Talk:Hey Jude/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Legit Consensus

I vote we leave it out. Multiple people think it's not notable and so far it appears that only one person thinks it is. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your maths is wrong, but if that is the consesus... please explain why you are cutting all the other info though? Mobydick123 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am staying out of this debate, except that there is a fundamental question: When you say "I vote we leave it out", what is 'it'? Would you please explain exactly what this consensus is attempting to do? Are you wishing to: a)ban all reference to the Sindens. b)ban all reference to Cliff Richard. c)ban all reference to how many takes were made. d)ban all reference to who is identified as in the video. e)ban all reference to incidents that happened during the filming. f)ban all reference to Ringo Starr's return to the group. g)ban the entire paragraph? All of these are sourced, but you have not specified what the consensus is for, precisely. Captainclegg (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Mobydick123 you or not? Other than that, I'd rather not discuss this with you. I think your second chance should start somewhere else. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:31, 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) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

intereseting - no answer to Captainclegg's question. smells fishy. i vote to leave the paragrapgh in. ive read it now and its good, sourced, accurate. thats my vote. 87.82.81.67 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My vote: Leave it out. And I'm not discussing the issue with puppetmasters and their socks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion to leave it out. It's verifiable, but it's little more than trivia, and not too relevant to the article as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what is the answer to the Captainclegg question? Which part of the entry are we voting on to keep and which part are we voting to delete? 86.133.199.210 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a clear answer would be good. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As Tvoz has often said, this is "not a paper encyclopedia", so what one person thinks is trivia might not be to fans of The Beatles. Put it all in, because we’re not talking about Jane Goody here, but an historical moment in time.--andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry but thats a REALLY arrogant answer from WesleyDodds! its info i didn't know & thats what wiki does: inform. whats "trivia" to you is info to me. re-list it is my vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.56.42 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the LEAST arrogant about WesleyDodds' comments. He expressed his opinion about the relevance of the information, which is exactly what you did. Let me suggest that you take your tone down a few notches and confine your comments to the issue rather than to other editors. Ward3001 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

MY opinion is that his attitude about the ISSUE IS arrogant. kindly don't tell me to 'tone down' i don't appreciate it. 78.105.56.42 (talk)

not too relevant? how can sourced facts that werent mentioned before be not too relevant? Ringo returns for this? Cliff Richard & Frost film intro? People included named? Back in the USSR heard? not too relevant As Captainclegg said which bit dont you like? i vote put it all in 86.133.199.210 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

why the censorship? its new news! im with andreasegde. put it back in the article please 94.194.100.228 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying, but for the record, that I am voting to relist the paragraph in its entirety. Captainclegg (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A precautionary note

I have absolutely no problem if the consensus is to include the information. What concerns me much more, however, is that five of the editors commenting here are anons, none of whom have more than five edits each, and three of whom have only edited this talk page. After a very serious problem with sockpuppetry on this matter, here is my concern: If a handful of anons can sway a consensus like this so easily, what else can they do, especially to Beatles-related articles. I have a lot of respect for several of the registered editors on both sides of this issue. I ask that everyone give some serious thought to what is going on here, regardless of any consensus that might emerge. Ward3001 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

as one of the 'anons' you mention i have been part of the wiki community for 4 years, have never created an account - deliberate- and also only ever use public access computers so no, you will not ever see my list of edits 78.105.56.42 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, "public access computers" make no distinction in whether a sockpuppet or legitimate editor is using them. They can be used by multiple users, including sockpuppets. They are an easy way for a puppetmaster to evade a block -- for a while, anyway. Also for the record, all the anon IPs editing here are based in London. I realize London is a big place, but I wouldn't be concerned if the IPs were distributed over a much wider geographic range. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

your sounding a bit paranoid! your the one who wants the article blocked. sounds like your problem to me. 86.133.199.210 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

