Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Instrument in info box

I think we should add the instrument drums and trumpet Pink Floyd iii (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The infobox only contains instrument(s) for which the person is primarily noted, not every instrument the person has played or is capable of playing. McCartney very rarely played drums with any of his bands; he played drums for his first solo album, but he commented for that album that he does not ordinarily play the drums. Trumpet?? Please give us sources that document he played or plays the trumpet extensively for his albums and concerts. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The trumpet was the first instrument Paul ever learned Pink Floyd iii (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not quite - his father bought it for him, but it was quickly part exchanged for a guitar. So hardly his prime instrument. Patthedog (talk)

I didn't say it was his prime i just it's the first instrument he ever learned Pink Floyd iii (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Except you're pushing for its inclusion in the infobox so it's not just that. It was certainly the first instrument he owned, not sure how well he learned to play it though - you don’t automatically think trumpet when you hear his name. It does get a mention in the article, so that’s already documented. The comment by Sundayclose sums it up. Patthedog (talk)

In the associates acts info box shouldn't we add Stevie wonder

Paul did record two songs with Stevie Pink Floyd iii (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And three with Elvis Costello. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We can add Elvis too Pink Floyd iii (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Musicianship: Links available but not linked

Some of the songs which are mentioned under musicianship such as "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the USSR" have their own pages but are not linked to where others mentioned there have been linked to. Could someone rectify this and put in the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.206.39 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Lady Madonna" is already linked in that section, but I linked to "Back in the U.S.S.R." --Musdan77 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Musicianship/Instruments Played

I believe it is a bit misleading to state that Paul's main instruments were bass and vocals. I understand this has been discussed in the past, but I think it warrants further discussion. He plays a significant amount of guitar, piano, and drums during both his Beatles careers and solo albums. His guitar virtuosity is well documented in literature, as is his piano playing in the Beatles and drums on several albums (The White Album for multiple tracks, McCartney, McCartney II, Tug of War, Pipes of Peace, Flowers in the Dirt, Band on the Run just to name a few). Yes, that section should be reserved as what the artist is primarily known for, which is why I don't think adding every instrument like upright bass, ukulele, organ, harmonica, etc is necessary, even though he is rather adept at those instruments. But at least guitar should be added; he started as a guitarist and still remains a guitarist through and through to this day. There is some discussion about his guitar, keyboard, and drum work in musicianship - if those instruments warrant an entire section, it would follow that they should be added to the instrument section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaizy (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying he's not an awesome multi-instrumentalist but, that's not the issue here, the infobox is a snapshot of the article and the instruments parameter is not for an exhaustive list of everything the subject has ever touched. Secondary instruments (and everything he's ever touched) are to be brought up in prose. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to recall at Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 11#Instruments in infobox, we had consensus for at least piano too, so I'm putting that back with a source, and if anyone disagrees, I might as well file a report at WP:DRN. Guitar has been included but I seem to recall Mlpearc objected - can't remember why though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Paul is dead"

This edit was rightly reverted, but all the same I'm surprised there's no mention at all of the Paul is dead controversy in the article. An FA should be comprehensive and this is definitely notable enough to get a brief mention. McCartney even referenced the affair in one of his album titles.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Was also wondering this. Request that someone assesses this on the basis of WP:FRINGE. ‑‑Yodin^T 23:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree it merits a mention. There are a couple of other points that are missing, imo, and they've become more obvious just recently as I've been working on some McCartney/Beatles-related articles. Probably best if I raise those separately below. JG66 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Turns out it was there after all. I wonder if we should also explain that McCartney's apparent disappearance was in reaction to Lennon's announcement that he was quitting, and to McCartney's isolated position within the band. (As he has discussed many times, McCartney came to close to having a nervous breakdown.) The handling of the whole Beatles break-up issue was one of the things I was referring to above, in fact … JG66 (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There is quite a gap in the article for that time period, it just jumps to April 1970 and McCartney announcing he was leaving the group, perhaps re-inforcing the misconception that McCartney broke up the Beatles. Yet a couple paragraphs before we're served with the crucial information that in January 1968 the Beatles filmed a promotional trailer for Yellow Submarine. One other point, his "disappearance" was unrelated to the "Paul is dead" rumor. Piriczki (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and in saying that you're touched on two things that I was going to suggest with regard to the post-Beatles sections under Musical career.

