Jump to content

Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Paul McCartney

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Sheep8144402 (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 15 January 2023 (fix font tags using AWB to determine edit-to-page ratio). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 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)

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. ‑‑YodinT 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)

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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:

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 IITalk 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

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)

Is that William's month of birth? As it sure isn't James Paul McCartney's!

This is a locked, featured article. How is it that the month of birth is wrong? And it is unsourced!

78.147.212.35 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your information, but the date is correct, a fact that Beatles fans have known for decades. And it is sourced in the Early Life section; no need to source it in the lead. If you have a reliable source to the contrary, please let us know what it is. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I got my info from the birth docs held online eg registered births. I would expect official documentation to be accurate. Now you have my mind questioning sourced info I read across wikipedia in general.

Do you want the source?

freebmd just have to search for James P. McCartney and possibly narrow it down the approximate 5-10 years. I think narrowing it down by area works as well eg district of Lancashire (as Liverpool was within the district back then) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought sources were supposed to be disclosed when fist needed on wiki articles? Also I checked source 5 link and it links to nothing verifiable for readers, and if it is a book, well that just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month!

Any thoughts regarding the month now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Also looks like I was right in the title... The more I research, the more turns up... https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=175958957:5385&d=bmd_1477344112 Of interest is the year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but much of your last post is difficult to comprehend. But if you could link the specific webpage that is your source, that might help.
Some of your other points are difficult to understand. I have no idea what "I thought sources were supposed to be disclosed when fist needed on wiki articles?" means.
" checked source 5 link and it links to nothing verifiable for readers, and if it is a book, well that just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month!": This is not consistent with how sourcing works on Wikipedia. Sources do not have to be online sources. Books and other paper publications are perfectly acceptable if they are reliable.
"just proves its unreliability given a quick research online can disprove the month": So far you have not "disproved" the month because you can't give us a coherent, specific source for your information.
"Also looks like I was right in the title"; I have no idea what that means. Sundayclose (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify:

I thought convention here on articles was to provide superscript reference as soon as it is needed eg for the first need - by this i mean shouldnt the ref 5 be on the first mention of the d.o.b.

Hopefully that bmd link shows for you. It was September to be precise. Not June as stated everywhere else.

Williams d.o.b. was June 1938. In my research I discovered this using bmd archives. That is what I meant about my title on this talk page.

Let me know what you think regarding the inaccuracy of the month. Thanks 78.147.212.35 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"I thought convention here on articles was to provide superscript reference as soon as it is needed eg for the first need - by this i mean shouldnt the ref 5 be on the first mention of the d.o.b.": Again, this is wrong for the WP:LEAD. If information in the lead is sourced later in the article, no source is required for the lead.
"Hopefully that bmd link shows for you.": Again you haven't provided specifics about your source. If you click the link you cite above, there is nothing about anyone named McCartney. Give us a link to the specific webpage that is your source for James Paul McCartney's date of birth.
By the way, I hope you realize that it's possible that there is more than one person named "James P. McCartney", and that without the middle name or other conclusively identifying information, your source is not reliable. I also hope you realize that clerical errors can occur in copying old government records to a website. Even if a different date of birth is stated on a webpage, when you put that up against numerous reliable sources that identify 18 June 1942, it is meaningless. Do you seriously think that Paul McCartney, who has never disputed his date of birth as 18 June 1942 in over five decades of superstardom, is involved in a conspiracy with every biographer and every member of his family to conceal his date of birth? If you are seriously claiming that every recognized biographer of McCartney and The Beatles is wrong about birth dates, you're wasting our time and your time. Thanks for giving us your thoughts, but please drop this issue. Sundayclose (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
William Campbell was an orphan from Edinburgh, Scotland. Searching for his birth records in Liverpool is a red herring meant to throw us off the track. Typical counter-intelligence tactic (probably CIA) to conceal the real truth. Don't be fooled! Piriczki (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Just kidding. William Campbell was a name invented by a Michigan college student after the "Paul is dead" rumor surfaced. Go Buckeyes! Beat Michigan! Piriczki (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
By the way, those search results only yield an index of registrations based on date of registration, not date of birth. The index only indicates where you can locate the actual certificate which is where you will find the date of birth. Piriczki (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?r=184673566:4048&d=bmd_1477344112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider this and it holds scanned paper records more reliable than internet misinformation and bias which you have shown with the use of 'superstardom'. Lets remain objective and let the research do the talking. 78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything. If you look at the original scanned page, it's for births registered in July, August, and September 1942. Furthermore, as Piriczki notes, it's merely an index; it doesn't provide any specific information and certainly nothing that challenges the birth date in the article. From the notes on the correction page, the month given represents a quarter and not an exact month: It is NOT an error to find that an event that took place in January is shown in March. Events are recorded in QUARTERS (e.g. January, February, March make the MARCH QUARTER), not MONTHS.. Also, Events are recorded in the quarter that they were REGISTERED, not the quarter when they occurred. It is perfectly possible that a birth in May will appear in the September Quarter. clpo13(talk) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The birth certificate shows a birth date of 18 June 1942 and a registration date of 14 July 1942 which is why it is listed in the index of "Births Registered in July, August and September, 1942." I hear the one millionth fan to request a certified copy gets a free tin foil hat. Piriczki (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


I will make this as clear as I can. The link I provide allows anyone and everyone to perform an unbiased, good faith search using that site for the following info...

