Talk:Brian Epstein

Archives
September 2006

Tone/verifiability

This article, while good, has the tone of a biography, not an encyclopedia. There are numerous unverifiable statements, especially with regards to his influence on the Beatles, and what might have happened if he didn't die. All judgements needs to be attributed to notable sources. I'm going to add tags. Could someone go through and add the sources (or chop the problem statements)? Ashmoo 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the anecdotes that have been tagged have been culled from Peter Brown's The Love You Make. Mr Brown is a notable insider to the Beatles and Mr. Epstein - indeed, he was name-checked in the song "The Ballad of John and Yoko":

Finally made the plane into Paris, honeymooning down by the Seine
Peter Brown call to say, you can make it O.K.
You can get married in Gibraltar near Spain

Mr. Brown had unprecedented access and authorization from the Beatles during the writing of the biography; it should be and is considered a primary source for anything Beatles-related.
It's been a couple decades since I've read The Love You Make but I'll check it out of the library this weekend, and start the process of removing those onerous "citation needed" tags.
--Subwoofer 05:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Article adoption

I have adopted this article within the WP Beatles project. Liverpool Scouse 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Added infobox (non-performing personnel - managers aren't specifically listed (admittedly there aren't that many famous managers) but I'm pretty sure they apply, as producers etc apply. Needs an image though. Liverpool Scouse 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Parentage

Can we add the names of Brian's parents? --kingboyk 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --kingboyk 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I suggest that the persons who are writing this article should buy any Beatles book. The article is very well-written, but "It was reported", and "claimed", are not good enough. Buy a book, put in-line citations in, and nobody will complain. --andreasegde 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

With a little bit of work this article would definitely be a GA. andreasegde 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

I removed the following paragraph:

One source, longtime Lennon friend and confidant Peter Shotton, claimed in his book The Beatles, Lennon and Me that under provocation from Epstein, Lennon did partly give in: "I let him toss me off, and that was it." Biographer Hunter Davies also recalled Lennon telling him he had consented to an encounter "to see what it was like." Writer Albert Goldman expanded on both claims in his The Lives of John Lennon, alleging a longtime affair between the two men. In any case, throughout his management of The Beatles, Epstein was very careful not to play favourites for fear of creating a strain in his stewardship of the group.

because I felt like a discussion of whether or not Lennon got a handjob has very little to do with Brian Epstein's life and accomplishments. Maybe somebody wants to move this 'graph to John Lennon? (Although anything involving a quote from Albert 'I Hate Famous People' Goldman is inherently suspect, to me). I also (reluctantly) rmv'd the hilarious quote about "Cellarful of Boys" as being uncited and only peripherally relevant (if at all).

And as it turns out, there's a few other bits related to Brian's particular preference in partners that didn't seem the least bit necessary. Ok, so he was gay. It's covered. Nobody cares if he was a top, bottom, liked rough trade or fresh chickens. Well, at least, I don't think a concise, encyclopedic description of this important figure in music history is the proper forum to discuss it.

And, what they hey, I'm on a roll, so I deleted a bunch of stuff about suicide notes from the 'Death' section. Well, condensed it down, at least, since it does deserve mention. Just not elaboration and speculation. And that bit about rumours of a poisoning conspiracy?? Not only did no evidence appear to support it, no evidence appears to support the existence of said rumours. Anyone else ever hear this before? Paragraph summarily, boldly executed. Enjoy castigating me for my text-deletionist bias. :) Eaglizard 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

These removals appear to be done more to personal taste than in the historical interest. These were events in the lives of Epstein, Lennon and the Beatles inner circle, and warrant a mention. Stick around for sourcing (and the source was given, if not a precise citation, in Shotton's case). In the case of the "conspiracy", Philip Norman's Shout! devotes a couple pages to detailing its backstory (beginning in 1964), not as a supporter, but as a biographer. I have also seen it mentioned or alluded to in other biographies. Zephyrad 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I also notice a tendency on Wikipedia to remove things alleged in Albert Goldman's Lennon biography, simply because Goldman is involved or noted for writing about it. This is a disservice; unanswered questions tend to fester, and I think the best remedy is to answer speculations (and fictions) with facts. Borrowing from Derek Taylor, "I raise the point to lower it, and hopefully to bury it." I reject Goldman's claims, but I think their stench will go away sooner with airing. Zephyrad 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the fact that you just blanket reverted 2 hours worth of carefully considered edits looks like you saw a bunch of sudden edits, didn't like 'em, and removed 'em, en masse. That would be a better example of editing to personal taste. I assure you, each and every change I ever make to any damned is purely for my own personal goal of improving the clarity, tone, and above all neutrality of Wikipedia. I really would have preferred you to have undone parts you had specific objections to, and then detailed those objections here. As I understand it, that's a common procedure 'round this neck of the net. But here I'm really close to what I feel is a personal attack, so I'll re-focus.

