Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Overuse of The Beatles in the article

This section was started to ask for advice from the Support editors above that agreed to a consensus.--andreasegde (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We could change it to "Consensus is to avoid using "the/The Beatles" as much as possible".... or maybe we could add this header:

--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What about: "This article is about The Beatles, so avoid overuse of the name, as it is not needed."? --andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Attributives and possessive apostrophes

The two edits shown here bring back a grammatical error that has appeared in the article before. In addition to reverting, I'll explain the issue here in hopes that it does not recur. In the construction "South Africa also banned airplay of Beatles records", Beatles is not a noun but an attributive--that is, it is used as an adjective--and thus does not take a possessive apostrophe. If we wanted to go with the noun, "South Africa also banned airplay of The Beatles' records" is also correct. But "South Africa also banned airplay of Beatles' records" is simply wrong.

Part of the confusion surely derives from the fact that the noun in question is plural, which complicates the possessive. Consider the following analogous construction:

  • We listened to The Clash's records (correct)
  • We listened to Clash records (correct)
  • We listened to Clash's records (wrong)

A proper (though unnecessary) alteration of the sort was, in fact, made in this edit, where the attributive Times was changed to the possessive noun The Times'. DocKino (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is called The Times, and it should be one of The Times' journalists said, or a journalist from The Times said. It's simples, no?--andreasegde (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, as I pointed out before, the examples of The New York Times and The New Yorker, or in this case The Times are correct but the reasoning is incorrect and doesn't necessarily apply to the name of group. The definite article "The" is included because it is part of a title of a book, magazine, newspaper or other literary or artistic work, not because it is a proper noun. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Use of "The" mid-sentence. Piriczki (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DocKino and I have had this argument with an editor before. Nouns can be used as adjectives. Just because Beatles is being used as an adjective and it ends in an S does not mean it is missing an apostrophe. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you guys ever picked your feet in Poughkeepsie?--andreasegde (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Something else missing - Beatles music videos

Starting with Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever (or possibly even before), the Beatles began producing music videos for each of at least many of their songs. Not including material from live performances or songs used in the soundtracks of the movies, there remains quite a list of standalone music videos recorded by the Beatles which don't even seem to have been enumerated in any attempt at a comprehensive list, let alone made available, for example on a DVD collection. One sees bits and pieces of some few of them in the Anthology series, and perhaps also in some other previous documentaries, but other than the Free As A Bird video released as part of the Anthology series none have been released, even as bootleg collections. The Beatles were often as creative in their visual presentations as in their music and yet this whole significant chunck of their creative output goes unreleased. Unfortunately I don't have enough information to provide this section myself, but for more intense Beatle scholars with more access to the materials than myself, perhaps at least a list of the videos could be compiled. Once compiled, I really think there needs to be added a section about it in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They have been released as bootlegs (e.g. I found this site within a few seconds of searching with Google) GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Associated acts

Shouldn't groups like Wings, Traveling Wilburys, Plastic Ono Band, Ringo Starr's All-Starr Band, and The Dirty Mac be listed under this heading? Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, those are all solo projects and should be included only in the individual members' articles. I think the section here should be kept as brief as possible.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a fair point, though the standards for just about every other band article here seems to dictate that these projects be mentioned. I'd also dispute you calling all those "solo projects". We can argue about Wings and the Wilburys, which only ever featured one ex-Beatle, but both Ringo and George were part of John's Plastic Ono Band at one point, though it was basically only a backing group for Lennon. If no one else objects, I'm going to add Plastic Ono Band, and we can discuss the others. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I object.--andreasegde (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Maybe you can sway me. If we're not going to add the bands I mentioned, we need to remove bands in the "associated acts" category of Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin, Wings, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Blind Faith, The Allman Brothers Band, Gov't Mule, and numerous other articles, as well as adding "associated acts" to the articles for Pink Floyd and a few other articles that aren't springing to mind immediately. If we're going to be consistent, that is. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Re Plastic Ono Band, the article at Give Peace a Chance is quite enlightening. In its earliest incarnation it was a simply a name used by John Lennon for his solo output while still involved the Beatles. However, when it became a functional group - involving George and Ringo and Klaus Voorman, and Yoko Ono - the Beatles were defunct. I would argue that the group The Plastic Ono Bands existence as a physical entity was independent of The Beatles one, originally it was a non de plume that Lennon used for non Beatles output (like Dr Winston O'Boogie or Macca's Apollo C Vermouth). Last, it was you that said that all it required was one person to object - you didn't specify that the grounds for objection was needed... You can't change the rules because you had not thought them through, larra! It is unwise to give Andre Unwedge a chance like that!! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with his nibs, Less Heard. My dear Evanh2008, let me elaborate. This problem of genres has been dripping like rain on a wet Tuesday afternoon; it is not new. I agree that you could put in more genres than are presently here, but where would you stop? The list is longer than the queue for a slice of wedding cake at the palace. Your only way out is to create an article called "The Beatles' Musical Genres". Snappy title, don't you think? :) --andreasegde (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
LessHeard, of course the POB's existence was independent of the Beatles. I never claimed otherwise. But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a non-Beatlemaniac coming to this page would want to see bands that (in the POB's case, several of) the former members were involved in. I think that is unquestionably the most informative and reasonable way to go. Wings, for example, was the band Paul McCartney started in '73. People forget how popular Wings were. Whether you "associate" them with the Beatles or not, the public very much did. To this day, it's unlikely that someone who knows who Wings were would not list them in their own personal list of the Beatles' "associated acts". This is a different issues from that of genres, as well, because the question of genre can be a very subjective thing. Listening to a given song, some may hear psychedelic rock, others symphonic rock, and others progressive rock. You are right to observe that that could very easily get out of hand. The issue of associated acts, however, has a very limited pool to draw from, and is in no way subjective. There are only a handful of full-fledged projects that the former Beatles were involved in. This is an encyclopedia, don't forget. If we're not going to add these groups to the "associated acts" section of this article, we need to remove "The Beatles" from the associated acts section of those bands' articles. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I give you some advice? Please tell me. Otherwise, I might think you just want a long, drawn-out argument.--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Association is not always a two way street. Wings may include The Beatles as an associated act because their bass player once had a gig with them - whereas the Beatles article may not because it is the band the "cute one" started up after their demise. Cream (band) may include an association with "the quiet Beatle" as he wrote a song with them, while still a mop top, but Cream are not an associated act just because their guitarist played on a track upon Harrison's invite. It is both a matter of degree and timing - how much of an input each had on the other, and whether it was contemporary. I would comment that "we" don't need to do anything, until we can get consensus (and consensus in one case does not mean consensus in any other unless the conditions are exactly the same). Lastly, and I wonder if this where Andreasegde is going, please consider the fact that these articles have developed over the years through the contributions of very many editors, some of whom are knowledgable in regard to the subject and some who are familiar with the editing ethos (and a couple who are competent in both); while it is understood that they may be improved, they are not wrong as they are. Convince "us" why your version better reflects policy, explains the sources, and reads better. If you are right, we will help you do the necessary work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire to engage in either an argument or an edit war with anyone. I'm just trying to suggest what I believe will be a small improvement to the article. Certainly, any advice you have for me is most welcome. I understand that the development of the articles has been a long process, and I know that at one point several of the bands I mentioned were listed under the "associated acts" heading. Perhaps if there was a discussion that led to their removal you'd be kind enough to link me to it, as I currently don't have the free time necessary to look through the past twenty or so archives of the talk page. Regarding policy, I've looked over Wikipedia policy, and read a fair amount of it in depth. I never came across anything dictating the proper procedure for the listing of associated acts in band articles. I see nothing in my proposal (or the current state of the section, to be honest) that contradicts any policy I am aware of. I see it as something that is small, will not negatively impact the scope or quality of the article, and will hopefully make it a bit more complete without adding copious amounts of prose to an already long article. I don't see what controversy can reasonably arise from a proposal like that. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Also, I never suggested listing either Cream or Eric Clapton under the associated acts section for the Beatles. I'm only suggesting bands that the members of the Beatles were also members of, which seems to be the established standard for every other band article I can find. George wrote Badge, and played guitar on it for Cream, but he was never a member of Cream. He was a member of the Traveling Wilburys, and of the Plastic Ono Band. The slope is nowhere near as slippery as you're making it out to be. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To all - If you have not done so already, you may find it helpful to review the documentation at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts. GoingBatty (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, GoingBatty. That clears that up to a certain degree. Under that policy, though ("Groups which have spun off from this group" and "[avoid listing] groups with only one member in common"), I'll be adding Plastic Ono Band, as three members of the Beatles were, at one time, part of the Plastic Ono Band. I don't see how it wouldn't also qualify as a spin-off of the Beatles as well, since it was formed by Lennon around the time the Beatles broke up to launch his solo career, with Ringo being involved in the initial incarnation. Something off-topic that I have some concern over as well is the listing of the Quarrymen as a separate act from the Beatles. As I understand it (and I understand quite a bit about the Beatles), the Quarrymen evolved into the Beatles the same way the New Yardbirds evolved into Led Zeppelin and how Chicago Transit Authority became Chicago. Obviously there is a need for a separate article due to the late-90s reunion of the original members, minus Lennon, but I think on this article the Beatles ought to be listed as having been formed in 1956 or '57. The Quarrymen article states that the Quarrymen were a group that "evolved over a four-year period into The Beatles". Anyway, that's just a thought, and I don't feel like getting into another debate right now. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the Plastic Ono Band article neither Harrison nor Starr are listed as members in the article body, only appearing in the infobox - Alan White, Kieth Moon, and Jim Keltner are listed as drummers, although Ringo is credited on the Plastic Ono Band album, while the only guitarist I recognise is the other Mr Patti Boyd. Apparently Harrison contributed to the Instant Karma! single, credited to "John Lennon, Yoko One, and The Plastic Ono Band" and regarded as a John Lennon (and Yoko Ono) release. Under the circumstances I would suggest that rather being members of the group that the two were "guest musicians" at one point or another, and therefore The Plastic Ono Band (I seem to remember one of their names to be "Plastic Exploding Inevitable"?) is not an associated act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, the Plastic Ono band wasn't a band at all in the conventional sense - just whoever happened to be on the record (or on the stage) at the time was the band. It was more of a concept than a group so it's difficult to distinguish between "guests" and "members" really.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
When they toured they used Elephants Memory as their backing band, plus guests, which is as close to a stable lineup that they got. There were musicians that regularly appeared on both records and in concerts (notably Klaus Voorman and Alan White), but confusingly they would also appear on many records and performances that are credited either solely to Lennon or Yoko Ono or the both of them. I suggest that The Plastic Ono band was primarily John and Yoko, plus perhaps Voorman and White, and whatever friends and session musicians they might assemble at any one time. Under that criteria Harrison and Starr were not members. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
My carpenter uncle Fred was also in the band. He'd often say, "Plastic? Oh no! Banned in my day." Sorry, I couldn't resist it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Ringo did all the drums on John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. I'd say that qualifies him as a member, since that was the original (first) line-up of the band (if we're not counting Give Peace a Chance, which had some rather vauge credits). Ringo never toured with John, but I have to think that him contributing drums to every track of the Plastic Ono Band's first album, as well as the Cold Turkey single, makes him a member. George played guitar on five tracks on Imagine and the Instant Karma! single, from what I can tell. Perhaps that doesn't make him a member, in which case we need to adjust the credits on the POB article. I still say Ringo was a member, though. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think being member of anything means one has signed something legal to qualify them as a member. Being a session musician does not count. Otherwise, everybody that played on the backing tracks of a song would mean they were a member of Tom Jones, for example. Tom's own member wouldn't agree. :) --andreasegde (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Change From "Original UK LP'S", TO "Core Catalogue"

I think that all of the beatles albums should be listed (including Magical Mystery Tour & Past Masters) under a list that reads CORE CATALOUGE. So instead of original uk lp's, it should be core catalouge, because i think that all the beatles albums are of importence, regardless of the country of which it was released. (I hope i have made myself clear enough, because i dont think iv' explained myself properly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.208.253 (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.208.253 (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think all of the beatles albums in their core catalouge should be listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.208.253 (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How's the weather in Melbourne?--andreasegde (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay... ignoring that interesting (*cough*) sock-puppeting we just witnessed. The guy makes a decent point. It seems that Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters are included in pretty much all accounts of the Beatles' LP releases post-1987. We should look into this. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 12:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There have been many albums released under The Beatles' name and including them all in a chronology would be ridiculous. In my opinion, it's either just the UK studio albums or all the albums. I see no reason to favour the MMT and PM compilations just because Apple Corps does. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The idea of a "core catalog" smacks of recentism to me, especially if it includes albums released 18 years after they broke up. The Beatles' recordings were released on a number of different LPs, EPs and singles—it's not tidy but that's the way it was. Piriczki (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Template removals

I have removed all the templates that are below from the article except {{The Beatles}}. Not sure y we need them here way to much clutter and over links and links to irrelevant subjects. - Y would we make our readers have to load all this info? MediaWiki has several parameters that limits the complexity of a page, and the amount of data that can be included. Wikipedia:Template limits. Would also like to point out that most of the templates do not conform to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates that says "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers". Not sure that links coloured like Yellow Submarine and Rubber Soul will help our readers find the articles Moxy (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I came by to add {{UK best-selling albums (by year) 1990–2009}} to this article. Then I noticed these two edits. Do they represent some sort of consensus? The templates were collapsed. Standard protocol would be to do something like the following. Should we delete them all or have them collapsed as follows? Personally, I have never seen album templates before. I think album templates might be removed and the honors be retained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I think the honors should be on the page. I will add the honors collapsed while awaiting feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


