Talk:Free as a Bird

King
Perhaps it should be noted that King Crimson covered this song in their 2000 live triple album Heavy ConstruKction (surely at the behest of Adrian Belew, a great Beatles admirer). Has the song been covered by anyone else? --Tridentinus 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

'The video' section
Some of this reads like original research and speculation. Clearly some of the references to other songs are indisputable but I think it needs a clean-up (or some citations from authoritative sources or people involved in the video's conception). Dave.Dunford 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to that. This guy's work here is really impressive, given all those links and references he had to row between; this is a total Beatles' fan, and it's a pity that fans can't hold their neutrality. Some of the references (e.g to One after 909) are obvious, even if they were not talked about publicly before; I too am afraid that it will be hard to find someone with the video's production, so I suggest that we remove only the 'runway' references, which show for plain literary reasons. (Impy4ever 10:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC))


 * That analysis is seriously impressive but i do believe that the tone needs to be changed just a bit at some places and that some of the notes are a bit of a long-shot. That does not mean i am majourly impressed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.145.219 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the one after 909 is 910. Although obviously a lot of time went into this bit parts of it are just silly. Someone, please sort out the realistic song references from those that are based on very little.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.53.165 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears someone removed the entire section some time ago. I'm sure there must be sources out there that have analysed the references in the video. I'm reproducing it here; maybe something can be salvaged. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It begins with the bird flying through a room (the sound of a bird's wings can be heard on "Across the Universe"). The bird is "flying", a "blue jay way", a "blackbird", a bird that "has flown" or a bird that "can sing". It flies over to several old framed photographs of John, Paul, George and Ringo "in their lives" and we also see on the mantelpiece "fly and butterfly" and an "old brown shoe" in front of a picture of George. On the sofa is a cat who is "only sleeping" and perhaps having "golden slumbers" and the bird flies outside and over Liverpool's River Mersey which is a "place they will remember".

John, Paul, George, and Ringo are then seen in the "rain" outside the Liverpool docks with people (possibly Quarrymen) coming from a "hard day's night" of work, and people waiting to see The Beatles play "Some Other Guy" in the Cavern Club, which is guarded by a man in "old flat top". It is followed by a shot of "Strawberry Field" with a "Nowhere Man" wandering around, or perhaps "mother nature's son". Then an empty tree is shown ("No-one I think is in my tree"). There is a very quick shot of a "silver hammer" hardware store and then an 'Egg & Co' van, whom the owner of was (presumably) known as "the egg man".

On the left of the next shot you can see a "barrow in the marketplace", and, on the right, a barber’s shop, which is in "Penny Lane". Children run past "holding hands" and we "see how they run", and the moptop Beatles cross the road, walking past "Mr. Wilson and Mr. Heath". There is also a nurse "selling poppies from a tray" and looking straight ahead as if "she's in a play". There is a sign in a shop window that says, "Help", and the barber who may be "shaving another customer". The window also displays a photo of the Beatles. We also see someone about to "have another cigarette" and woman who may be "Prudence" or "Polythene Pam". Ringo stands in the doorway of a bakery. The camera then pans across a car showing two people making love "in the road" and the later Beatles chatting together, followed by a shop window showing all three of the anthology covers, and then a cake shop window which has a "birthday" cake behind it. The numbers on the cake are "64" ("When I'm 64").

As George walks up to the door of the Apple office the brass sign was changed — on the left — to read "Dr. Robert". The next shot shows a police van and the reflection on its window shows four faces in shadows, from the album With the Beatles.

The shot pans past Ringo with his camera to show someone "in a car crash" that a crowd, including John, is looking at, referencing the song "A Day in the Life". There are also firemen who have a "very clean machine". The camera moves from a "slide (Helter Skelter)" to a view of a kite, which was for "the benefit of Mr. Kite".

In the back alley, we can see a step ladder leading up to a bathroom window, referencing the song "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window", whilst in the back garden/yard some sunflowers are growing "so incredibly high". A group of small children run down the alley wearing masks that make them look like little "piggies" and we "see how they run like pigs from a gun". As the camera pans up and into a room, on the windowpane you can glimpse the sight of a "lizard on a window pane". Inside the room a "paperback writer" is typing near a clock which reads 10:10, which is, logically, "one after 9:09". Ringo is seen in a chair next to a television showing the Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. On the table is a bowl of Granny Smith apples, a box of "savoy truffles" and the "Daily Mail" with the front page headline "4,000 Holes Found In Blackburn, Lancashire". On the floor is "a portrait of the Queen", otherwise known as "Her Majesty", and on the window is a "picture of Chairman Mao".

Outside, a "blue meanie" pops up from "a hole" in the roof, which a man is "fixing". Then, down in the street, a "bulldog" is being walked and a "newspaper taxi" pulls up as a girl walks out of a door. Maybe she is "leaving home" or "for no one". Two people are carrying a large portrait of "Chairman Mao" in the background, which is obviously part of the "revolution". The Blue Meanie is seen again, and apparently he "sleeps in a hole in the road"". In the foreground, John Lennon is "happy just to dance" with Yoko, and far away, you can see a coach passing that is possibly going on a "magical mystery tour"...

The scene changes, and we see a figure dressed in Marsellaise attire (perhaps "all he needs is love?") at the front of a building, which we enter. We see "Bungalow Bill" with "his elephant and gun", and, "in case of accidents, he always took his Mum", who is behind him, as are some Indian servants who "carrying their weight", perhaps suffering because they are "so heavy". The camera moves through the crowd — past Ringo and past an Indian playing a sitar — and we see Brian Epstein putting his scarf on to leave because he "doesn't want to spoil the party". The camera pans over to a bass drum with "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" painted on it. Behind it is a cardboard cutout of James Dean with Stuart Sutcliffe's face on it, which is next to what seems to be the Guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (otherwise known as Sexy Sadie). The bird flies up into the sunshine, so that "here comes the sun".

The graveyard: "Mother Mary" or "Lady Madonna" — a statue — turns her head to face the camera. "Eleanor Rigby's" gravestone is in full shot, and then "Martha" the dog runs across the graveyard, with "Father McKenzie" in the background. Paul is seen dancing like "the fool on the hill", with a girl who is "leaving home", on the road. A "long and winding road" can be seen in the distance.

The shot before last is the "Abbey Road" zebra crossing. A woman, presumably "Lovely Rita, meter maid", is giving a Volkswagen a parking ticket — the same car seen on the cover of "Abbey Road" which fueled the "Paul Is Dead" rumor.

We then see the Beatles from A Hard Day's Night rushing through the corridor to see an actor, playing George Formby, finishing a song on the ukulele (the video depicts a banjo ukelele) on a stage in front of an audience, and Lennon (played backwards) says, "It's turned out nice again", which was Formby's catch-phrase. The curtain falls to signify "the end".
 * First, I added a border above to make it clear what was copied from a previous version of the article to this talk page.
 * I am impressed by the work that went into the video section, but like some other editors I thought some of the references are long-shots. More importantly, the analysis would be great content for a fan site, but probably does not belong in an encyclopedia. John Cardinal (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but the sheer number of allusions to Beatles songs was a big talking point at the time of the video's release. Perhaps a few of the more obvious ones could be put back into the article (properly sourced, of course). Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object, especially if it was a subset of the above (more obvious/likely ones) and they were properly sourced. John Cardinal (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chart performance
Great work by andreasedge! But I think there should be a section on this, specifically, the fact that it was held off the no.1 position by Michael Jackson's Earth Song. I remember there were reports that McCartney was particularly disappointed by this, and also there was sniping between EMI and Jackson's record company. Whether I can find sources on the web, or whether I'll have to dig through my old magazines, I don't know! Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it, Pawnkingthree. It's up for a GA, but I think there's enough time to put it in. Nice to work with someone else, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold
Note on my talk page when done, as always! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't put the audio sample inline at the start, put it in a box somewhere...✅
 * "The single was released in December 1995" - get an exact date or don't wlink✅
 * "of the video documentary, Anthology " - change "the" to "The Beatles'", and remove comma✅
 * Lead doesn't cover the entire scope of the article...✅ (I think...)
 * "for the Anthology project" - italics for album title✅
 * The image and quotes in the Origins section clash to create massive white space. Eek...:) ✅
 * "recorded by Lennon in 1977" - don't wlink year✅
 * "The video" (section title) --> "Music video"✅
 * "Beatles songs, such as Penny Lane, Paperback Writer, "A Day in the Life", "Eleanor Rigby", and Helter Skelter." - quotation marks for songs✅
 * "who is seen only" - who --> which✅
 * "was premiered on BBC Radio 1[34]" - put ref at end of sentence✅
 * "In the US, the song reached #6 on the Billboard Hot 100." - needs ref ✅
 * No more critical commentary on the song? ✅ (A little bit more...)