Births

Surname McCartney

First name(s) James P.

Date range Mar 1935 to Dec 1945


Obviously there can be multiple people with that name. Can there be multiple born in Liverpool, with his full name including the middle initial, his mothers same maiden name?

Highly unlikely but still possible but now getting more unlikely. So they are quarterly? The archiving is sorted quarterly but follow the search i provided then examine the actual scans and it clearly shows that each birth is written for specific months, not batch quarters.

This evidence should cast credible doubt on the accuracy of the facts and should encourage everyone, regardless of bias and agendas, to conduct 'proper' research.

It has been stated above that the birth certificate archives should be examined to ascertain the truth. I would encourage and urge all concerned to seek out irrefutable evidence such as this.

I say let the evidence speak for itself.

78.147.212.35 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's quarterly. I'm looking directly at the page scan itself and I don't see any association with specific months: [2] (unfortunately, I can't link directly to the image on BMD, so this'll have to do) clpo13(talk) 20:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyways, this is veering very much into original research territory. No matter what the index or birth certificate says, Wikipedia only reports what reliable, previously-published sources say and they all agree on June 18, 1942. If, by some chance, information was found to challenge that date, we still wouldn't be able to put it in the article until some other source, such as news article, reported it first. This sort of discussion belongs on a fan forum, not a Wikipedia talk page. clpo13(talk) 21:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
78.147.212.35, read WP:IDHT. Drop this and move on or get blocked for disruptive editing. Sundayclose (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing Honour

The article omits that Paul McCartney received a Honorary Degree from the University of Sussex in 1988. 12th July 1988.

If it is reasonable, which it certainly is, to list "2008: Honorary Doctor of Music degree from Yale University.", then his Sussex degree should also be listed.

Here's a link to the university's page http://www.sussex.ac.uk/graduation/honorary and I can provide images of his degree certificate, his signature in the appropriate book, and a few photos.

(It is mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Paul_McCartney but ought to somehow be cross referenced here).

HTH 114.198.35.150 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Steve Carter - then University of Sussex staff member.

There are several articles related to McCartney, including a separate article for awards and nominations. This parent article cannot include everything. We would need a consensus here to decide if your suggestion is notable enough to be added. Sundayclose (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I've already done it. It is only a small addition that seems reasonable as Yale's honarary degree is already there but if consensus is to remove it again that's ok with me. Richerman (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

(Steve Carter again...) Thanks for the (possible) change. I would of course argue that if the list of Awards has to be a subset of the full list of Awards (a reasonable point), then the Sussex one, being the first, may have priority. We gave him the award because he actually lives in Sussex most of the time (well, did so at the time) in Peasemarsh. Interesting experience meeting his security folk (8 years after John's murder, so it was a consideration) and then the man himself.

114.198.35.150 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Steve Carter

(Steve Carter again) If (reasonably) you do decide on showing a subset of his awards (making that clear by the way), then I've added to the talk page on Paul McCartney's list of Awards and Nominations that he also has the Freedom of the City of Liverpool. It would be nice to see that survive any shortlisting here. 114.198.35.150 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Steve Carter

Children

Why is Beatrice being excluded from the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe other editors (one in particular who I won't name) feel she isn't notable.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir

Hey. Just one simple question. Why the sir title before his name? Only GBE, KBE or DBE can use the title. But Paul is just a Member (MBE). Just wondering.--DoubleBreadCZE (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the article. Sundayclose (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Or to be a bit more helpful... he was knighted in 1997. The article used to have "KBE" listed as well but I guess it was removed as it's superfluous. My mistake, he's a Knight Bachelor, not a Knight Commander so "Sir Paul McCartney MBE" is correct.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Mr. Pawnkingthree. That's what was I searching for.--DoubleBreadCZE (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
wp:honorifics - It is there because someone added it. Taking it out.Shajure (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's incorrect - the first use in the article is ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we add Jane Asher as a partner

Should we add Jane Asher as a partner ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The first stone (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Yesterday", the most covered song under copyright?

