Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 11

Group or band

 * 1) According to this, a band is "Musicians, especially (a) wind and percussion players, or (b) rock musicians", and "A type of orchestra originally playing janissary music; i.e. marching band."
 * 2) This page says a group is "A (usually small) group of people who perform music together."

Although Sgt. Pepper's was undoubtedly a band, Lennon used "our/the group" on various recordings of conversations.--andreasegde (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Neither of those sources linked to above are WP:RSs 2) What about Lennon: "We were four guys you know. Then I met Paul and said, you wanna join me band, then George joined, then Ringo joined. We were just a band who made it very, very big that's all." ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then he used both. Sgt. Pepper's was a band, of course, but could The Beatles also be called a band? They deliberately changed the name to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", which was not a "group".--andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * McCartney: "we were just a great little rock'n'roll band".(Babiuk&Bacon, p.233) ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Harrison: "I think we were a good, tight, little band."(the Beatles Anthology, p.57) ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See: Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, And the World. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Geoff Emerick: "they were the most famous band in the world". ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then please tell me why it says, "forming the group Wings", in the lede? The article uses the word "group" up to 30 times. McCartney also says, "Linda and I talked it through and it was like, 'Yeah, but let's not put together a supergroup, let's go back to square one'." This is also in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in complete control of the 11,000 words in the McCartney article, many others edit the page as well, as they should. Please stop blaming every single word in every single article I edit as caused only by me. I would use band if I had my choice. Destiny's Child, Pussycat Dolls and the Spice Girls are groups, the Beatles played musical instuments and are therefore a band. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Please stop blaming every single word in every single article I edit as caused only by me." I beg your pardon? Where do you get these ideas from?--andreasegde (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a precise description of current usage, but before and for a while after the Beatles, group was the usual word, vocal groups, instrumental groups and, with Merseybeat, beat groups, so I see no harm in using both words. (Also, 'supergroups', not 'superbands'.) Rothorpe (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) -
 * Kinda like McCartney's 1973 album Group On The Run? ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Lennon's Plastic Ono Group, which was started in 1969. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Hendrix's Group of Gypsies (1969). ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CCR's "Travelin' Group" (1970). ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Page: "We were supporting bands and they weren't turning up, because we were really quite an intimidating force." ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said on your talk page, Gabe, by the late 60s 'band' was very much the 'in' word. But 'group' has never gone away. Rothorpe (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we agree in principle, however, there were many other words that were commonly accepted during the 1960s that we would never use today, despite the fact that they "never went away". For the record I don't mind using both, especially to break-up redundancies. It would seem however, that Andreas is insisting on only using "group", since by their logic, "band" is currently being used here incorrectly. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not "insisting" on using anything; I would like the thing to be discussed and explained. You must stop these blatant lies about me. Stop it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Battle of Groups? ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rock Group the video game? ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the Pepper band, while Andreas may insist that they were a "band" in the Big Band sense, the three tracks on the album that are supposed to be the Pepper band contain drums and electric guitars. One is a pop song (With a little Help FMF), the other two are rock songs ("Sgt. Pepper & its reprise). ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The word band is in the title. BTW, my username here is Andreasegde. Please use it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also: "His momma told him someday you will be a man, and you will be the leader of a big ole' band", Chuck Berry (1958). ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: "I must admit they had a rockin' band. Man, they were blowin' like a hurricane", Chuck Berry (1957). ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: "The warden threw a party in the county jail. The prison band was there and they began to wail. The band was jumpin' and the joint began to swing. You should've heard those knocked out jailbirds sing." Elvis, (1957). ~ GabeMc  (talk 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: "When the clock strikes two, three and four. If the band slows down we'll yell for more", Bill Haley, (1954, pre-Elvis). ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can agree that not all bands are groups and not all groups are bands. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. :)) After wading through deluded fantasies about my conduct, I need a laugh.--andreasegde (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced you have enough references for "band", GabeMc. Can you supply some more to really convince us?--andreasegde (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he needs to grow up.  Hot Stop   14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LAME, anyone? --John (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
The present consensus is NOT to introduce "The Beatles" in mid-sentence. User:GabeMc is deliberately trying to subvert that here. I quote: "Following The Beatles' break-up|the band's break-up", User:GabeMc changed it to "The Beatles' break-up|the break-up of the Beatles". This kind of petty nonsense should stop.--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This attempt to apply an improperly implemented consensus from another page. When the Beatles "consensus" was applied, !votes were still coming in supporting of "the", and the tally was 13 for "the" and 10 for "The". ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that the exclamation point in front of "vote" meant it's not a vote, and that 13 to 10 isn't consensus. Am I mistaken?  GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very right, GoingBatty, but User:GabeMc still thinks he's in a poll.--andreasegde (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:GabeMc
User:GabeMc is currently involved in this page, which is "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles". Being in mediation and acting the way he is are not compatible.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The mediation was suspended by User:Lord Roem, but User:GabeMc canvassed 16 (yes, sixteen) editors to join in the mediation. The proof is here. Outrageous conduct.--andreasegde (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) This is not the place to air your grievance. If you feel I have done something improper, then please do report it at the appropriate noticeboard. 2) Beware of WP:BOOMERANG however, because your diffs show evidence of a nearly identicle behaviour. See: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. ~ GabeMc  (talk 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll need to read WP:CANVASS and subtract 'concerned editors' from that lot, then we'll know if there is anything at all to examine. Penyulap  ☏  03:59, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * You wanna know what's funny? I pinged User:Andreasegde in that very same group, knowing full-well that they would oppose. I pinged others known to oppose "the" as well. I could provide a list if it comes to that. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You "pinged" sixteen editors to join a mediation case? Ridiculous. Having two people is usually enough, but you thought you'd invite the cavalry as well.--andreasegde (talk) 09:19, 14 July 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 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to ask people because they already know, don't they? Outrageous.--andreasegde (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The RfC at Sgt. Pepper's has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. Mediation must looked at, and not confused with further polls.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also a request on a mediation page (which User:GabeMc started), to not comment until the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" has finished. Check it out.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The result of the mediation page was: "Suspend. Pending completion of an RfC on this subject. This request may be evaluated at another time, after the RfC concludes. Please bring your discussions there. If the RfC does not result in consensus, the filing party should leave a note on my (or any other mediator's) talk page to reconsider opening this case. For the Mediation Committee", Lord Roem (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)]

Because User:GabeMc is not satisfied with how things are going, he is trying to create a diversion here. It really is a sorry state of affairs when an editor has to stoop to such tactics.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Andreas, your recent edits here constitue an attempt to disrupt this discussion. I have filed an ANI report on this incident here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) My name here is Andreasegde, so please use it.
 * 2) I have added my own comments to the complaint.
 * 3) My comments were along the lines of this: you are trying to subvert the the RfC on "Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by adding a new one on The Beatles talk page, and your conduct is destructive to any kind of process.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity in opening paragraph
The last sentence of the first paragraph: "After the band's break-up he pursued a solo career, forming the band Wings, with his first wife and singer-songwriter Denny Laine."

It seems this does not clearly preclude that his first wife is the singer-songwriter Denny Laine. I know that this would only be strictly implied by a comma after "songwriter", but it still tripped me up when reading.

Maybe better: "...forming the band Wings, with his first wife, Linda, and singer-songwriter Denny Laine."Smash1gordon (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for the suggestion. Rothorpe (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation notice 16 July 2012
There is an open mediation taking place here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual Beatles the/The Mediation Input Requirements
Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as you input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Irish descent?
Where is the evidence that McCartney is of Irish descent? His origins are in SCOTLAND - hence the SCOTTISH name!!! If you faceless creatures have any interest in factual information at all, you either will remove that Irish stub or include a Scottish one. Better still, why don't you contact the man himself - Im sure he'd be more than happy to give you the correct info. By the way, I know very well this will be removed, but I'm actually just using this means to contact you. And if you don't make any attempt to amend your article to an appropriate (ie, accurate) level, I shall make contact with members of his family through a social medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.240.137 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose if one did contact him he would provide the same information he gave to his biographer Barry Miles which you can read here. Piriczki (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Vocal performance on "Hey Jude"
I propose adding a mention of McCartney's vocal performance on Hey Jude to the Vocals subsection:
 * Musicologist Alan W. Pollack calls McCartney's vocal performance on "Hey Jude" a "tour de force", crossing into "real soprano territory" at the end of a flourish of more than two octaves.