Lets see what others have to say, I in no way believe that one of our FA article should have 20 plus templates at the bottom of the page - And would this honors templates not be more appropriate on the Beatles song and albums pages that are about the songs and albums linked in the templates / or on there honors/awards page?. And yes the album templates are over kill and badly designed . Moxy (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Basically, the albums are all redundant with the main Beatles template, while the honors templates link them to their peers just as their peers are linked to them. (not saying the Beatles truly have any peers, but you get the point)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The "honors" templates contain dozens of links to articles of which all but a few are completely unrelated to the Beatles. A succession box in the appropriate song or album article would be a more useful navigation tool. Piriczki (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much the argument that prevails at WP:HOCKEY, but I have not seen any other project use it. I am pretty much finished creating the music templates. I have created 5 kinds (Oscars, Golden Globes, Grammys, Billboard, and UK sales). For example, Oscars and Golden Globes templates (not relevant to the Beatles) seem to prevail in this style. Grammys seemed to convey a similar type of content so I created them. Billboard and UK sales seemed to be better than Category:Christmas music templates, which seemed to exist but only convey information about a week. Personally, these convey to me the information that I would want to see. However, some FAs seem to go by different rules when it comes to templates, e.g., I have seen Barack Obama templates stripped from his bio. I don't understand why templates like {{USSenIL}} are stripped from his article and I see your opinion here to be similar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no end to this honours templates. I realy dont want to see others countries and/or awards follow suit ...as seen bellow its going to get outrageous if a feel their "country" and/or charts/awards should also have a template here.Moxy (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
just their no. 1s from around the world
  • Most no. 1 hits in the German singles chart (12 no. 1s).
    • "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1964), "Paperback Writer" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" (1969), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Something"/"Come Together" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970)
  • Most no. 1 hits in the Australian singles chart (23 no. 1s).
    • "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "I Saw Her Standing There" (1964), All My Loving EP (1964), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), "I Should Have Known Better" (1964), "I Feel Fine" (1964), "Rock and Roll Music" (1965), "Ticket to Ride" (1965), "Help!" (1965), "Day Tripper"/"We Can Work It Out" (1965), "Nowhere Man" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Lady Madonna" (1968), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" (1969), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Something"/"Come Together" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970) [1]
  • Most no. 1 hits in the Dutch singles chart (21 no. 1s).
    • "I Want to Hold Your Hand' (1964), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), Long Tall Sally EP (1964), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), "I Should Have Known Better" (1964), "I Feel Fine" (1964), "Rock and Roll Music" (1965), "Ticket to Ride" (1965), "Help!" (1965), "Yesterday" (1965), "We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper" (1965), "Michelle" (1966), "Paperback Writer" (1966), "Yellow Submarine"/"Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (1967), "All You Need Is Love" (1967), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back" (1969), "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970)
  • Most no. 1 hits in the Swedish singles chart (18 no. 1s).
  • Most no. 1 hits in the Canadian singles chart (22 no. 1s, CHUM chart).
  • Most no. 1 hits in the Norwegian singles chart (21 no. 1s).
  • Most hits in the German singles chart within a calendar year (16 hits, 1964).
  • Most consecutive top 10 hits in the German singles chart (17, from 1965 to 1970).
  • Most no. 1 hits in the German singles chart within a calendar year (4 no. 1 hits in 1969, record shared with ABBA).
  • Group with most top 10 hits in the German singles chart (29 top 10 hits).
  • Group with most weeks in the German singles chart (589 weeks).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the German albums chart (113 weeks at no. 1).
  • Group with most weeks in the German albums chart (1,180 weeks up to 2000).
  • Group with most no. 1 albums in the German albums chart (11 no. 1 albums).
  • The double album The Beatles/1962-1966 spent more weeks in the German album charts top 10 than any other artist album (124 weeks, only beaten by soundtracks My Fair Lady and West Side Story).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the German albums chart within a calendar year (36 weeks at no. 1 in 1964, excludes soundtracks).
  • Group with most albums in the German albums chart within a calendar year (6 albums in 1964).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart (67 weeks at no. 1).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart within a calendar year (29 weeks, 1965).
  • Most top 10 hits in the Dutch singles chart (35 top 10 hits).
  • Most consecutive no. 1 hits in the Dutch singles chart (6 consecutive no. 1 hits).
  • Group with most weeks in the Dutch singles chart (523 weeks).
  • Only act to debut at no. 1 in the Dutch singles chart (3 times).
  • Most no. 1 albums in the Norwegian albums chart (12 no. 1 albums).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian singles chart (97 weeks at no. 1).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart (182 weeks at no. 1).
  • With The Beatles spent more weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart than any other artist album (31 weeks at no. 1, second only to soundtrack The Sound of Music).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian singles chart within a calendar year (25 weeks at no. 1 in 1966).
  • Most weeks at no. 1 in the Norwegian albums chart within a calendar year (48 weeks at no. 1 in 1964).
  • Most consecutive no. 1 singles in the Norwegian singles chart (8 consecutive no. 1 singles from 1965 to 1967).
  • Most hit singles within a calendar year in the Norwegian singles chart (10 hit singles in 1964).
  • Most no. 1 hit singles within a calendar year in the Norwegian singles chart (6 no. 1 hits in 1964).
  • Most consecutive no. 1 hits in the Swiss singles chart (5 consecutive no. 1 hits from 1968 to 1970, chart only started in 1968).
  • Group with most weeks in the Australian singles chart (604 weeks).
  • Group with most weeks in the Finnish singles chart (437 weeks).
  • Group with most top 10 hits in the Austrian singles chart (25 top 10 hits).
  • Group with most top 10 hits in the Danish singles chart (33 top 10 hits).
  • 26 no. 1 hits in Australia (130 weeks at no. 1). (David Kent)
  • 23 no. 1 hits in Australia (101 weeks at no. 1). (Top 40 Research)
  • 22 no. 1 hits in Canada (74 weeks at no. 1). (Chum)
  • 22 no. 1 hits in Sweden (95 weeks at no. 1). (Kvallstoppen)
  • 18 no. 1 hits in Sweden (69 weeks at no. 1). (Tio i Topp)
  • 21 no. 1 hits in The Netherlands (95 weeks at no. 1).
  • 21 no. 1 hits in Norway (97 weeks at no. 1). (VG)
  • 20 no. 1 hits in America (59 weeks at no. 1). (Billboard)
  • 18 no. 1 hits in Denmark (104 weeks at no. 1). (Billboard & Musikmarkt & NME)
  • 18 no. 1 hits in Germany (88 weeks at no. 1). (Bravo)
  • 12 no. 1 hits in Germany (40 weeks at no. 1). (Hit Bilanz)
  • 12 no. 1 hits in Germany (43 weeks at no. 1). (Amtage & Muller)
  • 17 no. 1 hits in Britain (69 weeks at no. 1). (Record Retailer)
  • 16 no. 1 hits in Hong Kong (67 weeks at no 1). (Billboard)
  • 15 no. 1 hits in New Zealand (35 weeks at no. 1). (The Listener 1966 onwards)
  • 13 no. 1 hits in Ireland (47 weeks at no. 1).
  • 13 no. 1 hits in Malaysia. (Billboard)
  • 9 no. 1 hits in Spain (17 weeks at no. 1).
  • 8 no. 1 hits in Zimbabwe (29 weeks at no. 1).
  • 8 no. 1 hits in Switzerland (37 weeks at no. 1).
  • 6 no. 1 hits in Austria (38 weeks at no. 1).
  • 6 no. 1 hits in Belgium (22 weeks at no. 1).
  • 5 no. 1 hits in Finland.
  • 4 no. 1 hits in Italy (18 weeks at no. 1).
  • 2 no. 1 hits in Ethiopia (14 weeks at no. 1)
Basically, I have created three types of honors templates: 1.) film society templates (see Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalSong footer, Template:GoldenGlobeOriginalSong footer and Template:GoldenGlobeOriginalScore footer); 2.) music awards (see Template:Grammy Award for Song of the Year footer, Template:Grammy Award for Record of the Year footer, and Template:Grammy Award for Album of the Year footer) and 3.) year and decade #1s (see Template:Billboard Year-End singles footer, Template:Billboard Year-End albums footer, Template:UK best-selling singles (by year) footer and Template:UK best-selling albums (by year) footer) It seems your argument is that if we allow these templates to exist it will lead to a proliferation of additional clutter. It seems like there should be a way to set policy on what is important and allow the most important to remain and not allow Malaysia and Zimbabwe equal standing. For example, when I look at the bottom of Titanic: Music from the Motion Picture, I see a template describing the "Big Three Score Awards". That suggest to me that only Oscars, Golden Globe and BAFTA are highly significant film society music awards. If we created templates for Ethiopia, Belgium and the like, it would lead to clutter. When I read the WP:LEAD of articles they talk about X artist is a #-time Grammy winner. They don't mention how many awards they won in Austria. WP:MUSIC could set a policy that only the major awards from the Big three have templates. Only the major four awards from Grammy have templates. Only countries that account for a specific size market should have #1 albums. Then all your fears about future proliferation would be assuaged. Removing these is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. You are arguing against other templates not those that exist. Those that exist give the reader a good feel for the contemporaries of the artists that they are reading about, which is an encyclopedic topic although not easily included in the prose of the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could be selective in templates allowed on the page. If Zimbabwe or Malaysia creates a #1 template you could remove that. However, for The Beatles the UK #1 is a little more relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain how all the links in this template are relevant at all to this pages subject? Dont see how 50 Cent, Susan Boyle or Duffy (singer) etc.. have any relation to the Beatles at all. As i have said before a much better place to spam this template's would be were we actually talk about this awards and songs and albums in detail. The template groups right now reads "Beatles honors" - a better title would be "links to unrelated songs, albums and artist from other eras and genres". All that said i dont see anyone but me complain... :-( Moxy (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I like to flip around via the navboxes and learn a bit about other people who have similar accomplishments. Take {{AcademyAwardBestActor 1981-2000}}. Russell Crowe is not really similar to Henry Fonda, but there is a general feeling that a template of people accomplishing the same feats are interesting to readers. That is the point here. I am not saying that 50 Cent is just like The Beatles, just that it is interesting to look at articles of people who have achieve similar feats or just to see a contemporaneous list of peers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Moxy. These are overcomplicated templates that should contain basic information to navigate to in relationship to the topic at hand (best actors - from one actor to another, albums of the year - from one album to another, and so on). Other information is extraneous in the navbox, and to include the navbox on the articles of every individual of the band and production team is simply overkill. (Are you going to include the name of the films for which the actors won on the Academy and Golden Globe templates?) Anyway, if I were interested in learning more on individual albums that earned the Grammy Award, I'd go to Grammy Award for Album of the Year from which I'd be able to link to the artists who recorded them. Amazingly, you're trying to include more in these navboxes than there is in the articles themselves. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you have been trying to help redesign the templates. I was thinking of splitting the templates so that they each contain half as much information. How about Grammy Album of the Year (by album, by artist, by production team) as separate templates. Then each template would be much cleaner with far less extraneous information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
So whenever an album is named the Album of the Year at the Grammy Awards, three different templates will have to be updated? Aren't there lists that can provide all this information on a single page? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the main issue with this specific article, I believe that only the main "The Beatles" navbox (and its sub-navboxes) should be included. Album navboxes are pretty irrelevant, and honours boxes should be placed only on the winning work's article. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Adabow in this respect. I mean, that thing just looks damn messy with every album template. Moxy you did a fab job by removing them. Personally, I feel that indivitual album templates should be deleted. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • My view is that the honors templates should be restored (and that moves of that magnitude should not be made without first seeking and obtaining consensus support). They are helpful for the reason that all such templates are helpful -- and such templates abound on wp. If people don't like templates, they should take it up at the appropriate guideline page IMHO. Rather than eviscerate articles, without obtaining consensus support to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Many of these templates were recently added without consensus, so there is nothing wrong with being bold and removing them. Everything was done appropriately here. Addition and removal of content with explanations in edit summaries; discussions of the disagreement between individual users on their talk pages; and an agreement to seek consensus on the affected article's talk page. Cheers. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a different view. Those templates have been used on many articles, and applied by many different editors. If the template is not accurate, that is reason for removal. But that is not the case here -- nobody is arguing that it is not accurate. Nor is there the urgency of a BLP issue. This is simply a IDONTLIKEIT issue. If the template is accurate, then what is being argued against is not the usage of the template here specifically, but the use of the template on articles generally. That is where the conversation should be had -- the use of the template by many different editors across the project in various articles reflects support for it that should be considered before unilaterally making such a change. The logic in deleting templates should accord with the logic in changing templates, and in that instance wp:bold instructs us "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." The rationale for deletion here is one that would apply to the use of those templates across many articles, and therefore discussion first is better than unilateral deletions that contradict the approach of all the editors who have applied the same templates across many articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe I created and applied all 7 templates in the honors section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much commentary to supply for the honors templates. However, I do have concern about the album templates. I would like to point out that, despite the amount of time I have been on Wikipedia, I have never recalled seeing templates made for albums before. I visited some Pink Floyd pages and saw that they too have album pages. The album pages do appear to be recently created, however. I do agree that there is a clutter issue, and if these album templates are ultimately necessary, then the collapsing mechanism is something that could be useful with all the groups of templates. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this the primary place this discussion is being held? I'm interested in discussing the issues of albums templates and honors templates separately.

I have removed certain templates that did not belong on certain pages, for example, someone was placing both English-language singles templates and Foreign-language singles templates on articles about Celine Dion songs that were not recorded in more than one language. When the subject of the article is not represented within or directly related to the data in the template, the template does not belong. Particularly for a song, which can have several notable covers (and several claims for templates), this extraneous templating is both misleading (suggesting a French version is available, for example) and can present weight issues.

But when does a template belong? An album template, it seems to me, would be quite useful individually on the page for singles/songs from said album. It would allow someone interested in that song to see the context within the album on which it appeared without leaving the page, while allowing for collapsibility and of course allowing for navigation once one observed in that context.

Honors templates should go on the page relevant to the honor. Best New Artist or Vocal Performance or Actor on the performer's page (and perhaps on the page of the primary work for which it was given, as the new artist is summed up by the debut album, the vocal performance on the song, the actor in the film). But if an actor's film won Best Picture, we should not template his bio with a Best Picture template, because while he may well have contributed to the exceptionalism of the work, it was not his individual contribution that was being recognized with that award. Similarly, a Best Song template would go on the song's article, the writers' article, and perhaps on the article for the album that introduced that version of the song, but not on the page of the artist whose version led to the nomination, and certainly not on the pages of artists whose versions did not.

Specifically to the OP's criticism, many users colorize their signatures and others (like myself) do not; I say this as precedence for a standard data field given vast differentiation between different entities (here, users) without creating confusion that it is also a link. As long as it is distinguishable from article text, I think it is indicative of a link, and to the OP I would note that those links are boldfaced, further distinguishing it from standard text.

Obviously some people support some templates within certain parameters, while others feel that either too many templates are being placed on a particular page and/or that the templates need to be perfected. If the result from the response at this page is resulting in the destruction of the template, rather than simply its removal from this page, then this discussion should be held someplace where interested parties can note it and weigh in on the issue in general practice. Abrazame (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My computer was down, so just getting over here. I agree with Piriczki in that the 'honours templates' give me the first impression of being used as a 'succession' device. I have never truly supported 'succession boxes' in music articles. I barely tolerate them in a collapsed version. Instead of these templates I would prefer a link to be given to a 'List of Beatles honours' without the extraneous material. Then links should be provided there to the comprehensive lists of each award. Interested readers then can go there to see the full 'succession' order of each award. (Note my recognition of the 'British English' in the word 'honours' even though I am in the US.)—Iknow23 (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles already exists (link on the article page). Why not just expand that?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Options

So i am seeing a dis-stain (dislike) for including of all the templates ...So lets be clear as to what is being put forth in-terms of what we can do here. Lets get a overall felling of what people are thinking - not talking about any deletion just what should be include here on this particular page.

