Talk:Paul McCartney

The Beatles

Why is their nothing about the Beatles on this page? I understand that they have their own page but The Beatles were his launching pad and his most famous band.--72.16.114.224 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope if this page is ever archived that we can leave this comment standing - it still cracks me up. Tvoz |talk 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOLLOLLOL! I'd missed this one! Deffo-should be left standin in BOLD Forever! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Shevell

I question the inclusion of this section in the article - they're "dating", fine. Do we include a section on anyone he dates? Do we have verifiable sourcing that this is a "relationship"? Also, this is not the place for a bio of Shevell: if she is notable enough - and I don't know that she is - then set up a separate article for her. But her bio details do not belong here, even though they are sourced and I removed them. Finally, the entry was poorly worded, ungrammatical, and unevenly cited. I think the section should be removed completely pending something more significant about a relationship. Tvoz/talk 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to have an article on Shevell herself. The relevant policy, WP:ONEVENT, suggests that a summary of information on such an individual would be appropriate in the main topic article. Specifically, three paragraphs does not seem to be "information ... so large that this would make the article unwieldy", and it definitely is not the case that "sources have written primarily about the person" in a different context. Bongomatic (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No - this redirect has to be discussed. Start a discussion on Talk: Nancy Shevell or propose a merge/delete. DOn't just do it. Tvoz/talk 07:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good advice which I have taken. However, please don't revert the changes to Nancy Shevell again. The information on her in this article is less than the information on other romantic interests--even those with main articles about them. Bongomatic (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will question neither the inclusion of Nancy Shevell material here, nor the idea of instead having a separate article on her. However, I do not understand why "Nancy Shevell" should redirect to Paul McCartney. Either she should have her own article, or else a query should simply turn up such other articles out there, if any, as might contain references to her. (These might at some point include the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New England Motor Freight.) However, whether she marries McCartney or not, she is not herself Paul McCartney, and I think that using a redirect is not a good idea. (Ask your wife, "gal pal," or other "significant other" whether a query on them should be directed to an article on you.) Xenophon777 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Durband

Why does this douche bag Alan Durband have a prominent place and picture in this article ? Seems like someone self-serving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.159.93 (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely Durband had enough of an influence on McCartney to warrant a picture, but it may not be out of place to mention him in the article. In Many Years from Now, McCartney described Durband as having a big influence on him. Also, Durband has a wikipedia entry, and he was mentioned in Spitz's biography of The Beatles. I'll remove the picture unless someone objects.

One last thing: your insults to Mr. Durband are unnecessary; there's no reason to call him names. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Football?

It is not notable that McCartney is a football fan. That would seem to be true of a lot of people in England, and a few more in Europe... I suggest that section be deleted. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"not notable", when it has ten references? I would suggest adding references, and not deleting them.--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it now has 15, because I just added some more. Hundreds of articles have less references than McCartney's single "Football" section. Get a grip... :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an important facet that a city known for its football partisanship that the Beatles never were reported as commenting upon any preference for a local club, which goes to show how astute Epstein was and how carefully he managed their public personae. This means, now that it can be revealed that there needs to be citations to cover that period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are citations, and "The Beatles never were reported as commenting upon any preference for a local club", is also cited in the referenced pages, as in "Did any of the Beatles ever express an interest in football, in particular whether they favoured Liverpool or Everton," asks Steven Draper, "or did they steer clear of the subject for fear of alienating potential fans?" which is ref #300, or thereabouts...--andreasegde (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there weren't citations. I could add many citations for non-notable aspects of Paul's life. By themselves, citations don't prove notability. It's a boring, unimportant part of the article and I think it should be removed. I will leave it, however, because who really gives a crap. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The "get a grip" comment is rude and unnecessary. You expanded the section in direct response to my comments here and that is contrary to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. I didn't delete the section despite my opinion that it's unnecessary because I recognized that other editors might disagree. Instead, I raised the issue here for discussion. That's how this is supposed to be done. In contrast, you make crass comments here and expand that section of the article. I'd suggest that you "get a grip", but I don't think you know how. John Cardinal (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, now... "get a grip" is a light-hearted comment that anyone might say to a colleague, and is meant as nothing more than a "little joshing", as an American might say (or not? :) I won't even comment on your answers above, because that would only waste time, as we both know. I apologised about my zeal for keeping references on your page (before I read this page, BTW) but my opinion of you still stands. You're a good man, John, and I know we heartily disagree sometimes (ouch!) but I respect you, even despite the disagreements. I can't say fairer than that, can I? (ouch!.. :))--andreasegde (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was too touchy about this and I apologize. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Cardinal, you are a scholar and a gentleman, as I always suspected, but now know to be true. :)--andreasegde (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway... I would agree with you that the whole 'Football' section was badly written (by me, mostly... ouch!) and should be smoothed over with a stiff brush, but not cut. I still stand by its inclusion in the article because of the references, but mostly because it contains info (and a quote from Linda) that shows a side of 'Macca' that was not really known until it was included in this article. Shouldn't Wikipedia be better than the others because of its depth of detail? I think the Brian Epstein article is brilliant, because it says almost everything about the man, and it was once quoted as being very factual in an English national newspaper. (Kingboyk knows about this). I am more than willing to discuss this.--andreasegde (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Benefit concert April 4th, 2009, New York City

Not yet official, but: April 4th 2009 Paul will give a benefit concert for the David Lynch Foundation and in memoriam Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Location: New York City. --Josha52 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A reference when it happens would be most useful. Well spotted.--andreasegde (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Opening Paragraph