At least that's what the Guinness Book of Records said, with over 1600 covers as of January 1986. But there have been over 30,000 recordings of "Summertime" as of May 2011, and I think the song is still under copyright. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears "Summertime" is still under copyright in the United States, don't know about other territories. Not sure what the point of the "under copyright" qualifier is anyway. The claim about "Yesterday" was in the Guinness book 30 years ago but not anymore. Still gets repeated over and over even though it's probably no longer true, if it ever was. The claim should be removed from the article. Piriczki (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Those claims are generally iffy as in their usually stated forms it is often unclear to which domain/context/data set they refer. Aside from that claims from different sources are often contradicting each other. In such cases it still might be worthwhile to state the claim (coming from a prominent enough source) but clearly attributed and qualified possibly with further explanations/caveats in a footnote.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The domain/context of summertime for instance differs in various from yesterday. It predates the rock/pop era and is strictly speaking not a rock/pop song. It originates from a musical, which also means any recording/cover of the musical automatically includes a recording of the song.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
So would it be safer if we wrote, As of 1986, "Yesterday" is, according to the Guinness World Records, the most covered song in history with over 1600 cover versions, rather than "Yesterday" remains the most covered song in history? Exceptional claims are always disputed, and must typically be attributed to sources in the body of the article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes at least roughly like that, that is no (undisputed) statement of fact but rather a statement of attributed (notable) opinion/assessment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
What should be made of the fact that Guinness no longer lists this record? Is the claim no longer true? Is it even worth mentioning data that is 30 years old? Piriczki (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Does Guiness list another record holder instead? I don't think you can expect them to update and relist all the stuff they published in the past. I think a really satisfying on that subject will only materialize by checking a larger variety sources. Personally i'm neutral on the worthiness of that factoid to be mentioned - in any case the subject probably is better served in the article on the song rather than here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of other sources, here are some that might also answer the starting question of this discussion or at least shed a different light on it:

I'm not sure whether there is need to distinguish between covers and recordings in any case this seems a rather frustrating state of affairs and it seems even if guiness might not list that record anymore it certainly seems to have it relisted for a while (otherwise I don't get the different guiness figures). Does anybody have full access to guiness archive or several editions by an chance?

Anyhow my personal suggestion would be to write something like:

Yesterday is widely considered to be one of the most covered songs ever.

In particular using one of the most instead of the most and skipping any concrete figures (being outdated anyhow). However the sentiment/meme that Yesterday is one of the most covered songs can be found throughout reputable literature, but unfortunately usually without any further explanation/details other than an occasional hint at guiness.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that it is "one of the most" covered songs in popular music history, not necessarily the most. Hope everyone's fine with that. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Ringo's drumming, again

Can someone who is able to (since this page is locked) remove this from the Ringo section: "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" This has been brought up several times (not just be me, but by others as well), all who chimed in agreed it should come out Basically, the objections were that it's quite an inflammatory accusation; the source that it came from (Peter Brown's book) has been noted by other as not being very reliable; and there is zero corroborating evidence to support such a claim (in fact, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary: recording session documentation and so forth). In short, it's a very condemning statement that, by all evidence (Peter Brown's unreliable recollection not withstanding) is simply untrue. Not to mention very insulting. Again, this has been brought up a few times before and no one objected to removing it (in fact, someone wondered why it was even still in there and it should have been taken out long ago)...yet it remains. Can someone who has editing ability please remove it? If there is objection to removing it, can we have a discussion about it? Thanks! Tim 70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll make this change based on the apparent consensus at Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_12#Overdubbing Ringo's Parts?. TJRC (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Looks like User:Piriczki beat me to it. Thanks, Piriczki. TJRC (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the only reason it wasn't done earlier is that it needed to be replaced. For now I just repealed it but I don't have much else to add as I don't know either gentleman personally. Piriczki (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

Please add the category "English people of Irish descent", as both of his parents were of Irish descent. 213.205.251.114 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But they weren't themselves Irish? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, both of his parents were born in Liverpool. His maternal grandfather was born in Ireland, and some great-grandparents, but that's the extent of it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So what's the rule for using ".. of x-ish descent"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a specific rule or if it's just a "follow what reliable sources say" thing. In this case there's no doubt he has Irish roots so I wouldn't object to it being added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought of him as having very natural-looking roots. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Awful lead

Obviously everything in this article is sacrosanct and perfect.

But most of the lede is a list of trivia about awards and such. Apparently this rather tedious list is intended to establish significance, apparently aimed at readers who have never heard of the subject at hand, or who need convincing.

In my view, it's among the least interesting and least significant material one could include about the subject. However, I've no intention of messing with this gem. Badiacrushed (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Add Kanye West to the "Associated Acts" section. Antianastasio (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

coat of arms?