Firstly, that McCartney was widely perceived as having broken up the Beatles, and partly as a result, critics were generally hostile towards his music during the early 1970s – I think it's important to state that. (At the George Harrison article, for instance, particularly in the section covering 1973–79, we give critics/commentators' views on every album, but here at Paul McCartney, almost nothing.)

Secondly, the inclusion of such irrelevant information (you were being sarcastic, right?!) as the Beatles' promo for Yellow Sub – and, imo, mentions also of Starr joining, the "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" videos, the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper moustaches, and the detail afford the Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack – makes the omission of anything bar the basics about McCartney's post-Beatles career very noticeable. The Beatles were a band and they have their own article; this is an article focusing solely on Paul McCartney, yet the Beatles section seems to go into considerable detail about non-McCartney-specific things, and then we skip briskly through all description of releases issued in the 1970s under his own name or by the band he unequivocally led, Wings.

I mentioned both these things in the FAC, years ago, and I know I wasn't alone in objecting to the excessive detail given in the Beatles section. I still can't figure out the approach: it seems to be, build up McCartney's Beatles-era story as the story of the Beatles, and then carefully omit anything too revealing or controversial about his subsequent career.

On the "Paul is dead" rumour vs 1969 disappearance: Well, not entirely unrelated, and certainly not in the context of the statement made in this article. Per Doggett, Sounes and others, the fact that Apple in London couldn't confirm McCartney's whereabouts helped fuel the conspiracy theory, which led to Life sending out a crew to investigate. I think it's Schaffner who says that the rumour effectively died following the publication of the Life article. JG66 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is just that it is a minor footnote to the story. The initial denial from Apple (October 11, 1969) contained a statement from McCartney and didn't say anything about his whereabouts one way or another. The second denial (October 22) said he was on a "motoring tour" with his family and he "refused to let it be known where he could be found." It also contained another statement from McCartney which he had phoned in the night before. None of the contemporary accounts say anything about his whereabouts fueling the rumor. Piriczki (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your word on that, about the contemporary accounts. But I'm going from Sounes' Fab, for one. He quotes Apple's Tony Barrow as saying that they'd had similar enquiries in the past, but they were harmless – from British fans trying to trick Apple into saying exactly where McCartney was that day. Sounes makes the point that the rumour in October 1969 had snowballed: "the Paul Is Dead story grew, fuelled by the fact Paul had been out of the public eye recently, spending time in Scotland with Linda and Heather and the baby. When Paul didn't show his face, a student at Hofstra University in New York started a society: Is Paul McCartney Dead? … Finally, Life magazine despatched a reporter and photographer to Scotland to get to the bottom of the story." In Mojo's Special Limited Edition issue on the Beatles' final years, there's an article dedicated to "Paul is dead", written by Merrell Noden, who goes into some detail about the various US college radio and newspaper pieces, the build-up to national TV coverage in the US, and says that "McCartney himself was not exactly helpful in dispelling the rumour. He had married Linda Eastman in March, and with Abbey Road completed, he was determined to lay low and contemplate his future in a disintegrating band." Sounes also draws a link between Life's investigation and the real reason McCartney had gone to ground: "The Beatle thing is over! Paul had effectively made the announcement. Yet his comment [to Life] went almost unnoticed amidst the nonsense of his supposed demise." Doggett makes a similar point.

