Talk:Allen Klein

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2016 2018

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Single source and neutrality

Referring to the tag on this article, I don't think the "single source" tag is particularly relevant. The relevant page says, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns". I don't think any of that applies here. The other issue is neutrality. The discussions about the "single source" related to neutrality, essentially. I think that as it stands the article contains positive and negative aspects of Klein's life. I don't think this is a "puff piece". With regard to previous discussions about this, I think some of the arguments are misconceived. There is nothing unusual about a businessman trying to enrich himself. There is no basis for assuming that a rock band like The Rolling Stones understood all their financial arrangements, relevant tax law etc. Comments by Mick Jagger etc are not the ultimate truth. It is not unusual for businessmen to be involved in litigation. It does not make him an arch-villain. Given that there have been several attempts to deal with the neutrality concerns, and given that the discussion has not flared up again, I will remove the tags.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bias Being Injected by George Harrison Fan

While reading the article I was taken aback by the statement that "For a time after the Beatles' contentious break-up, George Harrison was the most popular and successful of the former group." This simply isn't true. I changed it to be neutral and it kept getting reverted by a user who is a huge George Harrison stan (based on their profile page). I added a "citation needed" marker and the user responded by being nasty and calling me a cretin (which can be seen in the comments on the history page) and adding several citations. I happened to have one of the books they mentioned, The Beatles Forever, and I checked the pages they cited. It does not state what they says it states. It says Harrison "had his act together more than any of the others". This is in reference missteps taken by other members like John releasing "Sometime in New York City" and Paul releasing "Wild Life". It says nothing about Harrison being the most popular or the most successful. It's clear to me they threw this source in because they didn't think anyone would check. At this point I know that any edit I'll make will be immediately reverted. This is a rather small detail but it's alarming that a die hard fan is injecting their bias into the article, it makes me question the validity of the rest of it. Patorjk (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The only bias and PoV in this issue is coming from you. You don't like the idea that George Harrison was almost universally perceived as the most accomplished, most successful Beatle in the first few years after the band's break-up, despite the fact that it's supported by no end of reliable sources. And you have decided that, based on my user page, I must be incapable of adding information in article space without resorting to some sort of fan-blinded bias. (I'm a huge "fan" of John Lennon, Bob Dylan and many others; I don't make Wikipedia wear my fan sensibilities for them either.)

