Talk:Hey Jude

Template:V0.5

Best Selling Single?

In short- it wasn't, that honour goes to "I wanna hold your hand", according to every source I have read. It's encouraging to see a song by my favourite band as a featured article, though disappointing to see one with such a glaring error.

I want to properly disambiguate Hey Jude, which is both a compilation album and song, the song being far more widely known than the compilation album, which was United States-only. What would be the "correct" way to fix this? I'm looking into rewriting the article to featured standard, so I'm curious. Thanks in advance for help rendered. Johnleemk | Talk 13:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say keep the song at Hey Jude, and the album goes to Hey Jude (album), with a note at the top of Hey Jude saying This article is about the song; for the album of the same name, see Hey Jude (album).. Just my $.02. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:17, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Seconded. Anárion 13:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another possibility is to include both in the same article, especially if the album article isn't likely to be more than a paragraph or two. Each could have its own section. The article could start with a sentence that provides internal links to each section — something like "Hey Jude is a [[#The song|classic Beatles song]] and [[#The album|a Beatles compilation album]]". (I'm not suggesting this artlessly brief sentence, just its format.) Just a thought. — Jeff Q 15:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had added a note about the album to the bottom a while ago, which was removed by a recent editor. I readded it, but if you wish to expand it to the point that it needs its own page, that would be excellent as well. —siroχo 15:41, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

The album is nothing special - stick it all one article with the song taking precedence. Pcb21| Pete 16:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence about the album is not worth of a separate article, at least not yet. anthony (see warning) 20:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

22 seconds into the song you hear a strange rustling sound in the background. Could that be Ringo heading back to the drums? Notice it's just a few seconds before the percussion comes in. 142.161.205.107 21:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Hey Jude is a beautiful song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.191.12 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The song, despite its unusual length (7 minutes, 12 seconds), became the Beatles' best-selling single" appears to be factually incorrect. A quick search of the internet gives sales figures on 10million for Hey Jude and 12 million for I Want to Hold Your Hand. LiamE

Are you sure that those figures are worldwide? I can't find any more credible sources at the moment, but this fanpage (warning: MIDI background music) does believe that "Hey Jude" is their best-selling single. --LostLeviathan 13:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't like to put too much weight on fan sites to be honest. Even so [1] and [2] both seem to support "I want to hold your hand" as the bigger seller of the two. Of the sites I looked at [3] appears to be the most impartial and authoritative although as it doesn't give sources I can't be sure. As I understand it anyway worldwide sales figures are not a precise science. --LiamE 10:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Doesn't Julian now own the rights to the song? I seem to remember hearing that he went to court to get them. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not - Julian Lennon does not own the rights to any Beatles song - especially one that was written by Paul, not his father. The rights to only a few Beatles songs are owned by McCartney / Yoko - you can find these on Paul's MPL licensing site. All the rest are owned by Sony / Michael Jackson.

---

Is the comment, "In 2005, "Hey Jude" was performed by Paul McCartney as the finale of the main Live 8 event in London.", really relevant. Sure it's true... but he's being playing it at basically every concert he's ever done. --HybridFusion 06:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, all that was played was the outro? How is the fact that he played the outro to a song that he plays at almost every concert he performs, count as relevant? Not that I'm saying it wasn't an important concert but is every other track performed by everyone else listed under their own track entries? I doubt it. --Thetriangleguy 14:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Any objections to removal? HybridFusion 09:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding revert of "Hey, Jew" paragraph.

First off, to the anon contributor, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I will explain why I am reverting the changes you've made. Regardless of its truth, no established link of this claim to the song is provided, so at best it is original research. If the paragraph is based in fact, it belongs in a different article from this one, unless it can be verified that it somehow is related to the song. If it is included in a different article, it should be related to the topic, and a source should be provided. —siroχo 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fucking 'ell"

At around the 2:50 mark, the rest of the band sings "Let her under your skin". John sings "Let her into your heart....", catches himself, says "Oh!" and then a second and a half later, curses himself for blowing the lyric. I've reverted your edit so it agrees with the article you linked.

Every source I've seen says it's the wrong chord, not the wrong lyric. Provide a source, please. Johnleemk | Talk 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the footnote you added. "You can also hear John shouting out "Fucking 'ell" at 2:58 after he messes up the backing vocal". Interestingly enough, the "Listen!" portion at the bottom of that article says John is actually shouting "Got the wrong CHORD!". Listening to it again I can't tell for certain which is which, and I won't 3RR you because it really isn't *all* that important. Flakeloaf 19:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has John's curse as "Bloody hell!"; listening to it, it's quite definitely... rather stronger than that, so in the interests of accuracy I am being bold. Lost Number 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The article now says Lennon shouted "Oh!" followed by "Fucking hell!". It is not a shout. Anyway all this is pointed out in Revolution in the Head. Publication date - 1993, if you please.

Piano Used

Does anyone know what type of piano brand that was used for "Hey Jude"? TommyBoy76 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Unsourced

I rm the claim In Australia, it was number one for an astonishing 14 weeks, still a record (but Fernando by ABBA tied it in 1976.) If you can find a source for this claim you're welcome to reinsert it. John Reid 01:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hey Jude" was number one for 15 weeks. Goto "Oz Net Music Chart" which sources "The Book", as used by Australian radio stations for their chart information.

Based on Jude The Obscure?

There's a novel by the name of Jude the Obscure, and after reading it I noticed that the song has a few lines that may relate to the novel. It was written by Thomas Hardy. I don't know if there is any factual basis to it, but if someone is interested they may want to check it out.

No, Paul said the original lyric was, "Hey Jules", but changed it because, "It was a bit of a mouthful". My awful POV is that maybe he thought it sounded like, "Hey, JEWELS"... :)

He could have used the name Jude, as he was a Catholic, and was in the church choir, though... POV, POV...!! Ouch! andreasegde 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References

Many pages have "cultural reference" sections, for example National Security Agency has its own subpage. Another editor doesn't agree with me, but I don't want it lost forever in the diff log, so here is what I put, maybe somebody can beef it up or whatever:

• A slightly modified version is sung in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, which provides hints that part of the book series happens on a post-apocalyptic Earth.
• The satire tribute band Beatallica remade the song as 'Hey Dude' on the album also named Beatallica.

-- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another cultural (?) reference (maybe somebody can integrate these without the article slipping below FA standards) is that supporters of Gillingham F.C. frequently sing a medley consisting of an adapted version of The Last Waltz segued into the chorus of Hey Jude. Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Longest Song?

How can this article claim that "Hey Jude" remained the longest number one hit for nearly a quarter of a century, until it was surpassed in 1993 by Meat Loaf's "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)", which ran seven minutes fifty-eight seconds as a single." ...when "American Pie" clearly outlasts both of them?

• Maybe because in the UK , American Pie didn't get to number one , only number two.MrGater 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, in the US, "American Pie" was released as "Part 1" and "Part 2" on two sides of a 45, kinda like many of James Brown's hits. Neither side by itself was longer than four and a half minutes. Many radio stations played only Part 1 or a special edited version created for radio. The full version of "American Pie" wasn't issued on one side of a single in the U.S. until 1992. Actually, I'm pretty sure "Hey Jude" is still the longest song (in its single version) to hit #1 in the U.S., as a shorter edit of the Meat Loaf song was issued as a single (45 and cassette) in the States. Cheemo 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote about vetoing George

the current quote where it's talking about george wanting to change the song is incorrect, and i can tell because i'm listening to a recording of paul saying what supposedly is being said. I would replace it, but i don't have a source to cite like the incorrect quote does. what i'm listening to is a bootleg of the hey jude sessions and i wonder if anyone has suggestions for how i might cite such things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.160.248 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Hey Jules or Hey Jools?

Hi, in the German Artikel about Julian Lennon it's said, that the original title was "Hey Jools", as it is written so in the Beatles Anthology, Page 297 (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lennon&diff=26133870&oldid=26122671). Your source, the Website http://www.beatles-discography.com/h.html is no longer available. So maybe this passage should be changed (and also the references)? And the same in Julian Lennon? -- Cornelia -etc. 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Many Years From Now", quoting McCartney, says "Hey Jules". IMO, It's not important which spelling is used except the spelling should match the quote that is cited. If the Anthology quote is in the article and cited, then the quote has to match the source character by character including the spelling. In other areas where we aren't using direct quotes, that's a different matter. Then, I think we should choose one spelling (I prefer "Jules") and add a footnote that says both spelling have appeared in quotes or whatever. John Cardinal 00:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing Mistakes

I screwed something up while editing today, somehow reverting to an earlier version. I am not sure how I did it, but anyway, I put it back to the way it was when I started. Some of the changes were important, such as the correction of the statement that Hey Jude was intended as an album track; 3 reliable sources say that isn't the case, including McCartney (interview), Lewisohn, and MacDonald. John Cardinal 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Length

Several lengths are quoted in the article. 7:11, 7:05, etc. The Past Masters Vol 2 CD version is 7:06. I assume the vinyl single was 7;11, as that's the time I've heard the most, but I don't have a source for it. Does anyone have access to the original Apple single or a reliable source? John Cardinal 08:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Joel Whitburn points out in one of his books that several singles have incorrect timings and may be off a few seconds. I would say that's the case with "Hey Jude"; my CD version clocks in at 7:06. Whitburn was checking on some of these for one of his books (though I can't remember which one), but wasn't changing them in his book unless they were off by more time than that. The time he points out in his Top Pop Hits is 7:11. Squad51 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The single, which is in mono, has a slightly longer fade-out than the album cut, which is in stereo, thus the variations in time from mono version to stereo version (as found on the Past Masters Vol. 2 CD). Cheemo 06:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lennon's exclamation

It doesn't matter what you think you hear him say. It matters what the evidence says. If your ears are good, then you should be able to find a reliable source who agrees, and can be cited. No WP:OR. Meanwhile, the citation for that information has been undermined by the edits, and so we have a partly-bogus citation. You can't just edit a cited bit of evidence to suit your bias. Ifd you change it, then you have to remove the citation, or add a dissenting view supported by another reliable source, or something. Otherwise, Wikipedia citations will be useless. The Craig Cross book reports that Lennon said effing hell, and it should be restored by one of the people who changed it without realizing what they were doing. I didn't bother to check the whole paragraph but it should be brought in line with what the source supports. — John Cardinal 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bass

Lewisohn says McCartney added a bass track on 1 August, but also says it was wiped to free a separate track for strings. There's clearly a bass on the record, and it sounds like Paul, and MacDonald says it is Paul, so I put the credit back in (with a citation) after it was deleted today. If someone can produce evidence that it was Harrison or Lennon, change it, but with a cite, of course. John Cardinal 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jude Law was named after this song

Jude Law was named after this song

Shouldnt it be mentioned here? under coltrual effects, I suppose?

Yes, that would go under cultural references. It would be better if you have a source, of course. (The River Phoenix comment needs a source, as well.)--Curt Franklin 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jude album

The first comments at the top of this page are about the need to mention that Hey Jude was also the name of a compilation album. Those comments were posted in 2004, but there's still no mention of the album on this page. Also, on the Beatles Discography page, it's mentioned under UK albums as the "official UK relase of US album," but it's not mentioned under the US albums. Could someone who knows about this album please post some information on it?

I agree with the comments above that the album doesn't rate its own page, but I do think it should get its own subheading on this page. It would be nice to see the track listing, which is what I actually came here looking for. Thanks. Curt Franklin 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Haven't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The beginnings of progressive rock here?

I know I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but could "Hey Jude" perhaps be the first prog rock song? Listen to Yes's "Starship Trooper" or "I've Seen All Good People" (both from The Yes Album) and try telling me they don't owe anything to this song... --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I'm pretty sure Soft Machine was putting stuff out at this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Soft Machine before - thanks for letting me know! For that matter, few of my friends have ever heard of Yes (given that I'm 16, that's hardly surprising). --The guy with the axe - aaaaaaargh!!! (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of text addition under "Inspiration" section

I reverted the following addition today, an action which seems to have spurred a bit of an edit war:

The lyrics, written when Lennon was beginning his relationship with Yoko Ono, are a direct encouragement to a person to pursue a relationship. After the break up of the Beatles, McCartney maintained that the song referred to Lennon's son Julian. However, If "Hey Jude" is replaced by "Hey John", as was Lennon's understanding of the song, it was a direct endorsement of his new relationship with Yoko Ono. Videos of the song's performance, in which McCartney looks directly at Lennon as he sings the words add weight to this argument

The bit about YouTube actually isn't the main objection I have to this addition: rather, it's speculative and original research. Wikipedia norms preclude writing one's own interpretation of the song lyrics, as well as citing as evidence one's inferences from a video. If we can cite a published source for that interpretation, that's a different matter. -- CasperGoodwood (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Personnel section

Why did someone remove that? It is important enough to mention. Helpsloose 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because I realized it was redundant and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

it is not redundant. it looks like there is consensus for a personnel section on songs, why is this an exception? this is notable and sourced information. Helpsloose 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

About a dog?

