Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Did The Beatles do LSD, marijuana, etc.?

This is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Did the Beatles actually do these drugs, or what? If they did, it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.190.52 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so did everybody and all their brothers in the 60s. Zazaban (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Drug use hardly sets The Beatles apart from other performers in the 60s. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What did Robin Williams say? If you actually remember the '60s, you weren't really there? Drugs are part of the Beatles' story: the early use of amphetamines; Dylan introducing them to pot; Paul's public admission of LSD use; the influence on their music. However, the Beatles' use was not unique for the time. I'll need to go through the article again since I can't remember what is actually written about this, but addressing the drug use, within context, has a place, but not in a moralizing tone. There's plenty written about their drug use and the impact on the music, so sourcing is not an issue. freshacconcispeaktome 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One thing that has to be understood also, is that "recreational drugs" were not freely available in the UK in the early 60s, high grade grass in particlar, you had to be rich to lay your hands on them. Keith Richards reports paying £20 for one hit of heroin (the weekly wage of a Bank Manager) "Joe Public" contary to popular belief were not off their heads on drugs during the '60s. Recreational drugs for ordinary people were booze, pep pills and downers that they conned from their GPs, they did not have the access or the money to class A drugs like The Beatles and the Stones which was the reason a special task force from Scotland Yard targeted them. A lot of ordinary people were there, and remember the '60s! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Their drug use is mentioned in the McCartney and Lennon articles, so it should be here. "Got to Get You into My Life" being one clear example. --andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is, it should be well-sourced, limited to one or two sentences, and confined to the time frame when The Beatles were active, not their post-Beatles drug use. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Very true, as it seems that most of their drug use was when they were together. Prellies, cocaine, LSD, heroin - they had the lot, and weren't afraid to talk about it. --andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, thinking about this leads me to think that there could be a whole article for it; the songs they wrote about drugs (numerous) the incidents (Abbey Road rooftop with George Martin for one) arrests, and interviews (McCartney and his LSD use). Opinions?... --andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I reckon we could, I mean they had a task force from 1212 Scottish Place target them and wasn't there a bent bizzie from it caught plantng drugs on them? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he (Pilcher?) copped/served a few years for planting evidence... --andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the blighter alright! Sargent Norman Pilchard of the Yard! Pity he didn't have better things to do, like run around after feckin Cockneys puting out their skips that their little scally kids set fire to - probley be another soon - anyone would think we were at their beck an 999 call! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Love - double Grammy winner

There should be mention of the Beatles' Grammy winners, including Love, which won two awards last night. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then put it in, why don'tcha ya? --andreasegde (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, the article is protected, and my work computer rejects cookies. But since you've volunteered me, you're welcome to do it in my stead. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg

Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Liverpudlian/Liverpool

  • They were from Liverpool, and as it is jokingly called, "The Capital of Ireland", the decent thing seems to be to say that they were a band from Liverpool, England. None of them were born in Scotland or Wales (Britain) or born in Northern Ireland (The UK, plus the rest). --andreasegde (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing your point, but isn't "England" part of Britain? Scotland, Wales and England are Britain, and Britain plus Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom? (Or, better put: Northern Ireland is not in Britain, but Britain and Northern Ireland make up the UK). Oh, geographic, national and ethnic semantics. My brain hurts. Why can't you people just come up with one name like we did in Canada?!? freshacconcispeaktome 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the UK is not made up of Provinces or States. The UK is made up of four Constituent Countries. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to confuse us even further? Actually, it's not that different in North America. Ask a Quebecer or Texan where they're from. freshacconcispeaktome 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A new "Beatles' drug use" (or whatever) article

The Beatles and drugs, The Fabs and naughty substances :) Any thoughts? --andreasegde (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

British

It might be fine to lump everything as being British, but that would also mean that Canadians and Mexicans are USA Americans (which both countries would violently disagree with). I have quite a few friends who are Scottish and Welsh, and they would disagree with being treated in such a way. When you are born in a country, then that is what you are. I may be European, but I am English, as my mother can testify. :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I see what you mean. "Britain" is a geographic term for the island, but the political entity is the United Kingdom (if I'm not mistaken), much like North America is a geographic place, made up of three (well, actually more) national entities. Geographically I'm North American, but nationally I'm Canadian. To bring it to this discussion: Groundskeeper Willy is from Scotland, which is in Britain, part of the United Kingdom. But he is Scottish presumably first, British second (since you can't be a United Kingdomer). (Forget that he currently lives in the US, and that, well, he's fictional, which I've always felt that Scots really are). So: what you're saying is that the Beatles are, properly put, English, because they are born in England, which just happens to be in Britain, which is part of the UK. Do you think this is the general feeling of all the Isles? English, Scottish, et al first? freshacconcispeaktome 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Without a doubt, I could never imgagine (nor have I heard) A Scottish or a Welsh Person describe themselves as "British", and the vast majority of people born in England would most certainly refer to themselves as being English, rather than British, irrespective of "British Nationality Law". Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
When someone shows me an English or Scottish passport I'll agree that is the way to go. Until then whatever you think about the way England has changed or home rule for Scotland etc, the choice of descriptor must be British.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)--Egghead06 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So your'e saying that English people or Scottish people don't exist because there isn't an English or Scots passport? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) BTW, West Ham and Led Zeppelin are British too then? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually quite a few people who live in Scotland regard themselves as British according to an ICM poll conducted in 2007. 24% thought they were equally Scottish and British; 5% "more British than Scottish" and 10% "British". Similarly, the vast majority of people in England (who were polled) don't identify themselves as English rather than British (only about 25% were more to the English end of the spectrum. Bluewave (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So, English people and Scottish people don't exsist then, it's all a pigment of me amalgamation? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • One could never write that The Beatles were from Liverpool, Britain. You mention the city they were born in, and the country that city belongs to. (To be pendantic one could say Liverpool, England, The United Kingdom of Great Gritain and Northern Ireland, but I don't think anyone wants that, do they?)
  • You could say that they were a British band from Liverpool, England, but that confuses the situation somewhat.
  • I suspect that the surviving Beatles themselves would disagree with being called an English group (as Lennon and McCartney have Irish family roots).
  • I hear what both of you are saying and technically, you are correct (and you should know). However, and this is the big sticking point that's making this so complicated, in the rest of the world, at least the rest of the English-speaking world, "England", "Britain", "Great Britain" and "UK/United Kingdom" are used interchangeably, right or wrong (obviously wrong). We usually refer to the English as "Brits". And as it's been mentioned above, other terms exist, such as "British Invasion", "BritPop" and "Young British Artists (YBAs)" which sets a world-wide-view precedent. In other words, The Beatles were an English band that launched of British Invasion. It's confusing. I don't know what the answer is. English is correct, but I can't dismiss "British" so easily. I don't think consensus will be reached with this... freshacconcispeaktome 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the point has been lost somewhere. The issue was not Liverpool, England or Liverpool, UK or Liverpool, Britain. It was British or English. I don't think consensus will be reached either and the data will be subjected to endless change which will keep us all entertained! As a matter of interest though is the Wiki Category:English musical groups, one member of which is, The Beatles!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Do I see a sequel to the "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles" debacle? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't think so but if you want some variation on the Liverpool, England/Britain theme, read the article for Frankie goes to Hollywood. They were from the UK!!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
When I talk about the old EMI unit Columbia Graphophone Company, I give the short name of English Columbia instead of British Columbia which is a Canadian province. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the name, the thing they were known for, the city they came from, and then the country. Read the infobox. Of course it was called British Invasion, or Brit-pop, because it looks/sounds better than Eng-pop, UK-pop or English Invasion. Calling them a British pop group smacks of nationalistic fervour, and should be nipped in the bud. Oscar Wilde is described as an Irish poet, but was born to Anglo-Irish parents. Get rid of the flags, folks. --andreasegde (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, who were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I think that is as clear as anyone could want. --andreasegde (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Und das macht sie natürlich Englander! LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ich stimme zu, Feuerwehr Mann. --Oh not him again (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Vas ist line? or ist das vaseline - ooh err it ain't arf 'ot Cliff! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It has now been changed to "The Beatles were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I find this admirable, and I approve this message. --andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this description is now adequate to distinguish them from the other Beatles. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Were The Beatles an "English" band or "British" band?