I am new here; I added some lines on 12/10/08 and then removed them because I have not been a part of the creation of this excellent summary about McCartney. What do you think abt this type of opening, something like this: PMcCartney is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential musicians, performers and songwriters ever. He is perhaps the most famous living musician and celebrity in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's really great that you've decided to contribute to the article about Sir McCartney. As you probably know, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As such, it's supposed to be unbiased and informative. Unfortunately, the opening that you've just mentioned isn't quite that. Saying that he's "one of the greatest and most influential musicians, performers and songwriters ever" and "He is perhaps the most famous living musician and celebrity in the world." is using "Peacock" terms. See WP:PEACOCK for more info :) TheTwoRoads (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Hi Relax - I'm sure you mean well, but I think it is a bit too much enthusiastic hyperbole for the encyclopedia. We try to maintain a neutral tone and while many of us agree with the sentiment you're expressing, we'd have to have some independent third party sources (books, newspaper or magazine articles, etc.) stating that he fits those descriptive terms that we could reference before putting anything in like that. But don't give up! We welcome your participation and particularly appreciate that you came to the talk page to discuss your idea for an addition. Glad to have you here! (Also, moving this thread to the bottom of the page - we add new stuff there.) Tvoz/talk 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello- thank you TwoRoads and Tvoz (and thank u tvoz for your positive comments); thanks for the constructive input. I simply think readers (especially those who do not understand how important McCartney is) to understand McCartney's greatness and importance to music, entertainment and the world. I think it is hard to put it into words. On wikipedia and elsewhere, I like to 'give credit where credit is due', if you know what I mean. Perhaps there are polls and features that list the "Top 100 most influential musicians in history" and so forth, etc, etc, and surely McCartney will be at the top of the list. I will always discuss before adding anything. Thanks.(btw, I am a writer with a passion for the truth...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect Wikipedia to convey Paul's art, only his music can do that.GabeMc (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One Little Indian

Macca has joined the One Little Indian record company.[1] I suppose this means he doesn't get any more free coffee from Starbucks, huh? :)--90.146.214.190 (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Macca's memory

"McCartney has claimed that it was he, and not Lennon, who made The Beatles aware of political issues". I have put this in (with a reference) but in all honesty it seems as if Lennon's title idea for a McCartney solo album, Paul McCartney Goes Too Far, has really come true. Johnny must be bristling (in that Japanese stone vase that Yoko keeps him in)...--andreasegde (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Macca? Wore glasses, played rhythm guitar and harmonica, best mates with Sutcliffe? That the fellah? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was him. The bloke with two thumbs up in the air. Not sure about him being best mates with Sutcliffe. I recently read that Lennon wanted to shag him (Macca) as "Bohemians should be open to everything", but Macca's fondness for breasts and dislike of 'members' got in the way. The revelations sure do shed a new light on those happenings in Hamburg...--andreasegde (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and since when was Paul a peace activist?GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently in "Many Years From Now" Paul claims to have been the first person to get Mick Jaggar high, Mick disputes this. GabeMc (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

References

When are Wikipedia editors going to learn that stopping vandals is just as important as teaching new users how to format references properly? The enemies may be within the walls, but the defenders don't know how to hold a bow and arrow.--andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Kt

I have added Kt to the intro, just before MBE, because without it it can be confusing to those not familiar with Brit titles. For instance, I did a google and discovered just how muddled some people can be. One of the most popular answer sites on the web says the following -- "Sir James Paul McCartney recieved his MBE because of (unlike a lot of other ridiculous reasons for unnecessarily giving knighthoods away) his contributions to the music industry." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a citation to a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation added to the London Gazzette (which is definitive as to whether somebody has a Knighthood. Sure, things should be sourced, but if a fact is patently true, we don't remove it just for a lack of a cite. If necessary, add a {{fact}} tag. Mayalld (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kt is not generally officially used as a postnomial, the presence of Sir, and no postnomial indicates that he is a Knight Bachelor. Kt is very occasionally used in the most formal of documents when someone is a Knight Bachelor and also holds a knightly grade of an order of chivalry, a baronetcy or peerage. See the current Order of Precedence promulgated in "No. 56878". The London Gazette (). 17 March 2003. David Underdown (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Heyjudesample.ogg

The image File:Heyjudesample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Yesterdaysample.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation

McCartney seems to be the first major rock star in the world who is also known as a stamp designer.:
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Paul McCartney. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote the same BBC News article: "He is thought to be the first major rock star in the world to design a series of postage stamps". Is it OK now? --Michael Romanov (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I goofed. Apologies. Ward3001 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected

When will this page be PROTECTED? It's about time...--andreasegde (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, keep Wiki fluid, or it will get stale and die, like IBM. GabeMc (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul as bassist

Paul McCartney is an influential bass player, with a unique sound. He practically introduced the world to what an electric bass is and sounds like (that Hofner is iconic). How come no text in here about that? - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.244.4 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention being a fine lead guitarist, keyboard player and drummer. There definitely needs to be a section on his musicianship -- if we can fit in three paragraphs on football... :)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was literally just thinking the same thing, and came here to post on it. I've read in several places over the years that Paul is right up there in terms of skill and influence as a bass player. (Agreed, that's not to mention his multi-instrumentalism; this is noted in the lead, and I think we could just break out a whole section on it, with a paragraph or three.) McCartney is on record (in Many Years From Now) as saying that he, Brian Wilson and James Jamerson all competed with and inspired each other. I haven't any non-Paul sources handy just now, but will keep an eye out; maybe some regulars here know of some good ones. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

come on guys, make this article, i would make it myself if i only would know how to describe bass playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.8 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's incredible, Paul McCartney was one of the most influential Bassist of the history of pop music, and there is absolutely nothing on the main page. [[2]]

< Jack Bruce, ace of bass. Who are the best bass players of all time? ‘Simple,’ Jack Bruce says. ‘Jamerson, McCartney, Pastorius and me’ >

[[3]]

STANLEY CLARKE: < Paul definitely had an influence on my bass playing, not so much technically, but more with his philosophy of melodic bass liens-especially as I hit my teens and the Beatles' records became more adventurous >