Any concerns or comments? Thanks a lot for your thoughts! --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support inclusion of the sentence; however, the source is not reliable and should not be included in an FA article. If you can find a WP:RS for Pollack's statements then it would be a fine addition. ~ GabeMc  (talk 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * GabeMc, thanks for your encouraging answer. I would argue that Pollack's work in general has been referenced by at least two good quality sources:
 * Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for quote
 * Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for quote


 * According to WP:RS, this would help corroborate Pollack's credibility. Since the claim is not exceptional and I would present it as Pollack's opinion anyway, I suppose that would be fine, don't you think?
 * By the way, I noticed that Pollack is referenced in the FA "Hey Jude" as well, with the same online source. If it turns out that it is not reliable after all, we should consider removing that reference as well.
 * Looking forward to your thoughts,
 * --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice work finding a reliable source for the quote. Either Womack or Reising would be fine. Also, I agree that the unreliable source for the Pollack quote at Hey Jude should be swapped out for either Womack or Reising. Nice work finding a good source Georgepauljohnringo! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the praise, GabeMc! To be clear though, I didn't find the literal vocal performance quote in Womack or Reising, just reference to Pollack's "Notes on ..." series in general, in particular reference to the www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes source. In other words, my attempt is to legitimise the Soundscape source sufficiently, then quote from there. Still good? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, I still think the soundscape source is not reliable and therefore should not be used in an FA article. I may be wrong about this however, as I am not familiar with the website. You could run it past the folks at WP:RSN to be sure. ~ GabeMc  (talk 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer, will do. Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Live Kisses
The live performance of Kisses on the Bottom is called Paul McCartney's Live Kisses at the Great Performances website, and Paul McCartney: Live Kisses at Amazon. these may not be the exact same performance, with each one edited differently. I think it deserves an article, but dont know which name to choose. also, not up to writing it myself. its about to debut in my time zone in 3 minutes, so i may watch instead of worrying about the damn article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Broken McDonald quote
Hi there, one of the McDonald quotes in the last sentence of the Musicianship - Vocals subsection is broken:
 * MacDonald described "I've Got a Feeling" as a "raunchy, mid-tempo rocker" with a "robust and soulful" vocal performance"

Does "vocal performance" still belong to the quote or not? Can someone with access to the source please check this? Thanks in advance, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Good catch! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:33, 10 September 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) 14:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2012
For your consideration (with apologies in advance if this submission does not fully conform to required format standards)

SUGGESTED ADDITION TO SECTION 'Notable Instruments': 'Mellotron'

Want to open this for discussion: It's occurred to me that McCartney is one of the most notable players of the Mellotron instrument (various models but most notably the Mark II). His performance on The Beatles' 'Strawberry Fields Forever' is certainly the best-selling and most famous record which prominently features the instrument. To facilitate research and discussion, I'm starting light with two links. McCartney himself featured detailing his knowledge and history of the instrument in his own documentary 'Chaos and Creation at Abbey Road' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0S1-Y9TsyY while the fullest account of his use of the instrument across his career appears on the following dedicated and rather definitive Mellotron site: http://www.planetmellotron.com/revmacca.htm

SUGGESTED CHANGE TO SECTIONS: 'Electronica' AND '1970-81 Wings' chronology. The album 'Thrillington' is listed under 'Electronica' at the foot of the article. This is fundamentally incorrect. The album is an orchestral album and does not feature electronica prominently if at all.

This leads onto a suggestion that 'Thrillington' be added to the '1970-81 Wings' chronology between mentions of 'Wings Over America' and 'Mull of Kintyre' as its release occurred then. The recording of the album occurred in 1971 around the release of 'Ram' and a mention of it could also occur there.

Michaelk xsx (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Michaelk xsx (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your request! The mellotron info is already included in "Keyboards", and I have now moved Thrillington to the classical column. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE"
Are we sure this is correct? I know he was both awarded the MBE and knighted, but I've always been under the impression that the most recent honour trumps all others before it. In other words, if you're awarded both the MBE and later the OBE, you only put OBE after your name. Doesn't that stand for knighthoods as well? 86.4.242.105 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. His knighthood is not a rank in the Order of the British Empire. Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A higher honour subsumes a lower honour within the same order; so, yes, an OBE trumps an MBE. And a CBE would trump an OBE, a KBE would trump a CBE, and a GBE would trump a KBE.  But an honour in the Order of the British Empire does not trump an honour in any other order, or vice-versa.  Were he to be made a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, he'd be Sir Paul McCartney CVO MBE.  His knighthood was not from within an order, but a Knight Bachelor, which carries no postnominals but still entitles him to be Sir.  It is completely separate from any other honours he may have been given.  Now, were he to be made a life peer, he'd be presumably Lord McCartney MBE.  Until then, he's Sir Paul McCartney MBE.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  23:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012
You need to add mandolin, upright bass and ukulele to the list of instruments played by Paul McCartney. These changes must be made because Paul McCartney played ukulele on the Beatles Anthology and he played it at the Concert for George. Mandolin must be added because McCartney played the instrument on the song "Dance Tonight." You must add upright bass to the list because he played it during the recording sessions for "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love."

Obp123 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can start with these:
 * For ukulele:
 * For mandolin:
 * For upright bass on "Real Love":
 * Note that I copied the mandolin citation from the "Dance Tonight" article. Also, the liner notes for Anthology 1 don't specifically say Paul played upright bass on "Free as a Bird".  GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Lets be careful that we don't start adding instruments just because Macca used them on one song. The field is for primary instruments which he has established himself on. If we started adding instruments because he once recorded with it, we could also add harmonium, mellotron, harpsichord, clavichord, 5-string bass, 8-string bass, acoustic bass, gong, zylophone, maracas, bongos, fuzz bass, hand claps, whistling, 12-string guitar, upright piano, grand piano, fixed bridge guitar, floating bridge guitar, steel-string acoustic guitar, nylon-string classical guitar, slide guitar, Lowry organ, Hammond B3, shaker, tambourine, vibrachimes, cymbal, wood block, triangle, glockenspiel, flugelhorn, guerrero, tubular bells, cello, melodica, recorder, autoharp, moog synth, Roland syth, Yamaha syth, sequencer, drum machine, etcetera. There are more, but I hope this demonstrates the point. The field is for main instruments, not every single instrument Macca has ever played on at least one song over the course of a 50+ year career. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that we can't put every instrument Paul's ever played in the infobox. Other instruments could be added in the Musicianship section of the article (although I wouldn't include every brand of keyboard and every percussion instrument that any child could play).  Maybe include those he played prominently on tour, and the upright bass because of the cool Elvis link?  GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we are in near full agreement here. If we went with instruments he played prominently on tour, then we may be able to add the uke, but a uke is really just a tiny guitar with a different tuning, but the tie-in with "Something" could be useful. The Elvis bass could most certainly be worked into the Musicianship section, except Macca's actual playing on the track is not at all notable, except for that he played that particular bass. This is a tough one. Any thoughts on how we do this? If there was a section on his collection, but this article is already massive. ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe an "Other instruments" subsection under "Musicianship", with one or two sentences per instrument? GoingBatty (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds great to me. We could even push it to maybe a decent sized graph. Well done GB! I have sources for all the above named instruments if you want to include any, just let me know. In fact, they are mostly all in Molenda, Michael (November 2005). "Here, There, and Everywhere". Guitar Player 39 (11), or MacDonald 2005. ~ GabeMc  (talk 04:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the existing references makes more sense than introducing new ones. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FRCM?
In the infobox and the lead, "FRCM" links to Royal College of Music. However, I don't see anywhere in the Royal College of Music article that explains what "FRCM" stands for. Down in the 1991–2000 section, I see "Also in 1995, Prince Charles presented him with an Honorary Fellowship of the Royal College of Music." Is this sufficent, or should there be further explanation somewhere? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the alphabet soup after his name would best be explained in a short subsection under Recognition. Rivertorch (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, McCartney is an honorary fellow (Hon FRAM) not a fellow (FRAM). In any case, neither academic honorific should be mentioned in the lead per Manual of Style/Biographies. Piriczki (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning 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. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not the most successful
The Guinness Book of World Records has dubbed Elvis Presley the best selling solo artist with 110 gold discs, 50 platinum, and 25 multi-platinum. His sales are estimated in the billions, with over 200 million RIAA certified sales. The source for McCartney's 60 gold disc being the greatest is heavily outdated, and needs to be reprised. All my evidence can be found on the Elvis Presley Discography reference page, within the first 5 sources, same for his main page (albeit, third or fourth paragraph). The well documented best selling recording artists article on here also has everything cited, in which Presley's sales and success highly overshadows Paul. Not only him, but the likes of Elton John and Michael Jackson have also out shined him. While his song writing basis is certainly acceptable, the claim of the most successful is asinine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a 10-year old source is not appropriate for the lead if there are better reliable sources available. From the Elvis Presley albums discography, I went to the RIAA Artist Tallies and Top Selling Artists pages.  Are these the sources you're referring to?  I also suggest that we reword the lead to clarify whether this refers only to his solo career or also includes his time with the Beatles.  Thanks for raising this issue!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for "the most successful songwriter" comes from Guinness, 2009, p.168. Also, note #48 says: "As of 2012, Elvis Presley has achieved the most UK number-ones as a solo artist with eighteen.[361]" GabeMc  (talk 23:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I perused the music pages of Guinness World Records 2013 today, and didn't see any mention of this category. GoingBatty (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, not every edition is the same. I assume this is because in order to include every cat ever, each edition would need to be massive. For example, my 2009 edition does not even mention the Beatles, or the best-selling band ever. You can view the 2009 McCartney entry here on Amazon.com, but you will need to sign-in first. GabeMc  (talk 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, according to Roberts, David (editor) (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8, page 311, "Paul McCarney: Pop's most succsessful singer/songwriter." GabeMc  (talk 00:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the lead states that Macca is the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time" (a direct quote from when Guinness awarded him the only Rhodium disk ever) and "the 'most successful songwriter' in United Kingdom chart history'". Elvis was neither a composer or a songwriter. As for whether Guinness' measurement of Macca's success refers only to his solo career or also includes his time with the Beatles, your guess is as good as mine, but I assume its in toto. Harry 2002 does break-down the gold records as 42 with the Beatles, 17 solo, and one with Billy Preston. Also, the article does not state that McCartney's 60 gold discs are the greatest ever, it is but one factor along with having written or co-written 43 million-selling songs, along with 100 million singles and 100 million albums sold which led Guinness to award him the Rhodium disk. GabeMc  (talk 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing all this research, and for adding the clarification to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2012
Someone added a date of death and a link to a fake news article. Could this please be removed?

