Talk:Hey Jude/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Jeremy and Marc Sinden

Crowley666 has repeatedly added these two as participants in the promotional video, claiming that they are the only two "positively identified" and "notable in their own right", which is true of other participants in the video. This clearly violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:N. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to add a bit of sourced, interesting, factual information. Someone changes it almost instantly and I AM accused of edit war!!! I am not the one constantly assuming a degree of ownership over the page and so refusing any factual additions to be included. Is this fair? You have given the peculiar reason that there were 'MANY' people in the video, but I seem to be the only person who has gone to the length of checking and then confirming with Mark Lewishon who the two most well-known participants were. And on top of this, one of them turns out to be the ex-Mrs McCartneys boyfriend! I have not found properly sourced names of any other of the 'chorus', or am I wrong? Is that not of interest, let alone and amazing coincidence 40 years later? Isn't that the sort of information that a good encyclopaedia should include and not be blocked as 'trivial'? You would have to chop out one hell of a lot from Wiki if you were too tough on 'trivia'! Crowley666 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you finally decided to discuss rather than edit war. Now, please give the rest of us some time. You've only started adding this info in the last few hours, and the rest of us need some time to find proper sources if they are needed. It's more than a little unfair for you to say you're the "only person who has gone to the length of checking and then confirming" this early in the process. Please wait for the consensus process to occur before repeatedly adding the information. There's more at issue here than whether the information is sourced. As I have repeatedly pointed out, WP:WEIGHT and WP:N are also important. Just because something is sourced does not mean it should be included. Sourcing is the beginning prerequisite for inclusion, but it is not the only one. So again, let's see what emerges in this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies! (Frustrated of New York!) Totally understand, but hope that you agree that it is quite an amazing coincidence! Marc Sinden is apparently the one in a jacket and tie and thick-rimmed spectacles standing on Ringos left and getting more close-ups than anyone else and his brother Jeremy is standing behind him. Funny that Heather was only 8 months old when this was done! Crowley666 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I don't call that trivial. Captainclegg (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial, because it's nothing more than a "did you know?" fact, and as Crowley666 himself said, a mere coincidence. It's not notable in of itself, and it's relevance is very labored (the subject in question being "the ex-Mrs. McCartney's boyfriend"). More importantly, we shouldn't link to copyrighted material used without permission on YouTube. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to take another look at the video, but if I remember correctly, Twiggy was in the video. If that's correct, she is both identifiable and notable. More trivia that isn't in the article, nor should it be. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a wise move to say that "did you know" facts are trivial. Where would you end? All facts could be discounted if you follow that reasoning. I am interested who is in the video and I haven't seen it elsewhere, so this would be a useful addition. User:WesleyDodds & Ward3001 do appear a bit snobby about what they think should be included. This should be exactly what Wiki is about. Don't discourage factual input. Encourage it. But I would like to ask User:Crowley666 where he found this out? Careinthecommunity (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I take offense at having an accusation of being "snobby" leveled at me. It's not quite a personal attack, but it's close. WesleyDodds and I are, in good faith, basing our arguments on Wikipedia policy. I realize that there can be disagreement about how specifically to interpret some policies, which is the very reason we are having this discussion. But it is not snobbery. Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, just because something is "factual" doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The "facts" are not at issue here. No one is disputing whether the Sinders are in the video. The concern is whether their appearance is notable enough to include them in the article and no one else. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple really: I was listening to WNYM here in NYC on the 40 anniversary of Hey Jude and they quoted from an article about Marc Sinden being in the original video. so they phoned him on air! and he confirmed it and said that they each received a signed photo of the beatles as payment and he had gotten his contract framed with the photo. This got me thinking so I found his website and sent him an email. he replied that it was true and that mark lewishon had asked him for a copy of the contract which he had sent to him. i still think this is interesting material. incidentally i never said that it was a "mere coincidence" I said it was "an amazing coincidence" and "the subject in question" is apparently a bit more than just "the ex-Mrs. McCartney's boyfriend"! at least i have started to find out who the people are, 40 years on. I have just watched it again and i can't see twiggy anywhere. agree about youtube though. Crowley666 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you did is original research, by the way. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I reported research by the Liverpool Echo and WNYM. If you read what I said you would see that I have not used/published my correspondence with Sinden, otherwise that would have come under original research. Crowley666 (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise to User:Ward3001 if you take offence at being called "a bit snobby", though it is perhaps a little-overly sensitive. However it is infuriating, as Crowley666 says, that certain people take it on themselves to 'police' Wiki without any formal position so to do and act as some sort of definitive guardian of the truth, seemingly 'protecting' their pages. Is this not a communal forum? As for the Sindens (not Sinders - thats a pantomime isn't it?) 'notability' for inclusion, I would suggest that it goes without saying: Just Google them to see their degree of accepted notability. As for "including them and no one else", then may I suggest we include them and hope that, like Crowley666 has done, someone continues to attempt to identify the people concerned, so they too can be included. What a coup that would be. Why not ask Sinden himself? I'm sure he would have remembered Twiggy at the height of her 60s fame! Careinthecommunity (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to be "infuriated", but there is no "policing" Wikipedia here. This is a discussion that is perfectly in line wih WP:CON and WP:TALK. If you think that is "policing", you might want to take it up on the talk pages for those policies. How else do you think issues are settled on Wikipedia? Other encyclopedias have an editorial staff that decides these things. On Wikipedia, it's done by policies, discussion, and consensus.