What I'm about to ask isn't a joke. A relative of mine who's usually pretty knowledgeable about the Beatles claimed this song was written about Paul's dog. Just wondering if any Beatles-fanatic could tell me where that rumor started, or if it even existed (she might just be insane). If there is some reality to this, it's probably worth a mention. I thought maybe John may have said it in an interview or something, you know how he is. Thanks.--Asderoff (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The song about Paul's dog is "Martha My Dear". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Naming Origins

This is a true piece of information. For an entire week, John Lennon was deticated to partying and drinking. One day during this week, John was approached by a fan who asked him

"Was Hey Jude written about Julian?"

John responded

"No, it was written about Brain Ebstien, and it was originally called Gay Jew,".

The text may not be exact, but I know it is prescise enough to remain accurate. I was wondering if this should be added to improve the article. I didn't add this beacause I didn't know how to add it in a respectful manner. If you have any comments on this, or know how to add it respectfully, please tell me.

This was not inteded to be disrespecful or degrading in any way. John Lennon actually said the above (as I said, the words may not be 100% accurate).

The Beatles Fan (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you plan to add to Wikipedia you need to keep a few things in mind. First, everything needs a source, so inserting it from your (apparently faulty) memory is not the Wikipedia way. Secondly, you got your facts wrong. The comment was made to Epstein when Epstein asked about a possible title for Epstein's book. It's already in the John Lennon article (and sourced) here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a Pity

In the Concert for George, the Clapton/Preston cover of George Harrison's song "Isn't it a Pity" includes backup vocals that perfectly echo the "na-na-na" chorus from "Hey Jude." I thought it was worth a mention, but I guess this technically counts as trivia, so I don't know if there's a place for this factoid in the main article. Does anyone know if Harrison's original recording of "Isn't it a Pity" also includes the musical reference to "Hey Jude"? Minaker (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration & Composition Ambiguity

"Still others, including Lennon, have speculated that McCartney's failing long-term relationship with Jane Asher when he wrote "Hey Jude" was an unconscious "message to himself".[7] In fact, when Lennon mentioned that he thought the song was about him, McCartney denied it, and told Lennon he had written the song about himself.[8]"

At this point in the section there are two male Lennons who have been introduced. I assume that in this context "Lennon" refers to John Lennon, but I'm too lazy to check the references myself, so I'm not going to make the change myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.170.168 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

hey whats up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.126.4 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ROCKSTAR

1. REDIRECT Target page name#REDIRECT Strike-through text

---

<math>Insert non-formatted text here</ma th>[[File:Example.jpg]]

Jeremy and Marc Sinden

Crowley666 has repeatedly added these two as participants in the promotional video, claiming that they are the only two "positively identified" and "notable in their own right", which is true of other participants in the video. This clearly violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:N. Ward3001 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to add a bit of sourced, interesting, factual information. Someone changes it almost instantly and I AM accused of edit war!!! I am not the one constantly assuming a degree of ownership over the page and so refusing any factual additions to be included. Is this fair? You have given the peculiar reason that there were 'MANY' people in the video, but I seem to be the only person who has gone to the length of checking and then confirming with Mark Lewishon who the two most well-known participants were. And on top of this, one of them turns out to be the ex-Mrs McCartneys boyfriend! I have not found properly sourced names of any other of the 'chorus', or am I wrong? Is that not of interest, let alone and amazing coincidence 40 years later? Isn't that the sort of information that a good encyclopaedia should include and not be blocked as 'trivial'? You would have to chop out one hell of a lot from Wiki if you were too tough on 'trivia'! Crowley666 (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you finally decided to discuss rather than edit war. Now, please give the rest of us some time. You've only started adding this info in the last few hours, and the rest of us need some time to find proper sources if they are needed. It's more than a little unfair for you to say you're the "only person who has gone to the length of checking and then confirming" this early in the process. Please wait for the consensus process to occur before repeatedly adding the information. There's more at issue here than whether the information is sourced. As I have repeatedly pointed out, WP:WEIGHT and WP:N are also important. Just because something is sourced does not mean it should be included. Sourcing is the beginning prerequisite for inclusion, but it is not the only one. So again, let's see what emerges in this discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies! (Frustrated of New York!) Totally understand, but hope that you agree that it is quite an amazing coincidence! Marc Sinden is apparently the one in a jacket and tie and thick-rimmed spectacles standing on Ringos left and getting more close-ups than anyone else and his brother Jeremy is standing behind him. Funny that Heather was only 8 months old when this was done! Crowley666 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. I don't call that trivial. Captainclegg (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial, because it's nothing more than a "did you know?" fact, and as Crowley666 himself said, a mere coincidence. It's not notable in of itself, and it's relevance is very labored (the subject in question being "the ex-Mrs. McCartney's boyfriend"). More importantly, we shouldn't link to copyrighted material used without permission on YouTube. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to take another look at the video, but if I remember correctly, Twiggy was in the video. If that's correct, she is both identifiable and notable. More trivia that isn't in the article, nor should it be. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a wise move to say that "did you know" facts are trivial. Where would you end? All facts could be discounted if you follow that reasoning. I am interested who is in the video and I haven't seen it elsewhere, so this would be a useful addition. User:WesleyDodds & Ward3001 do appear a bit snobby about what they think should be included. This should be exactly what Wiki is about. Don't discourage factual input. Encourage it. But I would like to ask User:Crowley666 where he found this out? Careinthecommunity (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I take offense at having an accusation of being "snobby" leveled at me. It's not quite a personal attack, but it's close. WesleyDodds and I are, in good faith, basing our arguments on Wikipedia policy. I realize that there can be disagreement about how specifically to interpret some policies, which is the very reason we are having this discussion. But it is not snobbery. Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, just because something is "factual" doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The "facts" are not at issue here. No one is disputing whether the Sinders are in the video. The concern is whether their appearance is notable enough to include them in the article and no one else. Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple really: I was listening to WNYM here in NYC on the 40 anniversary of Hey Jude and they quoted from an article about Marc Sinden being in the original video. so they phoned him on air! and he confirmed it and said that they each received a signed photo of the beatles as payment and he had gotten his contract framed with the photo. This got me thinking so I found his website and sent him an email. he replied that it was true and that mark lewishon had asked him for a copy of the contract which he had sent to him. i still think this is interesting material. incidentally i never said that it was a "mere coincidence" I said it was "an amazing coincidence" and "the subject in question" is apparently a bit more than just "the ex-Mrs. McCartney's boyfriend"! at least i have started to find out who the people are, 40 years on. I have just watched it again and i can't see twiggy anywhere. agree about youtube though. Crowley666 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you did is original research, by the way. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I reported research by the Liverpool Echo and WNYM. If you read what I said you would see that I have not used/published my correspondence with Sinden, otherwise that would have come under original research. Crowley666 (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise to User:Ward3001 if you take offence at being called "a bit snobby", though it is perhaps a little-overly sensitive. However it is infuriating, as Crowley666 says, that certain people take it on themselves to 'police' Wiki without any formal position so to do and act as some sort of definitive guardian of the truth, seemingly 'protecting' their pages. Is this not a communal forum? As for the Sindens (not Sinders - thats a pantomime isn't it?) 'notability' for inclusion, I would suggest that it goes without saying: Just Google them to see their degree of accepted notability. As for "including them and no one else", then may I suggest we include them and hope that, like Crowley666 has done, someone continues to attempt to identify the people concerned, so they too can be included. What a coup that would be. Why not ask Sinden himself? I'm sure he would have remembered Twiggy at the height of her 60s fame! Careinthecommunity (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to be "infuriated", but there is no "policing" Wikipedia here. This is a discussion that is perfectly in line wih WP:CON and WP:TALK. If you think that is "policing", you might want to take it up on the talk pages for those policies. How else do you think issues are settled on Wikipedia? Other encyclopedias have an editorial staff that decides these things. On Wikipedia, it's done by policies, discussion, and consensus.

