Talk:George Harrison/Archive 4

Auto-archiving
I suggest we set up automated archiving of this talk page using MiszaBot. If there are no objections I'll set it up presently. PL290 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ PL290 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought that George's relationship with Paul was more strained, at least according to film clips from "Let it Be" and an ABC television special from the early '90's and another documentary which featured george and john refering to Paul in derogatory ways in the early '70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.138.69 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to "Birth Certificate"
Under the "Personal Life" heading, the statement identifying the inset of a "Birth Certificate" image states: "Harrison's birth certificate, showing birthdate as 'Twenty fifth February 1943.'" The document as shown cannot his actual birth certificate. It is apparently a copy, dated February 26, 2004, (see lower right-hand corner). Note also, the document says at the top that it is a re-authorization enacted by the government in 1953, fully a decade after his birth, so it is not possible for this item to be Harrison's original birth certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiztax (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, copies of birth certificates are required to be checked and certified as true copies of the entry in the Register of Births, Deaths & Marriages. So in short, I don't think it makes any difference. Rodhull   andemu  16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Honours
It should be mentioned that George was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a Beatle during his life, and was present at the ceremony. This I know from viewing the recent release of the R&RHOF DVD series.71.109.151.62 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarian?
The current reference states he was http://www.ivu.org/people/music/harrison.html This link however states he wasn't http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1gcAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA38&dq=George+harrison+vegetarian&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=George%20harrison%20vegetarian&f=false any more info? Muleattack (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Georges Autobiography
It is stated that he and John Lennon were at odds for years for Georges hardly mentioning John in his book. However, John died the same year the book was published. This statement should be reviewed for accuracy.

Cause of death
G. H. died of brain cancer, not lung cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernbunwhacker (talk • contribs) 07:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

His death certificate says he died of lung cancer. It spread to his brain. (HantersSpade (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Notable Instruments
I really think that the Rickenbacker 360-12 should be added to that list (was about to do so until I saw the notification to discuss it here). It was a defining sound of the early Beatles albums (as well as the of the 1960s as a whole), and he was one of the first musicians (If not the first) to really make use of it, inspiring McGuinn and others to take it up afterwards. I realize that it's not supposed to be a list of all of his guitars over the years, but I reckon that it is one of his more notable ones. I'll add it in a few days if nobody responds here or objects, feel free to remove it if you feel that I'm incorrect. --76.16.85.195 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil Collaboration
I believe it should be added to George Harrison´s record some mention to its last action regarding the Beatles: the initial talks he had with Guy Laliberté to develop a Cirque du Soleil performance about the Beatles, which ultimately was produced and opened in Las Vegas in 2005 with the title "Love" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraricesar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC) --189.102.87.37 (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Also known as????
I would personally like to see some citations for these names, as I have never heard of them and cannot find verifications on them. I'll leave them alone for a while to see if somebody can come up with some proof. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of them are mentioned in the article, but I agree that they could be better sourced. Rodhull  andemu  23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * L'Angelo Misterioso and Nelson/Spike Wilbury I knew about. The others, Carl Harrison, Hari Georgeson, George Harrysong and George O'Hara-Smith are the ones I was questioning. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps that's the point we were both making. As far as I know, Google is as available to you as it is to me; the difference, perhaps, is that you may have more time to follow the point than do I. Rodhull  andemu  00:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * These are humorous nicknames used on a few album credits which could be easily verified, however, such nicknames don't belong in the infobox. I suggest they be removed. Piriczki (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * L'Angelo Misterioso and Nelson/Spike Wilbury are the obvious ones then, but I would argue that Carl Harrison also belongs there since it was George's first alias (the ones the Beatles made for themselves when performing in Hamburg, I believe) and shows his affection for Carl Perkins, a great musical influence for him. Hari Georgeson I believe he used a few times for album credits when performing/producing for other artists without wanting to make a huge fuss about himself. George Harrysong and George O'Hara-Smith were, as far as I know (and I may be wrong), one-offs. But they could arguably stay there as well to show how much George appreciated aliases when receiving credit, so that his contribution wouldn't overshadow that of the other artist(s). I'm pretty sure there were some more aliases on obscure records, but I can't recall them at the moment. 91.153.148.195 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl Harrison was a stage name adopted for a two week tour of Scotland backing a singer named Johnny Gentle in 1960. Few people would have have known of Carl Harrison, let alone George Harrison, at the time. This only became widely known after it was in Hunter Davies' book in 1968. The others, as I mentioned before, are humorous nicknames used on some album credits. Except for Nelson and Spike Wilbury, none of these really meet the guideline for aliases set forth in the infobox musical artist template. If all such names were listed the infobox would become quite cluttered and confusing to the casual reader; L'Angelo Mysterioso, George O'Hara Smith, George O'Hara, George Harrisong, George Harrysong, Son of Harry, Hari Georgeson, P. Roducer and Jai Raj Harisein were all used but only a few times. Piriczki (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Guitar style post-Beatles
