Talk:The Beatles/Archive 12

After 1967?
Many believe that T.B. didn't write ANY of their songs AFTER 1967 Yrgh 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh


 * Who is many? Are you a representative of the 'silent majority'? --andreasegde 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone verify for me? I have heard mentioned a number of times that there was serious consideration for a "comeback" album being made after Lennon's "Double Fantasy" which, obviously, never occurred. Any ideas?Cronker 04:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence section
The reasons I deleted the "Influence" section in favor of a link to the influence page are that a better perspective is gained by reading the actual main page, that section was too big and overblown, and a recent spate of useless edits to that section was driving its quality down. ErleGrey 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new article The Beatles' influence on recording music, I've added a link to this in the Influences section - well sort of - I had to use the article name with underscores to make it link correctly, could a more experienced Wikipedian take pity and correct it? Apepper 18:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I had a bash at it, but the bally thing still isn't correct - I think we need Sir Sean or Mr. Arritt old bean. Lt. Gonville Bromhead


 * You rang? Raymond Arritt 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...done. The bigger problem as I see it is having an empty section with only a link, which seems kinda odd. It might do well to have a brief synopsis (3 or 4 sentences) with the pointer to the main. Raymond Arritt 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ray! Cheers, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see the link to The Beatles' influence on recording music any more though! Apepper 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Recording contract
There's a lot of murkiness surrounding The Beatles' original contract with EMI. The contract itself is dated 4 June 1962, before their well-storied first EMI session on 6 June. It's also clear that the 6 June session was a proper recording session and not just an audition. These circumstances suggest Martin signed the group before actually hearing them in the studio - though it's also possible the contract was backdated. (See Lewisohn and other sources for discussion.) How much detail do we want to go into on all this? Raymond Arritt 19:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, because I'm going over that at the moment. Cynthia says one date, and Barry Miles says another. Hmmm... I will read on... andreasegde 18:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

American Releases Discography and...
[Although they are not so definitive] the American releases may be a welcome addition to this Wiki; they would be for me and perhaps others such as myself who grew up with the American releases ingrained in their heads... A specific comparison between the British and American releases would be interesting. Discussion of the current CD releases and how they compare to the original (widely released?) vinyl records would also be interesting. Another neat thing for some of the individual wikis, for Revolver for example, would be to also show the back cover if possible. (legal? etc.) `Sorry I'm too green at Wiki and 'snowed under' here in New Orleans to offer up any of this work myself. Profound gratitude to all who have put so much dedication into this.

The Beatles: powerful sonic anti-depressant; available without a prescription. Sgsmith, nola 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see you're green, Sgsmith and I welcome you to the gang of Beatles article contributors with open arms. There's already an extensive American discography in The Beatles discography. Steelbeard1 03:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, Sgsmith - welcome to the Beatles pages and hello to NOLA! I'm a NY'er, so you are not alone in knowing in your heart that "Beatles VI"  and "Something New" and "Beatles '65"  were (the) true Beatles albums... when I hear a Beatles' song, no matter how many times I've listened to the UK original albums since then, at the end of a song - in my head - I hear the start of the one that followed:  on the American release.  So I wouldn't say "although they are not so definitive", but most of these guys no doubt would, and I can't blame them (ok, they're actually correct).  But "our" Beatles albums are enshrined as Steelbeard said in The Beatles discography, and I've added a note to the "America" section of this album about the US releases.   Again - welcome - this is the friendliest group on Wikipedia, by far. Don't worry about being too green - you can't go too far wrong here. Tvoz | talk 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Hi everyone, and thanks very much for the work you're doing on the Beatles article. I'm a huge fan and I've been doing what I can here and there, but have had a nagging issue I've been wanting to deal with for a while. The picture at the very top of the page. Yes, it does represent the Beatles at the height of Beatlemania, but I feel it gives quite a one-sided view of their accomplishments as a musical group. The present picture only portrays them as the World's Biggest Pop group - not as the revolutionaries and transformers of music that they became later. The obvious solution would be to replace the current picture with one of them slightly older. This however, would not demonstrate the force with which they hit America. I suggest taking a picture of The Beatles logo and putting it in place (a la the Rolling Stones article). This would seem to cover most problems - the current image can always be moved down into the main body of the article. Mrmaroon25 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of people reckon that they were "revolutionaries and transformers of music" from even their earlist songs. I'm reading Dominic Pedler's book Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles at the moment (kind of a less highbrow version of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians), and he notes that ther are some people (not necessarily him) who believe that their earlier songs are actually more musically innovative than their later ones, because in some cases the amazing studio experimentation disguised more conventional chord choices. If you go with that theory, then the picture represents just what you say it doesn't. :)
 * Anyway, the point is that I think the image is fine: importantly for an image in such a prominent position, it's in the public domain (which [[Image:Beatleslogo.gif]] isn't). Now if only the others were, too... -- Nick RTalk 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Signing your posts
please i hope you discover the possibility that you can sign posts here with four tildes. Missy1234 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)missy1234