It really doesn't matter, though, in the context of the brief mention the rumour merits in this article. Seeing a discussion start here, I was merely saying that McCartney secluding himself up in Scotland, following Lennon's Sept 1969 announcement that he was leaving, could be worth including – and/or something about McCartney's perceived role as the one who broke up the Beatles, in April 1970. I'm more interested in omissions such as this last point (than Paul Is Dead per se) because it's important for the context of all his solo releases over 1970–73. And so many commentators and biographers discuss this, yet it doesn't get a mention on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions Pt 1 (of 2)

As mentioned above, I think the article needs to say that McCartney's announcement that he was leaving the Beatles inadvertently led to the group's break-up; that he was subsequently blamed for the break-up; and that his early solo/Wings work was generally received unfavourably by music critics (partly as a result). When working on articles about the Beatles, I keep coming across these three points in sources I've got, so I'm confused about why we avoid the issue altogether here. And again as mentioned, there seems no reason for the omission when you consider the detail given in this article's Beatles section about things that just aren't McCartney-specific at all.

This is from Chris Hunt's introduction to NME Originals: Beatles – The Solo Years 1970–1980: "After the split it took Paul McCartney some while to win back the trust of the public and the critics. Believed at the time to be the Beatle who spoiled the party, his reputation wasn't helped by the Paul'n'Linda effort Ram and the offerings by his new group Wings, Wild Life and Red Rose Speedway, records that were perceived to be an infuriating mix of the slapdash and the glib. Band on the Run changed all that, drawing much praise that amounted to a critical cheer of relief."

That's the most succinct summary I've come across so far, in print. (In The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles, Michael Frontani's essay on McCartney comes close, although I find it confusing the way he separates "the mainstream press" from rock music critics, and even then, "rock critics" seems to consist solely of Rolling Stone album reviewers.) Schaffner, Doggett and Rodriguez each touch on the three points but not necessarily in a single, tidy discussion – they're spread throughout their books, if I remember correctly.

Looking online, this post-breakup scenario I'm proposing seems to have become a common theme in the Band on the Run legacy – eg The A.V. Club and International Business Times. JG66 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed additions Pt 2

The other point that I think is missing is the extent to which McCartney has sought to establish his legacy relative to Lennon since the latter's death in 1980. I've been working recently on our articles on Beatles biographers (eg Philip Norman, Peter Doggett) and specific books (Apple to the Core, The Love You Make, Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now); in the case of Many Years, I've found there's no end of commentators and book reviewers referring to McCartney's "campaign" to change the supposed perception that Lennon was the Beatles' artist-genius and he merely a talented craftsman. McCartney's 1986 Rolling Stone interview seems to be singled out as the start of this campaign; his self-interview in the 1989–90 tour programme, the 1997 publication of Many Years, and the adoption of "McCartney–Lennon" songwriting credits on Back in the U.S. in 2002 are viewed as further instalments. I'm not saying that any great detail is needed, but the omission of any mention at all just doesn't tally with the level of attention McCartney's very public efforts has received.

For instance, even a rather partisan take (imo) on the 2002 composer credits, at Salon, refers to McCartney's campaign since 1986 as "a P.R. counteroffensive". Doggett, who's similarly supportive of McCartney's claims (but not of the way he has gone about presenting them), says the legacy point was "little short of an obsession" for him; Sounes, referring to his objections to the Willy Russell play John, Paul, George, Ringo … and Bert, in the mid '70s, also says that McCartney's concerns regarding "his part in history" became a "veritable obsession", and that the 1989–90 tour programme and Miles book project were designed to "put the record straight". I've only been able to get very limited access to Peter Ames Carlin's Paul McCartney: A Life so I don't know how he handles this in the chronology until 2000, when he says McCartney "set to refurbishing the parts [of his legacy] that didn't quite satisfy him" and Carlin goes on to discuss projects such as Wingspan, the McCartney–Lennon credits on Back in the U.S., and the reworked Let It Be album in 2003. Chris Ingham handles the subject of McCartney's preoccupation with legacy pretty well, I'd say, mentioning his "increasingly assertive moves" for recognition beside Lennon and, with regard to Many Years from Now and the issue of Beatles songwriting credits, he says "Some onlookers see his point, but most are baffled" and he then quotes Bob Geldof telling McCartney: "There is no greater achievement in the 20th century to beat what you and your mate did … there are the great artists, you're one of them. Relax!" Again, I'm not suggesting we explore the subject in any great depth; I'm just listing some comments here to demonstrate how notable it is and how proactive McCartney has been.