Comment - I've checked the ones that we're dealt with. A few comments, though:
 * Rather than changing the "the" to "The Beatles", the Anthology link was unpiped and re-sorted it in the sentence.
 * The ukelele bit was reworded to avoid confusing playing the part of a ukeleler and playing a ukelele (the instrument). Just64helpin (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed, nice work all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you, dihydrogen monoxide. As always, a great review from a well-informed and extremely great reviewer.--andreasegde (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing credit
This needs to be changed. It is not a "Lennon/McCartney" song. The official credit as given in the Anthology 1 booklet is "original composition by John Lennon. Beatles version by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr." I realise this is cumbersome to put in an infobox but what we have now is not accurate. (The anon edit recently reverted as "dubious" was in fact correct.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reasoning (and if the IP had left an edit summary to this effect, presumably User:Tbhotch would not have reverted). I suggest we simply add the very text you quote above, with an inline citation to say it's from the liner notes. PL290 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

'Performed by The Beatles'
I recently corrected the opening sentence to read, ""Free as a Bird" is a song written by John Lennon and later released as a record under the name The Beatles." This replaced the sentence, ""Free as a Bird" is a song performed by The Beatles.", which is not true, since the band ceased to exist in 1970. To say that it was released under the name 'The Beatles' is correct; "performed" is not correct in this context. Of course, our pointy friend Uniplex reverted it since it conflicts with his much-discussed sorely mistaken belief that The Beatles were active as a band during the period 1994-96.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you. I'm not disputing that the original song was written by Lennon, but it was never released. This version of the song, however, was written by Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr, which is a bit long for the lede, so it makes much more sense to use the "Performed by The Beatles" line. Arguing that The Beatles weren't active during 1994-96 isn't going to get anywhere. Legally, you might be right - I really don't know - but the singles and albums released during this time were all credited to the band, so I don't see what's wrong with the intro as it currently stands. Your version is definitely wrong though. Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My version is most certainly not wrong. The song was written by John Lennon. It was later released as a record under the name The Beatles. Yes, they are credited to 'The Beatles', but the article incorrectly states that the song was 'performed' by The Beatles. Pay attention! R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The version on behalf of which Radiopathy has argued is clearly much preferable on the grounds of accuracy. It is debatable whether or not the song was performed by The Beatles. On the other hand, it is indisputable that John Lennon wrote the entirety of the original song and the vast majority of the released version; it is also indisputable that the officially distributed version was released under the name The Beatles. For even greater precision, without getting too long-winded, perhaps the version proposed by Radiopathy:
 * "*Free as a Bird' is a song written by John Lennon and later released as a record under the name The Beatles."
 * Could be modified thus:
 * "*Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed by John Lennon and later released as a record under the name The Beatles."
 * Again, the question of whether it is proper to say this song was performed by The Beatles is a highly contentious one, and the opening of the article should avoid taking sides on it. The proposed alternative is both more informative and much less open to dispute.—DCGeist (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Radiopathy and DCGeist, " ... to say this song was performed by The Beatles is ... highly contentious", the song was originally composed by Lennon, and later released as a single by the Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have to agree that it is highly contentious to say that this was a song performed by the Beatles. At least the neutral language suggested should be used in the opening sentence.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I will make the change as (a) a clear consensus has developed in favor of the edit and (b) nothing in the edit contradicts those who wish to maintain the view that The Beatles did perform "Free as a Bird"--while the (now) former version plainly violates the common view of those who hold that The Beatles did not...the very view that held sway in the recent debate over at The Beatles Talk page. DocKino (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus in such a small length of time is not good, especially when it's been done overnight in much of the world. Quite simply, the version of the song on this single - and it's the single we're talking about - was not written by John Lennon. I'm happy to agree that neither was it performed by "The Beatles" in a technical sense, but it was released under that name. Can everyone please drop their pre-conceived notions so we can work on something that will be acceptable to us all, please? Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And I see that's been ignored. Fuck it. Another page off my watchlist. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but consensus does not develop according to your "pre-conceived notions" of its proper pace. It is what it is. Let us move forward, please.


 * "Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon and later released as a record credited to The Beatles.


 * Is there anything at all not acceptable to you in that sentence, Absconded Notherner? If so, please articulate here exactly what. Thank you. Oh, and before you do, please apologize for your completely unwarranted ugly language. This is not your little hissy, screamy room, sir or madam. This is a serious, collaborative workspace. DocKino (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DocKino, frustration at your behaviour is hardly surprising; kindly let the discussion develop and conclude before declaring consensus, as you did in your recent edit comment. Uniplex (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion developed and concluded very successfully, no thanks to you. You have added nothing to it, except your defense of a "Fuck" comment--and you can sleep with that, buddy. Good night. DocKino (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From WP:Consensus: "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles.". In other words, it is emphatically not one user going out and canvassing [people then declaring discussion over when they arrive. My post was an exclamation of frustration at yet another page in WP being taken over by people with a pre-conveived POV arriving from another page to impose it here. It was aimed at no editor so violated no rules. Now. Can we have a proper discussion about this without one group of editors declaring a unilateral consensus? [[User:Absconded Northerner|Absconded Northerner]] (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only are you unapologetically vulgar, you are a rank liar. Consensus here is far from "unilateral", as you very well know. Radiopathy and DocKino and I and GabeMc and SabreBD have all expressed a view that you have not countered, amid your shameless curses, nor has even Uniplex, who apparently shares your view but is evidently incapable of offering a coherent defense of it. Oh, and your attempt at Wikilawyering ("It was aimed at no editor so violated no rules") is sorry, indeed. You pretend to want a "proper discussion", yet you are blatantly the most improper contributor to this thread. You may thus be readily ignored forthwith.—DCGeist (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Go and read the policy and present some proper arguments. Nobody has yet given me a reason why "written by John Lennon" is a correct statement - the main reason being that it clearly isn't. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They say it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You, my good person, are Example Number One for this axiom. Not only is John Lennon indisputably the primary composer of the song, but the edit you have been reverting (along with several other edits, for which you have given no reason whatsoever for reverting) does not even say "written by John Lennon", but rather "originally composed by John Lennon". Pray draw the line between your cognitive faculties and stupidity.—DCGeist (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lennon contributed a couple of verses and a chorus and a piano tune. The bridge, guitar parts, drum track, backing vocals and other aspects of the song were by the other members, so please supply a Reliable Source for your claim that "John Lennon [is] indisputably the primary composer of the song". I have warned you for your personal attack. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that you dropped the F-bomb here (and without anything like fair provocation), who would ever have guessed you were so delicate. You poor, poor dear. Your heartbreaking warning on my Talk page cited no specifics. Since you've raised it here, you sweet, sensitive soul, exactly what "personal attack" are you referring to? Let's kiss your boo-boo and make it better, okay snookums?—DCGeist (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your continued failure to discuss the contents of the page has been noted. Please answer the questions I asked in my previous post or stop posting. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ...or what, sir/ma'am? You plan to whine me to death?


 * I have discussed the contents of the page in great detail. I am well aware of McCartney/Harrison/Starr's contributions to the released version of the song, and I maintain that it is clear from both common-sense observation and reading of the pertinent sources that John Lennon is indisputably the primary composer of the song.