Reaper (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thank you for noticing.Moxy (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

An atypical remark
Looking over this article and the meticulous care that went into it-- in which I can claim no credit-- this is fabulous work!! Seriously, this is a piece beautifully arranged and detailed, which is often hard for BLP articles. Each of you should feel real pride in this. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article always was and always will be a team-effort, so your especially kind words will go a long way toward encouraging the dozens of editors whom have put their dilligent efforts into the piece. Thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to give us all this fantastic positive reinforcement! GabeMc  (talk 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Touring Australia?
My previous talk point was arbitrarily deleted. I wrote...
 * In a career of 50 years McCartney has only toured 3 times in Australia.

−
 * He cancelled a 1989 visit so he could do more dates in the USA.

−
 * Most recently he was due to appear in only a single concert in Melbourne in 2002 and then cancelled that claiming it would be bad form to tour after the Bali Bombing.

−
 * Do any editors know of any comments he has made as to why avoids touring Australia?

The comment was made that this is not a forum. I am not here to debate the reasons he hasn’t toured. I am simply wishing to know more information about Paul McCartney that is not apparent in the article. It is a fact that he has hardly toured Australia. Certainly one can name other countries that he has visited less, but I am simply hoping that there might have been something an editor knows that accounts for his few tours of Australia – which as I noted is missing from the article.

Montalban (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality
Being an encyclopedia with a worldwide viewership, why does this article not have any reference to Paul McCartney being British as opposed to English, or at least added to his birthplace? He is a citizen of the UK first and foremost, not England, so I strongly believe this should be reflected in his article. To make another point this wording excludes every other British citizen in in the United Kingdom from having a rightful connection to him if he is being listed as solely English, which is unfair. 31.221.49.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship aren't always in Sync. He was born in England which is a national component of the entity called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The UK is a funny place - several nations; Scotland, Wales included. In Rugby football there’s a comp called the Six Nations. Wales, England, Scotland, France Ireland and, Italy play.

It may not be incorrect to refer to him as English for the purposes of the article. Montalban (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Billionaire?
He is included in the category "English billionaires". Is he really THAT wealthy? Edwardx (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This would seem only to confuse things as in England a billion is a million x a million, whereas in America a billion is a thousand x a million. Montalban (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The so-called "British billion" is almost never used now in the UK. I meant is he worth a thousand million? Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article
A large portion of notes was removed recently, and I don't think they were redundant at all. See Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Those notes I deleted are repeated verbatim in the "Business" sub-section. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Instruments played
In the main info box, I noticed that the "Instruments Played" section has been significantly shortened since I last saw this article. In particular, I noticed that it is lacking ukulele and mandolin, which McCartney makes frequent use of in concert tours. It is also noted elsewhere on Wikipedia that he played flugelhorn on several Beatles recordings. Is there a reason these have been removed from the main info box? 74.215.119.125 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One has to be careful that such lists don't get too bloated, but I would put mandolin back in; it's very prominent on Dance Tonight, for example. Similarly the ukelele and ″Ram On″. The flugelhorn I'm not so sure is worth noting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "instruments played" it's NOTABLE instruments. Not everything he's ever touched is notable.Hotcop2 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though Pawnkingthree does make a good point about the ukulele. Paul is shown for a short period playing "Ain't She Sweet" with George on ukuleles in the Anthology series, and he also makes his ukulele (which I think was given to him by George) quite prominent during his tours - always tells the story about it and plays "Something" on it.  Fair point about the flugelhorn, but the ukulele might be worth considering still.  Hotcop2, you're absolutely right that the section should focus on "notable" instruments so as to not be exhaustive, but despite his ukulele's prominence in concert tours, it is mentioned only once in passing (in reference to the Concert for George).  Just my thoughts.  Please feel free to comment - I'm sure you're all much more experienced in the writing of Wikipedia articles than I am. 74.215.119.125 (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lets be careful that we don't start adding instruments just because Macca used them on a song or two (or three). The field is meant or primary instruments on which he has established himself. If we started adding instruments just because he once or twice recorded with it, we could also add: harmonium, mellotron, harpsichord, clavichord, gong, zylophone, maracas, bongos, hand claps, whistling, Lowry and Hammond B3 organs, shaker, tambourine, vibrachimes, cymbal, wood block, triangle, glockenspiel, flugelhorn, guerrero, tubular bells, cello, melodica, recorder, autoharp, Moog, Roland and Yamaha synth, sequencer, drum machine, etcetera. There are more, but I hope this demonstrates the point. The field is for main instruments, not every single instrument Macca has ever played on at least one or two songs over the course of a 50+ year career. Also, both a mandolin and a ukulele are really just tiny guitars with different tunings. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to decide what "NOTABLE" instruments actually means. Apparently, as it is now it's referring more to a well-known instrument than what he actually plays.  It doesn't say bass, guitar, piano, but focuses on the models of the instruments, mostly.  We need to define this category.Hotcop2 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hotcop2, but I'll leave that particular task to others, as I have no interest in yet another minutia based debate. To me, its quite simple. We list his most notable primary instruments, e.g., vocals, bass guitar, guitar, keyboards, drums, in an effort to expand the reader's knowledge of the subject's musicianship. I also agree with the numerous editors who have expressed dismay at the time wasted debating infobox fields. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul is dead
I didn't have time to read the whole article, so I ran a text search for dead and death. I didn't find anything relevant to Paul is dead. Could something be added about the legend (if it's not on here at all), or if it's already here, could you add "dead" or "death" to make it easier to find? 2001:18E8:2:1020:3851:4713:742B:BDCC (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and been replaced by a lookalike, but this was quickly refuted when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family, accompanied by the caption "Paul is still with us".[71]" GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The hoax/rumours are detailed in note #9.

