Jump to content

Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Acoustic guitar

I found what I think is an error in the acoustic guitar section: Paul actually did not play acoustic guitar on the song I'm Looking Through You - John did - and as usual, Ian MacDonald is wrong with his dodgy assertions of who played what and he provided no evidence to verify his claims. 60.241.106.149 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Unclear first references to "Klein" and "Apple"

In the last paragraph of the section 1960–1970: The Beatles, the last two sentences currently read "He filed a suit for the band's formal dissolution on 31 December 1970, and in March 1971 the court appointed a receiver to oversee Apple's finances. An English court legally dissolved the Beatles' partnership on 9 January 1975, though sporadic lawsuits against their record company EMI, Klein, and each other persisted until 1989." Neither "Apple" (Apple Corps, the Beatles' business entity as of January 1968) nor "Klein" (Allen Klein, the Beatles' business manager as of May 1969) have been mentioned prior to this passage; presumably some earlier explanatory references were edited out without fixing these subsequent references. Appropriate identification of both Apple and Klein should be added here or earlier, as well as links to the entries for Allen Klein and Apple Corps.

Done. MFlet1 (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Badfinger

I had considered adding Badfinger as an "associated act" in the infobox, but I was very surprised to see no mention of the band in the entire article. Shouldn't they at least be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Mary Hopkin would be some way above Badfinger, Padre. Mac wrote and produced one of Badfinger's biggest hits, but that's where the connection ends (I'd say a Badfinger association is far more relevant at George Harrison). Whereas, he was very much Hopkin's Apple-Beatle, guiding her career on the label much in the same way as Harrison did with Jackie Lomax, Billy Preston and others. Having said, it's quite likely there's no mention of Mary Hopkin either in this article. JG66 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
He produced their first album Magic Christian Music? And you're right, Mary gets no mention here or at George Harrison. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, none of that History section at Magic Christian Music is sourced. McCartney produced "Come and Get It" and (from looking in Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records) most likely co-produced and played on "Rock of All Ages". I wouldn't expect to see Badfinger listed as an associate act here, actually, but I would Mary Hopkin. On the other hand (off the top of me head), Mike McGear and Elvis Costello probably satisfy the criteria for inclusion as well, yet they're not included ... I guess, because the association's significance might be gauged on its place in the subject's entire career (maybe?). JG66 (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure McCartney was more important to Badfinger (and to The Iveys) than they were to him. Still a little surprised, though. Now more so about Hopkin. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. here's McCartney's credit as producer at MusicMonopoly

Separate Dalai Lama and anti-fracting activation 

In the section "Personal life | Vegetarianism and activism" and the paragraph about his communication with Dalai Lama, it's weird that the information about his anti-fracking activation is included. It should be moved into it's own paragraph.

Have re-grouped. It is all "activism" and is in chronological order. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Paul McCartney will be portrayed by an Australian Actor in Hulu’s Nine Perfect Strangers this August. Insideentertainment (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Legacy Insideentertainment (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You'd need to provide a source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I would think it will need *significant* press coverage to merit a mention in such a famous individual's article.Shajure (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead

I believe we both agree the lead is too long. The middle paragraph we both agreed was too long. Chop Chop.


I am not sure the self-taught bit belongs in the lead. Surely not in P1. I am not sure the bit about style and instruments belongs in the lead and am more unsure about it being in P1. I am going to let it rest a few hours because the edit conflicts are a pain.

Keeping edits small allows useful edit summaries.

