Talk:The Beatles (album)/Archive 2

Requested move 31 March 2014
The Beatles (album) → White Album – The rationale for this move is the combination of WP:NCDAB preferring a concise name to the parenthetical construct, WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL stating that we are not bound to official names, WP:COMMONNAME with the ubiquity of the White Album nickname, and the redirect from White Album pointing straight to the current page implying no ambiguity concerns over using the new title.

WP:NCDAB states that natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation, and hence the natural disambiguation used to refer to this album is implied to be preferable to the awkward current parenthetical format. WP:THE favors "White Album" over "The White Album" due to not using a leading article unless necessary.

Web searches imply that "White Album" is the WP:COMMONNAME form. Google search results indicate that "The White Album" is the established common name for this album, with 509 million results, whereas the results for "The Beatles" + album are ambiguous. A Google Ngram graph displaying "White Album" against "The Beatles" (with quotes to ensure reference to the album) shows that "White Album" is the more common name by a factor of twenty. This graph may be found here upon pressing search, but this graph does fail to take italics into consideration. Another attempt to provide a clear contrast in usage is between "White Album" and "The Beatles album," where "White Album" holds an even larger margin of usage. That graph is here.

Google Ngram also shows "White Album" to be the dominant phrasing. The graph of "White Album" versus the generic term "white album" has a 20 times advantage for White Album, while mapping "White Album" results after removing "The White Album" results against "The White Album" shows that "White Album" is the dominant form by a factor of 1.5.

The previous discussion which failed to meet consensus faltered due to people emphasizing that the official name of the album is The Beatles. This is true, but the official name does not mandate that it be the article title. Arguing that "[the official name] takes precedence over colloquial names" is contrary to our own article guidelines, WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL, where it is stressed that a colloquial name will be preferable to an official name if they differ. Our own title guidelines say to use a common name over the official name. Even amongst albums, there are examples where we use an informal natural disambiguation over the official title: note that we have Led Zeppelin IV instead of the official Untitled Led Zeppelin album. In short, having the official title be The Beatles is a weak argument in the face of our policies.

Since WP:RS frequently use White Album in relation to it being the recognized common name (although the precise ratio is difficult to determine due to the ambiguity of The Beatles as a search term for the album), and noting that WP:NCDAB favors the natural disambiguation whereas there is no policy that we must use the official name, White Album would be a more precise, recognizable name for this article. -- Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Mild support - on the face of it this seems like a good use of natural disambiguation. The White Album already redirects to the target, just as Four Symbols album, Runes album and ZOSO should redirect to the Led Zeppelin IV article, so moving onto redirect presents no dab problems. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * n.b. Zoso already redirects there. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as the common name. That's how I've always heard it. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose It just seems silly to incorrectly name a page, regardless of how widely accepted or commonly used the alternative name might be. Example; I would think that most people use the term TV, but the Wikipedia page is still titled 'Television'......because that's the correct title.
 * Although note that if not using the official name is "incorrect," then a page like East Germany would be an incorrect title. TV is an abbreviation, and so would be like moving Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to Sgt. Pepper, a simple shorthand for a long title. Moving this page to The White Album is using a natural clarification of an ambiguous name, which I see as sufficiently different than your Television/TV example. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am persuaded that my example, above, does not hold water, but not a that my basic point is incorrect. Changing the name of this particular page does not appear to be covered by the rationale shown in WP:OFFICIAL and the section in WP:UCN should not be viewed in isolation to WP:OFFICIAL. WP:NCDAB also seems to be of dubious relevance since the presence of '(album)' in this page's title means that it is already adequately disambiguated.
 * Although for WP:NCDAB, note that available natural disambiguation is still preferred to even concise parenthetical disambiguation; that is the point of the mechanical fan/fan (mechanical) example. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 21:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm here, could I also draw attention to my post above. It's not a proposal as such, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on capitalisation in the page title. Obscurasky (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - No ambiguity exists: the official title of the album is The Beatles. The term The White Album redirects to this article. The article makes clear that the term The White Album is a colloquialism.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ambiguity of my argument, and the ambiguity that WP:NCDAB references, is the subject name ambiguity; if there was no ambiguity we would not need the parenthetical (album). To use an example from WP:NCDAB, fan (mechanical) is not ambiguous but the page is still located at a more precise title. Wiki policy is pretty clear that when an item is referred to in both a concise non-parenthetical way and an equally concise parenthetical construct, the non-parenthetical title is preferred. Having The White Album redirect to this page reinforces that this album is the primary topic of the term, and that moving this page to The White Album would not pose further ambiguity issues. As to the colloquialism point, note the location of our article on East Germany, even though that country had a (unique!) official name. Led Zeppelin had only one album untitled, but our article is at a colloquial name. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The East Germany example is really poor, if only because the redirect should be to the article on the GDR, not the other way round. Who cares how English-speaking people informally refer to it? We can't create an alternative universe here.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  02:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who cares how English-speaking people informally refer to it?" Our own article naming guidelines at WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL do care. Those policies in combination with WP:NCDAB seem to explicitly rule out that The Beatles (album) is preferable. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Wikipedia emphatically does not care what other people call it. it is called The Beatles; this takes precedence over colloquial names. Without meaning to sound confrontational, the nominator's arguments amount to WP:IKNOWIT (both on behalf of the nominator and others for whom the nominator speaks based on the assertion that many people refer to the album as such). People, myself included, will try to choose the least ambiguous terms for searching for something on Google and other search engines; if people want information just on this album and not on the Beatles as a whole, they will use the popular name for it, but the popular name does not replace the trademarked, copyrighted name of the record (trademarked & copyrighted to the extent that it is legally recognized as such). The Led Zeppelin analogy is faulty because the album has no title in the first place; in such a case Wikipedia must make an exception, but this does not apply to . WP:RS may use the popular name for the album, but it would only be to distinguish the subject at hand (i.e. so readers don't get at least  confused when the writer refers to both the band and their self-titled album). If journalists didn't have that, they would simply refer to it as e.g. "the band's 1968 self-titled album". Internal disambiguation for self-titled records where such names exist happens all the time in music press and should not dictate how Wikipedia handles the matter; if you're interested, the conversely-named Black Album would be, I'm quite certain, referred to the same way in music press. Again, if it didn't have something so distinguishing by which to refer to it, journalists would simply call it things like "the band's 1991 self-titled album".  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  04:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * May I point out that "[the official name] takes precedence over colloquial names" is contrary to our own WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL? To quote from the WP:TITLE subsection on WP:UCN, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." What gives this article the need to ignore our own policies? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 13:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making a claim about the term "White Album" that is not necessarily true. Again, it is mostly used to distinguish the band's self-titled album from the band themselves on Internet search engines such as Google, and in the media so readers instantly figure out which "Beatles" the reporter is referring to. That is not an indicator that by and large the album is not known by its official name; the alternate name is used out of convenience. WP:ON doesn't apply because the official name for this album is not sufficiently obscure; in fact, I appeal to my argument that people would more than likely know to distinguish the band from the album they recorded they share the same name, and people are aware of it (i.e. they know it's not actually titled "the White Album"). This album has a title, we should just stick to it. The article and redirect clearly identify this as being the White Album, and we should just leave it at that.
 * Furthermore, "White Album" can refer to any number of possible albums, whereas it is unlikely that anyone would ever release an album called The Beatles again, and of the few albums that exist with that title (check The Beatles (disambiguation)) this is by far the most significant. This is therefore the most unique name this article can have, the least ambiguous and the most logical.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  15:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ON's avoidance of official titles holds for other situations than an obscure official name, such as competing "recognizable names," and I am using it in combination with WP:NCDAB which is explicitly saying that a natural, commonly used reference is preferable to a title that relies on having to specify the class of the subject to avoid ambiguity. Having "The White Album" redirect to this page and not a disambiguation list (or different topic) implies that The White Album does not suffer from the ambiguity issues that the title The Beatles does, as you acknowledge in your post, so I do not agree that the current title is the least ambiguous. Since the article and redirect clearly identify this as being The White Album, why should we choose a different title that Wikipedia policy actively discourages for the sake of officialism? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether The White Album should redirect here or to a list of other albums similarly is another issue. That can be resolved after this discussion if you like. The problem with your argument is that people generally  know what it is called, and only call it something else because it's more convenient (helps separate the two entities' identities from each other and avoid cluttering search results and the like). Is it really that much trouble to type "The Beatles (album)"? I'm not asking that of you, just in general, is the parenthesis really too much to take for some people? This is not the most cluttered article title on Wikipedia, and if you think it is, I suggest you find one that really fits the bill and try to open a discussion there. I cite WP:IKNOWIT because people don't get to choose what something is really called, which an article title implicitly allows for (which mandates we take the most useful neutral route), and the arguments so far basically amount to, "Well, I and others know it to be called something, so we should call it that." Before you say it, I know this isn't about the name of the album itself, just the article.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  15:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I do find the parenthetic construction quite inelegant, and the sentiment expressed in WP:NCDAB is an important one for the precision of article titles. My philosophy mirrors WP:Commonname in that article titles should be where the average person would expect it to be, hence China instead of the People's Republic of China, even though the average person will know that mainland China is officially the People's Republic. Based on scholarly references and web searches, it appears the average person would expect to find The White Album and I do not see why we should retain a more cumbersome construction in order to appease a will to put "everything in its right place," a will that our policies themselves are rather dismissive of. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 15:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see more of what you're saying. Still, I disagree (respectfully). See, I'll again refer to journalism, but a little bit differently. When journalists discuss "the White Album", they know which album they're referring to; they're not saying this is the name, they're referring to something named similarly to something else and use the new name to avoid confusion (e.g. "When the Beatles recorded The Beatles..."). In general, people know that this isn't the name of the album, and a few minutes of searching is the most that would be needed to convince someone searching for information on the topic of that. Thus, the common name becomes a way for the real name to be more common, even if this doesn't do anything to change the Google results (which I believe you've misinterpreted).  Lazy Bastard  Guy  16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll accept that the Google argument is a weak one, and it is not one I will stress in favor of the policy-driven arguments. For your journalism argument, to go back to my China example I would point out that argument would also work for using the People's Republic of China to distinguish from Taiwan (another article at a commonly used variant), thus raising the visibility of the term "PRC." However, Wiki policies still have the country's article at China, since that remains the common name and more concise. (I agree there are some very awkward article titles out there, which to me is an impetus to start getting articles at more streamlined, recognizable titles.) Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing further to add. You make some good cases, but I don't think they're applicable here (apples to oranges and all that). Still, we have definitely reached an impasse, you and I; I've said all I feel the need to say.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly explain your point of view. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Radiopathy. Anyone searching for "The White Album" will find it via the redirect so there is no point in changing the article name. Richerman    (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite the commonness of The White Album name, the official name of the album is "The Beatles". Jgera5 (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * May I point out that our own WP:UCN and WP:OFFICIAL say to use a common name over the official name? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 13:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The nom lays out a very well thought out policy-based case backed up with usage in reliable sources. So far, the !opposers have not. "It's the official name" is not a policy-based reason (indeed, as the nom points out, it goes counter to WP policy to favor an official name over a commonly used name when the two are different). "It's just fine the way it is/redirects get you there anyway" is also not an argument when there is a preferable title based on WP policy. Dohn joe (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild support per WP:COMMONNAME however, this issue was already discussed at length before and consensus was for The Beatles (album). Another question that arises is it the White Album or The White Album? Difficult to say since it's an unofficial title. Piriczki (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The opposers' argument is already addressed by WP:OFFICIAL. —seav (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that the opposers' arguement is actually addressed by WP:OFFICIAL since the moving of this page does not appear to be supported by the rationale shown there. Obscurasky (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak neutral The redirect exists already, so there seems little impetus to move it from what it exists at. Either name is completely equivalent, as far as I am concerned, so there's no need to move it from one to the other, and I'd make the same argument if it currently existed under the other title.  -- Jayron  32  08:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Adabow (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote, now neutral after reading some of the oppose !votes. Adabow (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL Red Slash 05:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the article titles policy. Most of those who have voiced opinions opposing the move are not basing their opposition on Wikipedia policy and I hope that the closing admin will take that into consideration as often those opposing have been making the case for moving it! Three examples "", "" and "" Clearly these statements justify moving the page under the AT policy section WP:COMMONNAME. The White Album also meets more of the WP:CRITERIA than the less well recognised official name. -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Snow close - this has already been decided, with the closing admin concluding that reliable sources are not clear about what the "common name" of the album actually is. In addition, the nominator withdrew a similar nom a few days ago, just a few hours into the discussion, when it became apparent that consensus was against him. What more can we expect, and why??  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 9 votes for moving, 5 against, and as been repeatedly pointed out, the opposition has been slow to cite specific policy. With both policy and numbers starting to lean against your viewpoint, advocating a snow close seems almost uncivil at this point. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is your idea of civility?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Searching for a closing admin, and alerting two posters in the previous discussion (one of which voted to oppose, need I remind you) does not canvassing make. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per both Radiopathy and LazyBastardGuy's comments. The album is titled The Beatles, not The White Album. The White Album redirecting here is enough. The album is referred to as both, thus the official title should prevail. I won't reply to anyone responding to me. I think there's been enough hounding of the opposition in here. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 05:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I said I was bowing out of this, but I had some time to think it over and I think I've come up with a better argument. Don't know how much better, but here goes: Oppose because the current scheme, “The White Album” redirecting to the article located at “The Beatles (album)”, helps people to understand that the common name for the album is not its “true” name (i.e. the name given to it by the people who made it). The redirection in place helps to teach what the album’s actual title is and why it is so often called the White Album; the redirection itself is of educational value here. Thus, the proposal has a nice compromise; the situation as it currently exists not only basically satisfies the proposal (as “The White Album” redirect that links here is not qualified e.g. (The Beatles album) so it’s basically the same as having this article titled as such), but it also does a better job of teaching info about the album itself for people who have never even heard of it before. For the other examples of “common but not official” names being used to name articles for certain subjects, my rebuttal is that the relation between the common name and the official one must be explained in some way; there is no more powerful way to do so than to use a redirect in this case. As far as the example of countries go, on some level the common names are also official because world atlases & maps refer to them this way as well (you can think of it as a country having official names, in the same way Paul McCartney has a longer name than just Paul or McCartney as various people may call him). Seeing how my last appearance here went, I don't plan to respond to anything further here, but this argument now supersedes my previous one.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out, that is the strongest "oppose" argument I've seen; I can abide by your new argument much more easily than the simple official name one. I appreciate your time to explain the new one. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:NATURALDIS. The album's official name isn't "The Beatles (album)", it's just "The Beatles", so either option requires some kind of compromise. Natural disambiguation is preferable to using a parentheses, even if it's somewhat less common: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." But "White Album" does seem to be more common in sources, for instance David Quantick's Revolution: The Making of The Beatles' White Album, Jeffrey Roessner's "We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles' White Album", the "White Album" chapter of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians, The Rolling Stone New Album Guide, and Ed Whitley's Postmodernism and the Beatles' White Album, to name a few I found in a cursory search.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the title should be just White Album (no "The") per WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:THE. It's not really part of the proper name "White Album".--Cúchullain t/ c 16:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, per Cúchullain's argument calling WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS. Since disambiguation of some sort is needed, the parenthetical "album" tacked on the end is not as desirable as "The White Album" which does not need disambiguation, and neatly fulfills the common name requirement. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The official name of the album is The Beatles; the White Album is a colloquial slang term used for differentiation. Its far more common to write Sgt. Pepper than it is to write Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band‎, but that move doesn't make sense. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Ending vote tally: Keeping in mind that these are not simple 51% votes and merely providing the final count as a summary, the current vote tally is 10 for, 7 against, 2 neutral. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 13:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't based on "votes", and one thing any closing admin should take into consideration is how much the nom badgered the opposes.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:RM/CM: "Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should." Please find a policy describing this "badgering." Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik, I supported this move, but you do need to be careful about bludgeoning the conversation. You don't help your case by responding to every comment. Jgera5, it isn't appropriate for involved editors to close an RM.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlike the prior closing administrator, I disagree that WP:COMMONNAME is a strong point, with regard to the renaming of this page. The section WP:COMMONNAME is essentially a summary of the page WP:OFFICIAL and should not be read in isolation of that page - yet it is clear that changing the name of this page does not meet the rationale shown there. Obscurasky (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Note from prior closing administrator
As the closer of the last discussion on this renaming, I am reluctant to close this debate without further discussion. Boiled down to essentials, I see the following arguments: The problem for the closing administrator is not to count votes, but to evaluate the strength of the arguments. So let me go over them: I will refrain from closing this debate for now, pending further discussion, or leave it to another administrator to make a decision. At this point in the debate, if I closed it right now, the status quo would be the result. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Beatles is the official name
 * Some variant of "White Album" is the WP:COMMONNAME
 * The term White Album already redirects here, serving a useful educational purpose as an explanation for the common name, therefore reason to keep the redirect
 * The first argument listed above has no basis in policy, so I would discount that.
 * The point about WP:COMMONNAME is actually a strong point. However, the proponents have not established which of several common names to use. I see in sources "The White Album", "White Album", and "The Beatles white album" &mdash; the latter of which may actually be a good compromise for the title, or even "The Beatles (white album)". The current proposal, therefore, isn't really a solution to a problem, rather it seems like an instigator of new arguments about which common name to use. Therefore, in spite of my own personal preference that I admit leans in favor of the proponents, as an administrator I cannot bring myself to close this discussion in favor of an alternative name, without seeing a discussion of those possibilities.
 * The last argument, about a redirect serving a useful purpose in educating readers about the album who are unfamiliar with it, is actually a powerful argument for keeping the redirect in place.
 * Here is the Google Ngram result for "White Album," "The White Album," and the lower-casse "white album." It does appear that the article-less title is around twice as common as "The White Album." Would it be permissible to alter the move proposal from "The White Album" to the simpler "White Album?" Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amatulic. You're missing one key argument: WP:NATURALDIS, which I mentioned. As natural disambiguation, "White Album" would be preferable to "The Beatles (album)" even if it were somewhat less common than the ambiguous official name (though it appears to be much more common in fact).--Cúchullain t/ c 22:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss WP:NATURALDIS; it strikes me as an argument supporting a non-parenthetical disambiguating title such as "The Beatles white album", a title that I mentioned in my comment above.
 * As for altering the proposal after everyone has weighed in on "The White Album", some who supported the proposed change may not care if "The" was dropped, some might care, some who opposed it might even support a title with "The" dropped on the basis of Ngram. It's hard for an administrator to tell when this point has not been discussed, and I certainly don't wish to impose my own interpretation on a consensus that hasn't emerged. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No argument on "The" from me, if you intended that for me. On NATURALDIS, I disagree, I don't think "The Beatles white album" could be preferable to just "White Album" unless it were more common than "White Album" (which it doesn't appear to be), or "White Album" was unavailable or unworkable for some other reason. The NATURALDIS argument is that it's a very common alternative name that avoids a parentheses, which is needed for "The Beatles (album)".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have revised the Google Ngram search to determine the dominant form of "White Album." Since a simple search for "The White Album" versus "White Album" would include the former results in the latter, I have altered the argument to this graph, showing that "The" is capitalized almost twice as frequently as no capital, implying the common form of the name includes "The." Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This ngram shows that "White Album" capitalized with no "The" is much more common of all the "white album" variants. And of course it better suits WP:THE.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Lede updated. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you conclude that? You do realize that the ngram count of "White Album" also includes all such phrases preceded with "the" or "The", right?
 * In any case, please inform those who contributed up to this point that the proposal for renaming has slightly changed to drop the word "The", in case they want to revise their comments in light of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This graph and WP:THE saying to drop the article unless definitely part of the name. I'll do those notifications. Apologies for not posting the clearer graph earlier (or not thinking of the notifications); I'm getting Wiki fatigued from keeping on top of this discussion. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment again based on recent proposals regarding an insignificant article. I will change my prior vote from "weak neutral" to strong neutral for the same rationale: All proposed titles, with or without definite articles, are perfectly equivalent, so the important thing is to not move it from where it is now, and to not have discussions about moving it every few months.  Instead, whatever it says right now, it should just stay there.  I'd have made the same vote if it were currently at one of the other proposed titles, for the same reasons.  -- Jayron  32  01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Difficult decision done diligently by Drmies. Even though the result was not the way I !voted, I can see that Drmies weighed the arguments quite properly to arrive at "no consensus". Thank you for taking on an otherwise thankless task. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are lessons to be learned from this experience, and the closer should be commended for finding probably the best outcome for this rather messy discussion. What I'd like to do now is try and get this article higher in quality. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 04:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you for this very well considered close to a difficult RM, Drmies.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are all too kind--but thank you. I'll tell you how objective I am: I don't have this album. I probably should, shouldn't I? And I'll tell you something else: this was a really nice discussion, with little acrimony, and though you disagreed with each other (and really, nobody won in the end) you all handled yourselves courteously and properly. Thank you for that. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked my comment somewhat--I really wasn't being fair to you and your nomination in that I made a general statement where I should have made a specific one. My apologies for that; I meant no disrespect. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries at all; to be honest I'm more relieved you settled this discussion more than anything, and you did raise a major fault I overlooked. As for the White Album itself, it's been called the most eclectic of the Beatles' albums for a reason, as you'll get a huge array of styles and genres in its 30 songs. It is one of those albums, where someone can find at least one song to their liking. My own personal favorites are probably Happiness Is a Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Dear Prudence, Julia, Piggies, and Revolution 1. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This was an incorrect close. It is not a vote and opinions ought to be based on policy. Those who suggested change based it on policy. Those who opposed dismissed policy. No one involved in the discussion, questioned the assertion as to what is the common name, so presenting an analysis of the sources is unnecessary. "The redirect exists already exists" is not relevant as that is true for many (most) requested moves, and is not part of policy (BTW Google searches do not use redirects, they pattern match on text having the article title the as common name grantees the match even if the term is not repeated in the text). You wrote "Jayron32 has some common sense". I don't think he did, like the dispute about Yoghurt following policy tends to stop repeated requested moves (I suggested using the current name based on AT policy way back in 2005). Which editor of those that opposed the move do you consider based their opposition to a move on WP:AT policy and which part of the policy did they either explicitly or implicitly reference?  -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If my interpretation of the closing rationale is correct, the no consensus is not that the arguments for and against were equivalent in validity, but that there was no consensus yet on what name to move the article to. Our side's argument did have the stronger policy basis, but since we hadn't settled on White Album or The White Album, etc. that means a default to no consensus on the new name. As much as I would enjoy seeing this page moved, from my standpoint I think the decision was probably the cleanest one to make. I'm going to work on my argument and try again in some number of months, so watch this space. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