Google hits by no means equate with notability, especially out of the contex of the Hey Jude video. We probably can get lots of hits for a number of the participants in the video; that does not make them notable for this particle article. The Sindens may have notability for other articles on Wikipedia, but notability in a case like this is done on a page by page basis. I see no reason why these particular participants are more notable than others in the video. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying "others in the video", but as yet no one has successfully named any of the "others in the video" who appear. As such I would say that that alone is worthy of their inclusion. However I did not mean Google hits, but the Sindens notability and fame in their chosen professions, which appears unarguable. This makes them notable over and above Wiki. Careinthecommunity (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Twiggy. Notable "over and above Wiki", but does not belong in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Read again. Twiggy not positively identified yet. I would say that it DOES belong in the article. I am sorry to be blunt, but your tone does smack of dictating, not discussing. Careinthecommunity (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, ive been following this and i tend to agree with careinthecommunity. the general tone is not one of debate and im interested in who is in the video. it seems some people dont want there precious page upset by interesting facts 86.164.87.6 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001 - YOU seem to be the only person mentioning Twiggy here yet you have not shown any proof, only 'if I remember correctly', but are happy to stop including names that have been proved. Weird. Captainclegg (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, can we have the info restored so we can all see it now please? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been achieved yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So how long do you normally have to wait before people just let info be published and stop unnecessary spats? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Picking up ward3001's statement, at least on other encyclopaedias the editorial staff are appointed for their knowledge or expertise and are open about who they are and why they got the job. This is where wiki looses out. We don't know who these self-appointed editors are, what their agenda is or why they want to stifle interesting input. Almost all academics I know encourage and enjoy new, informed addition to the original work and do not hide behind rules that are either indecipherable or just vacillation. Smacks of protectionism. Captainclegg (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tangent. Please let's discuss the material itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How can we if you won't publish it? Put it up there and if people can disprove it or add to it, great. That's where the public forum should be. Rules are meant to set us free, not to hide behind. I haven't read anyone here say this story is not true or accurate, only are the Sindens notable? Duh. Read about them. Google them. Ive heard of them before I heard of wiki! Of course theyre notable. Now PLEASE let us see how the fit into Hey Jude. 86.164.87.6 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could I just go back to the start of this and point out that (1.) so far I seem to be the only person who has positively identified anyone from the video (2.) they happen to be (now) very well known in their own fields and (then) are also the sons of a V famous actor (3.) as an American I am aware of who they are and their 'notability' and I imagine the same would be said for any UK-based readers (I have asked several of my UK based friends - they all knew who they are) and (4.) I still cannot understand the REAL reason that this information is being blocked. I don't think I should have to PROVE why facts should be included. I think certain people should show why they do NOT want the information published. Crowley666 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm for putting the info back in. That's my vote. Careinthecommunity (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - lets see it. re-instate. 86.164.87.6 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously Im all for it being included. But I still cannot understand User:Ward3001 questioning the subjects 'notability'. Personal preference perhaps? Nothing else logical that I can imagine. Lets see if there are any other 'notable' people in the video and include that as well. Crowley666 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Please lets have the info published asap. Captainclegg (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as the only person blocking this addition to the truth has gone silent, when can we see the article restored? 86.164.87.6 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have full source information for this citation? Author name and article name are needed, if available. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden wrote to me saying that he had already talked at some length to Mark Lewishon (the acknowledged expert) and stated that there were "at least 12 takes of a 9 minute version" filmed. I can assure you that it would have gone down in movie history if only 2 takes had been combined. Remember this sort of 'performance' filming was in its infancy then. Crowley666 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite your fondness for original research, it is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. So you have not answered WesleyDodds' question. Ward3001 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was specifically asking for the author and article name for the Daily Mail citation used to verify that the Sindens are in the video. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't make it clear it was the Daily Mail details you wanted. The details are publisher: Daily Mail (Associated Press). author: Angela Brooks. article: Relative Values. date: 6 Dec 1994. As you can see, I had inadvertently entered the incorrect date in the Hey Jude page. I have since corrected it. I muddled it with a different article about the Sindens. Hope that now answers your question and satisfies you both. But a question... why the disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film? Do you not find it strange that it has taken so long for it to happen. On the law of averages, one of the participants HAD to end up as note-worthy! Crowley666 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"why the disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film?": Lest you overreact to the following comments as offensive, remember that you asked the question. You could have answered WesleyDodds concern and left it at that. And if you ask a question, don't take offense if someone tries to answer it. You continue to misunderstand other editors' good faith efforts to abide by Wikipedia policies. You don't appear to fully grasp that the concerns of other editors are about following those policies, and that the disputes have nothing to do with the Sindens personally. It has to do with maintaining a well-sourced, neutral article. It may or may not be your intention to promote the Sindens (from your edit history my impression is that is the case), and that's acceptable as long as it leaves the article well-sourced and neutral. Yes, you may have a reliable source (I haven't actually checked it), but you have repeatedly (in the article and here) attempted to expand the information to include POV and original research. As the article stands right now I think the information about the Sindens is appropriate, but that doesn't mean some of us didn't have to defend Wikipedia policies to keep it that way. Just because we're trying to follow those policies doesn't mean we have a "disbelief/distrust as to anyone being successfully identified in the film". We have a distrust of anything that does not conform to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Ward3001 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your informative and measured explanation and I take no offence. However, you are the first editor to explain it so lucidly. For the record I am not in any way trying to 'promote' any of the Sindens, its just that when I started this I picked on a few subjects that I had an interest in, found the articles sorely lacking in much detail, beyond the born/appeared in/died type of stuff and have attempted to expand them with well-sourced and neutral information. I take your point about Original Research, even though I found that process exhilarating - after all I work in a University here! The articles that I worked on often had a common thread, but there is no personal interest to them (although I am a fan of good English actors - hence the Sindens!) but I am finding that it takes up a huge amount of time so I am going to sit-back a bit now. But I'm grateful for your guidance and keep up the good work. Crowley666 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have replaced a missing word (actors) that I am sure was deleted in error and as you can see clarified. I do hope that you agree it is now clearer and should satisfy everyone's wishes! Crowley666 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