There's discussion of Harrison's guitar work as a member of the Beatles, but no mention of his distinctive trademark slide guitar style that he didn't really use on Beatles records but which dominates his solo output from All Things Must Pass onwards. For a GA I think this is a notable omission and should be mentioned.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Protecting George Harrison
I think this article should be protected,Harrison was a member of The Beatles, and [the article]is at risk for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.25.149 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is an open editing environment, protection is only given to articles once they have sustained a high level of vandal activity - and then only for as long as necessary. Should vandalism increase then consideration will be given to protecting it for a short period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthday
It has often been believed that George Harrison's birthday is on February 25th but he revealed in the 1990s that it was on February 24th. Mark Lewisohn and Barry Miles have also stated this in their book. He was born February 24th/1943 at 11:42 pm. Please allow me to change it and don't change it back because he was born on February 24th. His birthday on his birth certificate is inaccurate he was born at 11:42 pm so they wrote it was the day after it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.81.124 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of dubious external link
I (and four other editors) have been removing the repeated insertion of this link, and I have brought up the issue on the inserting editor's talk page. The link is to a broad collection of Beatles content, and the pages hosting the content claim that the content is CC licensed but since there are full-length movies hosted there, I tend to believe otherwise. I have asserted that the link violates several external link policies, including WP:ELNEVER #1 and WP:ELNO #13. The inserting editor responds that there are a "million reasons" to include the link. Thoughts? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at the site IMO it adds little to the article and violates several EL policies as mentioned by OSS. It is also dodgy that an editor would thoroughly understand wiki copyright and other assorted policies after four days of editing. It is possible that there is a COI as well but I didn't dig deep enough to know one way or the other. I support the removal of this EL. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See: ART OF THE BEATLES IN THE GLOBAL LIBRARY The cultural and educational project for free usage under a Creative Commons license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Halls (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I contacted by e-mail with the owners of the resource and we discussed this topic. They agree to get rid of the full-length films (already it so), to successfully carry out its mission. I think this is the best compromise. We are all here to present information for the people, in compliance with the law. On their site basically everything legally now, including respect of DMCA policy. If not in this article, in the article The Beatles the external link is very appropriate. They registered in the Creative Commons as an educational organization currently - this link must be used in the article the Beatles, I think so.


 * Regardless of the legality of the content of the web site, this external link violotes WP:ELNO #4 (Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming) and #11 (Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.) Piriczki (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable Instruments
Please let me add the Gretsch Duo Jet and Rickenbacker 12-string to this list. George's duo jet was his earliest high-quality guitar, and continued to be one of his favorite instruments throughout his career. Gretsch recently commemmorated the contribution he made to popularizing this model by manufacturing a signature model. As for the 12-string Rickenbacker, George was the reason the Byrds began to use the instrument (he introduced the 12-string to them personally), and he received one of the first 12-string guitars Rickenbacker made. The sound it produced was crucial to the strength of the Beatles's rhythm guitar parts. These instruments have both significant places in Harrison's career and in the history of guitars and rock music in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.227.22.85 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * it is already mentioned in the "Guitar work" section below.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Guitar work
I'm not sure if he should have a guitar work section. While he was known as a guitar player his guitar playing wasen't really known for being very important to any part of his career whether with the Beatles or as a solo artist. That kind of thing I feel should be left to guitarists who have added something to the guitar dictionary guys like Jimi Hendrix, Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads, Eric Clapton and ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinchair3 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Greatest Guitarists
OK, before an edit war breaks out, both Domzmess and GoingBatty are correct.