I also would discourage remarks like "worst version yet"... I encourage focusing on the content and just fixing it.Shajure (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I certainly can’t see a good reason for “sometimes called the cute beatle” being in the lead. Humbledaisy (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I also cannot support the cute beatle bit in the lead. Unless there is support for keeping it, I'll remove it promptly.Shajure (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See WP:REDACTION and Cultural impact of the Beatles#Image and caricatures. These nicknames are included in the leads for John Lennon and George Harrison, so why should McCartney be an exception? The only reason I can think of is that someone might feel that being "cute" reflects poorly on McCartney's artistic integrity. But this is an encyclopedic article, not a public-relations piece. From a cursory Google search, I'm able to produce several sources that discuss the nickname and its lasting impression on McCartney's legacy and reputation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ili (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
"Self-taught" is very important for all of the Beatles, and I would object to removing it. Working class teenagers with no musical training become the greatest musical act in history. That's no small feat. I'm not quite as adamant about "cute", but I think their early nicknames are an important part of the Beatles' identity. It may seem silly now, but in the context of the time it's important, just as Elvis' gyrations below the waist seem tame now but were very notable for the time. We don't need to minimize their early careers. As for the legacy of the nickname, it extended beyond their early years, such as when Lennon bitterly referred to McCartney's "pretty face" in How Do You Sleep after their breakup. Sundayclose (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to minimise their early career, but I question how widespread the nicknames were and how notable they are now. It seems to me that they were mostly a North American thing. Additionally, the nicknames are part of the cultural memory of those who grew up in the Beatlemania era but they haven't really endured for generations of fans since. In a lead that covers such a long career, I don't think it is notable enough. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the effects of the nicknames "haven't endured" beyond Beatlemania. Read my comment above, as well as the links provided by ILIL. Again, just because something isn't used as a nickname now doesn't mean that it's use was unimportant or had no lasting impact, whether it's the "cute Beatle" or "Elvis the pelvis" or numerous others. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
"These nicknames are included in the leads for John Lennon and George Harrison, so why should McCartney be an exception?" Why should they be in the lead anywhere. Trivia.Shajure (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have read your comment and ILIL's links and I don't appreciate the assumption that I hadn't. It's certainly something that belongs in the text somewhere and/or the main Beatles article where the nicknames are currently entirely absent. I don't believe these nicknames were common outside of North America whilst the Beatles were together - I've been searching UK newspaper and music magazine archives and found no mention yet. "Yeah, yeah, yeah" defined the Beatles worldwide for a time in 1963/64; it was hugely recognised, parodied, referenced and even became a nickname for the group in parts of Europe. However, I'm sure you'd agree it's not notable enough for the lead of the Beatles article. In the case of "How Do You Sleep?", I don't think we can say for sure that Lennon is referring specifically to the nickname. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I never assumed you hadn't read the comments; I was simply trying to reinforce my point, perhaps poorly worded. You may have a point about "cute" not being an issue outside the USA (although I'm not yet convinced of that), but there are aspects of the Beatles' fame that were more predominant on one continent or the other. That's doesn't make them non-notable. "Cute" was a major part of McCartney's identity (wherever it occurred), and the impact of that didn't go away throughout the Beatles' career as a group, or beyond their breakup. This obviously is a matter of opinion, so we need time to see if a consensus develops. Sundayclose (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The references for McCartney having been called the "cute" Beatle certainly support that being mentioned in the article. But it doesn't meet WP:LEDE and should not be in the lede: "Identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". TJRC (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that being labelled "cute" is a prominent controversy, as McCartney greatly resented the stereotype and spent decades addressing it in books and press releases (Many Years From Now#Reception). If we're not going to cite the nickname explicitly, then maybe we should substitute it with some kind of acknowledgement that McCartney is often portrayed as the most saccharine and lightweight of the Beatles. Undeniably, that is how he is viewed by the public and most casual Beatles fans. ili (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
<editconflict>There are good points made on both sides here, imo. Humbledaisy's right that it was a predominantly US, Beatlemania-era label for McCartney. But I also agree with Sundayclose's point – "cute" was a major part of his public image after the Beatles, and not always in a good way (eg, when his post-Beatles music was being measured against Lennon's and Harrison's in the early '70s, and especially with regard to his standing with music critics in the period following Lennon's death). Also, these cute/smart/quiet (what was Ringo's again?) labels did not remain solely '60s American parlance for long, because they were widely adopted by music historians, biographers, journalists around the world, which is why the terms are so well known to us now.
This issue and the recent attempts to rework the lead remind me of something I've raised here a few times, gong back to about 2015: what the article is sorely missing is any meaningful engagement with this issue of McCartney as the cute, PR-friendly Beatle – the crowd-pleaser. He inadvertently announced the Beatles' break-up in April 1970 while promoting his debut solo album; a large element of music critics (and Beatles fans) held him responsible for the break-up, which contributed to an often hostile attitude towards him and his music; his obsession (in some biographers' view) with being formally recognised as the original avant-garde Beatle paid off in many ways, but also attracted criticism that he was overly concerned about image and a bit petty – same with his attempts to have some Lennon–McCartney writing credits reversed. These issues and more are well covered in reliable sources, and McCartney has commented on them, but we don't mention them at all, I believe. I'm not saying we should zero in on the less flattering aspects but, to anyone that's fairly well-read about the subject, I'd say there are a few elephants pounding around the room as one reads this page; the feeling is that, in its avoidance of these fairly notable topics, it's been prepared by and for fans, almost as if it's been run by the subject himself for approval.
Compare with other music BLPs: Yoko Ono#Public image, Phil Collins#Critical and public perceptions, Eric Clapton#Political views and controversy, and (before Bowie's death in January 2016) David Bowie#Politics ... Does anyone want to talk about this at all? JG66 (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree that there's massive gaps on this article (and for John Lennon). Half of what we got feels like WP:REDUNDANTFORK (particularly with respect to Wings coverage), and the other half feels like it's missing at least 50KB worth of supplementary information, especially on "Musicianship". We have a section devoted to McCartney's favorite football teams, but hardly anything about his approaches to songwriting and composition. "Creative outlets" is also a bit strange and all-over-the-place. ili (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the Lennon page, it's the same reworking of or additions to the lead that suddenly brings the article's shortcomings to light.
Here, it's certainly as you say with sections devoted to, say, football ... I wouldn't be so quick to cut coverage of Wings (not that I've read the section in an awfully long time, I hasten to add). McCartney's years with them are generally seen as part of his solo career, and in fact (as he partly admits in Ian Peel's biography, I believe) it was the music he made throughout the '70s that helped make him such as easy target when Lennon died. JG66 (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that Wings should be dwelled on for more than three decent-sized paragraphs – which is the amount of coverage they're afforded on Linda McCartney and Denny Laine. Here, it's a 20% reduced version of the entirety of Paul McCartney and Wings#History, going into unnecessary detail over industry awards (given to Wings) and sales of records (credited to Wings) and concert tickets (billed for Wings). Sure, Wings is usually conflated with McCartney's solo career, but the band was its own thing. Even "Mull of Kintyre" was co-written by Denny Laine. ili (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In terms of how reliable sources treat Wings, I've never got the impression that the band are viewed as a separate entity. It's no surprise when a McCartney solo track appears on a "Wings" compilation, same for Wings tracks appearing on a compilation created to Paul McCartney alone. Certainly, the type of accolades and achievements you mention seem to roll right on to him. Also, not that I necessarily agree with the treatment, but the band article is Paul McCartney and Wings, rather than the more commonly used artist credit Wings; and Wikipedia's coverage even extends to including songs sung by Laine, Linda (eg "Seaside Woman"), Jimmy McCulloch, etc, in List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney (which makes no sense to me whatsoever).
But, focusing on the practical over theory, I agree that the coverage here could be trimmed, perhaps a fair bit. JG66 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul McCartney at the Cavern Club (2018)