US stereo-only release
There is a cn tag at the end of the 'Editing concerns and release:' section; this is cited in Lewisohn's 'Sessions' book, but I don't have it with me any more.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip; I'll try and track a copy down and get the page number. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got my copy on hand for some sourcing on Sgt Pepper, so I've fixed up the page numbers, although there are a bunch elsewhere that I haven't done. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Gently Weeps" and MacDonald
Hi, felt the need to step in with the para on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". MacDonald gets it wrong about Harrison writing the song in India – at least, judging by what Harrison had to say about writing it, in I Me Mine and the Anthology book. I think he's also wrong in his speculation that the song probably started off with the same fingering technique that Lennon and McCartney absorbed from Donovan. I've got a Mojo interview with Donovan where he says that George gave the technique a go at Rishikesh, but was comfortable with his more Chet Atkins-aligned style and dropped it.

Also – and I'm just pre-empting anything you might write about the critical response to this or any of the songs, seeing as you're obviously going through MacDonald's book – I feel I should point out that MacD takes a surprisingly negative view on this song. "Surprising" in that it seems to be completely contrary to what I've understood to be the widely held (positive) opinion about the track. It's sort of similar to the derision he pours on Lennon's "Across the Universe", while never failing to find positives about McCartney songs such as "When I'm 64", "Ob-La-Di" or "Honey Pie" (where other commentators might never be so generous).

In the case of "Gently Weeps", the praise authors and critics heap on the composition is pretty substantial, from what I can see. For starters, I'm thinking of …


 * Nicholas Schaffner in The Beatles Forever: "… the four Harrisongs that did surface on The Beatles firmly established him as a contender. George, having finally concluded that his mystical traits needn't necessarily be accompanied by pseudo-Hindu music, managed to turn in a quartet of more conventionally accessible pop songs that many felt were among the finest on the album. The most popular was 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' [+ mention of Clapton's solo] … George had begun to reap the rewards of all those years of subservient apprenticeship to Lennon and McCartney: now he was writing melodies as strong as their own."


 * Mark Hertsgaard in A Day in the Life: "Indeed, according to Harrison, the other Beatles even turned a deaf ear to 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', the first great composition of George's career and perhaps the single most impressive song on the White Album."


 * Barry Miles in The Beatles Diary: "George Harrison won such acclaim for this song … As it was originally written, [mention of Anthol 3 version] ... Harrison's song had an additional verse, which didn't survive beyond this initial (and quite magical) acoustic performance)."


 * Greg Kot in Harrison, by The Editors of Rolling Stone: "'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' is one of the enduring highlights of the Beatles' White Album." Mikal Gilmore in the same book: "The one song Harrison expected to receive the most enthusiastic response, 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', left McCartney and Lennon cold when he played a demo for them (the same version that is now regarded as the best track on Anthology 3)."


 * Even Carr and Tyler in The Beatles: An Illustrated Record (and it can't be overstated what praise for Harrison this is from them, of all critics) describe the track as "a majestic, bluesy piece of epic proportions and an absolute gift to a member of the guitar freemasonry then emerging, Eric Clapton".


 * Rolling Stone's artist bio: "George Harrison was a great songwriter who had the misfortune to be surrounded by two stone cold geniuses whose work often obscured his talents. Yet Harrison compositions such as “Something” and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" are as good as anything the Beatles ever recorded."

Okay, I realise there could well be others who share MacDonald's view; but then, there could be many others to add to the above list also. It's all pretty academic right now, I know. I get slightly wary of MacDonald providing too much of a narrative voice in these articles, as if his view of a composition's strengths or weaknesses is gospel. (I admire his book a great deal, btw, but his favouritism comes through, no question.)

Anyway, I'll shut up now and check out the relevant song article if necessary! Just thought I'd mention it, while dealing with the issue of where and when Harrison wrote the song. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, JG. Please chip in with correcting mistakes. I'm going through and sorting out all the sources, annotating stuff for each song. Starting off with Lewisohn and MacDonald, then looking for other sources to balance it, then copyedit the whole lot and take it GA, then Gabe and you can help get it to FA. That's a long way off at the moment, it will take a couple of weeks just to get it near GA, so help me out all you can, please!


