Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

"Achievements" section.

This used to be a great article. The whole intro to this article is lame. The importance of the Beatles is completely lost in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.15.169 (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor acting on the basis of the "Citations needed" tag removed huge chunks of this section without negotiation. We need a drive to source these, otherwise they must go. I know we all have other things to do, so I suggest a month (on the basis that some of the tags were less than a month old) would be reasonable. I'll do what I can myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have all already had long enough. Remember it was me all those months ago last year that removed it all only to have my edits removed, a tag put up, and a promise that it would be improved. Well it never got better. Enough time has passed. Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We are meant to seek consensus, not submit to ultimata like "You have all already had long enough". This is not WP:AGF. Enough disruption, please, let's just get on with it without bickering. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


In three month there have been 3 sources provided and all of them were in the first week as ppl were scared i would remove the table. It hasnt been touched in 11 weeks. not good enough. I will monitor this situation, i was promised a lot so long as i dropped the issue and nothing materialised. Realist2 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "You have all already had long enough." Seriously? That's the way you're going? Who are you to refer to others that way? Wikipedia is a community; there is no "you all," there is only an "us." Have you attempted to source anything, or have you just slapped tags on the article and then deleted the work of others after an arbitrary amountof time had passed. faithless (speak) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no artibury time, its been months will no progress, and WE as a community already agreed earlier that if it wasnt improved it needed to be removed. Realist2 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to this agreement, not that it's binding in any event? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here , this was brought up ages ago and something needs to be done or it never will. Realist2 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I have to say your attitude does not strike me as being constructive. You may well be right on broad policy issues, but that is no excuse for issuing deadlines. I see no consensus being reached in the linked discussion, merely a general commitment to improvement. If that hasn't worked, you have no excuse to take it on your own head to delete large parts of the section, however poorly sourced. In any event it is customary to copy stuff like that to the Talk page so it can be worked on when time permits for editors who are, let's remember, volunteers. I suggest you read another important policy, WP:POINT before this goes much further, because it seems that already your approach has set consensus against your position and a more conciliatory stance might be beneficial. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont throw jargan or links at me it doesnt phase me, snobbery like that was the reason i pulled out of the debate last time. We need to remove in info and send it to a place where it can be worked on. Someone really needs a sand box to link use all to where we can work on this. None the less I feel that unless it is removed even temparily from the article ppl will not be thretened or motivated enough to improve it. Realist2 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not jargon, it's policy, which ALL of us are supposed to abide by, and it's not snobbery; all editors are equal (but some, of course, are more equal than others). And this content can't be worked on if it has been deleted; moving it elsewhere is likely to also move it out of other editor's attention, so that will not help. However, I note your "we can work on this"; perhaps you could show an example by sourcing some of the material? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Everytime i visit this page i come accross this attitude that "I" should source something. No, the person who put the info there in the first place should have sourced it. I removed it all, i was reverted and a tag was put up , 3 months and nothing has been done and simply wont. It needs to be taken off the main article and worked on, you say that it should be kept on the main page for ppl to see it, HELLO , thats clearly NOT working, it needs to be pulled off the page, its the only way people will improve it, leaving it there will solve nothing as already seen. Realist2 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ppl will not be thretened or motivated enough to improve it - I think that about says it all. You desperately need to modify your attitude. You came in here guns blazing with absolutely no reason to. Haven't you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? faithless (speak) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude ive waited 3 months so dont give me "all guns blazing", would waiting a year be long enough for you, ive stuck to policy, its unsourced, it hasnt and WONT be worked on , so needs to be removed or sent somewhere for editing. Realist2 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude? LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And in that three months you haven't considered working on it yourself? Odd - you're the only person with a problem with it, yet you're unwilling to work on it, expecting others to, and trying to intimidate them into doing it. faithless (speak) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of advice: Realist2 is an ardent Michael Jackson fan, and Michael Mouse's own page has 6 "citation needed" tags on it (why have they not been fixed, you may ask?) Taking into account the animosity between Macca and Mr Mouse over the years, it is not outside the realms of possibility that a certain editor has taken into his head to cause some chaos on this page. One can never point the finger directly, of course, but my advice is to simply revert, and to ignore protestations and muck-raking. Don't feed the thingys, whatever they are called, because it only takes time away from those wonderful moments sitting in the garden shed, contemplating how can one pay the next bill. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PATHETIC. What ever happened to the good faith part of wikipedia. Wow because i edit michael jackson articles i must have some hatred towards articles of other popular artists, how very sad. Get a life. Realist2 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "You have all already had long enough". That's really assuming good faith, isn't it? I suggest you start to live by your precepts before you accuse others of breaching them. AGF works both ways and dictating to other editors how articles should be managed isn't cooperative. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Be polite
Assume good faith
No personal attacks
Be welcoming

|} I think this is appropriate. Kodster (Talk) 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you check this, you may be enlightened.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've dealt with this editor about this issue (you'll need to check the archived discussions for the full story). I've had the same feelings about his motives as andreasegde. Likewise, he loves to throw around policy and reminding people of editing with good faith in mind, which somehow does not seem to apply to him. The bottom line, I feel, is that consensus has been reached: the material is important, and although it needs sourcing, it should not be removed. One editor favours deletion, the rest appear to favour leaving it as is and slowly working on it until it's finished. freshacconcispeaktome 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And, if you check the link to the discussion provided by the editor, you will see an example of his bad faith editing style: in the discussion above, he states "WE as a community already agreed earlier that if it wasnt improved it needed to be removed."(sic) Actually, no agreement was reached as he seems to remember it (or perhaps he was hoping no one would actually go back and read the discussion). The agreement was that we would keep working on it. Only Realist2 favoured removing the section outright. Again, this editor is making bad faith demands on other editors and blatantly ignoring consensus. freshacconcispeaktome 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice one.--andreasegde (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes ok guys just keep "slowely" (basically not at all) working at it. Lol. Realist2 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion of what was done wrong. Enough of the negativity: What should have happened is 1) perhaps we should have worked more on citations and 2) upon returning after some absence and seeing that we had not done so, a polite "what's up?" on this page would probably have been more productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody.

The Beatles are the best act ever.

http://tsort.info/music/index.htm

<Who was the greatest chart act of all time? Unlike the question about chart songs this question can be answered for songs and albums. By comparing acts within the same year the effect of the differing number of entries can be cancelled out. The answer for songs is, marginally, Elvis Presley (and Bing Crosby comes 10th), for albums the answer is clearly The Beatles. The overall greatest chart act of all times is The Beatles.>

If you ask at 1 or 200 people who working in the industry of music, all these people will say:

"The Beatles are the best act ever"

Why?