This link: lists him at #21, while this link lists him at #11. Perhaps both should be mentioned in the article. 78.26 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing this clarity and both of these links. It appears that the first link is David Fricke's picks, while the second link appears to be the official compiled list.  Therefore, I propose we change this article to say he's #11 and change the reference to the second link.  I also propose we make similar changes to Top 100 Greatest Guitar Players of all Time.  GoingBatty (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the reference in the article listed him at #21, and the article text was changed to mention #11 in the lede but still said #21 later on, I decided to clean this up right away. Therefore, I edited the article to use the second link above as the reference and made the second mention of the ranking also be #11.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Bravo!  78.26  (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have done it without you providing the proper reference. Now to see how many other articles need similar fixes...  GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Was Esher Epsom for a day?
The entry on George Harrison says: "Harrison married model Pattie Boyd on 21 January 1966, at the then Epsom Register Office, Upper High Street, Epsom, with McCartney as best man."

The entry on Pattie Boyd says: "Boyd married Harrison on 21 January 1966, in a ceremony at the Registry Office, Upper High Street, in Esher, Surrey, with Paul McCartney and Epstein in attendance."

This suggests that either one of the articles is wrong or that Esher and Epsom were the same place on 21 January 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.159 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Violin"?
Really? Evanh2008 (talk 08:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sort of contribution (adding violin) is typical of editors with nothing of substance to add so they substitute insignificant details for depth of knowledge. This field could easily be trimmed to just guitar and sitar. Same goes for all the AKA names, see Talk:George Harrison/Archive 4. Piriczki (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 @ the Beatles
FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles capitalisation RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC note
Just a note for everyone that I will be nominating this article for featured article status before December 15. Anyone who wants to help out in getting it up to standards before then or during the review should feel welcome. Cheers, all! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Schaffner, The Beatles Forever
Cites to: Schaffner, Nicholas (1977). The Beatles Forever. Harrisburg: Cameron House. ISBN 0-8117-0225-1 are using 1977 as a pub date, but Amazon says 1980, then a reprint in 1997. I would like to clean-up some of the sourcing in the article, so does anyone know which year we should be using for this book? ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyright date is 1977. The 1980 thing at Amaon looks to be the result of them listing the fourth edition as the primary format of the book. I've seen this happen before with mid-20th century novels that somehow end up classified with copyright and publication dates in the 2000s. Great work on the article, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll go with 1977. How about these examples:


 * Leng, Simon (2003). While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison. SAF Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-946719-50-0
 * Leng, Simon (2006). While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison (Revised ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 1-4234-0609-5


 * Harrison, George (1980). I, Me, Mine. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-42787-3.
 * Harrison, George (2002). I, Me, Mine. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-7538-1734-9.


 * I would advise we use one edition versus several. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My copy of Leng's book gives 2003 as the copyright date. I, Me, Mine is a unique scenario because the 1980 edition was a very limited edition (somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 copies IIRC). There was a wider release shortly thereafter, but I believe it differed in content and layout from the limited edition, so there may be some issues there with page numbers, etc. The 2002 edition definitely has a different layout, and also includes a new introduction, which is quoted in the article, so we may need to use both editions for referencing purposes. Later tonight I will go through and clear some of these inconsistencies up. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we replace all the cites to the 1980 edition of I, Me, Mine with either the 2002 edition, or another source. Another issue is that a couple cites (refs 11 and 26) to Harrison do not specify which year/edition, so I trust you can find that info in the 2002 edition. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. With the exception of page numbers and prefaces/introductions, I believe all the editions are the same as far as content is concerned. I will give those refs a check shortly. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After a thorough check, all references to I, Me, Mine appear to be fine as per the 2002 edition. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed one. Current ref #139 is citing to the 1980 edition. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the note! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
Ref#62, Huntley, Mystical One, needs pagination. ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Error in the article.