WILL LEE: < "Growing up in Texas in the early '60s, I was so obsessed with the Beatles' music that I didn't feel like a fan, I felt like I was in the Beatles. About the same time I switched from drums to bass I became aware of who gave the band its charm and personality, from visual tunes like "Penny Lane" to the group's repartee wtih the press. It was the same fellow who was able to take a poor-quality instrument like the Hofner bass and create magic on it. I especially dug Paul's funky, Motown-influenced side, evident in the bass line from Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey," or even in the syncopated part from "A Day In The Life." Paul's influence on bassists has been so wide-spread over numerous generations that ther's no denying he's in everybody's playing at this point. We're all descendants. He played simple and solid when it was called for. But because he had so many different flavors to add to a song, he was able to take the instrument far beyond a supportive role. Paul taught the bass how to sing.>

BILLY SHEEHAN: < The reason I got involved with music in the first place was because I saw the Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show." I watched all the girls going crazy, and I figured this was thebest business in the world to be in. Later on, when I got more deeply into music, "Sgt. Pepper" was a break-through record for me. I must have listened to it several hundred times. What intrigued me was how totally musical every aspect of it wasespecially Paul's melodic, fluid bass lines. When my band Talas was starting in the mid '70s [the Beatles' tribute show] Beatlemania was big, and we used to play entire gigs of just Beatles tunes. I've learned so much from Paul about playing, writing, and playing and singing at the same time that I should probably start sending him checks. Most bassists get into the flashy players, but I think the reason Paul is often overlooked is that what he was doing wasn't really obvious. It was so brilliantly woven into the context of the songs. One of my favorites is the bass line from 'Rain.' I still use it to test the low end of an amp. That Paul happens to play bass is a great boon to all of us, because he made us realize that there are no limitations to being a bass player. >

STING: < It's hard to separate McCartney's influence on my bass playing from his influence on everything else-singing, songwriting, even becoming a musician in the first place. As a child, I would play my Beatles albums at 45 RPM so I could hear the bass better. He's the Guvnor.>

Tomorrow i will give others links

--Roujan (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

In 2000, Guitar magazine : Bassist of the millennium [[4]]

1 - John Entwistle

2 - Paul McCartney

--Roujan (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Paul's bass playing is one of his most defining features, I think there should be a section devoted to his bass playing. It would be easy to ammass several respected quotes about his influence on the forgotten rock guitar, the bass. In 1980, John Lennon said "Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period." GabeMc (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Elvis Costello

Someone just added Elvis Costello to the list of Associated acts. Well, I don't know anything about that. And while we're on the subject, would it be wrong to add Michael Jackson to associated acts? I don't know what properly constitutes "associated acts", which is why I ask. Belasted (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed Costello. And I'd say no to Michael Jackson. All the associated acts included now are groups (or their members) of which McCartney was a part. He did a song or two with Jackson. That's not the same. Ward3001 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe have a different section for "occasional collaborators", or something like that? The above-mentioned, plus Stevie Wonder, Eric Stewart, etc., all are notable for their collaboration (usually just for an album or two, but still significant) with McCartney. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Paul?

Paul has an MBE, and we've all heard him called "Sir Paul" by the media. Yet the Wikipedia article Order of the British Empire explicitly states 'Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title "Sir" (male) or "Dame" (female) before their first name.' Perhaps the MBE is his award from the 60's (the one Lennon gave back) and McCartney has since got KBE? If so article should be changed. Can someone please clarify this situation? --Boston (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not a KBE, he's a Knight Bachelor, hence 'Sir James Paul McCartney MBE' is correct. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. --Boston (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reduce size by splitting info to sub-articles?

The page is quite long. Some material could be cut that is already present in other articles, but I don't think that would make a big difference. On the other hand, we could drop the size considerably by moving entire sections to other articles. For example, the Relationships section is probably long enough to warrant a dedicated article. Please offer an opinion, and if you favor a specific move, please describe it. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as it is the same thing that is going on at The Beatles page.--andreasegde (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, that means the "Relationships" section could become a GA in its own right. Hmmm.... :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. At 140kb it more than big enough to warrant it. Long pages tend to really mess with wiki server loads... It takes me literally a minute and a half to load this page on several different browsers (And I know for a fact that can't be from my end). Would add a tag but it would take too long - Floydian ^τ _γ 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: tag added. This discussion should focus on what, not if, subpages should be moved to their own articles. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with split suggestion. Let's get the discussion going on what would be a good structure to end up with. Strongly feel this exercise should also consider what is presently Paul McCartney (solo). My admittedly superficial impression is that that would best become redundant as part of this exercise. Also strongly suggest we first check the TOC, and identify a hypothetical TOC we'd like to end up with. Even if no change to TOC, that will ensure a sound starting-point for decisions about what sub-articles to create. (I haven't studied the TOC or all of the article detail yet: this is just my thoughts on the principle.) Could interested parties have a look at Paul McCartney (solo) and see if they agree with me about that. PL290 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that we should also consider the headers in the TOC that have the most standalone content on them. These are the most likely to be improved to GA,A, or FA status, and are generally larger sections that when removed would cut down the article size the best. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. the TOC, I've just made a slight tweak to improve the high-level structure, and apart from that I think it's OK as it is. It looks to me as though we have two obvious candidates for sub-articles:

• Paul McCartney: musical career after The Beatles
• Paul McCartney: relationships and marriages

All the other sections are modest in size. Try previewing the article with contents of the above two sections deleted. Re. the other related article, Paul McCartney (solo), it's only a short article and looks to have duplicated content from this one, so I imagine Paul McCartney: musical career after The Beatles should encompass anything extra from it before turning it into a redirect. Paul McCartney: musical career after The Beatles may well itself naturally fall into further sub-articles; that's probably best considered in its own right once the main split's complete. Thoughts? PL290 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Two good candidates...

re: Musical career after The Beatles: There is already a Wings article and a solo article... why not move content from this article into one or the other of those?