I disagree with your reading of Nicholas Schaffner's comments. And your statement "It's clear to me they threw this source in because they didn't think anyone would check" is yet another example of you presenting bad faith from the start. I've added plenty of new sources to support the statement – and I can keep going. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The source I checked does not say what you said it says, I don't know how else to read that. In fact, the pages you cited even comment on how Paul was having "rapid-fire" chart topping hits, one right after another ("My Love" and "Live and Let Die") and how he was nominated for an Oscar. This source is not saying Harrison was more popular and successful. This leads me to believe your other sources need to be checked. When I come across something like this it makes me question the veracity of what I'm reading. Patorjk (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll reproduce here all the relevant text from the sources used so far. I was going to do this in the article but that would make the citations unbearably long. I think you're reading "most popular and successful" as referring only to commercial success and hits. Yes, McCartney had loads of hits, but critics generally hated him/them and, per many, many sources, his solo career was not seen as being on a good footing at all. With regard to the statement in the article, at least in terms of Schaffner, I appreciate this then means it's more a matter of perception and also more about the "most accomplished". JG66 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Doggett p. 175: "The Bangladesh concerts confirmed Harrison's elevated status among the rock aristocracy. Bob Dylan might yield more enigma, and the Rolling Stones more charisma, but Harrison had proved himself the most successful of the solo Beatles and arguably music's most influential figure." Over the page, Doggett adds, "Harrison's efforts suggested another way for rock to progress, as a standard bearer of idealism that wasn't tied to a strict political manifesto."
• Inglis p. 23, after comparison with several other "memorable albums" of 1970, and detailing its commercial success and the artistic statement it represented, says that All Things Must Pass "elevate[d] 'the third Beatle' into a position that, for a time at least, comfortably eclipsed that of his former bandmates". Also, on p. 36: "By mid-1972, Harrison, his music, and his humanitarian concerns were universally acclaimed. Not only had 'My Sweet Lord' and All Things Must Pass topped the singles and albums charts in the United States and United Kingdom, but his efforts to draw attention to the tragedies in Bangladesh had propelled him to the position of popular music's first statesman."
• Goodman p. 232: "George Harrison's success produced two surprising and unwelcome results for Klein. Convinced he'd been an eager and effective advocate for Harrison – the former Beatle was now a huge artistic and commercial power in his own right – Klein was shocked to discover that Harrison wasn't going to shower him with gratitude ... The other surprise was Lennon, who hated the idea that George Harrison was suddenly the most popular and successful Beatle." As mentioned in a comment with one of my edits, Goodman goes into this in more detail.
• Rodriguez p. 159: "[Band on the Run] restored Paul's good name and put him back in the game for good, redefining perceptions of who was the ex-Beatle most capable of carrying on their legacy. Until Band on the Run, that ex-Fab had been widely assumed to be George." And p. 263, discussing the commercial success of the "Band on the Run" single in 1974, further to "Jet": "[McCartney] was now on track to overtake his former partners, eventually surpassing them, for the role of ex-Beatle Most Likely to Succeed, having snatched the crown from George."
• Schaffner pp. 159–60: "But despite the loftiness of his intentions, the general consensus in 1973 was still that George had his act together more than any of the others. The surprise triumphs of All Things Must Pass and the magnanimous Bangla Desh concert, album and film were fresh in the public's mind, and contrasted starkly with such fiascos as Wild Life and Some Time in New York City – not to mention the petty public bickering of their perpetrators." Also, your comment above that "the pages you cited even comment on how Paul was having 'rapid-fire' chart topping hits, one right after another ("My Love" and "Live and Let Die") and how he was nominated for an Oscar" is not true at all; I've just found the McCartney-related items you mention, but they're not on the same page(s), they're on p. 158 in the edition I have. (And further to my point about how these McCartney hits and achievements were widely viewed, Schaffner says there about "Live and Let Die", "For Paul to get involved with a slick thriller was seen as yet another in a long line of sell-outs.")
• Hunt/NME Originals p. 12: "All of this divisive exposure helped the public understand that The Beatles no longer existed as a group but only as individual lives and careers. Unpredictably, of the four careers, it was the dark horse of the band, George Harrison, who got off to a flier. His monumental triple-album 'All Things Must Pass' (1970) was greeted as nothing less than an unblocked musical fountain, while the single 'My Sweet Lord' hit Number One in both the UK and the US. His fund-raising work with the Concert For Bangla Desh in 1971, for which he cajoled the participation of Bob Dylan (but not Lennon or McCartney) established him as the hippest ex-Beatle with the biggest heart."
• Woffinden, p. 39: "Far from being overshadowed in the Beatle solo stakes by the two main songwriters in the group, Harrison had emerged as as the most impressive of them all [with All Things Must Pass]. The album sold more than McCartney and John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band put together." p. 52: "George Harrison was quite rightly singled out as the man deserving all the praise [for the Concert for Bangladesh], and his reputation stood higher even than it had at the time of All Things Must Pass. With him as the new torch-bearer, the Beatles still possessed of refulgent possibilities."

As mentioned, I can keep adding sources that say much the same. And again, I can see that you're zeroing in on "most popular and successful" purely in terms of commercial success and hits. Although the Doggett and Inglis refs would seem to address this, if the text needs to be rephrased to reflect the idea of the public and critical perception of Harrison, and focus more on career standing, then fine.