No one has had anything supportive to say regarding restoring the albums. Let's keep the options to those supported by the respondents above and make the choice simple. The discussion is about keeping or removing honors templates.

Visit to Greece

I found this very intriguing article in a magazine called Odyssey and the feature is written by Jonathan Wingate.

The photos show Ringo Starrr and Paul Mccartney in Greece in 1967 who visted Greece several times, watching locals folk dances at Itea, a seaside village on the coast below Delphi. According the press reports, the trip in July 1967 included a cruise of the Northern Sporades and a visity to Arahova, a mountain village near Delphi, where a short rest on a rooftop terrace turned into an impromptu celebration.

Paul quotes: " In the song 'Girl' that John wrote, there's a Zorba-like thing at the end that I wrote which came from that holiday. I was impressed with another culture's approach because it was slightly different from what we did. We jsut did it on acoustic guitars instead of bouzoukis."

"Ringo and I, particularly, used to be able to get off to Greece, because it was far enough away for nobody to know who we were. And I remember hanging around with the hotel cabaret band and watching them rehearse, trying to persuade them that we were in quite a decent group back in England. 'You know, yeahh, me and the other guy who's at the swimming pool, we're in this band called The Beatles'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.144.132 (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles/Archive 26 interviewed on the Pop Chronicles (1969)

Lennon credits Buddy Holly and the Crickets for the name on the Pop Chronicles, show 27, track 4. We have a book reference for that now, but an online (and audio) source would probably be more useful to readers (and listeners). Is there any objection to my adding it? Little Richard also describes meeting the Beatles on track 3 of this source. DougHill (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for it as an extra source. Everybody here seems to be more interested in lists.--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. DougHill (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Why is there a giant picture of a naked dude? wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.218.132 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism 2011-06-01

There's been some vandalism to the article, but you can't see it if you're logged in as an editor, and I don't know how to fix it. When you're logged out you can see the image in place of the blockquote just after the words "Philip Norman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutatron (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

lmao! wow....some people should not be allowed to edit. there's naked dude all over the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.165.145 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it was vandalism to "blockquote" that has now been fixed. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Content directory of Creative Commons (request for accommodation link)

Art of The Beatles for free use in the content directory of Creative Commons ---- Thanks ! ----93.81.188.69 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As you were told at The Beatles (album): 'Read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and find some other way to drive traffic to your web site'. Radiopathy •talk• 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

False Record Sales

There is absolutely no way that the Beatles sold a billion albums. The best selling Beatles album is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearst Club Band and that sold nearly 32 million copies. The second best selling Beatles album is "1" which sold at the highest claim 28 million copies. Every other Beatles album sold less than 10 million copies, with the exception of Abbey Road (19 million copies). If you were to add all of their record sales together from each record the claim would probably be less than 200 million records, honestly. Also the Beatles are not the best selling musicians in history, Michael Jackson is. Michael Jackson's thriller sold an estimated 110 million records. This combined with Bad (30 million), Dangerous (32 million), HIStory (20 million), Off The Wall (20 million), MICHAEL (20 million), and Invincible (15 million) make Michael Jackson the best selling artist of all time. Even if the claim was to include singles, other artists such as Mr. Jackson and Elvis would still have higher sales. I say that someone should take a close look at the sales of every individual album written by the Beatles, and put that claim down. ~~ John ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbuhome (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't refuse figures claims by record companies for all artists and in the same time accept figures claims by record company selling the discs of your favorite singer. If you refuse figures claims by record companies for all artists, you must also refuse figures claims by record company selling the discs of your favorite singer. But if you accept figures claims by record company selling the discs of your favorite singer, you must do the same thing for all artists. Your figures about Jackson come from his record company. But your figures about The Beatles don't come from their record company. So, no importance. Another thing. If you love the truth, go and correct all the false information on the main page of Michael Jackson. There is so much misinformation it looks like a hagiography: (<His contribution to music, dance, and fashion, along with a much-publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades>)(It's false because before 'thriller' he was unknown outside Usa)
--Roujan (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
What the last guy said. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 14:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Nbuhome is missing this: "The Guinness Book of Records lists The Beatles as the most successful group in history, with more than 1 billion disks and tapes sold". You can't argue with that.--andreasegde (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem with that person it's when during 80's Guinness Book of Records claims 1,2 billion disks and tapes for The Beatles, that person respond : <Guinness Book of Records is not a serious source>

Problem with that person it's when during 80's Guinness Book of Records claims more of 1 billion disks and tapes for Elvis Presley , that person respond : <Guinness Book of Records is not a serious source>

Problem with that person it's when Guinness Book of Records claims more of 750 million disks and tapes for Michael Jackson , that person respond : <Guinness Book of Records is a very good and serious source>

Where is the evidence for these 750 million? No evidence. Why Guinness Book of Records is used for Michael Jackson, but not for Elvis Presley or The Beatles? Because Michael Jackson'fans use the Guinness Book of Records for their idol, Beatles'fans and Elvis Presley'fans must do the same thing. And if the guy above doesn't want Beatles'fans and Elvis Presley'fans use Guinness Book of Records so, he must remove all references to this book which we can read on main page about Michael Jackson. It's all. --Roujan (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My out-of-date copy of the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles and Albums (19th edition) - which isn't the same thing as the Guinness Book of Records - states that The Beatles "have sold an estimated one billion records, including 20,799,632 UK singles", and says that Elvis "was the first artist credited with sales of one billion records". It doesn't give overall figures for Michael Jackson, but interestingly states that "Thriller is the world's biggest-selling record, with global sales estimates varying between 47 and 51.2 million." Which rather flies in the face of the original post - and the rest of Wikipedia, for that matter. Can we use this as a reliable source? (I've a feeling it will be accepted here but rejected on the MJ page...) 213.107.110.183 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

1976: Bill Sargent Entices The Beatles with $50 Million for one concert

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yaczxAC8840/Sb0azQA74tI/AAAAAAAAHQo/KW4xKml8rEk/s1600-h/The

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066319,00.html

$50 Million in 1976 = $198 million in 2011. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=50&year1=1976&year2=2011

--Roujan (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current members?

The wikipedia artist infobox guidelines (which can be seen at: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members) clearly gives this page as an example of an exception to its suggestion that all former members of the band should be listed in the "past members" section of the infobox. It has obviously been agreed that the classic lineup of the Beatles are to be listed as "current members" in the infobox. My question is: what, if anything other than the fact that it was the classic lineup, is the actual justification for placing the main Beatles lineup in the "current members" section? Call it a curiosity, I'm not expecting that there is an answer. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It says members not current members. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"Members" are "current members" as opposed to "past members". Hence the two different sections. There are no current members in a defunct band. I understand that there is a consensus that has led to the decision to class the classic lineup as such, I was just intrigued as to what the consensus was and how it was justified. Burbridge92 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides, from the first record release in 1962 to the breakup in 1970, the lineup was John, Paul, George and Ringo. The two ex-Beatles, Stu and Pete, left the group before they became famous. The infobox format is intended to make sure the "fab four" cannot be confused with the nonexistant fab six. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand the difference between band members that played a major role in a band as opposed to members that did very little. That is beside the point of the sections on the infobox, as they are not there to display "major" and "minor" members, and are not labled as such. Also, having all six members in the former members is not synonymous with them all being in the band at the same time, as that section does not suggest a specific lineup of a band but all of the members of a band which are not present in the group (which, in the case of the Beatles, is all of them). There are more accurate ways of labling members, although I do realise that wikipedia has a lot of "consensus over commonsense". Needless to say, I wasn't challenging the existing consensus, but asking the reasons behind the consensus. Thanks! Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding The Beatles, there is no such thing as a "minor member". They were all Beatles. The infobox shows "members", not "current members" so the fact the the band is defunct is irrelevant. The lineup was again stable from their first Parlophone record release "Love Me Do" in 1962 until the band officially broke up in 1970. As for the listed former members, Stu Sutcliffe left The Beatles in 1961 and died in 1962. Pete Best was sacked in 1962 in favour of Ringo Starr before the band recorded their first record. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#External_Links ------95.29.54.140 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think the text needs to be changed, for example:

"Fab Four"

I see some recent edits are trying to add "Fab Four" to the article. I recently read one theory about how they got their nickname on The Revols#The Fab Four. Any truth to this story? GoingBatty (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I honestly don't know when The Beatles began to be referred to by that name. In any case, if the Revols story is true, it doesn't belong in the lead (it's unsourced, to boot). But maybe a brief mention in the history section or a footnote would do it justice. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's sufficient--brief mention in history rather than footnote...the style of the article does not accommodate the latter. It's simply not important enough to include in the lead section. DocKino (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, were any of you born before 1960? Fab Four meant, simply, The Beatles and should obviously be in the lead. Assuming we think they are worth an article. They weren’t a bad beat group, though. Hmmn…Safari is flagging both ‘Fab’ and ‘Beatles’ as spelling errors…perhaps it’s time to delete the article? Anyway, as long as we think the combo is notable we should have Fab Four emboldened in the lead. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Our high-quality sources, upon which we must rely, suggest otherwise. Let's look at the two most recent authoritative biography-style treatments of the subject, both of which we cite heavily in the article:
Gould, Can't Buy Me Love--"Fab Four" appears three times in a span of 672 pages.
Spitz, Beatles--The Biography--"Fab Four" appears three times in a span of 992 pages (one of those three as "Four Fabs").
The sort of evidence on which we base our decisions in a best-practices article indicates that the nickname is not significant enough from the perspective of historians to warrant inclusion, let alone bolding, in the lead. Again, while it is is already mentioned in passing once in the primary text, in a quotation, I agree it deserves a more direct mention at the appropriate point in the history...though one could look at the evidence and reasonably conclude that it doesn't even warrant that. DocKino (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that outside of the lede, ‘Fab Four’ should not be bolded, in which case people following the redirect will just be left puzzled. Bad. Perhaps the redirect should be deleted? Or perhaps, as Safari suggests, the article should be deleted? That wouldn’t dreadfully offend me—in fact I think that Wikipedia would be improved if it had no articles on living people or any articles at all on pop groups. But this struck me as a very good article indeed last time I read it—it took most of an evening—and I would broadly prefer it to be kept. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe it should be in the lead bolded because it is a redirect term and we usually bold such things. And I think it should remain a redirect term as it is a prominent nickname for the band (a google search on it gives a page of beatles related web pages - I suspect even the Australian cricket item would find its origins in the Liverpool 4). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I initiated the change to include "Fab Four" in the lead after stumbling across the redirect Fab Four while I was cleaning up Fab Five. WP:R#PLA states that redirects "are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." This ensures that the redirected reader knows how the redirected term is associtated with the target article. MOS:LEAD#Usage in first sentence explains that alternative names can be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. Personally, I dont think "Fab Four" is a neologism so I believe the redirect should remain and Fab Four needs to be mentioned in the lead. However, whatever the consensus is for 'Fab Four" in this article, it needs to be consistent with whether or not the "Fab Four" redirect remains. —Bagumba (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "Fab Four" should appear in bold in the first paragraph. Alternative names are always included in the start of an article. The redirect "Fab Four" should obviously point here, as the term almost exclusively refers to The Beatles, nowadays. I really don't see why it only being mentioned a few times in a book means it isn't worth mentioning here (and I completely disagree that Spitz's book is "high-quality" – it's riddled with errors). McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, please; "riddled" is a prime example of exaggeration. Calm down. BTW, I suppose putting "Macca" in is out of the question? :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be to include "Fab Four" in the lead bolded as it is a prominent nickname per MOS:LEAD#Usage in first sentence and as a redirected term per WP:R#PLA. Support: User:Ian Spackman, User:Jwy, User:Bagumba, and User:Mclay1. Oppose: User:DocKino —Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose. Its a honorific not an alternative name. Also please read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote.--SabreBD (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it is not a vote. At any rate--however we resolve its treatment in the lead--I'm adding a sourced mention to the primary text, as there's no disagreement that it has a place in the article somewhere. DocKino (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This could be clarified further, as Bill Harry in his The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia states: “The phrase began to be used by disc jockeys and other members of the media after the release of the With The Beatles album. In his sleeve notes, when writing about George Harrison’s Don’t Bother Me, Tony Barrow used the superlative “The fabulous foursome”, which then led the media to dub them “The Fab Four”. I’ve checked my sleeve notes and there it is. Sounds to me like an American jock must have abbreviated it; I’m sure our queen would never speak like that. --Patthedog (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Barrow's description, as now summarized in our article, sounds perfectly plausible: After he wrote the WTB sleeve notes, but before the album was issued, he abbreviated "fabulous foursome" to "Fab Four" for a press release. No one has challenged that specific account or come forward with contrary evidence. DocKino (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Until now?--Patthedog (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Except for the theory listed on The Revols#The Fab Four? GoingBatty (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Patthedog: What's the challenge? Where's the contrary evidence? Note that Barrow is also directly credited with the coinage in Howard Sounes's Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney and Stuart Shea and Robert Rodriguez's Fab Four FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Beatles ... and More!, both more recent than Harry's encyclopedia. It simply seems that he was unaware of the content of Barrow's press release(s). Again, in the six years since Barrow's memoir was published, there does not appear to be a single substantive challenge to his account or the revelation of any evidence that calls it into doubt.
GoingBatty: Do you mean the completely unsourced "theory" in The Revols article? Do you mean, "It is speculated that The Beatles nickname became 'The Fab Four', after this event"--an event that took place in Canada in April 1965? DocKino (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I just added a {{citation requested}} to The Revols article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it would appear that your sources trump mine - I’m out.--Patthedog (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" Section

After the last paragraph in "Events Leading Up To Final Tour", I added info that I felt was relevant. It was published (with feedback on distinguishing minor/major edits), but then later deleted with no communication. Here's the info I previously included:

On 13 April 2010, the L'Osservatore Romano published a tribute to mark the 40th anniversary of the band's break-up, including a statement of apology to the Beatles from the Vatican for Catholic reaction to Lennon's notorious remark. “It’s true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives,” L’Osservatore Romano wrote. “But,” the newspaper added, “listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless. Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels.” Reaction to this gesture came from Ringo Starr who stated: "Didn't the Vatican say we were satanic or possibly satanic -- and they've still forgiven us? I think the Vatican's got more to talk about than the Beatles."[1][2][3]