Google hits by no means equate with notability, especially out of the contex of the Hey Jude video. We probably can get lots of hits for a number of the participants in the video; that does not make them notable for this particle article. The Sindens may have notability for other articles on Wikipedia, but notability in a case like this is done on a page by page basis. I see no reason why these particular participants are more notable than others in the video. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying "others in the video", but as yet no one has successfully named any of the "others in the video" who appear. As such I would say that that alone is worthy of their inclusion. However I did not mean Google hits, but the Sindens notability and fame in their chosen professions, which appears unarguable. This makes them notable over and above Wiki. Careinthecommunity (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Twiggy. Notable "over and above Wiki", but does not belong in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Twiggy not positively identified yet. I would say that it DOES belong in the article. I am sorry to be blunt, but your tone does smack of dictating, not discussing. Careinthecommunity (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, ive been following this and i tend to agree with careinthecommunity. the general tone is not one of debate and im interested in who is in the video. it seems some people dont want there precious page upset by interesting facts 86.164.87.6 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001 - YOU seem to be the only person mentioning Twiggy here yet you have not shown any proof, only 'if I remember correctly', but are happy to stop including names that have been proved. Weird. Captainclegg (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, can we have the info restored so we can all see it now please? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been achieved yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So how long do you normally have to wait before people just let info be published and stop unnecessary spats? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Picking up ward3001's statement, at least on other encyclopaedias the editorial staff are appointed for their knowledge or expertise and are open about who they are and why they got the job. This is where wiki looses out. We don't know who these self-appointed editors are, what their agenda is or why they want to stifle interesting input. Almost all academics I know encourage and enjoy new, informed addition to the original work and do not hide behind rules that are either indecipherable or just vacillation. Smacks of protectionism. Captainclegg (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent. Please let's discuss the material itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we if you won't publish it? Put it up there and if people can disprove it or add to it, great. That's where the public forum should be. Rules are meant to set us free, not to hide behind. I haven't read anyone here say this story is not true or accurate, only are the Sindens notable? Duh. Read about them. Google them. Ive heard of them before I heard of wiki! Of course theyre notable. Now PLEASE let us see how the fit into Hey Jude. 86.164.87.6 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could I just go back to the start of this and point out that (1.) so far I seem to be the only person who has positively identified anyone from the video (2.) they happen to be (now) very well known in their own fields and (then) are also the sons of a V famous actor (3.) as an American I am aware of who they are and their 'notability' and I imagine the same would be said for any UK-based readers (I have asked several of my UK based friends - they all knew who they are) and (4.) I still cannot understand the REAL reason that this information is being blocked. I don't think I should have to PROVE why facts should be included. I think certain people should show why they do NOT want the information published. Crowley666 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for putting the info back in. That's my vote. Careinthecommunity (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - lets see it. re-instate. 86.164.87.6 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously Im all for it being included. But I still cannot understand User:Ward3001 questioning the subjects 'notability'. Personal preference perhaps? Nothing else logical that I can imagine. Lets see if there are any other 'notable' people in the video and include that as well. Crowley666 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Please lets have the info published asap. Captainclegg (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as the only person blocking this addition to the truth has gone silent, when can we see the article restored? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have full source information for this citation? Author name and article name are needed, if available. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden wrote to me saying that he had already talked at some length to Mark Lewishon (the acknowledged expert) and stated that there were "at least 12 takes of a 9 minute version" filmed. I can assure you that it would have gone down in movie history if only 2 takes had been combined. Remember this sort of 'performance' filming was in its infancy then. Crowley666 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite your fondness for original research, it is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. So you have not answered WesleyDodds' question. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was specifically asking for the author and article name for the Daily Mail citation used to verify that the Sindens are in the video. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't make it clear it was the Daily Mail details you wanted. The details are publisher: Daily Mail (Associated Press). author: Angela Brooks. article: Relative Values. date: 6 Dec 1994. As you can see, I had inadvertently entered the incorrect date in the Hey Jude page. I have since corrected it. I muddled it with a different article about the Sindens. Hope that now answers your question and satisfies you both. But a question... why the disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film? Do you not find it strange that it has taken so long for it to happen. On the law of averages, one of the participants HAD to end up as note-worthy! Crowley666 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"why the disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film?": Lest you overreact to the following comments as offensive, remember that you asked the question. You could have answered WesleyDodds concern and left it at that. And if you ask a question, don't take offense if someone tries to answer it. You continue to misunderstand other editors' good faith efforts to abide by Wikipedia policies. You don't appear to fully grasp that the concerns of other editors are about following those policies, and that the disputes have nothing to do with the Sindens personally. It has to do with maintaining a well-sourced, neutral article. It may or may not be your intention to promote the Sindens (from your edit history my impression is that is the case), and that's acceptable as long as it leaves the article well-sourced and neutral. Yes, you may have a reliable source (I haven't actually checked it), but you have repeatedly (in the article and here) attempted to expand the information to include POV and original research. As the article stands right now I think the information about the Sindens is appropriate, but that doesn't mean some of us didn't have to defend Wikipedia policies to keep it that way. Just because we're trying to follow those policies doesn't mean we have a "disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film". We have a distrust of anything that does not conform to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Ward3001 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your informative and measured explanation and I take no offence. However, you are the first editor to explain it so lucidly. For the record I am not in any way trying to 'promote' any of the Sindens, its just that when I started this I picked on a few subjects that I had an interest in, found the articles sorely lacking in much detail, beyond the born/appeared in/died type of stuff and have attempted to expand them with well-sourced and neutral information. I take your point about Original Research, even though I found that process exhilarating - after all I work in a University here! The articles that I worked on often had a common thread, but there is no personal interest to them (although I am a fan of good English actors - hence the Sindens!) but I am finding that it takes up a huge amount of time so I am going to sit-back a bit now. But I'm grateful for your guidance and keep up the good work. Crowley666 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have replaced a missing word (actors) that I am sure was deleted in error and as you can see clarified. I do hope that you agree it is now clearer and should satisfy everyone's wishes! Crowley666 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