Discography
As there is a detailed UK/USA Fabs discography, does this page really need the album covers as well? Johnny Bender & Raoul McKnickers 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is this section rather superfluous, but I think it breaches our fair use policy to use the album covers this way. I think they'll have to go. --Guinnog 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree - the discography page is far more detailed than just the covers here - and it seems to me that Wiki's Fair Use policy allows album covers to illustrate the text and is used as such for many groups and individual artists all over the system - it is a built-in copyright/fair use option when you upload a picture in fact.  I don't see this as redundant to the Discography page - this is the summary and Discography has the details.  So I would reinstate them, but obviously this is something to be discussed. Tvoz | talk 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvoz, that the images are referencing only the records themselves and that fuller details are available in the Discography section. I assume that each image is also used to illustrate the individual article, so duplicated use is already happening. It is also the case that some readers may be unfamiliar with the title of a record, but may recognise the cover art to navigate to the link. Even if it were the case that the images should not be used, why delete the entire section (including text)? As ever, there are talk pages to be used before action is taken. LessHeard vanU 23:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the boilerplate tex on every single album cover image, you'll see that it says


 * "This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers
 * solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,"
 * This seems clearly to prohibit such use as image galleries in band articles. If we take out the images and replace them with a list, that is less problematic. --Guinnog 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is it's use within a discography section, with only the record title and date. It is separate from other sections and text. This is how it might appear in the discography section for an article for a band that has had only a few releases, and does not need or want forking. As this is a major group, with a great deal of information to impart, it may be expected that there is going to be a basic list, an expanded list in a forked off article, and then an individual article. Each should be able to use the image on a fair use basis, since each branch is only about the subject relating to the image. If the image is to be used only once, then all it would have to be in the main article with all attendant information. This would make the article overlarge and unwieldy. However, the image is properly used in each context.
 * Also, as commented previously, the image is an aid to navigation as well as an illustration of the subject. However, in an effort to retain the basic information in the article, I attempted to remove only the images from the section and keep the rest. It didn't work. It may be easy to say "that is wrong, change it" but the doing may prove problematic. This is something that people who like to apply interpretations of policy like to consider when pronouncing (or simply removing baby along with bathwater). LessHeard vanU 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. See also

"There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.


 * Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)."

(from Fair use) The images are therefore only fair use in the articles on the individual records, not on the band article. Sorry.

--Guinnog 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This last seems quite clear, and backs up your stance. However, it does seem to contradict your previous example of; "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers... solely to illustrate the audio recording in question..." where it mentions illustrating rather than commenting upon the item. I don't know which interpretation prevails. I have asked another Admin (Lar), involved in this Project, with fair use knowledge to look over this. In the meantime I suppose someone will have to find a way of re-instating the info without the pretty pictures.
 * ps. Does this mean that the images in the separate discography section will also have to be removed, even though there is more detail regarding each recording (although not as much as in the individual articles)? LessHeard vanU 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * HI Guinnog! Fancy meeting you here! I was just asked to pop in and opine on this question, as although I've been less active on this project of late, I was in on the founding of it and have seen a fair bit of fair use controversy come and go. Can we agree that the use of the covers in question in The Beatles discography is perfectly fine, for starters, as being covered under Fair Use there? If so, then the question becomes are particular covers relevant to the band article itself? I'm of the mind that if there is discussion about the artistic significance of a particular cover, or review of critical commentary, or something similar, that is, that the particular cover is more than merely decorative, that the usage would be all right. Pardon me for coming in a bit late, but which particular covers are at issue here? the re-released 1980s ones? I do agree that in general we shouldn't just be plopping covers in to illustrate the article, that each one included ought to have some reason for bveing there, some comment that is needed to be made about it that the cover itself is key to illustrating. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I/we leave you two Admins to talk this out ~ I've got to go to bed. G'night. LessHeard vanU 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry in advance if I have been over-zealous in enforcing what I understand the rule to be. I've posted at Media copyright questions to see if we can get further comment on this. --Guinnog 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A definitive answer would be worth the wait. I assume you have made the distinction between low quality thumbnails (as in this case) and any other type of image? LessHeard vanU 10:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I wikied the appropriate section of The Beatles discography which is 'In the UK' which shows the 12 original British Beatle LPs in the 'Official CD discography' subsection of the Discography section. Steelbeard1 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Skiffle
The two formative influences at the top should definitely be mentioned as both US rock n'roll and British skiffle, and I don't know why this was reverted ( I think possibly because there was an editing browser error that also cut off the bottom of the page, so someone reverted to an earlier edit) ; At the moment it goes against the logic of the article again, with its references to Lennon's beginnings in  skiffle and the Quarrymen. This link also provides a fresh angle on this : http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/1950s/1950s.html Lennon covered by the Quarrymen, succession of skiffle groups Ringo was in listed here: http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/notes.html Hu67 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Song samples
I think that, out of consideration for their length on the page, the audio samples should be moved to a separate page.ErleGrey 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. They are a huge space waster. And while I think they serve an important purpose, I don't see any reason why they must be on the main page to serve that purpose. InnerRevolution7 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Me three. They add a lot of length, and since they're in Ogg format (per Wikipedia policy) most readers won't be able to listen to them anyway. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary style for sections
Looking at Summary style, it would be useful to add brief paragraphs to the "Influence", "On film" and "Other projects" sections, summarising the contents of the articles. -- Nick RTalk 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most commercially acclaimed and successful band ever"
This is ridiculous. I've removed that statement something like twelve times through various accounts and IPs, but someone keeps adding it again.