+ i would be happier if the sole person blocking was not in north carolina, but was "distributed over a much wider geographic range". fatuous comment? yup, but a quote. 86.133.199.210 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you don't get the point here. I really don't have a problem at all if the information is restored to the article (although my opinion is to leave it out). As JohnCardinal states below, if andreasegde (whose opinion I value, especially regarding The Beatles) restored the information, I wouldn't give it another thought. The point you don't get is that this particular issue goes far beyond the specific information in the article. It pertains to sockpuppetry and vote-stacking, very egregious acts on Wikipedia. I don't trust puppetmasters, even when they have been given a second chance by a lenient admin. If a puppetmaster uses socks to sway a consensus in one article, he will do it in other articles. My concern goes beyond Hey Jude. My concern is with the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. (And by the way your statement "fatuous comment" is a personal attack. Consider this your first warning.) Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm getting seriously ticked off here. I am being accused of being behind everything. Any moment now I fully expect to be accused of being behind Kennedys assassination! On 9 March I admitted to having "multiple accounts". I had made a mistake, I apologized publicly and gave my word that I would not repeat such a stupid action. I was unblocked the following day. I have kept to my word. Now (15 March) I read that User:Ward3001 is STILL going on about it. If I register my legitimate vote (as I did) on the Hey Jude matter I am accused of getting involved and if I stay silent (which I had done) I am accused obliquely of being behind every IP user who has an opinion on the subject at hand on Wikipedia. I can't win. I am NOT a puppetmaster. I am NOT running any sockpuppets. I do NOT have multiple accounts any more. I have NEVER edited other than through my account. I am NOT, as I have said before, Mobydick or any IP addresses shown in this debate. I am NOT responsible for anyone else’s opinion on this debate. If someone could please tell me how I can prove that I am not anyone else, I would be very grateful. User:Ward3001: On the 11 March you responded to the administrator Lucasbfr that you “don't have it in for Captainclegg”. Your subsequent and continued attacks show this not to be accurate. This is grotesquely unfair, unwarranted and now getting to the point of a personal attack and harassment. I am sure that this must be an offence in the Wiki community. If anyone knows the specific offence, will they please let me know? In any other media I would have recourse to the law... Some of the community seemingly disagree with your standpoint. Don’t impotently blame me for that. It’s not my fault. Get over it - please! It is a distraction from what should be being discussed. Captainclegg (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clegg, get ticked off all you want. You have a lot brazen insolence just saying something like that on this particular talk page. I don't consider you a part of this discussion, and as I have told you on your talk page, you hung yourself; no one did it to you. You want to know what is "grotesquely unfair": Your horrific sockpuppety. "Get over it"? You get over it. Stop whining and move on to something else. Take your own advice and stay out of this. You didn't get your way by your incredible sockpuppetry, and you're not getting your way by complaining here. And that's my last comment to you here unless you violate other Wikipedia policies. In my opinion, you don't exist on this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

can we get back to the point please? maybe there are fab four fans like me out there who just want to read the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. the piece is seemingly true, sourced and untill someone proves it wrong - accurate. i vote to return it to the article 94.194.100.228 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... If we object to 5 IP editors with no edit history except on this page, maybe we'll change our minds when there are 6?

I am not in North Carolina and I voted to leave "it" out. I didn't respond to Captainclegg because I don't think he should be part of this discussion in any way given his admitted use of sock puppets to sway the prior consensus. I have no objection if the new consensus is to include the information, but in this particular case, I think IP editors should be ignored because of the recent incident. The edit history of those editors is very, very suspicious.

In general, I don't care very much either way about the inclusion or exclusion of the material, though with the exception of Ringo's presence, I think it's trivial. I feel very differently about the sock puppetry. Wikipedia uses consensus to resolve many issues and when someone uses puppets to subvert that process it's a serious integrity issue. Any editor might make a mistake and write something rash, but it takes premeditation to create sock puppet accounts, guile and bad intentions to use them. I think Captainclegg's general ban should have been longer and upon his return he should have been precluded from ever editing the Hey Jude page or adding/editing content about the Sindens. Unfortunately, the decision wasn't up to me.