Let's do things the slow way, ok? Bit by bit, that is. Since I added Bill Harry's story to the article in the first place, let's start with that. I reworded that paragraph because I think Harry's claims had become over-emphasized from just plain too many words, thus being made to seem more legitimate than they actually are. As far as I know, the majority of the Beatles-fan community (including me) feels that Bill Harry is a disgruntled old guy with an axe to grind, that is to say (more politely) that he probably made it up, you know? Am I wrong about this? Have a dozen biographers suddenly decided maybe Brian, Paul, John & etc were all lying about how the lads first met the man? If not, then I'll ask you -- nicely -- to explain to me what exactly is wrong with my rewriting in this particular instance (which I have re-reverted) before you dismiss my efforts with the click of of mouse, ok? Thanks, Eaglizard 20:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How to stop arguments

People, there are a lot of citations needed on this page, so I suggest that someone buy some books, and starts putting in some in-line citations. I am tempted to start work on this page, but I am being put off by the arguments written above. Do you want this page to be GA? Please reply... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Early life

I have expanded his early life, and have added in-line citations. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Bill Harry was right, as Bob Spitz wrote. 'Nuff said... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now put TWO references in from Spitz, and from Miles, that Epstein's story was, as Spitz wrote "hogwash", and Miles wrote "not true". If anyone wants to argue with them both I suggest they find a better reference. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How Epstein met the Beatles - and dependability of Bob Spitz accounts

This is not a settled matter at all. The accepted version prevailed until 2001 when Alistair Taylor reversed his own confirmation of this story in his earlier book - with another new version of the story in his NEW book. However - suspicions were immediately raised that Taylor had needed "something new" to enable him to sell a new book - when he had claimed to have "told all" in his FIRST book. Furthermore - a Liverpool based journalist actually tracked down the legendary NEMS customer Raymond Jones (then living in Spain) and discovered that he DID exist and HAD initiated Epstein's search for the record.

Furthermore, Bob Spitz has rightly received some praise for his book - but there have also been numerous factual errors in his book that have been documented. Spitz is certainly not the definitive writer on matters to do with the Beatles. And certainly not on the topic of Epstein. The works of Epstein's biographer Ray Coleman (who knew him well) and his former assistant Derek Taylor (no relation to Alistair Taylor) are far more valid than Spitz - who had no first-hand knowledge of Epstein or the Beatles.

Last but not least - as previously noted on these pages - Bill Harry has had an openly-declared animus towards Epstein - and his words relating to Epstein must take account of that. The recollections of Lennon and the other Beatles in respect of Epstein always concur with Epstein's descriptions - and those of Derek Taylor (from 1964 up till his death in 1997) and with Alistair Taylor from 1964-2001 (prior to his revisionist second book) - and not with the views of Bill Harry. Davidpatrick 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So WHERE are your in-line citations, I ask? It looks at the moment that Spitz and Miles agree with your version. I will put "citation needed" on your comments. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Derek Taylor started working for Epstein in 1964. A bit late.

• Tracked down Raymond Jones in Spain? That's a classic case of "I'm Spartacus", "No, I'm Spartacus".

• Why does Harry have a piece by Epstein on his own Mersey Beat pages if he hated him so much? Article by Epstein on Mersey Beat's web page Do you have anything against Harry?

• Barry Miles's book was written with full co-operation from McCartney, so "always concur" is simply not true. McCartney would know, would he not?

• Citations, but no POV. Time to put references in... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Taylor worked very closely with Epstein. Interviewed him extensively in April 1964 - and co-wrote/ghosted his autubiography. 2) The journalist who tracked down Raymond Jones (I think it may have been Spencer Leigh - I am checking) was/is known to be reputable and an expert. This was a big deal in Liverpool when he was finally traced. It was not a flaky thing. 3) Epstein wrote a few columns for Mersey Beat. Please do not put words into my mouth! I did not say Harry "hated him so much". I purposely and carefully wrote that he had an openly-declared animus. Which is not the same as hatred. Epstein usurped Harry's intimacy (to the extent there was some) with the Beatles. And was very responsible for their worldwide success. Harry felt that Epstein took advantage of him when Epstein purchased "Mersey Beat". Harry has been quite open about his feelings against Epstein. That is why in Beatles circles he is respected in general. And with good reason. But his opinions on matters relating directly to Epstein are taken cautiously. It is not likely that you will find any direct quote from a Beatle that supports what Harry says about Epstein. 4) McCartney's recall - like any human - is not perfect. His recollections in the late 90s are inevitably not as sharp as those in the early 1960s. None of the Beatles have/had perfect recall. Neither McCartney and Lennon could remember (in 1967) in which YEAR they had first met! eg Lennon would say 1956. (It was actually 1957) Davidpatrick 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All well and good, and I thank you profusely for your reply, but this article can only get to GA if it has enough verified references/citations. This is what the whole thing is about, and why we are here. I will stand in your corner until the death if you can give me/them references, BTW.

Let's get Brian to GA - the same as John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Neil Aspinall, Mal Evans, and Mimi Smith. Otherwise Brian will languish in the B article list for ever and ever. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Spitz mentions Raymond Jones, but still says it is hogwash. andreasegde 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the objective. Worth working towards the GA.

Spitz is a useful resource but truly not definitive. He is a journeyman writer of biographies. Not an expert on the Beatles. He did do some good research. But his work - like any biographer - is fallible. And prey to agendas of the interviewees. The words written by those who were there... who knew Epstein... who captured memories just a few years after the events - rather than 40 years later - are much more valid. Read Michael Braun. Hunter Davies. Ray Coelman. Derek Taylor. Alistair Taylor's original book. George Martin. Brian Epstein's own book. The 1964 edition AND the 1998 reissue with extensive prologue. And of those who were NOT there - Lewisohn. Those provide better facts and insights. Davidpatrick 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources you mention are probably better than Spitz, who AFAIK is indeed a journeyman biographer. That said, in cases like this where a story is in dispute and both sides are credibly sourced, we simply present both sides of the story, with references, and let the readers decide. I can't see what there is to argue about because it really is that simple. --kingboyk 11:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations with page numbers and ISBN numbers

We need citations with page numbers, as reviewers then know that an article has been seriously worked on, otherwise they think we are cheating by quoting any book we think will do. The books then have to be put in "References", with an ISBN number added. This is imperative, and not negotiable. (Just look at the GA reviews) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put Braun's book in References, but it needs page numbers. I will put Hunter Davies' book in References, but it also needs page numbers. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

75 edits today...