The question has arisen as to how the Beatles should be described in the lead--whether they should be identified as "English" or "British". I'd like to ask contributors to add or revise the arguments below and to help determine consensus to place a vote (with minimal other commentary/discussion there for ease of counting) in the section below. (British Isles (terminology) may be relevant for understanding the difference between the two terms.) Robert K S (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, see WP:polls are evil. This needs to be discussed not voted on. The term "British" could be applied to Charlotte Church, The Proclaimers, The Undertones, Billy Connolly etc, etc but isn't. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both points, but (a) a poll is a practical way of assessing consensus, in much the same way as an AfD, and (b) all your examples are of artists who are principally known for their regional affiliations within the UK (to try & put it neutrally). --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Requisite post of Wikipedia:Voting is not evil; the intent here was simply to separate the rationales from the numbers of editors agreeing with the two sides to see what overall direction a subsequent discussion should take. (This issue began with the assumption of consensus for one side based on its longevity in the article.) Robert K S (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And don't forget the "nutshell" summary from WP:polls are evil which says that "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care." I think we're all reasonable people who can handle the dangers of a straw poll. There is a discussion happening, and we all realize (I think) that the (so far) "majority" !votes in favour of "British" mean nothing in and of themselves. freshacconcispeaktome 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is not a strong consensus one way or the other in a couple of days, an RfC needs to be posted to get a broader spectrum of opinions than editors who just happen to run across this discussion. No one should "jump the gun" and conclude that there is a consensus just because there are a few more "votes" on one side. In many ways here, as it was decades ago, The Beatles are forerunners of other trends, so a decision here doesn't just affect this article. It's likely to be generalized to many individuals and groups who are associated with Great Britain. Ward3001 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, except for the last part about "many inidividuals and groups". I think a consensus resolution here would really only carry weight as a precedent in similar discussions regarding articles about other British rock groups. Robert K S (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That was my point, if I didn't make that clear. There are many individuals and groups associated with Great Britain. Changes to The Beatles is likely to affect their articles. This is not a small matter. Ward3001 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Individuals are already covered by the guidelines at WP:MOSBIO and British individuals in particular are discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. What we discuss/decide here shouldn't have any effect on articles about individuals one way or another. Robert K S (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. WP:MOSBIO is subject to change, just like any guideline. What happens here can affect articles on bands (and there a lots of bands), and then have an influence on policies for solo musicians. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You're needlessly taking this a step or two further than what is necessary/intended. We're examining whether the Beatles should be referred to as an English band or a British band for the purposes of this article. We're not trying to solve the entire British nationality controversy on Wikipedia. If you're interested in that, try the talk page for MOSBIO. Robert K S (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply asked that no one jump to a conclusion of consensus without an RfC. You're the one who had to get your last word in by taking issue with something. I will stop editing this entire section if you will. But I doubt that you can do that. Ward3001 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Forcing a choice as if they were mutually exclusive. Was Johnny Cash an Arkansan or a Merkin?Jatrius (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved to more logical chronological position. According to his article, Johnny Cash was American. I doubt he'd have been called a pubic wig, which is what a merkin is. Nobody is forcing a choice here because although UK and Britain are roughly the same, they are not exactly the same. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for "English"

  • All four Beatles were from England, a subset of the United Kingdom, making "English" a more precise and not incorrect adjective for the band.
  • "English" was stable in the article for at least all of 2007.
  • Many other articles for English bands use "English" instead of "British".
  • Many bands are identified as Scottish (e.g. Simple Minds, Franz Ferdinand) or Welsh (Lostprophets), therefore having other bands British would mean these should be described as British too.
    • (Counterargument: What's decided for the Beatles wouldn't necessarily apply to every band in Great Britain, just as there is no consensus for enforcing uniformity for nationalities of Britons in biographical articles. However, it would serve as a precedent for the articles of bands like Oasis, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, and other British Invasion and Britpop groups.)
      • (Rejoinder to counterargument: First of all, I think the counterargument [and my reply here] should be deleted because we could keep countering the arguments, counterarguments, counter-counterarguments endlessly. It's POV-pushing to put a negative in the pro-section for "English", especially when it's added by a proponent of the "British" term (conveniently unsigned). It's fine with me for someone to delete my comment here if and only if the counterargument above is deleted. That having been said, calling something simply a precedent when it comes to The Beatles misrepresents their impact on so many other musicians, and thereby their influence in Wikipedia articles.) Ward3001 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I just don't agree with the logic that calling one band British means that all bands should be described as British. It's a poor argument and now it has lead to a mess. Robert K S (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Your entire statement immediately preceding this is entirely your POV. You have expressed your vote. Anyone with a sense of fairness would leave it at that. But you can't. You have to have the last word, because your point of view must be heard over all others. If it weren't considered vandalism I would delete the counterarguments. But you started it. And you can't have a simple discussion with everyone weighing in equally. You have to continue tinkering with the system so that it fits your point of view. Let me suggest to someone -- anyone -- that all counterarguments be deleted, including those I have added. And let me suggest to you, Robert K S, that you stop editing this section and let others express their opinions without your constantly trying to get the last word in. And finally, if anyone else agrees with me on any of this, please let Robert K S know on his talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for "British"

  • All four Beatles were of British nationality as subjects of the United Kingdom. "British" is the technically more accurate adjective to describe a citizen of that nation.
    • (Counterargument: It's POV to describe "British" as more accurate. Both are accurate. "English" is more specific.)
  • "English" and "British" carry different connotations in the context of music and the arts movements of the 1960s. The principal music genre into which the Beatles are categorized and the term for other bands of this genre uses "British", not "English". Hence we have British rock, British invasion, British New Wave (in cinema), Britpop, but not "English" those. "British" is the most common descriptor in the literature for bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, etc.
  • "British band" (quotes included) returns 406,000 Google results; "English band" returns 122,000. Include "The Beatles" in the search and the results favor "British" 74,900 to 10,800.
    • (Counterargument: This argument is partially a statistical artifact. There are more British bands than there are English bands.)

Poll

"English"

"British"

  • When and where and on what, did the fabs use a Union Flag? I also see that nearly all the bands that are listed on your page are described as: "English Rock Bands" What say you to that, Fenian Swine:) Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These groups are British. This 'English' thing is creeping in as some nationalistic thing because so many people no longer feel British due to mass immigration and try to hang on to something (in this case an old pop group) which allows them to feel they still belong. It's a dangerous path to take Egghead06 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure to what extent it's relevant here, but ethnic boosterism and the unnecessary insertion of irrelevant ethnicity information in the lead of Wikipedia articles are real problems. WP:MOSBIO guidelines instruct that nationality should be included in the lead but not ethnicity, unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Those guidelines don't necessarily apply to band pages, but in the absence of a similar set of guidelines governing the structure of the lead for articles about musical groups, they should be taken into consideration. See Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. Robert K S (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The culture they drew from was British, rather than specifically English. Point of fact, the primary culture was Scouse - and Liverpool is in the envious position of having very close proximity with Scotland, Ireland and Wales (not Cornwall, though...) Final point; first record (backing Tony Sherridan) was a rocked up Scottish ballad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ old chap, as the culture they musically drew from was totally international (if not mainly American). They loved Elvis, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins and Country music (Ringo mostly) as well as local Music hall and Variety acts.--andreasegde (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A little light humour works wonders - read on...