 * You, on the other hand, amid all your whining, have not even condescended to address the fact that the edit you reverted multiple times (along with several other productive edits, for which you have still given no reason whatsoever for reverting) did not even say "written by John Lennon", but rather "originally composed by John Lennon". And, of course, you have still not offered even the most cursory apology for dropping the F-bomb without provocation. Given that, would you (a) agree or (b) disagree that it would be entirely fair to tell you to go "F" yourself?—DCGeist (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The original was not composed by Lennon. Lennon composed some fragments, upon which this song was based. That's totally different. Use of the word "Fuck" when not directed at an editor violates no policy so I'm damned if I'm going to apologise for it. Telling me to fuck myself, however, would be a personal attack and disallowed under WP:NPA. It's also totally irrelevant here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't care for "credited to". It sounds like our article is trying to make a point about whether or not this record really counts as the Beatles. That's not an issue for Wikipedia's editors to decide. IMHO, just keep is simple and drop this phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a huge fan of any of the wordings so far. The trouble is that Radiopathy, DCGeist and others aren't interested in proper discussion. The cycle is supposed to be Bold, Revert, Discuss; Radiopathy was bold; Uniplex reverted, but instead of discussion, Radiopathy started edit warring then canvassed for sympathetic editors to ensure his version was accepted. My attempts to restore the status quo ante have also been reverted by someone pushing a POV developed at another page.
 * I'd like to come up with a form of words that we can all agree on, but as long as DCGeist is edit-warring, that's not possible. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ain't that something, now. Here's the proud, unapologetic F-bomb dropper who now, hilariously, wants to lecture us about "proper discussion." This is the same proud, unapologetic F-bomb dropper who shouts out unabashedly: "The original was not composed by Lennon." Oh, really. Guess what. This is Wikipedia. Stupid loses.—DCGeist (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote, drop the irrelevant crap, stop making personal attacks and contribute properly. If you can't do these things, leave. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or what? What are you going to do to me if I don't leave? I've written ten Featured Articles here. To use your own sort of trash language, you've written F-all, crap artist. Now spell it out, you excrement: let's hear exactly what are you going to do to me if I don't leave.—DCGeist (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like DocKino's rewrite either, sorry. As mentioned above, "credited to the Beatles" is not a neutral tone, as to me it reads too much like, "well, it says the Beatles on the cover but we all know it's not really the Beatles" and this is inappropriate. The objectors to the original sentence might have more of a point if it had been released as "Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr" or "The Threeatles" or something but it was released as a Beatles single and therefore there is nothing wrong with "a single performed by The Beatles" (or if the word "performed" is so objectionable, then just "a single by The Beatles". Keep it simple, as Quest For Knowledge says. No need to tie ourselves up in knots with "credited to", "under the name of" etc.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weird. Just weird. You seem entirely oblivious to the fact that "released" and "performed" mean two very different things. So let's get it straight. Do you believe "released" and "performed" are synonyms, or do you accept that they are not? DocKino (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already stated I have no objection to "performed" being removed. All four members of the group "perform" on the record, so I have no problem myself with using the word, but I can see it's contentious to others. My real objection is to the "credited to The Beatles", which both AQuestforKnowledge and myself feel comes across as pointy. I notice that you didn't respond to that part of my comment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is there's no one good word. "Released by" isn't accurate, since records are released by the record company, not the band. "Performed by" seems good enough to be but evidently isn't acceptable to others, and I suspect just "by" will be unacceptable for the same reasons. I've been trying to come up with a form of words but anything simple is inaccurate and anything else is too long for the first sentence of the lede.
 * To try a different tack entirely, how about deleting that first sentence entirely so we get: "Free as a Bird" is a single that was released on 4 December 1995... ? Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Solves nothing. And don't think you can just duck away from your sickening behavior, either. DocKino (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The first thing the lead is supposed to do is establish what the subject of the article is, and why it's notable. This shouldn't be difficult: it's effectively a one line summary of the the article—one need only look at the article to determine its most significant aspects. If the article discusses a significant controversy, no problem, the word "controversial" can be used in the lead sentence to reflect this. Uniplex (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence my suggestion. The rest of the lede, plus the article itself, can go into details about the writing and performance. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're not establishing notability with only the year. Pawnkingthree's suggestion to just strike the word "performed" seems fine. Uniplex (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with simply striking the word "performed" - I can't help but think this won't be the universal view, however. Absconded Northerner (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think it would be all this! I agree that consensus can't have been reached this soon.

I go back to DCGeist's suggestion at the beginning of the discussion, that Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon and later released as a record under the name The Beatles is the best way to open the article. Lennon most certainly did compose the bulk of the song, and the finished version was indeed released under the name 'The Beatles'. It doesn't have to all be dissected in the lead.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading this discussion at the word "fuck". I'll make two points here, mostly recycled from the other discussion:


 * 1. The record is credited to the Beatles. In addition, it was not written by Lennon alone. It was written by Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starkey -- i.e., The Beatles.


 * 2. To say that the people on the record are not "The Beatles" is, at best, an unsourced assertion and, at worst, blatant POV-pushing.