Yes, The Beatles were the best band ever to walk the Earth, and yes, no one will ever be as good as they were, but it does not need to say that in the article. We can say that they were one of the best, but the best is a point of view, plain and simple. It should not be in the article, and whoever added the hidden text about discussing it on the talk page obviously knows nothing about how the system works. -- Wikify me, captain!  22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a decent source that says that they are then it should be cited and included. If there is no reference then it is WP:POV, which should be avoided. LessHeard vanU 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ps Cap W, please look at WP:3RR.
 * LessHeard, please see Tigers. I've only had one revert today, so I don't have to worry about 3RR. We can cite general opinions, not specific ones. We can say that blue is s very popular color. But can we say it's the single greatest color ever? No, not even if a website says so. -- Wikify me, captain!  22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Captain Wikify. I don't think opinion should be presented as fact here, or ever. I think the slippery slope of the sentence: "They are the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful popular music bands in history" is that it combines two very different things - "Critically acclaimed" and "commercially successful" into one statement. I think it should be easy to verify as fact that they are the most commercially successful band, because that can be measured in their sales in the USA, Britain and the world. Their listing within the Guinness book clearly documents their record for commercial success. I do, however, agree that "Most critically acclaimed" is more abstract and very difficult to measure, and is out of place in such a concrete statement. The problem with the way that the sentence currently stands: "They are ONE OF the most critically acclaimed AND commercially successful popular music bands in history" is that it suggests that there are arguably other bands more commercially successful, which is not correct. The one that comes in at 2nd place for sales is Elvis, and he is not a band. So I believe the real problem lies with the compound sentence - which ever way it is changed, something doesnt feel right somewhere. Why couldn't the sentence be simplified and read: "They are the most commercially successful popular music band in history." Doesn't getting rid of the compound sentence and sticking to verifiable fact solve the problem in the best way possible? InnerRevolution7 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the good Captain; I'm saying that if a good source (like Rolling Stone magazine says, after taking a poll of industry insiders, that the majority of critics concur) declares the Beatles to be the most critically acclaimed band ever, then the sentence can stay with the reference included. If no citable authority can be found, then the sentence will have to change. As said, the "commercially successful" aspect is easily verifiable and should be kept. LessHeard vanU 13:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess all I am trying to say with my previous post, and maybe I didn't state it clearly, is that I have backed off of trying to defend the original statement, as I have come to believe it is a flawed statement. You can measure a band's commercial success, but it is much more problematic to exactly measure one band's critical acclaim over another's. To lump the two statements together into one, as if both are equally verifiable, is not a correct way to state things here. The sentence was not mine, I just had attempted to defend it yesterday. I couldn't fully see it's flaw until I tried to defend it and realized that only part of it can be measured accurately. It's also clear that I had stepped on toes in the way I went about it. I apologize for that, because that is never my intention. InnerRevolution7 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm being soft, I can't find anywhere on the Rolling Stones link that says anything about them being "the most critically acclaimed band ever". SteveLamacq43 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did; I was using RS as an example of a good source, if RS (or any other good published reference) had taken a poll and declared the results showed that the Beatles were the tallest band ever to play Croyden Tea Rooms then they could then be "acclaimed" as giants of popular music. Only then could this be cited and included in the article.
 * ;) LessHeard vanU 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh sod it, just write "'effin marvellous, 'cos my Dad said so". That'll be good enough... :)) andreasegde 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did Lennon leave the band?
The article doesn't really mention why he left? It only says when he left.--Ihop0 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons are too complicated to summarize neatly. Generally the death of Brian Epstein is counted as the beginning of the end, but the descent to the breakup took another two years and there were lots of other contributing factors -- the appearance of Yoko on the scene; George's resentment at lack of musical respect; John's heroin addiction; business conflicts; and on and on, even "boredom" according to John in one interview. Raymond Arritt 04:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok--Ihop0 04:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think John Lennon left The Beatles because he thought Don't Let Me Down was so good he might as well go solo, the others holding him back and on his way out he spat opn the wall and verily, his phlegm did take the shape of George Martin weeping. Do I win £5?--Crestville 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * £5? Is that all? God, this man's knowledge knows no bounds! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's tell the truth here: Johnny left the band because he could no longer control it, the other blokes songs were getting better than his, and he found someone (Yoko) who was a combination of Julia and Aunt Mimi. The circle was complete. Best regards, Julia, Mimi, and Yoko. 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Audio Samples
What the chuffin' eck has happened to them? Click - redirected - nothing there. It makes my blood boil... Mr Au, & Miss Dio 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't wet yer kecks - I just did it. Mr Audio, & Miss sample 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called "Beatles audio samples", which leaves one thinking that the definite article, and an apostrophe, is missing, somehow. The Beatles' audio samples would be preferable. One does think that one ought to change it, from time to time - Hrrrumph... Sir Sean de Garde 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought them back, because the page they were sent to was deleted. Poor audio samples - nobody wants them and they have nowhere to go... andreasegde 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might be schizophrenic there Andrew. This is a one-man conversation! Everyone In Montana. I'm all of them