If this is info that should be moved to another section (such as "Legacy"), I can understand - But as mentioned, this seemed like a significant enough article to include. Any thoughts? Yobbo14 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I say put it in "Legacy" or maybe in "After the break-up". Probably "Legacy", though. We might should trim some of the wordier stuff, but overall I think it does have a place in the article. I might tackle this next week if no one else has done it by then. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good. Thanks for reviewing. It does seem a bit wordy, but I think it's mainly the quotes from L'Osservatore Romano and Ringo that make it a little long - However, I thought it was important to include the newspaper summary and response to keep it objective. I'd add the paragraph to "Legacy" to assist, but I'm guessing I'm not able since the article is semi-protected? Yobbo14 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
When I removed this information it was because I figured that it was too much detail for the section in this article, and that it belonged better in the More popular than Jesus article, where I moved it to. It may still fit in this article in the "Legacy" section, but it should focus more on the Vatican's recognition of importance, and less on Ringo's response in the context of the Catholic clergy pedophilia scandals. —Akrabbimtalk 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm coming to the discussion a couple days late, but I would agree with Akrabbim that this is too much detail for a high-level article. At best, I can see maybe a one sentence addition to this section. BTW, it says, "South Africa also banned airplay of Beatles records, a prohibition that would last until 1971." I'm not sure where the "also" comes from since this is the only country mentioned in this section that banned Beatles records. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving this info to the More popular than Jesus article certainly seems appropriate. Guess I didn't notice the link to that particular article :) I appreciated the addtional info included from the L'Osservatore Romano publication too. Thanks. Yobbo14 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence format

Per an edit made on 1 May 2011 at 17:37 UTC by Andreasegde, what used to be the opening sentence of the article was split into what is now the first two sentences. He cited his change as being because of grammar, but the grammar was correct before the edit was made. The user who made this edit has obviously been around on here a lot longer than I have; however, I feel that joining the two sentences sounds more streamlined and makes the impact of the statement more impressive. Does anyone else find the original a little more encyclopedic to read? "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." I'll leave the revision alone, but I'd be interested to hear any other feedback about this. Thanks. Mattmpg23 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On that date I changed "...UK charts and held the top spot longer..." to "...UK charts and have held the top spot longer...".--andreasegde (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Inappropriate image

The photograph of the 2 guitars and amp is not appropriate. The picture shows a right-handed Hofner bass guitar. McCartney plays left-handed. Lazyzee (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the informational value provided by the image far outweighs that flaw. DocKino (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Only the actual models of instruments used by The Beatles is appropriate in my opinion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
As it has been accepted as a "flaw", it can not be accepted.--andreasegde (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It most certainly can be accepted, despite its imperfection. By the logic expressed above, every black-and-white image of the Beatles must be discarded as flawed, because they were actually not monochromatic. The image from the Help! trailer must be discarded, because it does not show Starr. Let's trash the Swedish- and Dutch-sourced images on that basis as well.
Come on... The image does not purport to show the Beatles' actual equipment. It's there to give readers a better look at the distinctive sort of instruments and equipment they used, a purpose it fulfills quite successfully. There are three significant items represented, and a relatively minor imperfection in one of them is hardly reason to discard the entire informative image. We would simply not be serving our readers that way. I've modified the caption to address the specific issue that's been raised. DocKino (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"Come on"? From you? You have accepted that the image is flawed, and you go on to say that it has an "imperfection"? Are you being serious? "serving our readers", on Wikipedia is a hard road, but it's the only road. Your argument is weak, and you know it is, but you have to bite the bullet on this one.--andreasegde (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Cool it down, andreasegde. I happen to agree that the image should be removed, but Doc's argument in favor of it is perfectly reasonable.
I would argue against the image even if it showed a properly handed bass guitar. Despite the carefully worded caption, the image seems crafted to appear as if it is showing the Beatles' actual instruments, which it does not. I'd say there's enough authentic Beatles-related images out there that there's no need to include faux ones, however informative, here.—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better image of the correct instruments? GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I was actually laughing when I made my comment. :)) What's next? "This is a photograph of Fred Dibbins, who looks remarkably like Ringo Starr". BTW, I agree with GoingBatty's proposal.--andreasegde (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

The {{sfn}} template should be replaced by the {{rp}} template. Then it would be much easier to follow the references. The "References" section is quite ridiculous right now and the "Sources" section is redundant. The footnotes and the sources they refer to are adjacent; having both might make sense in a book, but not here,

I can do the change in five minutes with an awk script. Let me know what you think about it.

Question - Does this make the page number appear in the main text (body of the article) like this? If so I would say thatpp.25 would make it much harderpp.29 for our readers to follow the text properly.pp.27Moxy (talk)
Thank you for you input. It appears like this[4]: 29  and this[5]: 25–27 . It does not make the text any harder to read than any other supercript already does (including the single ref numbers themselves). There is no justification for having to click only to see a page number and having to click one more time to get to the actual source. Most people want the source, not the specific page number; if there were to be two steps, the source should come first, and the page number at the second click (if that is even possible).
Furthermore, someone reading a printed copy has to check the reference, and then scan the huge list of sources for the name of the publication, making the numbering almost useless.
One way to solve your readability concern would be to show the page number next to the little letters that appear before the sources (e.g.: ^ a:29 b:25-27), but that would take bigger changes to the wiki.
Have you applied your awk script to a similar article elsewhere and gained acceptance there? If so, fine, we'll try it here; otherwise, best to try it on a lower-profile article first. Uniplex (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

'formed in 1960'

why does it say the group formed in 1960? The group was named the Beatles in 1960 but all three main members of that time had actually formed a few years before that. I think that termimonology makes it sound like they met and fromed in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.173.99 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the Beatles formed in 1956 when the Quarrymen were founded. The Beatles are just the Quarrymen after a name change and some member swaps, IMO. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's always annoyed me the way Wikipedia seems to treat The Quarrymen and The Beatles as two different bands. They changed their name several times. Are they all separate bands? McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
And you could say they formed with McCartney joining on 18 October 1957, Harrison auditioning for Lennon in March 1958, or Starr joining in June 1962. The fact is that they were called The Beatles for their first gig in Hamburg on 17 August 1960. That's all folks, as they say.--andreasegde (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The Beatles may have first been called the Beatles in 1960, but the band was in existence before that. I hate to use "other stuff exists" arguments, but in this case I think it's relevant -- Just about every band has gone through several name changes before settling on the one they're most known for (Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead, and Coldplay, to name a few) but none of those are listed as different groups. The Beatles are the Quarrymen just like The New Yardbirds are Led Zeppelin, and like Pink Floyd are Sigma 6. The only caveat I would have would be the issue with the mid-90s reunion of some of the original Quarrymen who, I believe, still tour to this day. That may be an issue that would need to be worked out, but I still say that the Quarrymen, as formed by Lennon in '56, is the same band that released Please Please Me on 22 March 1963, and that played the rooftop of Apple Studios on 30 January 1969. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"I still say that the Quarrymen, as formed by Lennon in '56, is the same band that released Please Please Me". You are joking, right? :))--andreasegde (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. Are you saying that Colin Hanton, Duff Lowe et al were members of the Beatles? Good luck finding a source agreeing with you on that one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said Lowe and Hanton were members of the Beatles when Please Please Me came out -- I said it was the same band. Just like The Moody Blues that released The Magnificent Moodies in 1965 and December in 2003 are the same band, even though only the line-ups only have one member in common. Are we going to start having different articles for every line-up of a band because they must be "different bands" since the members aren't all the same? Slippery slope, methinks. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's a concept: How about different articles for bands that had both different names and different lineups? Like, you know, The Beatles vs. The Quarrymen. Pretty clever, huh? That aside, please cite a high-quality source that unambiguously states that The Beatles formed in 1956. If you can't produce even one such source, it's rather silly to continue this debate. DocKino (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about sourcing and accuracy, where's the source for the band forming in 1960? I don't see a citation next to that statement in the lede. Why is my assertion the one with the burden of proof and not yours? Just because it's been in the article all this time doesn't mean it's right. Being called "The Beatles" for the first time is something completely different from the Beatles "forming". "Forming" implies that this is a group whose members had never all played together before, coming together to "form" a group. But the group was, by and large, in existence prior to 1960, and had been since Harrison joined the Quarrymen in '58. The only thing the supposed "formation" of the Beatles in 1960 is based on is a name change -- something the group had done seven times (by my count) before settling on the name "Beatles". The final incarnation of the Quarrymen and the first incarnation of the Beatles have only one member difference (Ken Brown/Stu Sutcliffe). By the time the name "Quarrymen" was used for the last time, the line-up that would become the Beatles was, barring Ringo, fully assembled. The Quarrymen did not break up and later come together to form the Beatles. To quote an article, "The Beatles began in 1957 when John Lennon formed a skiffle group with his friends called The Quarrymen." The Quarrymen became the Beatles through a name change. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes we all agree that The Quarrymen evolved into the The Beatles as you have just pointed out. Even random books not even related to the topic say 1960 - John Montgomery (30 April 2008). The New Wealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the Fifth Wave. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 141–. ISBN 978-0-7546-7415-3. Retrieved 4 September 2011.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The point is this -- The group was in constant existence as a unit from 1957 to 1970. There is absolutely nothing that happened in 1960 that could be construed as The Beatles "forming". They changed their name to the one that they would become popular under, but that is far and away a different thing from forming. Any source that says that the Beatles formed in 1960 is either misinformed or wrong. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll go along with one point, which is that they decided to adopt the name of The Beatles in 1960: use it, be known as, were booked as; whatever. (BTW, the name change is referenced in the article as [18] Harry 2000a, p. 104., as it should be, and not in the lede)--andreasegde (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
A new name may not seem like a big deal , however this would be the point that the old members from The Quarrymen would no longer have any rights over the band. From a legal stand point its a NEW band that do not have to give up any thing to its old group. So in reality we have the legal formation of a group in 1960 that is legally different then the previous group. There is clearly a legal separation between the two groups as stated in the 2 articles.Moxy (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
As evidenced by the title of the first section: "1.1 Formation and early years (1957–1962)", the current lead sentence is clearly misleading. Whilst perhaps not perfect, "formed in the late 1950s" would be much closer to the mark. Uniplex (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the formation of the group was a process that took place in several steps over several years, the statement "...formed in 19XX" is going to be inaccurate to some degree no matter what year is used. I suggest removing the year from the lead sentence and adding a sentence describing the evolution of the group, something like "Evolving from a student skiffle band called the Quarrymen started by John Lennon in 1956, the group later added Paul McCartney and George Harrison and by 1960 had become a full-time working band and adopted the name The Beatles." Piriczki (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Quarrymen, which John Lennon founded in 1956, went through several personnel and had a few name changes. The Quarrymen have their own article so they are being treated as a separate band because that band is still active with members who were Quarrymen. To make things simple, we are stating that The Beatles became The Beatles in 1960. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple in our eyes it may be, but it belies the fact that the OP was confused by what he read. @Piriczki, the Beatles are not particularly notable for their formation (compared to everything else), so I don't think the lead should dwell on it any more than it currently does (IMHO, Stu doesn't warrant mention in the lead but that's another matter). @Moxy, the book you referred to has "formed by 1960": we have "formed in 1960". How about something like: “The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...” Uniplex (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As disagreements usually go on this page, I really like this one. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Uniplex's suggestion is an excellent one. While I definitely lean to the "formed in 1960" side of the argument, my own offline survey of encyclopedic sources reveals there's no consensus on which date to pick. Just a minor grammatical correction yields two possibilities:
  • The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”
  • The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...” DocKino (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The band was formed in 1960 with John, Paul, George, Stu and Pete. Stu left in 1960 and Pete was replaced by Ringo before their first recording session with EMI. The Hamburg and Cavern years, beginning in 1960, helped to shape the Beatle sound. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in the proposed rewording contradicts anything you've stated; however, your disagreement did bring to my attention that the beginning of the second paragraph is also based on the understanding that The Beatles formed in 1960: "Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960." That would have to be reworded, as well, if we were to decide to make the lead neutral as to the date of the band's formation. DocKino (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion:
The Beatles were an English rock band, formed as The Quarrymen in Liverpool in 1957, later adopting their final name in 1960. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. ... The first line-up of the group to use the name "The Beatles" consited of a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960.
It's clunky, but it's a damn good sight more accurate than it is now. We can smooth it out later. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Clunkiness aside, there is no way "The Quarrymen" should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Time to reiterate: The Quarrymen are not all that significant. The Beatles are. And there is a difference. Following your logic--"The Beatles are the Quarrymen"--Eric Griffiths, Pete Shotton, Rod Davis, Len Garry, Colin Hanton, Duff Lowe, and Ken Brown would all have to be listed in the infobox as former Beatles members...and that's a logic I believe very few people would find acceptable. DocKino (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. As I stated before, The Quarrymen have their own article. They are also an active band which The Beatles are not. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, I will concede that the Quarrymen probably ought not be mentioned in the first sentence. However, the way the first sentence is worded now is unacceptably inaccurate and confusing to those unfamiliar with the subject. The Beatles existed before they were called The Beatles, just like Richard Starkey existed before he was called Ringo Starr. New suggestion: Let's get rid of all mention of their "formation" in the first sentence, and maybe add a sentence or two on the Quarrymen into the first or second paragraph of the lede. Off-topic here, but does anyone know how exactly the Quarrymen exist today as a legal entity? Do McCartney and the estates of Lennon and Harrison have any control whatsoever over how the name is used? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

‘Getting rid of all mention of their "formation" in the first sentence’ is what was proposed above (see bullets). Are you saying the proposal is still unacceptably inaccurate? (it doesn't mention formation or existence) Uniplex (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Quarrymen are a skiffle group whose music had nothing to do with the music The Beatles made. The Quarrymen consisted of John and his schoolmates. Those schoolmates left by 1960 leaving John, Paul, George and Stu with no regular drummer when they began changing names evolving into The Beatles which recruited Pete for their first trip to Hamburg where The Beatles' sound developed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there's a spot of confusion going on here; these are the proposals that were made by DocKino above:
  • The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”
  • The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”
There's no mention in the first sentence of ‘formation’, ‘existence’ or ‘Quarrymen’. Does anyone deem these unacceptably inaccurate? Uniplex (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Just delete the "formed". "...history of popular music. By 1962 the group consisted of...". The details are in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. I misread DocKino's proposal as saying that The Beatles were formed "by 1962", which sounds... well, stupid. On second examination, I have no problem with the latter suggestion. I'd like to see it changed to that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On considering the pair of proposals, I see I prefer the first. As a sentence, "The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s", lands a bit flat. DocKino (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No objection here. Let's make this happen. I would do it right now, but I'll let Doc take official credit for changing it if he wants. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, though my proposals were based very much on Uniplex's suggested edit. Sensing no objections, I'll make the change and we'll see how it goes. DocKino (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Billboard #1 hits