 * My suggestion for a lede would be "Free as a Bird" is a song originally written by John Lennon and later released by The Beatles as part of the Beatles Anthology project." Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like Evanh2008's proposed wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still not 100% happy with the "originally written by Lennon" line, because it's really not true - the version on the single is based on a fragment by Lennon, but all he wrote was a verse (or two, depending on your definition) and the piano line for it. The others wrote the intro, middle eight, solo, backing vocals, plus guitar and drum parts for Lennon's verse. I'd rather say something like "based on an original demo piece by John Lennon and later released....", etc. If I'm in a minority of one on the "original" line, however, I'm happy enough with Evanh2008's version. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Evanh2008's suggestion too. Lennon was the originator of the song, so I'm fine with "originally written by". Incidentally I think it's pushing it a bit to describing backing vocals and guitar parts as "writing"- I've never heard of that before. And if you listen to the original demo Lennon did start writing the middle eight too ("whatever happened to...") - the others just finished it off.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like original research to me—I'm sure we can find sources for the song's published credit (was the demo ever published?). Do we need a precise definition of the song's (or songs') authorship in the lead sentence at all? I.e. is this a most significant aspect of the topic's notability? Uniplex (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting that any of that is necessary; I was just replying to Absconded Northerner (Hence the "incidentally".)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I also think my point stands: the final version is more than Lennon's Bits + Other's Bits; it's (Lennon's Bits + Other's Bits) + Other's Bits. I feel it's over-simplistic to talk about Lennon writing the original here. It's like saying Thomas Carlyle invented the Environmental movement simply because he invented the word "environment".
 * As I've said before: I'm happy enough with the suggested version but I don't think the first sentence of the lede needs to do everything. I'm certainly not aware of any policy saying that the first sentence needs to establish notability. Let's start with something neutral that we can all agree upon, then leave subsequent sentences and paragraphs to deal with the details. I hereby resubmit my suggestion: "Free as a Bird" is a single that was released on 4 December 1995... " Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as both flat and oddly underinformative. On further consideration, there's no reason not to do considerably more with the lede sentence, thus:
 * "*Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed by John Lennon; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995."
 * That gives appropriate precedence to Lennon while accurately reflecting the composition of the released version. It also accurately reflects the nature of the release while it avoids both the contentious claim of the present version and the awkward framing of "the Beatles" in some of the proposed alternatives.—DCGeist (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other possibilities:
 * Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles based on a demo made by John Lennon in 1977, and later completed by Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.
 * Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles, co-written by the four members of the band and released in 1995 as part of The Beatles Anthology.
 * Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles released in 1995 as part of The Beatles Anthology.
 * Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles written mainly by John Lennon (credited to Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starkey) and released in 1995 on the album Anthology 1.
 * Personally, I prefer the third (no mention of writing) with further clarification later in the paragraph. However, the fourth (above) seems to follow the accepted standard for Beatles songs ledes more than the others. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with DCGeist's suggestion above. Also a note on McCartney and Harrison's "contributions" to the song. The bridge that McCartney and Harrison "finished", "Whatever happened to, the life that we once knew ..." is a blatent rip-off of the Shangri-la's "Remember (Walking in the Sand)" 1964 (see Tell me why: a Beatles commentary, Riley, 2002, pp.405-406). And Harrison's guitar work is a rip-off of Santo & Johnny, "Sleepwalk", 1959. Also, in regards to the contention that John Lennon was not the original composer of "FAAB", (see MacDonald, 2007, p.376) Also, Harry, "TBE" 2000, page 110, the official press release for the Anthology states: " ... will feature John, Paul, George, and Ringo, with the latter three bringing additional instrumentation, voices, and arrangements to two unreleased John Lennon songs on which he sings and plays." The official Apple press release states clearly that the songs were in fact, John Lennon songs, though it erroneously states that they were unreleased, which is not 100% true, "Real Love", albeit a different version, was released on Imagine: John Lennon, 1988. And the "Free as a Bird" demo which " ... was featured on Show No 78 of The Lost Lennon Tapes radio series in the late 1980s."(Harry, TJLE", 2000, p.258) — GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks please. I agree with the wording: "Free as a Bird is a song originally written by John Lennon and later released by The Beatles as part of the Beatles Anthology project."  I also think it's important to remember that Harrison, McCartney, and Starr all consider this track to be a track recorded by The Beatles.  I think their opinions deserves to be respected.  It's also a legal fact that the track is by The Beatles. Macduff (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this one: *Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995 is the most precise and least contentious. The article body explains in sufficient detail.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  02:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a "contention" that Lennon is not the sole composer of the song -- it is objective fact -- just like the fact that the singles are Beatles songs. Everyone's opinion as to the quality or lack thereof of the songs needs to take a back seat to objective, sourced, facts. I'm having a hard time understanding how something like the statement that it is a "song performed by The Beatles" can actually be contentious. Now let's continue with BRD. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In case you missed it, we've already been to bold and revert, and we're now discussing - so stop changing the lead until the discussion is finished.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  03:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Lennon made a demo is not contended: the article notes the demo as background information to the discussion of the notable topic—the Beatles song. Lennon's demo was extremely un-notable, never formally recorded or published, apparently abandoned by Lennon himself. The question of the lead sentence is not one of technical accuracy; it's of proportionate representation of the topic's most significant aspects, as presented in the article, not in editors' opinions. Uniplex (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Evanh, per your comment,"I'm having a hard time understanding how something like the statement that it is a "song performed by The Beatles" can actually be contentious." It's contentious because none of the musicians on the recordings were in a band named the Beatles when they recorded their parts. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Uniplex, per your comment, "Lennon's demo was extremely un-notable, never formally recorded or published, apparently abandoned by Lennon himself." This is your opinion Uniplex, and you are wrong about, " ... apparently abandoned by Lennon himself." Lennon, "put the track aside" for an upcoming project, a Broadway production tentatively titled, "The Ballad of John and Yoko".(Harry, "TJLE", 2000, p.258) — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Uniplex, per your comment, "Lennon's demo was extremely un-notable, never formally recorded or published" Wrong again, (see Harry, "TJLE", 2000, p.258, and 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 Lennon versions of "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" were released and heard by fans even before the surviving ex-Beatles had heard them). — GabeMc (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Gabe. The only logical conclusion my mind can reach in connection to the fact that two new Beatles songs were released in '95 and '96, is that the band was active. An inactive band cannot record and release new material. An active band, by definition, records and releases new material, or at least plays concerts. Re: FAAB's notability -- it was never formally published. The song was on bootlegs and the like starting in the late 80s, but it was never published until the Beatles version was made. Outside of hardcore Lennon fans and bootleg traders, it was virtually unknown to the public until the Anthology era. I think that was the point Uniplex was trying to make. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Evan, I see your point, I do, it's similar to my point about, "how can a dissovled band be active without first reuniting", but really, that discussion belongs at Talk:The Beatles. Why is DCGeist's approach contentious? Seems like a fair compromise to me.

"*Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995." — GabeMc (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I gotcha. I'm not trying to cross the threads or anything. I personally have no problem with DCGeist's wording. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If by "DCGeist's version" we're talking about "Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles released in 1995 as part of The Beatles Anthology" then I'm fine with it, but I don't like any of the others. Evanh's version is also fine by me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, I had five versions, but I assume you're talking about my first one. ;) DCGeist's version is this:

"*Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995."
 * See anything wrong with it? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning "The Beatles" in the first line is silly. Some people here seem to want to deny it, but the single was a Beatles single and this should be stated straight up. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this one.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"See anything wrong with it?" Yes, the sentence implies that the song's notability stems from both the Lennon version and the Beatles version, and probably more from the Lennon version as it is mentioned first. Checking a couple of the sources, both the Guardian and MacDonald spend about 95% of their articles discussing the Beatles version: the Lennon version is mentioned only as background information. In this respect, the lead seems balanced as is, with the second paragraph giving the background on the Lennon demo—where is the justification, from an NPOV perspective, to suddenly push this up to be the primary clause of the lead sentence? Uniplex (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, well, the Lennon version was recorded, and heard by fans first, several years before the Beatles version was, so mentioning it first is in keeping with the chronological sequence of the song's evolution. In terms of the sources you mentioned, once again, I will remind you that in MacDonald's book he gives sole writing credit to Lennon, and he twice refers to them as "ex-beatles"(pp.376 and 377), and once as "former" Beatles(p.378). And it's no wonder he has little to say about Lennon's demo, as little was known about the demo other than the year it was recorded, that Lennon recorded it himself on cassette tape, and that the song was planned to be used in a future musical that was not to be, since Lennon was killed before it could. If by "the Guardian article" you mean this one, then really, you should consider that the Guardian article also states: "Free As A Bird was written and recorded as a rough demo by John Lennon in 1977, then 'finished' by the surviving three last year." Notice the quotes around finished. Also, McCartney states: "It was good fun to work on a song of John's again ... "Notice he says, " ... a song of John's ... ". Harrison states, " ... and to hear John's voice in the song again - that was very nice." While Starr says, " ... and it sounds just like them". Just like them, not just like us, impling that Starr thinks of the Beatles as people other then the individuals, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr. Further, Griel Marcus (veteran US music critic) states in the Guardian article: "It's a grotesque idea with only one conceivable motive - money. I think this exercise would bring out all of John's cynicism were he around today." In the same article Jimmy Savile (broadcaster) states: "As for issuing a 'new' single, it's a good idea, and I hope it works." Again, "new" is put in quotes to indicate the writers apprehension about labeling it as such. David Jensen (DJ) writes: "Firstly it's a triumph of marketing ... music fans are just glad to hear John's voice again ... " Jonathan King (radio presenter) says: "It's just awful. You can hear in John's voice that he thinks it's a disaster and hopes no one ever hears it. It's a purely commercial exercise ... It's not the last Beatles record, it's the first by a new band ... " So a careful look at the article reveals that of the 13 people quoted at length, 5 of them mention "Lennon's voice", which of course, has it's source as his demo from 1977. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From an NPOV perspective, Lennon was the original and primary composer of "Free as a Bird" and his composition obviously (a) chronologically precedes the "finished" version and (b) is the existential basis for the official release. As GabeMc has ably demonstrated via high-quality sources, the notion that Lennon's original was "extrememly un-notable" is simply false. The proposal of which a growing number of editors have voiced their approval


 * "Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995.