Re: Relationships and marriages: I agree with splitting off that section. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense, to rename and expand the solo article. I see from its talk page it's already having an identity crisis so I've appended a comment drawing attention to this discussion and will intend to shortly start moving out the post-Beatles musical material to that (renamed) article plus the Wings one. PL290 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What article name did you have in mind for the renamed solo career article? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My own thought is to avoid the restrictive word "solo", anyway, as there are various collaborations other than Wings. Hence I would still intend to use the redlink article name suggested above. Any other suggestions? PL290 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "musical career after The Beatles" isn't terrible, but it defines the topic based on what it isn't rather than what it is. I agree that "solo" is restrictive, but personally I like it better than "musical career after The Beatles". Most of the albums he released from 1970 on, except for Wings, and even when collaborating, were credited to him alone. (I'm thinking of work with Elvis Costello, for example, rather than Liverpool Oratorio.) it would help if there were a pithy contributor to this discussion! — John Cardinal (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. The word "solo" is restrictive, and the proposed name, though expedient, is ugly, and negative, I agree. This is suggesting to me that it's not just a naming issue but a content issue. Let's go the whole way and make it Paul McCartney: musical career. It can then have a pre-Beatles summary, a Beatles summary and the post-Beatles detail, and the main article can have just a "Musical career" summary. PL290 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me, except that I would add a Wings summary to the "musical career" article. (Leaving Wings details for the Wings article.) Thus you can get a snapshot of his entire musical career in the "musical career" article along with details about his (mostly-)solo efforts. The article would include links to the Paul McCartney main article, The Beatles, Wings, and (I presume) the Paul McCartney discography. Sound right? — John Cardinal (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That accords with my own thoughts, yes. PL290 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this has been thought of, but a nice title might be Paul McCartney as a Beatle or similar. His focus as an individual should look into his solo career, whilst this new page would cover the contributions towards the group. Just a thought since you guys are having trouble with names. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, perhaps splitting off the 2000's section and merging it within the concerts after 2000 to make the article Paul McCartney since 2000. I've made the table below to help us organise everything - Floydian ^τ _γ 01:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll start turning the solo article into the musical career article anyway then, and if it gets too big we can always split off further parts from it, such as 2000s etc. As to title, my preference is still "musical career" rather than anything restrictive, but slight preference now for dropping the colon in this case, i.e., Paul McCartney's musical career and likewise Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages. I've added these new article names to the table. I'll use the "musical career" name to start with; it can always be changed again if necessary. PL290 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the colons, and only added them because they were suggested and written exactly like that. They normally only get used after certain words, and so I've removed them unless there is someone who feels strongly about colons. I prefer articles that are fashioned as Paul McCartney (subject here) myself. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Musical career now summarised. I'm still organizing/deduplicating the resulting material in the career article. Looking at the main article now, it strikes me marriages and relationships could possibly stay after all should probably still be replaced by a summary and its detail be moved to a new sub-article—thoughts on this? Someone may feel like doing this, especially if anyone feels it needs expanding at all. I'm not saying it does, just that that's of relevance to the split question. PL290 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that you have made the page titled Paul McCartney's musical career, and as given in an example at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Subsidiary_articles, the relationships and marriages page should thusly be titled Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages. I may take a stab at it in a couple of days if nobody beats me to the punch. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages still seems to be a good candidate for a sub-article. PL290 (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Various Proposed Splits

Section/Content	New Article Name
Paul McCartney after the Beatles	Paul McCartney (solo) Wings (band) Paul McCartney (post Beatles) Paul McCartney after The Beatles
Paul McCartney's musical career	Paul McCartney (career) Paul McCartney (The Beatles) Paul McCartney as a Beatle Paul McCartney's musical career
Relationships and Marriages	Paul McCartney (relationships) Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages
2000's	Paul McCartney(latter years)

Concluding this exercise

I've removed the {{Split-apart}} tag as requested by the GA Reassessment. Taking three things into account:

• The article size still shows as excessive in the editor ("This page is 103 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles";
• The reviewer's comment "It seems much is made of his relationships in the article";
• The reviewer's comment about not over-reducing the amount of readable prose

my suggestion is that in due course we split out the relationships to a sub-article as already discussed, substituting a comprehensive summary in this article, but not split anything else out. PL290 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge problem here. No one understands what the length of the article is. It is not 100KB long. It is 40KB "readable prose". You have shortened it way too much as a result. Read WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. 40-60KB is in the grey area. For a very notable person with lots of encyclopedic content, it is O.K. to be in this range. Taking it from 67KB down to 40KB was overkill.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Paul McCartney/GA1. PL290 (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New topic

CHANGE HIS NAME TO "SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY! HE WAS KNIGHTED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.31.43 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) and he is a legend ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.171.153 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We know. It's mentioned a couple of times in the article, including the very first line. Ward3001 (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the MBE link which took me to a page which explained what that means.. however it says that the "sir" only applies to the top 2 (knight commander and knight grand cross) ranks... so the question is: is t sir paul or is the link wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.244.12 (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See #Sir Paul? on this page. PL290 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

MACCA????

The word "Macca" appears several times in Notes but "Macca" isn't anywhere else on the page. Shouldn't it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.90.65 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not mentioned.--andreasegde (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is now.--andreasegde (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No more. Someone keeps removing it as his nickname. Yet it's in the titles of several linked documents and all over this talk page. NjtoTX (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RELATIONSHIP WITH DOT RHONE

