Talk:Brian Epstein/Archive 2

GA on hold
just so it's easier to see who the publisher is. Rest looks good to me, possible FA. M3tal H3ad 03:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Cellarful.gif is missing a fair use rationale, so is Image:Be3.jpg, rationale for Image:057120130X.01. AA240 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is very weak.
 * Please put the publisher outside the title so - turns to
 * Reference 30 is unreliable - geocities is a personal website
 * and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement
 * The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference
 * please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article
 * make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organize (A) (British: organise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * *Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): wouldn't, didn't, didn't, didn't. didn't -> did not
 * Is it 'The Beatles' or 'the Beatles' - i see both, stick with one
 * "The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference"(my bolding)? Citations and references are needed when claims may be open to dispute. I should think that the Beatles as an international phenomena is well established. LessHeard vanU 11:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this says the most successful period of The Beatles career was with Brian, which means there were other periods, which weren't as successful - where can i find a reference for this? M3tal H3ad 12:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a different kettle of fish, and probably does need to be cited. The group began to fall apart after Mr Epstein's death (although I'm not sure they were any less successful), indeed I have a Lennon quote memorised: "After Brian died, we collapsed. I knew we were in trouble then. I thought, 'We've f*cking had it.'" From the Rolling Stone interview was it? Or Playboy? --kingboyk 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry if I bit your head off :)
 * I have to disagree with kingboyk here: The band as an national and international success happened during Epsteins tenure as manager, those with only a passing knowledge of the band would not be familiar with their pre-Epstein career. The visibility of Epstein as a mover and shaker in 60's pop society is obvious, since a management deal with him was second only to having a Lennon/McCartney composition in terms of credibility. Whatever it was that the Beatles embodied as 60's icons only happened whilst Epstein was their manager. It was only in the period after Epstein's death that there was criticism over their musical directions, business dealings, public personae, etc. The perception of the Beatles as the foremost musical act of the era is during Epstein's management, and as such (I suggest) does not require referencing/citing. LessHeard vanU 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You said what the reference should. Although my concerns are minor they have not been addressed so I'm failing this. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference - Citations rarely go in the lead, and not for a statement as safe as that. Everybody knows The Beatles had extraordinarily massive success, including even those people who think they are crap.
 * please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article - Since when has that been needed for GA?
 * and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement - Not so much POV as needing a source.

Other suggestions seem OK, but the first 2 above?! Bah! --kingboyk 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Business dealings
The opening of this paragraph was NOT a fair reflection of prevailing opinion about Epstein. And certainly not on the very webpage that was cited as the reference for it! The conventional wisdom on Epstein has always been primarily that he was honest. There has definitely been some criticism (long after his death) about some of the deals he made. Though the prevailing opinion has always been that any mistakes were because of naivite. And as Denis O'Dell (and also Ray Coleman and George Martin make clear) there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Lennon made one remark about Epstein that contradicted volumes of positive remarks about Epstein that he made. (At certain times - Lennon also attacked George Martin, Derek Taylor, McCartney and Harrison - and many others. These views - expressed mainly in the immediate aftermath of the Beatles; break-up - are not held to be the definitive views by Lennon on any of the objects of his temporary wrath.) It certainly is not accurate to imply that approx. 50% of people regard Epstein as having been honest and 50% think him dishonest. Far and away the opinion of those closest to him (Alistair Taylor, Derek Taylor, Peter Brown, George Martin) or those who have researched his life (Ray Coleman, Martin Lewis, Debbie Geller) is that he was a scrupulously honest man who was utterly devoted to the Beatles (probably to his own detriment in terms of emotional and physical health. To suggest otherwise is a grave disservice and unfactual.  Davidpatrick 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that (and to your next comment too). --kingboyk 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs
Various points...

This contained a lot of minor detail that does not belong in the opening paras. The fact of where he was during the recording of Sgt. Pepper is valid and factual - but doesn't belong in an overview. The fact of his death does.