For what it's worth, the statement you're questioning has been in the article since early 2016 if not before. The entire paragraph was sourced to a range of pages in Goodman 2015. I've got scans for a good few, but not all, of those pages, but still, when I first came to the article (when questions were raised about its neutrality because an editor had expanded it using only a single source, Goodman's Klein biography), I assumed good faith. You should too – which you didn't do after your edit was challenged – hence me calling you a cretin – and you haven't done here on the talk page either (now that you finally followed WP:BRD as requested) in choosing a title for the discussion that again casts aspersions that aren't called for. If there's a "problematic user", well, who would that be?

There we go – I've given you far more time and space than you deserve. Like I say, if the actual phrasing in the article needs to be reworked, okay, but as long as it reflects what several reliable sources state, and they do state several things. It's relevant to the article because Klein was managing Harrison and working closely with him. JG66 (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm zeroing in on "most popular and successful" because that's literally what I changed. Maybe Ringo was the best cook, but if I listed him as the "most popular and successful" it would imply with the general public, not with the culinary community. One of your sources listed Paul as having rapid fires hits. Looking at the charts I see he had 7 top 10 hits by 1973, Harrison had 3. When "The Best of George Harrison" came out in 1976 it was mostly Beatles songs, John and Paul's mid-70's Best Of's were all of their solo material. The label wouldn't have done this if he was the most popular and successful.

It should also be a red flag that this has had its neutrality called into question before. The very few people who make it to that part of the article will call it into question, especially now that you've ended the sentence with a clown car of citations. Those who happen to look up the sources will probably also come to realize you meant "critically" and not commercially or with the general public. "For a time after the Beatles' contentious break-up, George Harrison was __critically__ the most popular and successful of the former group." would be acceptable in my opinion. As it is now the statement is false and is not backed up by what you listed. John Lennon supposedly hating the idea of it doesn't mean it ended up happening - and based on chart performance, units sold, number of fans, etc etc, it wasn't the reality of it. Your sources are all just a curated list of opinions from a hand full of music critics, the vast majority of which don't talk about success or popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patorjk (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You're ridiculous, and I don't know whether it's more a case of incompetence on your part or plain disingenuousness. I welcome another editor's input on this.

I've provided sources that clearly state that Harrison was initially viewed as the most popular and commercial ex-Beatle – in the case of Goodman 2015, even word for word. (Who is this "Paul" you keep talking about ... omg, are you a fan?!) You now mention The Best of George Harrison as if it's some sort of an indicator. Beatles biographers overwhelming recognise that mismatch of Beatles and solo tracks as something of a stitch-up by Capitol: its release fell just outside of a period when the company had to consult the artist, meaning that they could and did leave off solo hits, and in doing so they applied criteria for inclusion that was entirely absent from the 1975 Lennon and (way shorter) Starr compilations. "The label wouldn't have done this if he was the most popular and successful" – a) you're deluded, b) this was 1976, and the period referred to in that paragraph of our article is the early 1970s.

You're also now desperate enough to link the idea of my point about the article's neutrality, back in 2015–16, with this issue. This is after I told you that the bone of contention then was how the article was overly reliant on a single source.

"Your sources are all just a curated list of opinions from a hand full of music critics" – bullshit, they're all Beatles historians who have no apparent favouritism towards any one band member and are simply reporting the situation as, I believe (guided by secondary sources), was undoubtedly the case. The "clown car of citations" is merely in response to the clown who arrived at this article in the last day or so.

You've not engaged with any of the points I raised; I'm sorry you're unable to see "most popular and successful" as anything other than a sales-oriented description. I've already said that the statement might require clarification on that angle, but again, there are still sources that support the wording if one takes only a Wings-type view of "success". JG66 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies in advance, I’m on mobile and will try to move this comment to the proper spot next time I’m on Desktop. This is in reply to JG66’s latest comment: I don't understand your insistence on being so nasty.