• This section should be reviewed for a discrepancy between sources. The article states that Dot became pregnant in 1962, and miscarried in July of that year. The citation is from Spitz' [218] and [219], and his citation in the book is from an interview he did with Dot Rhone. However, in the Beatlegirls online interview/article [220] she is very specific that the year she got pregant was 1960. The discrepancy is significant because Spitz concludes that Paul was heartless and brutal, breaking up with Dot right after she miscarried. There is no question that the break-up was in July 1962, but very questionable about whether she had just miscarried. Both sources specify that Dot was 17 at the time she got pregnant. Therefore Dot would have to have been 14 years old when she started dating Paul in 1959. Since she was old enough to be going to clubs to see the boys perform, and because we're talking about the very unliberated 1950's, it seems very doubtful that Dot would have been that young when she started dating Paul. Paul was 17 in 1959. It seems much more reasonable that Dot was 16 or 17 when she started the relationship. She also details, in the online interview, how Paul brought her flowers in the hospital and was very considerate to her after the miscarriage. Although the wedding was called off, they continued to date. I found Spitz to be inaccurate on a number of other things (as all the Beatles books seem to be) so even though his footnotes are plentiful and impressive, I believe a mistake was made in this case. At the very least, it should not be presented as a fact until the discrepancy can be resolved.CassNJ (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)CassNJ

You have proved the point that Rhone stating she had a miscarriage in 1960 was wrong, as she would have been too young. Rhone's memory is faulty, or the interviewer's ears.--andreasegde (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul living at the Asher's home

There's a 'clarification needed' tag next to the remark about Paul living with the Ashers (here's the dif); I've found a reference to this on page 107 of Tony Barrow's book "Paul McCartney now & then..." here on Google Books. I'm not exactly sure how to format a ref for something from Google Books - if someone could, please. Radiopathy •talk• 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done it.--andreasegde (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lennon McCartney song catalogue

Should there be a reference to McCartney losing the rights to perform his own songs when Michael Jackson bought them? I read at the weekend that Jackson had sold most of his interest in them to pay debts so there was now little chance of McCartney ever buying them back, but there are a number web sites saying he was leaving them to McCartney in his will, and this one says he did. However, the text of his will is here and there's no mention of McCartney at all. Richerman (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Paul McCartney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: Andreasegde (talk · contribs), Ward3001 (talk · contribs), LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), John Cardinal (talk · contribs), Tvoz (talk · contribs), Kingboyk (talk · contribs), Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk · contribs), Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merseyside, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified: Floydian (talk · contribs), PL290 (talk · contribs) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kept--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that the article has been rigorously modified to shorten it from 67KB readable prose to 40KB readable prose between April 2007 and July 2007. I personally feel that the article was shortened far beyond the necessary amount. However, I leave it to the interested editors to maintain quality encyclopedic content in a quantity between 40-60KB within contemporary standards of both WP:SIZE and WP:WIAGA with a possible eye toward WP:FAC at some point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass it based an its general adherance to WP:WIAGA. I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader. However, during this review process several issues have come to my attention.

• It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair use image in the article.
  • Removed. Artichoker^[talk] 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Reading the posting by the person whose panties are in a bunch down below it appears that there is objection to the removal of Dot Rhone. My problem with this image is WP:NFCC#8. The image has two subjects. It does not pass NFCC for McCartney because we have a fairly young picture of him and saying we need a younger picture of him does not pass NFCC. I have tried this argument with Jack Kemp. Thus, the question is does the fact that Rhone is in the image make it pass. Most are aware that McCartney has had girlfriends. We do not need proof that he has. Rhone does not need to be identified in the McCartney article. Thus, there is no reason to include the image of him and a former girlfriend if we can not get a non-FU one. For example, Brad Pitt does not have an image of Jennifer Aniston, his former wife. When it was at FAC, I requested one be added. Although there are numerous images for which fair use could be claimed, no image was added because there is no justification for adding a FU image of the couple in his article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Panties in a bunch indeed. I have once again removed the image as it fails NFC criterion 8. Artichoker^[talk] 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• The redirects are self-referencing.

Fixed. PL290 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Several deadlinks need replacing.

Done. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is extensive debate at Talk:Paul McCartney#Reduce size by splitting info to sub-articles? on splitting this into multiple articles. In April, when the debates began, the article had 67KB of readable prose. The editorial action following the debate have reduced the article to 46KB of readable prose. This is well within the desirable range length for a full biography of an important notable person. I would like to see the tag removed from the top of this article now that the debate is twelve weeks old. I do not want the reader to have to do to much navigating from the main article and hope it does not fall below 40KB when all the WP:SPLITting is completed.

I've removed the {{Split-apart}} tag as requested and made a suggestion on the talk page about concluding the split exercise. PL290 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the article continuing to shrink? How much smaller is it going to get? When I started the review it was 46KB and now it is 40KB. I hope it does not shrink too much more because we don't want to make the reader have work to bounce around from article to article to figure out what they want to know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Paul_McCartney#Concluding_this_exercise at the end of the split discussion. PL290 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments here that I made there. There seems to be a huge problem here. No one understands what the length of the article is. It is not 100KB long. It is 40KB "readable prose". You have shortened it way too much as a result. Read WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. 40-60KB is in the grey area. For a very notable person with lots of encyclopedic content, it is O.K. to be in this range. Taking it from 67KB down to 40KB was overkill.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. We respectfully remind the honourable reviewer, who is no doubt busy with many other matters too, that consensus for splitting out the relationships was reached prior to the action being taken. A consensus which, as can be seen in this very conversation, the honourable reviewer was aware of; and not only was aware of but joined with; and not only joined with but reinforced very specific aspects of; all in all, in fact, confirming the precise action taken and result obtained in terms of not falling below about 40K of readable prose. The consensus was reached over a 12-week period, recognizing the principle no need for haste and the other principles embodied by WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. Additionally, it was observed at the start of the review that "much is made of his relationships in the article", demonstrating—albeit while making a different point—an imbalance of article content: further confirmation that the consensus to split out relationships was soundly based. The resulting, more balanced article appears to be exactly as envisaged and intended when consensus for the action was reached. In view of all these facts the reviewer may wish to withdraw the above commment. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where you are from, but I think you Commonwealth folks are far too generous with your "honourable" titles. Nonetheless, with regards to the matter at hand, I am not an experienced WP:FAR reviewer where highly contentious debates on this issue are often held and resolved, but in my limited editorial experience on this issue, when most articles are described as exceeding 60KB of readable prose and pointed toward WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT for guidance intended to encourage 40-60KB articles, they do not get reduced to the absolute minimum of the range. The reader is somewhat inconvenienced to have to bounce from article to article. In truth, I did not want the article to get smaller than than the 46KB it was. I just don't believe that if the editors knew the length in terms of readable prose that they would have felt so pressed to split off so much detail. I leave it to the involved editors as long as it stays within the 40-60KB range, but the article is looking somewhat thin given the number of split articles. Let's just work on getting the deadlinks and other issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD for four paragraphs given the editorial interest in this article and the extent of editorial content. It seems much is made of his relationships in the article, but the LEAD does not mention anything about them or much of the remaining article content that follows the relationships.