Relationship with George Harrison
In a February 15, 2001, Yahoo Chat, George Harrison had friendly things to say about his friend and former band-mate McCartney:

spongeweed70508 asks: Does Paul still piss you off (tell us the truth) george_harrison_live: Scan not a friend with a microscopic glass -- You know his faults -- Then let his foibles pass. george_harrison_live: Old Victorian Proverb. george_harrison_live: I'm sure there's enough about me that pisses him off, but I think we have now grown old enough to realize george_harrison_live: that we're both pretty damn cute!

See Link: http://beatlesindo.blogspot.com/2013/02/george-harrison-live-chat-15-february.html

Wcrumpjr (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discography
WP:WPMAG states that "If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary." Given Paul's unwieldly discography, I think it would be best to use a summary. The Wookieepedian (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of the abridged discography. - 1) "it may be better" is not a prescription, its advice. 2) Describe and summarize are not synonymous; your edit here summarized his body of work, it did not describe it. 3) The albums are already detailed in prose, so to add yet another prose section detailing them would be repetitive. 4) Who defines what "an extremely large number of albums" means? 5) IMO, whoever wrote that bit did so without a broad consensus, and as such it should be removed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with GabeMc. Besides, we don't want to send people to a million different pages unless they require additional info.  McCartney is primarily about his music.  It belongs on the page. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to describe McCartney's discography in a summary. McCartney's discography should stay on the page. Given the long list of studio albums, it would be a lot of work for people searching for his music. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014
Paul's mother died of breast cancer.

Funicularul (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the article cites two sources that state she died of an embolism. You would need to cite at least two reliable sources to back up your request, before anyone considers changing the article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sales figures in lead section
As pointed out in the section above, the sales figures cited in the lead don't add up. Not only do the numbers not make sense, they are largely irrelevant and misleading. First, Guinness World Records describing McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time, with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles" dates back to 1979 when Guinness gave him a special medallion for his multiple records (see ). Guinness' "most successful composer" was based on 43 songs written between 1962 and 1978 which sold a million copies or more (the majority of which were with the Beatles and co-written with John Lennon), most gold records with 60 (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings), and "most successful recording artist" with estimated record sales of 100 million albums and 100 million singles appears to be based on records sold as a member of the Beatles (see ). It really doesn't make sense to be citing 35 year old figures or to imply that the sales were as a solo artist. Second, the RIAA total of 15.5 million units only accounts for his solo albums and doesn't include his 1970s albums from Ram to Back to the Egg which probably accounts for the bulk of his total sales. Adding RIAA certifications for those albums would add another 11 million units but most of those albums have not been certified in 20 to 30 years. While the RIAA can be considered a reliable source, to suggest that those outdated and incomplete figures represent an accurate total of McCartney's U.S. sales is misleading. This portion of the lead section needs to rewritten or scrapped altogether. Piriczki (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the logic in omitting sales figures because the numbers are from old sources. Most sales figures for band's are equally old, but we don't not mention them due to their age, do we? Also, Wings does not come up at the RIAA page, so their certified sales are less than 10.5 million. These are the most reliable figures, so to omit them based on your WP:OR would be a mistake, IMO. Until more reliably sourced and up-to-date figures are available these should remain in the article body and the lead. BTW, the one billion sales claim for the Beatles is utterly absurd (50 million each for 20 disks?), but that's in the lead, and its been there for years. That stat doesn't add-up any better, since they have 178M RIAA, and 800,000,000 elsewhere (82% of total sales outside the US), which is about the same proportion as Paul's figures. I.e., 100 million total, and 15.5 in the US (85% of total sales outside the US). GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * For the second paragraph to read accurately, it would have to be revised as follows: In 1979, Guinness World Records described McCartney as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and, as a member of the Beatles, sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles through 1978, and as the "most successful songwriter" in United Kingdom chart history. More than 2,200 artists have covered his Beatles song "Yesterday", more than any other copyrighted song in history. Wings' 1977 release "Mull of Kintyre" is one of the all-time best-selling singles in the UK. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist in March 1999, McCartney has written, or co-written 32 songs that have reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, and as of 2014 the RIAA has certified 15.5 million units in the United States as a solo artist, not including albums released during the period 1971–79.


 * This would be a very cumbersome description forcing the reader to decipher exactly what information is being communicated. Piriczki (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of it seems fine to me, but "as a member of the Beatles" and "not including albums released during the period 1971–79" is WP:OR, as I'm not aware of any source that details how Guinness or RIAA got their numbers. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as original research goes, I think it's more a case of simply interpreting the source correctly. In the second article I mentioned, "Beatles' records are big-sellers", it's pretty clear Guinness attributed the 100 million albums and 100 million singles to the Beatles. It's highly unlikely McCartney could have sold 100 million albums at that point because his best seller was Band on the Run at six million copies worldwide and his other nine albums couldn't have accounted for another 94 million copies. The RIAA's list of top selling artists only lists "MC CARTNEY, PAUL." Their searchable database shows the following certifications attributed to "MC CARTNEY, PAUL" totaling 15.5 million units.

2.0 McCartney 12/3/91 0.5 McCartney II 7/25/80 1.0 Tug of War 6/29/82 1.0 Pipes of Peace 2/17/84 0.5 Give My Regards to Broad Street 12/26/84 2.0 All the Best 7/26/01 0.5 Flowers in the Dirt 8/7/89 1.0 Tripping the Live Fantastic – Highlights! 8/12/91 0.5 Off the Ground 4/12/93 0.5 Flaming Pie 8/8/97 2.0 Wingspan: Hits and History 6/5/01 0.5 Driving Rain 4/29/02 2.0 Back in the U.S. 1/10/03 0.5 Chaos and Creation in the Backyard 10/25/05 0.5 Memory Almost Full 3/21/08 0.5 Good Evening New York City 12/15/09 15.5 Total

McCartney has ten other certifications listed under "MC CARTNEY, PAUL & LINDA" and "MC CARTNEY, PAUL & WINGS" totaling 11 million units.

1.0 Ram 2/5/92 0.5 Wild Life 1/13/72 0.5 Red Rose Speedway 5/25/73 3.0 Band on the Run 11/27/91 1.0 Venus and Mars 11/27/91 1.0 Wings at the Speed of Sound 5/3/76 1.0 Wings over America 12/20/76 1.0 London Town 3/30/78 1.0 Wings Greatest 12/6/78 1.0 Back to the Egg 7/18/79 11.0 Total

Even with the additional 11 million units, actual sales would still be underrepresented because many of the certifications only represent initial shipments, with no future catalog sales let alone CD sales. The RIAA data is incomplete to point of being useless, if not inaccurate. Piriczki (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it would still be a WP:SYNTH to add all these up, right? I don't necessarily think that you are wrong, but how do we source this? I guess my position is that RIAA certifies 15.5 million, so that's a reliably sourced fact. We aren't saying that according to RIAA, Macca has sold only 15.5M in the US, its just stating that the highest verifiable figure is 15.5M. Also, if according to: Beatles' records are big-sellers the Fabs sold 100M by 1978, then how did they get to 1,000M just 6 years later?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * From the Houston Chronicle (2012): "McCartney has sold more than 100 million albums and 100 million singles". So, while this might not be entirely accurate it does seem to be the most accurate figure that is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the Houston Chronicle seems to repeat the same oft-cited claims originating from Guinness back in 1979. I don't think Guinness World Records is a particularly reliable source anyway, it seems more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia, I just think the article should accurately reflect what the source claims if it's going to be used. As for the accuracy of any of these claims, it should be noted that Guinness World Records has not included any claims regarding the Beatles' or McCartney's sales in years. The one billion mark, if it was accurate, would certainly still be a world record today yet it is no longer mentioned. Maybe figures that the original source no longer supports should be disregarded?