Does anyone know why his coat of arms was removed? It's a high-quality, free file and I don't see any discussion about it in the archives, except when it was added in 2010. File:Paul McCartney Arms.svg —МандичкаYO 😜 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it incomplete? See this. WWGB (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why it is notable enough to be included in the article? I'm not sure it's really of interest to our readers.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The coat of arms was complete. What you linked to showed his full heraldic achievement that includes crest, supporters and motto etc. His arms were granted to him following his knighthood (not just everyone is entitled to a coat of arms) and is notable, not to mention it is a very unique design and has attracted attention on its own - since the design incorporates a guitar, it should be of interest to general music fans and not just people interested in heraldry. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's important enough for its own section, as I see it once had from searching through the page history. I think it's fine as it is now, with a mention in the 2000–2010 section.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Top of page w/ photo; bio info: Change Number of children from "5" to "4". He has one adopted daughter, Heather, and three children with Linda: Mary, Stella and James -- total of 4. Kerrimoon (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Kerrimoon (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
More complete answer to your request: Paul also had a daughter with Heather Mills in 2003: Beatrice. So, a total of 5 children. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wings break-up

Priczki, this edit, which you summarize as a "ce", is actually removing sourced content. Can you explain your objection to the statement that Wings disbanded "following disagreements over royalties and salaries" which is sourced to the Vincent Benitez book used throughout the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Dr. Pepper's Jaded Hearts Club Band be merged into Matt Bellamy, Miles Kane, Chris Cester, Ilan Rubin, Sean Payne, Dominic Howard and Paul McCartney. This is not a "band" with its own established presence, and is not notable independently. There is little to no independent coverage of this "band." The article linked simply describes this as a name used to promote an event where members of various notable bands played a Beatles cover with Paul McCartney one time. Merge into the existing articles about the notable people who contributed to this performance. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please participate in the consolidated discussion at Talk:Dr. Pepper's Jaded Hearts Club Band. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018

Paul McCartney's brother is Philip Michael McCartney and was Known as "Phil" during his school years, also at the Liverpool Institute for Boys. He can be viewed in the Green Book (student lists) as P. M. McCartney. 174.118.22.146 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In the paragraph on Linda Eastman and her involvement with Wings Jimmy McCulloch is simply referred to as "McCullogh" as the page is locked I cannot correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.84 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Henry McCullough did play with Wings along with Jimmy McCulloch so that means the name is probably correct! Confusion understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.111.84 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul is a baritone, not a tenor

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.188.78 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018

Add Drums as a instrument he can play. 77.77.218.36 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Already has a dedicated sub-section, but his drumming is not sufficiently notable to be added to the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul's Instruments

Please add drums and celery to the list of Paul's instruments. He played the drums for the first few songs on the White Album, on his solo albums, and he played the celery on the Beach Boys' Vega-Tables. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by XemnasXVI (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Songwriting parternship

The intro paragraph claims that it was "the most successful of the post-war era"; however, the reference provided says that it was the most successful of all time. And in terms of record sales, this is unquestionably the case (600 million records). The opening paragraph should be changed to indicate that Lennon-McCartney is the most successful of all time. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Associated acts

Paul McCartney also did a duet with George Michael. I think George Michael should be added to associated acts. FueledByMusic05 (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That does not satisfy the criteria at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. WWGB (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
McCartney collaborated with Michael one time. The guideline (linked above) calls for "multiple" collaborations. While that may seem overly restrictive here, imagine the list for someone who gets around a bit more. Eric Clapton, for instance, seems to make a habit of joining just about anyone and would have a much longer list if we used single collaborations. Take a brief look at his article. From photo captions in that article alone, we would add Yvonne Elliman, Tina Turner, Prince, Bill Murray, the Allman Brothers, Keb' Mo' and Buddy Guy, nearly doubling the list. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

tape loops

can change "speded up" to "sped up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.0.49 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Putin

This image of McCartney and Mills with Putin in 2003 appears at the top of the section on "Vegetarianism and activism". But it is not explained in the text. Why is it there? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears that before McCartney played Red Square he and Heather met Putin at the Kremlin and she asked him if Russia would join their anti-landmine campaign [4]. So I guess there's a link to their activism, although it wasn't the main reason for them being there. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. I suggest it's retained where it is, with some explanation in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 Done--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Paul McCartney a vegan?

Here he clearly states that he isn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pf19jV1NYw&t=775s 92.192.173.34 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the vegan assertion from the article. WWGB (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
He became vegetarian in either 1970 or 1971. It was either shortly before or very shortly after the release of his Ram album.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Filmography and Television lists

When this article was promoted to FA, it included a discography and list of tours, but nothing on films and television shows/specials. These have been added (I'm not sure when) and I question they're inclusion. Apart from when one of the works is referred to in the main text, much of this information is unsourced. Not only that but, particularly in the case of Television, the lists are clearly incomplete. One would expect to see a Filmography at, say, Elvis Presley and Madonna (entertainer), since they each took on dramatic roles in films, and they're introduced as actors in our articles. But McCartney is hardly an actor and never has been.