Missing parts added to Lead. I judged it OK as 3 paras the way it ended up. PL290 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please address both citation needed tags.

I've added one of the two missing citations (Lennon's planned and cancelled visit during his Lost Weekend); we still need one for "McCartney is the only artist to reach the U.K. number one as a soloist, duo, trio, quartet, quintet..." etc.... ideas anyone? PL290 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see someone's done the second one now. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can you make the images compliant with WP:ALT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have to talk to them on the talk page at WP:ALT because I know they are making infoboxes compliant one at a time as they come up at WP:FAC. If this infobox is not yet able to accommodate ALT, leave them a message and the will get to it lickety split. Let me know when you have gotten it up to speed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also now done. (They updated {{Infobox musical artist}} within the last hour!) PL290 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: I bring your attention to this: "I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now". Does this not sound rather arrogant and self-opinionated? “"I will”, “final determination” and “seven days from now”? Is this a threat by McCartney’s Landlord? It certainly seems so.

What about "This article will be monitored, and a final decision will be made" AFTER consultation with the people that actually work on it, via the talk page.

Most writing is considered better in active voice than passive voice. A final determination will be made by me about this review. I look forward to commentary, but I will be making the final decision unless I ask for a second opinion. I have asked for second opinions on two of the twenty-eight articles that I have swept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I closed the Hillary Rodham Clinton individual GAR to get broader opinions at a community GAR. Unlike here they were vehement against shortening the article. The other 2nd opinion is a current review of Gordon Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let’s go back to the comments: “In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass”, and, “I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader.”

Yes the article is generally good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

“It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair-use image in the article.”

Let me explain: ““It is unclear to me”, means you need an explanation. Why don’t you ask for one? “It is the only Fair-use image in the article.” Only ONE Fair-use image in a whole article? Doesn’t that say enough about a photo that could NEVER be replaced with a free-use photo?

See above for a clear explanation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

“It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD”. It wouldn’t hurt, but would it FAIL a GA review? The mind boggles.--andreasegde (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are boggled by a comment like that. It is clear that the article could be improved with a more comprehensive LEAD. What is boggling about that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dot Rhone is going back in, because no explanation is needed.--andreasegde (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Some information on the publishing rights. [5] --Roujan (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Musical career/After The Beatles

In the Musical career section, under the After The Beatles sub-topic, might it be best should the paragraph's second sentence, which begins as: After releasing the solo album McCartney in 1970..., might it be best if it were to read instead as: After releasing his solo album... in other words, changeing "the" to "his".?.?.!.!... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Paul McCartney's article lead mightily should read as: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is a... Might somebody, one of the veteran editors, change this?. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is the most successful musician and composer in the entire history of popular music. (The rest of that sentence could be used someplace in another sentence.) Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationships and marriages

I have an idea... how about a partial restoration of this sub-topic, which could probably be made smaller and more brief, a paragraph pertaining to each girl, maybe:

• 1 Dot Rhone
• 2 Jane Asher
• 3 Linda Eastman (her's will, of course, be the largest paragraph in size)
• 4 Heather Mills
• 5 Nancy Shevell

Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Heather Mills' article is the biggest. It might have something to do with her 'laughing gear' being open most of the time.--andreasegde (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks

There were a number of deadlinks. All have now been fixed. One statement, "On 28 July 1968, The Beatles were photographed ... with McCartney wearing a Liverpool F.C. rosette" could not be sourced, so the statement's been removed by this edit. If someone deems this important to go back then it will need a source. PL290 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and tone

The article is incredibly unneutral in favour of McCartney. It reads more of a publicity article than it does an encyclopedia. There is no mention in the slightest of the critique of McCartney's numerous poorly critically received projects and solo albums. Nor is there any of the criticism of his perceived public persona. Jacob Richardson (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As regards his works, their critical reception should be dealt with in their respective articles and given no more than a passing mention here as it is in the nature of all artists to have their work publicly judged. As regards his "perceived public persona" (whatever that is), what did you have in mind? That he's used drugs and has convictions for possession? That's covered, and neutrally. I can't think of anything else. Rodhullandemu 21:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also do not know what 'criticism of his perceived public persona' means? This article should have been raised to featured status 2 years ago when it first went up for voting. Any problems with supposed pov would have been dealt with during that process. Fair Deal (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Sir Richardson means is the perception of Sir Paulie as a success driven prick and bastard, which has no place in an encyclopedia. Radiopathy •talk• 03:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all three counts, but really, talk about fanzine writing, Paul is glorified like the greatest hero ever on his page. I think a more neutral editor should go through his page cause it seems like www.paulmccartney.com to me. GabeMc (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"People also assumed that Lennon was the 'hard-edged one', and McCartney was the 'soft-edged' Beatle,[18] although McCartney admitted to 'bossing Lennon around.'[231] Linda McCartney said that McCartney had a 'hard-edge'—and not just on the surface—which she knew about after all the years she had spent living with him.[18][232] McCartney seemed to confirm this edge when he commented that he sometimes meditates, which he said is better than "sleeping, eating, or shouting at someone".[161] Isn't that enough?--andreasegde (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul's page is the least neutral I have seen on wiki. How is "he is responsible for 32 hits" neutral, he co-wrote 27 of them. And why are all of his record breaking accomplishments listed at least twice in full detail? GabeMc (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GabeMC, add your comments to the end of a section, or add them indented beneath someone else's comments, but don't insert your comments above all the others in a section. I moved the one above. Is there some part of talk page etiquette you don't understand? I left links for you on your talk page. Please read the linked pages.