Maybe I can't find it, but the article seems to fail to mention the number of #1 Billboard hits the Beatles achieved. Seems like this should be mentioned in some detail in the legacy or awards section. — GabeMc (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. I've added the information to the "Awards and achievements" section. DocKino (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody

Joseph Murrells' "Book of Golden Records" (1903-1983) : "It was estimated that the Beatles sold 330 million singles discs collectively by January 1970, the biggest sales for any artist in such a short period". --Roujan (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Since Wikipedia seems to treat Rock and Rock and roll as two distinct genres, and since a good portion of the Beatles' work would seem to fall indisputably into the latter category, would there be any objection to me inserting [{Rock and roll]] into the "Genres" field of the infobox? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with that. As our Rock and roll article acknowledges, "The American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary both define rock and roll as synonymous with rock music." Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, which it poses in contrast, treats rock as "more encompassing"—which is not the same as distinct. I believe most people perceive "rock" as a term defining a broader field that largely, or even entirely, embraces rock and roll. Listing both "rock" and "rock and roll", in sum, would always smack of redundancy.
There's also the practical question of what to do about other bands with similarly great generic breadth. Consider our Featured Article on The Kinks, which--just like The Beatles--lists "Rock, pop" in the infobox. Would they get "rock and roll" added, as well, under this concept or not? On what grounds?
No, I believe our established norm works very well in this case. The content of the article--including its lead section--makes quite clear the band's relationship to the less encompassing genre label "rock and roll", so the information is there. No need for and only arguable benefit in this alteration. DocKino (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
"Rock" is a catch-all for guitar/bass/drum-based music. "Rock and roll" is a specific subgenre from the early 50's/60's (think Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis). The point of "rock music" being listed is for brevity, to essentially cover things like "blues rock", "folk rock", "pyschedelic rock", "hard rock", etc, that editors don't want crowding the field. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Beatles Invasion

My entry explains why the Beatles became so popular so fast in the United States, and I believe it should be part of the article. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It is unlikely your edit will be accepted because your account differs greatly from what the cited source says. Piriczki (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I also have to say that it does not do as you claim, (explain why the Beatles became so popular so fast), but just seems to give an unnecessary level of local detail, which is why I reverted it under WP:Undue. It is worth considering that the crucially significant Cavern club gigs get only one mention in this article.--SabreBD (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
When the Beatles were introduced to the United States in Tidewater, Virginia in late December 1963, the playing of Beatle’s recordings were accompanied by a massive marketing campaign, and within a few days the rock and roll stations were playing the Beatle’s music almost every other record . Two weeks later the same situation occurred in New York City.--Cgersten (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not even remotely close to what the source says. Piriczki (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That is what occurred!--Cgersten (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Great! Then you shouldn't have any problem actually sourcing it. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can’t source the above other than my memory. Do remember that Gene Loving a disk jockey at WGH was giving exclusive interviews with the Beatles in 1964. These are the facts, too bad can’t be sourced from a publication, but that is how the Beatles became so popular, so fast in America.--Cgersten (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Members

Oh crap, here's another place where this article goes against the wider consensus. Is there a good reason for the contradiction between "The Beatles" being in the past tense but having current members (two of which are very much in the past tense)? Uniplex (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction since the Infobox shows "Members" (and not "Current Members"). The last (and most widely known) incarnation of The Beatles included all four "members" (even in 1994–1996 where John's voice was used). CuriousEric 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the guideline says:

current_members

Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names.

past_members

Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field.

When rendered, the word "current" is omitted (it is implied). I suggest we follow the guideline, thus giving the reader fewer surprises. Uniplex (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The consensus is to keep as is. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources that say that the foursome is still active, let us know and we'll change the "Years active" to include "1994–present"; otherwise, the group is inactive and ‘all members should be listed here [past members field], and none in the "current_members" field’. Uniplex (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Uniplex on this. But I'm gonna be inactive for a week or so and won't be able to take part in any debate. If there's gonna be a vote, I'm on the "they're all past members" side. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, nowhere on the page does it say active. LOL Hot Stop talk-contribs 09:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think Uni meant that activity was inherently implied in there being a separate "Members" and "Past members" section for a band that no longer exists. Four people are listed as "Members" while two others are listed as "Past members", implying that some of them are still members despite the fact that no recording or any other activity has taken place under the band's name at any given time since 1996. Not to mention the fact that they ceased to exist as a legal entity in '74 (I think). Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hot Stop, the requirement for activity is explicitly stated here:

  • If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here [past members field], and none in the "current_members" field

The consistency that the guideline promotes is for the benefit of WP readers (who, esp. with scripts etc., may perform semantic searches based on these fields). Given that it seems highly unlikely that you're going to come up with the sources required to support the current infobox entry per the guideline, I couldn't see any point in delaying making the correction so have done so. Uniplex (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox music artist" for "past_members" also shows In some exceptional cases (e.g. The Beatles), and only with a clear consensus, members at the time of dissolution may be listed in the "current_members" field., which was conveniently omitted from the above excerpt. This has been in place for over two years, and must have been the result of a clear consensus at the time. The Beatles has been a featured article using "current_members" with no complaints until now. This guideline is quite clear, and "current_members" should be used. CuriousEric 13:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if we could avoid this perennial discussion simply by renaming the parameter from current_members to simply members. —Akrabbimtalk 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess you'd have to suggest that at WP:MUSIC. Uniplex (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
@CuriousEric, any guideline can be overridden at any article if consensus is that WP's mission and policies would be better met by doing so. However, clearly, there is not consensus now that denoting past members of this band as current members (whilst not doing so in the general case) better meets WP's goals. If you have arguments that behaving in this apparently inconsistent way is beneficial to WP's mission (i.e. ultimately its readers), then you are welcome to try to gain a new consensus based on them. Uniplex (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
See some past discussions:
Here are some further discussions elsewhere, though I haven't taken the time to read them all the way through yet.
It also looks like there is currently an RfC going on at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Members of defunct groups. —Akrabbimtalk 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, in that case, I guess we should wait for the wider consensus to be re-established before going any further here. Uniplex (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Right now, the general guideline (excluding "exceptional cases") is to list all members as "Former members". The RfC asks whether they should instead all be listed as simply "Members". The consensus developed there should determine what to discuss here; it has the potential to completely change the focus of the argument. —Akrabbimtalk 15:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again, the infobox says "members", not "current members". The lineup from the first record in 1962 until the formal breakup in 1970 was John, Paul, George and Ringo and were often referred to as The Fab Four. Before they became famous, there were two former Beatles, Stu and Pete who were officially Beatles. So to make sure they can never be mistakenly called the Fab Six, the members are John, Paul, George and Ringo and the former members are Stu and Pete. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed from lead

I have removed the following sentence from the lead:

"Lennon was murdered outside his home in New York City in 1980, and Harrison died of cancer in 2001. McCartney and Starr remain active".

Another editor has replaced it and challenged me to obtain a consensus for its removal, and I have decided to ask for opinions on whether it should be included or not. I feel that it should not as it is a description of the lives of the members of the band after its dissolution and does not belong in what should be the summary lead of an already long article about the band as a unit. Thoughts, please? Britmax (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

I agree. The band members have their own pages, and as Lennon and Harrison they did not die while they were actually in the band, it is not needed.--andreasegde (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Given the depth of the ongoing cultural association of these four individuals with The Beatles, the continued inclusion of those two concise sentences is natural and appropriate. DocKino (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
After the break up, the individual members were/are still notable as Beatles and regularly referred to as such (e.g. Rolling Stone, 2010: "The Beatle and an assortment of "All Starr" musicians took the stage..."). The article has a significant section on the Beatles post 1970. The sentence in question is engaging and entirely appropriate (in fact it's 2 sentences; with a semicolon though, it could become one). Uniplex (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what's "engaging" about being dead, and if anyone doesn't know about Lennon's demise, they haven't been getting out enough.--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's engaging because it completes the story, of all four Beatles. Uniplex (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia -- it's our job to treat people like they don't get out enough. By the same logic we might as well get rid of everything but the most obscure bits of Beatles history. Everyone knows they were an English rock group, right? Let's take that out of the lede. All four Beatles were and are being referred to as "Beatles" well after the break-up. The world sees them as Beatles, and they still saw Lennon as a Beatle when he was killed. The idea that we shouldn't include them since most would be aware of those facts is preposterous. We could delete scores of entire articles on a premise like that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oi, knock it off with the attitude.--andreasegde (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we please conduct this debate in a slightly less grumpy way? I mostly agree with Evanh2008, although I don't like the way he expressed his opinion. The Beatles' story is significantly affected by the early deaths of half the core band (never mind the death of Stu Sutcliffe). I think that these sentences belong in the intro, because there's no doubt that for the remaining protagonists, McCartney and Starr, the deaths of Lennon and a fortiori Harrison preclude any prospect of a Beatles reunion. By the same token that Evanh uses, they should be described as an 'English rock group' because, despite what contributors may think, not everyone has heard of the Beatles and not everyone knows who they were. My four-year-old daughter can sing their songs but she barely even understands the concept of a 'rock group'. So can we please have the humility to articulate things that we think are totally obvious? Lexo (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was being grumpy. Apologies if anyone was offended by that. My only point was that the premise that things that we would expect people reading the article to know already should be removed from the article, is not a very good way of going about making a complete and informative encyclopedia article. If people are reading this article, it's safe to assume that they're looking to learn more about the Beatles, so I don't think anything notable should be omitted. And the deaths of two of their members are certainly notable. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lexo, the debate had concluded, with no consensus to remove. Uniplex (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please don't start that "@" business here. Britmax (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Videography

Since The Beatles were pioneers in the field of music videos, I think it would be a good idea to highlight this by making a separate heading for their Videography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHeadTrip (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Length of intended 48 day residency on first Hamburg trip suddenly in question?

According to a newly discovered August 1960 letter from Paul McCartney in response to an advertisment from an anonymous drummer, the original residency in Hamburg was intended to be for two months, not 48 days as currently written in this article's "Formation and early years (1957–1962" section. According to McCartney's own words from this newly discovered and deemed genuine letter, "Dear Sir, In reply to your advertisement [sic] in Echo, Wed. night, we would like to offer you an audition for the position of drummer in the group. You will, however, need to be free soon for a trip to Hamburg (expenses paid £18 per week (approx.) for 2 months.) If interested, ring Jacaranda club, Slater St. [ROYAL 65'44] and ask for either a member of the 'BEATLES' Alan Williams [sic], or else leave a message, stating when you will be available. Yours sincerely Paul McCartney Of THE BEATLES."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/the-beatles/8829183/Help-We-need-somebody-McCartneys-call-up-to-the-fifth-Beatle.html Kentjohnston (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But even more importantly, this new information sheds light on the fact that by Aug 1960, for whatever reason, The Beatles still did not yet have a drummer lined up for their first Hamburg odyssey and that Pete Best must have been very much a last second emergency addition. Kentjohnston (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I like to suggest an improvement of the lead. Their importance could be illustrated by the fact that they have been copied widely by others, for instance:

According to 'Guinness World Records', Yesterday by The Beatles was covered seven million times in the 20th century. Official versions range from the sublime (Frank Sinatra) to the ridiculous (Wet Wet Wet and Boyz II Men).

- The Independent. Soerfm (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this specific reference would be more appropriate for the "Yesterday" article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Years active

This has been brought up before, but I do think it is a valid point. The "years active" should include 1994-1996. During this time, the surviving members (Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr) reunited and used demos that John Lennon had made before his death. This new music was released under the artist name "The Beatles" and promoted as "new songs," which they were. The three remaining Beatles referred to the new songs as "new Beatles songs."

The standard for a "reunion" is either former members performing together again under the name of the band, or releasing new music under the name of that band. For example, Led Zeppelin has reunited on a few occasions for performances, and this is noted in the "years active" section on their page.

Another example would be "The Cars." They recently released new music for the first time in many years, and the dates have been adjusted as well.

I'm not trying to belabor this argument, but I honestly feel that the page is not entirely accurate without having these dates.

Thank you.