For two basic reasons.

1/Durant his career <1962-1970>, this group has exploded much more worldwide records that anyone in the history of the twentieth century.

How much?

I don't know exactly, but 30 years after their separation, December 31, 1999, this group had much more worldwide records than anybody else.

Look at this document:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts

All these worldwide records were valid on December 31, 1999. 30 years after the separation of the Beatles!!! And this precise date, nobody could compete with the Beatles. Another thing: All these worldwide records are still valid today: March 23,2008.

2/The second reason is simple: The Beatles managed to break advantage of worldwide records than anyone else despite an incredibly short career discography: 8 years! 1962-1970.

Anecdote: The Beatles are the greatest posthumous success all the time ever: After a career, The Beatles is the only group or artist who obtained worldwide record with a simply <best of>.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1169528.stm

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2008/01/080130.aspx

--Roujan (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Another information for you:

<The Largest Police Protection for celebrity ever>

The Beatles in Tokyo in 1966 = The Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roujan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beatles1.html (page 3)

<In the event, the "operation Beatles" which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. No fewer than thirty- five thousand policemen were mobilised or alerted, at a cost of an estimated thirty thousand pounds>

Or http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html

An achievement never equaled by anybody, in Japan and anywhere in the world.

Concerning the Beatles in Japan, there were 209,000 requests for tickets. (Two hundred nine thousand) You can find this information on Mojo Magazine: <The Beatles - 10 years that shook the world> (French version, page 207)

And that was in 1966!!!(how is it possible?) I am not sure , but it's possible that this is the record of the twentieth century for the city of Tokyo. (As soon as I have an answer, I give you with the proof)

Do you want more worldwide records belonging to the Beatles, and still valid today in 2008?

(Excuse me for my English. I am Spanish and I live in France. But I am sure you will understand me.) --Roujan (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Roujan, err what exactly is your point? A lot of people are fans of the beatles, but there is still no way to class a band as "greatest act ever" since that is purely an opinion. Not to mention even if they could be classed as "greatest act", the title would only stand within their own genre of music. For exaple I am a hiphop producer and while I appreciate and listen to all styles of music, The Beatles would never even enter my top 100 favourite bands. So you see, while you may feel that they are the greatest act ever, I do not, therefore they will only ever hold the individual records that they have achieved.--58.179.238.140 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For a lot of people, Pelé (football) wasn't a extraordinary footballer player because they said during his career the Football was primitive. We can say exactly the same thing about Jimi Hendrix. But this section talk about The Beatles, and Achievements. So we don't care Pele and Jimi Hendrix. So we don't care your opinion.

But the facts are the facts.

Officially, the fact are:

The Beatles: a career only 8 years -1962-1970- And during this 8 years, this group has exploded much more worldwide records than anyone during the The Twentieth Century. How much? I don't know, but this group has exploded so much worldwide records, that of the end of the twentieth century, 30 years after their separation, December 31, 1999, this group held much more worldwide records than anyone!!!

On the next link, all this worldwide record were still valid on December 31, 1999.(for the Twentieth Century).

And all this worldwide records are still valid today, april 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts

DO YOU DISPUTE THIS 2 INFORMATIONS??

YES OR NO?

(not your opinion about The Beatles, it's not important for Wikipedia) --Roujan (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Roujan, I think we have a communication problem here. Regardless of whether your claims about their records sales and chart positions are true, the problem is with the words "greatest" or "best". The meaning of those words is just too vague to meet any sort of standard for verifiability and neutral point of view. Do they have the greatest voices? Do they have the greatest instrumentation? Are they the greatest songwriters? Were they the greatest at starting their concerts on time? Did they have the greatest sound engineers? The list could go on almost endlessly. The words "greatest" or "best" are simply too non-specific to describe just about anyone or anything. You can add information about chart position and records sale achievements if the information is properly cited with a reliable source, but you cannot use the words "greatest" or "best". If you can't understand that, I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have any support for using those words on this talk page (even among Beatles fans like myself), and without a consensus you cannot add the phrase "greatest act" or "best act" to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ward3001.

You are right. The personal views are not important. But have you read my post?

I personally wrote: <The Beatles are the best act ever> because I posted a link, and on this link you can see : <The Beatles are the best act ever>.

It's not a opinion, it just a statistic.

Pele scored more than 1000 goals. It's a statistic. So, nobody can dispute this information because it's the truth.

It's the same thing for the Beatles. Just one example:(Among hundreds) The Beatles between 1963-1970: 29 Number 1 singles in continental Europe and between 1964-1970: 20 singles No. 1 in the USA.

Europe Continentale - 29:8= 3,62 singles number one per year(1963-1970).

This is the best medium for the twentieth century in Continental Europe.

USA- 20:7= 2,85 singles number one per year(1964-1970).

This is the best medium for the twentieth century in the USA.

But it's not only the best medium of the twentieth century.

It's also the best gross figures.

And it's exactly this information who is absolutely unbelievable because nobody has obtained 29 number one singles in continental Europe and 20 number one singles in the USA ... and the careers of the Beatles = only 8 years! 1962-1970.

Only 8 YEARS!!!

You understand why the recording industry consider that The Beatles are the best act ever. That's statistics. That's why I wrote: <The Beatles are the best act ever> But it's not my opinion. Only mathematics. I have never written: The Beatles are the greatest, the most beautiful, and they had the most beautiful ears.

Do you want evidence concerning this link and my sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts

<All these worldwide records were valid on December 31, 1999. 30 years after the separation of the Beatles!!! And this precise date, nobody could compete with the Beatles. Another thing: All these worldwide records are still valid today: March 23,2008.> --Roujan (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roujan... "Best" is a subjective viewpoint that can never be proven by statistics. Pele may have scored more goals than anyone else, but he may still not be considered the "best" by many people. Similarly, the "best act" in my opinion might not be The Beatles but some other band. I think you are confusing "best" with "highest gross sales in the US" or similar more accurately described, objective statistics. How such statistics are written in the article is important, they must accurately describe the situation from an objective point of view; "best" does not help there. Stephenb (Talk) 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you write:

"I think you are confusing "best" with "highest gross sales in the US" or similar more accurately described, objective statistics."

Why did you write: <highest gross sales in the US>???

On this document, it's not <hightest gross sales in the US>, but statistics charts on Continental Europe, Britain, and Usa.