 * RIAA's outdated certifications for albums that pre-date the platinum or multi-platinum eras are becoming increasingly irrelevant with each passing year. McCartney left EMI six years ago and it appears doubtful anyone will ever seek certifications for total sales of his back catalog from the 1970s. It would be nice if there was a current, reliable source for McCartney's sales but he owns his catalog, and he reveals very little his income or wealth, leaving others to guess. Maybe the article should reflect that reality. Piriczki (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for including those above points as long as they can be reliably sourced, but they seem like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to me. Per WP:VERIFY, "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."(original emphasis) GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is the way, so the search goes on... Piriczki (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the Guinness 1983 Book of World Records, "the all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums. All 4 ex-Beatles sold several million further records as solo artists. Since the break-up of the Beatles in 1970, it is estimated that the most successful group in the world in terms of record sales is the Swedish foursome ABBA (Agnetha Faltskog, Bjorn Ulvaeus, Benny Andersson and Anni-Frid Lyngstad)." Piriczki (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also according to the Guinness 1983 Book of World Records, the most gold record awards "have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 21 awards outside the group with Wings."

McCartney is recognized as the most successful song writer, stating "In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney, formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings. Between 1962 and Jan 1, 1978 he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold one million or more records. He was the recipient in Oct 1979 in London of the first Guinness Award as the most honored composer and performer in music." He was given a rhodium disc "honoring the ex-Beatle's triple listing in the Guinness Book." Piriczki (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In October 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records presented Paul McCartney with a rhodium disc recognizing him as the "most honored composer and performer in music" based on three entries in the 1980 edition. The three entries involving McCartney are as follows:


 * 1) Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.
 * 2) Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.
 * 3) Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.

The Guinness award was widely reported via wire reports which, unfortunately, did not include complete details and gave the false impression that McCartney himself, not the Beatles, had sold 100 million singles and 100 million albums. Using the 1980 and 2009 editions of the Guinness book as sources, I have replaced the outdated information with the more recent Guinness record and corrected the count of Billboard number one singles and RIAA certified units using basic arithmetic per No original research. I also corrected the Legacy section to accurately reflect what is contained in the 1980 Guinness Book. Piriczki (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , is this sourced: "the Recording Industry Association of America has certified 26.5 million units shipped in the United States"? Also, it looks like your recent copyedits removed a citation or two, because now the last several sentences in the first paragraph of "Achievements" are unsourced. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can add riaa.com as a reference for certifications. Most discography articles reference the searchable database at riaa.com to verify certifications. The only problem is their search engine often produces hundreds of unrelated results or no results at all. I would have retained the billboard.com reference for the number one singles but it was a dead link. I could reference Joel Whitburn in place of the previous ref. Whitburn could also be used as a reference for the certifications. Piriczki (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the consensus version from before your recent copyedits due to the introduction of numerous sourcing errors. You cannot just count-up to 26.5 million units and state that RIAA supports this, because they do not. They give a figure of 15.5 million and that all we can assert here. Also, your OR regarding which hits were ascribed to Macca and which were Beatles is not appropriate, especially in a FA. The numbers as they are might not seem 100% accurate to you, but they are reliably sourced. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:OR we go with what the sources support, not what we believe to be true. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your version of the article states "McCartney has written, or co-written 32 songs that have reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100."


 * 1) I Want to Hold Your Hand
 * 2) She Loves You
 * 3) Can't Buy Me Love
 * 4) Love Me Do
 * 5) A World Without Love (Peter and Gordon)
 * 6) A Hard Day's Night
 * 7) I Feel Fine
 * 8) Eight Days a Week
 * 9) Ticket to Ride
 * 10) Help!
 * 11) Yesterday
 * 12) We Can Work It Out
 * 13) Paperback Writer
 * 14) Penny Lane
 * 15) All You Need Is Love
 * 16) Hello Goodbye
 * 17) Hey Jude
 * 18) Get Back
 * 19) Come Together
 * 20) Let It Be
 * 21) The Long and Winding Road
 * 22) Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
 * 23) My Love
 * 24) Band on the Run
 * 25) Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds (Elton John)
 * 26) Listen to What the Man Said
 * 27) Silly Love Songs
 * 28) With a Little Luck
 * 29) Coming Up
 * 30) Ebony and Ivory
 * 31) Say Say Say

What, according to your reliable sources, is the 32nd song? Piriczki (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From Achievements: "McCartney has written, or co-written 32 number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100: twenty with the Beatles; nine solo and/or with Wings; one as a co-writer of "A World Without Love", a number-one single for Peter and Gordon; one as a co-writer on Elton John's cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; and one as a co-writer with Michael Jackson on "Say Say Say".[369]" 20 + 9 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 32. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Bronson, Fred (1992). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8, page 808 Macca has 32 number ones, but Bronson might be wrong, because Billboard counts "Ebony and Ivory" and "Say Say Say" as two of his nine solo/Wings hits, which would make 31, not 32, (20 with the Beatles + 7 solo + 2 with MJ and Wonder + 1 for Elton's cover + 1 for Peter and Gordon). I notice that you have 21 Beatles number ones above, but Billboard only credits them with having 20. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the title of the 32nd song? Piriczki (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not counting them as WP:OR, but according to Bronson, Fred (1992). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8, page 808 Macca has 32 number ones. This might be a mistake, because 20+7+2+1+1=31, not 32, but for us to arrive at that number here is WP:OR. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've corrected this to 31, pending sourcing that proves otherwise, but FTR Bronson made the mistake of citing 32, not me. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Medley: Intro Venus/Sugar Sugar/No Reply/I'll Be Back/Drive My Car/Do You Want to Know a Secret/We Can Work It Out/I Should Have Known Better/Nowhere Man/You're Going to Lose That Girl/Stars on 45" by Stars on 45 would be number 32, or is it 32–39? Piriczki (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The other problem with the lead section is the mention of 60 gold discs. That figure represents 43 gold records with the Beatles and 17 solo as of the end of 1978. At present McCartney has accumulated 109 gold discs (71 with the Beatles and 38 solo). Why mention a 35 years old figure just because it's in a book? The whole passage should just be scrapped from the lead. Piriczki (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that medley in Whitburn's book, so what's your source for that being Macca's 32nd Billboard number one? Also, is that figure of 109 gold disks you own OR, or can this claim be sourced to an RS? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be under artist "Stars on 45". Piriczki (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see it. I suppose that this is the 32nd number one so thanks for helping to fix that. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying put 109 gold discs in the article, it just shows how far from reality the 60 disc count is by now. The info on gold records is all available at riaa.com, I just counted them. Piriczki (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Math
The 2nd paragraph of the lede says he has sold over 100 million albums and 100 million singles. But later it says "and as of 2014 he has sold over 15.5 million RIAA-certified units in the United States." By my understanding of units, this does not add up. Trackinfo (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 100 million stats refer to global sales. RIAA pertains only to certified sales in the US. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, 15.5 million units for Paul McCartney in the USA. In his career.  Seems incredibly low. Trackinfo (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certified units, and the figure comes straight from RIAA. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RIAA does not keep a running tally of record sales, it only presents record awards when and if record companies request certification and provide documentation of sales. Some artists and their record companies seek maximum recognition by the RIAA while others do not for various reasons, including simple lack of documentation. As for McCartney, most of his catalog has not had updated RIAA certification in decades. His best-selling album, Band On the Run, was last certified in 1991 at 3x platinum, which were the U.S. sales being reported back in 1970s. Piriczki (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One other point, the "100 million albums and 100 million singles" cited by Guinness dates from 1979 and includes Beatles records, or is wholly Beatles records as that is the figure they listed for the Beatles as "most successful group." Guinness upped the total to one billion discs for the Beatles in the 1984 edition. Piriczki (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be correct, but that's WP:OR. Also, assuming that those numbers are correct, how did the Beatles sell 900,000,000 albums in 5 years? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

From the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records (page 250):

"'Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.'"