The most salient part of Epstein's success in getting George Martin to sign the Beatles was not that Martin hadn't seen them play live. (That was NOT an essential component of a decision to sign a recording artist in 1962.) If anything needs to be said - it was that Epstein succeeded after the group had been turned down by every other major record label.

The term "businessman" is not the key word to describe Epstein. That implies he was primarily a businessman. He was a minor store manager who became a very successful impresario. Davidpatrick 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority of informed opinion" does not have a citation.212.241.67.98 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted
'''I came back here to see when this would be granted a GA. It has not, because nobody could be bothered to to fix the little problems that were raised by the reviewer. This is disgusting, and confirms my belief that The Beatles project is nothing more than a bunch of loud-mouthed pedantic control freaks who can not be bothered to carry out the simplest of tasks, but prefer to write reams and reams of self-important drivel about their own opinions. You should all hang your heads in shame. andreasegde 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)'''

Moving forward
Sorry you seem to be upset. I can only speak for myself. I really am not that worried about the article receiving peer approval or brownie points. To me it is infinitely more important that the article be actually fair and factual than that it be given an award SAYING that in the opinion of some reviewer - it has met some subjective standard. Nice to have it - but way less important than just the knowledge of doing decent work. IMO the hard work that you and others (and myself as well) have put in has been good - but not perfect. There is still far too much reliance on one or two books. Just because they have been published and can be cited in our article - doesn't automatically mean that they are correct.

And the existence of one or two opinions about him or his life - that are discounted by the vast majority of published accounts doesn't mean that we then have this artificial "balance" inserted that (by way of example) "on the one hand some people believe he was honest - but others think he was a crook.  So opinion is divide on the subject". That is artificial balance that means theoretically that any crackpot theory or assertion could be included - just as long as it is in a book and we cite the page number.

There is a lot of material that may be factually true (or not) but even if true - is needless detail and minutiae. And there is a preponderence of detail about his sexual preferences that is not present about those who are promiscuous heterosexuals. That is not to seek to airbrush his personal life - but to keep the amount of detail limited to what is necessary for a biographic article - not what is titillating gossipy detail.

This article needs a lot more work. And that work IMO is NOT about inserting dozens of assertions from mainly one or two books that are not even primarily about Epstein (primarily books by Spitz and Miles) adding the page references as in-format citations - and then taking the attititude that that is good enough. I think we need to read and draw from a wider variety of sources - especially: Ray Coleman's 1989 biography. Derek Taylor's two books "As Time Goes By" (circa 1971) and "Fifty Years Adrift" (circa 1984), Epstein's own "Cellarful of Noise" (1964) and the Martin Lewis companion narrative to the 1998 reissue of "Cellarful" - together with George Martin's introduction to that edition. Also check out Denis O'Dell's book "Apple To The Core". My book collection is in storage now - or I would do it. All of those people (with the exception of Lewis) knew Epstein well. (And Lewis - who is a protege of Derek Taylor - is an acknowledged Beatles historian who has produced multiple Beatles projects). Let's look at what THEY have to say. Do NOT depend primarily on Spitz - who is a well-intentioned writer but a professional biographer - he has written books on diverse subjects - not an expert on the Beatles. And never met Epstein. Just interviewed people (some of whom have "agendas") 45 years after the events. Barry Miles is a very respected writer - but he was writing an "authorized" biography of McCartney - so as with any authorized biography - they tend to have to please the person who is authorizing the content. And Miles only knew Epstein slightly. Nowhere near as much as the others mentioned above.

I'm up for more work on this. But let's focus on creating a worthy article rather than on "passing the audition". A worthy article is its own reward. And may even achieve recognition too. But the work is more important than the award... That's MY opinion. Davidpatrick 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are people's books always "in storage"? I have read that so many times that it's laughable. Are people constantly on the move? I doubt it. It just means that people have read them, but don't own them - so are unable to put page number citations in.


 * If you don't understand that getting an article rated as being good is worthy, then you do not understand the concept of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia states that an article is B class because it is not good enough. If you worked for a newspaper, you wouldn't last long in the job with your attitude.


 * Remember Watergate? That came from one source.