 * MacDonald's point of view is awful - he said Helter Skelter was awful and a mess, but I've covered it in bands (as have U2, of course) and it's gone down really well. I'm sure I read somewhere that the song was a serious influence for Sonic Youth and Pixies, and therefore to Nirvana. What does MacDonald know? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   20:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's very community-spirited of you, Ritch! I'll pitch in now and then perhaps – having worked on All Things Must Pass, I know how exhausting these articles for a 20(plus)-song album can be. In my opinion, the really tricky bit with a late-period Beatles album article is establishing the background to the album's creation. Certainly by mid 1968, the four band members are spiralling off in different directions – and then ever more so while making Let It Be and Abbey Road – which all comes out in the music, of course. Again, I think MacDonald is inadequate on this point, because Harrison and Starr merely have bit parts in his book. Peter Doggett, on the other hand, rarely takes his eye off there being four people in the Beatles, and the story's therefore way more informed …


 * Oh, and "Skelter"'s a killer track (those backing vocals …) – I don't care what he says! Sonic Youth, for sure. JG66 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone through annotating all the tracks, saying something about each of them, so if you want to expand or improve the Harrison bits, then that would be great. To be fair to the sources, when numerous tracks like "Martha My Dear", "Mother Nature's Son" or "Blackbird" are de facto McCartney solo, there's not much you can say about Harrison or Starr except why they weren't involved. And accounts of Harrison have a really good time jamming with Dylan and the Band around this time do indicate his mind was elsewhere than the Beatles. I think I need another good book source. Schaffner is a great Pink Floyd source, what's he like for the Beatles? Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   08:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite right – Harrison and Starr (and Lennon) have very little to do with those McCartney solo efforts. What I was referring to was the need to be a bit discerning when it comes to MacDonald (just as for every source, of course), because whether it's a comment on a Harrison song or an outline of where the band were at, collectively, at any given point in their career, his perspective seems rather blinkered at times. Like I say, I rate the book highly; in other respects, he's utterly enlightening. But if we're looking to provide a fair picture as background to a late-period Beatles album, the likes of Doggett and Schaffner are just as valuable. (As are many other books, I'm sure.)
 * Harrison's jamming with Dylan and the Band was after the White Album sessions, by the way; and before going to Woodstock, he was in Los Angeles working with Wrecking Crew greats like Hal Blaine, and meeting Leon Russell, Delaney Bramlett and co. So those extracurricular activities definitely have some bearing on Get Back/Let It Be – a huge bearing actually, given his walk out during the first week at Twickenham. The friendship with Clapton was an important outlet for Harrison while making the White Album, for sure, but I'd say his mind was with the Beatles during this album, far more so than with Pepper, and certainly Get Back. (Simon Leng makes a point that I think is borne out in the music on the White Album, about how sympathetic Harrison's guitar parts are on Lennon's songs, for example. I think he highlights Prudence, Warm Gun and Yer Blues, while commenting that this musical empathy is absent from McCartney's tracks.)
 * Schaffner's Beatles Forever is excellent, in my opinion. I get the impression it was held in some awe at the time and through the 1980s. Joel Bergstrom of PopMatters refers to the book as "definitive" at the end of his 2010 All Things Must Pass review – I'd agree with that! JG66 (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. As proponents of each side of the argument on this issue have promised a move review, this closure is undertaken in full knowledge that it will be contested. It is true that the opponents of this move appear, in several cases, to misread policy insofar as they claim that WP:OFFICIALNAME somehow overrules WP:COMMONNAME. This contention is exactly backwards. It is absolutely correct that policy compels the usage of the common name, and no amount of protest should supersede that naming convention.

The problem -- and the reason that this closure is "no consensus" -- is the argument advanced by User:Richhoncho and User:Radiopathy, among others: the long-maintained nature of the "official" name of the album, which has been consistently advocated and applied by the artists and their most ardent admirers, makes the "official" name a reasonable contender for "common name" status. I believe it is reasonable to read the comments opposing this request as claiming that the "official" name is the proper name because it is is also commonplace. Some of the opposing comments do misunderstand policy; this does not render them automatically invalid. What they are expressing, albeit in not the most artful way, is that the album name "The Beatles" is equally widespread, and deserves to be maintained as the article title because moves are not undertaken unless there is good cause.

Under the circumstances, in order for this move request to succeed, a closer would need to find that the numerical majority were advancing an argument manifestly against policy. While it is true that policy is being misread by some in the majority, I conclude there is an argument that "saves" their comments from being discounted. Because some have contended that the official name is quite common, the comments of those opposing this request merit due consideration, and cannot be discounted.

There is also a very clever argument advanced in support of the move request: that "The Beatles (album)" is NOT, in fact, even the official name, because of the presence of the disambiguating term. While I personally find this argument very compelling, the fact is that this argument was not addressed frequently enough to reach consensus support. I recommend to supporters to make this a primary focus of the inevitable move review. Xoloz (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles (album) → White Album – The previous move attempt last month established a tenuous consensus for renaming to some form of "White Album" based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS which explicitly states that parenthetical titles are permitted only "if natural disambiguation is not possible". However, there was neither consensus on the specific wording nor specific examples provided of reliable sources using "White Album," resulting in a "no consensus" decision overall. As the closing admin,, noted, "next time, we can...present the sources--many sources, strong sources, preferably a couple which discuss the naming issue explicitly."

Of the two options presented for the new title, "White Album" without the article is the preferred name for two reasons. One is WP:THE, which states to not use "the" unless the omission would change the meaning of the name or is an official part of the name, which is not applicable here.

The other is WP:COMMONNAME/WP:RS. Sources tend to bear out the "White Album" construct: for instance Philip Norman's Shout ("The day the White Album was released", p. 396), Hunter Davies ("the making of the double White Album"), Rolling Stone's Album Guide, Jeffrey Roessner's "We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles' White Album", the "White Album" chapter of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians, to an academic volume like Ed Whitley's Postmodernism and the Beatles' White Album. Rolling Stone refers outright to 'The White Album, as does the New York Times: Listening to the Beatles’ ‘White Album’ 100 Times, All at Once.

JSTOR returns over a thousand academic sources using the White Album phrasing. the acclaimed double album The Beatles, generally known as the White Album", and even our own article on The Beatles has very similar wording: "a double LP commonly known as "The White Album" for its virtually featureless cover." This use of the colloquial "White Album" as the common name amongst reliable sources, combined with a preference for natural disambiguation, bears out a renaming; the current title violates not one but two sections of our policy on WP:Article titles. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 21:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - first off, the proposed move does not meet the criteria of the rationale at WP:OFFICIALNAME for using common names, which are these:
 * Obscurity. Some official names are never used except in legal or other esoteric documents, or for theatrical effect.


 * The official title of this album is not obscure: it is the same name as the band which released it, and the title under which it is sold to this day.


 * Competing authorities. In some cases, an article subject may have several competing names, all of them in some sense official.
 * There are no competing names: there is one title, and it is The Beatles.


 * Changes to names. Official names may be changed at any time, at the whim of the authority concerned. Common names change more slowly, reducing the maintenance required to keep them accurate and current.


 * The official name of the album has never been changed to The White Album or White Album or The Beatles' White Album; it has always been The Beatles.


 * Second, in WP:COMMONNAME, the section 'Treatment of alternative names' says, "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article", which is already the case with this article.