Viewers of BBC Two had the privilege to see again the gig of 26 July 2018 filmed at The Cavern Club and shown on Christmas Day last year. Has this not won any awards? Director of Photography Nathaniel Hill keeps the interest, in a tiny venue, for the full 90 minutes. The sound is never anything less than stupendous. Director Paul Dugdale has produced a minor masterpiece here. Surely there must be some good reviews worth adding? [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can We Please Change The Article's Main Image?

It's a bad picture, a really bad picture considering how many pictures of McCartney have been taken throughout a career spanning more than 50 years. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

1st Duke of Wellington (talk) hmm, if you misspell a word in your post you can edit the post and spell it correctly rather than put a second post. I went ahead and did this and wiped away the second post, hope it was what you wanted?
What sort of image would you prefer? Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is it "really bad" exactly? It's used on several other pages. But there seem to be quite a few to choose from at that particular category in Commons. Not to mention at the global category? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we've talked about this over the years. Similar complaints have been made regarding infobox images at John Lennon and George Harrison. Unlike those two ex-Beatles, though, McCartney's still very visible promoting his music, performing live when the situation allows/ed, and he's been the subject of high-profile features in GQ and on Carpool Karaoke – so as an active artist, he should be depicted in the present day, surely. If there's a better free image available from the last three or so years (ie, pre-pandemic), then okay, that could be considered. JG66 (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
It is the general facial expression. I have thought this myself when viewing the infobox image. this would be a much better alternative.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Presumably we would need to crop down? But we then have the issue of the obscuring microphone? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Surely this then - cropped?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That's quite good as it has the iconic Hofner. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree, a cropped version of that image would be excellent. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree. He's 79 and that's what the image should show. This was discussed and agreed on back in April 2019. All that's happened since then is the subject's got two-and-a-half years older. JG66 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, just looked at the proposed image – it's from 2018 (I'd assumed it was a 2010 one that I've seen on pages here in the past). It is at least quite recent, so I have no objection on that front, but I still think the current image is fine. JG66 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth saying he is exactly the same age in it as he is in the current image as it's from the same Austin City Limits concert in October 2018.Humbledaisy (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Paul McCartney Band

Given that this quintet (McCartney, Wickens, Ray, Laboriel, and Anderson) has been together for 20 years, I figured it was time to start a The Paul McCartney Band article. It's just a start, so please feel free to contribute to it. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Selinker: Thanks for your efforts, but I have a concern. Calling this group of people "The Paul McCartney Band" suggests that it is an official name, as in The Beatles or Paul McCartney and Wings. Do we have a reliable source for that? If I've missed something please let me know, but I don't think that is case. The article title would be misleading in that case. I know that McCartney said, "We're a real band", but that's not confirming that the "band" has the name "The Paul McCartney Band". If we're assigning an arbitrary name to the group, there could be many such names, such as "McCartney, Wickens, Anderson, Ray, & Laboriel". Pinging frequent Beatles contributor JG66. Sundayclose (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Great question. I wasn't sure either. But then I found all these sites that use the name. For example, this [7] is a press release from Rusty Anderson that uses the name. Here's a video interview [8] with Brian Ray that uses the name. Here's a review of Driving Rain [9] that says it "marked the beginning of what is commonly referred to as 'The Paul McCartney Band' as the first project to feature guitarist Rusty Anderson and drummer Abe Laboriel Jr., who continue with McCartney as of 2016." As far as I can tell, the artists in the band call it that, and the music community calls it that, so maybe we should?--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a precedent for a nameless backing band at Billy Joel Band and redirects like Elton John Band. I'm not sure that we need "The" as part of thre title. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, happy to remove the leading article. (Update: Done.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Add "drums" to his instruments. Catiscool300 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Secondary instruments are not listed in the infobox, they're meant to be brought up in the article body per Infobox musical artist - FlightTime (open channel) 18:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Angie