 * I have stopped working on this article, as I have no desire to tangle with someone who is "carrying a torch" for Epstein, and does not want anything negative said about him. I wish you well. andreasegde 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes strikes again

 * Content deleted by administrator User:23skidoo on the grounds that it constituted a personal attack on an editor and was not directly related to improving the article. The following response is being kept as it pertains to concerns voiced in other threads regarding the use of sources, which is a legitimate topic of discussion on this page. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I have no idea why the Brian article didn't get a GA. The grade it got is certainly not in my power to influence.  As I have written above - I am not particularly interested in articles for their grades. Grades are well and good but they are not more important than having a good article.  And a good article should have (among many other things) accurate facts that are capable of being verified from mutiple sources (not just one book that has become the flavor of the year); it should NOT include negative assertions made by only one source without other verification; and it should not place a disproportionate focus on sexual matters that are of a tabloid nature.  Some of the things about Brian Epstein I have objected to in the article dwell on his sexuality and I find the amount of detail offensive and quite unnecessary. It is tabloid and sensationalistic.  There is not a similar amount of detail about heterosexual people who have had promiscuous personal lives. His sexual preferences did not directly interefere with his work or cause his death. To dwell on the details is therefore unnecessary. And I will continue to press this point. Davidpatrick 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Further discussion deleted on the grounds of WP:ATTACK and violation of talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for editors who have books about Brian Epstein
User Andreasegde is concerned that we have more in-article cited references in the article. While I do not agree with all of his edits on the article - I agree with him that such references can help the article. The wider the range of books - and the more authorative they are - the better. I do not have access to my own books. Do other editors have any of the recommended books that could help improve this article? Davidpatrick 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

''Discussion deleted on the grounds that it violated WP:ATTACK, possibly also WP:BLP as it made claims regarding the subject of a biographical article currently on Wikipedia, and also that it violated Wikipedia talk page policy. Talk pages should only be used for discussion on how to improve an article. There is no place for personal attacks, accusations, or speculation regarding Wikipedia editors. Due to Andreasgde's personal attack on Davidpatrick, which has now been deleted by me. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Please remember No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Other discussion threads above are subject to review and possible deletion on the grounds also that they may violate WP:ATTACK and talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
To clear up any misunderstanding, I, (user andreasegde) am NOT concerned about this article needing more in-line citations. As Bob Spitz worked on his book for seven years, I think his reputation is safe from criticism. Barry Miles worked with McCartney for a long period (1991-1996, and has known him for years) and wrote a very balanced book. Cynthia Lennon made some mistakes, but she was right about important events, which have been included. I think that will suffice. andreasegde 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New source
An external link was added to the Apple Records article, containing a sample chapter from a book about Apple. It covers Epstein quite a bit, and might be useful for some additional critical opinion/quotations/citations. --kingboyk 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent source. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
I would have thought that as there is a movement to have Brian inducted into the Hall of Fame, it would help his case if this article was a GA article or an FA. More people respect FA articles than B-articles, because their worth has been proven. If this article remains a B-article, it only shows that not enough people are interested in the cause. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think Mr Epstein deserves a place in the Hall of Fame. I also think that a comprehensive, honest, balanced article on him would do nothing to prevent that. I'm not sure of your point though, it sounds a bit like politicking to me. --kingboyk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is because I can not understand the reasoning behind the attitude that it doesn't matter whether Brian is a GA or not. It's like renovating a classic car and then saying that you will never actually drive it. I just don't get it. andreasegde 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Well I agree with you then. Btw: You got your first support on Mimi's FAC :) Nice start! --kingboyk 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian
Brian's article has been put up again for review, and this time it will be monitored to ensure his elevation to GA status on Wikipedia. I respectfully request that no major edits be done during the review, as this is frowned upon by reviewers. I thank you. andreasegde 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Could Kingboyk or someone look at the photos to see if they will pass? I read that the last reviewer was not happy about them. I thank you. andreasegde 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added more photos, and have taken out the irrelevant ones. This is starting to look very good. andreasegde 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is looking very good now. I think this could be an FA, if it had a review by concerned editors.andreasegde 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Why is the header green? It makes poor Eppy look ill... andreasegde 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Swearword
I have changed, "We've fuckin' had it!'" to "We've [expletive deleted] had it!'" per the concerns of an editor, even though I have seen the phrase quoted elsewhere without the aforementioned swearword. andreasegde 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the two sources I have for the quote (Wenner and Miles) and both have the expletive. If someone can find a similar but different quote that expresses Lennon's concern for the future of the band immediately after Epstein's death, let's substitute that instead. If some other source has the same quote without the expletive, let's change it and cite that source. If we cite Wenner or Miles, then I think the quote should be accurate. [Expletive deleted] is a little unwieldy, but it indicates clearly that words have been deleted and so it's fine with me as a substitute. John Cardinal 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you. We pulled it off, as they say. BTW, which page number in Wenner's book was it? I would like to put a reference in. andreasegde 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, I wasn't pulling things off, I was putting them back on! &lt;g&gt; In the edition I have, it's page 25:


 * I had an 1970s-era copy that walked off on it's own 10 years ago. Probably worth a pretty-penny now. John Cardinal 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have put it in, and replaced the fuckin' word... :))andreasegde 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
This article is well written, broad, informative, and is filled with references. I do have one small concern, though, and that is that the McCartney quote in the introduction really ought to be cited. Besides that, I'm passing this article for GA. ErleGrey 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A little bit here and there
I know I'm on a break, but I found some interesting things about Epstein that I just had to put in, especially this: "Brian earned £5 per week starting pay at his parent's furniture store. On his first day on the job he sold a £12 dining room table to a woman who wanted a mirror", which is hilarious. :))--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Worried?
"The biggest key was the 25 percent clause that Brian had hidden from them. When he had renegotiated their royalty deal with EMI (and with Capitol in the United States), he had inserted a clause guaranteeing that 25 percent of all Beatle record royalties would continue to go to NEMS for nine years, even if the Beatles didn't renew their management contract with Brian. The Beatles had signed the contract without scrutinizing the fine print." (Flippo, p. 244).

No need for him to be worried at all.--andreasegde (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

LIthuania
--Herut (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Good article However You write that "Epstein's grandfather, Isaac Epstein, was from Lithuania (part of Russia at that time)" In fact that is not accurate-Lithuania was never a PART OF RUSSIA but was under the rule of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. But it was always a country in it's own right-even though under Russian rule.

✅ You are correct. The Celestial City (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon meeting Elvis
There's a little part about The Beatles and Brian meeting Elvis in the gambling section. It stated that on August 27th, 1965 The Beatles and Brian met Elvis and his manager Colonel Parker at Elvis' home Graceland in Memphis. This isn't right. The meeting did take place but it was at Elvis' home on Perugia Way in Los Angeles, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.77.245 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed.--90.146.53.230 (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Stigwood
There's more to go in about Stigwood and Eppy's dealings with him.--andreasegde (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Epstein
Does anyone have more information regarding Brian’s grandfather, Isaac? I know he was a Russian immigrant, and arrived in Liverpool with his sister. He opened his first shop in Walton Road and presumably lived above it at first. I would be interested in knowing where he then lived etc. Thanks, --Patthedog (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Patthedog knows this now, but other editors should know that Epstein's father was from Hodan, Lithuania.--andreasegde (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Brakn has unearthed a census that says Isaac and Rachael Epstein were born in Russia, although I have seen Lithuania mentioned a few times on the net and in books.--andreasegde (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it: "In 1795, the joint state was dissolved by the third Partition of the Commonwealth, which forfeited its lands to Russia, Prussia and Austria, under duress. Over ninety percent of Lithuania was incorporated into the Russian Empire and the remainder into Prussia." From the Lithuania article.


