth certificates can be wrong, but people—especially the person concerned—are far less reliable. Harrison evidently admitted that his "correction" to the 24th was a joke, though I've never seen it. In any case, there's no good reason to disbelieve the contemporary documentation. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This explains the confusion, and says that he was born on 24 February. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0365600/bio 24.148.26.74 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When we have a footnote to explain this discrepancy, it seems unnecessary to keep changing it, as some editors have been doing recently. As far as the UK legal rules of evidence go, the birth certificate is regarded as authoritative, being the most nearly contemporaneous document. However, a difference of one day here or there seems to be splitting hairs unnecessarily, and we should stick with the date on the birth certificate, as far as I'm concerned. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cream template

Should we really have the template for Cream at the bottom even though George Harrison wasn't even in the group? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

it's there because of the track "Badge". i agree that it doesn't belong there. Sssoul (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it. 174.0.46.168 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth name in infobox

A recent edit removed George Harrison's birth name from the infobox. The reasoning was that it's unneeded since it matches the article title. At first this made sense, to simplify the infobox. But after further thought, it could be interpreted that if the birth name is not listed it is unknown. I haven't found a guideline one way or the other. What do other editors think? CuriousEric (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

i concur that it's unnecessary when the birth name is the same as the article's title. Sssoul (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub-sub headings

I rather like the small sub-headings someone recently added to the Death section; I wonder if anyone agrees that we could add them to other sections? In the Personal Life section, we could add something similar to "Family and Friends", "Interests", and "Knife Attack". Thoughts? prhartcom (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I think we should also change his birthday from 25 to 24 and his number 21 status to number 1. (I'm kidding! I'm kidding!) prhartcom (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that their recent addition to the Death section is an improvement. The thing to remember about these "bolded headings" is that they don't show up in the TOC like actual subsections do. I think that's an advantage in certain specific cases, including those recently added. It wouldn't necessarily be in other places, but that's not to say we shouldn't add "real" ===Subsections=== in other places too. I could go either way breaking up Personal life; it may be best to use real subsections there so they show up in the TOC. On the three suggested, there's a bit of overlap between the first two (with the Python thing) so it might be best to combine those two (Family, friends and interests or suchlike). PL290 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll add them unless anyone objects. I notice someone else changed the others to level three headers; good idea. prhartcom (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

April 4's entries

Note: The subject of the April 4 entries is the sock puppet discussed below. prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in the edit summaries the sources used do not meet WP:RS. The constant reentry of the info by two editors - both created today - without discussing this is edit warring and possible sockpuppeting. Unless you reach a consensus about this with other editors the info should not be entered. MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not all of the sources were unreliable. I think the issue this editor was pushing needs to be resolved differently. The version people keep reverting back to mentions only the #21 in the top 100 guitarists. George Harrison has received many honors. George Harrison#Honours is the section for discussing them but it's not inappropriate to mention one or a few in the introductory section. Is the #21 in the top 100 really the best one to mention if we mention only one? Mangojuicetalk 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've determined that the particular issue of Guitar Player (the cover of which keeps being added) is the March 2002 issue #387, vol 36 #3. But the cover alone is inadequate for the claim, because cover text for magazines can be written by pretty much anyone. Someone needs to locate the article (online or hard copy); I have attempted to locate the article online but am not finding it -- Guitar Player doesn't seem to have much of an online archive themselves, for one thing. (Else, list as "citation needed".) The other item is effectively the opinion of someone that isn't a professional music critic; while I can't say their opinion is invalid, it certainly has a lot less weight - about the equivalent of my saying "I like chocolate milk." Salamurai (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. It turns out that the editor involved was a previously is a blocked person who also created a nest of sockpuppets. I am not adverse to an update of this info if reliable sources can be provided. My thanks to you for your research Salamurai and I like chocolate milk too "citation needed" :-) MarnetteD | Talk 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: The next person speaking is the sock puppet discussed below. prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just wanted to say that I think the cover is a reliable source of information. The title usually provides a good picture of the article inside the magazine- otherwise, why would they have this title? I did want to post a text for a source, of course, but I could not find any. I just want this to be considered as a potential addition to the article, because it clearly comes from a musical magazine with opinions from musical experts.76.168.1.188 (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
A magazine cover by itself is never a reliable source of information. Text on a cover is used to entice someone to buy, might not be written by anyone involved in the article being sold, and may not be wholly reflective of the included article. I've written copy headings, the goal is to summarize and catch the eye. We need the article itself as a source, not the magazine cover. A magazine cover by itself doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements of a reliable source. Besides, how does one know for sure that the image is the actual cover and not a mockup? And being someone's Flickr item, it could be deleted at any time, and then where are we? Finding the text of the article will prove your claim. If it's not available online, see if you can locate a copy of the particular issue to cite from. Salamurai (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

George Harrison as a guitar player

Note: The next person speaking is the sock puppet discussed below. prhartcom (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I think we should post something like "George Harrison was referred to as "the best rock guitarist" in the Time Online". I think he deserves the praise based on the article. Here is the link http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6529603.ece. I am very sorry for my past behavior. I just had a long day today.