...by the same person?! "A bit of an excess, don't you think?" Zephyrad 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are inferring by that comment, but I can tell you that my girlfriend is working 3 nights as a nurse. Is it so bad that I spend my time here bringing articles to GA, or is it something else? Check out Paul McCartney, Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Neil Aspinall, Mal Evans, and Mimi Smith, which are all now GA. Am I being castigated for doing exactly what we are here for? andreasegde 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see it now - the clouds are gathering. Is it because I'm asking for in-line citations? Whatever you think, this article has to be a GA. Anything less would be an insult. I would like a reply, if you would be so kind. andreasegde 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying you could have used the page preview, instead of burning up Wikipedia's disc space with EIGHTY-THREE (as I counted) basically minor edits, in one day. That's eighty or so EXTRA VERSIONS of the WHOLE PAGE that now need to be stored. If excessive edits-n-saves qualifies an article for GA status, you have no worries... and I have no idea what your girlfriend's nursing job has to do with it. Zephyrad 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zephyrad, I think we might want to take a look at WP:PERF which says in part: "When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content, such as editing a page, reorganising a category, or modifying a template, the impact on Wikipedia's servers is the last thing you should be worrying about. When the time comes that some common practice is having a negative impact on the servers' ability to provide access, the developers will step in. They worry about the servers' performance so we don't have to." In other words, Andreasegde is a diligent, thorough editor who gives an enormous amount of time and energy to the Beatles articles, and this is the way he works best. Until the developers step in and ask him to use a different method, I think we should all be saying thanks, not criticizing his volume. Tvoz | talk 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen. --kingboyk 11:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

There are enough citations in Early Life and Managing The Beatles now, but Managing could be longer. Evolution seems to be rambling and lacks citations, and maybe needs to be renamed. andreasegde 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are to be commended for all your hard work on this article. I urge you to look at two key books (my copies are currently in storage). The 1998 reissue of "Cellarful Of Noise" (Pocket Books 1998) That contains a lot of well-researched info and stats in the introduction. Plus important quotes by George Martin. And the second book is Ray Coleman's biography of Epstein. You will find invaluable help for the article there. Davidpatrick 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we accept Epstein's ghost-written book as being honest? We probably can, as concerning quotes from other people. I'll look for it. (I had it - years ago - but finding books in Austria is a bugger... Oh, the waste of throwing books out years ago that we thought of as no longer being readable or useable... :) andreasegde 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I had my doubts until reading it and one other book. The following things became apparent. It contains many more of Epstein's actual words than one would think. Derek Taylor's limited edition autobiography "Fifty Years Afrift" (1984) includes reproductions of extracts from the TRANSCRIPTS of the audio-recorded interview he conducted with Epstein in April 1964. Based on a comparison of these words with the equivalent section in the finished "Cellarful" it appears that - certainly in those sections - Taylor simply used Epstein's actual words - with some tidying up for grammar and syntax. ie - Taylor did not create the words out of his own head based just on a series of facts. This makes the book more authentically Epstein's voice than one would expect. Secondly - the book contains several episodes that are not flattering of Epstein. The interviews were conducted - and the book written - in a more innocent era where "spin control" was not automatically considered. While Epstein - like most people - undoubtedly presented his story in a favorable light - he included a few unflattering details of his relationship with the Beatles - including some tensions between himself and the individuals - that would probably have been excised from such a book in later more self-conscious times. So the book is really helpful. And the 1998 edition is even better. Alas my copy is in storage. Good luck finding it! Perhaps ebay? Davidpatrick 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the audio tapes still exist? That's something I'd love to hear! --kingboyk 15:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

B&B

Is it really worth it to put in that the Epstein's family home has been turned into a Bed & breakfast hotel, called Epstein's? I hope not. andreasegde 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be ok in a Trivia section. Davidpatrick 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, don't mention that 'T' word - the "boys in blue" don't like it. (Check out the Beatles trivia arguments... Ouch!) andreasegde 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that really is *rivia and doesn't need to be mentioned, but if it does have to be in the article best put it into the prose somewhere as the man says :) --kingboyk 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian, or Epstein?

I know we should mention "Epstein" instead of "he", but when do we make the difference between when he was just Brian to his family, and when he became "Brian Epstein/Epstein"? (The Beatles called him 'Eppy' BTW, which only confuses the situation.) andreasegde 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he is always Epstein. A direct quote in which he is called "Brian" by someone is an obvious exception. And the Beatles' nickname for him should be referenced somewhere - even en passant. Davidpatrick 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about "Brian Epstein's mother was called Malka", and "After his parents had moved him from one boarding school to another, Brian spent two years at"... It seems strange to call him Epstein, when he was only 14, or so. (I did the same thing with Mimi Smith = John/Lennon) I don't care really, but the GA reviewers love to hate this sort of thing. If we sort this out now, it will mean less work later on (although they always find something to complain about...) Ho-hum... andreasegde 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made a pass at resolving this. Even when the person is a kid - using the first name always makes it sound too fanzine I think. Davidpatrick 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Epstein he will be. andreasegde 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"John Lennon pointed to Epstein's death as the beginning of the end of the group. "When Brian died I knew that was it. I knew we'd had it..." Bugger... andreasegde 01:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From high-school Composition classes to professional writing, the last name is preferable, unless there's a special reason to use the first name. If you're quoting someone who knew them personally, and they use the first name, quote it that way. – A stylebook or online style guide might be of some help. Zephyrad 02:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally it should be Epstein; that's the basic rule. Call him Brian when the same sentence or possibly paragraph is talking about other Epsteins, so as to avoid confusion. The very occasional "Brian" might be alright just to add a bit of a variety to the prose. --kingboyk 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"when the same sentence or possibly paragraph is talking about other Epsteins"... That would count as a special reason. :-) Zephyrad 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting (not)