So, it's <The Beatles's statistics> Not <The Beatles are the best> And this section call: <Achievements>

I think you are off topic. --Roujan (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roujan. I wrote "highest gross sales in the US" as an example of a more objective statement, not as a quote from the article, and followed it by "or similar more accurately described, objective statistics". "Best" is not an example of an "accurately described, objective statistic". Stephenb (Talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephenb.

For me, every word in a sentence is important. That's why I talked about: <highest gross sales in the US>. I think i'm a correct and serious man. I have nothing written on the main page, because I am polite. This is not my page. But it's for this reason that I have come in section <achievement> I give you information, that's all. After, you do what you want with that information. And I give links, or evidence if you asks me. That's all. --90.42.67.75 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Roujan, here is the bottom line since you don't seem to understand what others are trying to communicate to you. You can argue use of the words "greatest" and "best" from now until the end of time. But you cannot use those words in the article the way you wish unless there is a consensus. And there will never be a consensus to do so. So if you want to continue wasting your time making the argument, that's your choice. But you'll never be able to add (and keep) those words in the article. Sorry if this post is too straightforward for you, but you don't seem to be able to understand the softer explanations. Ward3001 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ward3001.

Please, stop writing the words <greatest> or <best>. Read me and try to understand what I write. OK? Look at this document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts

This document is an information. On this document, there is no written: <The Beatles are the best>. (It's you, Ward3001, who used the word <best>)

On this document, you can see: <The Beatles Record Sales> It's all. But all these records were valid until December 31, 1999, therefore the twentieth century. And all these records are still valid today as in 2008. And the Beatles no longer exist since 1970! You understand? Not <best> or <greatest> like You wrote. It's all.

The truth is it banned on Britain's Wikipedia concerning Beatles section <achievements>???

PS: Humour. The Doors sang <People are strange>. With my group, we are going to sing: <British people are strange, so strange>.

Good night, my friend.

Hello, Roujan. You seem to be suffering from denial. Your very second sentance typed on this page was in fact "The Beatles are the best act ever.". Your use of "best" in this sentence is undeniable and if you continue to do so, please, scroll up and take a bit more memory as to what you actually type. In the mean time, record sales have nothing to do with how good a band is. Sure, thats strange, right? But lots of people dont like bands that are famous and do very well. Thus, how good they are is a matter of complete opinion. As said before, the correct term for what you're trying to describe is "The most successful." Soulhorn (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I find these one-sentence additions to the lead to be awkward, excessively detailed, and too redundant with the remainder of the article. But rather than start an edit war I'd like to hear some other opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed an opinion; according to stats, this article gets 17000 hits a day; I would think our readers would be put off by that style of lead, so if anyone wants to revert, I wouldn't be unhappy, and the proposed changes could be worked on in userspace. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted these changes since they should be finalised offline before being added. We owe our readers some consideration as per readability, and they ain't gonna complain because some bits are missing from the lead. They will, however, wonder why the lead is a fragmented list of stuff. --Rodhullandemu 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I, even though I'm the one that added them, didn't like them: it was just a comment at the peer review. This article (with the way it's formatted) isn't appropriate for that lead criterion, IMO...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical Evolution

I don't think this is a good name for the section. Something to the extent of "Influences" would be better, because the section talks about what the Beatles did to influence music (that's what the "see also" points to), as opposed to how THEY evolved as a band. We probably DO need a section like that, talking about how they evolved as a primarily cover band to one of the most important bands of all time. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Influences on music (or similar)?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A good example to follow for this sort of section is the "Musical style" section in Joy Division. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox composite picture

Seeing how we have individual images of the four band members, WP:NFCC #1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose") requires that we use a composite picture for the infobox (See: Radiohead, Siouxsie & the Banshees). I would offer to do it myself (with MSPaint) but first I want to ask if there is anybody who knows PhotoShop? indopug (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

UWC

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart - Incase you use this as a source, dont, it will only have to be removed at GA/FA. The source should no longer be used in any article. I would actively remove it from any article you see providing this link/source. It only really affects music released since 1997 so it probably wont affect The Beatles too much. I would post this on the Beatles Wikiproject but I would probably be chased out with big sticks. You should inform your wider audience though. Cheers — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mention of 'Rain' in infobox caption

It is from that video:
John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr & George Harrison. Rain (music video). Parlophone/Capitol. Event occurs at 3:04. Retrieved 2008-06-11.
although I'm not sure it belongs there, and the URL I linked to is a copyvio, so - if it is included - use a different one...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the photo session and the video are mentioned in the Anthology book somewhere, that would probably be a better reference.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably would be (if there's a picture), but I'm not sure it should be in this article...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's from the video shoot for both "Paperback Writer" and "Rain", since the videos basically run into each other. Look them up on YouTube if you're curious. But yeah, that's definitely where the image comes from. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When I put that information in I got told off by some guy called Ward. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone to provide a source is not being "told off". Please comment on content, not contributors. See WP:NPA. Ward3001 (talk)
I saw, which is why I started this thread. There's a different image now though, so we can kinda resolve this can't we?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Cavern Club

There was no mention of the importance of this club in the Beatles career. I have added a few lines for openers. Lumos3 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


1966: Backlash and Controversy

The last paragraph in this section should be put somewhere else (perhaps in a "Critical reception" section, which the article lacks). It doesn't pertain to 1966, but an overall bad reception of the Beatles. Here it is, for future reference:

"Elvis Presley disapproved of The Beatles's anti-war activism and open use of drugs, later asking President Richard Nixon to ban all four members of the group from entering the United States. Peter Guralnick writes, "The Beatles, Elvis said, [...] had been a focal point for anti-Americanism. They had come to this country, made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling."[82] Guralnick adds, "Presley indicated that he is of the opinion that The Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s."[83] Despite Presley's remarks, Lennon still had some positive feelings towards him: "Before Elvis, there was nothing."[84] In contrast, Bob Dylan recognised The Beatles' contribution, stating: "America should put up statues to The Beatles. They helped give this country's pride back to it."[85]".