I vote for a rota system. Change from "British" to "English" and back again once every 7 days. --78.148.228.247 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It’s very important to get the facts right here. Everyone knows that the Beatles were four cockney working class chimney sweeps who grew up in olde Liverpool Town. “Can I write you a song, mister?” the cheeky little urchins would cry out to bowler hatted gentry, until one day they were adopted by a kindly Jewish pickpocket. --Patthedog (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As opposed to middle-class chimney sweeps or upper-class chimney sweeps?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ll tell you what, the chimney sweeps around here are very posh. You should see them all dancing on the rooftops in their top hats and tails.--Patthedog (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The first and last time you will see "Chim-chiamanee, Chim-chiamanee, Chim-chim-charoo", on any Beatles page. I hate musicals... --Dick van Dyke's guilty cock-er-nee conscience (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oi Mush! I ain't 'avin that! 'old it crash bang wallop wota pitcher - 'ows yer Farver? - Brown Bread! Tommy Steele 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oi me droogs? I still don't get your point here? The humour comes later is it? --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don’t knock musicals! What about “There's No Fiddler Like Half a Doodle Dandy” or Cole Porter's musical “Kiss Me Arse”? And of course meaningful lyrics such as “……"all day long I'd biddy biddy bong"…” --Patthedog (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't panic my droog, perhaps you have to be a malenky bezoomny to pony the joke. If you've been to London, you'll viddy it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bet any other project 1,000 thingys that they don't have as much fun as this one. Now let's talk about the Beekles coming from Liddypool, which is part of the European Onion. What do I care? :)) --He's off again... (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to explain my hatred of musicals: Two nice (but highly unlikely) people sitting together, and then all of a sudden the whole bleedin' place goes mad, with people dancing on tables and swinging umbrellas like crazy, but after three minutes everyone sits down and pretends that nothing happened at all. Did they all suffer drug flashbacks or what? I would have to be forced - dragging and kicking - to a supposed Beatles musical, if you don't mind me saying so... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless of course……you were to write it! Think of it like Mel Brooks "The Producers".--Patthedog (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Heaven forbid, then that you should ever have to sit through "Sgt Pepper (the movie)" - I mean, The Bee Gees, Peter Frampton & Frankie Howerd? Do me a favour! And that's without mentioning "All This and World War II". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate myself for asking this, but are there really articles about Beatles' musicals? (In the deep corners of my mind I think I have spied one or two, but I refuse to accept that I have. The Heeby-Gee-Bees and Peter Luncheon are lurking in the shadows, methinks... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Be afraid....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_Universe_(film) --Egghead06 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Bugger, I saw that poster somewhere. Bono and The Edge singing whatever (with the whole cast and extras)... It makes my skin crawl. How can they sleep at night? (Sorry, that was about Paul by John... :) For some strange ego-fuelled reason they think they can do it "Better all the time". A copy of the Mona Lisa is still a copy. Why do they do/try it? The original is always better all the time, as is the book before the film. --andreasegde (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I ask you, have you ever seen "Across the Universe." If you have, then you should note that the movie actually has a plot. While containing Beatles songs in a musical format, it works the song around the plot, which is highly interesting and is not faulty whatsoever. The director did an excellent job in making a Beatles film so intriguing and moving. This is coming from someone who 'as actually seen the movie. Thanks. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kodster! (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon was not a member of The Beatles when they broke up.

He left in 1969, so he should be in 'Former Members' Zazaban 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's departure was not announced to the general public so he did not officially leave The Beatles until McCartney publicly announced the group's breakup.Steelbeard1 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Did the Beatles tour, perform or record without Lennon? How many albums did they release after he left? Who took his place? Listing Lennon as a "former" member would be ridiculous (unless you list them all that way, since technically none of them are current members). Faithlessthewonderboy 01:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather you didn't come in guns loaded to a month old debate. Zazaban 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If I did, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intention. But let's keep things civil, yeah? :) Faithlessthewonderboy 08:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lennon was not a member of the Beatles when they recorded Free As A Bird, however I think the idea of someone being a member of a band isn't as clear cut as people think, apart from bands that can apparently 'sack' members such as East 17 DavidFarmbrough 12:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But Lennon wrote and recorded the song nearly twenty years before the others finished it. Surely you wouldn't say that Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles ft. John Lennon? Faithlessthewonderboy 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I understood they were all members until McCartney's lawsuit at the end of 1970 disbanded the group legally. It's true Lennon withdrew after Abbey Road, and did not record on the group's last session for "I, Me, Mine" at the start of 1970. However he still worked behind the scenes getting "Let It Be" out in 1970 (with collusion from Phil Spector), so I think it's misleading to suggest he left in 1969. He stated his intent to leave, but didn't part ways until the last album was already out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The group broke up because Lennon stated (privately) his intention to leave it. They agreed to make no public announcement until the forthcoming Let It Be album had its run. McCartney violated the agreement in publicly announcing the break-up, and he did so to promote the sales of his first solo record McCartney (recorded in secret) and to jump-start his solo career. He also deliberately mischaracterized the break-up, suggesting that he, McCartney, was the one quitting. In any case, Lennon is no more or less a "former member" than Harrison, Ringo, and McCartney--or for that matter than Sutcliffe and Best. TheScotch (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan didn't introduce them to cannabis?

Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/955196.stm I'll let an expert give the verdict, I don't know which is true, although naturally the Beatles' own words would be better. 85.82.180.82 (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From a previous disscusion (further up this page) you will see that there is some evidence to suggest that they had smoked low grade "cannabis", but this in no way would have been comparable to the high THC content stuff that was available to Dylan and other Americans. It would be like compairing a Shandy to 4 or five double 80 proof Vodka's. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You can read this disscusion under the heading: "Recreational drug use" Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I had searched but I gave up about halfway down the page. But it is still my opinion that it counts as drug use, and should at least be mentioned in the article. Anyway, I won't do anything more about it then, it's up to you guys :) 85.82.180.82 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks, and I apologise for not directing you to the relevant posts in the first place, I was somewhat distracted! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MBEs

Is there really a need for a modern-day image of Buckingham Palace to demonstrate where TB received their MBEs? Maybe one of the TB with the awards, but what's the point of a recent photo of the location? Booglamay (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because trying to get one past the fair-use patrol is impossible. It's from Commons, so it's allowed.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point. What is the point of having a photo of Buckingham Palace in the first place? 68Kustom (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cos that's where you have to go when you are appointed a MBE? H.M. presents you with the Insignia at the palace? She don't pop it in the post? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my point - why make redundant information - there's a link to the MBE page - users can find out about MBEs there. This isn't an article on MBEs, and the paragraph in this article is sufficient. Buckingham Palace is not exclusive to the Beatles, and therefore needn't be included. Booglamay (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Booglamay on this one. Should we insert a photo of the current JFK Airport simply because it was The Beatles' first big entrance into the USA? I understand including images of locations that are associated almost exclusively with The Beatles, such as 3 Savile Row, but if we include images of general locations where they achieved various milestones in their careers, the article will be mostly photos. I realize fair-use images are hard to get, but let's not go overboard and include every fair-use image we can find. Ward3001 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos

There's only one photo of the Beatles taken around 1964. There is no photo of them in their later years with longer hair, but there is a photo of Buckingham Palace, which seems out of place and unnecessary. Would anyone mind if I got replaced the Buckingham Palace photo (of which there is one at the palace article) with a later photo of the Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing the image is free and released under the GDFL with appropriate attributes... yeah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Two points. I think any fair use image of TB after 1964 should be in addition to the 1964 image. Both images are representative of them at different points in their careers. Secondly, although I'm OK with removing Buckingham Palace, you might want to consider other opinions (see above) before doing so. Ward3001 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is a little long, how about adding it to MiszaBot's auto-archiving list, such that discussions with no contributions newer than (say) 30 days get archived automatically? Stephenb (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please.--andreasegde (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added the template at the top (not visible unless the page is edited), archiving any discussions older than 30 days, starting at new Archive 14. Let's see if it works Stephenb (Talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved a lot of old stuff into a new archive and refactored the top of the page so it doesn't seem so cluttered. Miszabot should be able to do the rest, but people do seem to come along and add stuff to old threads, which will prevent this happening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"They've got to buy them before they can burn them"

Taking a quick Google round, I find this attributed to McCartney OR Harrison, but not Lennon. It may take a while to assess the reliability of these sources, but in the meantime the issue should be regarded as moot, and not the subject of edit-warring; that will only end in tears. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unable to find a reliable source outside a blog that says it's McCartney, however, the following all attribute the quote to Harrison:

[1] (Barry Miles, The Beatles Diary) [2] (Craig Cross, The Beatles day by Day) [3] (Jay Warner, On this day in Music History) [4] (Peter Blecha, Taboo Tunes). Whether these all share one source, which may itself not be reliable, is moot. However, as far as WP:V and WP:RS go, we should cite Harrison as the speaker of this quote unless a better source is found. Of the above, I consider Blecha to be the most reliable because at least he cites his sources. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ringo, George, John, Paul.

Who was really the lead singer? John or Paul because in the article it says one thing but in a book about the rock band it said something different. Please respond if you think you truely know. I really love the Beatles different genres of music. If you look where it says genres there is a whole lot listed. Beatlesrock (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the article doesn't identify a lead singer for all of their music. There is no single lead singer. Secondly, Talk pages are for discussions related to improving the article, not for you to express you love of The Beatles. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the short answer is that The Beatles had four lead singers: all four sang lead on most albums. Ringo usually had one lead per LP, often written specifically for him. George had 1 or 2 leads, early on written for him, then later his own songs. I recall seeing an interview with George Martin where he mentioned that at the beginning of their recording career he was trying to decide who should be the lead singer, John or Paul. He then decided that there was nothing wrong with having two lead singers. So, strictly speaking, they had two lead singers, with the other two taking lead occasionally. BTW, I like the "Ringo, George, John, Paul" arrangements of names: it reminds me of the map of the world with Antarctica on "top". It seems wrong, but obviously isn't. freshacconcispeaktome 14:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead singer was whoever was singing lead at the time/on any given song. I suppose nobody has counted how many times Lennon sang lead, as opposed to Macca, but that's what made them a bit special. How many singers are there in The Eagles?--andreasegde (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy! When did Ringo replace White? Some chap wrote in when Martin hired White over the other's recommendation but didn't say when White was finally deposed by Ringo (ref. 2nd paragraph under RECORD CONTRACT). I searched the article using "ringo" but didn't spot it. Did I just blow by it?! JimScott (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

White only played drums on Love me do & its b-side as a one-off. He was never a permanent member, so he wasn't deposed by Ringo. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha! The article certainly doesn't make that clear! Are you planning to edit that section? JimScott (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Touché! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lineup history

Shouldn't we include a lineup history for The Beatles, if only to be consistent with most other musical band articles? Sutcliffe wasn't around long, but he was instrumental. Fdssdf (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see much point. Well over 90% of it would be "The Fab Four", and the whole thing wouldn't convey that much information. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's put back the classic intro into the opening paragraph

Okay this is the introduction that was used when this was a featured article.


"The Beatles were a British rock music group from Liverpool, England held in very high regard for both their artistic achievements and their considerable commercial success, and have amassed an enormous worldwide fanbase that continues to exist to this day.. Comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, the group shattered many sales records and charted more than fifty top 40 hit singles. They were the first British pop act to achieve major and ongoing success in the United States, scoring twenty #1 hits in the USA alone, becoming the biggest musical act of the twentieth century. EMI estimated in 1985 that the band had sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though officially credited as written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music(about 2500 versions of it exist). Their earliest compositions were mainly rock ‘n’ roll or R&B-rooted pop songs with the occasional ballad. But they grew increasingly eclectic as composers, arrangers and performers over the years. They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Despite the wide array of musical styles utilized, Beatles recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles canon included songs flavored with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop, ska and many other musical genres. They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (with "Strawberry Fields Forever") and early heavy metal (with "Helter Skelter"). Their use of George Martin’s chamber and baroque orchestrations on songs such as "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" was another first in contemporary popular music. They also pioneered many innovative production techniques and their epoch-making 1967 LP Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is often cited as one of the first concept albums. Their clothes, hairstyles and choice of musical instruments made them trendsetters throughout the decade; their growing social awareness, reflected in the development of their music, saw their influence extended far beyond the music scene into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s; and their enduring popularity with successive generations of both fans and musicians has cemented their reputation for being one of the most influential music artists of all time. The group disbanded in 1970 amid much strife. Thirty-five years later, in 2005, the American entertainment industry magazine Variety named them the most iconic entertainers of the 20th century[2]. "

Why not use that? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the current opening is vastly superior. When this article was featured the criteria for FA status was not nearly as stringent as it is today. The article is currently better than it was when it was featured, it's just that, again, the FA criteria is higher than it used to be. Cheers, faithless (speak) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it is poorly written, more like a fanzine than an encyclopedic lead. Hopefully standards have improved in the meantime, but with no disrespect to the editors who put that together, it wouldn't pass muster for a FA these days. "Amid much strife"? Good grief! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay but what is so flawed about that paragraph? I'm sorry but all of that information is true, or at least generally all of it is true. I'm sorry to break it to you guys but The Beatles are unarguably the most important, legendary, revolutionary, influential band in the history of man. If you guys like to sugercoat their achievements that's your problem but the intro WILL be put back in. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For a start this intro WILL only be put back in if there is consensus amongst editors that it goes back in. Unilateral declarations like this are unwelcome in a collaborative project. I'd suggest that we take the best of the intro as it is now, and the best of the above, and combine them to improve the article as a whole. It's not a case of sugarcoating at all, it's a case of writing a good intro that conforms to WP:LEAD. But we need to try achieving a consensus first. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The current opening is unquestionably better than the previous one; do you not realize that? I agree that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, but that is an opinion, not a fact. Your last remark can be construed as uncivil. Please adjust your tone. The previous intro is just plain bad. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. faithless (speak) 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, badboys or whatever your name is, you have officially lost the plot mate. Sugarcoating? What in gods name are you talking about? That ridiculous paragraph that you think is so wonderful is the only thing that is sugarcoated. "England held them in a high regard"? Are you serious? They WERE a popular band. It's over mate, go to a fan page. And if you don't understand what wikipedia is all about then please don't comment on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.238.140 (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ondioline on "Baby You're a Rich Man".

the article implies an ondioline keyboard was used on this song yet when the ondioline wiki page is opened this clarifies the matter and in fact states thats a clavioline keyboard was used as such this link seems pointless and perhaps the beatles entry should be updated.


i realise this may seem trivial,

apologies.

vin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinto212 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are dates communicated as seasons?

I have started to notice in a lot of different articles, statements which refer to an event happening in a particular season of the year. Now if the season is somehow relevant to the statement, then I can see how it needs to be included, however when the season has no relevance whatsoever, I find this to be completely unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unneccessary and irrelevant information and secondly, unless the country of the occurance is stated, a season is meaningless. Seasons happen at different times for every country therefore when people read a statement like the one below, they do not know what to make of it.