How is that original research? Piriczki (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its OR because the cited source (Harry 2002) does not credit those sales to the Beatles, so you are conducting OR by asserting that what he really means is that Macca sold that many albums with the Beatles, but not as a solo artist. That's OR and WP:SYNTH, because—right or wrong— the cited source explicitly states that the 100M figure for albums and singles pertains to McCartney, whom Guinness gave the rhodium disk to, not Lennon, Harrison, or Starr and not the Beatles. Guinness gave Macca the rhodium disk to celebrate what the presenter and Guinness co-founder Norris McWhirter called "Paul McCartney's three achievements": 1) 43 songs selling over a million each, 2) 60 gold disks, and 3) estimated record sales of 100M albums and singles. FWIW, I think that these numbers are a bit ridiculous, but that's what is verifiable. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interpreting what Harry says, I'm stating what is actually in the Guinness book. Nowhere does the Guinness book say that McCartney sold 100 million singles and 100 million albums. Piriczki (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But the Guinness book of which you speak is not the source cited in the article, which is Harry 2002; hence its OR/Synth to say that based on another book you are calling into question the reliability of Harry's book, which quotes Guinness co-founder Norris McWhirter with crediting these accomplishments to Macca. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I hear you in principle; there is no way that Macca sold 100M albums by 1979 unless you count the Beatles, which I think they are, but IMO its not all that more possible that the Beatles sold 100M in 17 years, which is 5.9 million per year and a feat that, in all likelihood, no one has ever accomplished in that time frame. Taken with the fact that in 1984 Guinness raised the Beatles album sales estimate by a factor of ten, which would require average sales of 45 million albums per year for 22 consecutive years, which is almost impossible, IMO, even when counting all the singles and EPs. The last I checked, Guinness gets these numbers not from retailers, but from EMI, who obviously has a stake in their artist selling more than anyone else's. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My revision did not cite Harry, or what Harry claimed was in Guinness, I cited the Guinness book itself. The 1983 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records has a photo of McWhirter presenting the award to McCartney (see ), the caption reads "Paul McCartney (right) is joined by his wife, Linda, and Norris McWhirter, Guinness editor-in-chief, for the presentation of the first ever rhodium disc, honoring the ex-Beatle's triple listing in the Guinness Book." The three entries involving McCartney are as follows:


 * 1) Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.
 * 2) Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.
 * 3) Most Golden Discs. Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.

I don't see how the actual source, the Guinness book, can be disregarded in favor of another source that claims the Guinness book says something which it clearly did not, see Verifiability, not truth. Piriczki (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know that Harry used that edition as his source? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The presentation of the rhodium disc in October 1979 commemorated McCartney's three entries in the new 1980 edition of the Guinness book so it's ultimately where the reported numbers came from. He may be going by news reports of the event which, by that time his number had risen from 16 to 17, for a total of 60 as reported in the wire reports at the time. McCartney received two more in 1979 making the number 60 out of date almost immediately. That's why it's irrelevant to describe a total number of gold discs in the lead that was only current for a brief period time and was only noted because Guinness decided to give him a special award at that point in time which was probably just publicity anyway. Piriczki (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure you're right, but that's WP:OR, because this is not printed in any reliable secondary sources, or is it? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because we don't have an up-to-date figure for the gold disks that we shouldn't mention them at all, because I don't agree with that logic, which could be used at almost any musician article. When was the last time that we got up-to-date figures for Elvis, MJ, Madonna, the Beatles, etcetera? Just because the figure is out-dated does not mean it should be omitted. To say that he has 60 gold disks is accurate to the sources, unless you have a print source that gives a different number. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No embolism mentioned in sources cited
In the Childhood section, neither source says an embolism was the cause of death of Paul's mother, just that she died the day after a mastectomy. Can someone fix? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gabe. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gabe, if you have time, can you also look at my suggestion in "Fix non sequitur" just above? Thanks.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fix non sequitur
This sentence in the Childhood section is not logical: Though the children were baptised in their mother's Roman Catholic faith, their father, a former Protestant turned agnostic, felt Catholic schools sacrificed the education of their students for the sake of their religious teachings, so he and Mary did not emphasise religion in the household.

I suggest changing it to:  The boys were baptised in their mother's Roman Catholic faith but, as their Anglican-turned-agnostic father felt Catholic schools "concentrated too much upon religion and not enough on education", they did not attend Catholic schools.

The reference (#4) is OK and the quote is from Miles's book. Can someone look at this for a poor, powerless IP editor? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as much of an issue, but I think that you might have a decent point. I disagree with quoting Miles here, so I've gone with an alternate construction. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gabe. You fixed the problem.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion
As the above discussion has come to a standstill and no other editors have chimed in, I have asked for a third opinion on the issue of original research.

In the lead section of the article, the passage in question currently reads:

"In 1979, Guinness World Records described McCartney as the 'most successful composer and recording artist of all time', with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and as the 'most successful songwriter' in United Kingdom chart history."

I have suggested that the statement is misleading because it gives the impression that McCartney himself had achieved these feats when, in fact, they are actually mostly or wholly attributed to the Beatles. For my first reference I want to cite a newspaper article covering the event, "McCartney Cited For Successes". The article, like other widely published wire reports of the event, did not include complete details of the Guinness records mentioned. As an additional source, I am using the 1980 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records directly referred to in the newspaper article to provide more details of those records. In the 1980 Guinness book, the three entries involving McCartney are:

"“Most Successful Song Writer. In terms of sales of single records, the most successful of all song writers has been Paul McCartney (formerly of the Beatles and now of Wings). Between 1962 and January 1, 1978, he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold 1,000,000 or more records.” (page 235)"

"“Most Successful Group. The singers with the greatest sales of any group were the Beatles. The all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums—a total unmatched by any other recording act.” (page 250)"

"Most Golden Discs. 'Out of the 2,390 R.I.A.A. gold-record awards made to January 1, 1979, the most have gone to the Beatles with 42 (plus one with Billy Preston) as a group. Paul McCartney has an additional 16 awards both on his own and with the group Wings.” (page 251)"

Based on these two references, I would like to change the passage to read:

"In 1979, the Guinness Book of World Records recognised McCartney as the 'most honored composer and performer in music', with 60 gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and, as a member of the Beatles, sales of over 100 million singles and 100 million albums through 1978, and as the 'most successful song writer', he wrote jointly or solo 43 songs which sold one million or more records between 1962 and 1978."

The relevant passage from the source currently cited in the article, (Harry, Bill. The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia (2002) pp.388-389) reads as follows:

"'The company that publishes the world's biggest selling book, The Guinness Book Of Records. To celebrate a new edition in 1979 they organised a special promotional reception at London's Les Ambassadeurs club, announcing that the event was to honour Paul. The date was Wednesday 24 October and Norris McWhirter, co-founder of the book, presented Paul with a rhodium-plated disc (at the time the metal was worth £345 an ounce). This unique metal is twice as valuable as platinum and makes a handsome award. It was announced that Paul had been honoured because he was 'The Most Successful Composer And Recording Artist Of All Time'. For the following three reasons: 1) he'd written 43 songs between 1962 and 1978 which had sold over a million copies; 2) he'd been awarded sixty gold Discs, forty-two with the Beatles, seventeen with Wings and one with Billy Preston; and 3) he'd sold more records worldwide than anyone else, his estimated record sales at that time being 100 million albums and 100 million singles. At the presentation ceremony, McWhirter commented, 'Since, in the field of recorded music, gold and platinum discs are standard presentations by recording companies, we felt we should make a fittingly superlative presentation of the first ever rhodium disc with a special label listing Paul McCartney's three achievements.''"

Incidentally, the 1980 Guinness book lists Bing Crosby as the "most successful recording artist" (page 250) and Elvis Presley for the most gold record awards to an individual with 38 (page 251).

Does the use of two sources constitute synthesis or original research or is this an acceptable use of previously published sources? Piriczki (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You left out the last passage of Harry, which is a quote from Guinness co-founder Norris McWhirter: "We felt we should make a fittingly superlative presentation of the first ever rhodium disk with a special label listing Paul McCartney's three achievements." Did Guinness award the Beatles with a rhodium disk? Why, or why not? Also, if 100M albums sold by 1979 accounted for only Beatles sales, then where are Macca's 1970s sales with Wings, which you've said were his best-selling years? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I think that you might be misreading the passage: "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", as it seems that your issue is that Crosby or Elvis is the "most successful recording artist", but I take Guinness to mean that Macca is the "most successful recording artist" who is also a composer, not that he is a) the "most successful composer of all time", and b) the "most successful recording artist of all time". He is both at once, which neither Crosby or Elvis were. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the “most successful group” record for the Beatles, the 1983 edition of the Guinness book further adds:

"'All four ex-Beatles sold several million further records as solo artists. Since the break-up of the Beatles in 1970, it is estimated that the most successful group in the world in terms of record sales is the Swedish foursome ABBA.'"

And, regarding McCartney as the "most successful song writer" it adds:

"'He was the recipient in Oct 1979 in London of the first Guinness Award as the most honored composer and performer in music.'"