CDaly (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you there. To be fair, the two reunion singles (Free as a Bird and Real Love) were overdubbed in 1994 and 1995, respectively, so you could make the case that 1994-1995 would be more accurate. Now and Then was worked on around the same time as Real Love. We don't really know how much work was done on Grow Old With Me, or (assuming there was work done) when those sessions were. At any rate, the only releases were in '95 and '96. I don't know if the standard is to use release dates or recording dates in the "Years active". But there does need to be a change, I think. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed that this period of activity is conspicuous by it's absence. I assume that the counter argument is that with a member down, they cannot be referred to as the Beatles. The response would be "follow the sources": MacDonald, for example, categorises the '95 work as "The Beatles' Records" along with the rest of their catalogue. Uniplex (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I sense no objections so far. Let's change this and see where it goes. Please note that I am not offended by WP:BRD procedures. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No. There was no Beatles 'reunion'. What happened during that time was that three of the former band members collaborated on a video documentary, a book and two songs. In order for there to have been a reunion, to paraphrase George Harrison, John Lennon would have to have stopped being dead. It sounds warm and fuzzy and fab and gear and whatever to refer to it as a reunion, but it wasn't and couldn't have been. Radiopathy •talk• 23:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid opinion, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but a very sizable portion of reliable sources on the matter would disagree. And that's all we can use as a basis for the article's info. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings on this issue, but feel I should point out that Led Zep's reunions are treated differently in the infobox (as reunions and not as active years) and were of a very different nature, since they involved (only) live performances. The situation is also different with the Beatles, since, unusually, they were legally and formally dissolved in a British court by McCartney in 1970s. As far as I am aware there was no attempt to reverse that legal situation in the 1990s. Also if there is "a very sizable portion of reliable sources" that indicate this was a reunion it would be helpful to have links or details here. I notice that Allmusic sums up the situation by noting that "whether this constitutes the actual long-awaited "reunion" is the subject of much debate".--SabreBD (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources say that two 'new' songs were released under The Beatles brand, but they can't claim that those records constitute a reunion. Three of the former members were 'active' on a collaborative project during this period, but never once referred to what they were doing as 'a Beatles reunion'. Of course any of us could twist the refs and make them say what we want. Radiopathy •talk• 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think Paul did refer to it as a reunion in one of the Anthology bonus features. Not trying to nitpick, though. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
While I do personally think it is a reunion, one could also argue that the parameter is "years active." The Beatles were active, recording and releasing NEW music, from at least 1994-1995, maybe 1996. Whether or not we all think if it was a reunion is irrelevant. They were indeed "active" as a band again during those years. CDaly (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Years active" is all that we were arguing, and all that was changed in the article; we can save the 'reunion' argument for another day. To recap, the primary sources (the singles) and the secondary sources (e.g. MacDonald) both indicate activity in this period. Uniplex (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we're edging dangerously close to an edit war here. So let's take a deep breath, leave it at 1960-1970 alone, and try to get a consensus before going further. I was stupid to think that three was a consensus when I first added the dates. I still think I'm right, but let's take this slower.
The way I see it, new music being recorded and released under the name of the band would indisputably constitute "activity" from the period 1994-1996. The presence or not of John Lennon has no impact on what all the official sources say -- and the official sources say that new Beatles songs were recorded in '94 and '95, and released in '95 and '96. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor, who for some reason seems reluctant to join the discussion, postulated in an edit comment that the 95,96 output was not the Beatles; however MacDonald disagrees, so I've cited and quoted this. If other reliable sources say differently, we just present both views with due weight. Uniplex (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. One could argue that McCartney, Harrison, and Starr overdubbed themselves onto songs previously written and recorded by Lennon, and then marketed them as "new" Beatles songs, though in actuality, not one of the four musicians on the recordings were at the time of the recordings, legal members of a band named the Beatles, which was legally dissolved in 1975, and has since not been reformed. On the other hand, few would argue that Pink Floyd's 2005 Live 8 performance wasn't a "reunion", even though Waters was not legally re-admitted into Floyd, which at the time consisted of Gilmour, Mason, and Wright. But clearly 2005 was an active year for Pink Floyd, since the band was never legally dissolved, and it still included legal members. The question here is, was 1994-1996 active years for the Beatles. I would tend to say no, because in 94'-96' neither McCartney, Harrison, or Starr was a legal member of a band named the Beatles, and they were recording using master tracks from Lennon, who was formally a Beatle, but not a Beatle at the time he made the recordings. In short, during the years 1994-1996, there was not an active band named the Beatles, rather three former members of the Beatles, using tracks from a fourth former member to create "finished" tracks which were then marketed as "new" Beatles songs, though in actuality, said band was legally dissolved at the time of the recordings, and did not exist as a legal entity for which one could list current members.

Were McCartney, Harrison and Starr in a temporary reformation of the Beatles that began in 1994 and ended in 1996? Was Lennon a Beatle when he wrote and recorded the demos? The answer to both questions is no. IMO, they were called new Beatles songs as a marketing ploy, nothing more, nothing less, and the band, as of now has not legally existed since 1975. So how could a band that does not exist reunite or be active. I would say McCartney, Harrison, and Starr collaborated to "finish" a couple Lennon songs, but they were not in a band called the Beatles when they did this. While I am well aware that the songs were officially released as Beatles songs, IMHO it would have been more proper to call the songs Lennon compositions, with three very famous, and familiar musicians providing posthumous accompaniment. The songs do not constitute a reunion, or activity by a dissolved band, but rather three former members using the brand to market the material, IMHO. The Beatles were active from 1960-1970, and have not reformed since their legal dissolution in 1975. This opinion is based on strict legal interpretation, but for the record I do see the difficulty of saying McCartney, Harrison, and Starr collaborated to "finish" a couple of Lennon songs, yet this does not constitute a reunion or official band activity, so in part I am torn. I think the simplest answer is that the surviving Beatles did not want to officially/legally/contractually reform the band, yet they wanted to work together, and exploit the obvious benefits of using the Beatles brand to market the songs. In the documentary "The Love We Make", about the concert for New York City after 9/11, McCartney explains to someone why there could never be a Beatles reunion, he says, "because you'd look over, and there would be a guy missing ... the Beatles don't exist." Or so said McCartney in November 2001. — GabeMc (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As above, we rely on what the sources say, not editors' opinions. Uniplex (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
True that Uniplex, and if you look at the source you are using, MacDonald, he refers to McCartney, Harrison, and Starr as ex-Beatles and the "reunion" as a "virtual" one, both on page 376. Where on page 381 does MacDonald say the Beatles were an active group during 1994-1996? Or anywhere in the book for that matter? On the first page in the "Preface To The First Revised Edition" MacDonald refers to the "finished" demos as "reunion" singles, using quotations marks to indicate his concern with categorizing them as such. Also, the reliability of the source is dubious, IMO, as the book is mostly comprised of MacDonald's own personal opinions about the Beatles music. And, his personal opinions are dubious, as he clearly states that Abbey Road is not a good album in his estimation, so one might question his expertise on the subject. — GabeMc (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at what other reliable sources on the Beatles say in regards to the subject:

1) Barry Miles in The Beatles Diary: An Intimate Day by Day History, copyright 1998, my edition was published in 2009. Miles has the Beatles disbanding in 1970 when McCartney quit,(pages 314-317) and then sued for dissolution.(p.318) Miles does not mention the Anthology except in passing,(p.319) and he does not include McCartney, Harrison and Starr's recording sessions in the 90s as Beatles activity. Further, according to Miles, the Beatle's last single was "The Long and Winding Road"/"For You Blue", released 11 May 1970.(p.316)

2) According to Bob Spitz in, "The Beatles: The Biography:, copyright 2005, the band broke up in 1970, and the 90s Anthology period is not included in his history of the band, but merely mentioned in passing, as a footnote really, in the notes section at the end of the book.(pp.861-862)

3) Harry, "The Beatles Encyclopdedia" (2000). Bill Harry calls "Free as a Bird", "the first 'new' Beatles single since 1970."(p.428) Notice Harry puts "new" in quotations? According to Harry, on 27 April 1971, " ... the saga of the Beatles had finally come to an end."(p.107) Harry refers to McCartney, Harrison, and Starr as the Threatles, in regard to the work they did on the Lennon songs.(p.113)

4) Harry also refers to them as the Threatles in "The John Lennon Encyclopedia"(2000).(p.259) Also in "The Lennon Encyclopedia", Harry writes that in April 1970, "The Beatles as a partnership had ceased to exist.", and "In the 1990s the three former members decided to get together again, along with Yoko Ono ..."(p.102) Notice he refers to them as former members?

5) According to Harry in, "The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia"(2002), 9 January 1975: "The Beatles partnership is finally dissolved at a hearing in the High Court in London."(p.150) When discussing "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" Harry never uses the word reunion, and as far as I can tell the Threatles recorded for maybe 4 months in 1994, as Harry states that the recordings for "Free as a Bird" took place in February and March of 1994,(p.346) so that's two months to complete the trickier of the two tracks, "Real Love" being almost complete, and not featuring any additional lyrics or bridges, or middle eights from Paul, George, or Ringo.(p.743) — GabeMc (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing with yourself as to whether or not the 94-96 activity represents a reunion—it has not been suggested that this should be stated in the article. As above, please go ahead and represent, with due weight, opinions of other reliable sources on whether or not the new material, recorded and released in this period, under the name "The Beatles", by Apple: The Beatles' corporation, constitutes activity. Presumably, as you believe that MacDonald has proved himself worthless by not exalting Abbey Road, you're going to remove the other material in this article and the hundreds of other Beatles-related articles that rely on him as a source. Uniplex (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
— GabeMc is not arguing reunion versus activity - he clearly presents reliable sources that question whether the '94-'95 sessions actually involved 'The Beatles', as opposed three former Beatles. Radiopathy •talk• 18:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
GabeMc said ‘the "reunion" as a "virtual" one’, ‘"reunion" singles’, ‘Harry never uses the word reunion’. Not "a reunion" is a straw-man argument that simply wastes everyone's time—it has not been suggested that this should be stated in the article. We have references such as Harry's "Free As A Bird The Beatles 28th official single", Badman's “The Beatles' second comeback single 'Real Love' is released.”, MacDonald's "CD singles ... by the Beatles"; also charts companies, and Guinness World Records that all confirm that this activity was by the Beatles. The onus is on those who deny this to come up with something more concrete than straw men about the word ‘reunion’, or unfounded suggestions that an agreement in 1970 to cease activity necessarily precludes a future agreement to resume activity—clearly, the evidence is to the contrary, unless you're going to tell us that the activity resulted in a fraud case or something. Uniplex (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I was using the "reunion" issue to illustrate a point, because afterall, how can a band be active who hasn't at first reunited, even if just for a short period? The Beatles were dissolved, and they do not exist as a legal entity or a band, not until they reform, which at this point has not happened. Macdonald does not claim 1994-1996 as active years for the band called the Beatles, you are misreading the source. Also, McCartney's official bio, Many Years From Now, (1997) only mentions the Anthology in passing, and does not devote a single sentence to describe the period. So do you really think that McCartney's former band, the Beatles, were active for 3 calender years yet he does not mention this in his bio? See Gould (2008), he does not mention the period either, so why would these active years be ignored by the most recent reliable bios of the band? As far as the fraud case, Uniplex, who would have grounds to sue McCartney, Harrison, and Starr for using "the Beatles" band name? They are the only surviving former members who were not officially removed from the band (see Pete Best). It comes down to this, a High Court judge dissolved the Beatles legally on 9 January 1975, and the band has not reformed since. They do not exist as a legal entity, and they did not reform to become active in 1994. Per: "unfounded suggestions that an agreement in 1970 to cease activity necessarily precludes a future agreement to resume activity", first off nothing precludes them from reforming, they just never have, secondly, the band was legally dissolved in 1975, not 1970, and this is certainly not unfounded, reliable sources agree, the band broke up by April 1970, and Lennon, Harrison and Starr stopped fighting the retainer on 27 April 1971. Uniplex, please point us to the source that clearly states the the band "the Beatles" reformed in 1994 and were active until 1996, otherwise it is original research, and you are assuming that the finished demos constitute official band activity. P.S. You are wrong about the onus being on those who wish to maintian the stable, and long-standing consensus. The onus is on those who wish to change the active years, not those who want to maintain the staus quo. — GabeMc (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
“how can a band be active who hasn't at first reunited ... ?”—this is not philosophy corner; this is WP: we go by WP:V etc. Shifting from ‘not a reunion’ to ‘didn't reform’ doesn't change it from being a straw-man argument—it has not been suggested to stated differently in the article. Given reliably sourced texts such as "Free As A Bird The Beatles 28th official single", your statement “you are assuming that the finished demos constitute official band activity” defies comprehension.
When multiple WP:RSs document and describe activity—per it's commonly understood meaning in this context (within WP and at large) i.e. touring or releasing new records—it is informative, and not undue WP:SYNTHESIS, for us to denote it as such. If you feel that this period of activity should be qualified, with a footnote perhaps, great, let's be as informative as we can. Uniplex (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't weighed in here before because I did not have a strong opinion about the matter, and I felt that my edit summaries calling for the discussion to play out before changes, if any, were made were perfectly clear.
Now, I'll say I concur with all the points GabeMc has made above. (In particular, the point concerning on whom the onus falls in a debate such as this is something that Uniplex, as a relatively new contributor, you need to recognize. You will find, everywhere around Wikipedia, that respect is paid to established consensus as reflected in the status quo, and that it is incumbent on those who wish to alter it in the face of opposition to either forge a new consensus or accept with good grace that their position does not prevail in what is a communal, collaborative effort.)
In sum, I agree that the infobox should continue to say the band was active 1960–1970, period.
This does not mean that the opposing interpretation is irrational, simply that the prevailing view among high-quality sources is that the mid-1990s activity revolving around the production of the Anthology, "Free as a Bird", and "Real Love" did not rise to the level of constituting activity by the band The Beatles, which broke up in 1970. We can all agree that the activity was relevant to the band's history, but, like it or not, most high-quality sources do not treat it as particularly important, let alone regard it as the band, which is the subject of this article, coming back together again. DocKino (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
As you say that you agree with GabeMc points, you are invited to comment on the apparent fallacies contained therein, which I noted above. W.r.t. to your point about consensus, my point was that given explicit RSs for "X is Y", the onus is on editors who disagree that X is Y, to come up with a similarly explicitly RSs for stating "X is not Y". In this case however, it seems that GabeMc is trying to prove (by reference to legal proceedings in 1970 etc.) that "X is not Y", which will lose out in a consensus judgement to RSs for explicit "X is Y". The consensus at our parent project WP:WPMU is that reflecting the significance of a piece of information is a role for the body of the article body, not the infobox. Uniplex (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I find no fallacy in GabeMc's observations. I do, however, find a couple serious fallacies in your argument. First is the notion that somehow all activity relevant to a subject is activity by the subject.
Let's look at one of your central claims that relates to this notion--that the identification of "Free as a Bird" as a "Beatles single" means the band must have been active for it to be produced. This is not nearly so obvious as you assume. For instance, the JXL remix of "A Little Less Conversation" released in 2002 is commonly identified as an Elvis Presley single--yet Presley, dead for 32 years, was obviously not active in 2002. In sum, while you may choose to regard the mid-1990s activity in question as activity by The Beatles, and may be able to find a source or two (that you interpret as) supporting your position, the prevailing view among high-quality sources is that what took place in the mid-1990s does not qualify as the band being active again.
Which brings us to the second serious fallacy in your argument, which appears to pivot on this statement: "given explicit RSs for 'X is Y', the onus is on editors who disagree that X is Y, to come up with a similarly explicitly RSs for stating 'X is not Y'." This actually embodies two fallacies: (a) that your impression of what is "explicit" in the relevant cited statements is objective and definitive, rather than subjective and interpretive; and (b) that an explicit positive statement can only be counterbalanced by an equally explicit negative statement.
Concerning (a): you seem to regard MacDonald's description of the two mid-1990s singles as "Beatles' records" as an "explicit" statement that the band was active during that period; I do not, in part for the reason I outlined just above, in part because it is is simply not an explicit, unambiguous statement that the band was active during that period. It is open to interpretation--you happen to rationally interpret it one way; within the context of a broader knowledge of the band and its history, I happen to rationally interpret it another.
Concerning (b): even if we did have an explicit statement in one high-quality source (e.g., "The Beatles reunited in 1994 to record two new singles"), we would have to judge that by looking at how other high-quality sources treat that period in full. To support a counterargument, it is not necessary that they state an explicit negative (e.g., "The recording of the two singles did not mean the band had re-formed"); in almost any historical writing, explicit negatives are comparatively rare. Instead, we look at how high-quality sources generally handle, or dismiss, the activity and reach a judgment about how they judge it--in the present case, it seems clear to several editors here (Myself, GabeMc, Radiopathy) that the prevailing view among high-quality sources is that what happened in 1994–96 did not constitute a new period of activity by The Beatles. It is not necessary to point to one explicit statement (or a statement interpreted as explicit) to make that case; an understanding of the perspectives of multiple high-quality sources is much more relevant. DocKino (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Years active (break 1)