I'm tempted to just remove Filmography and Television from this article. But perhaps I'm missing something – perhaps there are other artist biographical articles to consider when making comparisons. Any thoughts out there ... any rationale for retaining the two lists? JG66 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the Ruth McCartney wiki page?

Ruth McCartney is Paul's step-sister, a musician, artist, pubic speaker and author in her own right and now when I go to her wiki URL from a Google search - someone has hijacked it to go straight to PAUL McCartney/ Who gave them permission to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucyconlon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lucyconlon: Read the arguments brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth McCartney. She didn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements to warrant an article; the fact that she's related to Paul doesn't in itself satisfy notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And @Lucyconlon: please be aware you have an obvious conflict of interest, given your comment with this edit. On the subject of WP:NOTINHERITED, I'm not personally convinced that Jim and Mary McCartney merits an article either. It just seems like an excuse for McCartney uber-fans to go completely overboard with his background. JG66 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Marriage to Heather Mills ended

I think this should be included by someone able to edit this article. As it is, it sounds as if McCartney were a bigamist. His marriage to Heather Mills ended in divorce in 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7395872.stm .2003:ED:C3C0:6100:DD97:5FBF:4267:1627 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox could use a better picture of Paul McCartney

Paul McCartney is 76-years-old in his Infobox photo. A lot of editors and journalists have the mistaken idea that photographs should be current. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Infobox should show a photo of McCartney when he was in his prime with the Beatles, not as an old man almost fifty years later. If you read obituaries, you will see that many photos of the deceased people were taken many years before the persons actually died. It is important to show and visualize people in their prime, not as elderly senior citizens who have lost their looks. If you watch the major news networks such as Fox and CNN, you will see that all the female journalists are young and extremely beautiful. This is no coincidence. A woman could have a magna cum laude degree in broadcast journalism from Harvard; if she's a "dog", she doesn't have a Chinaman's chance of getting the job. It is important to showcase people when they are in their prime.Anthony22 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. He's coming up to 77 years of age and he's still an active musician and performer. He's not exactly the shy and retiring type - as most biographers have it, he thrives on public attention. So it's only logical to show him as he appears in the present day. JG66 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JG66. If he was no longer active it would make more sense but since he's literally been active almost every year since 1957 it makes sense to show an image of him from this decade. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the image is fine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the image should be of McCartney during the peak of his career, assuming one is available. I think Anthony22's basis is rather silly; it has nothing to so with whether he's an "old man" or that a photo subject should be particularly attractive, and the commentary about "female journalists are young and extremely beautiful" is way off the mark. The reason I think a younger photo is appropriate here that the photo should reflect, as closely as possible, the person during the time that gave rise to the person's notability. In McCartney's case that was during his time with the Beatles.
It has nothing to do with whether he's still performing or how many wrinkles he has or does not have. It's linking the image to the reason for the article. TJRC (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of the time that Jackie Kennedy died at age 64 in 1994. Her portrait was featured on the cover of Newsweek Magazine. The photo was absolutely stunning and was taken circa 1953 when she married Jack and was at the apex of her physical attractiveness. Newsweek would not have been naive enough to publish a current photo of Jacqueline. As you know, Jackie, like the overwhelming majority of women, had lost her looks late in life. Personally, I looked up two women on Facebook who were "hot" when I knew them more than 50 years ago (that sort of dates me), and I could not believe what I saw. People can go from rage to riches, and they can also go from Beauty to Beast. In the case of Paul McCartney, I'd rather see a portrait of him 50 years ago instead of a picture of him today. I would prefer to be remembered for my youth than as an "old man." Getting back to the issue of female TV journalists, the majority of women on the news are young and attractive, with the possible exception of one station that I will not identify.Anthony22 (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22, please stop talking. You're ruining your case by discussing when someone is "hot" and by using borderline racist comments like "doesn't have a Chinaman's chance". There are good reasons to change the photo as you propose, but I was personally reluctant to speak up for fear of being associated with your rhetoric. You're not saying anything that isn't in your prior comments, so please settle back and let the discussion continue. See also WP:Don't bludgeon the process. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the picture there now. There is no reason to show him "at the peak of his career". This is an encyclopedia not a copy of NME from about 1965. Britmax (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I should be able to put this issue to rest with the following story. Several years ago, I looked at Troy Donahue's Wikipedia page. Donahue was one of the most handsome actors in Hollywood in the late 1950s. When I saw his Infobox picture, I couldn't believe what I was looking at. He was in his early sixties and positively unrecognizable. I mentioned this issue on the talk page. Somebody listened to me and replaced the terrible picture with a picture of him when he was in his prime. What a difference! The article and the new picture were much better. Nobody is going to tell me that the article should have stayed with the original picture. Click on the following link for a group of photographs of Troy Donahue. The original picture is the second from left on Line 2. You will see how bad Donahue looks in the picture.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=611&ei=jYmvXIf3HYqZ_Qa14a24Bg&q=troy+donahue&oq=troy+donahue&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1734.3668..4575...0.0..0.151.920.10j2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.....0.pZjUMbW-jS0