there is a photo that ive never seen before of david frost filming his introduction published in todays liverpool daily post (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-special-features/2009/03/06/marc-sinden-on-john-lennon-we-were-in-the-presence-of-god-92534-23077241/) can someone download it and use it in the article? the interview gives a lot more info than the wiki paragraph does. i just used the bit about the sindens as there is so much debate about them here (mentioned in the press article) thats got to be a first - mentioning a wiki talkpage! Biggusdikus (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

to WesleyDodds hi bro, if you don't like the wording i put in change it. dont just cut the whole truth out. baby - bathwater so on! Biggusdikus (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful when editing as not to confuse what material is cited by what source; various citations were placed improperly. Also, the sentence about Cliff Richard is nonsensical. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds IS EDIT-WARING, AND REMOVING LEGITIMATE EDITS AND INCLUSIONS SOURCED FROM NEW MATERIAL. PLEASE USE TH E DISCUSSION FORUM BEFORE YOU TAKE OVER AN ARTICLE. READING PREVIOUS NOTES WESLEYDODDS SEEMS TO BE CLAIMING THIS ARTICLE AS HIS OWN. THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK BUT FACT-BASED. HE HAS ALSO REMOVED AN EDIT-WARING NOTICE FROM HIS USER PAGE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. THIS IS A COMMUNITY FORUM NOT A SOLO PROJECT AND FACTS BACKED BY SOURCES CAN BE INCLUDED. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE WORDING - DISCUSS IT. DONT EXCISE IT. PLEASE CAN I HAVE SUPPORT HERE FROM OTHER USERS. SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT HERE. Biggusdikus (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't write in all-caps. Really, the only thing that's still gone is the Cliff Richard sentence, which was garbled English and made no sense. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Biggusdikus, something is not right here. Why is WesleyDodds continually removing all references to Cliff Richard? The article quoted is clear enough - so is the sentence that biggusdikus used. If it isn't, re-word it don't just cut it. Also, I can't see any reference to an edit-waring notice... If this was placed, can it just be deleted? Biggusdikus first edit was the one that is more informative and should be used. Community Project remember. Captainclegg (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There was only one mention to Cliff Richards and it made no sense. Biggusdikus is referring to a notice he left on my user page, and then on my talk page. I removed the notice on my page because I saw it twice (placed incorrectly the first time) and I don't plan to revert further (I didn't realize I had reverted that much). WesleyDodds (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well lets here it for community-forum-people-power! After the last edit in the article by Crowley666 I think it reads really well. Great guys. Careinthecommunity (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice This last statement is particularly ironic, given it turns out that four of the users posting were in fact sock puppet accounts belonging to one user pushing an agenda: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captainclegg/Archive for details. So we're back at square one. So, thoughts everyone? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph by Crowley666 as it fits the criteria required for wiki, is well sourced, much better english and contains new info - not from original research. The question is why do editors keep deleting the info? Let it stay until they can show why it should NOT be included. not the other way round. The consensous should be from that angle. It makes me start to question the accuracy of the rest of the article. If they are constantly blocking this info since it was first identified, what else have they not allowed? sock puppet accounts are wrong and irritating, but I can't see anyone saying that the info is not correct. Mobydick123 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hey whats happening? i was reading this and a whole entry about 2 editors surpressing facts was deleted. who the h*** has the right to delete from the discussion page? if they cant take irony thats tere problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.222 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

just found this in the history. why was this deleted? irony is not inappropriate? its fair comment: "To WesleyDodds & Ward3001: Wow, that was close. You nearly let a properly sourced, well written, neutral, useful & apparently factual bit of information through. You two must be more diligent. I see that you have got him (Crowley666) "barred indefinatly". I think that this is not enough. For someone daring to correct/alter/update YOUR page, they should be publikly flogged. Keep up the good work guys. Keep 'undoing' no matter what. Block anyone elses version of the truth at all costs. The great unwashed can't be allowed to make up their own minds. More power to the few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.81.67 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2009 " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.222 (talk)

Edit warring

Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks of Captainclegg: You need to stop edit warring and wait for a legitimate consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! — John Cardinal (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my word yesterday that I would not create or use any 'sock' accounts. I have kept to my word and so do not appreciate being accused of breaking my word. I am not connected in any way with "Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks". This is now dissolving into a personal & libellous attack. Please cease and desist. If you continue to inaccurately accuse me of lying I will report you for making personal, unfounded attacks. I am copying this to your individual talk pages as well and would appreciate an apology. I have however left a question on the consensus, but otherwise am staying out of this. Captainclegg (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How can there be a consensus if you keep deleting? and I am not a sock of anyone thank you. Mobydick123 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

After all that

Sinden still doesn't get a mention. Personally, I want to know who the young lady is on McCartney's left. :)--andreasegde (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been achieved to include the info that was being blocked, so it is now in. Crowley666 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Playback or not?