The references are as follows:

82. Peter Guralnick, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley, p420.

83. Guralnick, Careless Love, p426. On Presley badmouthing The Beatles to President Nixon, see also Geoffrey Giuliano and Vmda Devi, Glass Onion: The Beatles in Their Own Words-Exclusive Interviews With John, Paul, George, Ringo and Their Inner Circle (1999)

84. Leopold, Todd (16 August 2002). Elvis is still everywhere. CNN. Retrieved on 2008-05-15.

85. Sounes, Howard, Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan (Doubleday 2001; ISBN 0-55299929-6) p203.

This should be moved somewhere else. But first, we'll have to create the "Critical Reception" section. So, for now, this should be removed. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this section, like the PR says, is a bit POV to let it stand on its own. It should be merged with the preceding section, simply by deleting the "1966: Backlash and Controversy" heading. Thoughts? Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would think that "Critical Reception" should not be limited to negative criticism, per NPOV. However, the paragraph cited above seems a bit long for what it actually describes, per WP:UNDUE. It could easly be summed up in a couple of sentences. Meanwhile, I'm not sure about "Backlash", as that term seems a little strong. I'd suggest that Gary Glitter suffered a backlash in 1999, whereas of these incidents, only the "more popular than Jesus" issue seems to be widely-known but didn't permanently dent their general popularity. The Manila incident, knowing what we know of the Marcos regime, is very little more than a storm in a teacup, and I don't even remember it making the news in the UK at the time. That should put it into perspective. Again, one or two sentences should cover it. --Rodhullandemu 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the "Critical reception" section would contain both positive and negative commentaries. But this definitely should be in there. And again, per the PR, the rest of the "Backlash and Controversy" section should be merged with the beginning of the previous section (so as not to create a POV section). Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Band articles don't have Critical reception sections (R.E.M., Smashing Pumpkins) ... Best to deal with everything as chronologically as possible. Critical acclaim for their records etc is mentioned after covering the release of an album. indopug (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Gatefold picture

Why don't you just use this version instead Image:Sgtpeppergatefold.jpg? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it have a Fair-Use rationale for this article? --Rodhullandemu 20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm no good with FURs, but it seems that the rationale is okay. Anyway, the picture's in the article. It's a bit small, d'you think it's possible we could make it larger? Or would that be against Fair Use? Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Size (given it's a thumbnail anyway) doesn't have much connection with Fair Use. However, to make it bigger would risk the infobox swamping the lead section, which I don't think is a good idea. Actually, a picture with that aspect ratio (2:1) doesn't look great in the infobox anyway, since it's more or less forced to be small to avoid the swamping issue. Isn't there anything closer to 1:1? --Rodhullandemu 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed that picture; album art cannot be used to identify the band members but only in case o discussion of the artwork itself. Besides, there's a replica of that picture in the Sgt. Pepper's article, so this one should be deleted. Anyway, I'll try and create a composite free band picture by tomorrow. indopug (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think the FURs would be relevant here, but thought everyone else would know best so didn't bring it up. That composite image sounds good, anyway...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about "The Beatles" as a group. This article is NOT about the individual members, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. Individual photos are fine for articles about individual members. But for this article, there should be a photo of the four Beatles together. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A composite image means that 4 individual images are combined into one image. SeeRadiohead for an example. All five of those images were separate, and were edited together using Microsoft Paint, Photoshop, or some other photo editing tool. Please don't put the image back in again. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

W00t! i seem to have found an image (scroll down) without a copyright at the US Library of Congress' website. I'll double-check with somebody before uploading. indopug (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I recall that it was used quite awhile back. With formal fair-use rationale added which shows that this photo is in the public domain, this looks like a keeper. I believe the proper licence to use is...

...that photo was taken on February of 1964 when The Beatles arrived in New York City to launch the British Invasion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a good image. Quality is poor, and by the time the extraneous material is cropped out, the aspect ratio will be worse than the gatefold pic (about 3:1). I'd rather keep the one we have now, or let's see what the composite image looks like. Ward3001 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That photo was re-cropped. How is it now in the article? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just admiring it a minute ago - it looks great!...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 15:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict x 2) Well, this is a cropped and combined one from the Library of Congress picture itself (which I have uploaded at Commons). I could make a composite picture from other images of the members, but as one editor told me, "it'll be surreal seeing a composite Beatles picture with Old Man McCartney right next to Hippie Lennon." So I guess this will have to do—what can we do, we are the free encyclopedia. indopug (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You like it?! Oh jolly... indopug (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like it as it is. The compositing idea is a good one, but the Library of Congress image is horrible. It's very grainy, probably because it is a scan of an image (or even a scan of a scan). I suggest compositing from a better image, or restoring one of the previous images. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since a free alternative has been created, we obviously cannot use a non-free one (our non-free image-use policy #1). As for compositing from other pics, there aren't any of the (all four) members from the year/era. In any case, if you could show me four pics that you like, I'll try to make a composite. indopug (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense to Indopug (who is to be thanked for good work on the composite), but it looks as if wikilogic has shot itself in the foot again. The toothpaste is out of the tube and we can't get it back in. We can't use the many images that were available under fair use now because we have found a grainy free image. Can we not use the group shot from the Sullivan show that is now further down in the article, at least until a better image can be found or better composite can be made? Ward3001 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, to my knowledge, we HAVE to use a FREE image if available at all. If a better composite can be made, it has to be free. That's to MY knowledge, but if I'm wrong, please tell me. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Dead on, Kodster; the encyclopedic purpose of a picture in the infobox is to identify the band (ie, what they look like); and that is carried out fine by the current picture. Granted, the picture is not the prettiest and the band aren't in an awesome pose, but its free, and the article doesn't breach one of our core policies any more.
Again, if you show me the four pictures that you want combined, I'll do it for you. indopug (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Alternate solution: Find a talented PhotoShopper (I'll concede to just fooling around with MSPaint), and maybe he can improve the quality of the grainy picture. indopug (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine, although I wouldn't much mind using more of the original picture (ie. just cutting out the text and that white stripe, showing the band next to each other). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Like this? Its nearly impossible to make them out in the sea of faces (at low res) indopug (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not a good idea. A reader who didn't know what the Beatles looked like (SHOCK!!) might not be able to tell who the Beatles were, even though they are displayed kinda prominently. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Even better (and yet more implausible) idea: if any of you know people at any of the Beatles' record label or Paul or Ringo or Yoko; ask them to release a photograph (or a bunch) on Creative Commons/GFDL. indopug (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got Paul on speed dial, but we don't talk much...really, I highly doubt that the above will work, but let's get all the ideas on the table. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Savile Row image