This scenario also applies to Paul McCartney. Let's have a picture of him before the Beatles split up.Anthony22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"This scenario also applies to Paul McCartney". In what way, exactly? Britmax (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Donahue and McCartney were only six years apart in age. They were both very handsome when they were in their prime. Donahue died at 65 and McCartney is still living. I'm not saying that McCartney is not still good looking, but he was better looking 50 years ago. McCartney is best remembered when he was a Beatle, not for what he does today. His Infobox photo should equate with the days that made him a household name around the world.Anthony22 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mind you, that picture isn't very good. For my money the one where he is standing holding his bass guitar was better. Britmax (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

By the same token, a picture of McCartney at 24 is better than a picture of McCartney at 74.Anthony22 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If he left the music industry entirely after the Beatles broke-up (as the case with John Deacon of Queen), then a 60s photo would be more appropriate. But McCartney has literally been active almost every year since, and frankly, he is still remembered for what he does today, especially after the release of Egypt Station. The image of him should be from this decade, since he's still highly active and remembered. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say "a picture of McCartney at 24 is better than a picture of McCartney at 74" fits with an uber-fan perspective, but not with an encyclopedia that aims to present notable individuals in a balanced, dispassionate way. Madonna (entertainer), Bob Dylan, Elton John and many others have continued to work very publicly well into the 21st century, and we don't attempt to visually identify them with flattering images from their youth; nor did we do so with David Bowie before his death in 2016. I don't think it's a stretch to say that McCartney has courted publicity more than any of his contemporaries from the 1960s (even his most sympathetic biographers describe him as a natural self-promoter) – if he hasn't been using it to sell his records and tours, he's undertaken campaigns to establish himself in the public's mind as the avant-garde Beatle, lobby for official reversal of the Lennon–McCartney songwriting credit, etc. Meaning, he has constantly engaged with the public and the media in the present, and remains highly recognisable to the world as a septuagenarian. This isn't a page on a fan-site. JG66 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
A picture of him younger would not necessarily be better, no. I don't see how it illustrates the subject better. Britmax (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

2600:6C42:7900:2D80:EB2B:6EC1:EC8C:60EC (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Heather Mills was not paul's daughter. Beatrice was his and wife Heather's daughter. This is listed in the top box on the right side of the page incorrect.

 Not done: Crboyer (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that there are two people named Heather in McCartney's infobox. Heather Mills is listed correctly as McCartney's second wife. The Heather listed as McCartney's daughter is Heather McCartney, aka Heather Louise See, a separate person from Mills. Crboyer (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Helen Wheels was not a track on "Band On The Run"

The page for Band On The Runstates that Helen Wheels was a single from the LP.This is incorrect. The track does not appear on the LP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.216.248 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wings songwriting credits

I've just started a discussion at Talk:My Love (Paul McCartney and Wings song)#Songwriting credit. Would welcome input from all interested editors. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

John Lennon in Playboy magazine

Paul is one of the most innovative bass players ... half the stuff that's going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period ... He's an egomaniac about everything else, but his bass playing he'd always been a bit coy about.

— Lennon, Playboy magazine, January 1981

John Lennon died in December 1980. How can he have given an interview one month after his death? Or was this just published posthumously? JIP | Talk 12:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

London Town outsold Venus and Mars, Wings at the Speed of Sound and Wings over America?

In the section on Wings, the article says that London Town was "Wings' best-selling LP since Band on the Run." That means it outsold Venus and Mars, Wings at the Speed of Sound and Wings over America, which is highly unlikely based on the sales chart performance of each album and is contrary to how the commercial success of the album is described in the London Town article and other sources. Here is a summary of the four albums on the Billboard chart in the US:

Venus and Mars: 1 week at No. 1, 5 weeks at No. 2, 9 weeks in the top 10, 77 weeks on the chart.

Speed of Sound: 7 weeks at No. 1, 21 weeks in the top 10, 51 weeks on the chart.

Wings over America: 1 week at No. 1, 11 weeks in the top 10, 86 weeks on the chart.

London Town: 6 weeks at No. 2, 11 weeks in the top 10, 28 weeks on the chart.

Initial sales of London Town were good but it quickly dropped down the chart and was out of the top 100 after 19 weeks and off the chart after only 28 weeks, McCartney's shortest chart stay since Wild Life. By comparison, in week 28 on the chart Venus and Mars was still at No. 32 and Speed of Sound was at No. 73. In Billboard's year-end charts, Speed of Sound was the No. 3 album of 1976 while London Town was ranked No. 56 of 1978.

The relative chart performance of these albums was similar in the UK.