 * I think you might be right (maybe not, but then maybe you are...) This is what happens when one is alone in the multitudinous hallways of the Wiki-desert, searching for the effervescent murmurings of a decent chin-wag with one's peers about 'Les Beetles'.. I often get a bit bored of talking to the 'little voices' inside my head... :)andreasegde, for it is he. Who else could it be? (Don't answer that one) 20:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Drugs
This article needs a 'drugs' section. Macca has one, and he wasn't the only one to 'inhale'. andreasegde 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done it. I find it hard to believe that it was not referenced before. andreasegde 08:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

British Band
I am changing the written nationality of the band from "English" to "British", after all, the United Kingdom is one country, divided into self governing soverign states. --w2ch00

No it isn't. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state made up of several countries. Also, British is an umbrella term for English, Scottish & Welsh (and Northern Irish unionists), and is just a less specific label.

172.214.95.143 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the United Kingdom is the Nation State. Legally we are all British, even though some choose to declare themselves a member one of the ancient Kingdoms, Principalities, etc.LessHeard vanU 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you see? And I hadn't even read this comment. Tvoz | talk 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been changed back to "English" from "British" ? British is no "umbrella term". Is it Americans who are editing this page who dont know any better?
 * There are some English nationalists who edit to their own agenda (usually anon/ip addresses). The Beatles toured the UK in the early days, their record sales were recorded in the British charts and they were the leaders of what became known as the British Invasion. English/England is in this respect a geographical expression only - The Beatles early influences were the same as bands throughout England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland etc., at the same time. I think it should be Project Policy to describe them as British. LessHeard vanU 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back to English because that is undeniably what each one of them was. I'm no nationalist, it just annoys me that it's just being PC for the sake of being PC; go and describe a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish band as British and see how well that goes down; this is no different. SteveLamacq43 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They were born in England, true, but that is a geographical expression. Their passports declare(d) them to be British Subjects, their status under international Law is/was British, they were brought up in a culture that was reeling from the demise of the British Empire and they had much the same influences that young men from Scotland, Wales and Northern Island were subject to. The charts used are those for Britain and not England only. Please explain why their Englishness made them different to The Big Three, or the Rolling Stones... I would describe a band from Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff or Penzance as British (although I may point out how the local culture influenced the music, which in the Beatles case was Scouse and not 'Englishness'). I shall not censor Wikipedia to cater to the sensibilities of precious wazaks. I would repeat that the majority of nation edits are by IP addresses, and that is all they edit. In these cases a nationalist viewpoint must be a possibility. LessHeard vanU 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you ruined any argument you may have had when you said "I shall not censor Wikipedia to cater to the sensibilities of precious wazaks". The Rolling Stones are English and are described as such, just like The Proclaimers are Scottish and described as such, the Undertones Irish, the Stereophonics Welsh, Peter O'Toole Irish, Robert Carlyle Scottish, the sky blue, the grass green etc. etc. As long as people use common sense, which isn't what's happening here, and stop pandering to oversensitive idiocy, which is, there'll be no problem. SteveLamacq43 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At what point does the obscure 'wazak' become more of an adjective than 'PC' (or 'oversensative idiocy')? Shall I ignore the rest of your comment because of the language used? No.
 * Culturally and geographically all of the above may be described as mentioned but all (except O'Toole, I believe) are British subjects. Their legal identity as a national is British. Try it this way; persons of Asian or African descent can be British, but are they English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish? What if they move from one home country to another? Do they change nationality? Of course not, since they remain British - as do all the those born in or identify with Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland. LessHeard vanU 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Out of interest, I was wondering why the intro gives no mention of the names of the members of the Beatles. For those who don't know anything about them, this might be something important to know. I would also think this would be quite a large stumbling point in any FA considerations. Is there a reason for this? Has it been discussed before? Thanks, Mrmaroon25 23:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The information box just to the right of the first paragraph has all of the group's member information. There isn't a need to duplicate the info. InnerRevolution7 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, there are links to members within the text. One of the major problems with this particular article is what to leave in the intro without it becoming unweildy - the band did a considerable and varied amount in their lifetime - and what to leave out without it being uninformative. As InnerRevolution7 points out, membership of the band is noted in the nearby info box. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have to say, I stumbled on this as well when I read the article freshly - yes, of course it's right there in the infobox, but the intro seems weird to me without mentioning any names. I see, though, that there is no consistency on a quick view of other bands: Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, Bee Gees - each does it differently.  This could be questioned by the power-wielders, but I'll leave it as is unless others agree. Tvoz | talk 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you could always try it with members name, and revert it yourself if it doesn't look good. The intro has been edited twice by myself and twice again by other editors in the last hour or so. I don't think restraint is required. LessHeard vanU 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article Review of GA status