Perhaps I'm missing something – as a few of us did with "Paul is dead" (which was in fact included, but tucked away in one of the many end notes). But I can't see any mention at all where one might expect to find it: in subsections under Musical career for 1982–90, 1991–2000 and 2000–10; under Musicianship/Tape loops perhaps (given McCartney's assertions that he, rather than Lennon, was responsible for the introduction of avant-garde elements in the Beatles' work); in Lifestyle/Creative outlets, where Miles and Many Years are discussed; or Personal relationships/John Lennon or /Reaction to Lennon's murder; or Legacy, of course. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul McCartney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120529134020/http://www.paulmccartney.com/web/guest/tour-details?p_p_id=archivedtourdate_WAR_Toursportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&p_r_p_564233524_tag=tour_date-on+the+run-mexico+city&_archivedtourdate_WAR_Toursportlet_tourDateId=3545824& to http://www.paulmccartney.com/web/guest/tour-details?p_p_id=archivedtourdate_WAR_Toursportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&p_r_p_564233524_tag=tour_date-on+the+run-mexico+city&_archivedtourdate_WAR_Toursportlet_tourDateId=3545824&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116072210/http://www.paulmccartney.com/news-blogs/charity-blog/27293-paul-supports-new-pro-vegetarian-peta-uk-campaign-celebrate-life to http://www.paulmccartney.com/news-blogs/charity-blog/27293-paul-supports-new-pro-vegetarian-peta-uk-campaign-celebrate-life

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul McCartney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120520030631/http://www.paulmccartney.com:80/web/guest/album-details?p_p_id=AlbumDetails_WAR_AlbumDetailsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&p_r_p_564233524_tag=album-kisses+on+the+bottom& to http://www.paulmccartney.com/web/guest/album-details?p_p_id=AlbumDetails_WAR_AlbumDetailsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&p_r_p_564233524_tag=album-kisses+on+the+bottom&#p_AlbumDetails_WAR_AlbumDetailsportlet#TOP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul McCartney. 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.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/43667/supplements/5488

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange search result on Google

Hey. I just searched for Paul McCartney on google. I took a picture of what came up: Linkitylink

I am not sure if it is a wiki-thing or a google-thing, or if the article preview is even supposed to look as it does. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of someone with more knowledge about it than me :). --92.243.251.196 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Outdated tallies

The lead section states that McCartney has 60 RIAA gold discs (43 with the Beatles, 17 with Wings) and puts the Beatles' sales at 100 million albums and 100 million singles. Those tallies are 37 years old by now. To date he has 104 gold discs (74 with the Beatles, 30 solo and Wings) and the Beatles' sales are at 600 million records. Does it make any sense to show a tally from 17 years into a 50+ year music career? Besides, the reader could easily interpret those as current figures. Maybe they should just be removed from the lead section. Piriczki (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Michael Jackson owning rights to his songs?

Since it was only "Paul" bidding on the rights,why no details here on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:17A5:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See Paul McCartney#Business. Piriczki (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Bass Technique

The article states "He does not use slapping or muting techniques." While yes, he does not use slapping techniques, muting was an integral part of his sound during the mid-to-late Beatle years. He used the built-in foam mute pad on his Rickenbacker 4001 bass, and later installed a home-made mute on his Hofner 500/1 "Cavern" bass, which is clearly visible in the "Revolution" promo video. That section should be edited to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.61.16 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Drugs

The article tells that McCartney quit taking cocaine after using it for a year. It also says that he quit cannabis in 2015. But when did he stop taking LSD? How long did he use it before he quit?.Vesahjr (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In the Anthology documentary, it pretty much sounds like he only took it two or three times, while remaining in a heavy relationship with pot and coke for many years. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Paternity suit