The article shows George Harrison ranked 11 in the Rolling Stone's all time greatest guitarists.Ranking is actually 21, not 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasika pushkar (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He was 21st in the 2003 list, 11th in the 2011 list. Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref 174
There's still one dead ref I am unable to find a replacement for (all others are fixed, I think). The text cited is as follows:"Harrison's first 'important' car was recently sold at auction in Battersea Park, London. The 1964 Aston Martin DB5 was bought new and delivered to Harrison personally in 1965 at his Kinfauns estate in Esher, Surrey, England."(I struck "recently" because it will have to go, regardless of whether a source can be found.) Does anyone know off the top of their head of another reliable source that could verify this. Archive.org is no good for the source cited, and it may not have been reliable to begin with. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a source and will add it now. GabeMc  (talk 01:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thanks, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. I trimmed it a bit, that stuff about delivery at his home as excess, but it's sourced now if you want to add it back. I'm good either way. GabeMc  (talk 03:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research?
This ref (208 at the moment) appears to contain original research:"Commemorative booklet presented to each concertgoer upon entering the Royal Albert Hall on 29 November 2002, p. 12, London: Oops Publishing Ltd., 2002 (based on firsthand account of concert attendee; booklet in private collection)."The information it is citing probably isn't very important, and could be removed if necessary. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Shapiro
I prefer that we not cite Shapiro if at all possible. I have a copy of the book and it's really one of the worst-researched biographical pieces I've ever read. He repeatedly refers to John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band as Primal Scream, for example, and mistakenly attributes "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" to the Revolver album. The book was rushed out in the months following Harrison's death and a lot of fact checking seems to have been skipped because of this. I will be removing the cites if no one objects. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Lets work that book right out of the article. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC issues

 * Lead. - "Often referred to as the 'quiet Beatle'". While it is true and verifiable that he was often referred to in this way by the media, from what I can tell based on comments from his friends (see LITMW doc), this is not an accurate descriptor of Harrison. So while I agree that we must mention this is the article body, I also suggest that we leave it out of the lead. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk 02:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Leng cites. - I would like to see the article cite to one or the other version of this book, but please not both. GabeMc  (talk 02:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Birthday. Several sources have him as being born at 11:42pm on 24 February. Apparrently, even Harrison celebrated on, and thought that the 25th was his B-Day until later in his life. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk 23:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Leng dates have been fixed. I have personally verified that the 2003 and 2006 editions are the same, with the exception of (IIRC) the addition of a roman-numeraled foreword. All page numbers are fine for either edition. I have no objections to removing the "quiet" epithet from the lede if no one else does. The birthday thing is something I've been meaning to get around to for a while. I'll do some thinking on that and be back in the next couple days to address it, if no one beats me to the punch. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dead links. There are several in the article's citations, most have been tagged and need to be resolved. GabeMc  (talk 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed a few that weren't tagged (including fixing Rockhall), but tagged a few more that no longer work. GoingBatty (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work as usual GoingBatty! GabeMc  (talk 00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 13-digit isbns. - Whenever possible, we should use them, I've added a few from the book that I own but could use some help with the others. GabeMc  (talk 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up all but two of those dead links, and I will be addressing those two later today. I will also check ISBNs and add them, and deal with the two outstanding citation needed tags. If there's anything I'm overlooking, let me know. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Fawcett book, there's a 1976 1st edition published by Grove Press, ISBN 978-0-3941-7920-9 - but the source list has it as 1977, New English Library- don't know if the page refs are the same. Tvoz / talk 15:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cancel that - the 1977 edition ISBN13 is 978-0-4500-3073-4; I'll add it. Tvoz / talk 15:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Partridge, I haven't found a listing for an illustrated edition published by  T&T Clark in 2005. This is a 2 vol book, first vol published in 2005, listed as Continuum (T&T Clark is a Continuum imprint) so it would seem to be that  one (vol 2 was published in 2006) but I can't say for sure that it's the right one. The ISBN-13 for the 2005 vol 1 is 978-0-5670-8269-5. Tvoz / talk 15:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also found 978-0-5670-8408-8  and 978-0-5670-4093-0 for same vol 1 ed. so I really don't know which, if any, is right. I'll see if I find anything else, Evan. Tvoz / talk 16:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Miles 2001 entry, I'm adding "From Liverpool to London" which looks like it's the first section of vol 1 with "The Beatles Years" as the second section (vol 2 of the 2001 edition is "After the Breakup"). The ISBN-10 that was in the source list is 0-7119-8308-9, and its companion ISBN-13 is 978-0-7119-8308-3. The text that goes to the the 2001 source is about his childhood, Quarrymen, Hamburg, and then something about Abbey Road - so it looks like it's 2 sections of vol 1. I can't get a hold of a copy of the 2001 edition, so can't confirm, but it appears to be that way - maybe someone else has a copy. Tvoz / talk 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a copy, but I'm sure someone around must have one. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a copy and it omits the "From Liverpool to London" bit. Maybe these used to be one book by Miles and Badman that have now been split into two? Either way, the material and the isbn match so I've trimmed it from the title. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  08:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help Tvoz! GabeMc  (talk 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was checking one of them for some reason that I forget now and and figured I'd give Evan a hand with some more. Still some open questions above. Tvoz / talk 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've checked a couple of online sources and I think 978-0-5708-269-5 is the correct ISBN-13 for Partridge, volume one (illustrated). I've found a library that has it, though, and I will phone them on Monday to verify. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I obviously can't count. :) Gonna dig a little more. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed a six. The number is 978-0-56708-269-5. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Disregard everything I just said (again). Amazon's Look Inside feature has a copy with the ISBN 978-0-56708-408-8, a copyright date of 2004, and the information in question at page 153. Case closed, I hope. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work Evan! GabeMc  (talk 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the birthday, I think it should be left as it is now. The birth certificate says it was the 25th, and even though that's a primary source it's pretty convincing evidence. We could mention the twenty-fourth in a footnote or something, but I don't think it's necessary. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 11:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, though it may come up as a bone of contention at FAC, but even if it does its a minor issue that can be easily resolved. GabeMc  (talk 01:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Guitars" section needs better sourcing. Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cites in infobox for AKAs
Are "Carl Harrison" and/or "Hari Georgeson" cited in the article body? I would like to remove the cites from the infobox if they are, but I cannot seem to find them. Also, if this info is in the infobox, then shouldn't it be in the article also? GabeMc (talk 00:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither is cited in the article body. We could add a short blurb about the Long John and the... tour to the Beatles section if necessary to cover the Carl Harrison thing, though that might be a little too non-summary for FA. I have no clue when or where the Hari Georgeson pseudonym was used, though. If it doesn't belong in the article, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox either. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both should likely be removed IMO. The "Carl" thing is more of a Beatles datum, as you said above, and the other seems trivial at best. GabeMc  (talk 00:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't look now, but I'm sure there was an exchange about this here or somewhere - I think he sometimes used the alias Hari Georgeson on other people's records.  I don't know - I think aliases are the kind of thing we should include  if they're real - and yeah, they should be mentioned in the article briefly I suppose (although not sure that's always done).  I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but do think Hari is a cool reference.  Carl, not as much. I'll see if I can find the discussions later - may not have been onthis talk page. Tvoz / talk 01:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion about this at the moment. I have removed for now, per the MoS guidelines for the lead (them being non-summary statements and all) but we can always re-add them later if discussion goes that way. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't feel too strongly about this either. I also agree with Tvoz a bit, in as much as Hari is a cool nickname and its certainly notable if he used that name on recordings, but I don't see anything about that right now. I'll take another look. I think if we are to include it in the infobox then we should first work it into the article text, as I strongly prefer we not include information in the infobox deemed not notable enough for inclusion in the article. GabeMc  (talk 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is L'Angelo Mysterioso listed as an alias in the infobox? If that name is included then so should George O'Hara Smith, George O'Hara, George Harrisong, George Harrysong, Son of Harry, Hari Georgeson, P. Roducer and Jai Raj Harisein, although none should included as they don't meet the guidelines for the infobox in my opinion. Piriczki (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mysterioso is cited in the article body; none of the others are. I really don't mind if someone wants to work some of the others in, though it may come up in FAC. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 08:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that the fact that he used so many aliases is of interest - why not a sentence or two in the body with an explanation of why he did and what the names were, rather than having all of them in the infobox which perhaps elevates them to a more prominent position than they should have? There's obviously a difference between Spike/Nelson Wilbury on the one hand and Hari Georgeson or Jai Raj Harisein, etc., on the other, but doesn't it tell our readers something of value that he did use a bunch of aliases and why? So keep the better-known ones in the infobox, but have them all in the text with explanation. (By the way, I couldn't find what I recall about discussion on Hari Georgeson - it may have been something I read elsewhere.) Tvoz / talk 16:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Spelling