This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added my comments (well, more of a rant really).
 * BTW, Teemu08, if you had used the '+' feature at the top of the page the title of this section, GAR it would have come up in your edit synopsis which may have alerted a few more editors to the content. Which may help get a quicker response. Whatever. LessHeard vanU 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right - this article is going to get a handful/mouthful of in-line citations over the next few days. It's time to get the toilet brush out. If you are not satisfied, then sue me... but first, you have to.... andreasegde 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than search through numerous index pages from books at the same time, I will start at the beginning and finish at the end. I will start with Spitz, but will graduate to other books. Anything I come across will get an in-line citation. Delete them at your peril... :)) andreasegde 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is a mess, but not such a mess that it can't be saved. Does anyone have a large toilet brush and a book on their lap? TimeToDoSomething 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know how difficult it is to balance a hardback book on the left edge of a computer desk? When you get to page 623 it falls off onto the floor. (I refer you to Sir Isaac Newton, and his gravity thingy-me-bob... :) andreasegde 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bravo to Andreasegde for all of the hard work you are putting in on the citations. You've done a great bunch o' work thus far, and the article is looking so much better for it. InnerRevolution7 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just chugged through the article, snipping, moving and generally doing a little bit. I wish to apologise... LessHeard vanU 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First Sullivan appearance -- conflicting information
The section labeled "America" includes the sentence "Their first American television appearance was a few weeks later on the Ed Sullivan Show on 4 February 1964." The next section, "Beatlemania", says "A record-breaking seventy-three million viewers — approximately 40% of the U.S. population at the time — tuned in to the first Sullivan appearance on 9 February."  So which is it? Captain Infinity 19:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that. Sometimes obvious mistakes can hide easily from the eyes. The correct date is 9 February, and it has been fixed now. InnerRevolution7 02:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Let me offer this: As a member of the League of Copyeditors I'll take on The Beatles as a "special project." Once a week (or as time permits) I'll comb through it and try to fix any new grammatical glitches, punctuation peccadillos, and spelling splodges that may have crept in. That way new folks can contribute, while mistakes will get cleaned up. Sound good? Raymond Arritt 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds brilliant. Want any citations? (I'm known for having too many... :)) andreasegde 05:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have most of the books, but would appreciate the help. And a second opinion is always good. While you're here, we need cites for some of the stuff in the "America", "After The Beatles" and "Musical evolution" sections. Raymond Arritt 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Righty-o, I'm on it. There are some good little anecdotes that could go in there as well. andreasegde 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Noble Sir, for the kind offer. I should say that The Beatles and Paul McCartney were something of an example only (I didn't mention Macca in my rant, but I did Psuedo Bacon) and that I was raising a general issue. The help that you are offering is something that could be applied to any Flagship Article that has been identified as in need. Perhaps that is a comment that could be promoted at the village pump? LessHeard vanU 13:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'll add a mention at LoCE as well. Over the past couple of days I've worked through Mimi Smith. I'll regularly monitor The Beatles but ping me when something needs special attention (GA review or whatever) otherwise I'll hit articles from time to time as the spirit moves. Raymond Arritt 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I shan't copy over the link, but the top100 viewed Wiki pages for Jan 07 has the Beatles at No.53. The month before it was in the low 30's. Evidently this is a very popular topic on Wikipedia. Almost as important as a bunch of bands I have never heard of; Breasts, Male Gay Porn Stars, and Gerald Ford. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hahahahahaha I read the semicolon as a colon just above and did have to wonder about a band named Gerald Ford ... Tvoz | talk 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Business
Should there be a 'Business' section, or should it be split to Epstein, and Apple? It's him again... 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At what point does the Beatles, a commercially hugely successful band, stop being a creative/entertainment vehicle and become a business? The creative/financial aspects of the band was entwined from the very start, it seems. It would take a foolhardy person to try and distinguish between the two.
 * Best of luck, then! LessHeard vanU 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So... that's a green light for go? andreasegde 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Would love to see the income statements and balance sheets. What a story. 69.211.150.60 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know this bloke called 'geezer', wot likes a bit of the old night-time researching on other people's property. He's also a dab hand with combination codes. Shall I give him a ring? andreasegde 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Instrumentation section
Perhaps this can be forked off, but I think an attempt at saying when a particular instrument became the weapon of choice for a band member should be included. Piano's came in the middle part of the recording career and stayed, harmonica was prevalent in the early years only, electronics were latter years. As for guitars... Gibson acoustics were in at the beginning, they used Rickenbackers in the mid to later years but then started choosing guitars according to effect required. While Lennon pretty much stayed with Rickenbacker, Harrison tended to use a Stratocaster, although he also used a Telecaster and a Gibson Les Paul. I'm not sure what six stringers McCartney used when recording, but I am sure that he retired the Hofner bass mid period Beatles (later resurrected in his solo career) and used Rickenbacker and Fender basses after. I understand that Ringo played various percussion, but I really cannot remember what brands or even other types (other than the infamous tambourine).
 * The signature Ringo kit is a Ludwig; my nephew's a drummer and owns a 1960s Ludwig kit.