After having watched the video many times, I'm still convinced they were not playing totally live, as there are no mics on Ringo's kit, and McCartney's vocal is sometimes double-tracked and then not. Ringo is seen playing a ride cymbal on the second verse when it's obviously a hi-hat, and there is an acoutic guitar in the background.

I just want to know how they did it? No headphones, no click track. Was it on a 4-3-2-1 monitor TV?--andreasegde (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the letter that I received from Sinden (which I suppose cannot be used as it would fall under Original Research), he states that the Beatles were singing live, with the foldback speakers on very loud - many, MANY times (they filmed 12 takes of a 9-minute version). During one tea-break, John Lennon was asked by one of the chorus if there was something new coming out: "We were all pretty bored of Hey Jude by then! He started to play a song, solo on his acoustic guitar, which we later realised was 'Back in the USSR'. Cliff Richard also appeared and filmed a link saying: 'Welcome back to Part 3 and as I promised, here, live in the studio with their latest single, The Beatles'". Crowley666 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff, Crowley666 - the truth behind the 'Live' fiction. Did Frost have to do his introduction that many times?--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Legit Consensus

I vote we leave it out. Multiple people think it's not notable and so far it appears that only one person thinks it is. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your maths is wrong, but if that is the consesus... please explain why you are cutting all the other info though? Mobydick123 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am staying out of this debate, except that there is a fundamental question: When you say "I vote we leave it out", what is 'it'? Would you please explain exactly what this consensus is attempting to do? Are you wishing to: a)ban all reference to the Sindens. b)ban all reference to Cliff Richard. c)ban all reference to how many takes were made. d)ban all reference to who is identified as in the video. e)ban all reference to incidents that happened during the filming. f)ban all reference to Ringo Starr's return to the group. g)ban the entire paragraph? All of these are sourced, but you have not specified what the consensus is for, precisely. Captainclegg (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Mobydick123 you or not? Other than that, I'd rather not discuss this with you. I think your second chance should start somewhere else. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my word yesterday that I would not create or use any 'sock' accounts. I have kept to my word and so do not appreciate being accused of breaking my word. I am not connected in any way with "Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks". This is now dissolving into a personal & libellous attack. Please cease and desist. If you continue to inaccurately accuse me of lying I will report you for making personal, unfounded attacks. I am copying this to your individual talk pages as well and would appreciate an apology. I have however left a question on the consensus, but otherwise am staying out of this. Captainclegg (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

intereseting - no answer to Captainclegg's question. smells fishy. i vote to leave the paragrapgh in. ive read it now and its good, sourced, accurate. thats my vote. 87.82.81.67 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My vote: Leave it out. And I'm not discussing the issue with puppetmasters and their socks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion to leave it out. It's verifiable, but it's little more than trivia, and not too relevant to the article as a whole. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what is the answer to the Captainclegg question? Which part of the entry are we voting on to keep and which part are we voting to delete? 86.133.199.210 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a clear answer would be good. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As Tvoz has often said, this is "not a paper encyclopedia", so what one person thinks is trivia might not be to fans of The Beatles. Put it all in, because we’re not talking about Jane Goody here, but an historical moment in time.--andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry but thats a REALLY arrogant answer from WesleyDodds! its info i didn't know & thats what wiki does: inform. whats "trivia" to you is info to me. re-list it is my vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.56.42 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in the LEAST arrogant about WesleyDodds' comments. He expressed his opinion about the relevance of the information, which is exactly what you did. Let me suggest that you take your tone down a few notches and confine your comments to the issue rather than to other editors. Ward3001 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

MY opinion is that his attitude about the ISSUE IS arrogant. kindly don't tell me to 'tone down' i don't appreciate it. 78.105.56.42 (talk)

not too relevant? how can sourced facts that werent mentioned before be not too relevant? Ringo returns for this? Cliff Richard & Frost film intro? People included named? Back in the USSR heard? not too relevant As Captainclegg said which bit dont you like? i vote put it all in 86.133.199.210 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

why the censorship? its new news! im with andreasegde. put it back in the article please 94.194.100.228 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying, but for the record, that I am voting to relist the paragraph in its entirety. Captainclegg (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A precautionary note

I have absolutely no problem if the consensus is to include the information. What concerns me much more, however, is that five of the editors commenting here are anons, none of whom have more than five edits each, and three of whom have only edited this talk page. After a very serious problem with sockpuppetry on this matter, here is my concern: If a handful of anons can sway a consensus like this so easily, what else can they do, especially to Beatles-related articles. I have a lot of respect for several of the registered editors on both sides of this issue. I ask that everyone give some serious thought to what is going on here, regardless of any consensus that might emerge. Ward3001 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

as one of the 'anons' you mention i have been part of the wiki community for 4 years, have never created an account - deliberate- and also only ever use public access computers so no, you will not ever see my list of edits 78.105.56.42 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, "public access computers" make no distinction in whether a sockpuppet or legitimate editor is using them. They can be used by multiple users, including sockpuppets. They are an easy way for a puppetmaster to evade a block -- for a while, anyway. Also for the record, all the anon IPs editing here are based in London. I realize London is a big place, but I wouldn't be concerned if the IPs were distributed over a much wider geographic range. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

your sounding a bit paranoid! your the one who wants the article blocked. sounds like your problem to me. 86.133.199.210 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