Just a little heads up for discussion at Talk:Personal_relationships_of_Paul_McCartney#Wohlers.2FKrischbin_lawsuit, a case where he paid twice in order to avoid child support claims (paying 41,000 Deutschmarks overall), on whether to include the issue in that article over there, even if its relevance may only hinge upon the fact it went to court twice and that he paid for it twice. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can make an accusation, and it's not unusual for a wealthy celebrity to pay money to someone simply to get them to shut up. At this point this issue hasn't moved beyond tabloid-ish gossip. Whether there's a shred of truth to the claim or not, WP:V and WP:WEIGHT apply. Unless there's something more substantial that comes out, it does not deserve any mention on Wikipedia -- in any article. Sundayclose (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The above post by 79.242.222.168, as well as the longer post linked to, contain a number of falsehoods. The case did not go to court twice and was not paid for twice and there was no out of court settlement. Here is the timeline of events:

March 13, 1962 - 40 weeks prior to December 18, 1962.

April 11, 1962 - The Beatles arrived in Hamburg.

April 13, 1962 - The Beatles began their first engagement at the Star Club.

December 18, 1962 - Bettina Hubers was born.

1966 - McCartney paid $7,500.

September 1982 - Suit filed asking for Bettina's inheritance (10% of McCartney's wealth under German law, never mind that he's still alive).

April 1983 - The judge ordered McCartney to pay maintenance payments of $282 per month until the case is resolved. McCartney appealed.

January 1984 - The case was dismissed after a blood test ruled out McCartney as the father. Hubers appealed claiming the blood sample did not come from McCartney.

September 1984 - The court again ruled McCartney was not the father and the appeal was denied.

May 2007 - Hubers filed a fraud complaint claiming the blood sample in the 1982 case did not come from McCartney. The prosecutor dropped the investigation a week later.

Piriczki (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Piriczki, there are a number of respectable sources that say he did pay twice. Furthermore, I see no reason as to why you mention the date of March 13, 1962 (in case you're trying to infer that that must be the date when Hübers was conceived, you're off by a month, as 10-month pregnancies are a rarity, and April would fit better), and I'd like to see your sources for April 1983 and the alleged January 1984 appeal. Paywall sources are discouraged on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you're handling the 2007 dismissal as if that would be some kind of judgment on how solid the evidence would be when it's not: The only reason for the 2007 dismissal was not evidence but statute of limitation.

Sundayclose, your reasoning does obviously not work for the 1990s accusations against Michael Jackson, so why should it here? (NOTE: In light of both inclusionist and deletionist interpretations of Wikipedia policies, WP:OSE does not apply as a counter-argument against precedence, as is spelled out in the policy lead's third paragaph there.) Of course the severity of the accusation is of a vastly different level here, but a.) level of severity alone is no reason for inclusion of an accusation, b.) the evidence is pretty much the same (aka what you call gossip), and c.) the authorities were involved in both cases, yet no legal consequences came from it for either celebrity.

Furthermore, I'd like to repeat that I agree that this tidbit doesn't belong in his biography article as that would be undue weight indeed, but the fact that he did pay twice and that it *DID* go to court (at least during the 80s, and we have evidence that the West-German authorities were already involved during the 60s) do make it relevant enough to be added in the article Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, as just that: An accusation or rumor that is made relevant by a.) the fact a number of respectable sources mention it, b.) by Paul's own reactions to the entire thing, and c.) that the authorities were involved several times. We're not saying it would be true, we're just giving the facts, just like over at Paul is dead. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Paul McCartney, not Michael Jackson. I don't edit the Jackson article so if there are problems with that article I'm not interested. It doesn't matter what's in Jackson's article as far as Wikipedia policies applying here. You are straining to make a case for including unverified gossip in the article, and it's not how things are done here. Drop the stick and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the definition of precedence. Precedence does not mean there would be an issue with the article Michael Jackson. Precedence means that we should deal with accusations, rumours, gossip etc. in the same way, as is also stated by WP:OSE. While I agree that the issue would be undue weight at Paul's own biography article, the fact that Jackson's sourced "gossip" is relevant enough for his article makes Paul's sourced "gossip" relevant enough for the article dealing with exactly that part of his life, that is the article on his family. There is as much evidence as we need to call it "verified", as the only verification we need to back up the claim of the issue's existence are a number of relevant sources. Both cases are "gossip", as is the Paul is dead hoax, but the mere fact that all three issues are "gossip" are no reason to keep them out of Wikipedia in at least two of the cases. Plus the issues in two out of three cases transcend mere boundaries of gossip because authorities verifiably probed into them. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. The judicial concept of precedence does not apply. One article does not establish a "precedent" that must be followed in other articles. Wikipedia operates by verifiability and consensus. So again, the content of the Michael Jackson article has no bearing on McCartney's article. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help with your difficulty with math but here are some articles that may enlighten you on the suit.