 * I will also add that this is essentially a disruptive nom; the last discussion closed only one month ago. Discussion prior to that was closed a few days earlier by nom after only a few hours. The nominator continually canvassed and badgered the opposes during the last discussion. There was a similar discussion a few years ago which also closed with no consensus, as well as many informal discussions (in the archives) which all favour use of the official title. There is really no point in going on with this.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge mistakes I made last time that I will not repeat. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 04:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some good points there, but it's worth pointing out that the present title isn't actually the album's official name, it's a disambiguated name that includes the official name. In such cases, natural disambiguation (like this well-known alternative title) is preferable to adding parentheses after the name, even if it's somewhat less common. In this case, "White Album" isn't even less common, it appears to be much more common in the sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Amazon sells the CD version, issued in 2009, as "The White Album". See also David Quantick's "Revolution: the Making of the Beatles' White Album". This is the only book I could find that focuses on the album. The great huha (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support - come on! WP:RECOGNIZABLE, please!! Red Slash 16:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The current setup is fine.  Calidum Go Bruins! 18:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a tough one. Nicholas Schaffner (The Beatles Forever) writes: "From the day of release, everybody referred to The Beatles as 'the White Album'." In The Beatles Diary Volume 1, Barry Miles introduces the album as "The Beatles – [or] The White Album, as all but pedants call it …" So of course "the White Album" is by far the more popular title, but the official title remains The Beatles. (And is anyone trying to pretend that pedantry is not positively encouraged on Wikipedia?!) When it comes to gauging how prevalent the alternative title is in biographies and reviews, I think we need to remember that any artist's eponymous album creates an issue with wording for writers, who are bound to embrace anything that allows them to avoid overusing the same (two) words. I'm not suggesting that over decades this has encouraged us to adopt the term "the White Album" (Schaffner seems to set the record straight on that point, and he was writing in 1977). Just that, with the Beatles deciding to call an album The Beatles so late in their career, who wouldn't latch on to an alternative?
 * I don't want to throw a spanner in the works, but while Miles uses italics and initial-caps the definite article to give The White Album, the majority of sources I have render it: the White Album. Ian MacDonald rigidly adheres to the official title, The Beatles, as far as I can see, but he does introduce the term "the 'White Album'" early on in his discussion of the album (under the entry for "Junk"). Schaffner's The Beatles Forever: the White Album (i.e. no quote marks after that first mention); The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll: the White Album; ditto for Peter Doggett's You Never Give Me Your Money. In the Anthology book, I see a couple of mentions of: the 'White' album. More than anything, rendering it The White Album appears to be giving the name something close to official status, no? JG66 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:JG66: WP does actually discourage pedantry, at least in article titles: see WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME - we generally prefer a commonly used name to an official name. Also - the proposal is for "White Album", not "THE White Album". Does that influence your !vote? Dohn joe (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm pleased to hear that WP discourages pedantry – and yes, I've read a similar message in the likes of "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense" and "[a Wikipedia guideline] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense." That's all in theory, though. When I say that pedantry is "positively encouraged on Wikipedia", I'm referring to how the community puts guidelines into practice. (The issue of musical genres instantly comes to mind; some users' pedantry there borders on the obsessive. Disruptive, to put it mildly.) Anyway ...
 * 2) There is a good argument for the name change, but I really don't think it's a good enough one. If the official album title was so antiquated and almost never used, then okay. But for me, typing "the white album" into a google search reveals Wikipedia's article The Beatles (album), first up; and the sample of Lead text I see jumps straight to: "It is also commonly known as 'The White Album', as it has no graphics or text other than the band's name …" The official title is still widely used, even if commentators, critics, authors, etc invariably prefer "the White Album". The point is, Wikipedia readers aren't left stranded by the current treatment. And the reason I point to caveats regarding "reason and common sense" is that here we've got an example of an official title being used, despite there being a more popular unofficial title, but the situation works for both less-informed readers and those who might be sticklers for original, official wording. (I'm sure I've just echoed what others have already said in this discussion.)
 * 3) The fact that the proposal's for "White Album" rather than "The White Album" isn't really relevant, no. I'm more focused on the need to avoid italics, which are quite incorrect in this alternative album title, I believe. I mentioned how Miles renders the words, but from what I can see, the majority of commentators go with the White Album. (In fact, having recently done some minor copyediting over at The Beatles – mostly related to Brit English spelling and other style points – I'll no doubt address this non-ital issue there …) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response, but I think that if you look around WP as a whole, the theory matches the practice. Pedants are naturally attracted to encyclopedia-building, so of course there are constant challenges. But this article title is actually somewhat of an aberration, which is why there have been so many requests to move it. By far, the practice on WP is to choose commonly used names when they differ from official names. Why not join the anti-pedant majority, and !support the move! Dohn joe (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I want to point out that the article's present name ("The Beatles (album)") isn't at the official name, it's a manufactured disambiguated name. "White Album" is therefore preferable per WP:NATURALDIS. There are few if any sources that refer to "The Beatles (album)" but many that refer to the "White Album" - as you say, it's also more common.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for whether to put the title in italics, note that's different than moving the page name. The italics is a matter of putting Template:DISPLAYTITLE on the page after the move, and I personally wouldn't add italics. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as last time. The proposed title satisfies the naming criteria at WP:AT better than the current title; it is more recognizable, more natural, as precise and concise as the current title, and is consistent with how we title most other articles on WP. The "if it ain't broke don't fix it/redirects are fine" argument doesn't hold water - if we have a better title from a WP policy standpoint, we should use it, and the redirects should go the other way. Readers should be informed directly via article text, not by making an inference due to WP's redirect process. Dohn joe (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per last time. Same reasons. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 05:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please restate your reasons so that the closing admin can see them here?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:OFFICIAL. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename per LazyBastardGuy's last argument educates people who might believe "The White Album" is the real name of the album. I think we might want to put round in circles on this talk page in case anyone decides to open yet another debate next month. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   13:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:AT: "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage..." I.e. it is not our place to educate people on the "proper" name, but merely reflect the most common one. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 15:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And in fact, the article does a great job of educating people, and will do so with "White Album" as the title. It's more accurate to say that the title of the article, in itself, is not a very good way of educating people. Dohn joe (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the article would educate people far more if more editors helped find good source material, referenced it, and copyedited it into a good article ( not necessarily the same as a good article ). Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Radiopathy makes good points for not using the commonname above. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm very confused about the use of WP:OFFICIAL here. The thrust of that essay is that, in fact, that the common name should be the default. OFFICIAL says explicitly: "(Official names) should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." The essay goes on to list some issues that often arise with official names, but it doesn't mean that if those issues aren't present, that the official name should be used. Dohn joe (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Move per both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDIS. At this point, even many of the oppose votes admit that "White Album" is the common name, which in most cases would be the end of the argument. In the previous RM I found the following secondary sources for the album that call use this name just in a quick search: David Quantick's Revolution: The Making of The Beatles' White Album, Jeffrey Roessner's "We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles' White Album", the "White Album" chapter of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians, The Rolling Stone New Album Guide, and Ed Whitley's Postmodernism and the Beatles' White Album. Above, JG66 found two more sources that go so far as to say specifically "White Album" is the usual way of referring to the album. A search at my university library yielded more evidence of the trend.
 * Beyond this, however, as I pointed out in the last RM, the album's official title isn't "The Beatles (album)", it's just "The Beatles". The present title isn't the official one either. As such, both options are disambiguated, and natural disambiguation is preferable to a parentheses, even if it's somewhat less common: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." In this case, "White Album" isn't even less common, it's more common, as such the proposed title better fits the WP:CRITERIA on all fronts: it's more recognizable (being more common), more natural (avoiding unnatural parentheses in favor of WP:NATURALDIS), no less precise, more concise, and of course consistent with all articles that use common names.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting User:Cuchullain loosely:
 * "In the previous RM I found ...
 * David Quantick's Revolution: The Making of The Beatles' White Album,
 * Jeffrey Roessner's "We All Want to Change the World: Postmodern Politics and the Beatles' White Album"
 * the "White Album" chapter of Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians,
 * and Ed Whitley's Postmodernism and the Beatles' White Album.
 * ""White Album" is the usual way of referring to the album." No, look again.  "White Album" is only used the absence of explicit reference to The Beatles, or in the context of The Beatles music.  Just reading your points/quotes, the obvious title appears to be The Beatles white album.  The composition title is extremely ambiguous, and is naturally appended with the obvious description "white album", which as a description should not be capitalised.  "White Album" appears to be a popular nickname, not official, not used outside a narrow context.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It is called 'The Beatles' obviously it cannot be simply called The Beatles as it is an eponymous LP.  It is not the white album even if some people call it that, it is only a nickname. The current name also has the advantage that if the beatles is typed into the search box, both the band and LP soon appear.  Bevo74 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose (again) Why are we still banging on about this? The section WP:COMMONNAME is essentially a summary of the page WP:OFFICIAL and should not be read in isolation of that page - it is clear that moving this page does not meet the rationale shown there.Obscurasky (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got the relationship backwards: WP:COMMONNAME as policy overrules WP:OFFICIAL as a guideline unless there is an explicit reason against the common name. The rationales on WP:OFFICIAL are merely examples of why official names are not always best, not a definite list, nor binding like WP:COMMONNAME is. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support White Album is the common name, and has the added advantage of not requiring disambiguation.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Dralwik, The great hula, Red Slash. &mdash; goethean 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:AT: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The Beatles (album) would be unrecognised even by many who own it (I had to check my copy to see that it was even accurate), and is highly ambiguous, as the Beatles recorded many albums and the subtlety of this being the only self-titled one would be lost on many, particularly on those whose native language is not English (and English Wikipedia supports all English speakers, not just native speakers). White Album on the other hand is recognisable, unambiguous, and even better represented in sources. No contest. Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I !voted oppose last time, but after thinking about the discussion it became clear to me that WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant guideline here, not WP:OFFICIAL. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the most common name for the double-LP is the White Album, so this is pretty cut-and-dry, IMO. I predict that the closing admin will essentially "throw-out" the rationales that rely on WP:OFFICIAL. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but using the article name "The White Album". On the Beatles website, this album is described as "The Beatles or The White album as it became better known..." John is quoted as saying "I love the White Album".  Further down it is labeled as "The Beatles (The White Album) CD", a link which opens a page showing the name as "The White Album: Remastered", release date 09/09/09.  WP:COMMONNAME states "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."  Since the most recently remastered version of the album (09/09/09) is listed on the Beatles website as "The White Album: Remastered", "The White Album" appears to be an official 'name change' of the album used in a reliable source.  The word "The" should be in the article title, as "White Album" is seldom mentioned without it (similar to the article name "The Beatles"). The Beatles article itself even shows the album with "The" as "The Beatles ('The White Album', 1968)".  Note, the page The Black Album, which mentions several albums named "The Black Album", and even mentions the Beatles' "The White Album".  I hope this issue does not drag on, as with the debate of "The Beatles" vs. "the Beatles".   Curious  Eric  23:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You raise some good points, but I feel WP:THE is sufficient in having the new name just be "White Album." THE has two conditions for including "The" in the title: 1) where omitting it would change the meaning of the page, and 2) where "The" would be capitalized in the middle of a sentence as part of the name. The Beatles falls under these criteria, as just having the word "Beatles" ccould mean you're talking about the band, or a couple of the band members together (i.e. three of the Beatles reunited for the Anthology project). Here, "White Album" is understood to mean the album, and in my text examples in the lead, note how several use "the White Album" or phrasing like "the double 'White Album'", wording which implies "The" is not a definite necessity in the article title, and thus trimmed by [{WP:THE]]. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see how WP:THE could be interpreted that way, but it does say it is a guideline to be treated with common sense. The Beatles' albums 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 are both refered to as  "The Red Album" and "The Blue Album" in both articles, and on page The Blue Album.  It would be more consistent to name the article "The White Album" IMHO.   Curious  Eric  02:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose White Album.  We need a stronger argument to move from the given name it had in 1968 - which was the main time for the album - irrespective of subsequent sales. I was nearly persuaded by the arguments for "The White Album", when I realised all variants are now used for marketing purposes.  There have been many silly arguments raised by both sides here and I am going to comment on a couple. WP:COMMONNAME is why the article is at Ringo Starr not at Richard Starkey, ditto Prince, Lady Gaga etc. but it has no relevance for albums. Eponymous albums have to be disambiguated, to suggest it needs to be renamed to avoid disambiguation is tainted logic. I am deeply disturbed that the Beatles album discography template has been edited to The White album while these discussions are ongoing, talk about WP:POINTY. Finally, I am further concerned that the article does not mention why it was a white album and the cultural significance.--Richhoncho (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment and strike out above. Originally I was going to support a move to "The White Album" but the more it was discussed the more I am convinced it should be at its present title. This is the name the Beatles (and their advisors) gave it and disregards any hindsight they might have used - and it would be WP:OR to rename it on their behalf. I have called it "the white album" but I am glad that WP reminds me, forcefully, what the the correct name is. Even the artwork displayed confirms this.  The fact the title has (album) in brackets is a technical problem and enquiries should be made with the WP technical team if anybody thinks this is important. Apparently there isn't an example of an album given a new name by WP and it shouldn't start here. There are many contradictory policies and guidelines which is why we are enjoined to use WP:COMMONSENSE when applying them. Separating albums from their given names does not use commonsense (although in other areas there are good reasons i.e Starr/Starkey).
 * Ultimately, this is an argument of what should redirect to where. It doesn't change the coverage that WP has. But it does give editors the chance to ignore WP:NCR. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does indeed apply to albums -- it is Wiki-wide. Also Template:The Beatles albums was initially changed back in February, a month before my first move attempt here. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case I would be interested in seeing an example where it has been applied to an album. I do know who edited the template and it's not you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin IV, which officially is the "Untitled Led Zeppelin album." It's a weaker example, but then the White Album nickname has an ubiquity unmatched by other album shorthands. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd forgotten that one, but it's not really comparable. One has a name the other doesn't. Anything better to offer? Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem the two most likely comparable candidates (Metallica's "Black Album" and Duran Duran's "Wedding Album") both suffer from the nicknames being quite populated disambiguation pages, raising the specter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for those nicknames -- an issue this album does not face, as evidenced by the redirect's presence. But this search for a precedent is getting off-topic; albums do not have a specific manual of style overriding COMMONNAME, so the policy is as applicable here as it is for Ringo. Thanks for the patience to hear me out, and I think we ought to let the closing admin decide this point. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 05:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe worth pointing out, further to above mention of Template:The Beatles albums, but most specifically this change regarding The, it was me who altered wording in the lead at The Beatles, but purely to ensure consistency within that article. The matter of how to treat the alt album title – the White Album, The White Album or the White Album – is one of the content-related issues I'd intended to raise at Talk:The Beatles. (In my opinion, italics are incorrect.)


 * Also, I think it might not be the best idea for us to consider the 1962–1966 and 1967–1970 leads as reliable guides. The latter article carries a ref improve banner, and in neither one is the alternative title supported by a source. (In books I have, while the Red/Blue monikers are rarely mentioned, they're rendered: the "Red" album, the "Blue" album.) JG66 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong neutral Either name is perfectly and equally acceptable, and redirects already exist, so having a move discussion is a waste of everyone's time. It's best just to leave it where it is right now.  I'd make the same argument if it was already at the title being sought by the OP.  -- Jayron  32  14:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that either name is equally acceptable; the parenthetical name failing multiple sections of WP:AT makes the move worthwhile to me. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 14:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we all understand now that you are strongly supportive of the move, and that's fine, but can I politely request reading WP:BLUDGEON and realise that replying to the majority of alternative views may actually weaken your argument. Ritchie333  (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the simple reason that "The White Album" is not the name of the album. I know full well that not a single person on earth has ever said "hey gang, let's listen to The Beatles album tonight!", but rather say "hey gang, let's listen to the White Album tonight!", but this is an encyclopedia of what actually is, not an encyclopedia of loose slang and colloquialisms as primary identifiers.  This is why Star Wars (film) is the actual article title of the 1977 film, while Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is the redirect. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Are you arguing that the White Album is not the "most frequently used" title regarding this album in English-language reliable sources, or are you arguing in favour of the official title irrespective of what the relevant guideline suggests? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIAL trumps that, in my opinion. No one I knew back in my classic rock listening days ever referred to Zoso as Led Zeppelin IV either.  I'd rather we refer to things with proper titles and redirect the popularized terminology to that official name. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see above. WP:OFFICIAL is an essay that confirms that WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy. And just to be clear, "common name" here does not mean loosey-goosey name on the street - it simply means the name commonly used in reliable sources to identify the topic. "This is an encyclopedia of what actually is" - I couldn't agree more.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, I believe I meant to link to something else, but not sure what now. At any rate, it seems that by the examples I have provided thus far, the actual names are used over those adopted by the public at later dates, in regards to music and film releases.  People, (e.g. Bill Clinton over William Jefferson Clinton) appear to be a different ball of wax entirely. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't get the "Star Wars" example. Isn't "Star Wars" the common name of the film? And my impression is that "Led Zeppelin IV" has no official title; in fact, it was officially untitled, wasn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If it gets changed to an unofficial title, wouldn't that just be an opportunity for endless further debate about capitals and italics and definite article? Rothorpe (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Beatles is the correct and accurate title.  We call artistic works by their correct title - in addition to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band example others have given, look at Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown), (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, December, 1963 (Oh, What a Night), The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss), etc., all located at their full title despite the fact that all of these have shorter forms in more common use.  Or for an even more direct comparison, look at Symphony No. 41 (Mozart) and Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), both located there despite the fact that they are more commonly known as the Jupiter Symphony and the New World Symphony.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that classical works have their own manual of style (WP:NCMUSIC) on titling whereas popular albums have no such command to use the official names in the MoS to overrule COMMONNAME. NCMUSIC only covers aspects like duplicate album titles, not the role of nicknames which Commonname does nicely. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, note that every rule has exceptions: (see Eine kleine Nachtmusik or Brahms' Lullaby). You might also note that the song titles you chose all include the common name in the title itself. This is not a "shorter form in more common use" - it's a completely different title. So that comparison does not quite cover the unique set of circumstances with this album, wouldn't you say? Dohn joe (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first words of WP:NCMUSIC are This page contains naming conventions for music-related articles, covering both classical musical works and popular bands, albums and songs. (my bold) --Richhoncho (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While "The White Album" is the better known title, the official title of the album is "The Beatles". It is widely known that "The White Album" is a nickname and not the true title of the album. Thus, it should stay as is, in my view. Johnny338 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose How many people refer to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album by its full title? Most people simply call it Sergent Pepper's, but nobody's arguing we need to change the title of that page. It's fine as it is, why change it? MTB UK (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sgt. Pepper is used as a short hand for the album's name; reliable sources will list Pepper as its full name and then use a shorthand to save space and time, a distinct situation from a separate, more common name. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The album's name is and always will be The Beatles.Fantailfan (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The album is explicitly titled as "The Beatles".  Sources appear to call it "The Beatles (The White Album)"  This will logically be shortened to "The White Album" in flowing text after the context of "The Beatles" is already established.  In a Wikipedia title, the artist name is not already established. The White Album (disambiguation) shows that the proposed target, even if well supported by use in sources, is ambiguous.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The location of the White Album redirect establishes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 22:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Establishes"? No it doesn't.  "Purports", maybe. It's just a redirect someone created one day.  The various ambiguous titles should all redirect to the disambiguation page; the content of the disambiguation page, various unrelated significant topics, establishes that there is no PrimaryTopic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a different question for another day. You may not agree that "White Album" should redirect here, but the fact that it has for years does show pretty strongly that other Wikipedians do in fact consider the album the primarytopic. If you disagree, feel free to start another RM. In the meantime, it's incongruous to oppose this on ambiguity grounds, as "The Beatles" itself is an ambiguous title - that's why we need "(album)" in the first place! At least "White Album" doesn't require disambiguation. (Unless your RM goes through....) Dohn joe (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "the fact that it has for years", and without discussion, suggests that this is a backwater concern. Being a backwater concern means that this is not a title of broad international historic significance, and PRIMARYTOPIC arguments are very weak.  Renaming the page to the nickname title renders the question of the redirects moot, the question of where redirects should point is entrenched in this proposal.  The content of The_White_Album_(disambiguation) shows that disambiguation is needed, and capitalisation and the presence of "The" is not ever sufficient disambiguation.  Something needs fixing, yes, but this proposal is flawed, a wider view is needed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Close and 6 months break - I supported White Album in RM3 above, but there's evidently no consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No clear numerical consensus, but the closing admin should note how few of the oppose votes are based on policy. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 06:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So we need a policy to call something by it's official and correct name? Hmm. Do we really need to write such a pointless guideline? The opposition was based on commonsense and surely that should trump optional guidelines like commonname, which was designed for the likes of William Jefferson Clinton and not cultural titles. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. Currently there are 10 supporting the move and 17 opposing, so your comment "no numerical consensus" is misleading. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the misunderstanding. I mean a 17-10 margin is a muddled numerical consensus, but I see a clearer policy-based consensus -- for the opposite outcome. But my main point is that WP:Commonname is not an "optional guideline" but the decisive policy on article titles, overruled only by individual specific MOS. The problem with common sense is that it is different for different people; for me the common sense approach is to put the article where people would search for it, which is White Album. As well, WP:Commonsense is an essay, which is WP:NOTPOLICY. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's about 40 redirects to this article, including, quite correctly, The White Album. Nobody loses anything if it stays where it is, most of the likely search terms are already covered with a few others too. If the article was moved the White Album, the lead would have to read, this is NOT the correct name of the album... Policy, guideline, essay? WP:Commonsense might be an essay, damn shame it can't be a policy...--Richhoncho (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to threaten or anything, but anything other than a move for me will trigger a move review in a heartbeat. Why even have WP:AT and WP:UCN when we're not going to follow them? Seriously, it's like we're having a debate over our policy that says "use common names". Hmm, should we go with the common name, or the official one? If only we had a policy to decide that! So if a closer ignores policy and follows the numbers (which is stupid to do on an online website where registrations are free and unlimited--this is why we use policies in the first place to decide move requests), yeah, that's going to move review immediately. Red <b style="color:#460121;">Slash</b> 00:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wont a move review take a little longer than a heartbeat? And will you be asking to move Sgt Pepper's too? Clearly there isn't the support for moving either and personally I'm thankfully that Wikipedia has flexibility built into it; to take account of democratic opinion. Obscurasky (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin and Red Slash There would also be a move review if this article is moved. As comments stand at present there is No consensus to move. The nomination is NOT proved. Let's call a spade a spade. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind numerical consensus is not the only, or even primary, form of consensus on Wikipedia. From WP:RMCI: "this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." Usually numerical and policy-based consensus align, but when they disagree policy-based consensus is dominant, always. I trust the closing admin will look past the numbers, and note the substance of each side's arguments. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA stuff
,, , and anyone else who's still actively looking at this article .... I've been working on this a bit today, and I think we're finally getting close to be a possible good article candidate. I think everything is either sourced properly, or has a tag on it explaining the problem (and there's not too many). I will hopefully sort out the actual personnel list of which Beatle played what tonight, and redo the "Cultural response" section a bit more, which should get most of it cracked. If you want to chip and help, please do!