Sprussia (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be arguing for the claim, not actually making the claim, in my opinion. It even goes into some depth that the general consensus doesn't rate GH as highly as the author things he should be. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the author. I also think Ringo is the greatest drummer ever, but no one listens to me, I'm just another schmuck on the internet.) Salamurai (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion we would also need to know a bit more the author. Is he a scholar, a critic, an enthusiast? I understand your enthusiasm for this artist. I agree with some of it. Unfortunately, wikipedia is attempting to be encyclopedic and fan enthusiasm has to temper itself to this. There are plenty of places on the web that you can share those feelings. As to your apology you have been socking in this situation for a month or more so it rings a tad hollow (in fact you socked [Please note:The item has been removed since this message was posted] again in the section just above "after" you opened this topic). It turns out that your new socks have been blocked so we probably won't be dealing with this for a bit. MarnetteD | Talk 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

George Meets Paul

In the Early Years section, I changed this: "At this school he met Paul McCartney, one year older, who played in a band called The Quarrymen." Paul and George met before Paul joined the Quarrymen. I am using Miles as my source, but it can be confirmed in many other sources. Carasch (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet

We have seen plenty of evidence of a single person editing this article under many different usernames, a "sock puppet" (WP:SOCK). I'm sure this person means well (most of the edits are cited, and the talk page has occasionally been utilized). However, the contributions are almost always inappropriate and need to be reverted, and worst of all: this person has repeatedly felt the need to create a new user before making the inappropriate edits. As blocking a sock puppet's username does nothing, this article has occasionally had to be protected just to stop this person's damaging behavior.

As a generic IP address: [5] A few days later as "Yayaha": [6]
As "Uduud": [7] Later the same day as "Russia1010": [8]
As "Kadaolsa": [9] Later the same day as generic IP address: [10] Then still later as "Sprussia": [11]
As "Dmerkurev444": [12] Later the same day as "Uclad1611": [13]

Sock Puppet, if you are reading this, please educate yourself by learning the Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:List of policies. Please create ONE username and always log on with that one. prhartcom (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to to do the research on this Prhartcom. A few other accounts for this sock include "Russia1010", "Sp1955" and "Rarara1111". These are all related to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmerkurev/Archive discussed above. That is one reason that this sockers edits have to be removed, including those made here on the talk page. Now I think that George was a special musician and person but this editor seems to idolize him. I keep waiting for him/her to claim that George was created by Immaculate Conception. I am not sure what the best way to proceed is. Should we reopen the sockpuppet investigation or should we ask for full protection for this page for a few days? If one of the admins who has this page on their watchlist has a suggestion please leave a note of advice here for us. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion with the sock puppet at User talk:Sp1955, where we emphatically ask the sock puppet to never again create another user account. Also, I point out that to edit Wikipedia, competence is required.
By the way, the sock puppet is the subject of the nonsensical problem edits above, made over one year ago. [14] prhartcom (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
[15] --Prhartcom (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand-parents

Out of four grand-parents, three seem to have been born in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

John French, Louise Woollam, Henry Harrison and Jane Thompson were the grand-parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New edits?

Note: The next person speaking is (again) the sock puppet discussed above. —Prhartcom 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking over the George Harrison's recent edits. Do we need to include the grand-parents? Also there a couple of reference mistakes. Also I noticed someone wanted to add Gibson magazine's assessment of the guitarists (Harrison comes in number 11). I think this is reasonable. One last thing: very recently someone was asked to enter Harrison's induction into the International Songwriters Association? I think this is also important. Roseindela (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've had to fully-protect this article for the minimal time I consider worthy for current disputes to be sorted out. Editors are at risk of being blocked for edit-warring. I'll just say this: It is up to the editor seeking to add content to justify it. This is not going to be achieved by edit summaries, as I have seen, and the issue needs to be thrashed out here. If there is no consensus here, there are other venues. Rodhull andemu 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Harrison/Archive_3&oldid=1140167407"