This is interesting for me, but probably very boring for anyone else. I would pronounce his name as Ep-sch-tein/Ep-schtyn (the same word for Ep-stone in Austrian/German) but the Fabs pronounced it as Ep-steen. andreasegde 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Epstein frame - magnetic test [tech.] der Epstein-Rahmen
• Epstein square - magnetic test [tech.] der Epstein-Rahmen
• Epstein-Barr virus [abbr.: EBV] [med.] das Epstein-Barr Virus [Abk.: EBV]
• Epstein-Barr virus infection [med.] infektiöse Mononukleose
• Epstein-Barr virus infection [med.] Pfeiffer'sches Drüsenfieber
• Epstein-Barr virus infection [med.] das Studentenfieber nicht fachsprachlich

This was taken from Leo.org andreasegde 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Has been pronounced both epp-STINE' and EPP-steen. Coleman wrote that Epstein told him he preferred it as EPP-steen to rhyme with "teen" Davidpatrick 01:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon, in his side of Hear the Beatles Tell All, referred to him as "Ep-STINE". Zephyrad 02:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, in the US it's usually EPP-steen. Tvoz | talk 04:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ALthough "Stein" is always STINE and Leonard was Burn-stine. Tvoz | talk 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The good thing about this is that it doesn't matter one tiny little jot, because we don't have to pronounce it. andreasegde 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not until you do the audio version, of course ;) --kingboyk 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust you to slip one in past the post on me blind side. :)) andreasegde 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I nearly forgot. I remember reading somewhere once that Lee Eastman's original family name was Epstein. (Eastman was put forward by McCartney as a manager instead of Klein.) andreasegde 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of the relationship with The Beatles

This section seems to be messy, and should be merged. We already have Early life, The Beatles, Business dealings, Personal life, Death, and Legacy. andreasegde 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to looking good. Anyone for tennis, or a GA? andreasegde 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there IS a need for this section - but I agree it needs more work. The reason for keeping it is this: Epstein's relationship with the Beatles evolved - just as their music evolved. We know that there was a vast difference between the group that recorded Love Me Do - and the band that recorded Sgt. Pepper - and we note this in the Beatles article. Different sections. There was undeniably a shift in the relationship between Epstein and the Beatles - just as there was in their relationship with George Martin. What started out as a paternal guardianship evolved into a friendly business partnership. Numerous comments from the Beatles in Anthology that he was above all - their friend. That was new in relationships between artists and managers. We need to convey that. Davidpatrick 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, but are there enough (I know I'm pedantic about this - sorry) citations for that? I think it was an important factor in Brian's demise, but there are not a lot of comments about it. I have three pages in front of me detailing the business stuff about James Trevor Isherwood, Lenmac, Northern songs and DJM, which I would like to put in. (We are up to 30 kilobytes). We have to decide what to cut, and what to keep. (I learned this the hard way on Macca's page, BTW - ask Kingboyk... :)

P.S. Being a team-player, I find it really nice to be able to co-operate with another editor/editors. We can drink something nice when Brian gets a GA rating. andreasegde 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just thought about this, and think that the whole thing started to break down when they stopped touring. Epstein, Mal Evans and Aspinall were all relegated to the sidelines as the Beatles concentrated more on studio work. Maybe the section could be renamed: Studio years, End of touring, After Candlestick Park, or whatever you think is right... Their relationship with Epstein definitely changed after they stopped playing live gigs (which meant a drastic reduction in income for Epstein.) andreasegde 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From all I know and all I've read by those who knew the situation best - the relationship certainly changed. And that caused Epstein some insecurity. However the relationship was still a very strong one. It didn't get worse. It was that the work was different. Epstein was not primarily driven by money. He valued the achievements more than the money alone. His accomplishments in getting the Beatles to partake in the "Our World" first-ever worldwide satellite hook-up, in getting the Beatles to acquiesece (albeit begrudgingly and reluctantly) in the "Yellow Submarine" film - were both prescient. The latter has yielded the Beatles a lot of money in recent years. That is why we should get hold of the 1998 edition of the Epstein "Cellarful" which details much of this. Check out the Brian Epstein website. Some great quotes by George Martin, Derek Taylor and Ray Coleman. I trust their words much more than Bob Spitz who is a well-intentioned journeyman writer interviewing people 40-50 years on - with fading memories - and sometimes with their own agenda... Davidpatrick 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Look at these sentences:

"While by present-day standards this was a poor deal, these were standard terms in 1962 for a new artist with no leverage. Especially an artist that had already been rejected by every major competitor."[citation needed]

This was slipped into a paragraph that had a citation, but has no citation by itself, making it look as if the citation covered it as well. This is just not on...

"Epstein arranged for the Beatles to enter into a publishing agreement with Dick James Music (DJM) and set up a company called Northern Songs, which was also standard for the time: songwriters received the statutory minimum of 50% of the gross monies received, with the publisher retaining the other 50%." [citation needed]

If there is no citation added to these statements they will have to be deleted. This is not my personal opinion, it is simply why we are here. We can not put facts/POV in—even if they are true—without citing where they came from. I don't want to fall out about this, but I will rigidly stick to what is expected from us...

I also expect the new paragraphs in Business dealings to be left in, because they are cited and convey information that is factual. andreasegde 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Commission

Let's address the last point. There is a need to weigh what is factual with what is relevant. Classic case: The stated surprise expressed by Isherwood about the management commission.