By my count, there's one registered editor who wants some or all of the content added back in: andreasegde. Luckily for the people who want to see content restored, he's got roots around this project and deserves respect for what he's done to improve Beatle-related articles. If he or some other registered editor with similar experience were to add something back, I wouldn't revert or object... — John Cardinal (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if we only have three or four registered editors contributing to this discussion, we should post a notice at WikiProject The Beatles to seek additional opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion is whether to retain the information restored here, I don't see it as too trivial. I trust Lewisohn as a source, but have no opinion of the others. If the sources are deemed okay, I would suggest leaving it in. It still took a while to figure out what text you were talking about. If you could make that clear, you'd get more useful comments from new voices. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. So you can make an informed decision, the following is the 'offending' paragraph that is constantly deleated: The Beatles hired Michael Lindsay-Hogg to shoot the "Hey Jude" promotional film (he had previously directed a 'promo' film for "Paperback Writer") and they settled on the idea of filming with a live, albeit controlled audience. Hogg shot the film at Twickenham Film Studios on 4 September 1968, with McCartney himself designing the set. Tony Bramwell, a friend of the Beatles, later described the set as "the piano, there; drums, there; and orchestra in two tiers at the back." The event is also memorable as it marked Starr's return to the group after a two-week hiatus, during which he had announced that he had left the band.[1] The eventual, final film was a combination of several different takes (twelve having been filmed during the entire days session, according to the actor Marc Sinden who was in the film along with his brother Jeremy)[2][3] and included filmed 'introductions' to the song by David Frost (who introduced the Beatles as "the greatest tea-room orchestra in the world")[4] and Sir Cliff Richard, for their respective, eponymous TV programmes.[2] As filming wore on, Lennon repeatedly asked Lindsay-Hogg if he had the footage he needed. After twelve takes, McCartney said, "I think that's enough" and filming concluded.[2] It was first aired on 8 September 1968 and the film was later broadcast for the United States on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on 6 October 1968.[5] Footage of the performance can be seen in the Anthology DVD series and on YouTube. And the source material here: 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/ 94.194.100.228 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the material is it gives undue weight to two guys who are simply standing in the background, not actively doing anything do do with the topic of the article. This is an article about "Hey Jude" and things pertaining to "Hey Jude", not "people with a tangential connection to the article subject". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The little one-liner about who was in the audience has a reference. I am the first to delete anything without a reference, but I would never delete anything with one. If we deny that, then let's pack up the deckchairs and go home.--andreasegde (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article content is supposed to be both notable and verifiable. There is certainly a relationship between those two characteristics; if something is documented then it's more likely it's notable than if it is not documented. Still, there are notable things that aren't verifiable, and verifiable things that aren't notable. If we respect both requirements, the deck chairs can stay in place! <g> At one point, the paragraph included which song was recorded on the day following the "Hey Jude" filming. That's verifiable via Lewisohn and other sources, but (IMO) it's not notable. We could also verify what song they recorded before, what song they recorded a week later, what song has the same letters in the title as "Hey Jude", what songs were recorded on the same day of the week. What is notable is harder to pin down than what is verifiable, and consensus is often used when editors differ about it. — John Cardinal (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the point at issue is not a debate over if the Sinden brothers should be included in the article or not, but how to include the significant information that the Liverpool article about the Sinden's involvement in Hey Jude has given us. Previously we did not have the filming dates, the fact of how many 'takes' there were, that Cliff Richard & Frost filmed their intros in advance, Ringos return etc. It has to be acknowledged that prior to the source being located, the previous entry was woefully inadequate. Now, little bits are being dribbled in from the new source, such as Lennon’s & McCartney’s quotes for instance, which weren't there before. Why not just put the whole para (as above) back in and not piece by piece? As for the WesleyDodds comment: "two guys who are simply standing in the background", well the same could legitimately be said about a VW Beetle on the cover of Abbey Road! 94.194.100.228 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Equating the Sindens with the Abbey Road photo is absurd. The photo, including the VW Beetle, became iconic. The photo has permeated our culture, has been discussed and parodied, and the VW Beetle was even included in the Paul is dead rumors that swept the world. The Sindens are just two guys among dozens of people standing in the background of one Beatles video. Ward3001 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One question I want answered: were these guys already famous when the video was filmed? Because if they weren't it was just some lucky break that they showed up, and doesn't add anything to the notabiliy of the video shoot itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No they were not, although some anons here will likely claim they were (20/20 hindsight). All of this tempest in a teapot is about a coincidence that has been blown WAY out of proportion to its significance. Ward3001 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, occasionally an IP tries to act the fact that some guy who eventually joined the band Fear Factory appeared in the the audience for the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (among, like, a hundred other people). This is removed because it's trivial to the video itself and it doesn't add to anyone or anything's notability. it's just a conincidence. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the Sinden's as a source for the information provided - even if they are not "notable" in themselves, I believe the information they provide is. Those are the two issues that I think are critical here: 1) is the information the Sinden's provide notable and 2) are they good sources? Their notablility (outside the context as reporters of this event) is beside the point. The paragraph above is not claiming they are notable, only that they are the sources, (John User:Jwy talk) 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The debate is not over whether or not their accounts about being there are accurate. That's established. The question is whether or not mentioning that they were there is necessary for this article. I doubt it would be necessary even for their biographical articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Necessary, no. Useful in establishing the type of source, maybe. But if that's what the argument is about, I'm dropping out as its not worth arguing about either way (IMHO). (John User:Jwy talk) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to WesleyDodds's question: No, I do not think that either of the Sinden's were famous then. According to the source article they were only 14 & 18 at the time and were only present because of a tenuous link with a school-friends father. Their sole 'claim to fame' then would have been having a famous actor father. Their own fame came it seems later on and Mark Sindens notoriety from his "friendship" with the ex-Mrs McCartney! In a spirit of consiliation and compromise, can I suggest that the line "according to the actor Marc Sinden who was in the film along with his brother Jeremy" is dropped, but the source reference is retained and that the rest of the article (restored above} be published? This would I think satisfy all the editors and retain the new material that is properly sourced and of historic interest. Win-Win. Arguments (becoming increasingly fractous) closed. Good one, huh? 94.194.100.228 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually interested in who was there. The line about "Anything new coming out?", and Lennon playing "Back In The USSR" as an answer (which is a McCartney song) is very revealing. If you have books about who played which guitar, which studio, how many takes it took, and CDs about the idle chatter between songs (even on Anthology) then it is logical to assume that people are interested in these things. Somebody bought them, after all (as I did) or they wouldn't have released them. Why restrict, and not fully detail? It's not a paper encyclopedia...--andreasegde (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the bright ones among you will notice that I am not logged in with my username, but am only giving my IP address to show support for the shameful way 94.194.100.228 (talk) has been treated in this talk. And no I too am not Captainclegg (talk) either. To save the Wikipedia CheckUsers using up to much time, let me inform them that I am operating my own computer in St James's district in Barbados and I am an ex-pat and Wiki editor of 2 1/2 years standing. I am exercising my right to vote in this matter. I am with andreasegde (talk), relist the info. Who watches the watchmen otherwise? Better knowledge than censorship. Why is this consensus taking so long? 65.48.132.153 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's taking so long for two reasons. First, Clegg decided to ruin an otherwise legitimate discussion with despicable sockpuppetry. Secondly, sometimes a consensus takes a long time (if it is ever achieved) because that's the way life (and Wikipedia) goes. By the way, many of us are ignoring the opinions of anons in this discussion, so if you want your opinion to count, stop hiding and log in (unless, that is, you have an ulterior motive, such as being Clegg, or you've already expressed your opinion logged in and are now trying to votestack). Ward3001 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I stand by my previous comment. Taking away Cleggs "despicable sockpuppetry" and I totally agree with your feelings there, his/her points and new info are valid though and I think should be included. "Many of us" - a little cabal being organized perhaps? Not something to shout about. You forgot to add to your reasons for delay: stonewalling, filibustering and hoping an issue will go away! 65.48.132.153 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget "stonewalling, filibustering and hoping an issue will go away". You contrived them. And obviously the consensus does not agree with you. Cabal? No, a reaction to the mess that Clegg created. Ward3001 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A "mess" or not, the info Clegg has sourced is still new, important and has not been included anywhere else. As andreasegde (talk) has said, I'm interested and would rather have the info in my domain than being arbitrarily stopped by an editor who appears to be delaying publishing legitimate info for some reason. I suggest that 94.194.100.228 (talk) suggestion is reasonable and serves all parties. Publish the info in full, let the readers decide. "Why restrict, and not fully detail? It's not a paper encyclopedia..." 65.48.132.153 (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it is "important" is a matter of opinion. And in cases where there is disagreement, the issue of notability is determined by consensus, a nice Wikipedia policy that you may have forgotten about. And when something is determined by consensus (as is the case here), contrary to your poorly formed opinion, it is not "arbitrarily stopped by an editor". And consensus is also not determined by how many times someone (i.e., you, or a sockpuppet) can repeat the same thing over and over. So unless a consensus emerges here, or there are other policy violations, I do not intend to argue back and forth with you as you repeatedly say the same thing for which there is no consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How interesting that another IP editor with no edits except to this page is in favor of adding the material back in! — John Cardinal (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read my reasoning (printed above and perfectly clear) for not including my IP address (my right, by the way) before making ill-informed statements. 65.48.132.153 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just included a factual, uncontentious, compromise version of the Promo film paragraph to suit all tastes. The Sindens name has been removed but the source retained, just as 94.194.100.228 suggested. All editors: Please watch to see what happens next and if it is just the facts that are being suppressed for unexplained reasons. I say no more. 65.48.132.153 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)