While its possible sales of London Town were similar to Venus and Mars and Wings over America, it doesn't seem possible that it sold more than Speed of Sound. RIAA awards tell us nothing since all of these albums shipped platinum and if any of them have sold more than 2 million, Capitol apparently was not interested in researching it years later. Ohnothimagain (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Undervaluing Wings?

I think the article's lead undersells the success of Wings.

"In 1970, he made his solo debut with the album McCartney, which anticipated the lo-fi movement.[1] Along with Ram (1971) and McCartney II (1980), the records have enjoyed a cult following among later generations of musicians. From 1971 to 1981, he led the group Wings, and in 1993, he formed the music duo the Fireman with Youth of Killing Joke."

It seems very odd to me that the cult following of some of his solo albums is mentioned and those albums referred to by name, but no album or single by Wings is mentioned anywhere in the lead. Wings were huge, scored many US and UK number one albums and singles including what was, to that point, the biggest selling single of all time in the UK. If I didn't know anything about McCartney after the Beatles, reading that might make me assume Wings weren't very successful or notable in his career. What do we think? Humbledaisy (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree about the strange mention of a cult following for those albums; and to read that his debut "anticipated lo-fi", I'm left with a feeling of "So what?" Aside from the statements being pretty trite, relative to this artist's stature, they're completely unrepresentative of what the majority of sources say about McCartney and Ram – which is that they sold very well but received a highly unfavourable critical reception, partly (but not solely) because McCartney was held to blame for the Beatles' break-up. That's the major message behind McCartney and Ram, and it's also a highly notable episode in rock history in its own right.
You're right that the blink-and-you-missed-it coverage given to Wings is inadequate, particularly the omission of Band on the Run. Will write more here soon, because the point about a highly unfavourable critical reception/McCartney blamed for the break-up is not even touched on in the article itself.
On this talk page starting in about 2015, I highlighted this and several other glaring omissions with the intention of fixing them. The contrast between what reads like a McCartney-approved article here and the treatment of less-than-flattering or controversial issues at BLPs like Eric Clapton or (before his death in 2016) David Bowie is startling. It completely whitewashes over the fact that McCartney used the announcement of the Beatles' break-up to promote his first solo album; that he was ridiculed for making music with his non-musician wife; that his off-the-cuff "It's a drag" comment following Lennon's death was held against him for years; that from the late '80s he was determined to reposition himself vs Lennon as the avant-garde Beatle, notably with his authorised biography Many Years from Now; and the controversy surrounding his adoption of "McCartney–Lennon" credits for Beatles songs. Of course this is a BLP, but these are all episodes that have received no end of coverage in reliable sources and no end of comment from McCartney himself. JG66 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I definitely think Wings is undermined but to me, saying McCartney anticipated the lo-fi movement doesn't seem correct to me. By 1970, the Beach Boys had already released three essential lo-fi albums: Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, and Friends; Smiley Smile being seen as one of the definitive albums of the genre. If anything, Smiley Smile is the one that anticipated the movement, McCartney just enhanced it. If anything, that should be reworded on top of expanding upon Wings a bit. – zmbro (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely! Another early example is Emitt Rhodes's second album (or first album proper), recorded in his own home studio 1969-1970. I honestly don't think the McCartney lo-fi thing is relevant to the lead at all, I think it really needs to go. I propose that section is changed to something like this - it's not perfect and very difficult to sum up a career so successful over such a long time, so any improvements welcome.

McCartney debuted as a solo artist in 1970 with the album McCartney. This was followed by Ram in 1971. The same year, McCartney formed the rock band Wings, who's albums such as Band on the Run and Venus and Mars and international hit singles including "My Love", "Live and Let Die", "Listen to What the Man Said", "Silly Love Songs", "Let 'Em In" and "Mull of Kintyre" made them one of the most successful bands of the 1970s. McCartney resumed his solo career in 1980. Since 1989, McCartney has toured consistently as a solo artist and in 1993, he formed the music duo the Fireman with Youth of Killing Joke. Beyond music, he has taken part in projects to promote international charities related to such subjects as animal rights, seal hunting, land mines, vegetarianism, poverty, and music education. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Day, Brent (October 26, 2005). "Paul McCartney Walks the Fine Line Between Chaos and Creation". Paste. Retrieved September 13, 2018.

Nationality

British rather than English? Britfan97 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussed ad nauseum already, and wars have been fought over less. Search the talk archives here and at The Beatles to find the prior discussion, or start here: /Archive_10#English_or_British --kingboyk (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk down to him because he was a year younger.

PM said in the Anthology that George was a year and a half younger. Mark Lewisohn pointed out that George was actually around 8 months younger, but he'd been held back a year at school - otherwise he'd be in the same year as Paul. Lewisohn also pointed out that Paul continues saying the age difference is year and a half. I don't know if this is worth a mention.