All this is off the top of my head; those that are good at it may need to go through the tomes (yet again). In any event, the section is a list plus a microphone subsection - it might not be looked favourably upon by GA reviewers. Perhaps User:Apepper, who started a great little article about studio equipment and techniques could be asked if he has any info. Yeah, I know, I'll go ask. LessHeard vanU 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lennon moved from his early Rics to an Epiphone Casino from about 1966 on, and of course there's his memorable Gibson J160E acoustic/electric (most notably "I Feel Fine"). A terrific resource for their instrumentation is "Beatles Gear" by Andy Babiuk. Raymond Arritt 23:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone got it (the book)? I've left a request on Apeppers talk page, from his tech knowledge it is possible he has it or something as good. He was contributing up to a couple of days ago, so perhaps he is having a non Wiki weekend. LessHeard vanU 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got the message, but don't have the book. The books I have occasionally have pics from sessions where instruments can be identified. I know a few snippets; Lennon's Epiphone was used for a long time - he had it bleached so in later pics it looks different. ISTR that Mal Evans lost Lennon's favourite Gibson acoustic fairly early on in their careers (the story's in the Davies biography). Reading a book about Fender guitars, Fender were rather annoyed that the Beatles noticibly didn't use Fenders when most other bands did. My final factoid is from an interview with the Byrds - after watching the Beatles, they bought Rickenbacker guitars, as a shameless copy.


 * That's all I know! I didn't know that someone had collected it all into a book; much harder than the recording sessions as I don't imagine the instrument makes were noted. I don't have enough to even think about writing an article! Apepper 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have it. I can't spend much time writing, but would be willing to look up specifics. Raymond Arritt 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that can work; for the text to flow the writer needs access to the book... Before the section is expanded, could I ask you (as you have the info aroundabouts) whether the section could better be served as a separate article (with a precis and direct from this article)? I presume that it would depend on the amount of info available. LessHeard vanU 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, how about this: create a "microphones" entry that matches the rest of the instrumentation, then hive off the verbiage on mics to a stub on Beatles instrumentation. Heck, I may as well go ahead and do it. Raymond Arritt 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors, I am mightily proud. The new slogan for Fabs' fans shall be, and shall be for evermore, "Go ahead and do it." I shall now make a cup of tea and contemplate my navel for a bit. Fat Eddie 07:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tommy Moore
Poor old Tommy: Hit in the mouth by a guitar, lost some teeth, had stitches, and then followed his girlfriend's advice and went back to work as a fork-lift truck driver in a bottling factory. It makes me laugh... andreasegde 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is... what, again? Dieter Weber 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Patently obvious to me. Bongo O'Starkers
 * I've spotted his point, do I win £5? Ha ha, no reward for you Dieter - you're crap at this game!--Crestville 15:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the obvious ignorance of my proletarian colleagues, but I think the very succinct point andrea segde is trying to make is it that the poor, unfortunate Thomas Moore suffered a great deal at the hands of his musical companions, and then left that soon-to-be successful group of troubadours to ply his trade as the driver of a mechanised vehicle in the well-established business of lifting heavy crates. I hope that answers your query. Uhh-errr missus... Sir Sean de Garde 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cor blimey! Blow me daarn wiv a jellied eel guvnor! Well clever move that, typical Scouser fick asa bleedin' chocolate donut! Now, does the big geezer get his lady godiva or wot? Cockney Dave, Blue Watch


 * I think you may find, my dear Cock-er-nee David, that Lady Godiva is related to the once-flattened city of Coventry, and not to the grand city of the 'Pool. As for implying that the Fair Lady used chocolate doughnuts in her boudoir (for marital purposes only) I can only suggest that you wash out your vocal receptacle with a cleaning agent of some kind. BTW, I have looked at the marvellous painting of Lady Godiva, and one is left with a large thumping feeling in one's undergarments. Uhh-errr missus... Sir Sean de Garde 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The irony of ignorence Sean! Lady Godiva is cock-er-nee rhyming slang for a fiver. D'oh!! There are no words that can be used as rhyming slang for Crestville. As such, this space will be left blank.................................................................
 * Hmmm... 'Pnuematic (drill)'? 'Sage (and Dill)'? 'Duck (bill)' 'Fancy Pad (on the Hill)'? Woah, FPotH it is! It even translates!! LessHeard vanU 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sir Sean is currently sunning himself on the slopes of large Austrian women, and can not personally comment. I (being his private secretary) can, of course: Sir Sean does not concern himself with the gutter language of the lower orders—preferring to keep his nasal orifice as far away as possible from the stench of working class armpits. I am sure that will suffice. Miss Smithly-Smythe (VC) 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I say! Now there's a fine young filly, an' unattached as well by jingo! Would you consider adjourning to the polo lounge for a spot of tiffin Miss Smithly-Smithe? Lt. John Rouse Merriott (spit boy, SPIT!) Chard VC


 * I must say I was tempted by your offer, until your use of the disgusting phlegm word, which makes one wonder what it would be like to watch you eating a soft-boiled egg. I believe I shall demur.Miss Smithly-Smythe (VC) 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a young man called Crestville

Who’s had more than enough of his fill

Of Wiki-style ‘Bankers’ (which rhymes well with wa*kers)

Whom Crestville could happily kill.