That, along with news reports of the event, such as "Tops In Composing" that quote "most honored composer and performer in music" is why I want to use that particular wording. Piriczki (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2009 edition of Guinness calls Macca: "the most successful songwriter". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with changing the wording is we're talking about a direct quote from Guinness editor Norris McWhirter in the source "Tops In Composing" and it is the exact wording found in the Guinnes book (see ). Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also Billboard magazine. Piriczki (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And the disagreement here seems to be about those exact quote's current accuracy. Thus, changing the entire sentence to remove the direct quote and make it more general makes sense, removes the possible issues raised by GabeMc, but keeps the general sense conveyed that "Hey, Paul McCartney is notable because he's one of the best of all time." Picking quotes made over 30 years ago isn't necessary to get your point across (especially in an encyclopedic article) especially because it's an arbitrary term - he's considered "the best."


 * Here, I've made another draft of the block quote created above: "McCartney has been recognized as one of the highest-selling composers and performers of all time with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles of his work with The Beatles and as as solo artist." GRUcrule (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's looks quite good to me. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be acceptable. The current accuracy was one issue the other was attribution to McCartney only rather than with the Beatles and solo which is now addressed. Piriczki (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! I've made the edit, per support from you two. Feel free to double-check it for accuracy. Let me know if I can help again down the line! GRUcrule (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I dispute the third opinion and have this corrected please? 'The Beatles' are not attributed as a song-writing credit, therefore they can not be cited as the most successful composer. The Beatles did not compose. John Lennon and Paul McCartney are credited with composing the vast majority of their material. A small number of their songs are credited to George Harrison and Ringo Starr, alone or with the aforementioned. Individuals write songs. A composer is a person not a band in the instance where a song was credited to all members of the Beatles, all four names are cited, not the band name. John Lennon and Paul McCartney have both been given credit for songs they were cited as composer of. Paul McCartney's total credits for all songs he was a composer of, working alone or with a writing partner, when reviewed make him the most successful composer of all time. Holland Dozier Holland can also be reviewed individually and are. Here is data as recent as 2008 showing clearly that all song-writing credits by all song-writers have been fairly and accurately counted based on the legal credits that exist for all songs.

http://www.thejanuarist.com/most-successful-songwriters-1890-2008-and-60s-70s-80s-90s-2000s/

Please don't let McCartney's page become subject to Beatle fanatic politics. He is an individual. He did write songs for The Beatles. The idea his work is not his own but belongs to some 'entity' is specious. He is the most successful songwriter in history by quite some margin in reality. The Guiness Book of records by the way updates entries when a record is broken. You can trust them to replace McCartney when the day comes that he is superseded I doubt it will be in our lifetimes. Thanks121.99.93.235 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Beatles Break-up - Who quit first? John, not Paul
SOURCE: InventPeace.com via research on videos ( Paul McCartney On The Beatles' Breakup and What Lead To It...    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboVVvLgelw

FYI: RE item #72 in the article just before the WINGS section;  I have personally seen videos in which PAUL says " John walked into the studio one day and announced he (JOHN) was quitting the group". Paul went on to say they were all in shock. take it or leave it. You can see all kinds of talk show videos on YOUTUBE and one of them has this information in it. Of course there was a lot of tension that had built up over who, what, when , how, the music should be done ( The Beautiful Linda McCartney said she rarely went to the studio sessions preferring to stay out of the fray). So it probably was inevitable.

BUT LATER when JOHN Wistfully commented to Yoko (his wife) that perhaps he should ring Paul up and try to write a little music, YOKO said "you don't have to do that" 2 or 3 times, and so John never did try to re-unite with his former band member Paul *except "perhaps" for some small TV talk show venues, but not for music just talking (they all got asked to do late nite talk shows and they did sometimes even with 2 or more together IE Lennon and Yoko, Ringo and Paul and George, etc.   John and Paul did talk on the phone but Paul says John was too stubborn to break the ice to get back together for music (said he was a lot of "Bravado" and did not necessarily mean what he said (IE Paul says John called the Beatles names and said he didn't miss em, but Paul didn't believe it for even "the tiniest second".

Thankfully the surviving members, former members, friends and families are all friends again !! Time heals all.

We are all human ---> its sad that they argued about money and royalies, etc... but later PAUL said they remembered really just the good times the most. Ex: Gearge was rarely seen at the studio during Sgt Peppers sessions (he was buiding a swimming pool? according to PAUL, but Paul remembers that and the white album times as good and happy ).

In Good We Trust ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by INVENTPEACE (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Should this really be protected?
Should this really be protected? I don't think it's actually necessary. 24.21.151.167 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2014
1111kian (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Sitar?
Might be worth noting the sitar under 'instruments' at the top, given his use of the instrument on various recordings over a four-decade period. Womaraiv (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday as most copyright song
"More than 2,200 artists have covered his Beatles song "Yesterday", more than any other copyrighted song in history." There does not seem to be any reference for the latest part and despite the success of the song, I have often heard My Way owns the most covers but some ref claims Summertime. Now maybe, there is a distinction between copyright and cover. Also, most copyrighted song seems to be Happy birthday tough this might not be classified as pop music. 85.76.144.147 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the article and you will find it is referenced. The lead is a summary and doesn't need references for facts that are referenced elsewhere in the article. Richerman    (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul set a "gap" all-time record on the Billboard Hot 100 with the song FourFiveSeconds
Hi, I'm an editor on the wiki page "List of Billboard Hot 100 achievements and milestones". We've been watching Paul on his new song FourFiveSeconds.

He has already broken the all-time record of most time between top 10 hits. We're waiting to see if it hits #1, as most items in the gap section of our page revolve around that type of accomplishment, before we publish anything. This content, from Billboard, could be good for your page.

With the song's Hot 100 advance, McCartney makes history: he returns to the chart's top 10 after more than 29 years, ending the longest break between top 10s in the Hot 100's 56-year archives. He'd last graced the top 10 with "Spies Like Us" (the title theme from the Chevy Chase/Dan Aykroyd spoof), which reached No. 7 in 1986. McCartney passes Santana, who waited more than 28 years between top 10s from 1971 to 1999.

Let's take an updated look at the acts to return to the Hot 100's top 10 after the five longest gaps:

Paul McCartney, 29 years, 2 weeks Feb. 8, 1986, "Spies Like Us" Feb. 21, 2015, "FourFiveSeconds" (with Rihanna and Kanye West)

Santana, 28 years, 7 months, 2 weeks Jan. 23, 1971, "Black Magic Woman" Sept. 4, 1999, "Smooth" (feat. Rob Thomas)

Roy Orbison, 24 years, 5 months, 2 weeks Oct. 31, 1964, "Oh, Pretty Woman" April 15, 1989, "You Got It"

Aaron Neville, 22 years, 9 months, 1 week Feb. 18, 1967, "Tell It Like It Is" Nov. 25, 1989, "Don't Know Much" (with Linda Ronstadt)

The Beatles, 19 years, 4 months, 3 weeks Aug. 7, 1976, "Got to Get You Into My Life" Dec. 30, 1995, "Free as a Bird"

Notably, given the last act on the list above, McCartney did make an appearance in the top 10 with The Beatles in between his last two solo top 10s: the Fab Four's "Free as a Bird" debuted at No. 10 on Dec. 30, 1995 and peaked at No. 6 the following week.dnsla23 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

dnsla23 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ringo's drumming overdubbed?
Under Ringo Starr: Peter Brown's assertion that Paul surreptitiously overdubbed Ringo's drumming is contradicted by the above Wikipedia acknowledgement that Paul played drums on the following and only the following Beatles songs: Back in the USSR, Dear Prudence (as Ringo temporarily quit the group) Martha My Dear (Paul wanted to show off that he could play all the instruments that his bandmates played), Wild Honey Pie (an experimental number), and The Ballad of John and Yoko (both Ringo and George were not available and John wants to record this song as soon as possible). Ringo was NOT overdubbed on any of those. Furthermore, the consensus of Beatle scholars, including Mark Lewisohn supports that Paul played drums on these Beatles songs and only those Beatles songs. I would suggest that Wikipedia remove the assertion made by Brown or substantiate it with supporting evidence including which Beatles songs Paul allegedly overdubbed Ringo's drumming. 107.221.229.121 (talk)

Ebony & Ivory
McCartney is the sole composer of Ebony & Ivory according to the Wikipedia article about that song (and according to original pressings of the single and album), so there must be some mistake in the source that claims he co-wrote this Billboard number one song with Stevie Wonder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebony_and_Ivory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.176.113 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy
I seriously doubt the veracity of the homeopathy quote, which I have gone ahead and removed. A quick Google search for Paul McCartney homeopathy reveals a slew of pseudoscience websites that claim that Paul McCartney made the statement; none, it seems, offer the original source. The closest thing I could find was this supposed interview, but it's so sparse (not even the interviewer's name is given) that I also doubted its credibility. According to the URL of the interview, it's from May 1, 2014. Sure enough, another Google search reveals a bunch of websites from before April 30, 2014, many of them from years ago, displaying the quotation. I can only conclude that the Origin interview is a fabrication.