As a side note, I see some irony in the move discussions here reflecting some of the ones the Beatles probably had when making the album in the first place! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes upon quick glance it's certainly looking like it has the content for GA. I'll look at it fully tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. Sure, I'll help, and I've just been working on Wonderwall Music (so at least I'm in the right era). I'm always big on detail, perhaps too much so – meaning, you, Doc and anyone else here should feel free to rein me in at any time! JG66 (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The one fact I'm looking for at the moment is a brief description of when and how the album became known as "the White Album". I believe it was nicknamed this almost immediately after release, but I'm struggling to find a citation for it - all the sources seem to just assume you know this! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As soon as you're ready to nominate, hit me up- I'd be more than happy to review this article. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Snuggums, I've gone through the article, fixed up everything I can think of, and run the prose through LanguageTool, which is now only complaining about a George Harrison quotation. I can't see any obvious reason it will quickfail a GA review (though I predict about 20 - 30 more edits from other editors over MOS stuff I missed or don't know about) ..... so off you go! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have the review up within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got one week, Ritchie- get to it! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of reviews
I also don't think this edit is a positive improvement, as it neglects the positive appraisal the album's diversity had over critics (eg: see Garr and Womack / Davis sources). Sorry. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead is summarizing how the album was received by contemporary critics ("Upon its release...", "mixed reviews"); Garr, Womack, and Davis (writing in books published in the 2000s) are cited as "Cultural responses" writing in retrospect. As it's currently cited in "Critical reception", "most" critics found its satirical songs unimportant and apolitical amid a turbulent political and social climate. (Womack & Davis 2006, p. 147-149) The positive appraisal is, as you pointed out (Garr, Womack, and Davis), from retrospective books, and the last line of the lead about how critics have since viewed it (as one of the greatest ever) does not neglect that reappraisal. Also, I don't know when or by whom or why it was changed, but up until a few days or a week ago, this version of the sentence along with the lines in #Critical reception that backed it up (attributed to Womack & Davis 2006, pp. 147-149) had been in the article for at least over a year . So I meant for the edit to restore that, not some new "improvement" or w.e. Dan56 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Would this be better, ? As cited in #Critical reception, Lennon and McCartney's songwriting was received positively by both Palmer and Goldstein, two of the few contemporary critics who reviewed the album positively. And it remains faithful to the more verifiable summaries of how it was received upon its release ("...most of whom viewed its mild...", "...criticised the Beatles for using eclecticism and pastiche as a means of avoiding important issues...") Dan56 (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks okay to me, covering enough bases. Thanks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote what?
Can somebody explain what makes this a reliable source? Thanks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Track listing numbers
What applies in Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band also applies here, but in a nutshell, consensus amongst a sample of album FAs is that track numbers are contiguous regardless of sides, discs or other breaks due to the format. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ironically, this album is the example for these kinds of cases at the template page (Template:Track_listing) Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Stupid git"
"Stupid git" is a well known British colloquialism, particularly in Northern England. (paging Eric) Graham Chapman used it in the Argument Sketch, Linus Torvalds deliberately named his revision control system after it (having already put "bugger off" in the Linux Kernel source code). Micky Dolenz wrote a song, "Randy Scouse Git" for The Monkees which was called "Alternate Title" in the UK since he did not realise the phrase meant somebody with a less-than-healthy sexual appetite. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that "stupid get" has been the status quo in the article until an IP editor changed it without source, comment, or edit summary. I reverted that, and you reverted me, so isn't the onus on either you or the IP user to justify "get" to "git" ? Tarc (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the official Beatles website thebeatles.com used "stupid get". Tarc (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I added it in the first place (see the edit summary!) and the source went in with it. "Git" is proper English, "get" is either a mistake, a bowdlerisation to avoid profanity, or a typo (although this latter one is unlikely). However, in a stereotypical scouse accent (cf: Paul O'Grady), "git" sounds the same as how received pronunciation would say "get". Lots more book sources here! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's wasn't a mistake or a bowdlerisation. He clearly says "get" and, ss a northener, I can tell you that "get" was the word used in the north of England at that time - not "git". Aren't the lyrics on the insert that came with the double LP? I'm away at the moment on holiday but when I get home in a week's time I'll have a look.  Richerman    (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. It's " … stupid get" in the CD booklet. JG66 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For confirmation of that use of "get" see > I also have a book of sheet music for the album and I'm pretty sure it says "get" in here or I would have noticed. All those book references are clearly the authors changing it to what they thought it should be (or thought they heard) because that's the word they would use. I've changed it back to "get" and added a note. Richerman    (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've heard this song being played for 30+ years now, and to my America ears I always heard "get" and assumed it was just another Britishism.  The lyrics as printed on the official website should seal it. Tarc (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A footnote sounds like the best way to proceed. The only copy I've got of this is the original LP, which didn't have lyrics (and I don't believe it did although my copy was second hand, so they may have become separated from the rest of the packaging). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * They must have been lost, as it says under Packaging - "The album's inside packaging included a poster, the lyrics to the songs, and a set of photographs taken by John Kelly". Actually, that needs to be reworded. Richerman    (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Birthday" source
My edits may have made it unclear, but my source is Many Years from Now by Barry Miles. I put the wrong book by him the first time. The Wookieepedian (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's page 496. McCartney says it was "50-50 John and me," Chris Thomas says it was "mostly Paul's." Nowhere does it say it was the "only true Lennon-McCartney co-write on the album." Piriczki (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to find these claims McCartney made on songs dubious. He also said "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite" were 50-50 compositions due to his tape loop experience, whereas other sources put these both as Lennon's. MacDonald claims "Two Of Us" on Let It Be was the first true 50-50 song since "A Day In The Life", and that "Birthday" was worked out by Paul (albeit simply by being the first to turn up to the studio), then jammed into shape by the others. So, I would say Lennon deserves no less a co-writing credit than Harrison and Starr if it was "jammed up" as described. As a compromise, I think we should go back to yesterday's "no songs were co-written" with a footnote saying something like "The structure of Birthday was jammed in the studio. McCartney later credited Lennon as co-writer, though other sources suggest it was McCartney alone", or something like that. Bottom line though, the pair did not deliberately sit down and work a structure out together before recording. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. The Wookieepedian (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Genres
To nip the edit-war in the bud before it starts, I'll make the following comments. I personally prefer "rock" as a genre but I do not consider no genres, or anything else to be the wrong version, so I'm happy to leave whatever the status quo is. If you disagree, say so! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  07:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sources available on this topic make this a case where the genre parameter cannot be used. Several sources obviously call it eclectic and diverse, which means just that--Jann Wenner is cited in the article saying it "appropriates other styles and traditions", but "into rock music", while both Katovich and Howard include "pop" in their quotes. Since "rock" and "pop" are cited in multiple sources, I'd be fine with those two in the infobox, giving due weight to the more common point of view(s). Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to use just those. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone described it as "one of the most intense and adventurous rock albums ever made". MaximumEdison (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Rock" only in the infobox - musical styles can be discussed in the article body with refs.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jim DeRogatis would disagree Dan56 (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a throwaway comment from DeRogatis. "It's a pop album in that it's about the songs." Being about the songs can be said of many types of albums. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually the default genres of Rock and Pop, the consensus at The Beatles article, should be alright for the infobox, which is meant to be as brief and concise as possible and not a list of every musical style contained within the album; the different styles can be discussed at whatever length in the article body itself.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  23:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But in this case why do we need to use the band's default genres? We have sources that say 'rock'. And the band's default genres don't always work with every album they put out- for example Metallica's genres are currently 'heavy metal, thrash metal', whereas albums like Load come nothin close to thrash. You need to find source to backup the addition of pop to this album, and until then it should just stay rock, as the given citations suggest. TheamDreaterxXx2334 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is,, twice in #Cultural responses. Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The genre field in the infobox is meant to be a brief summary of what's contained in the album, not a list of every musical style - that can be dealt with in the article body. In the interest of brevity, I would !vote for "Rock" alone.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing at Template:Infobox_album about a "brief summary". "Pop" is cited twice, as is "rock", so I don't understand your position. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It says "one or more", not all or even most, and says nothing about citing genres in the infobox.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It says "the one or more", i.e. whatever genres the album reflects, not some of them. Obviously, there'll be at least one, and there can be more, hence "or more". I don't see how this is a reference to "all or even most". Discretion is based on due weight, and "pop" is not the minority viewpoint from what is cited in the article's #Cultural responses section; both "rock" and "pop" are mentioned more than once, while "folk rock" and "hard rock" are both mentioned only once, which is why they were removed. In most other articles, this kind of attention would not have been paid, and that compromise wouldn't even have been necessary, so I'm really wondering why this effort against "pop". WP:INFOBOXREF covers sourcing in infoboxes of all kinds → assuming infobox content is repeated and cited in the article, citations aren't necessary in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why "Rock, pop"? Only Rock to my opinion. Rock masterpiece. --93.80.253.98 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not about editor opinions, it's about what is found in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chris Thomas
Was he officially credited as the album's producer? Co-producing or assistant producing is not the same thing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, he was not officially credited. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

missing link
I discovered that there is a missing link on the "Beatles Discography" but don't know how to fix it. When viewing the albums there is a previous and next link. They go from "Sgt. Pepper" to "The Beatles" skipping "Magical Mystery Tour"
 * That's because in the UK MMT was released a double EP so it's not shown as an album in the UK discography. Richerman    (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter version
The infobox length says 1:33:35. Perhaps a little nb note could denote that the mono version is a minute shorter? Like with Brothers in Arms (Dire Straits album) for its LP version?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Album's stay at number 1 in UK
Just thinking about this change – is anyone able to check the Everett citation? I wonder if the number of weeks might be wrong, because we give 22 weeks at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. And if it is 22, then I believe it was indeed an unbroken period at number 1. On Melody Maker's album chart, at least, Sgt. Pepper was number 1 for 22 consecutive weeks, from 3 June through to 28 October. JG66 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think GabeMc did that cite, although I took the article to GA I think that was a source I just AGFed on. If Sgt Pepper says it's 22, it's probably from the same gamut of sources and GabeMc was generally spot on with his research. I'll assume 22 was right and revert. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hadn't seen your reply here. Just realised it might be an idea to check with List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 1960s. There, we give 27 weeks total, with the first 23 an unbroken run. I have a feeling Everett might've been referring to the Melody Maker chart – I've found that several US authors treat MM as if they published the official UK chart (which they did until early in the '60s). JG66 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Official Charts Company shows 23 consecutive weeks at number one, 27 weeks total (see ). Piriczki (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Genres, yet again
It seems we're disagreeing what to put in the "genre" section of the infobox yet again. My !vote is for "rock, pop" per the existing consensus - what does anyone else think? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Banish the genre field from the infobox. Seriously.  It's nothing for trouble for us and it's antithetical to how real artists operate.  I mean, really, the White Album has every genre under the sun in it somewhere.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Banish it. Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Was this so difficult to do? Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When the inevitable heavy-handed admins arrive because of edit-warring, it will help to have a talk page discussion to point to when they ask "where is the consensus for this?" And I agree with rock and pop as well. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Check the archives, but both genres are cited in the article. Dan56 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Helter Skelter
There has been a difference of opinion over what Charles Manson misinterpreted Helter Skelter to mean. MacDonald's Revolution in the Head claims he thought was something to do with hell (what that something was remained unsaid). The important point made in the book's footnote is that he was unaware of the British slang for a fairground slide. What does anyone else think? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi, I hope my recent addition satisfied your concerns regarding Starr's walkout. MacDonald (p 271 in my 1998 edn) also mentions Ringo quitting "after an argument with McCartney over the drum part" to the song, btw.