83.168.38.154 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation

In the meditation subsection is a quote “The whole meditation experience was very good and I still use the mantra ... I find it soothing.” cited from a 1997 book. Please can the statement be dated? Boscaswell talk 05:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

John Lennon invited Paul McCartney to join the

"Soon afterwards, the members of the band invited McCartney to join as a rhythm guitarist" .. that's inexact. the true story is, as John Lennon stated, that it was John Lennon himself who invited Paul McCartney to join his The Quarrymen band. Paul was hesitant at first that evening, but accepted to join the next day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.88.211 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

It is now Paul’s birthday, so he is no longer 77, but 78. A minor change, I know, but a necessary one Thoughtsonvinyl (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: @Thoughtsonvinyl: No change required. Should update automatically with the template (i.e. {{birth date and age}}) at midnight UTC (which is in half an hour). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Benitez claim - de facto leader

The article cites a claim by Benitez that McCartney became de facto leader of the Beatles after Epstein's death. This is at odds with everything I've read. In the Anthology documentary, McCartney says the band was very democratic until close to the end (when Lennon tried to force Allen Klein on him). Thoughts? Talk to SageGreenRider 21:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

McCartney also says in Anthology that “it’s possible I was just there more than anyone” and admits that he was the primary force behind Magical Mystery Tour. Isn’t that what a “de facto” leader is? Lennon said in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview “Paul took over and supposedly led us. But what is leadership when you’re just going round in circles.” He also complained the rest of the group were just sidemen for Paul by that point. Doesn’t sound too democratic. P-K3 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Four octaves?

The second paragraph included the following:

"his versatile and wide tenor vocal range (spanning over four octaves)"

I doubt that Paul McCartney's range is that large. Can any provide a citation? Can anyone provide evidence regarding his range? John Link (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This site https://abbeyrd.proboards.com/thread/4357/paul-widest-vocal-range-singer has a list of McCartney recordings with high and low notes covering five octaves (A1 to A6). ("'The Girl Is Mine', ... a shockingly powerful and easy A1!", "Falsetto A5 scream from 'Twist and Shout'", "...non-modal note found, an A6 from a studio rehearsal of 'Oh Darling'") Unfortunately the corresponding video has been taken down so it's hard to check. Talk to SageGreenRider 14:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
This one claims 4+ octaves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auoydGdV-fo Talk to SageGreenRider 14:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Spitz

Spitz's name occurs twice in the article without explanation. There are numerous citations of him by surname only in the footnotes. What's his full name, and who is he? Koro Neil (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Read the article, including citations and sources. Bob Spitz. The Beatles: The Biography. Why would a citation to a reliable source require an "explanation" in the article? Sundayclose (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinion not fact

The introduction reads:

“His songwriting partnership with John Lennon remains the most successful in history.”

Unless you define “success,” this largely a matter of opinion, albeit one that I and most people agree with.

This article is locked, so I propose the following edit:

“His songwriting partnership with John Lennon is widely considered the most successful in history.” Fielding99 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The source for that statement is Billboard, which is quite solid when it comes to assessing musical success. The source identifies several criteria for "most successful", and it's quite convincing. Also read the leads for Lennon–McCartney and The Beatles, which have similar (and well sourced) unequivocal statements. You're right; most people agree with the statement. It may be an opinion, but it's a widely accepted opinion. Can anyone name a more successful songwriting partnership in terms of output, chart success, and sales records? Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Google's definition of successful says "having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction." What other songwriting partnerships even approached the popularity and record sales of Lennon-McCartney's output? ili (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Please replace 

learn by ear

with 

learn by ear

"by ear" is just six characters long and it's easier not to notice the link, but if you link "learn" you'll double the length of the link and make it more noticeable. 64.203.186.120 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Remove the following unjustified claim:

Starting with the 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, he gradually became the Beatles' de facto leader, providing the creative impetus for most of their music and film projects.

Where is the source for this statement? 106.207.151.105 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A source is cited in the section "1960–1970: The Beatles". Do you have a reason to doubt the source? Sundayclose (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Peasmarsh

According to https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/the-home-heather-loathed-7283152.html "For three decades, Sir Paul ,s rural home in the village of Peasmarsh, near Rye, East Sussex, had been his retreat from the glare of fame." any idea where to add it (apart from the category)...GrahamHardy (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

The instruments category of the quick facts panel should include drums. McCartney recorded the drums on several Beatles tracks like The Ballad of John and Yoko, Back in the U.S.S.R. as well as most drums on solo albums like Ram and McCartney II. Spingolaa (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Template:Infobox musical artist says "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using." Better described in the article main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Include McCartney's net worth - US $1.12 Billion - in the infobox. This would make him the wealthiest living musician in U.S. dollar-terms. 76.71.157.66 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_12&oldid=1133842563"