The Paul McCartney Paternity Case

Rolling Stone

Paul To Appeal

McCartney suit is history

Judge rejects paternity suit against McCartney

Personality Parade

Piriczki (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but your bringing up even more repectable sources on the issue only further corroborate its relevance, which does not seem to be your intention. I repeat that nowhere should we claim that he's her father but that we should mention the issue (not here but in his family article) out of relevance which stems from the three facts that a.) a number of respectable sources mention it, b.) the fact that authorities have looked into it at least twice (during the 60s and during the 80s, and they were involved again in 2007), and c.) Paul's own reactions to the thing, which was paying twice. Anyway, it's interesting that one of your new sources obviously contain a lie on his part (or he simply forgot), which is his claim that he never even met Bettina's mother, when newer sources have even published photos of them being intimate together back in 1962 (Paul hugging Erika while she's sitting on his lap). In the early 1980s, he claimed he never even met her (see the Gainesville Sun source), and when faced with photographic evidence in 2007, he said that the touch was "just friendly".

Again: This is not about whether he's her father or not, this is simply about whether the issue exists, even if it's as much "(legal) gossip" as are Paul is dead and the 1990s accusations against Michael Jackson, and in spite of their being "gossip" both are relevant enough for Wikipedia by being included for years already, for the same reasons that apply here: a.) A number of respectable sources mention it, b.) legal authorities have looked into it (even several times, obviously), and c.) the celebrities themselves have reacted to it. In all three cases (Michael Jackson, Paul is dead, and the paternity suit), the final official ruling was that there was nothing to it, and still, we have two of them on Wikipedia for the reasons of a.), b.), and c.). --79.242.222.168 (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said it shouldn't go in the article, I said you have your facts all wrong. For instance, he didn't say he never met her, he said he didn't remember her. There's a difference.

McCartney Comments About Suit

And these are not "new sources," it's documented fact for over 30 years. Piriczki (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Series of performances

I find it hard to use that term in reference to the Beatles first residency at Hamburg. That term is usually reserved for an established artist in performance, not for a bar band that had to go to another country because they couldn't find steady work in their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil5775 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lorne Michaels

He made a $3,000 cash offer for the Beatles to reunite? Can this be correct, or is it a typo? (I would have offered $4,000 myself!)

Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Today is not April Fools. I assume you're joking. That's one of the mostly widely known antics ever shown on SNL. The humor isn't conveyed in the article's description, including the description of John and Paul's thoughts of continuing the joke by actually showing up. Sundayclose (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The humor definitely isn't conveyed. I believe $3,000 was the standard appearance fee paid by SNL at the time. The Beatles had recently been offered $50 million for a reunion concert which was the topical backdrop for the skit, also not conveyed. Piriczki (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to the humor, when Michaels made the offer he said, "You can split it any way you want. If you don't want Ringo to get as much as the others that's up to you." On a later show that featured George Harrison, they were doing a camera walk-through backstage before the guest host intro. George was talking to Michaels; as the camera went by you could hear George saying, "That's kinda chintzy!" Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe George made a quip soon afterwards along the lines of "Why don't we have a cup of tea together" saying you could film it, get millions to pay $20 to watch it, and make a fortune. [1] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

pop music

I put "pop music" back in the lead. Numerous sources refer to McCartney as vitally important "in the history of pop music" (random example). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Overdubbing Ringo's Parts?