I see you've removed "popular" and changed it to "most accomplished and artistically successful" which is also false. What makes someone the "most accomplished" or "most artistically successful"? Chart hits? Award nominations? Sales? Music critic praise? Three of your sources mention "hippest", "torch bearer", and "capable of carrying on their legacy", things that would indicate that he is critically popular, not that he is the "most accomplished and artistically successful".

I also see you've called in some friends to back you up. Anyone can read what I wrote above. I'm not trying to "right the wrongs of history", I'm pointing out bias and you've completely gone off the rails - resorting to calling me names, writing overly long diatribes, and sourcing things that don't back up what you've written. Actual data (hits, sales, award nominations, etc) is quantifiable and it goes against what you're saying. Patorjk (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expected to happen here. Despite the band's status, the Beatles WikiProject is pretty small and has few active editors, so when I saw a dispute where JG asked if other editors could chime in, I thought I'd make my two cents known. Why not engage with what I said instead of implying that I'm only backing up JG because we're "friends"? (I'm sure he'd be the first to dispute that label – I've annoyed him more than most). I can't say I'm a fan of his name calling here, but he knows his shit, evidenced by all the reliable sources he's cited above to back up the statement in the body. You, on the other hand, haven't offered a reliable secondary source yet. Tkbrett (✉) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I'm on mobile so apologies for the comment placement. Tkbrett - Repeatedly being called a clown and cretin for advocating for a neutral point of view and questioning the sources seems a bit much. Anyway, I own one of the books he cites, it's why I started this talk thread. I didn't have those other books but I knew from what I read in the one source I had that it didn't say what he said it was saying. He was mischaracterizing what was written.

In my previous comments I cite the chart success of Paul over George (number of top 10 hits by 73) and albums sales over George (the UK top selling albums article lists Imagine and Band on the Run as better sellers - also, world wide Band on the Run is the biggest selling Beatles solo album). The Beatles Forever (which was listed as a source above) also mentions Paul's Oscar nomination for Live and Let Die and how he was having "rapid fire" hits in the early 70's (on or around the pages that were referenced). I used 73 as my bench mark because that was the time frame of the pages he cited for The Beatles Forever.

I'm aware that Paul was not popular with the critics. I don't think it's fair to say George was "widely seen as the most accomplished and artistically successful" (by whom?). What are the metrics for that? I would argue Paul exceeds George in almost all quantifiable metrics. However, if we're going by the Beatles books above I think a better wording would be: "For the first few years after the Beatles' contentious break-up, George Harrison was seen by many critics as the most accomplished and artistically successful former Beatle." Patorjk (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where to respond exactly, since recent posts have been added in such a strange order, but I'll make it here.

In casting yourself as a victim of my name calling, you're continually failing to acknowledge the repeated instances where you've not assumed good faith and you've cast aspersions. Another example is your now saying "I also see you've called in some friends to back you up." That's questioning their integrity, unfairly, and it's also a lie. I merely wrote above: "I welcome another editor's input on this." That's what an article talk page is for and if other editors watch the page or see a comment like that, then of course they should weigh in. Instead, you're suggesting I've canvassed for likeminded contributors – I haven't contacted anyone.

You say I've been "writing overly long diatribes". I'd say this page shows you've been writing diatribes that match mine in length, the only exception being the long list of quoted material I provided from reliable sources – which can only be useful in a discussion like this, surely. And you claim I'm "sourcing things that don't back up what you've written". Well, they do; they just don't back up your rigid interpretation of "most popular and successful" or "most accomplished", and/or they don't back up what you think these sources should be saying. So, for example, you've dismissed the statements as personal opinions and written by music critics, when they're neither.