Generally though, I'm just trying to make some changes that I think are necessary, based on what I've read while working on a couple of Harrison/White Album song articles. I remember writing on this talk page, back when you were expanding the article for GA, that many sources view things quite differently from MacDonald – which is the source that appears to be central to the article. (Also, I think I said something similar about the need for a wider range of viewpoints, in reply to a message of yours on my talk page earlier this year.) As always I'd welcome the chance to discuss each and every change, and I'm trying to make a point of cramming in as much as possible in my edit comments. But aside from ensuring that viewpoints from the likes of Schaffner, Doggett and Everett get a look in, I do think this is a major album article and merits a bit more detail. Best, JG66 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't see an obvious problem with any of them, but a re-read of the article again might trip a few things up. I think this highlights the difference between GA and FA. Generally speaking, a reasonable mix of sources with careful attention to mind POV on them, is okay for GA, but FA demands tighter scrutiny to ensure all viewpoints are reasonably covered and the article covers "the truth" as close as it's documented from all sides. Maybe when you've done what you think is needed, we could look at taking this to FA? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I know you and I have been of like mind regarding the benefits (or not) of taking an article to FAC vs toiling on with expanding articles to GA. I really don't care what letters sit in an article's quality rating – B, GA or FA – I just like to see the article covering the subject well, particularly when it's a subject I'm interested in. Even though GabeMc and I had some major differences of opinion, it was always good to read what people where saying in his Beatle FACs, because I'd then try to apply that to articles I was working on for GAN. So what I'm saying is, regardless of GA vs FA criteria, why can't we aim to apply the highest standard regarding the range of sources anyway?


 * I was just about to waffle on about sources – MacDonald, Miles 1997, and Emerick especially – but I see you've just gone the peer review route, R3!


 * In short[ish]: As some more discerning readers have noted, Miles' book is/was a not so subtle attempt at Beatles revisionism in McCartney's favour (Miles said as much). MacDonald, even in the preface to his 1997 edition, highlighted the importance of Miles' upcoming publication and acknowledged that he had been in contact with Miles to ensure some of the latter's points came across in the revised edition of Revolution in the Head; then, in the 2005 revised edn of Revolution, MacD makes a point of highlighting how much he's followed Miles' Many Years. [Asterisk: I don't actually own that edition; someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong –> humble pie 3 minutes on Medium, I'd say …] Emerick had a major beef with Lennon and Harrison in his 2006 book Here, There … – a book that attracted a lot of criticism from Ken Scott, who dismissed Emerick both for his portrayal of Lennon and Harrison, and for the factual inaccuracies throughout the book (Scott cited, for instance, that Emerick contacted him and others from the Beatles' camp when preparing his manuscript, and said something along the lines of: "I can't remember anything! Can you help fill in the blanks?"). Emerick was effectively working for Harrison during the early 1970s when Harrison was the only ex-Beatle involved in running Apple Studio; Harrison (along with Phil Spector, and Allan Steckler of Apple/ABKCO) rejected an entire album that Emerick produced for Badfinger during that time; but Emerick later worked with McCartney and George Martin (worked well, it seems). Barry Miles, from mid 1967, was often referred to as "Paul McCartney's spokesman", saving him from a few PR bungles, such as his LSD admission. So: nothing wrong with either MacDonald, Miles and Emerick as sources per se, but I think we need to be pretty discerning with them, perhaps more so than any other source. MacDonald certainly misses a lot of salient, seemingly obvious points that others don't. Miles … I'm sorry, he seems to have been on a mission for decades now to paint McCartney in the best possible light. JG66 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more about Miles, which is why I have used his McCartney biography very sparingly despite owning a hardback copy. It's also why I stick to the 1997 edition of Revolution, as it hasn't been tainted so much with the frankly Stalinesque revision of history by McCartney. Lewisohn and MacDonald are good for basic facts; who did what where and when, who did which guitar solos, who played Mellotron on "Bungalow Bill", that sort of thing. For opinions and views on what "the mood" was like during recording (and accounts certainly say it was unpleasant), we should pull on whatever sources we can find, provided they meet what we normally consider to meet WP:RS in an album article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that all sounds good, but my point is that MacDonald states a lot of things as fact when really he's drawing conclusions and interpretations that are biased. Anyway, by the look of the comments below here, it's FA-worthy already, right? JG66 (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's FA level and has been some time Ritchie. You just need to grow some cajones and take it through FAC ;-) What I suggest is open a peer review, most of the points people will pick up on can be addressed there and you'll likely have more support at the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, Blofeld, you asked for it, but if this fails FAC it's all your fault, understand. :-P The article is currently 41K of prose, which I think is about right for this sort of article, though we could probably accommodate a little more if necessary. The problem with opinions is, well, everyone's got one, and so I'd rather restrict them to those directly involved with making them album and those who are notable enough Beatles experts to basically have an article on here describing them thus (as Mark Lewisohn and Ian MacDonald do). (PS: This week I've been watching repeats of Death in Paradise and thought "why can't we make a ska song?", came up with the chord sequence, played it, and discovered to my dismay I'd just inadvertently played "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da". Ooops.) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it'll be all my fault! A strong peer review should iron out most of the remaining things I think, which you've now opened. So best of luck with it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

George Martin on harmonium in Cry Baby Cry
I just edited The Beatles (album) so that it's consistent with Cry Baby Cry to say that George Martin played harmonium in the song. I used The Beatles Bible as a reference which I think is a fairly reliable source of information about the instrumentation of Beatles songs, but if I can find a better source I'll use it.--Kevjgav (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a fan site with no editorial control or reputation for factual accuracy. Mark Lewisohn and Ian MacDonald, however, have personally seen the studio logs and their research has gathered critical praise, so that's what I use. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Revolution/Revolution 1 (out … in)
Thought it might be useful to reply to your message here (further to this – so we're all clear). I might have edited the text you mention, but nothing more. The statement "At the time of the album's release … that single word "in" was taken by the radical political left as Lennon's endorsement of politically motivated violence, which followed the May 1968 Paris riots." – well, I'm not sure it's what the source, Ian MacDonald, is saying. He talks about the change (out -> out … in) as appearing to be a "recantation of his earlier position". From MacDonald's description, I take it that the gesture appeased some of the more radical (New Left) students, but it's an overstatement for us to say the addition of the word "in" "was taken by the radical political left as Lennon's endorsement of politically motivated violence". I don't know if that answers your point. Somewhere above I've suggested that it might be better to introduce this out/out-in issue under Songs/Side four or /Singles. We've also discussed here about how the issue is more pertinent to the "Hey Jude"/"Revolution" single, not the album.

But, you know, if the message doesn't work for you (and seeing as you seem to have access to the sources?), then please reword it. FWIW, I think the fact that the song would already have been so familiar to listeners is key in this. After all, he's still railing against "minds that hate", Chairman Mao, etc, as before; that single addition ("in") must've come across as a huge statement because of that familiarity. JG66 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just use the Yoko quote. Other stuff extra; add to taste. ... no wait, Yoko's opinion seems backed by Lennon himself: In a letter to John Hoyland published in The Black Dwarf, Lennon responded to the Left's accusations that the Beatles didn't believe in a revolution: "Tell me of one successful revolution. . . You smash it - and I'll build around it," and he went on to state "don't expect me to be on the barricades unless it's with flowers" (qtd. in Ali 360; Degroot 362) "Helter-Skelter"?: The Beatles, the British New Left, and the Question of Hegemony Author(s): Oded Heilbronner Source: Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1/2 (Fall 2011), pp. 87-107. More good stuff in this article as well. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As "popular music's first postmodern album"
Again, I think it's best if we keep the discussion here. Because you raised the question of editing the Reception/Cultural Responses sandbox I've put together, I might as well go ahead and paste that text into the actual article space. I realise you've been adding comments at the Peer Review also. On the subject of postmodernism, I don't think it's up to us to say whether the album was a postmodern album or otherwise; the point is that a sociologist who specialises in the influence of popular music considers that it is a postmodern album (the first, apparently). It's not just his contention – he cites the statement to an essay that appears in a book he edited (but not a piece he wrote). Gotta dash. More in a minute or two … JG66 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But you have to weigh that statement against as many other sources as you can find. Do others say it's postmodern, and if so, are they scholars or DJs or whatever as per WP:RS? So you can't just grab one guy's statement and slap it on the page; it's WP:UNDUE that implicitly confers an assumption of consensus among scholars... Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the need to ensure we're not giving undue weight to what might be a minority of commentators. (That's what I was intending to go on to address just now, in fact.) I've made some disapproving noises about the author, Ian Inglis, in the above discussion on critical reception, but that was in regard to his secondary role as a biographer-musicologist. On this current point, though, he seems to be operating within his sphere of expertise – sociology.


 * Regarding other opinions on this issue: In our article on Postmodern music, there's mention of authors Henry W. Sullivan and David Beard & Kenneth Gloag contending that "the emergence of postmodern music in popular music occurred in the late 1960s, influenced in part by psychedelic rock and one or more of the later Beatles albums." So, while that's not saying the White Album was pop music's "first postmodern album", as Inglis states, it's not so far removed from his opinion and that of the author/essayist he cites. (In the case of the latter, btw, it's Ed Whitely, "The Postmodern White Album", in Ian Inglis (ed.) The Beatles, Popular Music and Society: A Thousand Voices.) Also, Inglis supports his claim by identifying the band's "strategies" on The Beatles as bricolage, fragmentation, pastiche, parody, reflexivity, plurality, irony, exaggeration, anti-representation and "meta-art" – many of which ring true with elements of postmodern music as identified by authors Jonathan Kramer and Daniel Albright, per the lists at the end of this section. I know I read a couple of album reviews that also mention its postmodern credentials, back when I was working on the album's critical reception and on some song articles; I haven't been able find those reviews yet, though.