Please, let's not add this sort of stuff to article without getting quality sources first. CtP (t • c) 02:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The statistical figures in the lead
Afaik the total record sales for the are somewhere between 0.5 to 1 billion. Not sure where they 2 100 millions figures in the lead come from, but stating them without further qualification/detailed in text attribution seems problematic. The claim for yesterday as the "most covered" song with over 2200 covers is a bit iffy as well since for instance thw french chanson classic La mer according to various sources had over 4000 cover recordings by 2001.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The most recent sales estimate for the Beatles from Apple Corps is "more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs." The figure of 100 million albums and 100 million singles comes from Guinness World Records and dates to the late 1970s. Previously I tried to introduce more specific language into the lead but it was refused by one editor. A clearer explanation of these figures can be found in the Paul_McCartney section. Piriczki (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The 60 gold discs is a little outdated too. I think he's up to about 114 gold discs now, 76 with the Beatles and 38 solo and Wings. Piriczki (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'd suggest to use the most recent (or at least a fairly recent) figure in the lead. If the 100 million figure is of historical interest due to the Guiness record at the time, then it should be moved to the achievement section. But in any case we cannot have the 100 million figure without further description in the lead, in particular does a 40 year old figure needs to have an date associated with it in article text not just in the footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The 15.5 million RIAA-certified units is a little misleading too as it only represents solo albums and omits the bulk of his 1970s output with Wings, otherwise the total is 26.5 million. Even that figure is outdated since most the certifications haven't been updated since the initial shipments in the 1970s and 1980s. Of his classic albums, only Band on the Run and Venus and Mars have updated certifications and those were 24 years ago. The problem with citing any sales figures that are even remotely current or comprehensive is that McCartney doesn't disclose that information. Piriczki (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that getting proper figures is not that easy, but in doubt we simply have to go with a lower estimate from reputable sources. 600 + wings + solo would be a reasonable lower estimate for the lead imho. In the associated footnote and in the achievement section can be a more detailed discussion of the available figures and issues with it. Speaking of the achievement section, even there 600 million figure from apple is not mentioned currently.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Instruments in infobox
I don't see the rationale for removing "keyboards" from the infobox. Here is a list of some of the songs he played piano or another keyboard on: Hey Jude, Let It Be, Maybe I'm Amazed, Live and Let Die, Revolution, The Long and Winding Road, A Day in the Life, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, The Ballad of John and Yoko, Lady Madonna, Hello Goodbye, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to. -- Calidum 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two other locations where this is being discussed, Talk:David Coverdale and Talk:Lady Gaga  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well this is the talk page for Paul McCartney, so we can discuss it here. -- Calidum  03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is arguing McCartney doesn't play keyboards but, it not what he is most widely known for, the infobox is not the place for complete detail, he know for playing guitar and singing, this is what should be in the infobox, anything else can be outlined in prose.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Artists can be known for multiple instruments. McCartney has played piano on some of the most well known songs in pop music history. Nothing in the infobox's documentation requires us to list only two instruments. In the words of Sir Paul, I suggest you "let it be."  -- Calidum  03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle with Mlpearc but in this case McCartney is famous for playing the bass left-handed and for playing piano, so either piano or keyboards should be in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, each artist is going to have different situations.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is needed, we're discussing the issue. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 04:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you are discussing. Glad to see it. But the edit warring still seemed to be active. The protection is only for 24 hours, so you should have it all worked out by then. My mentor admin taught me: short-term page protection is always preferable to somebody getting blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While he tended to delegate synths to the lovely Linda, Mellotron on "Strawberry Fields", Hammond organ on "Long, Long, Long" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" and the profoundly annoying synth on "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" are sufficient grounds for me to suggest we go with "bass, piano, guitar, drums, keyboards", in that order. It is widely documented that on several solo albums he plays all or most of the instruments. I would put piano separately; images of McCartney playing that instrument (eg: "Hey Jude" on "David Frost", "Live Aid") are iconic. All those in favour, say "aye". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks OK except for the drums. I think if you asked 10 randomly selected people what instruments he plays they would come up with bass, guitar, and piano. I think the majority of people would be surprised to know he plays drums as it's not something you normally see him do. I'm still not sure what is 'profoundly annoying about the synth on Maxwell's Silver Hammer though. Now, Wonderful Christmas time - that's an annoying bit of synth :-) Richerman    (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't drum much in the Beatles, though a few tracks on the White Album are him, but he did a lot more solo and I think it just about makes the grade. All the drumming on Band on the Run is him, and that's well documented due to the scheduled drummer quitting the band immediately before the recording session. I recall reading a quote from Ringo complaining that he had to throw Paul off the drumkit in Abbey Road so he could play it! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My issue here is that reads more like notable intruments OWNED, not played. He's known for playing bass, guitar and piano.  The Hofner is iconic, but is this supposed to be a list of what he regularly plays, or what he owns and has been seen with? Hotcop2 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He does play even more instruments (AFAIK everything you see on the "Coming Up" video was really played by him, though I think the saxes may be synthed, Mellotron or otherwise fiddled with) I've had a think about this and I think "bass, piano, guitar" (think Shea Stadium, Hey Jude, Yesterday respectively) in that order is probably the best thing to go for, as it represents the closest compromise to what everyone's said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always found his bagpipe playing to be rather flaccid. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: In no relation to the above conversation, the semi-protection that was in place prior to the full protection has been restored as this is a highly visible BLP. Mkdw talk 19:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, after the kerfuffle and (presumed) consensus, why did you take out "guitar" with a summary of "see talk page"? Because I'm looking at the talk page right now, and I don't see a consensus for that! I do, however, see a comment from you saying "he know for playing guitar and singing". Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I was improving the uniformity of infoboxes in the music area, never suspected such a response, all these objections, it is no longer worth the effort, so add what you like, I will no longer be defending the infobox MOS. I think I saw him playing a moonshine jug once. Happy editing,   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again! Either get consensus on talk that "guitar" shouldn't go in, or leave it be. Seriously, stop it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but: the article features two whole sections dedicated to his acoustic and electric guitar playing. Both of the songs mentioned in the article head, "Yesterday" and "Mull of Kintyre," prominently feature McCartney on guitar. The article features several pictures of McCartney playing guitar. Even within the infobox, literally half of the listed "notable instruments" are guitars, at least one of which is primarily known for its association with McCartney (and has been reissued as a signature model). So given all that, it does seem strange that McCartney's guitar playing still wouldn't be considered notable enough to list it in the infobox as one of his instruments.

Continuing the earlier user's photographic question, is Macca not known also for this? macca drums -- womaraiv (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

instruments listed
There are a great many musician Wikipedia pages that list more instruments played with far less justification that could be argued in Paul McCartney's case. At the very least, drums ought to be added, as he played drums on some well-known Beatles songs and on nearly every album he has released as a solo artist. I would also include sitar, keyboards (i.e., non-piano keyboard instruments -- he was a pioneer in using synthesizers on record and continued to do so throughout his career), and perhaps even mandolin (since he had a big hit where it is the main instrument). The man plays many more instruments than this, including even flugelhorn (though poorly), but it is only ones he is known for that should be featured in the box, I do understand. But I stand by a case for including drums (I was honestly shocked by its absence) and keyboards, and hope that this will be considered. Womaraiv (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy McCulloch and Joe English
Why are Jimmy and Joe not even mentioned in the section 1970-81: Wings??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.36.197 (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)