Angie McCartney is a redirect to Paul McCartney#Early life, but there is no mention of her in that section. She is his stepmother, marrying Paul's father in 1964. Can a reliable source for this information be added to Paul's article? If not, the redirect should be deleted. --Viennese Waltz 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I would think the redirect should just be dropped, leaving a wp:red link for the article, so that if she is wp:notable the red link will encourage the article to be created. And if she is not, we get rid of a needless article.Shajure (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's a blog source and here's a slightly better magazine source. I expect there are others available. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Has been deleted before, so probably shouldn't be a red link. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I think, then, that any mention here may be wp:undue... maybe add her as a stepmother in the infobox? Certainly no more mention than that, I would think.Shajure (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

The Beatles albums should be included in his discography section Cboi Sandlin (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a very prominent link to The Beatles discography. I think including all of those would be unwieldy and would be unnecessary duplication. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Where does he live?

The personal life section has subsections about many aspects of his life. But where someone lives is key to their life. I read in the section that he had a house at the Hamptons, but that looks likes all we have on residences. And which one is favoured? Boscaswell talk 21:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As with many extremely wealthy individuals, he owns and/or has use of properties globally. Because of the level of threat extreme wealth generates he very possibly does not say... or does not have a specific "residence". The latest mention I see that I think is vaguely reputable says "primary residences in" New York, London, and rural Scotland and Arizona US. I don't think that is going to make it into the encyclopedia.Shajure (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought it was fairly well known that he has a farm in Sussex [10], and a converted windmill with his own recording studio where he recorded McCartney III. He also still has that house in St John's Wood around the corner from Abbey Rd that he's owned since 1965.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
He might own all of these properties, but are any of them his "home(s)"? If there is reliable coverage in sources I guess they might be notable anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
He spent lockdown on his farm, if that means anything. He's had it since '73, I'm sure there's enough coverage out there to warrant a mention. As for his London address, that's the one where She Came In Through the Bathroom Window.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
In which case, the bathroom is probably notable. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Are voting records, census records, or tax records public in the UK? If we knew, for example, that he voted in a particular local election, he may have the rights to do so based on his "official" residency, regardless of how long he stays there. --Jayron32 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
If he's on the electoral register at least one of his man residences should be listed. But doubt he'll be getting the £150 Council Tax rebate this year. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect address

I live in Liverpool. Allerton is in Woolton. It is not in Walton. 2A02:C7E:AF6:D500:2530:2C2F:41B5:E5A7 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Where does the article say Allerton is in Walton? It says McCartney was born in Walton, and then moved to Allerton.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Publishing rights

Didn't he get back the publishing rights to the Beatles back catalogue (or at least a substantial part of it)? (See the Personal Life/Business section of the main article at 4.2.) [1] [2] [3]

Does anyone know a bit more about this? Labour Lawyer (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/paul-mccartney-beatles-rights-win/
  2. ^ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/11/29/who-owns-the-beatles-music-songs-catalogue-in-2021/
  3. ^ https://www.billboard.com/music/rock/beatles-catalog-paul-mccartney-brief-history-ownership-7662519/

Jane Asher and the 'relationships' section

The section regarding the relationships Paul McCartney had says that he had one with Jane Asher. However - on her page, Jane Asher's birthday is listed as 5th April 1946. The aforementioned section says that they began a relationship, with her moving in with him in November 1963. This means she would have been 17 at this time. Therefore I think the article should be amended to remove the framing as a "relationship" - as a 17 year old (who is a child) cannot consent to have a relationship with an adult. What do you all think about this? I would like a consensus to be reached. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