Under the heading 'Breakup: Let It Be', it says "The Beatles recorded their final album, Abbey Road, in the summer of 1969"

I feel there should be some sort of guideline regarding the use of seasons. If a season is used as a way of referring to a quarter of a particular year, a country needs to be stated also to give people a gauge to go by. --58.179.238.140 (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes to context - the Beatles are a British related subject so in context the example you are referring to is British. It is easier to generalise "summer" than to say "X day in June to X day in August" since the records are a bit hazy - when did studio rehearsals, which were taped for playback purposes, end and recording for the album proper begin, and when is the first example a recording that ended up on the record and when was the last? - since the band generally rehearsed, recorded, remixed, overdubbed, discarded, in a fairly unregimented manner. In this instance, unlike for example the first album, a definitive time period is impossible to clarify.
As for some sort of guideline regarding naming seasons; why not? Just recognise that context is often a more important criteria than accuracy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SEASON, although I agree with the LessHeard opinion in this instance, it is unclear if we match this guideline explicitly. Maybe mid-1969 would be better. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

itunes

Hey why arent the beatles on itunes? I heard that it was because Jackson was refusing to allow it but i think thats a load of rubbish, does anyone have any info on it.. Cheers Realist2 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See here: [5]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this The Beatles should be on itunes in "early 2008" whatever that means. I know a deal was hammered out in 2006 to be launched on itunes, but it's taking a while. It doesn't have anything to do with Jackson: he owns the publishing rights, not the actual recordings. Any deal with itunes would come through Apple, which I believe is the source of all the problems: Apple Inc. vs. Apple Computers (owners of itunes) have been in courts for years. They finally settled things in '06 and I guess The Beatles will make their way to itunes sometime this year. freshacconcispeaktome 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More tabloid lies about jackson being mean spirited then i guess, no supprise, nothing chances fast, cheers this will come in helpful. Realist2 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael_jackson#Finances<-- here is a quick copy and paste from the King of Pop article, theres some stuff on his involvement in the beatles catalog, correction northern catalog, it might be helpful , it might not, there are some sources there. Realist2 (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. To save stressing the servers, I've converted the cut&paste into a link as there's no point having the same text in two places. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Lee

Hi, Brenda Lee says in an interview used as source in her in her article that the little known Beatles opened her UK and German tour in the early sixties. She then goes on to say that she took a Beatles demo to her record company but they turned them down. She then states that six months later they had a huge hit with I Want to Hold Your Hand, but when that was released in the USA The Beatles were already huge stars. Can anyone shed any light on this please? Pat Pending (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

What the hell happened here today, all that vandalism looks suspicious to me. Request for semi protection is in order if it occures again. Im going to request semi protection for the Jacko talk page latter so if you want me to make a second request let me know. See ya. Realist2 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As an admin who regularly applies protection to pages subject to vandalism and blocks those repsonsible, I assure you it will not go unnoticed here. And, for reasons I needn't explain to you, semi-protection would be pointless. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not know you were an admin, i think there should be a new rule on wiki where all admins user names should appear in bold RED that way their easier to track down when you need their help. Realist2 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways of getting in touch with Admins, depending on what you need. For vandalism, WP:AIV usually gets a fast response. For page protection, here is the place to go. As for signatures, they vary so much in colour and font that Admins having red ones would be lost within the rainbow of others. Meanwhile, to verify adminship, go here : [6]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Word of notice/advice

I only just became aware of this today. Mariah Carey has just over taken elvis for the most US #1 singles by a solo artist. Elvis has 17 , mariah has 18. Of course the beatles still have their 20 but my friends it looks highly posibble the the beatles will lose their crown by the end of the year. TheY really need to get their singles on itunes ASAP. Realist2 (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And can you tell us just how does this comment attempts to improve the article, please, bearing in mind WP:TALK? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So that if or when the event occurs it gets sourced, something the page lacks a little, im sure you will agree. Realist2 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. If it happens, it will be sourceable. Until then, this article does not deal in speculation. It is not a blog. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

George having a 102 fever?

I'd edit this myself, but I don't have the authority.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure George Harrison was on the Ed Sullivan show during the first performance. The article does state that Neil replaced him, but after reviewing pictures from that night and a video on yahoo videos of that same performance, it's quite obvious that George was the one there and not this Neil guy. If you want to see the video, just go to yahoo and type in The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show or something like that. The first appearance should show up and you'll see it there.

Can someone who is able to change that? Or maybe just let me know if I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrie rocks (talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read very carefully. The article says that "this Neil guy" replaced him for the rehearsal, not the show. Ward3001 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan

Can't the pic used in the infobox used on the Ed Sullivan Show article under "The Beatles"? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A Beatles GA article

A Day in the Life - i got this article up to GA yesterday, you might want to add it to the beatles project. Yours Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 08:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks, Realist2.--andreasegde (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, let me know if you need any other input on a beatles related article. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Front picture

Why isn't there a front picture? --The monkeyhate (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Beatles-singles-iwanttoholdyourhand-1.jpg 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. --09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg

Is there a reason why Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg isn't the front picture? It has a fair use for this article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lennon/McCartney"

Should it be added to "see also"? Vordabois (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Album sold

The Beatles has sold 170 million of album copies according to the RIAA. Here. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

former/ current members

since the beatles have disbanded, shouldn't all of them be listed under "Former Members"?LukeTheSpook (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, "current members" is the group at the time they broke up. "Former members" includes those no longer in the group at the time they broke up. Ward3001 (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable. All six are former members. Tom Green (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If we put all of them under "former members" this would be confusing to the reader. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that the band are no longer active, they have no current members. Tom Green (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the infobox says "Members" not "Current members" so what's the problem? Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having the core (George, John, Paul, Ringo) listed as "current members" and listing former Beatles (Sutcliffe,Best) as "former members" makes most sense to me. Noting them all as "former members" would be confusing to a novice, regardless of the fact of the groups 1970 dissolution.GBrady (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed before at [7] and [8] in which it was determined that the group's lineup at the time of its formal breakup is acceptable. As Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best had left the group before it became world famous, they were acceptable as "former members". Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "Members" as they disbanded? "Current" is not true. Easy, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really easy. Someone will come along and argue that Best and Sutcliffe were members (or for that matter everyone in the group as far back as The Quarrymen), then we're back to square one. I think the current way is the only way to logically distinguish Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr from the others. Ward3001 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

School Bus Vs Regular servive bus

I removed the word "school". This would imply to most American readers a Bus just for students. In fact they met on the top of a regular double decker bus.Lemonflag (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Is there a link for a double-decker bus? Ah-hah... I have just found out that there is. (They stink of diesel and rubber, and make you feel sick, BTW. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the reasons for the breakup?

What about the reasons for the breakup?

Shj95 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What about it???? Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The reasons are several and date back to the death of their manager Brian Epstein in 1967. The group began to unravel at this point. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Steelbeard. You can't sum it up in 1 point. There was displeasure on the part of George with his material not being used as often as John and Paul's, group irritation at Yoko's presence for sessions, the lack of Epstein's stabilizing presence ,and probably just a desire to stretch their own individual wings.GBrady (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy, and I don't know why it isn't mentioned, but the fact is that McCartney did not sign the management contract with Klein, Spector put a female choir on McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" (without telling/consulting McCartney at all) and Klein sending Macca a telegram saying the "changes were needed" (when all musical decisions were previously taken by the band as a whole, and if one single member disagreed, it was not done) totally pissed Macca off. He was being ousted as the musical manager/co-ordinator of the band. After the filming of Let It Be, they still worked together, but the film music (and the changes later made to it) were "All too much for Macca to take"...--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Formation

I suggest that the "formation" section should be shortened significantally, with some of the reasons in the 2nd paragraph paraphrased instead of quoted (such as Lennon's). Also, I suggest that the third paragraph be nearly eliminated, with two to three sentences summarizing that the band went through a number of drummers, and that they toured Northern Scotland as a back-up band for singer Johnny Gentle, as well as the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

  1. Support as the suggestor (?)
  2. No. This is not a paper encyclopeda, and it should mention everything possible, which would stop the idea that Lennon was an orphan, and Ringo was the first drummer. (I'm very passionate about history being the truth, so please forgive me. :) I'm sure the families of the drummers in question would hate the idea of their relative's participation in The Beatles being reduced to, "the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem". If one were to go down that path, then Pete Best would not be mentioned.