As with your citing the content of the 1976 Best of George Harrison compilation, you're jumping way ahead in time (from the relevant 1970–72 period, or even mid 1973) by pointing to UK sales of Band on the Run that were reported in December 1979. Per the Robert Rodriguez comments listed above, Band on the Run did change everything, but even then, it didn't become a commercial blockbuster until well into 1974, after which it just sold and sold even into the (long) chart run for Venus and Mars. (For example, it "only" initially peaked at number 9 in the UK and number 7 on Billboard. It was the two 1974 singles that pushed it to the top in those countries.)

As zmbro mentions, Harrison's standing was reinforced by his hit collaborations with Starr. He'd already established himself as an Apple Records producer before the Beatles' split, and his work with Starr, and with Badfinger and others, was commercially successful and very high profile. McCartney won an Oscar? Okay, in this early '70s period, Harrison won a Grammy (as did McCartney) and was nominated for others, won Ivor Novello songwriting awards, topped annual polls in magazines such as Melody Maker, NME, Record World, and received the UNICEF Child Is the Father of Man humanitarian award. Also (per Robert Rodriguez's books), it was Harrison who at this time replaced McCartney as the writer of songs that artists flocked to cover. Aside from all the sources I've listed, which is far from complete, these sorts of comparisons of the ex-Beatles and appreciation of Harrison were the subject of articles in Record Mirror, Melody Maker and (I'm told, though I've not seen the article) Rolling Stone over late 1972 through to early 1973. If you roll all this together, which one imagines the likes of Doggett, Rodriguez, Hunt, Inglis, Schaffner, Goodman have done, even in part, the tag makes perfect sense. They're viewing George Harrison as a solo artist, producer, songwriter and, for want of a better phrase, countercultural leader. JG66 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm tiring of this. Had you simply responded to my "citation needed" edit with one or two citations I would moved on, but you called me a cretin and very quickly came back and added more than half a dozen citations to the sentence from various Beatles books. It riled me up and curiosity got the best of me. When I checked the one source I had access to it didn't match up with what the sentence was saying. Since the other citations were all added so quickly I had doubts about them. I'm not going to check any of the others and I honestly don't really care about this anymore - though for the record I still think the sentence is inaccurate as its currently written.

One of the links your fellow editors shared has given me pause - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_Horse_(George_Harrison_album)&diff=1063608669&oldid=753397639 - if one person calls you out for bias its one thing, but when more than one person starts calling you out maybe you should take a closer look at the things you're doing. Anyway, I have no more interest in this edit. Leave or change it I don't care. Patorjk (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I've no wish to drag this out either, but you've still got things backwards. The statement was always supported by a citation – the six-page span from Goodman 2015 at the end of the paragraph. Your idea of neutrality was to change the wording to something you think the author should have said. I've done nothing but shower this talk page with examples of similar statements from authoritative, reliable sources.

Also, it's pretty darn cheap to keep highlighting that complaint at the Dark Horse album talk page. The internet is a magnet for baseless comments – it's a bit of a "thing" – and Wikipedia talk pages are no exception. As the full discussion shows (which I'd be surprised if you didn't check out for yourself), the anonymous user wasn't interested in following up their complaint when invited to, either by providing more details or fixing the so-called problems, and they received no support from others commenting there. When I did weigh in, I partly agreed that the contentious statement could go, because the author's personal opinion possibly doesn't merit inclusion. JG66 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If a Brad Pitt movie flops the same year a James McAvoy movie is a success it doesn’t mean James McAvoy is more popular than Brad Pitt. I saw a questionable statement and made a small edit that didn't alter the main ideas the paragraph was expressing. You have been abrasive towards me since the start and needlessly mean spirited (ex: "ha! what a cretin", "edit for the talk page clown", "omg, are you a fan?!"). It takes two to tango though and I'll admit I'm not perfect and got a riled up. I do not care about this sentence enough to fight you over it though, and I'll repeat again that I no longer care about the edit in question. Patorjk (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think is particularly controversial: George was the most popular and successful Beatle in the years immediately after break-up. Its WP:OVERKILL to have seven citations for that claim, since it seems well support by the Goodman & Inglis citations.