First, the law does not prevent people from having a relationship below an agreed age, although it can make sex between them illegal. However, the age on consent here in the UK is, and has been for heterosexual couples since I can remember, 16. Britmax (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it's okay. Regardless of the law, a child cannot consent to have a relationship with an adult. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not the way it works, though. The legal definition of a child in this sense is not what you feel it should be, but is determined by social consensus and so the law. And at 17 I had been working for nearly a year and no-one would have called me a child. But, as I say, the age of consent in Britain at the time was 16. You do know that there is no official age when someone flicks a switch and changes you into an adult, right? Britmax (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The law is not determined by social consensus and 18 is the legal age when you become an adult. If they wouldn't have called you a child they would have been wrong. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but I think the OP wants to change the article to accord with their opinion of who should and should not have a relationship. So it is related to editing but must be playing with the fringe of Forum, yes. Britmax (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
My pronouns are she/her :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. Reply edited. Britmax (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Why did you change it to their when I said my pronouns were she/her? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Because I changed it to what I would have used the first time but for a lapse of concentration, and it's no more relevant to this discussion than mine. Britmax (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
But I told you that my pronouns weren't they/them. So it's respectful to change them to she/her as I said those were my pronouns, regardless of your original intentions :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, not getting dragged into that swamp. Please stay on topic. Britmax (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not dragging you into anything, I'm simply telling you to be courteous to me. You changed the topic by misgendering me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
UK law regarding when adulthood is reached is very inconsistent, and for some aspects it is 18, for others 16. In respect of sexual relationships, sexual offences and marriage, the age is 16 and has been since it was raised to 16 in 1885. So regardless of whether you think the relationship in 1963 between Asher (17) and McCartney (21) was appropriate or not; under UK law it was entirely legitimate as Asher was over 16 and, without evidence to the contrary, assumed to be consensual. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
So is it legal for an 18-year old to marry someone younger than them in the UK? Genuine question. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I had to check, in England the age at which you can marry is 18, in Scotland 16 and in Northern Ireland 16 with parental consent. We were, however, talking about relationships not marriage. Britmax (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. Still though - I think we should consider this from a moral perspective. Deciding on edits based on what the law says is a dangerous precedent to set. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Not unless there are sources discussing the "rightness" of the relationship. I understand that you have a personal opinion as to whether it was morally correct or not but it's not Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors place to write history. If there are sources, contemporary or otherwise, that raise(d) concerns about McCartney and Asher then we can add those but it's not correct to place our own opinions in the article. Nthep (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
In that case, I will try to find sources raising concerns. Would you mind seeing if you can find any too, in order for a consensus to be reached about this fairly? You have more experience editing Wikipedia than me and I reckon that would be a good idea. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as long as both parties are 16 or over and parental consent for any partner under 18 has been given. This will change next week when the new Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act comes into force and raises the minimum age for both partners to 18. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I didn't know this :) 92.0.35.8 (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
This is all off the rails in any event. She didn't "move in with him" in November 1963 when she was 17. McCartney moved into her parents' house; in an attic room, if I recall correctly. TJRC (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. Either way the article says they're in a relationship together and lived with each other. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

Hello. I would like to edit this article because I have extra information to place about Sir Paul McCartney Joergen2022 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Also no reason to get semi protected just for more changes. That’s not what it’s for RJS001 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

McCartney now is now Obviously 80 years old. can you update 'age 79' to 'age 80' now? 2600:1700:6800:7D40:556C:81E3:2671:EBA9 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Since his birthday is later this week, no.Shajure (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s not the 18th yet--Egghead06 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is automatically updated by the infobox, and is not required to be done manually. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Quick note - I think that the update happens at 0:00 UTC (apologies if I'm wrong) which means that it will be the 18th for some readers before the age changes in the infobox. For those people rest assured it will give the correct age eventually. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

The date 25 march 2022 refering to the Glastonbury should be 25 June 2022. 2A00:23C4:E59B:5901:B069:6B5:ADA8:4F05 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t Macca one of his names?

Paul has been known as “Macca” before should that be on the list of names? I just feel it’s strange that it isn’t on the list so I’m sure there’s a reason, just asking. 좀비 브렌다 (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The list is currently made up of pseudonyms that have appeared on records. Macca isn't a pseudonym, just a nickname. Pawnkingthree (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
doesnt really seem like strong criteria for non-inclusion. 2407:7000:9DB3:F700:C59:2E31:5FB9:DD18 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

Is the content that he is "Sometimes called the cute Beatle" important enough for the lead section?

In my view, probably not. Does "sometimes" establish the significance of this? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I support removing it wp:trivia from the lead again. Strongly.Shajure (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
There should be an archived discussion of this though I can't spot it... so it may have been in comments where I removed it and it was warred back in, if there wasn't.Shajure (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think there's any good reason for it to be there. I think I said this last time - it's a nickname seemingly popular only in North America and only for a brief period in his career nearly 60 years ago. Additionally, I don't think including it in the lead fulfils the purpose of covering McCartney's "lightweight" perception. I can't see someone reading that he was once called "the cute Beatle" during Beatlemania and deducing a persistent criticism of his work. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Humbledaisy. I don't think the nickname has been widely used outside of North America a number of decades ago. Not sure the description of "cute Beatle" is necessary for the lead section or is the best way of indicating that he's been perceived by some people (but not all) as a "lightweight" pop songwriter. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

The article states: In October 2000, McCartney's art debuted in his hometown of Liverpool. McCartney said, "I've been offered an exhibition of my paintings at the Walker Art Gallery ... where John and I used to spend many a pleasant afternoon. So I'm really excited about it. I didn't tell anybody I painted for 15 years but now I'm out of the closet". McCartney is lead patron of the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, a school in the building formerly occupied by the Liverpool Institute for Boys.