1) Was Isherwood genuinely surpised? Possibly. Assume he was. 2) Did he express this surprise to Barry Miles? Probably. Miles is an honest writer. Assume he did. 3) So is the FACT that Isherwood said this to Miles true? Almost certainly. So THAT is a fact.

Now... 4) Was Isherwood erroneous in being surprised? If he was a CPA with a lot of entertainment industry experience (of which they were very few in 1964) he would have known that they were two entirely different roles in the business. Agents who secured engagements for a 10% commission. And personal managers (sometimes called "managers" or "talent managers") who performed a far broader role and customarily received remuneratin ranging from 15% to 30% (usual range) all the way up to 50% (Elvis' manager). Let's say he didn't know this. So his surprise is legitimate. it's just that it was ill-informed.

So now we come to the decision to include or exclude such a nugget in the article.

At best this is misleading trivia. It almost certainly is true that the person thought that and that he imparted his view to Miles. Who included it among TENS OF THOUSANDS of other facts in his book.

The question isn't is it factual that it was a view that was uttered and that it was uttered it can be cited.

The question is it relevant to include the mis-perception of one individual merely because it was included in one book which can cited as evidence of it being a "fact"? (A fact that it was uttered. NOT a fact that it was true about Epstein.)

The likelihood is that an uninformed reader (not knowing the difference between managers and agents) might tend to draw a conclusion that Epstein was doing something outrageously wrong by being paid a commission that a CPA thought was unusually high. That leaves an impression that is defamatory of Epstein.

It is ludicrous that this erroneous misperception by one individual would then have to be countered by cited examples simply to prove that this individual was mistaken in his belief.

That would be self-defeating madness.

I have put some simple refutation in on a temporary basis. But I think it should be deleted. The views of one individual - erroneous or otherwise - is just not MATERIAL to this article. And since it also leaves a defamatory impression - it should not be in the article. Davidpatrick 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that sentence really bugged me. Why is it there, especially since BE wasn't doing anything particularly surprising? It's just one (uninformed) guy's opinion, at best.Eaglizard 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it usual for a manager to get 25% of gross, before expenses, and with costs like the manager's office, etc., borne by the artist? Sounds unreasonable to me, but of course, that doesn't matter. Was that the usual practice at the time? John Cardinal 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Details of sex life

There is a strong danger that the article is including too much unnecessary detail on Epstein's personal/sexual life.

The fact that he was gay at a time when homosexuality was illegal in England - and generally a taboo in social circles - is legitimate. It also had some impact on the way he lived his life. So these facts must be included. Many of his friends and associates commented on this in recent years. With a few people going into great detail. Again this is factual. So there are plenty of on-the-record statements that can be cited.

But how MUCH detail is NECESSARY in a biographical article. At what point does it cross over from being information essential in a biographical article to being a titillating litany of sexual preferences and activities? Are there similarly detailed accounts in the articles of other notable individuals? Is there a different amount of detail included? If so why? Is it because he was homosexual? Is there the same amount of detail included about heterosexual people who were promiscuous in their personal lives? Is it because the activities were illegal?

I am NOT advocating any type of whitewash. I AM advocating that we look at other articles about notable individuals and ensure that the AMOUNT of detail included is proportionate and appropriate. Simply because something has been stated in a book and a reference to that book can be included does not in itself make something relevant. Davidpatrick 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Brian's sexuality should not overdue the details, but deciding when that threshold is reached is difficult. With regards to comparisons to other people, every case is different. From all the accounts I have read, his sexuality played a major part in his life, and unfortunately, his death. To the extent there is a disagreement about what to leave in/leave out, editors should discuss it here. John Cardinal 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments above, I too felt there was way too much material about specific sexual details -- in fact, it almost like felt the article had been hacked over by a homophobe trying make gays look bad, but that's just a personal opinion. In any case, I will repeat that the paragraph referencing the probably-apocryphal Epstein/Lennon handjob is, imo, entirely excessive, and should be cut completely. At best, it is a trivial detail about Lennon more than it is about Epstein. The reference to 'rough trade' is also over the top, to me; it's purely speculation by some biographer (afaik). But after getting annoyed with Zephyred's undoing of my efforts w/o apparent consideration (again, imo) I decided not to work on this article any more. Clearly, other editors have (finally!) taken it under their wings to give Brian the high-quality article he deserves.Eaglizard 05:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

This needs to be looked at by other editors before it escalates into something unpleasant. I am totally prepared to abide by the concensus. I will make a request on The Beatles project page. andreasegde 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article can only be defamatory if it isn't cited - if it's cited to reliable sources it's fine. The "Referenced in popular culture" section in the article will need a cleanup first before it can reach GA though. LuciferMorgan 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone pick an example or two of what is in dispute? The edit history is like war and peace... John Cardinal 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article is defamatory, and whether there is too much in it about his sexuality. andreasegde 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine as regards comments made about his business dealings, since most seem to be cited, and his percentages. As for some of his business dealings, perhaps he wasn't quite as smart as he could have been and trusted people too much but he was singularly devoted to the band, and again there are references (and qualifications about general practice at the time).