This quote is bugging me:

"As Apple's Peter Brown recalled, "it was a poorly kept secret among Beatle intimates that after Ringo left the studio Paul would often dub in the drum tracks himself ... [Starr] would pretend not to notice"."

I've heard that before, but only in the context of this specific quote from Peter Brown. What bothers me is the lack of evidence that would support a statement that, if it were so, would be quite significant. I've looked at the articles for the White Album and Ringo, and (as far as I could see) neither mention this. Indeed, the Personnel section of the White Album only lists Paul as playing drums on the few songs that we know to be ones Ringo wasn't present for (Dear Prudence, U.S.S.R., etc.) because he had quit the group (the only other songs that list Paul as the drummer were a few of his pure solo bits he did for the album). There certainly isn't any official backing that Paul redid the drumming for any parts that Ringo had done. In fact, the primary source for the recording details of the Beatles works (Mark Lewisohn, "Complete Recording Sessions") says that based on drumming style, recording setup, and the fact that hi voice is always present on the outtakes, it's clearly Ringo drumming on almost every song.

So it's not so much that the quote is inaccurate (in that Peter Brown really did say that), my objection is that it simply seems to be untrue, and rather inflammatory toward Ringo. You would think that with all of the documentation surrounding the recording sessions that this "fact" would have been born out, but that hasn't been the case. Unless we are to think this is a grand conspiracy to hide the truth, not only by the Beatles, but by the whole recording/engineering staff, the Beatles' intimates (whatever that means) and authors, including Lewisohn (who, if this were true, would have noted all of those late night sessions where Paul would come in and redo the drums, which he of course does not...which either makes the "poorly kept secret" false or makes Lewisohn a liar). That seems rather hard to believe, so I question the inclusion of the quote, at least in the manner it is presented (which brings it up as "fact" and then leaves it at that)

Should it be included? (If so should it be followed by Lewisohn's observations, which I would think are a lot more reliable than Brown's recollections?) If it were to stay in I think it needs a lot more to back it up...any shred of evidence...something, beyond just one man's quote. Thoughts? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

It doesn't strike me that it's presented as "fact"; it's a quotation from Peter Brown, and that is clear. It's presented in the context of the relationship between McCartney and Starr. Peter Brown's relationship with The Beatles puts him in a position to offer such observations that very few have. The fact that Brown said it is noteworthy whether it's true or not. There are a lot of "facts" about The Beatles that aren't borne out or have "official backing" because all of The Beatles were very tight-lipped for a long time about many details and we have to depend on the recollections, often years after the fact, of those close to them, which sometimes conflict with each other. That's why (as far as I know) we don't have a comment by Starr denying or confirming. You comment that Lewisohn "would have noted" anything or otherwise would be a "liar". Can you give us a direct quotation and page number in the Lewisohn source in which he states that "it's clearly Ringo drumming on almost every song"? Sundayclose (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realize that passage was still in the article, it should have been removed long ago. As you said, Peter Brown is the only person who ever said this and it is highly unlikely that no one else would have ever breathed a word of it, let alone been at all forgiving of such a thing. Piriczki (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we be bold and go ahead and remove it then?70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

You raise a good point, Sundayclose, about Brown's position with the band, and it has to be said that this comment of his has been much quoted. I'd favour removing it though, because it's factually incorrect – at least according to every source I've read that offers a line-up for each of the Beatles' recordings. Also, having worked on the Love You Make article, I know that Peter Brown's book has routinely been identified as inaccurate. I concede one has to weigh all that against the issues you raise.