Patorjk, I don't think it's enough to say something is biased – every editor and source has biases, that's inevitable. The goal is to present information from reliable sources clearly, like the ones JG66 lists and quotes from above, rather than trying to right the wrongs of history on your own (WP:TRUTH, and all that). Plenty of Beatles sources display an anti-McCartney bias, particularly critics in the early 1970s (refer to Michael Frontani, "The Solo Years", in The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles, pp. 162ff.; Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians, pp. 80–81.); you can see that disdain in the Schaffner part JG quotes above. I'm not sure why that's particularly relevant to this page though. Seems more like something to be fleshed out and discussed at the break-up of the Beatles page, or at McCartney and Ram to put some of the contemporary negative reception in context. But this entire talk discussion is centred on only one sentence which, again, doesn't seem particularly controversial to me. Tkbrett (✉) 17:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JG66 here in that you're being uncooperative. I really don't understand all the hate for him as of late. In this case, he's presented a large quantity of sources that all back up the 'claim' that Harrison was in fact the most popular Beatle for a few years. To my knowledge, Paul was destroyed by the music press for McCartney, Ram and Wild Life and didn't actually receive praise until Band on the Run in late '73. Meanwhile, Lennon with Plastic Ono and Imagine had success but then fell back with STiNYC. Ringo had two solo albums in '70 that didn't do much but his Harrison-collaborated singles from '71–'73 all did well. Meanwhile, Harrison came right out on top with ATMP and with the Concert for Bangladesh continued that success, not really halting until '74 with DH and that tour. Dozens of reliable sources (all Beatle historians) present the 'claim' that Harrison was the most successful initially, which is fully stated. I'm not sure what you're not getting and btw, he's only calling you names because you're being incompetent enough to not understand the points he's making, which all justify the one sentence in question. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, "all the hate" – there was only that one situation, at the Dark Horse talk page!

Can I just emphasise again: I'M NOT THE EDITOR WHO ADDED THE HARRISON/POPULAR/SUCCESSFUL COMMENT IN THIS ARTICLE and therefore the one who supposedly "injected bias". The sentence was added six or more years ago.

And yes, I resorted to name-calling in response to Patorjk's aspersions in their edits and then the further examples mentioned above, eg even the title of this thread. JG66 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid point. Still, that's too much hate!! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 04:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

zmbro Thank you for that link, I can take some solace in that others are having similar issues with this editor (ex: "Clearly written by a beatle fan that feels personally spited and offended that his idol George had a poorly received album. Very poorly written. Bias. Etc.").

"he's presented a large quantity of sources that all back up the 'claim' ": Have you even read my original comment? You jump to calling me incompetent yet you don't seem to understand why I made a complaint here in the first place. The one source of his I could check I did, and it didn't back up his claim. He said my comment "is not true at all", but then concedes it is true, it's just on page 158 instead of 159. If you read the text on those pages you'll see the author uses the same flowery language for Paul and his Red Rose Speedway album and the hits surrounding it, before talking about George and how he had his act together. This is in relation to Paul and John's uneven output (thus why the author brings up Wild Life and Sometime in New York City and not Wild Life and Plastic Ono Band), and not in relation to George being "more popular and successful".

"he's only calling you names because you're being incompetent": So you're justifying all his petty comments ("edit for the talk page clown", "ha! what a cretin", etc)? This is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation when it comes to editing. Maybe I should have assumed better faith but he was defensive and hostile from the start. I imagine if people were more civil the Beatles WikiProject wouldn't have "few active editors".

"To my knowledge, Paul was destroyed by the music press" - The music press isn't everything, what about the general public? Hits? The other points I've raised which are just brushed off? When someone says "X is most popular and successful" I think it's fair to ask "with whom?"

You say it's just one sentence but that cuts both ways - I made what I thought was a small edit to make the sentence more neutral and JG66 became defensive and hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patorjk (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)