+ i would be happier if the sole person blocking was not in north carolina, but was "distributed over a much wider geographic range". fatuous comment? yup, but a quote. 86.133.199.210 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you don't get the point here. I really don't have a problem at all if the information is restored to the article (although my opinion is to leave it out). As JohnCardinal states below, if andreasegde (whose opinion I value, especially regarding The Beatles) restored the information, I wouldn't give it another thought. The point you don't get is that this particular issue goes far beyond the specific information in the article. It pertains to sockpuppetry and vote-stacking, very egregious acts on Wikipedia. I don't trust puppetmasters, even when they have been given a second chance by a lenient admin. If a puppetmaster uses socks to sway a consensus in one article, he will do it in other articles. My concern goes beyond Hey Jude. My concern is with the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. (And by the way your statement "fatuous comment" is a personal attack. Consider this your first warning.) Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm getting seriously ticked off here. I am being accused of being behind everything. Any moment now I fully expect to be accused of being behind Kennedys assassination! On 9 March I admitted to having "multiple accounts". I had made a mistake, I apologized publicly and gave my word that I would not repeat such a stupid action. I was unblocked the following day. I have kept to my word. Now (15 March) I read that User:Ward3001 is STILL going on about it. If I register my legitimate vote (as I did) on the Hey Jude matter I am accused of getting involved and if I stay silent (which I had done) I am accused obliquely of being behind every IP user who has an opinion on the subject at hand on Wikipedia. I can't win. I am NOT a puppetmaster. I am NOT running any sockpuppets. I do NOT have multiple accounts any more. I have NEVER edited other than through my account. I am NOT, as I have said before, Mobydick or any IP addresses shown in this debate. I am NOT responsible for anyone else’s opinion on this debate. If someone could please tell me how I can prove that I am not anyone else, I would be very grateful. User:Ward3001: On the 11 March you responded to the administrator Lucasbfr that you “don't have it in for Captainclegg”. Your subsequent and continued attacks show this not to be accurate. This is grotesquely unfair, unwarranted and now getting to the point of a personal attack and harassment. I am sure that this must be an offence in the Wiki community. If anyone knows the specific offence, will they please let me know? In any other media I would have recourse to the law... Some of the community seemingly disagree with your standpoint. Don’t impotently blame me for that. It’s not my fault. Get over it - please! It is a distraction from what should be being discussed. Captainclegg (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clegg, get ticked off all you want. You have a lot brazen insolence just saying something like that on this particular talk page. I don't consider you a part of this discussion, and as I have told you on your talk page, you hung yourself; no one did it to you. You want to know what is "grotesquely unfair": Your horrific sockpuppety. "Get over it"? You get over it. Stop whining and move on to something else. Take your own advice and stay out of this. You didn't get your way by your incredible sockpuppetry, and you're not getting your way by complaining here. And that's my last comment to you here unless you violate other Wikipedia policies. In my opinion, you don't exist on this talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

can we get back to the point please? maybe there are fab four fans like me out there who just want to read the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. the piece is seemingly true, sourced and untill someone proves it wrong - accurate. i vote to return it to the article 94.194.100.228 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... If we object to 5 IP editors with no edit history except on this page, maybe we'll change our minds when there are 6?

I am not in North Carolina and I voted to leave "it" out. I didn't respond to Captainclegg because I don't think he should be part of this discussion in any way given his admitted use of sock puppets to sway the prior consensus. I have no objection if the new consensus is to include the information, but in this particular case, I think IP editors should be ignored because of the recent incident. The edit history of those editors is very, very suspicious.

In general, I don't care very much either way about the inclusion or exclusion of the material, though with the exception of Ringo's presence, I think it's trivial. I feel very differently about the sock puppetry. Wikipedia uses consensus to resolve many issues and when someone uses puppets to subvert that process it's a serious integrity issue. Any editor might make a mistake and write something rash, but it takes premeditation to create sock puppet accounts, guile and bad intentions to use them. I think Captainclegg's general ban should have been longer and upon his return he should have been precluded from ever editing the Hey Jude page or adding/editing content about the Sindens. Unfortunately, the decision wasn't up to me.