I think it's worth keeping; as it's not just the site of the rooftop performance but was also Apple's headquarters, and Apple was an important part of their later history. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not remove images simply because we wish there was a "fair use" image. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a facade of a building. It's more pertinent to the Apple Records article. It has little to no use in an article on the band. Why is this image important for context? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's more than a facade of a building. Arguably there are two buildings that are most closely associated with The Beatles: Abbey Road Studios and 3 Savile Row. And there wouldn't be an Apple Records if it weren't for The Beatles starting it in this building. Ward3001 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
So? Why is it necessary to include an image of the facade to this article? What does it add to the understanding of that article that isn't conveyed by the prose? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
What does any image add? What do images of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr add? Why not just describe what they look(ed) like? Images add information of interest that cannot be provided by prose. This is not an academic paper; it's an encyclopedia article. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's an encyclopedic article, which means that images added should have some informative relation to the adjacent prose. If there's going to be a picture there, I'm sure we could find something far more relevant (like the Beatles actually performing on the roof, for instance). But there's no need for a picture in that section in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"I'm sure we could find something far more relevant": Please find it before removing the current image.
No one is obligated to replace one image with another. Images are supplementary. The prose of the article is what matters most. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course not, but one does have an obligation to not remove images if there is no consensus to do so simply because one's opinion is that it should not be there. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"images added should have some informative relation to the adjacent prose": Again, do images of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr do this in a way that the Savile Row image does not?
Depends on which images you're referring to. Images of the band in the infobox are to identify the band to those who have no idea what they look like (yeah, there are people in the world who don't know who The Beatles are). There's a picture of them performing on The Ed Sullivan Show, which was a historic event, not just in the band's career, but in pop culture history. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And the Savile Row image is for people who are interested in the famous building that housed Apple Records and on which the rooftop performance occurred. And it is an historic building. Ward3001 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The section discusses the filming of Let It Be and the band's final performance on rooftop; thus would be able to display a fair use image of the performance since the prose is discussing the historic event in queston. That is, if we were to include an image in the first place. We could place a soundclip there instead. Or no image at all. That image of the building is merely decorative and it wouldn't harm the article at all to remove it. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And elsewhere Apple Records is discussed. The image illustrates both the headquarters of Apple Records (sine qua non The Beatles) and the rooftop performance. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the front of a building the band's record label really the best thing w can use to illustrate the section? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please find something better before replacing the current image. Ward3001 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This obviously is a matter of opinion, so rather than two editors making endless exchanges, we need to see if a consensus develops, then decide what to do about the image. Ward3001 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not opinion that relevant media in the article needs to have a reason for being included. Wiki articles need to be well-written and laid out in a decent fashion. We can't keep an image of a building mentioned off-hand in the prose just because some people think it's neat. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And your opinion alone does not determine that inclusion of the image renders the article not "well-written and laid out in a decent fashion" and that the image's significance is only from being "mentioned off-hand in the prose just because some people think it's neat". Wait for consensus. Read WP:CON. Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you argue that the image is necessary to include in this article? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you argue that any image is necessary? Ward3001 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the images in this article can go, actually. What exactly is the point of a picture of a telegraph Brian Epstein sent indicating he signed the band? So far the only necessary ones are the infobox image and the Ed Sullivan Show performance. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine to argue that all or most images should go (although I disagree), but don't arbitrarily target one of them. Ward3001 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Savile Row image supports the text in that section of the article. The onus falls on you, WesleyDodds, to prove that it does not and has valid justification to be deleted. You cannot do that without rewriting that paragraph. All you can do is say that you think it doesn't fit, or another image might be better. Well I think most reasonable Beatles fans would disagree with you. Savile Row and Abbey Road are Beatles' fan's Meccas in London. Find a truly better image to put there, and I'll agree and back off. (My image of the Statue of Liberty was replaced with a better one. I can't complain about that...that's how it SHOULD work on here). Most shots of the rooftop concert (for the various bootlegs and the like, and the quality is often rubbish) were stolen from the few legimate photographers that were lucky enough to be there to capture that concert during the short time it lasted on that fateful day. I doubt that a truly "free" or "public domain" image of that concert exists. As I've said before, I truly dislike image deleters that don't offer something better, especially if the image fits, is not a duplicate of one already there, and adds to the article or helps reinforce the text.Misterweiss (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Savile Row image does not support the text beside it; can you point to me where the facade of the building is criticially being discussed so that a picture of it is needed as visual aid? Further, I removed two fair-use pictures at the top that were not discussed in the article; not enough to *significantly* add to the reader's understanding anyway. (WP:NFCC #8)
Misterweiss, may I remind you to keep civil, unlike in edit summaries such as this where you referred to Wesley as a "lousy deleter"? indopug (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Savile Row image shows the roof of the building. And the building itself...the address of which is given in that paragraph. Of course the facade is not being critically discussed...the BUILDING itself and its ROOF are the topic of that paragraph. And furthermore, here's what Wikipedia says about images, from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images page:

Pertinence and encyclopedicity Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic. Their origin must be properly referenced. The Savile Row image is most CERTAINLY pertinent to the article and is CERTAINLY significantly relative to the article's topic. They don't say it should be deleted if one person simply doesn't like it or see the need for it. By Wiki's definition and standards, it should be left alone. By you and WesleyDodds standards, there would be very few images on Wikipedia. (By the way...have you ever uploaded an image? Just curious) Oh sure, images are not totally necessary in ANY Encyclopedia. But the images are there to increase understanding and to ILLUSTRATE and SHOW the reader what they're reading about. Maybe in 1990 we could have used a "text only" version of Wikipedia, but not today. Misterweiss (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I can understand the need to keep non-free images to a minimum, as we are a free encylcopedia, but this is the first time I've experienced fighting to keep a free image in an article. Of course the image is relevant-- it's a picture of the very building that is being described.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree there has been too much emphasis on the word "facade". In this context, it's almost (but not quite) a weasel word. This is a famous building, an historic building, a building closely associated with The Beatles. And it is discussed in the text. The image represents the building as a whole, but it is impossible to place a single image that shows every aspect of the building in the article, even if one were avaiable. Until someone can find an acceptable image of the rooftop concert, we can accept the current one. That's not unusual in Wikipedia. We don't always get to insert the images we would like for various reasons, so we do the best we can until something better is located. Ward3001 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would LOVE to be able to upload an image like this one, from the Beatle's website: http://www.thebeatles.com/core/films/letitbe/1.jpg but of course, we couldn't get it, even under fair use. That shot shows how narrow Savile Row is. When I took my shot, I was backed up as far as I could be, with a really-wide wide angle lens. People on the street below would not have been able to see the Beatles up there, as they were not near the edge of the roof. If you've ever watched Let It Be, you can see the people on the street looking up and wondering "what the heck is going on?" and "where is that music coming from?" They honestly didn't know, unless they were on the roof of neighboring buildings, or in buildings across the street. Hey, can we link to that Beatles image as a footnote or something on Wiki? Misterweiss (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Audio samples