Ta-ra! Do I win 5 Euros? Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Years Active" in info box
Another editor mentioned that they were unhappy with 'active' as regards the virtual re-union (I cannot find who or where, but I def saw it). I have to say that I am too. It is my understanding that The Beatles (the group) were dissolved in 1974(? or thereabouts), and it is the right to their music/image/legacy etc. that was transferred to Apple et al. Whilst all four members contributed to the "new" tracks, could they have done so as "The Beatle" if that entity was no more (and it couldn't have been relaunched, since a participant was dead - even power of attorney can't get past that fact)? I'm not sure what the legal situation is, many defunct bands have records/compilations re-issued which feature newly discovered/available tracks but they are not regarded as being reformed. I know that the songs were based around Lennon tracks laid down in the 70's and added to by the rest, so they are not from the period 62-70, but that (IMO) compounds the controversy; Lennon didn't write them to be Beatles songs, they were just reworked (with Yoko's approval, of course). I would prefer if the active period referred to was 60-70 and the Free As A Bird/Real Love era was only mentioned in the text. Thoughts? LessHeard vanU 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. andreasegde 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it wasn't really a reunion as such; the band were never marketed as being reunited. CloudNine 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right-ho, I shall remove it! LessHeard vanU 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Word count
Over 6,400. Yes I know it's boring, but one has to deal with 'powers that be'. Ho-hum. Eric Kirkbride (St. Pancras Trainspotter's Club) 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

 * result:Keep 4-1

I love The Beatles. That said, there are a whopping thirty-seven tags in this article, as well as an  tag atop "Musical evolution". There are also six external jumps and too many external links. Beatlessullivantogether.jpg, Jk beatles george.jpg, and Jk beatles ringo.jpg need fair use rationales. "Instrumentation" mostly just lists the instruments The Beatles used, without indicating when they used them (that section doesn't add much to the article, so it may be better to just delete it). Also, I don't know whether this is a standard or not, but shouldn't all of those tags be followed by a brief explanation of what the subsection is about? I wouldn't even have a clue that the "Love" subsection was about Cirque du Soleil if it weren't for the disambiguation. Some citations of websites are not properly formatted. All in all, there are so many articles and books written about The Beatles that there shouldn't have to be so many uncited facts. Teemu08 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see the rational of saying, a) there are too many external links (for the biggest band in the world, what do you expect?) and b)there are very many books (as they are the biggest...etc), so why the 'fact' tags? There is a huge amount of data relating to the Beatles, and when an editor contributes a line or two (often those who do not belong to the project) they are requested to provide a reference. Many of those who do provide a source give a link rather than a book. As for books, the Beatles are a publishing phenomena! There are a great many books, many of which differ in their accounts (and some which simply contradict each other) regarding events, from which to choose. Those editors who plug away with a book on their knee, citing chapters and page numbers, can simply be overwhelmed by the info added in a day. Sometimes the tome they are using does not refer to the fact that has appeared (or they are referencing another section of the article and want to complete that job).
 * All of which I touched upon in the FAR on the subject; which was delisted anyway. How can you maintain the standard of an article which attracts so many edits from many different contributors who may not be as zealous in applying Wiki standards, without going against the ethos of Wikipedia The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit? Why bother forming a Project in an attempt to maintain a core of standards on a piece when it is going to be measured against the same criteria that an obscure subject that only attracts the attention of a few devotees and gets less edits in a week than a popular subject gets in a day (or a few hours)? If the awarding of F or GA's is a 'reward' for good housekeeping then the delisting of same is a punishment for those attempting to retain some sort of order.
 * All of this is not to say that Teemu08 is not correct in bringing the Beatles to GAR, and the criteria by which it is to be reviewed. By the rules it is; it is the remit and application of the rules I have a problem with, there doesn't seem to have much flexibility in their application.
 * I don't suppose this has helped the review much... LessHeard vanU 23:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would advise folk that, following the above comments, I wrote a piece at Village pump (policy) entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR Are The Enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I was quite rude, in the first comment, about the review process and the people who do it. I did it to elicit a greater reaction, and have since apologised for language and given my rationale. I stand by the general thrust of my comments. Reviewers here may wish to make their representations. LessHeard vanU 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points from the Rt. Hon. HeardvanU. I have noticed that if in-line citations are put in, they don't get deleted. Quoting Macca: "Put (let) 'em in..." andreasegde 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this article is worth of GA, but cannot support Andreasedge in his blatent mis-quoting of Paul McCartney's solo classic "Let 'em In". Do I win £5?--Crestville 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Only if you have a packet of Daz in your kitchen. Mr. Daz Doorstep Challenge! 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delist The greatest rock group ever, but the cite tags alone warrant delisting.Sumoeagle179 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  delist  Hurrah, kill a GA (or FA) by adding info without citations several times a day! With a little bit of unchecked vandalism perhaps we can get the article back to start standard... LessHeard vanU 13:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In case anyone didn't realise, I was being sarcastic! My vote was and is emphatically keep! (edit; add sig!) LessHeard vanU 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is there any standard less than a "Start"? "Bargain Basement", perhaps? I am sorely tempted to put a 'bargain bin' of citations into The Fabs article, which will put a plaster on the vocal chords of dissenters. Oh, sod it, I suppose I might as well... but I'm going to snip a lot of stuff during the process. (Kick me where it hurts...) andreasegde 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * GA by crikey... I have done some work on it, but will do more. andreasegde 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * When will The Beatles be taken off this page. Hello, is anybody home? andreasegde 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviews are normally archived after a week of inactivity in the discussion, or until most people agree a decision has been reached. i'm counting a 3 to 2 vote, that looks like no consensus. Homestarmy 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- all the issues brought up by Teemu appear to have been attended to! That's so great about this project, that articles keep on improving. In the state it was when added to this page, I would only find it natural to vote for it to be delisted. / Fred-Chess 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Vast improvement, agree 100% with Fred-Chess. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to keep. Diez2 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bogus citation
"David Paul Boyle, 2007". I have looked for this book, but have found nothing. Considering that it was supposedly released in 2007, I think this may be a bogus citation........ I have taken it out. andreasegde 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also taken out books that have not been used as in-line citations with page numbers. If anyone bought the book it should be easy to put in a reference, and not to just list the book so as to make the References section look bigger. Hit me where it hurts if one feels unhappy about that. andreasegde 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the books not used in the 'References' section to 'Further reading'. andreasegde 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Label Information
ErleGrey,