As a Beatle fan (or a fan of The Beatles) I never knew this stuff, and the reason I first came to Wikipedia was to clear-up these missing bits of information. Lennon had/has 3 half-sisters, and two half-brothers, and McCartney has one brother and one half-sister. Harrison has a sister who lived/lives in America, and was the first Beatle to visit the USA. Is that not important? Everything should be here, and then this will be the most comprehensive page about The Beatles that you can find anywhere. Put it all in, and let the Wikipedia servers deal with it. This should be the fountain of all knowledge about The Beatles, and so it should be.--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also just realised that Larry Parnes is not mentioned at all. This is a travesty, as it was a major stumbling-block for The Silver Beetles.--andreasegde (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This isn't because I give a damn about the Wikipedia servers (let them handle this). It's because I want to get this into FA, and Ruhrfisch, the Peer Reviewer of the archived PR for this article, said that the "Formation" section was too long. "Do we really need to have every single name, and every thought that crossed their mind?" is just about what he said in the PR. That's why I am doing this. Also, looking at Pink Floyd, there is considerably less about the band's formation. Keep that in mind; remember that I did this to get this Vital Article to FA, not because I felt like it. :-) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:WEIGHT when voting. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I Support shortening of excess information. It is completely unnecessary to list every single fact about the Beatles on here, especially information about specific members, since they all have their own pages. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never want to go near an FA again, so good luck. The FA boardroom finds lots of things to complain about, including your tie, Mr Epstein. :) Whatever Mr Wales said in WP:WEIGHT can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, by thousands of different editors, which was his point, IMO...

I also believe that every single thought The Fabs had should not be included, but living, breathing (and sweating, as drummers do) human beings should be. What's the point of copying other paper encyclopedias? Is that why we are here? If that is the case, all one has to do is look at one of the respected ones, and then just paraphrase everything in it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article is 84,493 bytes, and William Shakespeare is 84,030 bytes, and that is an FA. Maybe it's just the writing that needs improving, and not the content. --andreasegde (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay. It'll be kept...and a new consensus will be made if this point is brought up by a PRer or an FA reviewer (in which case said reviewer(s) can participate in discussion). I just wanted to have due weight where needed. Remember, an FA is not too short AND not too long, but alas... Thank you for making your point, Andreasegde. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: "an FA is not too short AND not too long", which means here that it is good, but not good enough. I seriously believe that FAs are looked upon by the powers that be as only being good enough if they are about a serious subject by the snobs up above. It would be interesting to know how many Pop/Rock etc., articles are FAs, and how many articles there are about scientists, philosophers, etc. It's an elitist thing, and Pop music is not considered to be worthy by the boys in the (metaphorical) suits. Some articles slip through to FA of course, but only if they have the weight of a project behind them. (I speak from experience, because I have heard the phrase "not notable enough" too many times).

For this article to gain an FA it would have to be chopped to pieces, and would then later be deleted to a B-class for not having enough information.--andreasegde (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks. However, this consensus can be considered closed. A second consensus can be found below. Please feel free to vote there. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You think a credible consensus can be achieved in less than a week? What about those who due to work commitments, can only edit at weekends? And two editors doth not a consensus make. --Rodhullandemu 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I figured that since I started a consensus, I could end it. Oh well, I struck out my comment. Feel free to vote here. It's not a great idea anyway after some consideration, but if you support the vote, feel free to say so. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion #2

My next suggestion is that everything regarding the name should be moved to a new section called something to the extent of "Names". For an example, see AC/DC, a featured article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

  1. Support as supporter. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"IS" or "ARE"?

In England, the word "band" is followed by "are". Thus, it would be "band are recognized". The reasoning to that would be that there are several members in a band. Since this a British band, it should use "are", not "is". Besides, it uses "are" everywhere else, and we have to be consistent. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. "Are" is British English so we should go with that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[out] All true, but "the band" is not necessary: I edited it to be grammatically correct in both British and American English, which I hope will keep everyone happy. (And let's remember that it is always "The Beatles are", to American ears as well as British, despite what some might think.... except when talking about the white album, in which case we'd again do a work-around so as to not sound illiterate to anyone.) Tvoz/talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

United Where?

Why does the opening paragraph speak about this English pop group's influence as it related to somewhere called the United States, and not for example Germany? I can predict all the lame justifications that will be put forward to explain this, however the real reason is simply the usual American centric bias which Wikipedia specifically cautions against in it's guidelines.

'Parochial View' 28th May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I can think of is that this is the English Wikipedia. Certainly, there should still be some information for other countries. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I answered that concern by stating in intro that the band was "world renowned." Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. The lead clearly states, and I quote, "This commercial success was repeated in many other countries; their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion records worldwide." The reason the United States is used is because it is emphasizing the fact that it is the number-one selling band in the U.S., not worldwide. Besides, this is an English Wikipedia, so countries like Germany or other non-primarily English-speaking countries aren't necessary. The fact is, the lead states its worldwide impact, and thus "world renowned" should be removed.


LOL @ 'other countries'. It is a good thing that I appreciate sarcasm. I am just worried that some people may think you are being serious.

'Parochial View' 1st June 2008.


Also, it should not be in the first sentence anyway. The first sentence of an article gives a definition. It should say that the Beatles are a pop/rock band from Liverpool. Anything else should be clarified later. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

--Wikidunn (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I agree, the opening sentence shouldn't be so US-centric, they were more than just an 'American invasion band', or whatever that is. Surely British pop invasion of the '60s is something that only applies to American pop culture, and as this band had a far reaching effect in many countries, this is a very narrow minded opening sentence. Its impact on the American invasion should be linked to the relevant article and not even mentioned in the opening paragraph; which should be purely to describe the band in more general terms, and not label them a US specific term.

1960–1970: The Beatles

Okay, this heading name has to change. According to Manual of Style, heading names should generally not contain the name of the article. (Exceptions do exist, like if this was about the album officially called "The Beatles", then it's okay). So, any suggestions? I changed it to "fame", but Steelbeard1 changed it back, saying that the real fame began in 1963. I think an appropriate title is "1960–1970: Rise to fame". Please comment. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Both "Fame" and "Rise to fame" have inaccuracies, because the decade includes pre-fame and fame years. I think Steelbeard1 is being too picky. "Fame" is best because most of the decade they were enormously famous. Ward3001 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reminder The Manual of Style is a guideline, not an official policy, and it clearly says that it is suggested that it be followed unless circumstances are such that it should not be: "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." (And that actually pretty much also goes for official policies.) In this case, the header clearly identifies this stage of development of the band, and it makes perfect sense to ignore that guideline and leave the heading as we have it, even though it includes the article title. The integrity of the article is far more important, in my opinion, than the sometimes arbitrary comments made by FA reviewers. Tvoz/talk 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, FA reviewer? Not me...been here three months and two days now, and from what I hear, FAC is sheer hell. I just wanted to make some suggestions that I thought were appropriate to the article. I see your point of view (LOL, not that kind). I guess "The Beatles" works. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Right - I didn't think you were - I misread the above and other comments too quickly and thought you were reflecting what someone else had suggested in a peer review or in preparation for a FAC review. But I stand by my last sentence regarding integrity and the (sometimes oppressive) FA process. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Alan Parsons

I'm having trouble with the end of this sentence: "The band's final live performance was on the rooftop of the Apple building at 3 Savile Row, London, on January 30, 1969, the next-to-last day of the difficult sessions for what eventually became the Let It Be album, along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons." What does "along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons" refer to? That he was there? Was he the engineer for the sessions? I'd be happy to rewrite the sentence but I don't know what was meant -it doesn't make sense to me this way. Translation please? Tvoz/talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fan of Alan Parsons. Putting Parsons in the same sentence as The Fabs sounds good to a fan... He should be in a sound engineers list.--andreasegde (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RIAA

"According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States.[4]"

OK, ive noticed this on the Janet Jackson and Britney Spears article too. I cant help but feel we are putting words in the RIAAS mouth. The RIAA is only counting albums, its only saying the beatles are the best selling album group. They do not include single sales and probably wouldnt appreciate us suggesting they do. Like I said, everyone seems to be doing it, probably without realizing what the RIAA are actually saying.