This article is badly in need of some audio samples; to give a good indication of they sounded like throughout their career. I'd say about five would be fine per Fair-Use requirements. Any preferences/suggestions? indopug (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - may I suggest:
  1. Love Me Do/Please Please Me (don't mind which)
  2. Yesterday
  3. Yellow Submarine
  4. Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane (don't mind which)
  5. Let it Be
Although that's basically a cut down list of my favourite songs, so...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, either "She Loves You" or "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as a pivotal early hit (and you can comment on the harmonies), and definitely "Strawberry Fields Forever" for all sorts of reasons, not the least because it's awesome (if you could get a sample of about when the song changes keys that would be even better). WesleyDodds (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course! 'She Loves You' gained them the 'Yeah Yeahs' nickname, and 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' broke them into the US market. I agree with you on 'Strawberry Fields Forever', that's an important song in Beatle history (although I prefer 'Penny Lane' slightly - it has a better melody) and should be included, so here's my revised list:
  1. She Loves You/I Want to Hold Your Hand (don't mind which)
  2. Yesterday
  3. Yellow Submarine
  4. Strawberry Fields Forever
  5. Let it Be
Howzat?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Trade "Let It Be" for "Get Back"? I was thinking while cooking lunch that we could comment on how the Let It Be project was about trying to get back to a more stripped-down recording method, with a more straightforward "rock" sound. I prefer "Let It Be" but "Get Back" is more indicative of the vibe of the project, I feel. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it sounds like a good enough idea. It shows more of the evolution (maybe change Yesterday too, as that was only Paul?)...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought "A Day in the Life" was an obvious choice (key song from their key album) rather than "Strawberry Fields". Why "Yellow Submarine"? indopug (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No reason other than its greatness...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 11:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's my list (based off of Dendodge's):
  1. I Want to Hold Your Hand (chosen b/c it's what made them known in the U.S.)
  2. Help! (Lennon's feelings of needing somebody)
  3. A Day in the Life (b/c it's awesome, and it's on Sgt. Pepper (their magnum opus)
  4. Strawberry Fields Forever (awesomeness implied)
  5. Get Back (per WesleyDodds above)

That's a good list, IMO, of the evolution of the Beatles throughout the 10 years (too short!) that they were together. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, I'm happy to go with that...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done However, the music samples for A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields are very close to each other in the article. Perhaps we should put in "Please Please Me" instead of A Day in the Life? Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images without consensus

Image:Martin McCartney and Lennon.JPG

Rather than starting an edit war, I'll discuss the general issue of deleting images here. I think editors should not take it upon themselves to delete fair use images without consensus. This is not a minor article, and there are lots of opinions to be heard. I don't agree that the image here violates fair use, and I would like more discussion. If consensus favors restoring the image or leaving it deleted, I'll accept it. But please discuss before removing images. Ward3001 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how does that image add significantly to the article? indopug (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And please read the WP:NFCC before you reply. (you cant post images outside article space either) indopug (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already read WP:NFCC many times, but thank you so much for reminding me of my potential ignorance. That was so necessary.
It was argued that the image did not satisfy fair use criterion #1 (No free equivalent) and #8 (Significance ... significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic). To my knowledge there is no free equivalent of Martin previewing a song by McCartney and Lennon in 1963. If there is please let me know where. And the image increases readers' understanding of the topic of The Beatles' creative processes. This image is as significant as the image in the infobox.
Let me make one more comment. I did not create this section as a contest to see who understands Wikipedia's policies on images the most. I am not even arguing that this or any other image should necessarily remain in the article. I am simply asking that the issues be discussed with civility so that consensus can be achieved before unilaterally deciding to remove images. Ward3001 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Read Wiki's image guidlines again. They do not say that it has to ADD to an article. It just has to be SIGNIFICANTLY RELEVANT and RELATIVE. Something is either relevant or not, but deciding what ADDS or not is purely subjective. Misterweiss (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the crunch one isn't it: "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Cue endless arguements over the precise interpretation of "significantly".Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I can see some fuss over NON-FREE stuff, that can get tricky. But original images put in public domain have more of a right to be there, and shouldn't have to justify their existance as much. I'm sitting on the fence on this Lennon/McCartney image. I don't like to see images deleted in most cases, but I'm a creator of images and probably biased on that topic. We all know what Lennon and McCartney look like. That shot shows us nothing Earth-shattering, and it was shot off the original at an angle which stretches their heads out (a la Rubber Soul?). I think the telegram image should definately stay though. There's some (images of) info that are a curiosity and fun to view. But that's just MY opinion... Misterweiss (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a picture of Macca with Harrison significantly increases the reader's understanding of anything. indopug (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's Macca and Lennon,not Harrison. And the image increases the reader's understanding as much as the image in the infobox (which, by the way, should also remain in the article). Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Ward's [previous comment) Apparently being bold doesn't apply to this page; especially when I am merely following policy? #1 was for the telegram; which was mainly composed of text. indopug (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But why do we need a *picture* of Macca previewing a song at all? indopug (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need an image of The Beatles at all? Ward3001 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a picture of The Beatles so that they can be identified clearly within the article. Besides, the picture in the infobox is free use, so that doesn't apply. I'm sticking with indopug on this one. The picture is basically a bad shot of McCartney on a guitar, with Epstein and Lennon watching. Does it give us a better sense of anything that can't be explained in words? No, because I just explained the picture in words. Is it historically relevant? No. Is it free? No. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, but Ward3001 says that the image is as relevant as the picture in the infobox. The only reason we have an image in the infobox is so the reader can see what the Beatles look like. And again, that image is free, so the two are not comparable. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense Kodster because you've done a lot for this article. But I suspect you would be making the same argument that we need a photo of The Beatles before the free one was found. No one was rushing to remove the non-free ones in the infobox in the past, nor should they have. Ward3001 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Images to identify the subject of an article are the most necessary images for any article. Anything else is of secondary importance. And yeah, people were scrambling to find appropriate images for the infobox that didn't violate copyright. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If we are to eliminate all non-free images in all of Wikipedia except the ones that identify the subject of an article, we have a lot of deleting to do. It's a matter of opinion as to how important the other images are, which is why we are having this discussion. I didn't see much evidence of "scrambling" to find a free image during the years that only non-free images were in the article. There was a lot of debate about which non-free image was best, but I don't remember any urgent pleas to find free images. And before the current free image was found, the previous infobox images did not violate copyright because they had a legitimate fair-use rationale. Ward3001 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
To Misterweiss; we just reproduce the text on that telegram on a quotebox or something. indopug (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that. Misterweiss (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Indopug, I confess ignorance in not reading between the lines of your edit summary ("Remove non-free pics") in determining which pic applied to which criterion. I didn't say being bold doesn't apply. But being bold and ignore all rules do not trump consensus. And, in this case, whether removing this image is "policy" is determined by consensus.
Please understand that my purpose in this section is not to criticize past removal of images; it's to try to clarify and achieve consensus about future removals (or restorations) of images. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You only need to establish consensus after someone objects to your edit. If we tried to establish consensus for every change to the article, very little would get done. Hence the be bold guideline. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This section exists because of objections to previous image removals. And I don't believe it's against Wikipedia policy to discuss an issue to avoid future edit conflicts. If there is, please tell me where I can find it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the rooftop performance, take your pick. GoogleImages gives other choices too. I'm not sure if these are photographs or just screencaps of the video? indopug (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think using any of them would be opening a can of worms. As we all know, lots of people and/or sites online post things that are not theirs to post. I think it would be better to insert a footnote, (or whatever it's called on here) containing a link to a better quality, legimate image. Yoko is notorius for sicking her law dogs/legal beagles on web sites using Beatles stuff, whether for fun or profit. Just protecting her interests, I suppose. Misterweiss (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we could use this image under fair use? >>> http://djsassy.blogspot.com/2008/01/welcome-to-hell.html Misterweiss (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Simpler yet, we could just take a screenshot from the YouTube video of the performance (which is what these seem to be anyway). That we surely know the source of the picture. indopug (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant source formatting for books