 * Good work Andreasegde & Brakn! Just one more thing (sorry). 80 Walton Road was the address of the shop that he opened (the current wording suggests that they later moved to another premises to open the shop - we still don‘t know where Isaac first stayed in Liverpool) so I’ll change the wording to reflect this. Also, (ok, that’s two things) I’m intrigued by the revelation that Hyman was Dinah’s maiden name. Their son, Harry, also married a Hyman. Was there a connection? "So what?" I can hear others thinking! I know this is an article about Brian, but I hate loose ends.--Patthedog (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a very charming and interesting picture is beginning to emerge from all of this. One possible scenario could be: Isaac arrives in Liverpool with his sister from Russia. That would have been some journey - and by all accounts that I have read - they were penniless, and neither spoke any English. There were other Epsteins in Liverpool according to Brakn, so possibly they were able to initially stay with them. Then we have to skip a short period of time, and Isaac is now married and has his own furniture shop - that’s pretty good going! His wife, Dinah Hyman, is second generation English, and is from a relatively wealthy Russian immigrant family who have an established furniture business in Manchester. It’s unlikely they would have met by chance - that would have been a long hike in those days - so, it’s probable that Isaac and Dinah were introduced, get married, and then money is made available by her family to finance a business. This was probably a loan or a gift, as his furniture shop grew as an independent venture. We don’t know if Isaac was involved in the furniture trade before coming to England (do we?), but he certainly is now! Later, it’s quite possible that their son, Harry, was encouraged to follow in the same footsteps, as this sort of thing was quite common in those days, and he also marries a Hyman. There you have it in a nutshell! --Patthedog (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Epstein's mother was registered as Minnie Hyman in 1914 and married as Minnie/Queenie in 1933 and died as Minnie/Malka so really Malka was not her official name.


 * Brian had two aunts that I know of; Leah born in 1912 and Stella Queenie born in 1923. Leah married John Casson in Liverpool in 1931. (I think) She was also called Lily. Stella Queenie married Myer Julius Canter in Southport in 1948. Myer became a prominent lawyer in Liverpool and was also from a Russian background.

Brakn (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Great to have Stella confirmed as Aunt. I have tried to contact her daughter, Angela (lives in the U.S.) on a genealogy website - to no avail so far! Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think her granddaughter lives here. Brakn (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm you may already know that. I think she has a Bebo site. Brakn (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is “here” U.S. or U.K.? Not explored the Bebo site. Do you have more info on that? Cheers.--Patthedog (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reckon UK but you'd have to email me. As for the Epsteins, I would think if someone should get Isaac's marriage cert just to tidy it up; but then you straying into The Epstein family and stuff that is probably not common knowledge but still interesting. Brakn (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From somewhere, I have Isaac & Dinah marrying in 1900 in Manchester. Is this correct, as far as you’re aware? If so, I’ll try and retrieve their marriage certificate.--Patthedog (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You will have to go to this site http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/ then register and order the certificate with a credit card. Details:- Epstein, Issac - Hyman, Dinah Date - Mar 1900 District - Prestwich Volume 8d Page 479 and that's it. If it's not possible for you to do that let me know and I'll do it for you. best of luck. Brakn (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Done that. I’ll let you know when it arrives.Cheers, --Patthedog (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an update. The 1911 Census reveals that Isaac & family (now including Harry, aged 7, Brian’s Dad) living in Rockfield Road, Anfield, having moved from above the shop in Walton Road. They also now have a servant, Sarah Swain, aged 22! Clearly things were on the up.--Patthedog (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got Brian being born at a private nursing home at 4 Rodney St. (The family then moved for a short period to Prestatyn, North Wales in '39 at the start of WW11, and then 3 years in Southport). I'm just wondering whether it's likely the nursing home was in the same road that the article says they lived? --Patthedog (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where and who got information about Isaac Epstein, but he couldn't be from Hodan Lithuania like it was written in article, because there is no such city and word "Hodan" is not even lithuanian (I am Lithuanian so I know) so whatever else is written in that source should be checked too. Tiredtime (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The place called Hodan might have had a different name in Lithuanian. Actually, the name Lithuania historically referred to the lands of what now are Belarus and the Republic of Lithuania, so the place might be in Belarus as well...--Czalex 16:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The lede
It's really not good enough as it is, as it should at least state some facts about Epstein's management dealings and his private life.--andreasegde (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could it be reshuffled in this way?