I think it should also be noted that Queen Elizabeth II. both visited his exhibition and attended the opening of the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, which she also supported with a grant. Source: https://www.paulmccartney.com/news/paul-on-queen-elizabeth-ii 2001:9E8:E182:5800:655F:48C8:802D:537 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Drumming

Add Flaming Pie as another album where he plays mostly every drum track, a prime example of a McCartney album where he adopts a similar approach to McCartney I, II, III, Chaos and creation in the backyard with his very recognizable drumming style. 2800:810:44B:828E:D59E:533:1B26:F006 (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe wp:notnews would apply

An interview, really? In an encyclopedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_McCartney&type=revision&diff=1117818013&oldid=1117465909&diffmode=source

Unless there is support for this, I'll remove it.Shajure (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

I am suggesting these changes because I feel the "Paul is Dead" conspiracy is notable enough to at least get its own paragraph. For one, the idea that their music "hides the truth" is important to the theory, and should be given a brief mention, and that, although the rumours have been refuted, have not entirely died down from popularity:


change:

"In March 1969, McCartney married his first wife, Linda Eastman, and in August, the couple had their first child, Mary, named after his late mother.[73] Abbey Road was the band's last recorded album, and Martin suggested "a continuously moving piece of music", urging the group to think symphonically.[74] McCartney agreed, but Lennon did not. They eventually compromised, agreeing to McCartney's suggestion: an LP featuring individual songs on side one, and a long medley on side two.[74] In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike, but this was quickly refuted when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family, accompanied by the caption "Paul is still with us".[75]"


to:

"In March 1969, McCartney married his first wife, Linda Eastman, and in August, the couple had their first child, Mary, named after his late mother.[73] Abbey Road was the band's last recorded album, and Martin suggested "a continuously moving piece of music", urging the group to think symphonically.[74] McCartney agreed, but Lennon did not. They eventually compromised, agreeing to McCartney's suggestion: an LP featuring individual songs on side one, and a long medley on side two.[74]

In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and was replaced by a lookalike, supposedly hinted at throughout the band's music in backwards messages, lyrics, and album art. This rumour was quickly refuted when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family, accompanied by the caption "Paul is still with us".[75] Despite this, the rumours still persist." 76.78.141.155 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

There is already an article Paul is dead. All that is needed is a link to that article. WWGB (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Added the SA for pid article.Shajure (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 Already done It appears editors came to a consensus on how to handle this editor's request, so closing this out. —Sirdog (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I'm wondering what we think of the new infobox picture added today, from this year's Taylor Hawkins tribute concert. I think the 2021 photograph it replaced is far superior - better focus and a more-neutral expressed - but I don't want to jump the gun and revert immediately. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the 2021 image is superior quality. I restored it. There is a mindset on Wikipedia that new images are better, which often is not the case. The 2021 image has been up for a year, making it the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. There should have been discussion and a new consensus before changing it. Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

IRA support

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

McCartney refused to deny reports his concerts in 1972 were being used to fund the IRA. 2A00:23C5:C410:5601:5876:7656:32E8:5271 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The very brief detail can be found at the article for Give Ireland Back to the Irish, where the reporter from The Guardian, who asked about it, is unnamed. I think that's where it belongs, as it never caused widespread controversy. 86.187.163.139 (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The original post here is an absurd statement. "Not denying" is not the same as "affirming". A lot of celebrities neither deny nor affirm (possibly false) tabloid rubbish so as not to give it more publicity. I haven't denied that I'm a co-conspirator in the assassination of JFK, but that doesn't mean that I admit that I am. Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

Please change McCartney's capable instruments from "vocals, bass guitar, guitar, keyboards" to "vocals, bass guitar, guitar, keyboards, drums"; since he recorded multiple full albums with him on drums and he played drums for multiple other artists too. Also please change his occupations from "singer, songwriter, musician, records and film producer, businnesman" "singer, songwriter, musician, records and film producer, multimedia artist, businnesman"; since he painted for years and had an exhibiton of his work, since he wrote multiple children books and a poetry book, since he's about to held an exhibition of his photographs this next July, since he wrote the Give My Regards To Broad Street and Rupert and the Frog Song movies. 2A02:1210:66A0:6E00:6D82:5DF4:165B:2943 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We don't include every instrument a person can play in the infobox, nor we do we include every professional activity. He is not widely known as a drummer. John Lennon played harmonica and ukulele, but those were not his primary instruments, so they are not in his infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Then why Lennon is credited with piano and keyboards and McCartney is not credited with piano? I see other pretty known multi-instrumentalists such as Prince and Todd Rundgren credited with playing drums, even though it's not widely known that they played them and drums were never their primary instrument. Seems like there is double standard. 2A02:1210:66A0:6E00:6D82:5DF4:165B:2943 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally prefer the more generic "keyboards" for both articles because that includes piano. But that's just my opinion. If you want to challenge Lennon's article, do it on the talk page for that article. Otherwise I fail to see your point about Lennon. Both Lennon and McCartney are both known (and frequently played) keyboards, and they are both credited. I am not as familiar with Prince and Todd Rundgren, except to say that a problem with one article is not a justification for creating the same problem in another article. Wikipedia is always a work in progress and will never be perfect. If you want to tinker around with Prince's and Rundgren's articles feel free, but I suggest discussing on their talk pages first if you don't want to get a lot of push back. To see the basis for limiting instruments to those for which the artist is primarily known, read Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument. If you want to challenge the common practice for the infobox, this is not the place to do it. Discuss at Template talk:Infobox musical artist Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2023