I suggest we use Oxford spelling to maintain consistency with the band article and related pages. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that both articles should use British spelling. GoingBatty (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - didn't realize until now the difference between British spelling and Oxford spelling. It doesn't matter to me which we use as long as it's consistent.  Both the article and this talk page suggest we use British spelling, so it seems this needs broad consensus.  Is this going to open another can of worms like "The/the"?  GoingBatty (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, I preemptively refuse to take part in it. :) The Beatles article specifies Oxford, but here we just have British (Oxford is a type of British spelling of course, to be pedantic), so I'm not really sure what to do. I'm fine with it either way. I made the switch to Oxford in this edit, in case anyone needs to see which words were changed for reversion purposes. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 13:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that The Beatles and George Harrison contain the hidden template Use British English (instead of Use British (Oxford) English).
 * It's easier to see that Talk:The Beatles contains British English Oxford spelling, while this talk page contains British English.
 * I agree that there should be consistency, but will let others determine the best way to resolve this. GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed The Beatles and George Harrison so they both have Use British (Oxford) English, and changed the banner at the top of this talk page to British English Oxford spelling. Suggest waiting a while before changing other articles.  Happy New Year!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. GabeMc  (talk 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really anti it, personally. The "-ize/ization" endings and especially the dreaded Oxford comma just give US wiki contributors licence (no 's') to adhere to an old definition of British English, one that's closer to contemporary American usage than British. (I got that from Bill Bryson.) The Beatles were an English band – to many readers, they're the epitome of (Northern) Englishness – and wikipedia articles should reflect as British/English an editorial style as possible. As a Brit, I'm thinking your earlier "organisation", "criticising", "realise" etc looked way better, Evan 2008. On the subject of style, should all chart positions not be in numerals (eg "peaked at number seventeen" for Love Me Do), especially as numerals are used for the likes of "Lennon felt that Harrison, then 14, was too young to join the band". JG66 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I protest at the Z spelling. Harrison was my near contemporary in England and we all grew up with the S spellings. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Fowler's: "In Britain the Oxford University Press presents all such words with the termination spelt -ize ... the matter remains delicately balanced but unresolved ... the primary rule is that all words of the type ... may legitimately be spelt with either -ize or -ise."(1996, p.422) Hart's says: "For most verbs that end with -ize or -ise, either termination is acceptable in British English. The ending -ize has been in use in English since the 16th Century, and is not an Americanism".(2005, p.43) The Cambridge Guide to English Useage states: "In British English, it's possible to use either -ize or -ise, and the arguments are almost equally balanced."(2004, p.298) The Economist Style Guide says: "The z spelling is, of course, also a correct British form."(2010, p.155)
 * Having said that, I personally prefer -ise, but agreed with GoingBatty and Evan above for the sake of not arguing over trivial matters such as this. I hardly think that what we need now on the Beatles project is yet another minutia based dispute where apparently both sides are correct in asserting their position depending on which source you cite. FTR, I am fine either way and I have absolutely no desire to engage in another of these circular-type debates that may well take another 7 months to sort out. I was really hoping that after the ridiculously tedious and recent Beatles mediation that editors could now move on to improving articles, versus spending precious time debating right versus wrong when either option would seem to be acceptable based on my purusal of the BrEn style guides. So please, lets not fight over personal preferences when both -ise and -ize are perfectly acceptable according to both Oxford and Cambridge. Perhaps someone should start an RfC to get this sorted out, though I will point out that this article is currently at FAC and this type of instability could well jeopardize it's promotion while adding or subtracting nothing of substance whatsoever. Maybe that RfC should take place at the Beatles. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer the -ise ending as well, and I don't personally know any Englishmen who put the -ize form into common use. If we want to have a discussion or RfC on the topic, that would be fine, though it could probably wait for later, as Gabe said. Our most recent consensus was for Oxford spelling, and we should stick to that for now. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

singer, songwriter vs singer-songwriter?