Brian Samuel Epstein (19 September 1934 – 27 August 1967), was an English music entrepreneur; best known for being the manager of The Beatles, Gerry & the Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas, Cilla Black, The Remo Four, and The Cyrkle. He named his management company NEMS Enterprises, an acronym for North End Music Stores, the furniture business which his family then owned.

Epstein paid for The Beatles to record a demonstration tape in Decca's London studios; Decca declined to sign the group to a contract, but allowed Epstein to keep the tape. After then being rejected by all the major recording companies in London, Epstein approached producer George Martin who offered a contract on behalf of EMI's small Parlophone label. When Beatlemania swept the UK in November 1963, Epstein appeared to have allowed a major business opportunity to pass when he was besieged by offers from merchandisers, but Epstein had already given away 90 per cent of merchandising rights to Stramsact in the UK, and Seltaeb (Beatles spelt backwards), in the US.

Epstein's homosexuality was an issue throughout his personal life as it was not decriminalised in England and Wales until 1967, the year Epstein died of an accidental drug overdose at his home in London. The Beatles' early success has been attributed to his management and sense of style. Paul McCartney said of him: "If anyone was the Fifth Beatle, it was Brian". --Patthedog (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I split it into three paragraphs (as is the norm), but it looks great to me. Maybe a touch more in the third paragraph about gambling, or whatever? BTW, 100 points for "acronym". I was trying to find that for ages. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Grate" as the boys would say. I thought I’d run it up the flagpole here first, but will put it in with any suggested material. Cheers,--Patthedog (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Extensive copyedit
Although not an expert on the subject, the information about Epstein seemed to me accurate and fairly complete—but the prose was dreadful, marred especially by innumerable run-on sentences. It is the latter especially that I have addressed myself to, and hope at least from the stylistic point of view to have made things no worse.Prohairesius (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, although there might some complaints from the style department about "% or percent" in running text.--andreasegde (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is 'per cent' and it is probably more encyclopaedic to spell it.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--andreasegde (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with any of the reversions made to my edits, nor will I bother defending them piecemeal. But where did you get the idea that 'not many people owned cars [in the '60's]'? And your use of the semicolon is wrong, both halves should be able to stand as independent sentences; neither can be a sentence fragment. And what's the difference between 'one farthing' and 'a single farthing'? Nevertheless, I'm not going to get into an edit war, this is all the work I'm going to do on this article, muck it up as you now see fit.Prohairesius (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uk car ownership in 1960 was approximately 4,000,000 within a population of 52,000,000 (7%) compaired to 2012 where there are 32,000,000 vehicles within a population of 61,000,000 (61%). Therefore a statement that 'not many people owned cars in the 1960s' is not particularly innaccurate.21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are all humbled by your visitation, and without your guiding light we will no doubt stumble and fall. Actually, you’re supposed to work with the article’s community. Perhaps it is best you stick your farthing up your semicolon and drive off.--Patthedog (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said, Patthedog. As we know, when one is faced with "I don't agree with any of the reversions", one feels a slight tremor in one`s nether regions. That aside, I am to blame for not keeping a closer eye on this article, as the dreaded fancruft has been creeping in. I will get out the fine toothcomb and bring it up to Eppy`s fine standards once more.--andreasegde (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I overstated the case, some of the reversions are justified, I concede that, but enough seemed arbitrary that it got my dander up. I apologize to Andreasegde et al for my immoderate reaction and am glad to give it up for their ongoing efforts to improve the article—which I'll now leave to them and others.Prohairesius (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted and also given. You were doing a pretty good job, I thought, so don’t assume that you have to go. We’ve all had a toys and prams moment at some point here.--Patthedog (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I´ve been through the whole article and have cleaned it, although I´m sure I missed one or two things here and there.--andreasegde (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Off-limits" in italics?
Why is "off-limits" in italics? I'm not questioning it as much as curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.145.14 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a quote, as McCartney said it that way.--andreasegde (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cars
@ 21stCenturyGreenstuff. OK, 7% of people in 1960 owned cars, but how many people in the suburbs of Liverpool (and I'm talking mostly working class here), owned them? To my knowledge, Mimi Smith's husband didn't have one; he had a horse and milk cart. BTW, the Smiths' owned their own house, and had a large dairy business. They did have a drive for a car at the side of the house, but I've never seen a photo of a car in it. It would be interesting to find out if any parents of the group owned vehicles. Google "Ownership of cars in Liverpool 1960", maybe? I'll try it and see what comes up.--andreasegde (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found these, but they're suburban areas; not the centre of Liverpool:, , , , and. This one, is of Paradise Street, which is very close to the docks, and Brythen Street, in 1965. This page is very good, as it shows photos of Liverpool suburbs in 1975! :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Liaison with Joe Orton
It's clear that this link is referring to Brian Epstein and Joe Orton having a relationship that played a major part in Halliwell's decision to kill Orton and then himself. Is this liaison corroborated anywhere? What was Epstein's public reaction to Orton's murder? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  06:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article
What more can one say? andreasegde 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done?Prohairesius (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Brian Eno
Is there a particular reason for this odd warning? DoctorCaligari (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever. Have removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Technopat (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Original song?
"In the Summer of His Years" was written and recorded as a tribute to Epstein.
 * I'm sure I remember Millicent Martin singing a song of that title to commemorate JFK in the edition of 'That Was The Week That Was' following his assassination in 1963. Valetude (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary?
I don’t think this paragraph merits such detail in the lead. I’m also suspicious regarding its content as it tends to read somewhat like an advert. Ideally, I’d like to delete it.