While I'm here, I would like to restate my intentions – here and here – to add some content that I consider important for the article. As mentioned previously, those points have each received no end of coverage; not only that, but I don't believe any other biographical article on a musician or entertainer, BLP or otherwise, would omit such items. (It seems, back when this article made FA in 2012, we've been extraordinarily selective.) Someone recently added, under 1960–70: The Beatles, that final para starting "Prior to, and for a while after leaving the group, McCartney suffered from a deep depression" – which seems a bit excessive in length, and it still doesn't cover McCartney's role, or perceived role, in the announcement of the Beatles' break-up. On the other hand, I find the inclusion of the subsection on Football baffling(!). Does anybody believe this last item is really needed, or notable? JG66 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So it sounds like we can go ahead and take that bit out...I see the article is semi-protected though so I can't do it, can someone else take care of that? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

The first sentence in that section also has to go. It was Paul himself, not Ringo, that said he was "pleasantly insincere" (see "Beatles' Loose Habit of Recording" New Musical Express August 17, 1968 at Rock's Back Pages). And what does Ringo's quote about a hotel band have anything to do with their personal relationship? I'm sure their relationship could be more fully and better described without even mentioning one trip to Greece. The Peter Brown part could replaced with a description of Paul's coaching/criticism in the studio which was not just limited the White Album sessions. The part about the deep depression was added by an editor that seemed particularly interested in that period in the Linda McCartney article. At most it was a 2-3 month period in late 1969. Personally I think McCartney exaggerates that period as if he realized a depressed, heavy drinking phase was missing from his rock star resume. Piriczki (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, are you able to make the changes since the article is semi protected? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

I aim to cut down that deep depression/Linda text quite considerably, although I think it's incorrect to say this period only lasted a matter of months. Peter Doggett writes about McCartney's actions through spring and summer of 1970 being driven by "textbook clinical depression" (or some similar phrase). I agree about the mention of Starr holidaying with McCartney in Greece – that seems pretty trivial. Any thoughts on the Football paragraph, Piriczki? JG66 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the football thing seems rather trivial...if he had owned a team or something that would be one thing, this is only speaking to which team he's a fan of....? That doesn't seem to be any more important than what his favorite color is....is that what you're thinking?70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

Well yes, exactly. It's one of those examples in the article where the text seems to have come through the secretary of the Paul McCartney Fan Club or something! I had no idea he had an interest in football – but then the source does say there's some history to it, so perhaps others might think it's worth keeping. JG66 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding football, it doesn't seem like he's an avid fan but I don't really know. Seems like it only came up when asked about it and he tried to answer in a way that would please everyone. Which team he supports might be important information for British readers though, I wouldn't know. Piriczki (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Football question aside (it seems like it's harmless enough so I don't think it's a big deal if stays or not), the original text that started this thread (Peter Brown's quote) is still in there, can someone who is able to edit the page take that out?70.91.35.27 (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Tim

Can someone who is able to please take this out? It's clear that consensus was reached on removing it, but since the page is under semi-protection I can't make the change.70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Tim

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

McCartney sang CO-Lead Vocals in The Beatles, not "lead vocals". "lead Vocals" suggests he was the sole lead singer and frontman of the band, which he was not because the Beatles are commonly known as a 4-piece vocal pop group. This mistake is listed on the page introduction at the top, and is especially misleading in that it immediately follows the sentence about "McCartney's songwriting partnership with John Lennon being one of the most celebrated of the 20th century". McCartney and Lennon sang and wrote most of the Beatles songs (together and individually), yet all members of the Beatles sang lead vocals on their respective songs. That sentence is misleading and misrepresentative of The Beatles via Paul McCartney. Please make this change.

2602:306:CCD3:2E40:151C:3EF6:7EAA:F516 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you making a specific edit request, such as changing "lead vocals" in the article lead to "co-lead vocals"? That said, you are greatly oversimplifying The Beatles' music as a whole. No one sang lead vocals or "co-lead" vocals on every song. And it is simply untrue that the person who wrote (or mostly wrote) each song was the lead vocalist for that song. Please give us reliable sources for such a claim, or at the very least reliable sources for songs which you think are misrepresented on Wikipedia as to who sang lead vocals. Sundayclose (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That awkward sentence was the result of a couple less than stellar contributions. I have restored it to the long standing version. Piriczki (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Piriczki, also, per the section above, could you remove the Peter Brown quote about Paul redoing all of Ringo's drum parts as it seemed we all agreed that should go? (I tried to register so I could do but am having problems with that whole process--a tale for another time--so I'm hoping you can go it from your end). Thanks! 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Tim