Regarding "least neutral", I disagree. He's a very sucessful musician, and it's not surprising that the article describes his accomplishments. Asking how he is "responsible" for 32 hits because he had co-writers is disingenuous. Some of his accomplishments are listed twice because the lead section is supposed to summarize the article and in so doing it often repeats things that are covered later in the article.

You seem to have a bone to pick with McCartney because you perceive that his WP entry is longer or more complimentary than the article for John Lennon. The two articles are not in competition and the content of one has no relation to the other. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mixture of footnote styles

I notice the article has a mixture of footnote styles, with some including the title of a work defined in the References section. I suggest we standardize to one style, and personally I don't think there's any need to keep repeating the title as well as the year when the work is defined in References. (Except in the unlikely event that the section lists more than one work by that author in that year.) See WP:CITESHORT#Shortened_footnotes. PL290 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder

Someone added Michael Jackson to the associated artists list again, which was reverted; Stevie Wonder was already on the list and survived the revert. I personally don't think either one belongs there, but if we do include Stevie, we must also include Jacko, yes? Radiopathy ?talk? 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering them against the criteria in Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Associated_acts: a couple of album tracks released a singles, from albums that were not themselves attributed to both acts; and a one-off collaboration for a Wonder single. Definitely more than session musicians in that the "acts" were publicly jointly presented. But "musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career"? Perhaps not. PL290 (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonder also appears on the track "What's That You're Doing" from Tug of War, which he co-wrote. I would say he was a significant part of that album. His association with Jackson spanned several years - he wrote the song "Girlfriend" for him before they recorded together. I'm inclined to include both: this was a period when, post Wings and Lennon's death, collaborations with other big stars were important to McCartney. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, eight days a week later, and someone else added Jacko, someone else reverted, and we're still left with Stevie Wonder. Smash or Trash? Radiopathy •talk• 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Many musicians do "one-off" collaborations, particularly at this level. I don't think that makes them "associated acts". Mick Jagger does not appear as an associated act on David Bowie, despite "Dancing in the Street". Since I'm in the middle of developing a database for artists and their albums, including a link table for "Related Performers", I'll say this: <Groups> have <Musicians>, and <Musicians> are members of <Groups>. But this is not necessarily a reflexive relationship; it is transitive, and should avoid recursion. They should both go, IMO. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello my old veteran editor friends... O.K., I hope you don't mind of me taking Stevie Wonder ("Ebony & Ivory") out of the infobox, as he, like Michael Jackson ("Say Say Say"), whose not in it either, had appeared only on a one-time collaboration project with McCartney. Carl Davis appeared only on Paul's debut classical album, the entire project, too, and he's not even listed. If Carl Davis and MJ are not listed in the infobox, then Stevie cannot be, in the best interest of being equal and fair. So, I am removing him from the infobox. I agree with you absolutely on this, Rod. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly known as User talk:76.198.234.254)

Jackson's collaboration with McCartney was NOT "one-time", as I said above. But it's probably not worth arguing over...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Pawnkingthree. You are absolutely correct...my apologies. McCartney and Jackson collaborated with each other on four differnet songs spanning three albums: "Girlfriend", from Off the Wall; "The Girl is Mine", from Thriller; and "The Man" and "Say Say Say", both from Pipes of Peace. You may want to add an additional space (space-bar) in seperating MJ from Denny Laine in the infobox. Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why is there nothing about the Paul is dead urban legend on this page? 76.127.235.42 (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be there, under "==See Also==" as being somewhat relevant. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting something in Paul McCartney's musical career#The Beatles. It's Beatle Paul who "is dead". The sub-article's pitched at the right level of detail and this warrants a brief mention. PL290 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's worth a mention, particularly as McCartney acknowledged the legend with his 1993 Paul is Live album.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why though if the legend was fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.9 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the urban myth was incorrect, but the legend itself is real, i.e., the media discussed it at length, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(See below). Then the Mills divorce should also be in. It had far more media coverage.--andreasegde (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Music video directors

Anyone know the rest of these names not shown in the discography? --Discographer (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Most successful songwriter?

Can someone tell me how is Paul McCartney the most successful songwriter and singer in the history of popular music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We have sources that say so. Also, he wrote or co-wrote 29 #1 singles. Deserted Cities 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What sources? - Tim, 12 September, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They're there. Deserted Cities 21:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In reference no.1 - Guinness World Records Launches 2009 Edition - it mentions a number of facts from the the book, one of which is "Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008)" Which part of that sentence don't you understand? And if you don't think the Guiness book of world records is a reliable source, there are three other references to back up the statement. Richerman (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor 75.68.57.211 must have been hiding in Fritzl's cellar for quite awhile.--andreasegde (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, what sources? - Tim, 25 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the ones that are cited (I count four) at the end of the sentence in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't deny that he is the most successful, but I'd think that a brief clarification of the rather vague word "successful" might be in order. For example, "successful in terms of X", with X being the criteria that the sources use to rate his success. Or, if X ought simply to be the way in which he is referred to, then "McCartney is..." might be replaceable with "McCartney has been called..." The statement is most definitely verifiable, but the tone has a little bit of a WP:APT feeling to it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the first section not give Paul 100% credit for all the hits he was a co-writer on. It says he was responsible for 32 hits when it should say he was a writer or co-writer. Wings had 6 #1s in America, Linda helped him write 3 of them. GabeMc (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(I moved another of your misplaced comments.) Elsewhere on this page you've objected to giving McCartney credit because many of his hit songs were co-written. I disagree; McCartney was an important contributor to most if not all of those songs, and bringing up Linda is laughable. In general, please stop littering this page with that same complaint. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

John, your wiki skills are proven, but you are starting to seem biased in Paul's favor. I am only suggesting that the word "responsible" seems implies sole credit, Paul had help with many of his 32 hits, 20 were beatles songs which JOhn helped on if he didn't write them. TO clarify my position: I object to giving him SOLE credit for every hit song with his name on it, not credit where credit is due, that's why writer or co-writer is more accurate, fair, encyclopedic, and unbiased stance.