By my count, there's one registered editor who wants some or all of the content added back in: andreasegde. Luckily for the people who want to see content restored, he's got roots around this project and deserves respect for what he's done to improve Beatle-related articles. If he or some other registered editor with similar experience were to add something back, I wouldn't revert or object... — John Cardinal (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if we only have three or four registered editors contributing to this discussion, we should post a notice at WikiProject The Beatles to seek additional opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion is whether to retain the information restored here, I don't see it as too trivial. I trust Lewisohn as a source, but have no opinion of the others. If the sources are deemed okay, I would suggest leaving it in. It still took a while to figure out what text you were talking about. If you could make that clear, you'd get more useful comments from new voices. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. So you can make an informed decision, the following is the 'offending' paragraph that is constantly deleated: The Beatles hired Michael Lindsay-Hogg to shoot the "Hey Jude" promotional film (he had previously directed a 'promo' film for "Paperback Writer") and they settled on the idea of filming with a live, albeit controlled audience. Hogg shot the film at Twickenham Film Studios on 4 September 1968, with McCartney himself designing the set. Tony Bramwell, a friend of the Beatles, later described the set as "the piano, there; drums, there; and orchestra in two tiers at the back." The event is also memorable as it marked Starr's return to the group after a two-week hiatus, during which he had announced that he had left the band.[1] The eventual, final film was a combination of several different takes (twelve having been filmed during the entire days session, according to the actor Marc Sinden who was in the film along with his brother Jeremy)[2][3] and included filmed 'introductions' to the song by David Frost (who introduced the Beatles as "the greatest tea-room orchestra in the world")[4] and Sir Cliff Richard, for their respective, eponymous TV programmes.[2] As filming wore on, Lennon repeatedly asked Lindsay-Hogg if he had the footage he needed. After twelve takes, McCartney said, "I think that's enough" and filming concluded.[2] It was first aired on 8 September 1968 and the film was later broadcast for the United States on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on 6 October 1968.[5] Footage of the performance can be seen in the Anthology DVD series and on YouTube. And the source material here: http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-special-features/2009/03/06/marc-sinden-on-john-lennon-we-were-in-the-presence-of-god-92534-23077241/ 94.194.100.228 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the material is it gives undue weight to two guys who are simply standing in the background, not actively doing anything do do with the topic of the article. This is an article about "Hey Jude" and things pertaining to "Hey Jude", not "people with a tangential connection to the article subject". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The little one-liner about who was in the audience has a reference. I am the first to delete anything without a reference, but I would never delete anything with one. If we deny that, then let's pack up the deckchairs and go home.--andreasegde (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article content is supposed to be both notable and verifiable. There is certainly a relationship between those two characteristics; if something is documented then it's more likely it's notable than if it is not documented. Still, there are notable things that aren't verifiable, and verifiable things that aren't notable. If we respect both requirements, the deck chairs can stay in place! <g> At one point, the paragraph included which song was recorded on the day following the "Hey Jude" filming. That's verifiable via Lewisohn and other sources, but (IMO) it's not notable. We could also verify what song they recorded before, what song they recorded a week later, what song has the same letters in the title as "Hey Jude", what songs were recorded on the same day of the week. What is notable is harder to pin down than what is verifiable, and consensus is often used when editors differ about it. — John Cardinal (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the point at issue is not a debate over if the Sinden brothers should be included in the article or not, but how to include the significant information that the Liverpool article about the Sinden's involvement in Hey Jude has given us. Previously we did not have the filming dates, the fact of how many 'takes' there were, that Cliff Richard & Frost filmed their intros in advance, Ringos return etc. It has to be acknowledged that prior to the source being located, the previous entry was woefully inadequate. Now, little bits are being dribbled in from the new source, such as Lennon’s & McCartney’s quotes for instance, which weren't there before. Why not just put the whole para (as above) back in and not piece by piece? As for the WesleyDodds comment: "two guys who are simply standing in the background", well the same could legitimately be said about a VW Beetle on the cover of Abbey Road! 94.194.100.228 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Equating the Sindens with the Abbey Road photo is absurd. The photo, including the VW Beetle, became iconic. The photo has permeated our culture, has been discussed and parodied, and the VW Beetle was even included in the Paul is dead rumors that swept the world. The Sindens are just two guys among dozens of people standing in the background of one Beatles video. Ward3001 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One question I want answered: were these guys already famous when the video was filmed? Because if they weren't it was just some lucky break that they showed up, and doesn't add anything to the notabiliy of the video shoot itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No they were not, although some anons here will likely claim they were (20/20 hindsight). All of this tempest in a teapot is about a coincidence that has been blown WAY out of proportion to its significance. Ward3001 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, occasionally an IP tries to act the fact that some guy who eventually joined the band Fear Factory appeared in the the audience for the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (among, like, a hundred other people). This is removed because it's trivial to the video itself and it doesn't add to anyone or anything's notability. it's just a conincidence. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning the Sinden's as a source for the information provided - even if they are not "notable" in themselves, I believe the information they provide is. Those are the two issues that I think are critical here: 1) is the information the Sinden's provide notable and 2) are they good sources? Their notablility (outside the context as reporters of this event) is beside the point. The paragraph above is not claiming they are notable, only that they are the sources, (John User:Jwy talk) 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The debate is not over whether or not their accounts about being there are accurate. That's established. The question is whether or not mentioning that they were there is necessary for this article. I doubt it would be necessary even for their biographical articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Necessary, no. Useful in establishing the type of source, maybe. But if that's what the argument is about, I'm dropping out as its not worth arguing about either way (IMHO). (John User:Jwy talk) 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to WesleyDodds's question: No, I do not think that either of the Sinden's were famous then. According to the source article they were only 14 & 18 at the time and were only present because of a tenuous link with a school-friends father. Their sole 'claim to fame' then would have been having a famous actor father. Their own fame came it seems later on and Mark Sindens notoriety from his "friendship" with the ex-Mrs McCartney! In a spirit of consiliation and compromise, can I suggest that the line "according to the actor Marc Sinden who was in the film along with his brother Jeremy" is dropped, but the source reference is retained and that the rest of the article (restored above} be published? This would I think satisfy all the editors and retain the new material that is properly sourced and of historic interest. Win-Win. Arguments (becoming increasingly fractous) closed. Good one, huh? 94.194.100.228 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually interested in who was there. The line about "Anything new coming out?", and Lennon playing "Back In The USSR" as an answer (which is a McCartney song) is very revealing. If you have books about who played which guitar, which studio, how many takes it took, and CDs about the idle chatter between songs (even on Anthology) then it is logical to assume that people are interested in these things. Somebody bought them, after all (as I did) or they wouldn't have released them. Why restrict, and not fully detail? It's not a paper encyclopedia...--andreasegde (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Writer

I added a "Citation needed" to the first sentence that states Paul McCartney wrote the song. I'm aware that either Lennon or McCartney did write the song, but since we don't know which one (unless someone will find the citation) I'm just adding that. IMHO, it's always better to have more source citations than less. It's unfair to Lennon otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced later in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some ideas

Great article. I've got a few comments and ideas for consideration and possible addition.

1. Regarding the Harrison guitar issue, where McCartney quashed his riffs, it seems the incident caused some long-term resentment, because in the Let It Be film where the two of them are arguing, Paul refers to it with a comment something like, "It's like the question of whether we should have guitar in Hey Jude - I honestly don't think we should". This, and the fact that "Revolution" was ousted as an A-side suggests the release was significant in the start of the group falling out musically. 2. The mention of the single being their first not to have a picture sleeve only applies to the US. This should be made clear as most prior UK singles (not all) came in Parlophone paper bags. 3. I think (someone might check) there are two distinct versions of the "Hey Jude" video, as they wear different clothes. If so, this is more than just several takes - it's a new wardrobe too! (On the other hand, it might be that the costume change was specifically for the filming of "Revolution".) 4. I have definitely read somewhere that the "Fucking hell" comment was from someone else, other than Lennon. It was an Apple artist, but I don't recall who - might have been Jackie Lomax. Can anyone confirm the truth? 5. I have also read that EMI had to develop some technological fix to be able to get so much play-time onto a 7-inch 45. See Walter Everett, "The Beatles As Musicians", p195. 6. Lastly, Everett again refers to John Ireland's much earlier composition "Te Deum" which shows remarkable similarity in its melody. It would be conjecture to suggest McCartney used it as a model, although it would bear comparison to his compositional method for "Golden Slumbers", but might be worth drawing attention to anyway. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)