As for his sexuality, it seems that it did inform much of his life and as being queer was illegal and socially unacceptable in his formative years it must have played a significant part of his character development. Other than his sexuality and dealings with the Beatles, and other acts, are there any decent sources for the rest of his life outside of the Beatles and his orientation? I wouldn't be surprised if there was precious little outside of the Beatles and being gay. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not speak of arbitration, but perhaps some informal conflict resolution may be helpful. At the risk of overextending myself, can I be of assistance here? I should disclose, I've been involved in WP:Beatles since "forever", but if I can help, I will. If Epstein were alive, WP:BLP would inform on how to proceed pretty clearly. I'd suggest that guidance be taken from it even so... only well cited stuff should stay, and stuff that's cited can stay even if it's derogatory but we need balance, in the spirit of WP:NPOV. Are there specific sections or edits that are problematic? I see that user:Andreasegde has been hard at work (subsequent to the above posting). Comments? Thoughts? PS I am already overextended so if this is complex I may beg off. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is about whether some people want to "carry a torch" for Epstein, or to relate the facts (which are from cited sources). One user believes that Epstein's homosexuality should not be overly stressed, or his mistakes/naivety in business. This user does not like adding citations, but merely adds his own POV. I am here purely to relate the facts as quoted from cited sources, and to raise Brian Epstein from a B-article to a GA. I have my doubts as to whether the user in question is really interested in Epstein becoming a GA. andreasegde 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Andreasegde: I haven't looked closely at the edits... but if you're using cited, well sourced material to enhance the article, I see no issue here at all, really. That is nothing at all like adding POV. Just about anyone would support keeping your changes and removing uncited POV. Just remember please, don't get into edit wars... If you have specific issues in future that you need help with, you know where to find me, just ask... ... To others, if you disagree with Andreasegde's version please do speak out and help reach consensus. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Andreasege is not referring to my edits; it's rather hard provide a citation to removed material. (On the other hand, I did rewrite a bunch of the text once upon a time w/o citing it, so maybe...) In any case, I'm pretty sure it's at least two users who "believe that Epstein's homosexuality should not be overly stressed". Just FYI. Eaglizard 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear. Brian is now up for a GA. All is well. andreasegde 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts v. evidence

Facts—mentioned above a few times—are very slippery things. I think it's better to discuss evidence, supported by reliable sources, and in some cases, conclusions drawn from that evidence. A lot of the content in Beatle-related articles are accounts by observers made after the event, and subject to enormous complications of truth. I am not talking about people being dishonest, I'm talking about 2 honest witnesses watching the same event and sincerely believing they saw something different. Thinking of evidence as facts is error-prone, but luckily, not really necessary. When treated as evidence, you record the source, capture what it says, and leave most of the conclusions to the reader. John Cardinal 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And that friends is what Wikipedia is meant to be all about. Very nicely put Mr Cardinal. --kingboyk 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GA

I think this article is almost ready for GA. If anyone knows of anything that has been left out, please say so. andreasegde 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Can you provide a postcode area (or name) for Chapel Street. There are likely to be several in London. Should his pre Beatles life be split between pre and post National Service? The latter shows the adult, whereas the former is early and family life orientated.

Er... that's it, really. Perhaps his management of other bands should be more than a couple of lines, since some were very succesful and they are noted in the info box, but perhaps the reference books used do not say much. A quick "borrow" from the artists articles may find stuff worth nicking? Other than the above... Go Go Go! LessHeard vanU 22:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have just put in Multimap.com reference for Chapel Street (Vera also helped). Epstein lived near Her Majesty's little town house. Can't find a place to split his early life. He worked at NEMS, went to the army and then returned. Hmmm... Have also put in more info about Epstein's artistes. andreasegde 22:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have just put Brian up for GA. He is number 9 on the list. It gives us a little time to sort out the minor things. andreasegde 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have done a lot of work on flow in the article, and have tried my best to balance out the good comments and negative comments about Brian. andreasegde 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian is now #7 in the list. andreasegde 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian is now #5 in the list. andreasegde 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

• Image:Cellarful.gif is missing a fair use rationale, so is Image:Be3.jpg, rationale for Image:057120130X.01. AA240 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is very weak.
• Please put the publisher outside the title so - turns to

just so it's easier to see who the publisher is.

• Reference 30 is unreliable - geocities is a personal website
• and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement
• The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference
• please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article
• make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organize (A) (British: organise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb), programme (B) (American: program ).
• *Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): wouldn't, didn't, didn't, didn't. didn't -> did not
• Is it 'The Beatles' or 'the Beatles' - i see both, stick with one

Rest looks good to me, possible FA. M3tal H3ad 03:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference"(my bolding)? Citations and references are needed when claims may be open to dispute. I should think that the Beatles as an international phenomena is well established. LessHeard vanU 11:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this says the most successful period of The Beatles career was with Brian, which means there were other periods, which weren't as successful - where can i find a reference for this? M3tal H3ad 12:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a different kettle of fish, and probably does need to be cited. The group began to fall apart after Mr Epstein's death (although I'm not sure they were any less successful), indeed I have a Lennon quote memorised: "After Brian died, we collapsed. I knew we were in trouble then. I thought, 'We've f*cking had it.'" From the Rolling Stone interview was it? Or Playboy? --kingboyk 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry if I bit your head off :)

I have to disagree with kingboyk here: The band as an national and international success happened during Epsteins tenure as manager, those with only a passing knowledge of the band would not be familiar with their pre-Epstein career. The visibility of Epstein as a mover and shaker in 60's pop society is obvious, since a management deal with him was second only to having a Lennon/McCartney composition in terms of credibility. Whatever it was that the Beatles embodied as 60's icons only happened whilst Epstein was their manager. It was only in the period after Epstein's death that there was criticism over their musical directions, business dealings, public personae, etc. The perception of the Beatles as the foremost musical act of the era is during Epstein's management, and as such (I suggest) does not require referencing/citing. LessHeard vanU 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You said what the reference should. Although my concerns are minor they have not been addressed so I'm failing this. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference - Citations rarely go in the lead, and not for a statement as safe as that. Everybody knows The Beatles had extraordinarily massive success, including even those people who think they are crap.
• please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article - Since when has that been needed for GA?
• and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement - Not so much POV as needing a source.