Im not disputing the sales of the beatles in america but what the article claims isnt supported by the RIAA who are only talking about albums. Its as if everyone has forgotten about singles and downloads. Thoughts. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw the new edit. Good compromise. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perennial problem here. Initially there were only charts for sheet music, when families got round pianos of an evening; then it was 78's (which I am old enough to remember), then singles, beginning as far as the UK is concerned, in 1952, then albums & EP's, then cassettes, then CDs, then downloads. The statisticians have been long tearing their hair out over how this can be represented in terms of volume calculations. Much kudos, however, to dealing with this thorny problem. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope its ok, im going to have to try and get the same consensus on the other articles that do it. I think its best to only say what the source is counting, we shouldnt expand upon it ourselves. That said if there is a RIAA source that adds singles and albums together we should use it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We should...

make a subgenres section. π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that there are enough battlegrounds already? I've never seen anyone cite any reliable sources for changes of genre anyway, and in the case of the Beatles, given the diversity of styles they used, it would be futile to attempt such hair-splitting. In any case, that is a matter for the Infobox musical artist template, within the Music Wikiproject, and probably better argued there. --Rodhullandemu 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Achievements

I don't know about this section. It reads like a trivia section (oh no!). It still has to be changed to prose, but we need to work it out so that it's not just a collection of random facts. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows my HIStory with this issue. lol!. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, do explain. :) (really, idk) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well lets just say that ive quite vocally expressed my opinion (a number of times) on the condition of the "Achievements" section of this article. Lets just leave it at that lol. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's what that was about. I knew about that already, but I didn't know it was about this section. Anyway, let's not do anything we might regret. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, completely slipped my mind. 2 days ago I managed to convince the Elvis people to intergate their achievements list seen here. It was done within hours. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well someone appears to have deleted the whole thing without any discussion here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unhelpful. It's customary to copy the section here for discussion instead of wholesale deletion. --Rodhullandemu 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I restored one item that was sourced. Others can be added when sources are found. Ward3001 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice any band FA; a list of statistical achievements and records essential constitutes trivia. Even if referenced, its inclusion is unnecessary. Besides, a selective mining of statistics into one section could be construed as a POV fork too. indopug (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's take a look at FAs on bands. Powderfinger has an "Awards and accolades" section. Let's consider combining some of the information into a section entitled "Awards, accolades, and achievements" (alliteration not intended), or something similar. What's one person's trivia is another person's treasure.
I don't agree with the phrase "selective mining of statistics". I agree that Achievements needs better sourcing, but I think if items are inserted that are too POV or too trivial, they can be discussed for consensus here. Let's be realistic. The Beatles' achievements were and are profound. And if other articles for bands don't have achievements listed, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in The Beatles' article. The Beatles had lots of "firsts" in their career, and it may very well be that they can be the "first" quality Wikipedia article on a band that has a legitimate Achievements section. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Any important achievements worth noting should be worked into the body of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. That assumes they're trivia and few in number. I think it depends on how lengthy a list of well-sourced achievements is. If awards, accolades, etc. can have a separate section in some articles, there's no iron-clad rule that achievements must be worked into the article. Ward3001 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of them should be included, if not in a separate section then in the main prose...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Ward3001) Actually, very often awards are broken off into a separate article. See: List of U2 awards. You can do the same too: List of The Beatles sales records. I believe "lists of isolated facts" constitutes trivia, so I don't see how the section in question isn't trivia. indopug (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If the list of achievements reaches a size to merit a separate article, that can be done. My point is that the items don't necessarily have to be intergrated into the rest of the article, just as awards aren't always integrated into the rest of an article. And once again I disagree with your phraseology. It is not a list of "isolated facts". They all have a commonality: they are achievements. The facts are no more isolated than a list of "awards and accolades" to use Featured Article Powderfinger as just one example. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good example to use, since the Beatles have so many achievement, far surpassing those of Powderfinger. This article is already pretty sizable, and other more important items are not covered in the prose yet (such as the band's musical style). Go ahead a create a list of Beatles awards (they've won enough it should fill up pretty quickly). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that The Beatles far surpass Powderfinger. I only used Powderfinger because it's an FA and indopug offererd that as the gold standard. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the section again, two of the facts are uncited and the other two could go in the lead. There's no need for the section to exist. It's ugly and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree that it's ugly. And the list will grow. Let's see if consensus develops about separate section vs. integrate into article. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is quite ugly, and does not fulfill the expectation that good Wikipedia articles have brilliant prose. Those items will work excellently in the prose, but there's no need for a bulleted list of four items, two of which are uncited. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I continue to disagree that it's ugly, so let's just agree to disagree. And now three of the four are sourced. I don't mean this to be condescending, but let me repeat myself. The list will grow. A few hours ago the section was completely deleted. Now it has four items. And as stated below, changes are not going to be completed overnight. I don't see such a rush to move things out of the section. Let's see what happens. Ward3001 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't given a convincing reason as to why it shouldn't be integrated into the prose when not only would it read better, but some of these are essential items that are not included in the main body of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but how can it be properly integrated when it's a work-in-progress? I've made a suggestion below. I'll make another: Move the whole section out of the article into here, or a subpage, let people work on it for a week or so, and then re-merge into the article when there is consensus to do so. Also, stop indenting beyond what readers can sensibly tolerate. My screen is only that wide, and the only reason I've further indented is logic; but sometimes, logic has to be frustrated by the needs of practicality. --Rodhullandemu 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

<deindent for readability
Well the original section has been copied here so that editors can research these points and add them into the article. These things do not happen overnight and I, for one, spent quite some time today trying to find a suitable copy of the Guinness Book of Records, to no avail, and as if I can afford it anyway. Once all that can be sourced has been, that might be a better time to assess how best to present the information. At least at present there is sourced information there, and the possibility that someone will come along and add more should not be overlooked. --Rodhullandemu 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that it's a work in progress. If the section does not grow, the items can be integrated. But if it does grow, there is no policy or guideline that forbids bulleted lists. There are lots of them in Wikipedia, some in very good articles. And there is an argument that such a list is stylistically better for readability. These are matters of opinion. Let's please wait and see if other opinions emerge, and see how much the list grows. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

This indenting is getting to be too deep to be readable: please continue the discussion here. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it needs to be worked on at a sub page, THEN decide what to do with the pieces. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some cleaup on the article. As part of it, I'm going to integrate the "Achievements" into the prose just to show how it should work. You can undo it when I'm done, just don't revert everything else I'm doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not just wait for consensus to develop? It surely won't take long. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubitable Sources