Book sources should be formatted like this as an example; Davies (1985), p. 178–180

However I see a number of inconsistant variations.

  • Davies (1985), p.178–180
  • Davies (1985), pp. 178–180
  • Davies (1985), pp.178–180
  • Davies (1985), p. 178–180.
  • Davies (1985), p. 178-180

Could we get consistancy, these are the easiest sources to format so they should be done correctly. Using the top one as an example all should be corrected where needed. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one page should be p., while a range or selection of pages should be pp., but that's my opinion...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to do it that way thats fine, but it should be consistant. I just avoid using the extra p as its easier. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are just numerous instances where spacing it missing, the wrong length dash is used, there is a full stop at the end. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Davies (1985), pp.178&ndash180 <--correct?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I think thats right, if its only 1 page then you remove the second p .— Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done I just checked them over to make sure there were no mistakes. I'm not even going to bother fixing the web refs, b/c half of them are the equivalent of geocities and other self-published websites. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks mint, well done. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I use this:

Well done

I must say, the article is looking quite nice recently. :-) — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be good enough for FA some time in the not-so-distant future...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 12:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Genres

It say that they were pop,and rock, not pop, rock, and metal? Since Helter Skelter was the first ever metal song.--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of hundreds of songs, one won't affect it too much. We don't say they were folk because of "Blackbird" or Baroque because of "Yesterday". Consensus has been achieved (at length) for "pop & rock". --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't you we at least add "Various others"? π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 12:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Or "Disputed subgenres"? Yes, without a link. π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well? --Metal of Head 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Utterly pointless to say anything beyond rock & pop. Whatever we say, someone will insist on adding their favourites. Let's not make a rod for our own backs here. If we leave it in general terms, we'll avoid endless edit wars. "One swallow doth not a summer make", and it's foolish in the extreme to even attempt anything more specific. Let it be. --Rodhullandemu 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

i actually support adding metal and hard rock 71.17.159.25 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy of deleted "Achievements" section for reference

Throughout their relatively short career, The Beatles set a number of achievements— most of which have yet to be broken.

Albums

* The Beatles have the fastest selling CD of all time with 1. It sold over 13 million copies in four weeks.[1]

Singles

  • The Beatles have had more number one singles than any other musical group (23 in Australia, 23 in The Netherlands, 22 in Canada, 21 in Norway, 20 in the U.S., and 18 in Sweden). Ironically, the Beatles could easily have had even more number ones, because they were often competing with their own singles. For example, the Beatles' "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were released as a "double A"-sided single, which caused sales and airplay to be divided between the two songs instead of being counted collectively. Even so, they reached number two with the singles. They even managed to hold separate releases by themselves off the top of the British chart in 1967 with "Hello Goodbye" at number 1 and the Magical Mystery Tour E.P at number 2.
  • In terms of charting positions, Lennon and McCartney are the most successful songwriters in history, with 32 number one singles in the U.S. for McCartney, and 26 for Lennon (23 of which were written together). Lennon was responsible for 29 Number One singles in the UK, and McCartney was responsible for 28 (25 of which were written together).
  • During the week of 4 April, 1964, The Beatles held twelve positions on Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions, which has never been accomplished by any other artist. The songs were "Can't Buy Me Love" (Capitol Records), "Twist and Shout" (Tollie Records), "She Loves You" (Swan Records), "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (Capitol), and "Please Please Me" (Vee-Jay).[2] In addition, seven other singles occupied lower places on the chart: "I Saw Her Standing There" (Capitol), "You Can't Do That" (Capitol), "All My Loving" (Capitol of Canada), "Roll Over Beethoven" (Capitol of Canada), "From Me To You" (Vee-Jay), "Do You Want To Know A Secret" (Vee-Jay) and "Thank You Girl" (Vee-Jay).[2] Furthermore, two Beatles tribute records appeared on the chart: "We Love You Beatles" by The Carefrees (at #42), and "A Letter to the Beatles" by The Four Preps (#85).[2]
  • The next week, 11 April, 1964, the Beatles held fourteen positions on the Billboard Hot 100. Before the Beatles, the highest number of concurrent singles by one artist on the Hot 100 was nine (by Elvis Presley, 19 December, 1956).
  • The Beatles are the only artist to have 'back-to-back-to-back' number one singles on Billboard's Hot 100 in the modern chart era. Their "Can't Buy Me Love" single supplanted "She Loves You", which had in turn taken the #1 spot from "I Want to Hold Your Hand." Boyz II Men, Nelly and Outkast have directly succeeded themselves atop the chart, but The Beatles are the only artist to 'three-peak'. (In 2004, Usher came within a week of matching this feat, with three of his singles ("Yeah!" "Burn" and "Confessions") holding the top spot for 21 of 22 weeks; only a one-week interruption between "Burn"s 7th and 8th weeks atop the chart by American Idol singer Fantasia broke the streak. Billboard's current version of the "Hot 100" chart began in August 1958; before that, artists such as Elvis Presley, Glenn Miller, Jimmy Dorsey, and Bing Crosby had also had three consecutive #1 hits, but on earlier Billboard charts that preceded the "Hot 100".)
  • The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over three thousand recorded versions. It is also the most played song in the history of international radio.
  • The Beatles had the fastest selling single of all time with "I Want to Hold Your Hand". The song sold 250,000 units within three days in the U.S., one million in 2 weeks. (Additionally, it sold 10,000 copies per hour in New York City alone for the first 20 days.)
  • The largest number of advance orders for a single, at 2.1 million copies in the U.S. for "Can't Buy Me Love" (it sold 940,225 copies on its first day of release in the U.S. alone).
  • The Beatles appear five times in the top 100 best-selling singles in the UK. No other group appears more than twice.