 * is accurate, precise, and chronologically sound, encompasses all the vital basics, makes no contentious claims, and frames the mention of the Beatles appropriately and without bias.—DCGeist (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is unbelievable POV-pushing. The Lennon version was unknown outside a tight clique of people who had access to unofficial bootlegs. This suggested version is rife with POV and utterly unacceptable. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Absconded Northerner, on what grounds? Please be more specific if you want your comments to be helpful to the discusion. The suggested version tells the reader three things: 1) "Free as a Bird" is a song originally written by Lennon in 1977, 2) A version incorporating contributions from McCartney, Harrison, and Starr was released on 4 December 1995, 3) The version incorporating contributions from McCartney, Harrison, and Starr was released as a Beatles single. What do you find contentious? Or, what is the proposed lead lacking in your opinion? — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't about the song, it's about the single - unless you want to remove the infobox? That means that all references to an original by Lennon are false because the first version of the single was released in the name of The Beatles. Unless we're going to adopt the totally neutral version I suggested, it's not acceptable to have the first sentence not mention the name of the entity under whose name the single was released. Absconded Northerner (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article is in fact about the song "Free as a Bird". Read the articles for, Get Back, Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields Forever, Yesterday, A Day in the Life, All You Need Is Love, Something, etc ... all the articles mention who the original/primary composer is, and they are specific about each musicians contributions. Why should "FAAB" be different? — GabeMc (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with mentioning the fact that it was composed by Lennon before the mention of the Beatles version. Many other articles on Beatles songs mention the writing credits before the name of the band, so I see DCGeist's version as pretty much conforming to established precedent. This article is about the song, not the single -- just like the articles for The Long and Winding Road, She Loves You, and Strawberry Fields Forever are about the song, and not a particular release of it. The text of the article and the infobox both make it clear that the primary notability for this song is that it was released by the Beatles. Nothing in the lede is going to detract from that. Now, I would rather the lede state that it was "released by The Beatles" and not "released as a Beatles single", but I understand that that's contentious. I endorse 'Geist's wording of the lede. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @GabeMc, "music fans are just glad to hear John's voice again": according to your argument, music fans were already familiar the song; why were they glad to hear it again if it was already well known? Presumably, if Lennon's demo is given priority in the lead, the next thing you'll do is a add a Lennon song info-box above the Beatles one, move the Beatles infobox down to a cover-versions section, and then finally remove it completely as an unnotable reissue. The lead sentence is supposed to clearly indicate what is most notable about the subject; chronological ordering of other aspects does not come into it (see WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD). @Evanh2008, that other Beatles songs include a writing credit in the lead sentence is often also POV, the result of fanboys making sure that every ounce of their favourite Beatle's contribution to the authorship of a song is the first thing that the reader sees—regardless of how secondary sources treat the significance of this aspect of the subject.  Note the example given in WP:LEAD:  “"Yesterday" is a pop song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help!”, not "Yesterday" is a song originally written by Paul McCartney in 1965; a recording credited to the Beatles was later released on the album Help!".  Uniplex (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that I prefer the lead as-is. If it's contentious, though (which it shouldn't be), I prefer Geist's version. Or "Free as a Bird is a song by The Beatles released in 1995 as part of The Beatles Anthology". That leaves the rest of the first paragraph to go into the specifics of the song's composition. I disagree that composition credits in the lede is POV. It's a valid and quite notable facet of any song's composition, particularly when there's a blanket credit like "Lennon/McCartney". But I do think you made a good point regarding the infobox. If we're going to leave out any mention of it being a "song by The Beatles" in the lede, should we remove the section of the infobox which reads "single by The Beatles"? I say "no, no, no", for reasons I've stated before. I would, however, be interested in any thoughts you, Gabe, et al. may have on that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

'Performed by the Beatles' (Break 1)
@Uniplex, my point about writers in the Guardian article mentioning "John's voice" is simple, I contend that in fact, the most notable aspect of the Beatles release of "Free as a Bird", is John Lennon's voice on the recording, which has as it's source, the original demo he made in 1977. It certainly isn't Harrison ripping off "Sleepwalk", or McCartney ripping off the Shangrilas, or Ringo's generic 4/4 drumming. Whether or not Lennon's version was notable pre-1994 is irrelevant, because it certainly is now, and has been for over 16 years. As far as your comment, " ... the next thing you'll do ... ", you're extrapolating, and I have no intention of removing the infobox, how silly. Mentioning the original writer of a song, when properly sourced, is not POV pushing per se, it's merely stating the notable, and verifiable facts about the composition. The official credit for "FAAB" as given in the Anthology 1 booklet is, " ... original composition by John Lennon. Beatles version by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr." That's straight from the Beatles Anthology, so why did they print, " ... the original composition by John Lennon."? Per your comment: " ... that other Beatles songs include a writing credit in the lead sentence is often also POV, the result of fanboys making sure that every ounce of their favourite Beatle's contribution to the authorship of a song is the first thing that the reader sees—regardless of how secondary sources treat the significance of this aspect of the subject." Again, this is your opinion, and if you read the entire lede for Yesterday, you will find that it also states: "'Yesterday' ... was the first official recording by The Beatles that relied upon a performance by a single member of the band, Paul McCartney.", and, "Although credited to "Lennon/McCartney", the song was written solely by McCartney." This is not pointy, it is a well know fact that McCartney wrote "Yesterday" without any assistance from Lennon. So why deprive the reader of this valuable and notable fact? At any rate, "FAAB" is different, as Lennon wrote the demo in 1977 when a) when he wasn't in a band called the Beatles, and b) without any assistance from other ex-Beatles. Per your comment: " ... regardless of how secondary sources treat the significance of this aspect of the subject." I'm confused, as many, many secondary sources do in fact differentiate the primary composers of Lennon-McCartney songs, blanket writing credits aside. Wiki is an encyclopedia, that includes notable and verifiable information about the subjects of it's articles, not ASCAP, or some other publishing credit database. If it is verifiable through secondary sources that McCartney wrote "Yesterday" himself, or Lennon wrote "Julia" himself, or that they collaborated on "A Day In The Life" then Wiki should describe this, and we need not be slavish to the blanket Lennon/McCartney writing credit.

How about this as a lede:

"*Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed, and recorded in demo form by John Lennon in 1977; a finished studio version incorporating additional instrumentation, voices, and arrangements from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles on 4 December 1995."

This incorporates language from both the Beatles: Anthology 1 booklet, and the official Apple Press release concerning the Anthology. It also clearly states that the song began as a Lennon demo, and ended up as a "finished" Beatles single. This version avoids the contentious claim that all four musicians on the record were in fact in a band called the Beatles when they recorded their parts, but still clearly states that "FAAB" is a Beatles single. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, that seems a little busy to me. How about this, as a compromise:


 * "'Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed, and recorded in demo form by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles on 4 December 1995."


 * That's roughly half of Gabe's (most recent) suggestion, and the part after the semicolon is mostly DCGeist's. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that version may be a bit busy, and that's a nice compromise Evan. Though I would like to include, " ... additional instrumentation, voices, and arrangements ... ", as does the official Apple press release, in lieu of simply stating, "contributions", I think that important detail could wait until the second sentence. I would however suggest, that we include "home" before demo and "studio" before version, as in:
 * "'Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed, and recorded in home demo form by John Lennon in 1977; a studio version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles on 4 December 1995."
 * This will help differentiate the facts that Lennon's version is a home demo, and the Beatles version is a studio quality release. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Though I think "as a home demo" reads a little easier than "in home demo form". Other than that, I'm fine with it. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, good suggestion Evan. Also, I can't help wonder if we need a clause in there so it is clear that the Beatles version was recorded around, or on top off, Lennon's demo. For example:
 * "'Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed, and recorded as a home demo by John Lennon in 1977; a studio version of the recording incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles on 4 December 1995."
 * What do you think? — GabeMc (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There would be knock on effects of discussing the background info in the lead sentence: it's already adequately covered in the second paragraph. We have sources leading with words such as "The Beatles' first single for 25 years", and following with comments such as "a momentous event", "flogging a dead horse", "embarrassingly awful".  The song's notability stems from it being a Beatles reunion of sorts (something that the media had hankered for almost daily until Lennon was killed) and the associated expectation of such contrasting with the fact that the song itself was "crap", "lethargic", "a dirge".  Uniplex (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, the "knock on effects" could be easily dealt with through copy editing, which the article needs anyway. I don't have a problem incorporating the phrase, "The Beatles' first single for 25 years", or some variation thereof, it might make a nice start to the second sentence. As far as, "a momentous event", "flogging a dead horse", and "embarrassingly awful". I'm not sure what you mean by this Uniplex, what's your point? A writer's opinion of the song's quality has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. As per your comment, "The song's notability stems from it being a Beatles reunion of sorts ... and the associated expectation of such contrasting with the fact that the song itself was "crap", "lethargic", "a dirge"." As far as the first part, that's why the proposed lede mentions all four Beatles and the group "the Beatles". The second part is 100% opinion, and as such has no bearing on whether the lede sentence should state the verifiable fact that the song was originally a Lennon composition, which is what the single says on the back! Read the back of the actual Beatles single Uniplex, it reads as follows: "Free As A Bird": "Original Compostion by John Lennon, Beatles version by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr". BTW, a dirge is a somber song expressing mourning or grief, such as would be appropriate for performance at a funeral. A lament, not an insult per se. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The first line of the lede isn't the place for this level of detail. The fact that this is a Beatles single is what makes the article notable. An obscure, low-quality demo isn't what makes it important enough for inclusion. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absconded Northerner, please read WP:LEAD:

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. (emphasis added)


 * I disagree that, ""The fact that this is a Beatles single is what makes the article notable". Any piece of art from one of the 20th century's greatest, and most popular artists is significant. Would an obscure, but known, primitive scetch by Picasso be "important enough for inclusion" in Wikipedia? As far as your use of the term, "obscure", that's debatable, and even if it was obscure in 1977, it certainly isn't now, in 2011, it's very well know now don't you think? As far as calling Lennon's demo "low-quality", first I would ask you, have you even heard it? Secondly, it's an opinion anyway, and irrelevant to this discussion. It was high quality enough that it was bootlegged, played on the radio, and the Theatles made a top 10 hit out of it. If it was such low quality, then why would the Threatles use it in the first place? — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to establish consensus to change lede
I think enough time has been spent discussing this, lets take a vote, and see where we stand. Voters: Please read the back of the actual Beatles single, it reads as follows: "Free As A Bird": "Original Compostion by John Lennon, Beatles version by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr". I propose we change the lede sentence:

"Free as a Bird" is a song performed by The Beatles." "'Free as a Bird' is a song originally composed and recorded in 1977 as a home demo by John Lennon. On 4 December 1995, a studio version of the recording incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles." — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Current lede:
 * Proposed lede:
 * This is just nonsense: you don't consult a primary source to establish its notability. Uniplex (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, the "FAAB" Beatles single is not a primary source for the clause, "Original Compostion by John Lennon ... ", it is a secondary source, since John Lennon was not a Beatle when he wrote or recorded the demo in 1977, nor was he when the Beatles version of "FAAB" was recorded and released in 1995, he was dead, and not in any band, let alone the Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note for “voters”: From WP:VOTE: “Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. ..., polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion.” Uniplex (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, "Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration." We have had discussion (since 25 October), debate, and collaboration, as the proposed lede is a compromise between Radiopathy, DCGeist, DocKino, Evanh, and myself. "When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus ..." That's exactly what this poll is attemting to do, to determine consensus. And since I didn't feel like arguing with you over it for another week or more, I thought we should find out where the community stands on this, since we clearly do not agree, and I have already spent many, many hours discussing this with you, and others. — GabeMc (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"'Free as a Bird' is a song released by The Beatles as a single on 4 Dec 1995. Originally composed, and recorded in 1977 as a home demo by John Lennon alone, the released studio version of the recording incorporates contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr." but only if it quickly gets consensus and doesn't drag things out. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: a) It is contentious to say the song was "performed by The Beatles", b) the song's notability does rely in part on it's origins as a 1977 Lennon composition, then demo (afterall, how else were they going to find a dead guys voice to use on the track), and c) the most notable aspect of the track is that all four Beatles appear on the record, Lennon (see b), McCartney, Harrison, and Starr, which was d) released as a "Beatles" single. The proposed lede covers all of this. More detail would follow. Per WP:LEAD: 1)"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." 2) "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." 3) "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." 4) " ... the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable and addresses my previous concerns.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's factually accurate, reasonably succinct, and not terribly wordy. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I?  You can talk to me... 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as it's accurate. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and suggest:
 * The central point of the proposed lede change is to establish in the first clause, the origin of the song/demo in 1977, then to describe the process that led to the recording from 1977 becoming a Beatles single in 1995. It's at the core of the substantive change I wish to make. — GabeMc (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I need to change my vote. My suggestion will help most readers know they are on the right page immediately (most people heard of it first through the released recording), but quickly provides the background and provenance.  I think that useful.   And I think you should provide the full first paragraph in the !vote.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "My suggestion will help most readers know they are on the right page immediately ..." Presumably because you think most readers won't recognize the name John Lennon while searching Wikipedia for information about the Beatles, and then they'll stop reading midsentence, all in a huff, and try a different web page. Yeah, I think that useful, indeed. I'll be sure to include as much of the "full first paragraph in the !vote". And what's with, " ... but only if it quickly gets consensus and doesn't drag things out." Is that an ultimatum? How funny, do you do this often? — GabeMc (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I respect your choice, but I have to admit, I think starting with, "Free as a Bird" is a song released by The Beatles as a single on 4 Dec 1995.", and your suggestion in general, is a little cookie cutter, generic, and not as creative as it could be. Wikipedia should strive for quality writing in general. Also, and while I do appreciate your joining the discussion now, where were you a week ago? You could have been helpful to the discussion then ... that we've been having all week ... without you. Also the vote here, now is whether we should avoid, "performed by The Beatles" with the proposed lede, and while the proposal isn't set in stone of course, usually here you make suggestions, but typically not base your vote on 100% total control given to you over the content of the change. Afterall, people would be voting on a moving target if I tried to please every one, with every placement, of every word, but hey, that's just one man's opinion.  — GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, I like the above description. Check out The Sound of Silence for similar explanation.  Hotcop2 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how the proposed version is chronological, it takes you from song, to demo, to Beatles single, just as history did. Why mention the final product first? More importantly, look at the back of the actual single, it says, "Original Composition by John Lennon, Beatles version by ... " — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Reluctant Support I think this is over-wordy, and I still believe this article is about the single rather than the song (regardless of whether OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), because it's only the fact that The Beatles released the song as a single that makes it notable, but this is good enough. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we're splitting it into two I'm happy enough for this to be used, despite my remaining concerns. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It is a bit wordy, but it is more complicated that the Beatles simply releasing a song. Bevo74 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: For those who think it's too wordy, the semi-colon after Lennon could be changed to a period, and the sentence broken into two. — GabeMc (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I support dropping the semicolon and dropping in a period. Also, let's cut the comma after "composed". Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. — GabeMc (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Its accurate and establishes the subject and its notability, but still a bit of a handful. I think we could allow ourselves a full stop/period as suggested above for ease of reading. No need to get caught up on the "establishing" part of the guidance if readability would be improved by two shorter sentences. But I can live with this.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 07:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

GabeMc, what is the impetus for your change? The demo is already adequately covered in the 2nd para of the lead. The article clearly treats the demo as a small part of the background info: the bulk of the article (recording, structure, video, charts, reception) and its associated sources are about the Beatles song. WP is not a democracy—if at all possible, we follow the sources, and consensus is judged according to adherence to policy. Where are the sources that lead with the Lennon demo? Let's look at at a typical treatment of the song in a modern work The Rough Guide To Rock, 2003:
 * "A reunion was unlikely, but now it was impossible – or was it? Come Christmas 1995 and the eerie strains of "Free As A Bird" echoed around the Top 10 as John, Paul, George and Ringo were brought together by modern technology. Where they had once burst tunefully out of your radio, now they were a dirge-like memento mori, cynically promoting a nostalgic collection of inessential outtakes for baby boomers. In true Beatles style, "Free As A Bird" summed up the 90s Zeitgeist as perfectly as their original music had reflected the innocent joys of the '60s"