In the first sentence of the section "1961-1970" change:

"In 1961, Sutcliffe left the band, and McCartney reluctantly became their bass player.[34]"

to

"In 1961, Sutcliffe left the band, and McCartney became their bass player. According to some sources, McCartney accepted the role reluctantly. [34] According to other sources, however, McCartney had actively sought to replace Sutcliffe as the band's bassist. [1]" SaidSadley (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shout! by Philip Norman (1981), page 145 ("Paul made no secret of his contempt for Stu's bass playing, and his own conviction that he could do it better") and page 146 ("[Stu] quit the Beatles gradually, without rancor, glad to see how easily they closed ranks behind him. Paul, as Paul had so long wanted, took over bass guitar").
 Done with some minor rewording. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know what we can do about it, but I think it’s worth saying that Shout!‘s reputation as a factual source is quite poor nowadays and it is often seen as slanted against McCartney. Humbledaisy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's reputation as a factual source is poor then we shouldn't be citing it! DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I’m the guy who requested the edit (not enough experience on Wikipedia to edit myself). The “one-source” criticism is valid, and you’ve inspired me to look into this further. I’m confident that if my edit is truth-based, it will appear in more than one source. Stay tuned! SaidSadley (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

A "Covers" subtitle should be created in the discography section and CHOBA B CCCP, Kisses On The Bottom, Run Devil Run, Thrillington and Give My Regards To Broad Street should be packed under it; Thrillingtone should also have the label "(Ram remake)" and Give My Regards To Broad Street should have the label "(soundtrack)". Also a "Remix" subtitle should be created and Twin Freaks and McCartney III Imagined should be packed under it. Liverpool Sound Collage should be in the solo discography since it's not a remix album. The Family Way should be in the classical album section with the label "(soundtrack)"; since it's a classical album. The "Other" subtitle should be eliminated. That's a more correct and immediate way to give proper information about McCartney's outputs. 2A02:1210:66E4:B400:B4BB:B946:C9CB:A0F5 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 17:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Last recorded Beatles album

The last recorded Beatles Album was "Let It Be" released in America spring of 1970. 69.201.80.108 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between "recorded" and "released". Abbey Road was the last recorded, though not last released. Read the articles for each for details. Sundayclose (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Infos about McCartney's release of his first photo book "Eyes of the Storm" and the photo exhibitions related to it should be added. 2A02:1210:66E4:B400:75B5:863F:E937:8548 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A possible primary source for the above is this interview to McCartney for BBC Sounds, available for limited time. Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 Already done by User:The Midnite Wolf. ~~lol1VNIO🕯 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Divorce month to Heather wrong.

The divorce month to Heather Mills is wrong. The divorce decree was granted in May 2008.[11] The Sounes book that is sourced; uses March 2008, the month Heather won a financial settlement.[12] Please correct the month to May 2008 with my reliable Telegraph source. 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

According to People, "The McCartneys now must wait six weeks and one day to receive a decree absolute, which ends the marriage completely".[13] So the divorce was not finalised until late June 2008. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: Per WWGB. —Sirdog (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Jim McCartney's presence at Paul's birth

I removed an uncited sentence that stated Jim was not at Paul's birth due to working as a volunteer firefighter at the time. This is contradicted by both the Davies biography (p23) and the Lewisohn biography (extended edition p83). He was working nights as a firefighter at the time, but was at the hospital, though not in the room; in the 1940s in the UK it was not common for fathers to be in the room for the birth of their child. Jim came in immediately after the birth, even before the baby was washed. Quark1005 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul Wrote I want to hold your hand

Some errors in the text. Paul wrote I want to hold your hand, Abbey Road studios went out with information about this. Paul had written about 95 % about of the song when John Lennon came by Jane Ashers parents. It was Paul McCartneys love song to Jane Asher written by Paul McCartney written by Paul McCartney on Piano an instrument John Lennon could not play at that time. Pauls inspiration to the song title was his own song ” I wanna be your man” you can see in Pauls songwriting lyrics to I want to hold your hand was ” I wanna hold your hand ” but the song was changed by the publishing company because they wanted British English instead of Americsn English which Paul wanted for the song that would break them in USA. The melody was taken from Pauls song ” Hold me tight”. Paul described the how he wrote the song in Melody maker no 1 1964. ” Lets see, I was told we were going to write a song that really could get going, so I sat at the piano and started bangibg away, suddenly a bit came Theo me the catch line, then I took it from there and the lyrics came to me. I wrote the text down, and presented it to the band and our producer the next day and after that we recorded it”. In his latest book he says ” I was 21 years old when I wrote I want to hold your hand, holding hands, open brackets and probably à LOT more ( sex in this Chase)” he goes on to say ” there was à LOT of erotics behind it all, erotism was very much a drivning gorce behind everything I did”. Other songs wrote the absolute biggest part of which is incorrect in the text is ” Cant buy me love” ” I SAw here standing there”, ” Yellow submarine” and Quite a few more. Counting statistics Paul wrote 15 no 1 singles for the Beatles ( USA or England) and John wrote 8. The they wrote a couple of songs together. 217.213.122.219 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you suggesting an edit to the article? If so, we need reliable sources to support the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Add Ukulele to instruments