Other suggestions seem OK, but the first 2 above?! Bah! --kingboyk 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

This article is well written, broad, informative, and is filled with references. I do have one small concern, though, and that is that the McCartney quote in the introduction really ought to be cited. Besides that, I'm passing this article for GA. ErleGrey 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Business dealings

The opening of this paragraph was NOT a fair reflection of prevailing opinion about Epstein. And certainly not on the very webpage that was cited as the reference for it! The conventional wisdom on Epstein has always been primarily that he was honest. There has definitely been some criticism (long after his death) about some of the deals he made. Though the prevailing opinion has always been that any mistakes were because of naivite. And as Denis O'Dell (and also Ray Coleman and George Martin make clear) there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Lennon made one remark about Epstein that contradicted volumes of positive remarks about Epstein that he made. (At certain times - Lennon also attacked George Martin, Derek Taylor, McCartney and Harrison - and many others. These views - expressed mainly in the immediate aftermath of the Beatles; break-up - are not held to be the definitive views by Lennon on any of the objects of his temporary wrath.) It certainly is not accurate to imply that approx. 50% of people regard Epstein as having been honest and 50% think him dishonest. Far and away the opinion of those closest to him (Alistair Taylor, Derek Taylor, Peter Brown, George Martin) or those who have researched his life (Ray Coleman, Martin Lewis, Debbie Geller) is that he was a scrupulously honest man who was utterly devoted to the Beatles (probably to his own detriment in terms of emotional and physical health. To suggest otherwise is a grave disservice and unfactual. Davidpatrick 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that (and to your next comment too). --kingboyk 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Various points...

This contained a lot of minor detail that does not belong in the opening paras. The fact of where he was during the recording of Sgt. Pepper is valid and factual - but doesn't belong in an overview. The fact of his death does.

The most salient part of Epstein's success in getting George Martin to sign the Beatles was not that Martin hadn't seen them play live. (That was NOT an essential component of a decision to sign a recording artist in 1962.) If anything needs to be said - it was that Epstein succeeded after the group had been turned down by every other major record label.

The term "businessman" is not the key word to describe Epstein. That implies he was primarily a businessman. He was a minor store manager who became a very successful impresario. Davidpatrick 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority of informed opinion" does not have a citation.212.241.67.98 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted

I came back here to see when this would be granted a GA. It has not, because nobody could be bothered to to fix the little problems that were raised by the reviewer. This is disgusting, and confirms my belief that The Beatles project is nothing more than a bunch of loud-mouthed pedantic control freaks who can not be bothered to carry out the simplest of tasks, but prefer to write reams and reams of self-important drivel about their own opinions. You should all hang your heads in shame. andreasegde 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Sorry you seem to be upset. I can only speak for myself. I really am not that worried about the article receiving peer approval or brownie points. To me it is infinitely more important that the article be actually fair and factual than that it be given an award SAYING that in the opinion of some reviewer - it has met some subjective standard. Nice to have it - but way less important than just the knowledge of doing decent work. IMO the hard work that you and others (and myself as well) have put in has been good - but not perfect. There is still far too much reliance on one or two books. Just because they have been published and can be cited in our article - doesn't automatically mean that they are correct.

And the existence of one or two opinions about him or his life - that are discounted by the vast majority of published accounts doesn't mean that we then have this artificial "balance" inserted that (by way of example) "on the one hand some people believe he was honest - but others think he was a crook. So opinion is divide on the subject". That is artificial balance that means theoretically that any crackpot theory or assertion could be included - just as long as it is in a book and we cite the page number.

There is a lot of material that may be factually true (or not) but even if true - is needless detail and minutiae. And there is a preponderence of detail about his sexual preferences that is not present about those who are promiscuous heterosexuals. That is not to seek to airbrush his personal life - but to keep the amount of detail limited to what is necessary for a biographic article - not what is titillating gossipy detail.

This article needs a lot more work. And that work IMO is NOT about inserting dozens of assertions from mainly one or two books that are not even primarily about Epstein (primarily books by Spitz and Miles) adding the page references as in-format citations - and then taking the attititude that that is good enough. I think we need to read and draw from a wider variety of sources - especially: Ray Coleman's 1989 biography. Derek Taylor's two books "As Time Goes By" (circa 1971) and "Fifty Years Adrift" (circa 1984), Epstein's own "Cellarful of Noise" (1964) and the Martin Lewis companion narrative to the 1998 reissue of "Cellarful" - together with George Martin's introduction to that edition. Also check out Denis O'Dell's book "Apple To The Core". My book collection is in storage now - or I would do it. All of those people (with the exception of Lewis) knew Epstein well. (And Lewis - who is a protege of Derek Taylor - is an acknowledged Beatles historian who has produced multiple Beatles projects). Let's look at what THEY have to say. Do NOT depend primarily on Spitz - who is a well-intentioned writer but a professional biographer - he has written books on diverse subjects - not an expert on the Beatles. And never met Epstein. Just interviewed people (some of whom have "agendas") 45 years after the events. Barry Miles is a very respected writer - but he was writing an "authorized" biography of McCartney - so as with any authorized biography - they tend to have to please the person who is authorizing the content. And Miles only knew Epstein slightly. Nowhere near as much as the others mentioned above.

I'm up for more work on this. But let's focus on creating a worthy article rather than on "passing the audition". A worthy article is its own reward. And may even achieve recognition too. But the work is more important than the award... That's MY opinion. Davidpatrick 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are people's books always "in storage"? I have read that so many times that it's laughable. Are people constantly on the move? I doubt it. It just means that people have read them, but don't own them - so are unable to put page number citations in.