EMI is a record label. Thorn EMI is a parent company. There is a difference. I have seen plenty of import records from both the Beatles and Radiohead that have the EMI logo prominently displayed on them.

Plus, there is always usually listed on the credits "Original copyright in this sound recording owned by EMI Records Ltd.'.

I would also advise not to send individuals mail about incorrect edits if you decide not to show your own e-mail address for a reply.

And who is "we' that you're referring to ?

Is there some sort of big committee regarding all of this stuff?

-Electrokinesis

>>>>>Please don't add EMI to the list of labels for these two acts, as Parlophone/Capitol/Apple are distributed/owned by Emi. Usually, we don't list both the imprints and the parent company. Thank you. ErleGrey 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is not signing-in becoming the new trend? andreasegde, Sir Sean de Garde, Mr Hornby, John Bender and Raoul McKnickers. The previous comment was not signed-in by me. Me, that's who... 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Electrokinesis, I don't think you fully understood what I said. Parlophone and Capitol are imprints of EMI. Following that, I asked you not to keep on adding "EMI" to the label list, as you would be adding the parent company AND the imprint.

Also, the message you got from me was not email. I posted it on your talk page, the standard form of communication on Wikipedia. Hope that clears this misunderstanding up. ErleGrey 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Be nice, people. If you contribute to The Beatles' pages, you have to obey the first rule, which is: Be nice, funny, intelligent, and nice. Actually, that's three, or four—I'm not sure how many. Are you signed-up for the newsletter, BTW? andreasegde 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it really doesn't matter in the end. I'm not a Beatles fan anyaway, so I could really care less about how anal retentive anyone cares to be about this subject anymore. Sorry about the mix up regarding the TalkPage. I meant to say that I was unable to send you a reply message, and that is why I posted these messages on this forum. - Electrokinesis

Cynthia Lennon
It's becoming clear that the Cynthia Lennon book contains lots of errors. I suggest it be used as a reference only when confirmed by more reliable sources such as the Lewisohn books. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but how many? I found two, but they were about what Lennon said about Epstein after his death, and the leather/suede coat Lennon bought her. Are there other really glaring ones? andreasegde 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I haven't been keeping track, but the latest was an apparent misstatement regarding the first show the reunited Beatles played after returning from Hamburg. As we saw in the Anthology, even the Fabs themselves don't always have reliable memories of things all those years ago. Raymond Arritt 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame/"Free As A Bird" link
In 1988, The Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a group [...] McCartney was inducted as a solo artist a few years later and did appear to accept his award.

In February 1994, the surviving Beatles reunited to produce and record additional music for a few of Lennon's home recordings...

I remember reading in Revolution In The Head that it was actually at McCartney's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that Yoko Ono gave him the demos that became the reunion songs. I don't have the book to hand to cite that, but it might be a good way of linking the two paragraphs - could someone with the book add it?

Incidentally, I notice that the comment above this one is also about transitions between paragraphs. :) -- Nick RTalk 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Beatles" redux
As per the trade mark discussion at, restored "The Beatles" as that is a registered trade mark. Steelbeard1 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine EP?
Just after the sentence about the formation of Apple, someone had written about the Yellow Submarine EP. To the best of my knowledge, this record never existed, and it is not mentioned in any of the reference books I have. There was talk at the time of releasing the 4 new songs from Yellow Submarine on an EP, but this never materialised, and the 4 songs ended up on the album with other previously released songs. Was this deliberate vandalism, trying to hype up a non-existent record for the collectors' market, or was the contributor thinking of the Wall's Ice Cream EP, which certainly did exist? Anyway, I have deleted the sentence. Eyebeeuk 04:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they were thinking of the Magical Mystery Tour EP? Who knows? But I never heard of a Yellow Submarine EP either. Freshacconci 11:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a Yellow Submarine EP was issued in France. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 11:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [Yup.] Raymond Arritt 04:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and it's not music from the soundtrack. The pre-1967 photo of The Beatles is a dead giveaway.  It contains tracks from the Revolver album. Steelbeard1 12:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A Spanish EP from '66 as well: http://www.earcandymag.com/beatlesworldwide2-book.htm. Great cover art. Freshacconci 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)