Just wondering - what is the issue here, and why is one preferred over the other? He was both a singer and songwriter, and also a singer-songwriter as defined in the link, certainly in his solo career - so is there a reason for using one over the other? In terms of singing the lead on Beatle songs, I think it was pretty much always songs he wrote, and of course same for his solo career. but apparently there's an issue, so I'm curious about what it is. Tvoz / talk 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Singer-songwriter states: "As opposed to contemporary popular music singers, the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition." This does not really describe Harrison IMO. To me he was a singer and a songwriter, which is somewhat distinct from singer-songwriter. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true historically, but what it goes on to say in the 3rd and 4th paragraph of this section (including naming him) would suggest to me that in his solo career in particular, but even in his Beatles career, he would be correctly so identified since he isn't particularly known for his singing of other people's songs or his writing songs for other artists (although of course others have covered his songs). Springsteen, Clapton, Cat Stevens - not really distinguishable from Harrison.  Anyway, I don't think it matters much at all - just wanted to know if there was something more that I was missing. Does anyone else care one way or the other?  Tvoz / talk 22:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Singer-songwriter" is more accurate because it means that you sing what you write. Therefore, he should be identified as a "singer-songwriter" and not "singer and songwriter". CJAllbee / talk 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Instruments
As of 27 January 2013, Harrison's list of instruments consists of "Vocals, guitar, sitar, synthesizer". While I agree with the sentiment that it's not necessary to list every single instrument that he's ever played, I do feel that there are a few notable instruments missing from the list: Bass guitar, ukulele and keyboards ("synthesizer" is to specific and it should be generalized to "keyboards"). Therefore, I have added these to the list. CJAllbee / talk 19:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are very minor and should be removed. He was primarly known as using vocals, guitar and sitar. There were a bunch of instruments in that infobox, now it is getting bigger and bigger. --Tomcat (7) 12:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bass guitar is not minor enough to omit from the list, because he played bass on many of the Beatles' tracks ("Drive My Car", "Old Brown Shoe", "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" to name a few. I could name more) as well as some songs on his solo albums. Furthermore, he played other keyboards (and in some cases, even piano) besides just synthesizers on many of his solo albums. As for ukulele, I realize in retrospect that maybe that isn't notable enough to include on the list, so I have nothing to say about that. So, at the very least, bass and keyboards (as opposed to just "synthesizers") should be included on the list. --CJAllbee (CJAllbee) 16:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your addition, as you do not have consensus for it at this time. In my opinion, bass is not noteworthy to be mentioned in the infobox; he just didn't play it on enough tracks to warrant a listing. I agree with you somewhat regarding keyboards, but please get consensus for the change first. Thanks. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 16:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with changing synth to keys, as a synth also has a keyboard. I agree with Evan that bass is not a notable instrument for Harrison, though he did indeed play it on a few tracks. I think the idea is that the infobox should contain especially notable instruments, not every single instrument he ever played more than once. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sources you have state otherwise, CJAlbee, but I can't think of many instances of Harrison playing non-synth keyboards on his solo albums – harmonium on "It's Johnny's Birthday" and "Ding Dong", some electric piano on other Dark Horse tracks, and that would be it, I'd say. Moog and later ARP or Prophet synths on almost every one from Electronic Sound to Cloud Nine certainly, if not Brainwashed also. But aside from his synthesizer contributions on Abbey Road, there are Beatles songs he played harmonium or Hammond on ("Only a Northern Song", "Blue Jay Way", "While My Guitar", "Old Brown Shoe", "Here Comes the Sun"), also on work with Radha Krishna Temple and Splinter, so yes, perhaps "keyboards" is a better choice. He played basslines (on electric guitar) on two of those Beatle songs you mention, on "Two of Us" also, but Mac's definitely the one playing bass on "Maxwell". (I could be wrong, admittedly – where is your info coming from?) George did play bass on "She Said", "Golden Slumbers" and a few White Album tracks (eg "Birthday", "Back in the USSR", "Honey Pie"), and later on solo songs: "Bye Bye Love", "Faster", "Wake Up My Love" and a couple on Brainwashed (I think – I'd have to check with that album). He also played some bass on his work with Billy Preston, Radha Krishna Temple (eg "Hare Krishna Mantra"), Doris Troy, Splinter, Alvin Lee & Mylon LeFevre ("So Sad"), Carl Perkins ("Distance Makes No Difference") and Ravi Shankar (Chants of India) and others; thinking about it, he's credited for bass parts on a lot of those albums, so there is a strong case for listing bass after all. I still think ukelele should be included. Okay, it wasn't an instrument he played on many recordings ("Free As a Bird", "Any Road", "Devil and the Deep Blue Sea", "Rocking Chair in Hawaii", maybe a couple of others), but it's an instrument with which he's commonly identified. He's shown playing one in Anthology, when the surviving Beatles are filmed together, and Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne, Mike Campbell, Dhani Harrison, Joe Brown and Oliva have all spoken often about how inseparable Harrison and the uke were (Petty in his interview in the Scorsese doc, for instance). Harrison biographers Leng and Clayson mention his ambassadorial role for the ukelele (eg Leng pp 279-80, 302); he was the honorary president of the George Formby Appreciation Society, according to Clayson, playing at the society's conventions in the early '90s, entertaining fellow passengers in airports, etc. So it's as notable a musical instrument in the life of George Harrison as the sitar, one could say, it just didn't find its way onto as many official recordings. JG66 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I'm in no way advocating that each and every instrument Harrison toyed with be included – harmonica, tambura, banjo, mandolin, marimba, swarmandal and other Indian instruments such as gubgubbi, jal-tarang and taal could all be added otherwise, as he played each of them on a number of notable recordings. I'm only talking about those that had a significant bearing on his career: guitar, sitar, keyboards, ukelele, and yes, I'm surprised to find now, also bass. JG66 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now added a bit of detail about ukuleles and Formby, and I've added ukulele to the infobox. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, guys! I have no objections to the ukulele additions, but I'm still not convinced regarding bass. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was willing to let the whole bass issue go, but since there seem to be some people that agree that he played it often enough to make it noteworthy, I still say that it should be added. If John Lennon can have bass added to list, then I think Harrison (who played it far more often in his life then Lennon ever did, even in the Beatles) should have it added as well. I know that Lennon's bass playing is notable in the fact that it was poorly played on "The Long and Winding Road" and caused the whole "orchestra-on-Let It Be" controversy, but since Harrison filled in on bass (whenever Paul McCartney played piano or guitar) more often in the Beatles (not only that, but he was a much better bass player than Lennon) and played it on many solo tracks throughout the rest of his career, I think it's more than fair that he be noted for doing so. Like I previously said, I do agree with the sentiment that instruments like the banjo, mandolin and drums are too minor to be noteworthy, but he played bass quite often compared to those other instruments, so I still say that bass guitar should be on the list. (P.S. I would like to thank those who support me on this issue) CJAllbee / talk 10:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now added bass guitar to the infobox. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GabeMc. My work here is done. CJAllbee / talk 19:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)