Talk:Paul McCartney

The Beatles

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

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

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

Nancy Shevell

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

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

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

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

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

Football?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefit concert April 4th, 2009, New York City

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

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

Idea for Opening Paragraph

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

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

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

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

One Little Indian

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

Macca's memory

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

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

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

References

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

Added Kt

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

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with File:Heyjudesample.ogg

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Yesterdaysample.ogg

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

Unsourced speculation

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

Paul as bassist

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

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

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

come on guys, make this article, i would make it myself if i only would know how to describe bass playing.

Michael Jackson and Elvis Costello

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

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

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

Sir Paul?

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

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

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

Reduce size by splitting info to sub-articles?

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