Some of the sources used in the article are questionable, as reliablity goes. For example, Geocities is used, as well as a number of self-published sources. A lot of the info found in these sources will have to find a different source or will have to be removed. :( Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which ones, we should take a look, you would be supprised how often people agree on what is/isnt reliable. Luckily we have an Admin at hand..... ;-) --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, not Geocities, it is by definition, self-published, and the bits of it that aren't are probably copyright violations. By and large, sources used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums are preferred. Allmusic is good for bands and albums. The Beatles, being probably the most documented group on the planet, ever, should not suffer from poor sources. If in doubt, WP:RS/N is your friend. --Rodhullandemu 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the 3 visable Geocities links adding FACT. A quick scan of the web links shows a lot of fan sites www,Beatles... .com or even www,Fab4.... .com . — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's my list of the sources (article version used) going by number of footnote: 19, 41, 43, 48, 48, 51, 60, 67, 102. Feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

This article could do with some info on how the Beatles were received by critics. Just a thought, feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, most band articles have them. Something as influential as the Beatles should...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I would remind editers to look for reliable sources for the Beatles achievements section. Fan sites and "Snope" are not going to help get this article through a FA review and will likely result in it lossing it GA symbol if an editer were to have it reassessed. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Give us a policy or other Wikipedia guideline that snopes is not reliable. I have found snopes to be very reliable. Ward3001 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, i dont need to, ive put enough articles through GA and FA to know what gets thrown out as crap. Sources for FA set a standard, I had snopes removed like 7 times at the last Michael Jackson FA review. Its brutal, no other way to explain it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"i dont need to": I'm not quite ready to accept that. At least give us links (and more than a two or three) showing how snopes was identified as unreliable in GA/FA reviews. That shouldn't be a problem if it happened to you seven times. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure click "show" on the "issues resolved" by user "Ealdgyth" and go down his check list. I had to remove snopes. The question asked by the expert FA source checker was, "What makes these sources reliable". I had to change all of them and a ton more. But clearly you can see that snopes was removed. [9]. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Snopes looks like a tertiary source, much like ourselves; but they cite their sources, from what I've seen. If we can't cite them, go to their sources. --Rodhullandemu 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim should be easy to access elsewhere if its true. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, found another source. Thanks for the tips. Ward3001 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, im only trying to help Kodster get the article to FA where I can. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why this article is a mess, and what you can do to help

As someone who's worked on several FA and GA articles, I'm frankly disappointed at the quality of this article. Yeah, i know it's a former FA that worked its way back up to GA, but for a band of this stature and one that has been so exhaustively covered by sources, it should be much better. There are also some very basic problems with this article, such as:

  • Incorrect formatting of album titles and television progams.
  • Little to no discussion of the albums. I had to add references to Beatles for Sale and Help! to the prose. Sgt. Pepper, often considered one of the greatest albums of all time, only gets its release date mentioned.
  • Unnecessary full dates in the prose. Oftentimes only the month needs to be listed.
  • Unformatted and/or unreliable web references.
  • Undue weight given to the period between 1960 and 1964, although I get the impression this is due to editors working on the article gradually from the beginning of the band's career onwards.
  • Failure to address the casual reader. Not everyone knows who the Beatles are, or has more than a passing knowledge of them (quick, ask someone randomly to name the guy in the band who isn't John, Paul, or Ringo), and all Wiki articles are supposed to address the unfamiliar reader, acquainting them with the subject as the article progresses.
  • Prose redundancies. There really shouldn't be a need to mention something twice.
  • There's a section dedicated to the band's changing musical style, but nowhere to start from. What defines The Beatles' musical style?

Here's a few band FAs to use as models: The Smashing Pumpkins, Stereolab, Metallica, R.E.M., Radiohead. It will also be a big help to talk to editors who have worked on these articles for advice. Useful references fo those without access to libraries or without the money to buy books are the Time magazine and New York Times archives at time.com and nytimes.com, respectively. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with your points on the casual reader: the Beatles in fact are the one band that everyone HAS heard of, and can name all four of the members. But your other points I agree with, particularly on unreliable web references. In my opinion there's really no need to use web references at all, given the number of authoritative books published on the band.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Its nice to mix it up a little, as long as you use reliable web links such as newyorktimes or Time their just as reliable as books. Furthermore the reader can check claims easier with online sources, to ensure this article is reliable I would have to go and buy most of these books and double check it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You'd be surprised who hasn't heard of The Beatles. Regardless of their popularity, we have to approach writing this article from a general standpoint, as is the guideline with all Wikipedia articles. It will ultimately result in a better-written article. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, ot's certainly not a good idea to make assumptions about what readers know and do not know. We are here now but in fifty and five hundred years time, Wikipedia will probably still be around in some form and we should be writing for those readers too. --Rodhullandemu 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Founded or evolved

There is a dispute on Talk:Paul McCartney about the origin of the band; whether they were founded as The Beatles or evolved from earlier bands. That entry has McCartney as a co-founder, and if they are an incarnation of an earlier band then this may not be the case. This entry explicitly has the band forming in 1960, which I do not think is defensible. No source known or cited has such an event, merely a name change, and it does seem to reflect a retroactive view.

I suggest qualifying the statement to reflect the true series of events. No one today talks of Abel Tasman discovering Van Diemen's Land but most sources will note this is what Tasmania was known as (without getting too pedantic). I propose altering all entries to give "then known as The Quarry Men" or similar.

Alternately if there is some evidence (document, event, ritual, naughty ritual, etc) of founding, or qualitative difference between The Beatles and The Silver Beetles then please cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To a large extent these arguments are semantic and have very little historical information to make clear distinctions. It's not like these working-class teenagers in The Quarrymen or The Silver Beetles hired lawyers to craft official documents of incorporation. Groups changed names and members like they changed shirts. Even if McCartney or Starr made official pronouncements today about the specifics, that may be worth mentioning but it's not definitive; Lennon and Harrison are dead and can't offer their opinions. If there is a moment when The Beatles were founded, it's when the members at the time decided to use the name The Beatles, and that doesn't mean they did not "evolve" from earlier groups. I don't think the discussion should be framed as "founded or evolved". It was both. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Ward3001.--andreasegde (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

The "Todo" list needs changing now, there isnt an "achievements" section anymore. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is kind of, but know it looks like they only have 3 achievements. Hmm. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the TODO list should continue to include the proper sourcing and rewriting of the section; this is important information and should be in the article. No need to abandon it. --Rodhullandemu 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The items listed in that section are all now integrated into the prose, so the section is now redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and sorry if I misread your intentions yesterday; however #Copy of deleted "Achievements" section for reference still needs sourcing, and it's of such volume that it needs careful management to avoid duplication of effort. --Rodhullandemu 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Achievements" section really does read like Trivia. I think there should be a way to change the actual layout (not just changing it to prose) so that it reads more like a part of the article than a "here's some facts about the Beatles" section. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't agree, if that's the consensus I'll accept it. By the same token, however "Influence on popular culture" should either be integrated into other parts of the article or placed entirely in the extant separate article. And an "Awards" section should never be created. Ward3001 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think it's best if we all work on and discuss Ruhrfisch's Peer Review of the article. It basically covers all the main points we have, but it's a bit more organized and makes it easier to work on things step-by-step (the way I like it). Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep checking on it, and correcting based on it, but I have transcluded it below. This shows us every comment made as it is made.
It's in here!

The Beatles

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Vital Article and it's about one of the most important bands of all time, blah blah blah (just kidding).

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Beatles/archive2.

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at WesleyDodds points above. indopug (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has access to the book The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, could you please look up in that book the page number referring to the Star Club? For ref 26 in the article, it uses the Cite Book Citation, which really should go in the "References" section. But to use the abbreviated citation like we do for the other books, we need the page number, so if anyone could do that, it would be really helpful. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sheridan recording p. 42, Star Club p. 69. I've updated but not sure we want the full cite in both. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a million! I fixed the refs: if you used a lot of books in one article, and you use most of them more than once, then you can put the full cite under "References" (not "Notes"), and use an abbreviated form like this: Lewisohn (1996), p.69 Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_17&oldid=1136229232"