 * If other scholars disagree with Inglis' statement, and presumably with the views held by Sullivan, Beard and Gloag also, then of course we should hear from them. When you first queried it, I made a point of checking the source Inglis gives and taking a look at Wikipedia's article on Postmodern music (just to ensure he wasn't talking total rubbish). I'm certainly not waving a flag for his view, but it does seem like you're keen to shoot down the whole idea. When you say "you open a large door when you say the White Album is postmodern, which it kinda... isn't, not really, though it's a reasonable misunderstanding." – well, a few scholars/authors, some of whom have obvious expertise in the field of postmodern music, they've made the same mistake? JG66 (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this thread is gonna get long :-) What we really need to do, if we want to do it right, is spend time researching just this one issue. Sources again and again point to the Beatles' inherent conservatism. So far, Womack says it most clearly:
 * "The Beatles unashamedly believe in a form of moral center that exists in sharp contrast with postmodernism’s subjective elevation of personal and cultural malaise. Yes, the Beatles are modernists alright..."
 * Inglis is talking about the scattershot genres of the album; several others point out that Postmodernism is about values, and format is a reflection of those values... and the reviewer you found who said that Beatles were postmoderm may have been Zeth Lundy at popmatters.com, but who the heck cares what popmatters.com has to say about postmodernism... I'm not throwing down the gauntlet here in favor of modernism over postmodernism; I'm saying slapping Inglis on the page and saying "done" is wrong. I'm also saying that is if several others disagree with Inglis' view and no one seems to support it, then maybe just maybe the latter represents an idiosyncratic view that deserves not to be heard (on Wikipedia anyhow; it's fine of course for scholarly journals to take up the issue, but we are an encyclopedia). And again, we need to do more research to resolve the issue. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you appear to be ignoring my point about authors such as Henry Sullivan. You mention Womack, well I just found this (note 10), which confirms that Inglis is far from a lone voice here. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying – one opinion, Inglis or anyone's, is not sufficient – but I'm not trying to shoot down either viewpoint. JG66 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring you; I don't have time to read today. Tomorrow will be better. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your own quoted footnote above (the footnote is an excerpt from another article) explicitly states that their postmodermism is a matter of debate. Yet you cite one side and provide all its evidence; open/shut WP:UNDUE. delete the one source's evidence (as it is UNDUE), say the topic is a matter of debate, list scholars who take what sides. 00:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well of course I will. But you'd given me the impression you wanted to discuss the issue and/or look into it at some length (eg "What we really need to do, if we want to do it right, is spend time researching just this one issue …"). Which is why I've put in time trying to see the extent to which the White Album is viewed as a postmodern pop album, a view you dismissed as "a reasonable misunderstanding". Yes, that Womack "note 10" text I found states that their postmodermism is a matter of considerable debate, but, when discussing those on the pro-Beatles-as-postmodernists side, it also talks about "a growing certainty among Beatles scholars" and "an increasingly popular reading of The White Album"; weigh that against, on the Beatles-as-modernists side, a comparatively weak "it is possible to argue …", with only a single author named: one Kenny Womack. I think that's very significant (yet you don't even mention it).
 * But look, I'm not finding our exchanges very enjoyable or productive. I'll make the changes, as and when, based on that Womack Reading the Beatles Long and Winding Roads overview. JG66 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Removing POV is seldom enjoyable, but always productive. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, you're missing the point. I was talking about the difficulty in deciphering whether you want to discuss the issue or if you'd rather simply bark orders. Removing POV is easy. JG66 (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Barking orders? Please forgive me if I appear to be doing so. I am in a rush with a gabillion forms to fill out (personal junk), plus I have made a conscious effort to be terse because in the past I was always accused of tl;dr. My position is this: 1) we should just go with listing the two positions and naming a few scholars, because it really is a matter of debate, and offering both sides of evidence would add scads of text to the article 2) I haven't had time to research the issue fully, but there is a debate... the scholars who claim pomo seem to outnumber those who don't, but their evidence is precious and flimsy and the very best... but of course saying so is WP:OR and unacceptable, and 3) I don't mean to bark orders, and 4) oh yeah if my position seems to change that's because it did as I downloaded and read more articles; initially I thought pomo was a (numerical) minority position, but now I see it isn't, and 5) sorry again. later. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Much appreciated. After what you've said in points 2) and 4), I see now that we are on the same page on this issue. Which is good. (For my part, I have to confess I have zero interest in whether the White Album is or is not a postmodern album. But I added one side of the argument, seemingly the most popular one, so of course I want to ensure this is handled correctly.) JG66 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to be clear, it's the Womack-authored Long and Winding Roads I meant to say above – home to that note 10 overview – not the Womack-edited Reading the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I plan to write one or two two sentences of body text plus a longer footnote to replace the current text. The body text will simply say most critics say pomo, some don't; the footnote will name names. I think I'll have some time soon-ish. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no argument from me on that, if you don't mind handling it. If a day or two goes by and you haven't had a chance to do it, perhaps I'll give it a shot. JG66 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception
I'm dreading the possible repercussions, but for some time I've been surprised at the picture we represent of the album's critical standing on release. I can't help thinking it might be an idea to revisit the opening sentence in this section – "Upon its release in November 1968, The Beatles received mixed reviews from music critics, most of whom viewed its mild, playful satire as unimportant and conservative." – and the later statement: "Critics also complained about a lack of unity among the songs and criticised the Beatles for using eclecticism and pastiche as a means of avoiding important issues during a turbulent political and social climate."

In that first sentence, we attribute "The Beatles received mixed reviews from music critics" to Emerick's book, which, aside from the issues I raised above, seems an odd choice of source for the album's critical reception (given he was the recording engineer). But I'm really questioning the statement because Nicholas Schaffner writes in The Beatles Forever: "As far as most pop music reviewers were concerned, the Beatles could still do no wrong." He then gives the same Palmer/Observer quote that we have in the second paragraph (and more), and quotes Richard Goldstein/NYT: "a major success … far more imaginative than Sgt. Pepper or Magical Mystery Tour." Schaffner does acknowledge that some reviewers hit "one or two sour notes" (namely, that the album might have benefited from the pruning that Martin had wanted; that it was "a retreat from the adventurousness of Sgt. Pepper"), but he certainly presents these detractors as the minority. Bob Woffinden, in The Beatles Apart, writes of the obvious lack of unity within the band and adds: "The album was, however, given the customary rapturous welcome. There were some quibbles that a double album seemed over-long …"

Okay, who knows how well Schaffner and Woffinden have researched the album's critical reception … But then looking at the source material for the second half of our opening sentence, and for the later sentence, I'm not sure we've captured what the author, Jeffrey Roessner, is saying. At first (p 148), he seems to be approaching this issue from the present day ("critics generally complain that the album lacks unity, and that the Beatles at this point were not functioning as a group …") before making a statement specific to its contemporary reception: "In 1968, however, the harshest criticism of the eclectic style of the songs came from the New Left." Currently, we source part of the opening sentence (most critics "viewed its mild, playful satire as unimportant and conservative") to Roessner p. 149, which I guess would be his two sentences towards the end of that page, beginning "Along with their refusal to offer explicit political directives …" and then "The major fault most critics found with the album …" I think there's a case to be made that with "most critics" Roessner might still be referring to those ardent detractors among the New Left, seeing as these comments are buried in the discussion of political left/countercultural reaction. But I'm more convinced after following Roessner's source – p. 65 of Jon Wiener's Come Together. I read it that everything there after "The verdict on the left" refers to reaction from the political left, and not music critics. (Another point: Landau was writing for Liberation News Service, according to Wiener, whereas Roessner gives the London Daily Times (whatever that was; it's currently linked it to The Times). Perhaps Landau's piece was published in The Times(?), but I think this adds to the New Left-centric message of Roessner's argument – i.e. it would seem that Landau wasn't actually writing a music review for The Times or the like.

The Beatles is well represented at Rock's Backpages. From the seven relevant articles there, I've read only one unfavourable review about the musical content, from Mike Jahn at The New York Times, and one bemoaning the Beatles' lack of revolutionary spirit, from Geoffrey Cannon at The Guardian (who, like Wiener, makes comparisons with the Stones' Beggars Banquet). I've also got Alan Walsh's review in Melody Maker and portions from William Mann/The Times, Derek Jewell/Sunday Times, and Beat Instrumental (the last three from a Mojo: Special Edition) – all these critiques seem highly favourable. Added to that, there's Schaffner's Goldstein quote ("a major success" etc) – which is not a message that comes across in our brief mention of Goldstein's piece.

To sum up, given Schaffner's and Woffinden's statements on critical reception overall, the ambiguity that might be there in Roessner (vs Wiener p 65), the sample of reviews from RBP and the mags mentioned, I can't help wondering whether the general points we're making about critical reception are slightly distorted. Roessner's comments seem so tied up with the New Left reaction rather than necessarily reflecting the opinions of dedicated music critics. Move away from the betrayal felt by the political left, and I'm not sure the picture's as grim as we're making out.

Any thoughts, R3? JG66 (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh lawdy be. I don't think you can grab a summary from any individual review - you need to step back one derivative and look at sources that review the reviews, if you see what I mean. So what is the definitive source that can sum up exactly what the critical response has been to the album when you amalgamate all views together? Womack says it was a mixed bag, and I think MacDonald agrees. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Lawdy be, indeed. I don't profess to bringing anything much to this but a "bad feeling" about the current sources! I do think that the consensus among rock/pop critics was definitely favourable, whereas Roessner and Wiener appear to be dwelling on the controversial non-revolutionary message (it's almost defined by their heading/chapter titles).


 * The Womack quote could be good as a possible intro, though – that since its release the album "has generated a variety of responses". The only caveat would be that it's clearly retrospective in scope, which might take us away from the immediacy of the 1968 release and contemporary reviews, I don't know. But hey, certainly a decent option as far as I'm concerned. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources look fine to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After checking some older sources ("The New Left Opens Fire on the Poor Old Beatles" Los Angeles Times December 16, 1968) and another Jon Wiener article (Beatles Buy-Out), I agree with JG66 on the point that these New Left critics were mostly political pundits rather than music critics. The critiques were from leftist political publications such as Ramparts, New Left Review, Berkeley Barb and Liberation News Service. It also appears the backlash was mostly directed specifically at the song "Revolution". This content might be more appropriate in the The Beatles (album) section which sort of touches on the subject but doesn't go into much detail. Piriczki (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * On another note, to me the term "mixed review" suggests a review that contains both positive and negative opinions of the subject, whereas in this case it appears there were highly contrasting reviews that were either wholly positive or negative, but not mixed. Piriczki (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and pieces in Ramparts, New Left Review and the Liberation News Service are all mentioned in that Wiener/Come Together cite, of course. Schaffner goes into some detail about the New Left's reaction to the Beatles' political stance, but it all appears in his discussion of the "Hey Jude" / "Revolution" single, not the album. I agree with Piriczki that the subject should be covered under Cultural responses (but perhaps we can introduce the controversy earlier, when discussing Revolution and Revolution 1?), and I think it deserves some detail. The Jon Landau/Liberation News Service comments belong under Cultural responses, imo, and Wiener's comparison between the Beatles' ideology relative to the Stones' could be worth including too. I think Critical reception should then focus on what we know to be professional music reviews.


 * I still have a problem with the wording in "Upon its original release in 1968, it received mixed reviews from music critics" – because the sources I've mentioned say the opposite, and because the source used is a sound engineer's memoir – and in "most of whom viewed its mild, playful satire as unimportant and conservative" – because I find Roessner's argument ambiguous regarding music critics, particularly after referring to his source (Wiener). Also, in "Critics also complained about a lack of unity among the songs and criticised the Beatles for using eclecticism and pastiche as a means of avoiding important issues during a turbulent political and social climate" – "Some critics" perhaps, per Schaffner; but the second half, I think, is more applicable to Cultural reception (further to the doubts I have about Roessner's argument). Worth remembering that Rolling Stone and International Times, two self-styled countercultural "mouthpieces", both gave The Beatles a rave review; also Derek Jewell's comment in The Sunday Times: "And that is the world; and that is what The Beatles are on about. Created by, creating for, their age." I can't see that critics – that is, album reviewers, and certainly not in any great number – were accusing the Beatles of hiding from the realities of 1968 with the White Album. Okay, Landau was, but as a contributor to a New Left publication, not in his role as a music journalist for Crawdaddy! or Rolling Stone.


 * Just looked in Mark Hertsgaard's A Day in the Life: he writes of the lack of discernment that saw the Beatles insist on a double LP of songs, and cites ego and disharmony within the band as the cause, then he says: "But this is hindsight speaking. At the time, the White Album was judged by the music it contained: its songs were not seen as shards of glass reflecting the band's internal dissension but as a musical outpouring of overwhelming quantity, richness, and diversity."


 * Given this – a third comment on the generally positive reception – my feeling now is that the opening quote from Womack might not be the way to go, Ritchie. I looked back through the edit history to early 2013 and I can see you've put a helluva lot of work into this, so I don't want to hold things up. (Besides, there's been some support voiced here for the sources I'm questioning.) I've come across another hook, as an alternative to Womack: maybe it's best l work on Critical reception in a new sandbox, then present it here as an option. Of course, there's always the chance I'll get bored and won't bother … JG66 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the original sources like Wiener's Come Together: John Lennon In His Time the more it seems this section was based on a confused interpretation of the sources, particularly the Roessner essay which is basically a rehash of what was in Wiener's book. As it stands, this section is a jumble of contemporary and retrospective musical reviews and politically based criticism from the New Left, all of which are written from a different perspective and for a different purpose and are then placed under the umbrella of "mixed reviews." I think this section including the Cultural Responses section should be re-arranged or rewritten to delineate between these vastly different types of critiques. The third paragraph of the lead section also contains some of the is unclear content. Piriczki (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick note to say I've been working on the two sections, Critical reception and Cultural responses, over the last few days. Almost done – I'll post a link here tomorrow. JG66 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arb break
Okay, here it is. Comments in the edit history should help explain all the additions and cuts, I hope, but a few points to flag up-front:


 * Having added some more comments from reviews under Critical reception, I've divided it into two subsections: Contemporary reviews and Retrospective assessment. Given the notability of the White Album, I don't believe that's at all excessive.
 * Because of the confused argument Roessner presents in Womack & Davis' Reading the Beatles, I've gone for the (highly) favourable picture of contemporary critical reception that Schaffner and Woffinden each gives (Hertsgaard too). I'm not wanting to be overly roseate about this at all; it's just that I can't see that any source clearly states that the White Album received anything but a mostly favourable response from music critics at the time. As Hertsgaard hints at ("But this is hindsight speaking"), the more mixed assessments seem to have come later, as critics and historians look back at the White Album as the beginning of the end of the Beatles, and an example of their inability to compromise for the greater good. And I think that's reflected in the tone of the retrospective comments, as most of the critics there focus on self-indulgence, diverse quality, etc. (In an attempt to reflect these latter-day reservations, I've replaced one of the 5-star ratings with MusicHound's 4/5 score, btw.)
 * I found a source that I thought would be really useful – Ian Inglis' chapter in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles – and, in fact, that does support the idea that the album received a mixed response on release. The problem is, and I've found this to be a regular problem with Inglis' writing, the sources he uses for his statements again don't stand up to scrutiny. (They're on p. 263, which is no longer available in my Amazon preview so I can't supply a link.) I've been able to check four of the six quotes that, in the context of his discussion, would appear to be contemporary critics' opinions. They're not, though, and aside from the Herstgaard quote ("a musical outpouring of overwhelming quantity, richness, and diversity"), they're not even reports on contemporary critical reception either. In the case of Quantick, Salewicz and Norman, they're views expressed by the authors – in fact, the quote attributed to Norman's book is the author conveying George Martin's view. In short, Inglis presents his argument in the wrong tense; it should be: "[The White Album] has divided critics more than any other of the group's albums"; "It has been described as … On the other hand, it has been seen as …"; ""Whether positive or negative, all assessments of The Beatles draw attention to its fragmentary style." That and the fact that, when he says "critics", he's talking about commentators, biographers and the like. Happy to discuss this further. Thinking about it, perhaps it's a mistake to include that sentence early on under Contemporary reviews ('According to the author Ian Inglis: "Whether positive or negative, all assessments of The Beatles …"') – perhaps that should go.
 * With Cultural responses, I've left in the discussion about Lennon's "count me out/in" lyric but, as mentioned, I think it would be best to handle that earlier in the article – if not under Side four/Revolution 1, then maybe under Singles. That way, when we come to Cultural responses, all that would be needed is the point that the Revolution 1 version partly appeased the student radicals.
 * Cultural responses again: I'm not sure whether (in the opening para) the sentences beginning "The release also coincided with public condemnation of Lennon's treatment of Cynthia, and of his and Ono's joint projects" and "The British authorities similarly displayed a less tolerant attitude towards the Beatles" might work better under Release. There was definitely disapproval from the Establishment towards the Beatles in late 1968, whereas their status as MBEs and "national treasures" had always protected them in the past. I thought this was an important point to include for historical context, although admittedly, I had hoped to find a source that linked the issues (the public's condemnation, disapproval from the authorities) more directly to the album release. JG66 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks very good. Somewhere in the articles I've been reading recently there was a mention that the Melody Maker review was negative too. Wonder if anyone can find that (the original review, that is). Or have you already read that at Rock's Backpages?Piriczki (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the article I was thinking of, for what it's worth. Piriczki (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, that's a great find.
 * Michael Smith of Melody Maker appears to be talking only about all the critical acclaim the album had received. In other words, I'm not sure his piece was an album review, it just seems to be commenting on how ridiculously serious things had become. But it could be useful to include a quote from it, to introduce the less-favourable opinions in what I've structured into a "Contemporary reviews" subsection? (I mean, Smith doesn't appear to be criticising the album or the Beatles – in fact, I'd imagine the Beatles themselves would have agreed with everything he's saying. It certainly echoes what Lennon and Harrison later said about the pressure and unrealistic expectations the Beatles were increasingly subjected to.)
 * But yes, I've got MM's review – or a "preview", as the UK publications such as MM, NME, Record Mirror, Disc, etc would write for releases commanding this sort of attention. (What's apparent from what the writers say is that UK critics would attend a private listening session and, in the case of MM certainly, the review/preview would be given feature treatment early in the newspaper, separate from the reviews section. This practice led to some amusing errors from what I can see – the wrong band member being given as lead vocalist on a song, and/or half-correct song titles – which would often lead to the publication running a subsequent review piece, correcting mistakes, offering further opinion on the album, perhaps commenting on its critical and commercial reception during the ensuing weeks. With the NME, for instance, the Alan Smith review we currently cite is dated 9 November 1968; in this 30 November piece, Smith admits that Harrison sings "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and it's Starr on "Goodnight"; he appears to have reversed an unfavourable opinion of "Martha My Dear" but reaffirms that "Revolution 9" is "an earsore".) Anyway – I'm just trying to find a possible context for that Michael Smith piece.
 * The Melody Maker review I have is by Alan Walsh, from the 9 November issue (reproduced in 2005, in NME Originals: Lennon). He's fairly noncommittal, acknowledging that, as with every Beatles album, but particularly this double LP, there's so much to take in. He comments on how "diametrically opposed" Lennon and McCartney now appear to be in their music, but sees this as a plus (they've become "the perfect musical foils for each other"). Most of the article is a track-by-track rundown apart from: "People will say The Beatles are going backwards. I don't think so, though they certainly aren't following on the platform erected by 'Pepper'."
 * An (uncredited) 30 November MM piece discusses the "exorbitant", tax-inflated price, but as far as critical commentary goes, there's really only: "However, despite the attempts of HM Government to put it beyond the reach of all but the idle rich, it does offer a fascinating cross-section of the Beatles – perhaps the finest collection of their work since Revolver … The riches presented are rather overwhelming. However, the basic impression is of a return to their roots (that is, hard white rock 'n' roll in most instances) …" So when exactly the Michael Smith article appeared in MM, and whether it was a review per se, and whether it was actually critical of the White Album – difficult to say. Although the Owosso Argus Press contributor is clearly presenting Smith's message in an anti-Beatles light, I take it that Smith's piece is one of those follow-up articles I'm referring to: in this case, a review of the reviews, maybe.
 * With regard to our discussion here (i.e. whether The Beatles was generally well-received by music critics on release, or gained mixed or variable reviews), I'm stating the obvious, but as that Owosso Argus Press article says, it appears to have been praised to the heavens. And it's interesting (to me) that William Mann/The Times is included among the highly favourable UK reviews, because I was aware when working on this alt Critical reception that I was downplaying the positive message, almost for the sake of it.
 * Apologies for always going on and on in my posts, because I realise it increasingly limits the engagement factor for others. I'm just trying to demonstrate that I've got a lot of sources (and always welcome seeing something new), and I've looked into this issue very thoroughly – I'd never have raised it otherwise. If we can find a source that unequivocally states that The Beatles initially received mixed reviews/a variable response from music critics – that is, without the ambiguity that abounds in Roessner's essay, and without the false attribution of statements in Inglis' – then fine. But it's still going to be up against contradictory information provided by Schaffner, Woffinden and Herstgaard. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Closure (perhaps) Figured it might be time to rekindle this discussion before it gets archived – would you care to comment on the proposed, reworked Critical Reception and Cultural Responses sections? You referred to them in the peer review, of course, and I guess I was hoping we might be able to paste in the text before any more reviewers arrived. Are you okay with that? JG66 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been busy on other articles, and you've been handling the "cultural responses" stuff well from my view, so I've left you to it. I'll have to revisit the peer review to see what's remaining, once I've cleared the backlog of London street GAs I'm working through. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Commercial performance
If the album has been certified 19x Platinum then shouldn't it be written that it has sold 19 million copies on this and the discography page? I'm just curious cause I keep seeing things being written as being certified a certain amount yet the numbers dont match the certification as I thought platinum means selling 1 million copies.--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Recording Industry Association of America changed its certification criteria between 1992–97 so that each disc in a double album counts as one unit. So a double album that has sold 9.5 million copies is certified 19x Platinum. Piriczki (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts
, please don't edit war. Explain whatever you take issue with here on the talk page. Also, per WP:REVTALK, please leave a sufficient edit summary if you are going to revert someone. This is not acceptable. Oh, and where have I lied?. You may want to back up your accusations before people start thinking you are troublemaking again.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have protected the page for four days because of the content dispute and the unconstructive edit warring. Please work it out here, on this talkpage. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

I've been an active editor for almost a decade and I've seen many a vicious edit war, but I'd never seen a page locked to allow only "administrative access" until now. What a strange and over-protective corner of Wikipedia I've wandered into. Y'all realize that articles are never final drafts, and are supposed to be open for anyone to improve, right? It seems that old grudges between other editors are involved here, but jeez, it's supposed to be about building the encyclopedia. Locking this article down doesn't accomplish that.

Anyway, it was my seemingly innocuous edit that ignited the crisis which required drastic administrative action. All I did was add a sentence to the lead which mentioned the existence of alternative versions of the album cover on which 'The Beatles" is printed in non-white instead of being simply embossed. I thought it was a helpful addition since one of those alternative versions is sitting right there on top of the infobox and a non-Beatles fan might be left wondering why the cover description doesn't match the image. (You couldn't use the original embossed version there, of course, because it would look like what? An empty white square.) So if introducing such panic-inducing information into the lead ruined this already perfect-in-every-way and thus untouchable article, I ever so sincerely apologize. Zeng8r (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

addendum While I'm at here, let me point out that the last paragraph of the lead uses the "received mixed reviews" phraseology, which is contrary to the very well sourced "Contemporary reviews" section in the article body. I'd fix the problem myself, but of course, like every other non-administrator, I'm currently unable to edit this article. Zeng8r (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 4-day lockdown is astonishing (but with respect, posting here with comments that are dripping giant globs of sarcasm really isn't helpful!). You're right about the contradictory message between the Lead and the Contemporary Reviews [sub]section: I imagine that's because I flew in an expanded Critical Reception section from a sandbox, after the long discussion above, but failed to fix the Lead.
 * But look, I don't believe there's any agenda or past grudges that has led to editors, like myself, reverting your addition. While none of us are saints, and the occasional red-mist moment is only human, I've seen enough of and  to know they're dedicated to ensuring articles are factually correct and/or well-written and -developed. The fact is you thought the detail about the band name appearing in grey on later editions of the album cover belonged in the Lead, and someone else disagreed (and others felt the same way). It's no mystery: next step was the talk page.
 * Of course the article's not perfect or "untouchable". You've pointed out the "mixed reviews" mention, great, and there are other problems there – I remember suggesting we completely revamp the Lead mid last year (which hasn't really happened yet) after another editor made a somewhat bold change. I happen to think the latter edit was a mistake: the ska influence is down to a single track (acoustic folk and country are far more prevalent); and the Esher demos get a great deal of attention from biographers and reviewers. (Richie Unterberger cites the demo sessions as unique in the band's career, an unprecedented level of pre-production; Kenneth Womack and others highlight their importance because of the contrast between the joyful music-making at Esher and the dark, tense atmosphere that's so apparent on the official double album.) So what I'm saying is, nothing's set in stone and there's work to do, but on the other hand, it's not a free-for-all and people are entitled to revert if they think something just doesn't belong. JG66 (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The current protection is too much at this stage and a simple warning from the sledgehammer-waving admin would have been enough to crack this nut.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   06:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My sarcasm circuits were activated when my original thoughtfully-constructed (imo) single-sentence explanation of different album covers was quickly reverted w/o even the courtesy of an edit summary, as if I'd changed the page to "PAUL IS DEAD, LOL". If an edit is reasonably written and factually correct (which mine was, obviously), the best collaborative practice is to discuss on the talk page before reverting. I looked at the reverter's contribution log, and his revert of my original edit to this article was one of a string of about 10 reverts on music articles, all within minutes, all without explanation on a talk page or an edit summary. That sort of knee-jerk reverting "if they think something just doesn't belong" smacks of WP:OWN and is neither appreciated nor helpful. I brought this up on his talk page and have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.


 * Let me be clear, though, that I didn't claim that anyone here has a grudge against me personally; to my knowledge, I've never previously interacted with any of the editors involved in this little issue. A quick glance over some article talk and user talk pages, however, indicates that some of the "edit warring" and the 4-day lockdown have deep roots in long-term squabbling, threats, and ANI reports between editors who frequent this article. Leave me out of the wikidrama, please. All I attempted to do was explain the disparity between the album cover image and the album cover description, and the explanation-less revert of my work kinda pissed me off. Zeng8r (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * LP jackets with unique features such as embossed lettering, die-cut covers, 3D images, etc. often revert to standard packaging with later pressings due to manufacturing costs. And subsequent compact disc releases of older LPs commonly make numerous changes or concessions in reproducing the original album artwork due to their reduced size and different materials. Such ordinary industry practices are hardly notable for the lead section of an album article. Piriczki (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't see what my "history" has to do with anything here.  was being his usual obnoxious and disruptive self and I intervened on his talk page in an attempt to mediate.  I pointed this out here because he reverted my comments on his talk page and I didn't want my attempt at mediation to go un-noticed. Personally, I thought your edits were good and are an improvement to the article. So please don't accuse me of "involving" you, because I wasn't. If I wanted to "involve" you then I'd have said so. Ironically, of course, you have NOW involved yourself by asking not to be.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I should be more clear. I was actually referring to Piriczki's edit history, where I discovered that he performed a succession of quick no-explanation reverts which included his revert of my original addition to this article. Thanks for finally sharing your thoughts, even if we disagree. This is one of the most iconic album covers in rock history (it's the freakin' "White Album"!), so the cover easily deserves an extra sentence in the lead. As I've said, the current description doesn't explain the different image used in the infobox. Actually, the lead is pretty short for an article of this length, and I'm not sure that it satisfactorily summarizes the information in the body text as recommended by MOS:INTRO. Some careful expansion is in order, imo, and a few more words about the cover is a good place to start. Zeng8r (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I too feel the need to clear something up. While I agree that your edit is good, I do feel somewhat loathed to include it in the lead.  The article is principally about the album's content, production, etc and less so about its design.  I feel that should be left in the body and not mentioned in the lede.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   23:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any other album by a major artist which is universally referred to not by its official title but by a description of its cover. Why shouldn't that cover design by discussed and described in more detail? We're talking about the addition of a single sentence to the lead here, people. Zeng8r (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ownership issues
This article has been on my watchlist since the above discussion back in April, and it's obvious from the constant stream of reverts over that time that a few people really do have unhealthy ownership issues over the text. Some of the edits needed to be reverted, certainly, but several were reasonable tweaks to content and/or syntax which were instantly squashed by the same small group of users for no good reason. Another friendly reminder - this is WIkipedia, not your personal website. 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Give me names after class and I'll make sure they all get double detention, as the man who got the article passed through GAN in the first place, I WP:OWN it more than anyone else. On a more serious note, it may be worth me cobbling together a FAQ on this talk page as the same little quarrels turn up again, again, again and again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't an element of OWN here the article would quickly degrade to a mediocre article. It's a good thing that poor quality edits or bloat is reverted.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on The Beatles (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialcharts.com/all-the-number-one-albums-list/_/1969/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016124253/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Beatles%22 to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Beatles%22
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421054242/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=167 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=167
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107224423/http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php to http://infodisc.fr/Album_B.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)