If you don't understand that getting an article rated as being good is worthy, then you do not understand the concept of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia states that an article is B class because it is not good enough. If you worked for a newspaper, you wouldn't last long in the job with your attitude.

Remember Watergate? That came from one source.

I have stopped working on this article, as I have no desire to tangle with someone who is "carrying a torch" for Epstein, and does not want anything negative said about him. I wish you well. andreasegde 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Even though I no longer contribute to this project, I will defend the the citations I provided. Spitz spent seven years researching/writing his book (fact) and that is not the sort of time a Pop biographer would think of giving. He did make one mistake that I spotted, but other books also have them - but that is no reason to discount his work. I suggest you read this... User Davidpatrick does not know how to put in-line citations in (fact) and I strongly suspect that he has not even read Spitz's book. I would even go so far as to say that I think he is a Trojan Horse, and has his own hidden agenda. andreasegde 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes strikes again

• Content deleted by administrator User:23skidoo on the grounds that it constituted a personal attack on an editor and was not directly related to improving the article. The following response is being kept as it pertains to concerns voiced in other threads regarding the use of sources, which is a legitimate topic of discussion on this page. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I have no idea why the Brian article didn't get a GA. The grade it got is certainly not in my power to influence. As I have written above - I am not particularly interested in articles for their grades. Grades are well and good but they are not more important than having a good article. And a good article should have (among many other things) accurate facts that are capable of being verified from mutiple sources (not just one book that has become the flavor of the year); it should NOT include negative assertions made by only one source without other verification; and it should not place a disproportionate focus on sexual matters that are of a tabloid nature. Some of the things about Brian Epstein I have objected to in the article dwell on his sexuality and I find the amount of detail offensive and quite unnecessary. It is tabloid and sensationalistic. There is not a similar amount of detail about heterosexual people who have had promiscuous personal lives. His sexual preferences did not directly interefere with his work or cause his death. To dwell on the details is therefore unnecessary. And I will continue to press this point. Davidpatrick 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further discussion deleted on the grounds of WP:ATTACK and violation of talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for editors who have books about Brian Epstein

User Andreasegde is concerned that we have more in-article cited references in the article. While I do not agree with all of his edits on the article - I agree with him that such references can help the article. The wider the range of books - and the more authorative they are - the better. I do not have access to my own books. Do other editors have any of the recommended books that could help improve this article? Davidpatrick 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion deleted on the grounds that it violated WP:ATTACK, possibly also WP:BLP as it made claims regarding the subject of a biographical article currently on Wikipedia, and also that it violated Wikipedia talk page policy. Talk pages should only be used for discussion on how to improve an article. There is no place for personal attacks, accusations, or speculation regarding Wikipedia editors. Due to Andreasgde's personal attack on Davidpatrick, which has now been deleted by me. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Please remember No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Other discussion threads above are subject to review and possible deletion on the grounds also that they may violate WP:ATTACK and talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

To clear up any misunderstanding, I, (user andreasegde) am NOT concerned about this article needing more in-line citations. As Bob Spitz worked on his book for seven years, I think his reputation is safe from criticism. Barry Miles worked with McCartney for a long period (1991-1996, and has known him for years) and wrote a very balanced book. Cynthia Lennon made some mistakes, but she was right about important events, which have been included. I think that will suffice. andreasegde 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

New source

An external link was added to the Apple Records article, containing a sample chapter from a book about Apple. It covers Epstein quite a bit, and might be useful for some additional critical opinion/quotations/citations.[1] --kingboyk 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent source. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

I would have thought that as there is a movement to have Brian inducted into the Hall of Fame, it would help his case if this article was a GA article or an FA. More people respect FA articles than B-articles, because their worth has been proven. If this article remains a B-article, it only shows that not enough people are interested in the cause. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think Mr Epstein deserves a place in the Hall of Fame. I also think that a comprehensive, honest, balanced article on him would do nothing to prevent that. I'm not sure of your point though, it sounds a bit like politicking to me. --kingboyk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is because I can not understand the reasoning behind the attitude that it doesn't matter whether Brian is a GA or not. It's like renovating a classic car and then saying that you will never actually drive it. I just don't get it. andreasegde 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I agree with you then. Btw: You got your first support on Mimi's FAC :) Nice start! --kingboyk 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian

Brian's article has been put up again for review, and this time it will be monitored to ensure his elevation to GA status on Wikipedia. I respectfully request that no major edits be done during the review, as this is frowned upon by reviewers. I thank you. andreasegde 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Could Kingboyk or someone look at the photos to see if they will pass? I read that the last reviewer was not happy about them. I thank you. andreasegde 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added more photos, and have taken out the irrelevant ones. This is starting to look very good. andreasegde 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is looking very good now. I think this could be an FA, if it had a review by concerned editors.andreasegde 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is the header green? It makes poor Eppy look ill... andreasegde 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Swearword

I have changed, "We've fuckin' had it!'" to "We've [expletive deleted] had it!'" per the concerns of an editor, even though I have seen the phrase quoted elsewhere without the aforementioned swearword. andreasegde 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the two sources I have for the quote (Wenner and Miles) and both have the expletive. If someone can find a similar but different quote that expresses Lennon's concern for the future of the band immediately after Epstein's death, let's substitute that instead. If some other source has the same quote without the expletive, let's change it and cite that source. If we cite Wenner or Miles, then I think the quote should be accurate. [Expletive deleted] is a little unwieldy, but it indicates clearly that words have been deleted and so it's fine with me as a substitute. John Cardinal 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I thank you. We pulled it off, as they say.andreasegde 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)