Paul McCartney has been playing ukulele regularly at many concerts for the last 20 years. He even did a music video featuring the ukulele. He has been quoted as saying, "To this day, if I ever meet grownups who play ukulele, I love 'em." The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a novelty, like a kazoo. Not a serious band instrument. WWGB (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I think Jake Shimabukuro might take exception to that assessment. Rich (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. He has also played trumpet on a handful of recordings, such as "Only a Northern Song", but that is not going to be added to the infobox either. Tkbrett (✉) 16:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
To add on to that, the only ukelele song I can think of at the top of my head is "Ram On", so it doesn't strike as significant enough. Plus, ukulele's are just smaller guitars. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Ukuleles have only four strings, and standard ukulele tuning is substantially different than standard guitar tuning. Rich (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll throw in my two cents. We don't need to add any more instruments, but if there were an additional instrument it would be drums. He played drums on Back in the U.S.S.R., Dear Prudence, Martha My Dear, The Ballad of John and Yoko, and every song on McCartney (album). Sundayclose (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention all live drums on McCartney II and McCartney III, and even Foo Fighters' "Sunday Rain" (2017). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Sundayclose and @Zmbro. McCartney has drummed on multiple #1 hits, has done all or almost all of the drumming on eight of his albums while contributing heavily as a drummer to another seven, and has drummed on records by other artists including Foo Fighters and Charlotte Gainsbourg. For what it's worth, artists who are fairly comparable in their approach to multi-instrumentalism such as Prince and Todd Rundgren have drums listed in their infoboxes. I can't think of a reason that McCartney wouldn't be entitled to the same. McCartney75 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@McCartney75: Actually you don't entirely agree with me. I never said drums should be listed in the infobox as one of his instruments. In fact, I said the opposite. The infobox by necessity is very brief. We can't list every instrument, so we list the ones for which an artist is most noted. I don't think he is as noted for drums as he is the other instruments listed. Sundayclose (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sundayclose You'll note I also didn't say drums should be listed. I merely pointed out that, in similar cases, it's been done. I didn't take a position as to the listing either way. McCartney75 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@McCartney75: I guess I misunderstood your statement "... Prince and Todd Rundgren have drums listed in their infoboxes. I can't think of a reason that McCartney wouldn't be entitled to the same" to mean that McCartney is entitled to list drums just as drums are listed in the Prince and Rundgren infoboxes. Sundayclose (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The person who taught McCartney to play the ukulele was the grandmother of comedian Emily Atack: [14], [15]. True story! 86.187.175.64 (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Add Beatrice to children

Add Beatrice Milly McCartney to children of Paul McCartney AcadiaMe (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the template guidelines make clear that we only list names of independently notable children. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

weed usage

I've seen videos of him smoking joints at parties dated the current year. What is the best way to cite this to update the drug usage section? 68.0.208.89 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul's work on Destiny The Game's soundtrack is not listed

Please fix 65.255.89.225 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Add drums to his list of instruments KozeWasHere (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, there is a whole section on his drum playing, which is fully sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Help from Education Act 1944 or not ?

In the german Wikipedia it reads additionaly:

"Paul und sein Bruder Mike gehörten zu den ersten britischen Schülern, die vom Education Act 1944, dem Gesetz, das auch Unterprivilegierten größere Bildungschancen ermöglicht, profitierten."

that is, according to www.deepl.com:

"Paul and his brother Mike were among the first British pupils to benefit from the Education Act 1944, the law that gave underprivileged people greater educational opportunities."

The source is given as:

"Paul Muldoon: Einleitung von Paul Muldoon. In: Paul McCartney: Lyrics. 1956 bis heute. Hrsg. mit einer Einleitung von Paul Muldoon. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von Conny Lösche. C. H. Beck, München 2021, ISBN 978-3-406-77650-2, S. XXVI–XXXI, hier: S. XXVI."

English:

"Paul Muldoon: Introduction by Paul Muldoon. In: Paul McCartney: Lyrics. 1956 until today. Edited with an Introducion of Paul Muldoon. Translated from English by Conny Lösche. Publisher: C. H. Beck, München 2021, ISBN 978-3-406-77650-2, S. XXVI–XXXI, hier: S. XXVI."

I wonder why this is "not known/shown" in the english version?

Beaker

-08:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC) 2001:16B8:C3D1:7300:785F:4DF2:890F:79B5 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that two named individuals are singled out like that? If Liverpool got in first in some way, that ought to be added as an explanation. Otherwise, surely all state-educated pupils benefited in the same way, at the same time? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_13&oldid=1243085977"