Neither the demo, nor the writers' credit are even mentioned. The key notable aspects are "Beatles", "reunion", "top 10", "dirge", "cynical"; editors opinions on this (and yours above on the word "dirge" in particular) are irrelevant; as an encyclopedia, we follow the sources. Uniplex (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, I'm not sure why this comment is put here, but I'll reply anyway, though I get the feeling you are just wasting more of my time. We have been discussing this for over a week, and I have gotten nowhere with you at all. That's why it's time to see what the community thinks, hence the vote, which is BTW, a democratic process, dispite your claims that " ... WP is not a democracy ..." Read my support statement, or the numerous comments that preceed this section if you really want to know the impetus for the lede change. That passage you posted from The Rough Guide To Rock, is 99% the writers personal opinion. The only verifiable fact in the passage is that the single was on the radio during Christmas 1995. BTW, it's not my opinion on what a dirge is, it's a fact. To call a song a dirge is no more an insult than to call a song blues, or punk, or pop, or rock. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support the principle of this. The actual wording can be worked out later. My preference is for John's wording - though whichever version is used, the comma after composed needs to be dropped.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What principle is it that you support? It seems that there are 2 issues in hand: is the Lennon demo more notable than the Beatles single? and did the Beatles perform on their single? Uniplex (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Silktork, my issue with John's wording is that his prose goes from 1995, to 1977, then back to 1995, it's better in chronological order. Also, my proposed lede is smoother, IMHO. FYI, the comma has been dropped, and the lede has been broken into two sentences. — GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The change is not too bad, and as SilkTork says can be tweaked later, but I'm happy with the gist of it. There is nothing in this wording that isn't supported by the sources, Uniplex. Time to put this to bed I think. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The change is not too bad"—even if it's only slightly bad, why change at all? "There is nothing in this wording that isn't supported by the sources"—if this were a valid argument, WP:NPOV could be deleted. Uniplex (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex- There's nothing wrong with the change, and nothing about it goes against policy. We're not a transcription service, and we're not saying anything the sources don't say, so I don't see the issue. If you want to argue for the present lede, then do that, but I don't see any reason to argue against the proposed new one. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if you can't see the problem in "we're not saying anything the sources don't say", then you need to re-read WP:NPOV. No one should be "arguing" as such; consensus is formed from structured discussion. The usual approach for such discussion is to identify the problem(s), establish the constraints that solutions must meet and then consider the relative merits of potential solutions against those constraints—as far as I can see, we haven't even done the first step yet: the title of this section is essentially "change lede" to which the most obvious response is "why?". We are a "summarizing" service and we summarize with WP:DUE weight.  If we establish that the current lead does not give WP:DUE weight then of course it should be changed. Uniplex (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, notability does not always control the order of information in an article, afterall, one could argue that Buckminster Fuller is most notable for "buckyballs", but his article's lede does not begin with this info. Ted Kaczynski is most famous for, " ... a mail bombing campaign that spanned nearly 20 years, killing three people and injuring 23 others." Yet this clause is found at the end of the first sentence of the lede of his article. One could argue that O. J. Simpson is most notable for the 1995 murder charges and subsequent aquittal, yet this info does not appear until the second paragraph of the lede to his article, etc...etc...etc... — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The best places to look for how to deal with the notability of the the subject of this article, are its sources, not other articles (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Uniplex (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Uniplex, you really should carefully re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think you are misusing it here, and misunderstanding it. The policy is intended for global, or macro, but not micro decisions, and however it is intended to be applied, is not as black and white as you appear to think it is. 1) The policy is specifically referring to the questions of whether to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. It is not attempting to guide choices in terms of individual independant clauses, or bits of information. 2) The second bullet point on the page says: "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." 3) "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." 4) "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Five pillars." — GabeMc (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support.--Patthedog (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think it's a bit wordy for the lead; the article body breaks it down very nicely. I still prefer, "*Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995."  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Radiopathy, the proposed lede is now two sentences, which I think solves the issue of it's wordiness. — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My current proposal says it perfectly in one sentence, even if it is broken up with a semi-colon.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to establish that Lennon had recorded a demo, which was then used 17 years later in the actual Beatles single, not just that Lennon composed the song in 1977, and the Threatles reworked it in 1995. IMHO, it's really not 100% clear in your version that Lennon's recording from the 1977 demo, which included his voice and piano, was used as the basis of the 1995 Beatles single. And while this info could wait for the second sentence, I think it's easy to establish it out front. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: While I prefer the version articulated immediately above by Radiopathy, the proposal marks a significant improvement over the existing language. (In terms of tweaking: I do believe that "released as a Beatles single" would be better than "released as a single by The Beatles" on the grounds of (a) minimization of any contentious implications, (b) greater precision in use of the term "released", and (c) elimination of mid-sentence "The" [Beatles], reduction of which where practical and stylistically natural was agreed on as an objective in The Beatles.) Because it does mark a significant improvement, and in the interests of achieving consensus and resolution, I support the proposal.—DCGeist (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GabeMc, despite your claims otherwise, "WP is not a democracy"— this is policy, specifically in place to keep fanboys/POV-pushers at bay; guidelines note that straw-polls might be used in exceptional circumstances to help reveal discussion points upon which to build the actual consensus, which is determined by an argument's adherence to policy (in particular N/V/NPOV). "That passage you posted from The Rough Guide To Rock, is 99% the writers personal opinion."—it's 100% more significant than your personal opinion. That WP prefers authors' opinions to those of editors is fundamental to how it works. Only when authors' opinions differ do we need involve editor opinion. We're still waiting for you to come up with sources that lead with the Lennon demo, seeing as NPOV concerns have been raised by a number of editors, a simple and reasonable request. Uniplex (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Uniplex, on that last point I have to disagree with you. The Statements of opinion section of the RS is pretty clear on this. Quoting opinions by other authors is fine, but only when it's clear they are opinions. Using an author's opinion to declare things as facts in the lede is definitely not okay. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Statements of opinion section of RS is about establishing facts; that's not what we're trying to do here; the fact that Lennon made a demo is not disputed. We're trying to establish what is the most notable thing about the subject: the demo, or the Beatles 'reunion' hit single. In general, this can only be done by observing how secondary sources, such as the author of the book mentioned, note and describe the subject. Uniplex (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Opinions about the subject matter would only be relevant to the lede of an article if those opinions in themselves contributed to notability. For instance, in the case of Plan 9 From Outer Space it's well-established that the film is widely-regarded as amongst the worst ever made, so the inclusion of opinions (in the third paragraph) of the lede makes sense. That doesn't apply here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We're probably talking at crossed purposes here. All I'm doing is reiterating WP:N which says to use secondary sources, such as books, to determine a subject's notabilty: “"Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources”; GabeMc seems to be saying that books are the opinions of their authors and therefore invalid for consideration by WP—a direct contradiction of WP policy. Uniplex (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about the same thing but I don't think you're interpreting policy quite right. I completely agree with you that the fact there are numerous articles written by music critics is one of the things that establishes Notability. I don't think GabeMc is disputing that, although I won't try to speak for him on this matter. The reviews, however, are clearly opinions, so by the RS policy they cannot be used to establish facts. My point is that unless the content of those opinions is what contributes to Notability, they shouldn't be included in the lede, although there's absolutely nothing wrong with including them in the article body. One policy I had forgotten is WP:LEDE, which is well worth re-reading here.
 * While I still maintain that the individual band members shouldn't be mentioned so prominently, it's clear that there isn't enough support for this position - so we need to move on. The proposal under discussion is the best we've been able to come up with. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still confused as to why you're talking about establishing facts—AFAIK, the facts are well documented and understood, and this discussion is about which facts are given most significance (in the article and sources) and should thus be given prominence in the lead sentences. If you're referring to the word "performed", it was already agreed that the word could be struck, thus "single by the Beatles".  If even this is in dispute, resolution is simple: look at the sources. If sources that state that it was not by the Beatles are very few, then it's a fringe theory that should not colour the lead; if OTOH the number is significant, then we embrace the controversy, not shy away from it, and should mention it in the lead e.g. "purportedly by the Beatles but subject to dispute" with suitable citations. Uniplex (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think there's any point discussing this further. I've tried to give you a policy-based reason why the suggested formulation is acceptable and you aren't really giving me anything back except your own opinion. That's fine, but I'm afraid it's no substitute for established practice. Absconded Northerner (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, now totally confused. Opinion on what? I wasn't expressing an opinion, only trying to determine which facts you were referring to above, and reminding on how we are instructed to handle the situation where sources conflict (if indeed that's the situation—is it?). Uniplex (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uniplex, I agree with Absconded Northerner, you are not discussing this so much as disagreeing with every point made by anyone who does not 100% agree with you. If you really need a source that leads with "Lennon composed/recorded "FAAB", ""Free As A Bird": John made a home demo of this number in late 1977, composing on piano."(Harry, TJLE, 2002, p.258). Also, "Free as a bird": "Lennon composed "Free as a Bird" around 1977, reportedly as a exhilerated reaction to obtaining his hard-won U.S. "green card" ...(Everett, 1999, p.8) — GabeMc (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are talking nonsense; all I have done is encourage you to follow WP policies and guidelines in making your decision, in particular to analyse sources in order to determine the most notable aspects of the subject. I suggested a couple of sources to consider: the Guardian article and the Rough Guide to Rock; you've now suggested a third. Great; when you've considered about half a dozen or so you've probably got enough from which to draw a conclusion. Uniplex (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Uniplex, per your comment: " ... when you've considered about half a dozen (sources) or so you've probably got enough from which to draw a conclusion."
 * ""Free As A Bird": John made a home demo of this number in late 1977, composing on piano."(Harry, TJLE, 2002, p.258)
 * "Free as a bird": "Lennon composed "Free as a Bird" around 1977, reportedly as a exhilerated reaction to obtaining his hard-won U.S. "green card" ...(Everett, 1999, p.8)
 * " ... he assembled Harrison and Starr in his studio in Sussex in early 1994 to work on an original 1977 Lennon song. "Free as a Bird"" was released as a single in December 1995 and was followed by another Lennon song, "Real Love", from 1979, in March 1996." (Perry, 2009, p.197)
 * "Because of their clearly unique nature in The Beatles output and their origins as post-Beatle Lennon compositions ... the series opened with tracks whose foundations were two of Lennon's 1970's home demo recordings. Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr added vocal and instruments to Lennon's demos of "Free as a Bird", and "Real Love" ... Lennon's demo of "Free as a Bird" consists of a vocal with his piano accompaniment ... "(Bielen, Urish, 2007, pp.108-109)
 * "At the start of March 1994, when The New York Times newspaper reported that the trio were 'adding new vocal and instumental lines', to an unissued composing tape, made by John Lennon in the late 1970s ... "(Huntley, 2004, pp.248-249)
 * "More material surfaced during the Nineties. 'Real Love' and "Free as a Bird', two songs John worked on during his Dakota years, were issued as part of the The Beatles Anthology project."(Henke, 2003, p.67)
 * " ... though 'Free as a Bird', the opening number, attracted a good deal of attention. Recorded by Lennon at his New York home on to mono cassette, it was completed in 1994 with vocals, guitar, and drums by McCartney, Harrison, and Starr overlaid on lennon's voice and piano."(Gutman, Thomson, 2004, pp.256-257)
 * " ... Lynne's ultimate fantasy was fulfilled when he molded two of John Lennon's demos, 'Free as a Bird' and 'Real Love' into completed tracks for the Beatles Anthology ..."(Cromer, Billboard, 22 March, 1997) — GabeMc (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, now folks have something to judge the proposal against (and to defend with in case of future questions). Have fun. Uniplex (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposed - IT IS TOO WORDY; it's too cumbersome for the lead. Let the article body tell the story.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  18:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Radiopathy, how can two sentences be "too wordy"? This is your opinion. The lede can be up to four paragraphs long. As far as, "Let the article body tell the story.", from WP:LEAD: " ... the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article ..." Who says consensus takes 30 days? I think you only reverted because the new version is not 100% what you wanted. The new lede reflects a compromise among several editor's suggestions, but it is in fact based on your suggestion. Consensus is not just one editor's opinion, consensus involves compromise. I think you are being overly controlling here, and the two ledes are so similar it's a bit ridiculous that you would revert after nearly two weeks of discussion. Look at how similar the two ledes are, why is your lede superior to the compromise version on which several editors collaborated, and supported?
 * "Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed by John Lennon in 1977; a version incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a Beatles single on 4 December 1995."