For whatever reason, it seems there's a lot of talking at crossed-purposes going on. Let's try taking things one step at a time and see if we can build a consensus. WPMU instructs us to denote, as "Years active", “Period(s) during which the act was or has been active”. The word "active" is not explained further since, in the context of a musical artist, the term is well understood—to refer to the artist performing in public and/or releasing newly-recorded material. Perhaps folks could comment just on that general statement for now (but don't worry too much about the performing bit), and we'll see where we go from there. Uniplex (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

'Period(s) during which the act was or has been active' in this context clearly points to the period 1960-70, during which time all of the Beatles were alive and performing/recording as a band; it tells us nothing about a situation in which a band had been legally dissolved and one of the members (the founding member, BTW) had died. Radiopathy •talk• 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The guide doesn't mention the need to consider what contracts may or may not have been in place, nor does it advise to take into account a band's line-up changes, presumably because these things are not considered relevant. Uniplex (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
While I get the feeling you are defining this in such a way that pleases you, I will play along. " ... the term is well understood—to refer to the artist ... releasing newly-recorded material." Lennon's parts were recorded before his death, 14-17 years before McCartney, Harrison, and Starr recorded their parts, so how do the finished demos constitute "newly-recorded material"? For example, and in support of DocKino's comment above regarding the posthumous remix/re-release of the Elvis tune, take the Hendrix song, "Angel" first released in 1971, after Jimi died, but while Cox(bass) and Mitchell(drums) were still alive. Clearly 1971 did not constitute an "active year" for Hendrix, who has at least 9 posthumous studio albums to his credit. Further, Mitchell re-recorded a new drum part for "Angel" for it's inclusion on 1992's The Ultimate Experience, but clearly 1992 was not an active year for Jimi Hendrix, Mitchell's newly recorded drum part aside. But why "newly", what if a band had an album in the cans for 30 years, then mixed it and released it as a "new" album? Surely old material could still be used for a "new" album, and the release year could be considered "active", think Brian Wilson's Smile. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh btw, the Elvis song was released by someone else, under the name "Elvis vs JXL". Uniplex (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The remix song is creditied as "Elvis VS JXL", which essentialy means Elvis and JXL, not JXL without credit to Elvis Presley. The remix song is officially credited to Elvis according to, Whitburn, Joel. The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits. 8th ed. Billboard Books; 2004. ISBN 0823074994. — GabeMc (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The Hendrix analogy is inaccurate because since Hendrix was dead, it would be physically impossible for him to be "active". I'm not sure if those recordings were released under Hendrix's name or under the name of the Experience, but if it is the latter that certainly should be listed as an active year for the Experience. Lennon was dead in the 90s, true, but he did not constitute the Beatles in the same way Jimi Hendrix constituted Jimi Hendrix. There were three other members of the band who were very much alive in 1994-96, and recorded material that was released under the name of their old band. Even if Lennon had not appeared on the records at all, any material released under the band's name constitutes activity, in my opinion. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, a dead artist cannot be active. I am arguing that while a band cannot die as a person can, a band can be dissolved as the Beatles were. Dissolved and dead are essentially the same thing here, except of course that a dissolved band can reform, while a dead artist is well, dead. The Beatles formed in 1960(born), and broke-up in 1970, and were dissolved(died) on 9 January 1975. Evanh, as per your comment: "any material released under the band's name constitutes activity", by this logic then, the Beatles were active in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Since albums by the Beatles were released in all these years. That would take the active years for the band from 10 to 29. — GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Per your comment: "Given reliably sourced texts such as "Free As A Bird The Beatles 28th official single",(TPME, Harry, 2002, p.345) your statement “you are assuming that the finished demos constitute official band activity” defies comprehension." Question, how does Harry get to 28? The Beatles officially released only 22 singles as a group, before breaking up, in 1970. Shouldn't that number be 23? Or do you want to count all the singles released after they broke up, and count each year a single was released as an active year as well? Is 28 an accurate number? What is Harry's source to arrive at 28, "official singles"? What were the 5 "official singles" previous to "Free As A Bird"? — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You can find them here, R 6013 to R 6055; Badman concurs btw: “'Free As A Bird', The Beatles' 28th official EMI single...”.
The point of having a definition of "active" is not to please any one editor—if we don't agree on what constitutes activity in the general case; we're unlikely to agree in the specific case. So, we have: years_active Period(s) during which the act was or has been active, i.e. performing in public or releasing newly-recorded material. If you don't think it matches the understanding of the typical WP reader, please suggest an improvement. The definition, if recorded, would also reduce unnecessary future discussion here, and perhaps at other articles within WPMU: a win-win situation. Uniplex (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Releasing" is not commonly what bands do (or did), but what commercial distributors do, so I'm afraid your beloved WPMU definition is feeble on the face of it. Much better to say, in general terms, that an act is active when it is performing publicly or recording new material. So much for the general definition (please do get to work on that, seriously); now for the specifics. Even with a strong general definition, debates are still likely to crop up in many specific cases. In this case, there are two debatable issues, which come down to the applicable (and interwoven) definitions of (a) "act" and (b) "new material". Does the collective studio activity of McCartney, Harrison, and Starr in the mid-1990s constitute activity by The Beatles? Debatable. Do "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" constitute new Beatles material? Debatable. Most high-quality sources evidently do not support your view that The Beatles (per se) recorded new material (per se) during this period. The fact that they were released under The Beatles' name and marketed as new Beatles material is not relevant to the specific question we are addressing, as GabeMc has already explained. DocKino (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that if a band recorded some stuff but then failed to release it, that readers would expect that to be classified as activity—it would be unlikely to be notable anyway; of course, many bands in that situation might also be gigging so the point would be moot. What do others think of DocKino's suggestion? (which, whether apparently feeble or not, should hardly be described as such as such behaviour is unlikely to be seen as being conducive to forming a consensus.) Whether the sources that document that the Beatles released new material in this period are considered "high quality" or not, they are the ones currently being used to source this article and Beatles articles in general, and are listed on the Beatles project page as Books used for references. Uniplex (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"I don't think that if a band recorded some stuff but then failed to release it, that readers would expect that to be classified as activity". I believe you are simply wrong. Case in point: Between June and September 1967, Bob Dylan, with the musicians who would soon become known as the Band, recorded more than 100 tracks, none of which were officially released for eight years. Dylan did not perform publicly during those four months. According to your logic, Dylan was not active during June–September 1967 until the June 1975 release of The Basement Tapes, when he magically, retroactively activated. That's an untenable position. Again, gigging and recording are what an act does; until very recently, with few (DIY) exceptions, releasing and marketing were things done by record companies, and don't speak to an act's activity. DocKino (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DocKino, clearly Dylan was active during June–September 1967, regardless of when the tracks would eventually be released by his record company. — GabeMc (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, my point above about 28 "official singles" is simple. If an "official single" constitutes "band activity" in your definition, then what years where the Beatles active when they released their 23rd-27th "official singles"? Also, your link, here, lists over 60 singles, so how does this support your contention that "Free As A Bird" is #28? Also, the list omits "The Long and Winding Road", so really, this source is not reliable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The definition, does not mention "official single"; it refers to "newly-recorded" material: clearly, a record company releasing old tracks (esp. those already released on albums) does not constitute band activity. The list that does not include "The Long and Winding Road" was not being submitted as a source (Harry and Badman were) but in any case, is simply a list with a UK focus (other Capitol-only singles are not listed). Uniplex (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, alright, you said Harry and Badman were your reliable sources that "Free As A Bird" was the Beatles' 28th "official single", so the question still stands, what were the 23rd-27th "official singles", according to Harry and Badman? Aren't they including "Baby it's You", released in April 1995 as a single? It seems your definition is not the same as Harry and Badman's, though you are using them to source your claims. Uniplex, per your comment: "clearly, a record company releasing old tracks (esp. those already released on albums) does not constitute band activity.", well, then what about "Love Me Do" (1962), "Please Please Me" (1963), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "A Hard Day's Night" (1964), "Ticket To Ride" (1965), "Help!" (1965), "Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Get Back" (1969), "Something/Come Together" (1969), "Let It Be" (1970), "Yesterday" (1976), "Back in the U.S.S.R." (1976), or "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/With a Little Help From My Friends" (1978)? These are all "official singles", and they figure into Harry and Badman's count, don't they, even though all of these songs are "already released on albums". So it seems you are claiming that not all official singles constitute band activity, specifically ones "already released on albums", well, "Real Love" was "already released" on the soundtrack to the movie Imagine: John Lennon, in 1988. Further, if "newly recorded" is an integral part to your definition then how do you justify the fact that Lennon's parts were 14-17 years old when the Threatles "finished" the demos? Were Lennon's 1977 and 1980 recordings that would become the "new" singles "official Beatles activity"? Even though he was not in the band at the time he recorded them? If the Beatles were active when McCartney, Harrison, and Starr finished the demos, were the Beatles active when Lennon recorded his parts? Are you really claiming that there was a 1990s incarnation of the Beatles that did not include Lennon? It comes down to this, the bulk of the high quality, and recent sources, do not include the 1990s in their bios of the band. Why? Was Spitz, Miles, and Gould wrong? Your reliable sources (Harry and Badman), do not claim that the band was active in 1994-1996, and until you can produce a reliable source that does so, I think this arguement is over. Question: Was Nat King Cole "active" in 1991, when his 1961 recording of "Unforgettable" was edited and remixed to create a duet with his daughter, Natalie? Also, per your comment: "The definition ... refers to "newly-recorded" material", well, "newly" is subjective isn't it? Afterall, most of the album Let It Be was recorded 16 months prior to it's release, but would you really exclude the album from "band activity" in 1970? So who decides what is "new" enough to be considered band activity? — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
@DocKino, we're in danger of venturing into philosophy again: if a band records but no one hears the result, were they active? See If a tree falls in a forest. Fortunately, we don't need to worry about it the Beatles' case: in the '94-'96 period new recordings were made and released, according to reliable sources, by the Beatles. Uniplex (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, per your comment: "if a band records but no one hears the result, were they active? See If a tree falls in a forest.", this is not applicable in regards to the Dylan/The Band tracks recorded in 1967, because someone was indeed around to hear it, the producers, engineers, and musicians, and 8 years later, the fans. For example, if I was working on an album that took 3 years to complete, say 2008-2011, and I released it in 2012, then when was I active recording the album? — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This debate has gotten a whole lot more complicated since I left it, but I still think it boils down to three things: 1. From 1994-96, The Beatles recorded and released new music. There is not a single reliable source who will tell you otherwise. If a source tells you that those recordings were not of the Beatles, then they are either trying to push a POV, or they do not understand the nature of objective reality. 2. Regardless of Lennon's willing participation in the project, the songs were recorded and released under the name of the Beatles, with the willing cooperation and participation of three of the members of the group's most famous line-up. 3. The records were released by the Beatles' record company, clearly bearing the name of the band. They are "Beatles songs" whether one wants to see it as a reunion or not. New recordings being produced by multiple members of the band's original line-up, under the name of the band, DOES constitute activity. There is no other logical way of looking at it. My suggestion is that we add 1994-1996 to the years active section, but treat it in the same way the Led Zeppelin reunions are treated -- parenthetically, in small type below the main period of activity. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
@Evanh, 1) "From 1994-96, The Beatles recorded and released new music. There is not a single reliable source who will tell you otherwise." But do you have a reliable source that says McCartney, Harrison, and Starr were in fact, the band know as the Beatles, during 1994-1996, as opposed to ex-Beatles as MacDonald calls them, or Threatles as Harry calls them? And how are these singles "new"? Lennon's parts were 14-17 years old in 1994-1996. 2) "Regardless of Lennon's willing participation in the project, the songs were recorded and released under the name of the Beatles, with the willing cooperation and participation of three of the members of the group's most famous line-up." Yes, the songs were released under the band name the Beatles, but were McCartney, Harrison, and Starr current members of the band or past members of a dissolved band when they recorded in the 90s? Do you have a source that says they were/are members of a band named the Beatles? Are McCartney and Starr currently members of the Beatles? If so, when did they reunite? 3) "They are "Beatles songs" whether one wants to see it as a reunion or not." But how can a band be active, without first reuniting? Can you find a source that says the Threatles are the Beatles? Do any sources treat the 1994-1996 period as band activity? Evanh, think of this, in 2011 Winterland by The Jimi Hendrix Experience was released, yet all three of the musicians on the recordings are dead, are you suggesting that the Experience was active in 2011? — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Reporter: "Will there ever be a Beatles reunion?" George Harrison: "Not as long as John Lennon remains dead." Hotcop2 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
In the documentary "The Love We Make", about the concert for New York City after 9/11, McCartney explains to someone why there could never be a Beatles reunion, he says, "because you'd look over, and there would be a guy missing ... the Beatles don't exist." Or so said McCartney in November 2001. — GabeMc (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
One point at a time: Of course the Jimi Hendrix Experience can never be active again because, as you said, all three members are dead. They were not active during 2011 because it is physically impossible for them to be -- not so with the Beatles in the 90s. 3/4 of them were alive at the time of the Anthology and the other 1/4 is on the recording despite being dead. As far as Paul's thoughts on the subject go, he obviously had mixed opinions on whether or not the 90s singles constituted a reunion. A quote from Paul from the Anthology special features: "People keep asking 'when are the Beatles getting back together?' Well, how can we? And yet, with Free as a Bird, somehow we did." Of course McCartney and Starr are no longer members of the Beatles, because the Beatles do not currently exist as an active group. But in 1994-96, they did. The Beatles was dissolved as a legal entity in the 1970s, but that doesn't change the fact that newly recorded material was worked on and released by the surviving members of the band in the 1990s. If they worked on and released new material, they were, by definition, active, and those who appear on the recording were current members. I don't see this as an issue of sourcing the "years active" as much as sourcing the work the group did during a certain time period, in accordance with Template:Infobox musical artist. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Evanh, despite your claim above that there is "no other logical way of looking at it," there obviously is. GabeMc, DocKino, Radiopathy, and Hotcop are all just as logical as you. And despite your proclamation about "objective reality," this is very clearly a matter of something else, that being interpretation. So...
The well-established status quo of the article is that it states the Bealtles were active exclusively from 1960 to 1970. Procedurally, any contested alteration to that must gain a consensus—it obviously has not. Furthermore, looking over all the evidence brought forward in this discussion, I would say that by a small but definite margin, the relevant sources do not treat what happened in '94–'96 as equivalent to the Beatles being active.—DCGeist (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
@Evanh, per your comment: "If they worked on and released new material, they were, by definition, active, and those who appear on the recording were current members." It's clear, both you and Uniplex contend that newly recorded material constitutes band activity per se. Well, why do you consider a 17 year-old demo, "Free as A Bird", which Lennon recorded in 1977 (see TBE, Harry, 2000, p.428) "new material"? On page 428 of TBE, Beatles biographer Bill Harry writes, "The first 'new' Beatles single since 1970." Why did he put the word "new" in quotes? Clearly, to indicate apprehension about categorizing it as such. " ... and those who appear on the recording were current members." How can Lennon be a current member in 1994-96, when he had been dead for over 14 years? Also, I think you are misreading McCartney in the Anthology bit you referenced. He is saying "somehow", poetically, not literally, as when Harry writes " ... 'new' Beatles single", or MacDonald describes the reunion as " ... a 'virtual' one". And anyway, the Anthology segment of which you refer, the "Free As A Bird" music video, which is really just a commercial for the song, a marketing device, also has Ringo asking the question, "so are you getting the band back together?", and then Ringo says "No", right before Paul waxes poetic about how with "Free As A Bird", they "somehow" did. — GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My quoting of McCartney was just to illustrate that he wasn't really definitve on the subject of whether it was a reunion or not, in response to your quoting of Paul and George. For the record, I do think Lennon ought to be listed as a member of the 1994-1996 line-up, albeit posthumously. He was on the records as they were released, so he is part of the line-up of the group that made the recordings. His conscious participation (or lack thereof) with the Anthology project is irrelevant, in my opinion. As to why the singles were "new material" -- because they WERE new songs. Lennon recorded the demos, but the Threetles overdubbed them and fleshed them out into full songs that hence became "Beatles" songs. They are new material because, had McCartney, Harrison, and Starr not overdubbed onto (and finished the writing of) the songs, they would not exist in the form they do today. Sort of like how Paul's song Beautiful Night was written in the 1970s but not recorded and released until the mid-90s. It doesn't cease to be new material because it took him a while to get around to doing it, or because the group he originally had in mind to do it (Wings in the case of "Beautiful Night", Lennon's backing group in the case of FAAB and RL) never recorded it. You also have to keep in mind that Free as a Bird was NOT a solo Lennon composition. It's credited to Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starkey, and in the Anthology they can be seen working out the chord structure and the new lyrics. The two singles were:

1. Recorded (and, in the case of FAAB, written) by the four members of the Beatles in the 1990s (1970s for John).

2. Released under the name of the Beatles in the 1990s.

Hence, they were "new Beatles songs", and to release and record "new" songs, a band must be active. Your statement that "they were called new Beatles songs as a marketing ploy, nothing more, nothing less" seems dangerously close to POV to me. Your feelings, and those of myself, Uniplex, Ian McDonald, Bill Harry, et al., have no bearing on the fact that new Beatles songs were recorded in 1994 and 1995, and released in 1995 and 1996. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Previously unreleased material that involved some recording by three former Beatles members in '94–'95 was released in '95–'96 and marketed as new Beatles songs. Does that mean the Beatles re-activated in 1994? That's a matter of interpretation. By a preponderance of the evidence adduced, high-quality sources tend to deal with what happened during that period otherwise. Your POV to the contrary must yield to our policy standards.—DCGeist (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The only interpretations that are important are those of our sources and those of our readers. Reliable sources used throughout the Beatles project (Harry, Badman, MacDonald, Guinness, etc.) interpret them as being Beatles singles; i.e. by the band that is the topic of this Wikipedia article. Typical reader: "I remember that there was a brief period of Beatles activity in the 90s; there were new singles and it was all over the press at the time—I'll just check Wikipedia to see when it was...". Why suppress this information—-why let our readers down? Qualification, per however secondary sources qualify it, can of course be made; Evanh2008's suggestion to follow the Led Zep precedent seems an excellent one. Uniplex (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the three surviving Beatles getting together to work on The Beatles Anthology TV miniseries and compilation CDs (which I made into a Beatles Anthology box set by obtaining a cardboard sleeve for the three jewel cases from an HMV record store) constitues a formal reunion. As for the two "new" Beatle tracks, they simply added onto two John Lennon solo recordings Yoko Ono gave them. So I would not consider them to be 'active' during the Beatle Anthology sessions. 71.238.112.8 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No one has suggested that we state that a "formal reunion" occurred. Whether writing and recording the new material was 'simple' or not is irrelevant; the band released newly-recorded material in this period, i.e. were active according to its common usage both within WP and at large. Uniplex (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, you are making a logical leap from "released two 'new' singles" to "active for three years". I still havn't seen a single reliable source that suggests that the Beatles were active as a band for three years in the 90s. And, again, I will ask, why is this period ignored by Spitz, Gould, and in McCartney's official bio (Miles), if in fact the Beatles were active for three calender years? It's ommission from the latest reliable bios speaks volumes. Just because a source lists the songs as Beatles singles does not mean the source is implicitly stating that the band was active for three years, that is your personal synthesis. As far as, " ... there were new singles and it was all over the press at the time ... ", well, many, many sources at the time referred to them as ex-Beatles, in regard to their work on the Anthology. Per your comment: "Reliable sources used throughout the Beatles project (Harry, Badman, MacDonald, Guinness, etc.) interpret them as being Beatles singles", maybe so, but Harry refers to them as the Threatles, and MacDonald calls them ex-Beatles. On Badman's official site for his book, The Beatles: After The Break-Up: 1970-2000, Badman refers to them as the "disbanded Beatles", and the web page twice calls them ex-Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I have watched this debate with interest and, without wanting to rehearse the arguments again, I have to come down off the fence against the treatment of the singles in the 1990s as the band being active. They were not acting as a band here in the sense it would normally be understood by most readers and it would be more accurate not to include these dates in the infobox.--SabreBD (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The three surviving Beatles got back together strictly to work on The Beatles Anthology miniseries and CD sets (of which I was able to obtain a cardboard sleeve from an HMV store to make the CDs a box set). The two "new" Beatle tracks were simply to add their music to Lennon solo recordings given them by Yoko Ono. So the years active should continue to be 1960-1970. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@GabeMc, the term "Threatles" is jocular: have a look at the Free as a Bird article, read the first sentence, look at the cover: it's by the Beatles, not the "Threatles". The guideline instructs on how to denote the years active: 94-96 could be as little as one year and 2 days. The point of step-by-step approach is to try to avoid logical "leaps"; let's recap what we have established so far:

  1. We are required to denote in the musical act infobox years_active field, "period(s) during which the act was or has been active".
  2. Criteria for musical activity include (but may not be limited to): the act performing in public, releasing newly-recorded material.
  3. As recorded by numerous sources and here at Wikipedia, The Beatles released Free as a Bird in 1995 and Real Love in 1996, and (unlike other singles released between '76 and '95) these were new recordings.

All sorts of other things have been discussed, but as far as I can see, these are the three key premises. Uniplex (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And the second and third of your key premises are wrong, as has been explained over and over and over again.
Criteria for musical activity for an act throughout most of popular music history is NOT "releasing", it is recording new material. Did The Beatles qua The Beatles record new material in 1994 and 1995? You say yes. Most editors here and most sources out there disagree.
Other than in the most colloquial, informal, nonencyclopedic sense, The Beatles, by any definition, did not release a god-blessed thing in 1995 and 1996. Various record companies released two singles that they marketed as being by "The Beatles", though The Beatles' founder, the songs' original writer, and their lead vocalist had been dead for 15 years, though he wrote the songs and recorded those vocals when he was most definitively NOT a member of The Beatles, and though he had no participation or any say whatsoever in the new recording that took place...being as he was, you know, dead at the time.
Much like this discussion--as neither you nor Evanh2008 has brought anything new to the table in days, other than a farcically slanted conjuring of a "typical reader." Let's move on, shall we? DocKino (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, is the term "ex-Beatles" jocular?
  • Walter Everett (1999): "The three ex-Beatles met in London in October 1993 to plan new recordings for the Anthology"(p.8)
  • Ian MacDonald (2005): "Free As A Bird was the first of the three rough home demos which Ono gave the ex-Beatles ... "(p.377)
  • Bill Harry (TJLE 2000): "The three remaining ex-Beatles took the incomplete 1980 Lennon tape ..."(p.258)
  • Vincent Benitez, James E. Perone (2010) "Through Apple Corps, the surviving ex-Beatles contacted Yoko Ono, Lennon's widow ..."(p.142)
  • Philip Norman (2005): "The three ex-Beatles' collective "autobiography" — in fact just unedited transcripts of their interviews for the Anthology TV documentary ..."(p.XXVIII)
  • Tim Riley (2002) "...the three ex-Beatles began shoring up their legacy in earnest, gathering in early 1995 to remake several unfinished songs offered by Yoko Ono ..."(p.405)
  • Thomas Riggs (2000) "Yoko Ono offered them a couple of her late husband's songs, the three remaining ex-Beatles were intrigued."(p.28)
  • David Hinckley: New York Daily News (13 July 1995) Ringo Still Tapping His Starr Power Ex-beatle Beats The Drum For Tour And Upcoming 'Anthology' Project
  • Hunter Davies (revised and updated edition: 2006): "Released in 1995 and 1996, The Beatles Anthology series in theory contained two 'new' songs ..."(Introduction XI).
  • Jonathan Gould (2008): "The conclusive end to the Beatles story came on December 8, 1980, when John Lennon was murdered on the street outside his New York apartment building ... "(p.604)

— GabeMc (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, musical acts "releasing" records is common parlance (e.g. NME.com: "Chris Cornell has announced plans to release an acoustic album"), however we can say "releasing (via their record company)" if it makes you feel better. Who is on the record has never mattered in this regard: history records equally that "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (arguably a Lennon solo single with McCartney guesting) and "Free as a Bird" (with songwriting and performance from all four) were singles by The Beatles, and editorial judgement on multiple other Wikipedia Beatles articles accepts this.
@GabeMc, the fact that they were ex-Beatles both before and after recording the new singles is not contested; by their own accounts they were the Beatles with Lennon missing the session being "out for a cup of tea or on holiday", as had been the case several times before. Uniplex (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
It's truly sweet that you wish to accept the poetic notion that Lennon was "out for a cup of tea or on holiday". However, the rest of us recognize that he was dead and that, along with other factors, means that The Beatles were not active during the period you wish to say they were active. Once again, the weight of opinion is quite strongly against your view, you are advancing no new arguments, and you are swaying no one to your and Evanh's position. We're just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round. You must really love to watch them roll. DocKino (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
As above, precisely who is on the session has never mattered in this respect, but it was the band that accepted the notion. Misattributing this, and singing (with your fingers in your ears?), is really not helpful. Like it or not, the activity is described in this, "The Beatles", article; the world is hardly going to stop turning if we denote it in suitably small text in the infobox. Uniplex (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The world would also likely not stop turning if you should decide to drop the stick. Radiopathy •talk• 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we've probably had enough discussion and should try to conclude. We're urged to find compromise in consensus; a few possibilities have been offered, such as qualifying text/footnote, or reduced-size text; another might be to remove mention of the singles (as unimportant detail here, covered on the anthology page)—what compromise do you suggest? Uniplex (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The material is covered in detail at the "Free As A Bird" page, the "Real Love" page, and two Anthology pages, also the singles are included in the Beatles Discography so the content need not be covered in detail here. — GabeMc (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to restate my position yet again, but I would like to help us move toward a consensus per WP:BRD. My preference is to note the '94-'96 period parenthetically in the "Years active" field. Barring that, a footnote to the "years active" could mention the Anthology period of activity. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this would be preferable to removing sourced material from the body. Uniplex (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, consensus has been reached that the Beatles were not active in 1994–96. There's no call to screw with the simple, straightforward infobox. That will stay just as it is, per the consensus reached in this discussion. And the main text is fine just as it is, as well, and appropriately addresses "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love."—DCGeist (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus that the current version of the page is correct; equally there is no consensus that simply adding 94-96 to years active would be correct. We are currently trying to form a consensus around a compromise between the two positions. Please comment on the compromise suggestions made or suggest a better compromise. Uniplex (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
@Uniplex, in regards to the "...newly recorded/newly released" qualifier, both "FAAB" and "RL" were previously heard, released, and played on the radio.(see The Beatles Anthology DVD 2003 (Special Features: Recording Free as a Bird and Real Love - 0:02:17-0:02:28) McCartney talking about how "FAAB" and "RL " had been released and heard by Lennon fans before the surviving ex-Beatles had heard them. Also, Elliot J. Huntley, Mystical one: George Harrison : after the break-up of the Beatles, 2004 p.252) — GabeMc (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What's your point—what compromise are you suggesting? Uniplex (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Years active (break 2)

  • Suggestion: The section, "CD Releases" should be merged into the section, "After the Break-up (1970-Present)". An appropriate amount of detail about the Anthology is currently there, but more could be added if need be. I was not suggesting that we remove " ... sourced material from the body." I suggest that we address the period (1994-1996) with minimal, but informative detail, since the finer details about the period should be covered in depth at the two songs pages, and the two Anthology pages, not at The Beatles. Afterall, the article currently devotes just two paragraphs and a blockquote to cover Sgt. Pepper, so with the merging of those sections, and some tastefully added detail, I am confident that the period could be covered here without giving undue weight or being contentious. — GabeMc (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: The "CD Releases" subsection is rightfully located in the "Discography" section and it should stay there. Besides, that subsection explains why Magical Mystery Tour is not included in the above list of original Beatle LPs. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I see your point Steelbeard1, but I am also concerned that in "CD Releases" there is no mention of the 1990s, a period when at least four double album CD compilations were released. Though the 1990s could be covered in, "After the Break-up (1970-Present)", it leaves the reader wondering why 4 double albums are not mentioned as CD releases in the 1990s. — GabeMc (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ iNEWp online 2010.
  2. ^ New York Times online 2010.
  3. ^ CNN online 2010.
  4. ^ foo
  5. ^ bar
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_26&oldid=1137341558"