there is a photo that ive never seen before of david frost filming his introduction published in todays liverpool daily post (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-special-features/2009/03/06/marc-sinden-on-john-lennon-we-were-in-the-presence-of-god-92534-23077241/) can someone download it and use it in the article? the interview gives a lot more info than the wiki paragraph does. i just used the bit about the sindens as there is so much debate about them here (mentioned in the press article) thats got to be a first - mentioning a wiki talkpage! Biggusdikus (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

to WesleyDodds hi bro, if you don't like the wording i put in change it. dont just cut the whole truth out. baby - bathwater so on! Biggusdikus (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful when editing as not to confuse what material is cited by what source; various citations were placed improperly. Also, the sentence about Cliff Richard is nonsensical. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds IS EDIT-WARING, AND REMOVING LEGITIMATE EDITS AND INCLUSIONS SOURCED FROM NEW MATERIAL. PLEASE USE TH E DISCUSSION FORUM BEFORE YOU TAKE OVER AN ARTICLE. READING PREVIOUS NOTES WESLEYDODDS SEEMS TO BE CLAIMING THIS ARTICLE AS HIS OWN. THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT FACT-BASED. HE HAS ALSO REMOVED AN EDIT-WARING NOTICE FROM HIS USER PAGE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. THIS IS A COMMUNITY FORUM NOT A SOLO PROJECT AND FACTS BACKED BY SOURCES CAN BE INCLUDED. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE WORDING - DISCUSS IT. DONT EXCISE IT. PLEASE CAN I HAVE SUPPORT HERE FROM OTHER USERS. SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT HERE. Biggusdikus (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't write in all-caps. Really, the only thing that's still gone is the Cliff Richard sentence, which was garbled English and made no sense. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Biggusdikus, something is not right here. Why is WesleyDodds continually removing all references to Cliff Richard? The article quoted is clear enough - so is the sentence that biggusdikus used. If it isn't, re-word it don't just cut it. Also, I can't see any reference to an edit-waring notice... If this was placed, can it just be deleted? Biggusdikus first edit was the one that is more informative and should be used. Community Project remember. Captainclegg (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There was only one mention to Cliff Richards and it made no sense. Biggusdikus is referring to a notice he left on my user page, and then on my talk page. I removed the notice on my page because I saw it twice (placed incorrectly the first time) and I don't plan to revert further (I didn't realize I had reverted that much). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well lets here it for community-forum-people-power! After the last edit in the article by Crowley666 I think it reads really well. Great guys. Careinthecommunity (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice This last statement is particularly ironic, given it turns out that four of the users posting were in fact sock puppet accounts belonging to one user pushing an agenda: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captainclegg/Archive for details. So we're back at square one. So, thoughts everyone? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph by Crowley666 as it fits the criteria required for wiki, is well sourced, much better english and contains new info - not from original research. The question is why do editors keep deleting the info? Let it stay until they can show why it should NOT be included. not the other way round. The consensous should be from that angle. It makes me start to question the accuracy of the rest of the article. If they are constantly blocking this info since it was first identified, what else have they not allowed? sock puppet accounts are wrong and irritating, but I can't see anyone saying that the info is not correct. Mobydick123 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hey whats happening? i was reading this and a whole entry about 2 editors surpressing facts was deleted. who the h*** has the right to delete from the discussion page? if they cant take irony thats tere problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.222 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

just found this in the history. why was this deleted? irony is not inappropriate? its fair comment: "To WesleyDodds & Ward3001: Wow, that was close. You nearly let a properly sourced, well written, neutral, useful & apparently factual bit of information through. You two must be more diligent. I see that you have got him (Crowley666) "barred indefinatly". I think that this is not enough. For someone daring to correct/alter/update YOUR page, they should be publikly flogged. Keep up the good work guys. Keep 'undoing' no matter what. Block anyone elses version of the truth at all costs. The great unwashed can't be allowed to make up their own minds. More power to the few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.81.67 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.222 (talk)

Edit warring

Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks of Captainclegg: You need to stop edit warring and wait for a legitimate consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — John Cardinal (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my word yesterday that I would not create or use any 'sock' accounts. I have kept to my word and so do not appreciate being accused of breaking my word. I am not connected in any way with "Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks". This is now dissolving into a personal & libellous attack. Please cease and desist. If you continue to inaccurately accuse me of lying I will report you for making personal, unfounded attacks. I am copying this to your individual talk pages as well and would appreciate an apology. I have however left a question on the consensus, but otherwise am staying out of this. Captainclegg (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How can there be a consensus if you keep deleting? and I am not a sock of anyone thank you. Mobydick123 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

After all that

Sinden still doesn't get a mention. Personally, I want to know who the young lady is on McCartney's left. :)--andreasegde (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been achieved to include the info that was being blocked, so it is now in. Crowley666 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)