The Ramones?

I don't think this newly added "Influence on others" section with Ramones info is relevant to the article. It doesn't demonstrate anything notable about McCartney beyond fame (something which is self-evident without such examples). "Paul McCartney often signed into hotels under the alias "Paul Ramon". Douglas Colvin read of this added an 'e' to the end of that surname and changed his name to Dee Dee Ramone. Dee Dee's band adopted the name of the Ramones. All of the band members all adopted the surname 'Ramone'.[241][242][243]" PL290 (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more so I've deleted it. The references were not from reliable sources anyway. Richerman (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Master & Musician

I looked at John's river, and it was high. Superbowl audition. Jacksonville, Fla. unworthy... Manta is a nice name for a peace of music. Starcharms75.202.12.59 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Come again? :))--andreasegde (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Why isn't there any mention of how acrimonious the divorce between Macca and Heather Mills was? Surely, there should be some mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.35.62 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Macca's notability? He got married, produced a child, and then got divorced - any "detail" needs careful consideration regarding WP:BLP as well - which is a very small (and mostly private) aspect of his life as a musician, songwriter, animal rights campaigner, wealthy and influential icon, and founding member of the Rutles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I see details of personal life in colourful detail for many other living personalities and there's no mention of anything at all here, considering how much attention it got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.193.145 (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rutles? That was George.--andreasegde (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Addition to Lead

I propose inserting "international icon" in the first sentence. McCartney is without a doubt an international icon. Dougmac7 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

McCartney on Lennon's death: "Drag, isn't it?"

"...one of the reporters asked "Very early?" McCartney said "yeah" and then asked the reporters if they all knew, they added "yeah." McCartney then said, "It's a drag, isn't it?""

- Well, this is simply not true! He didn't ask them "if they all knew" (there was no need for him to ask them whether they knew about John's death as this was the main topic of the interview!) his question for the reporters was "Done there, yeah?" meaning that the reporters were done recording this interview, and then he said "Drag, isn't it?" meaning that the interview was just terrible. Just check this video on "Youtube" and you'll see it yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZh_BqJqKns

Paul said that the interview was a "drag" mainly to let the reporters know that their questions were just damn stupid. Trikita (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the passage to remove unnecessary detail and include a quote from McCartney explaining those words himself. PL290 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job, PL290. The section about McCartney's reaction to Lennon's death seems like an accurate representation of the morning-after interview and subsequent comments by McCartney based on the various books I've read that have described it. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job, PL290! Not to be regarded as a suggestion for further changes: I am quite surprised that McCartney himself described that interview differently from what can be seen in that video footage. Trikita (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This was made to sound like a wording thing but watch Paul say it, it's a lame response by any standard. It's not the reporters fault, Paul is granting them some answers, he does not have to. Paul later overcompensated when George died. I'm sure George would have laughed a blue streak hearing Paul call him his "younger brother". GabeMc (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think McCartney's original reaction was lame, but I sure hope (A) no close friend of mine is murdered and also (B) if that happens, no one with a microphone and camera sticks them in my face shortly after the incident and expects me to be eloquent or even make sense. The cirumstances were different with George; everyone knew it was coming, he had been suffering, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I've added Sir Paul's coat of arms. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul is Dead conspiracy

I might be a little off with this, but does anyone else think the whole Paul is Dead conspiracy be mentioned? 174.126.114.155 (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should be mentioned, but I say this with major reservations. The whole thing probably should have no more than a sentence or two in the context of his actual life. The danger is that future editors go off and start adding to any such mention, which would have a negative impact on the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that McCartney himself drew attention to it with his album Paul Is Live. It's definitely notable and should be mentioned, but as it already has its own article I agree it should just be a couple of sentences with a link to Paul is dead.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a small section might be in order, it might make the page more enjoyable. GabeMc (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul's religion

I was listening to Paul McCartney's song on the radio today "Let It Be" and wondered if he were a Catholic since the song refers to "Mother Mary". I could not find anything in this article discussing his religious beliefs although a quick search on Googlebooks reveals he was baptised in the Catholic Church, his mom was Catholic, dad was Protestant, and they agreed to raise their boys Catholic. It would be nice to know if he did or did not practice this faith and have some part of the article discuss this important part of most people's lives. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He isn't a practicing Catholic, no. In this 2001 Larry King interview he says that he doesn't have any sort of strong religious beliefs but he has "spiritual feelings" (he was asked if he thinks "Linda is somewhere").--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Ian Macdonald in Revoltution in the Head, p. 337, the Mary in the song was his mother, who literarally appeared to him in a dream, although this has often been taken as a religious sentiment.--SabreBD (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we put this info in the article somewhere? Usually a biography tells Reader something about a persons religious beliefs even if they have none. NancyHeise ^talk 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul is not catholic, Mother Mary is his mother, whose name was Mary. GabeMc (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

responsible for 32 number one singles in the U.S.

The term "responsible" implies solely, or by his own efforts alone but least 24 of Paul's hits are co-credited to at least one other writer.

20 of these hits were Beatles songs, 3 McCartney co-wrote with Linda, and one with Michael Jackson.

I suggest writer or co-writer is better than "responsible". GabeMc (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Did he make strange photos after the marijuana arrest in Japan?

A friend of ours said Paul made 'slant-eye' photos after being released from Japanese jail and that the photos were on one of his albums? I cannot find them. True or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the sleeve of his home recorded McCartney II album there are some photos of him dressing up and goofing around and yes, one of them is him doing a "slanty-eye" pose. Whether this caused any controversy or not at the time I don't know.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)