 * "Free as a Bird" is a song originally composed and recorded in 1977 as a home demo by John Lennon. On 4 December 1995, a studio version of the recording incorporating contributions from Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr was released as a single by The Beatles."


 * The compromise lede contains more info, and makes it clear that the Threatles version was in fact, "built" around Lennon's home demo, it differentiates between Lennon's "home demo", and the Beatles "studio" version. In your lede it's not even clear if Lennon is on the 1995 Beatles version. Your lede sounds like the Threatles did a "cover" of Lennon's song. Also, your use of the text string, " ... released as a Beatles single ... " will prove contentious to some editors. What do you mean, "too wordy", the compromise/collaborative lede is two sentences of 19 and 26 words, your lede is one sentence of 33 words. Why is two sentences, within a suggested limit of four paragraphs too much? Lets discuss. — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I believe Radiopathy's version is the superior between these two, for reasons he and DCGeist have articulated here (and relating to reasons I articulated over at The Beatles), nonetheless (a) consensus in support of the proposal is clear and (b) Radiopathy's alternative, in any event, is far closer to the supported version than to the previous version. We accept the consensus and the improvement and, of course, we can continue to work to make it even better. DocKino (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion -- I very strongly want to remove the "4 December" from the second sentence of the lede. It's unnecessary detail for so early in the article and is covered just fine where it belongs -- in the infobox. "In 1995" will suffice for the lede. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Evan, it would reduce the wordiness, and improve the date consistency within the first two sentences. — GabeMc (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! Since I foresee no objections, I'll make the edit now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"released as a single by The Beatles" or "released as a Beatles single"
Now that the new lede is in place, I wanted to address some concerns raised by more than one editor during the previous consensus discussion. Not wanting to ignore their questions, let's discuss it, which is least contentious and most verifiable: "released as a single by The Beatles" or "released as a Beatles single"? — GabeMc (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "By The Beatles", no question. Regardless of ambiguously expressed opinions by certain authors on whether or not it was a reunion, I have to say that the primary sources (Apple press releases, the credits on the single itself, etc.) trump POV-ish secondaries. That's my opinion. Also, "a Beatles single" is of questionable grammatical integrity, since the name of the band is not, in fact, "Beatles". Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Evan. Afterall, "Free as a Bird" won the 1997 Grammy Award for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. And the award went to, "The Beatles". Also, in the article's infobox, it says, "Single by The Beatles", and I don't know how else you could phrase that. There is no doubt that the Beatles version of "FAAB" is officially, "by the Beatles". — GabeMc (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitar
The instrument in the video looks like a Surbahar rather than a sitar. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Tags
A few tags (original research and unreliable source) here that look valid. It cannot be a Good article while these tags are present. Can someone try and fix this so it can keep its GA status. AIR corn (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been nearly year. What do you think? It appears that the only major contributor of this article has retired.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the issues (aside from the dead link citing a Billboard chart position which AFAIK does not affect the "factually accurate and verifiable" part of the GA criteria) and trimmed out some questionable content. I think it could still do with a proper re-review, but for now I think the immediate issues are addressed, so I'm taking the tag off. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   17:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Free as a Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130615020408/http://www.billboard.com/artist/383540/beatles/chart to http://www.billboard.com/artist/383540/beatles/chart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nissan Altima Infringement Possibility or Just Me?
I cannot help but hear what I hear. I have heard over time many songs remade or borrowed by other artists sometimes unintentionally, sometime on purpose. As Bono sings "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief", I understand we don't always understand where our inspirations come from. Being a composer I must always be careful to constantly re-listen to my inner library to be sure I'm not copying anyone too much. I don't mind inspiration and creation but outright copy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.89.196 (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

George Martin turned down producing?
ISTR that George Martin said in interview that the Beatles never asked him. I also recall Paul saying that because of George Martin's hearing problem, they didn't ask him and that George had suggested Jeff Lynne. If I can find the reference, I'll modify the article. Apepper (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it isn't sourced, it looks like that passage is taken from Revolution in the Head (it's a close paraphrase). Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Free as a bird beatles
Alan randall played the uke banjo at the end of free as a bird and not george harrison 31.94.30.83 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)