'' Patthedog (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ''Epstein's influence on the Beatles and his complicated personal life continue to provoke controversy. In 2013, author Vivek Tiwary released the graphic novel The Fifth Beatle: The Brian Epstein Story. A film of the same name was scheduled for release in 2014, originally to be produced by Bruce Cohen and directed by Peyton Reed. Tiwary said about that project that the film would "be less a music bio and more of an inspirational human-interest story about an outsider". Tiwary and named co-producers Stuart Ford and Simon Cowell originally set the film for release in 2016, but in March 2016 it was announced that the project would be a television series.


 * Moved it to the 'Legacy' section. Jus  da  fax   07:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Brian Epstein Blues
John composed a song in Epstein's honor. It was rather happy sounding I believe. I think it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderHovanec (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Suitability of reference used in article
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES. Ojorojo (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:English gamblers
Is it appropriate for Epstein to be in the category English gamblers? It was hardly a defining characteristic, nor was he a professional gambler. --kingboyk (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No questioning his importance??
Greetings fellow Wikipedians! I am deleting this statement because it is not supported by a source. As it stands, it's simply some editor's unsupported opinion. Many people (including me) would agree with that opinion, but it violates the "neutral point of view" pillar of Wikipedia, which states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources...Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." I would welcome re-inserting the statement if someone can support it with a reliable, authoritative source... which shouldn't be too difficult. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely it's accurate by definition? Epstein discovered the Beatles who "became the foremost and most influential music band in history". Patthedog (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Very true. But this is a deduction or conclusion we've reached: he discovered the Beatles, so he must be important. It's an opinion we hold. But we're supposed to avoid citing our own opinions. Instead, we're supposed to gather reliable sources, and cite their conclusions and opinions. So I would feel more comfortable if someone would find a reliable source (like the author of Epstein's biography, or some music critic's statement) to support that statement. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I presume you're referring to this diff in which case I support the removal. The sentence was poorly written. However, as has been pointed out, Epstein certainly was a very important man in his field. It is entirely possible that - despite his faults - without him most of us would never have heard of those four lads from Liverpool. The "Legacy" section does a reasonable job of conveying this, with citations, but - like most things - could be improved.
 * It should also be noted that - as is common in many of the best articles - there are no citations in the lead. It would be perfectly proper to mention Mr Epstein's importance in the lead without leaving a citation in situ, provided the text closely matched content in the body which is fully referenced. I think the lead just-about-adequately summarises the article already but, again, there is room for improvement. --kingboyk (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)