someone should take the spaces out from in front of the [1] and [2] superscripts in the second paragraph

the spaces allow page breaks between the reference link and the sentence which it supports 70.112.111.214 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved members to past members field

Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Past_members says:

If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field.

so I moved John, Paul, George and Ringo into the Past_members field...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I did italicise Stuart and Pete though, to show that they left before the band split up...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... even with italics, it still gives them a status that I don't really think they deserve. There should be some way to keep the main four separate from the less significant members. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at [1] which indicates that if a group lineup was stable during the years the group was famous and are universally known by that lineup, then they can be listed in the "current members" section of the band infobox template. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discography website: spam?

Someone added a link to discogs.com (apparently there is a wiki template for that site). There is already a discography link to musicbrainz.org. Do we need both? The Discogs website also looks rather spammy. Any opinions about whether it should stay? Ward3001 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL says we do not link to websites that provide information over and above what we would ourselves if the article were a Featured Article. By that logic, and we have The Beatles discography already referencing that website, there's little to be gained by duplicating the link here. --Rodhullandemu 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. I'm removing it. If someone makes a credible case it can be restored later. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Something's wrong here, methinks

As a slight change of mood is in the wind, I have gone through the article and noted some points that I think are worthy of consideration, or to just give a few people a bit of humour:

  • "Lennon added him to the group a few days later". Try telling that to McCartney; he was asked two or three times, and only joined after scout camp and a holiday in Filey.
  • "George Harrison was invited to watch the group, playing under a variety of names, at Wilson Hall". So they changed names after every song?
"which *was then* playing under a variety of names" - how's that? -MBlume (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Colin Hanton left the band in 1959 following an argument with other band members". It was only McCartney (who else?)
  • "Moore left the band soon after the tour and went back to work in a bottling factory". No mention of the van crash and Moore losing two teeth?
  • "McCartney took over bass duties". Sounds like washing the dishes and peeling the spuds.
  • "Mona Best; a cellar club in West Derby, Liverpool" Was Mona Best really a big, fat cellar club?
  • "having started a small fire at their living quarters" So they wanted to get the room warm for the next occupants by building a cosy fire? No burning condom? (Maybe that’s another story…)
  • "while vacating it for more luxurious rooms" Luxurious? A camp bed and concrete walls? Which kinds of hotels have you stayed in? The Bangkok police interrogation centre?
  • "some in the audience thought they were watching a German band". Why? Were they all wearing Lederhosen and singing war songs?
  • "Epstein led The Beatles' search for a British recording contract". Did he call out the police sniffer dogs to find it? Were they too racist to want a "Johnny Foreigner" contract?
  • "Martin hired session drummer Andy White for their next session on 11 September". There are two recordings featuring White, and then Starr, although nobody can tell the difference.
  • "Their recording contract paid them one penny for each single sold". (Which was split amongst the four members, meaning one farthing per group member) Should be above with the first mention of Martin's contract, and also mention that they each got a bag of coal and free bus tickets...
  • "music critic William Mann published an essay extolling The Beatles' compositions, including their fresh and euphonious guitars". Shouldn't this whole blah-blah paragraph be in the song articles mentioned?
  • "from Britain's BBC". It's the BBC. Would anyone write America's CNN?
  • "enabling Paar to claim that he had beaten rival Sullivan". How can you enable someone to claim something? Take the handcuffs and leg irons off?
  • "a crowd of four thousand fans". Now you're talking; exactly four thousand - that's British for you :))
  • "Phil Spector, who had booked himself on the same flight". For parking the plane in a Disabled Zone? (who had deliberately bought a ticket for the same flight...)
  • "newly renamed John F. Kennedy Airport". Isn't that 'recently'?
  • "The Beatles were put into limousines". Lennon didn't like being physically put into anything, apart from a bag.
  • "so Neil Aspinall replaced him for the band's first rehearsal". First mention of this Aspinall chappy. Was he the limousine driver? (Don't answer that.)
  • "side one was titled "Dave Hull interviews John Lennon". Wow, I never knew that... "Jim Steck interviews". No, not him as well?
  • "The Vee-Jay/Swan-issued recordings eventually ended up with Capitol". Did they get lost in the post?
  • "Ringo had rejoined by the time they arrived in New Zealand". With or without tonsillitis?
  • "radio station in Birmingham, Alabama, ran a story on burning Beatles records". They must have had hot feet. "in what was considered to be a joke". They were laughing at the same time as their feet were burning?
  • "Attempting to make light of the incident, Harrison said, "They've got to buy them before they can burn them". Did Harrison supply a lighter or matches? Wasn’t there enough light?
  • "There, the Maharishi gave each of them a mantra". And a bag of chocolates?
  • "deep divisions opening within the band, with Starr temporarily leaving the band. The band carried on". Because Starr hated being in a band of band members that were called a band.
  • "the difficulty that Harrison experienced in getting his songs onto The Beatles albums". I didn’t know he’d tried to get his songs on anybody else’s albums…
  • "In 1971, it was discovered that Klein, who had been appointed manager, had stolen £5 million from The Beatles' holdings." In brown paper bags, or stuffed into envelopes?
  • "recorded without Lennon, who was in Denmark at the time". Trying to get as far away from the others as possible?
  • "The Beatles' partnership wasn't dissolved until 1975". Did someone forget to post the letter?

These things are actually in the article, and I suppose someone will say that I should do it, but I’m too knackered after working on Heather Mills (there’s a joke for you) and am also thinking that the phrase “Get a life!” is taking on a whole new meaning. I thank you. :) --andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Join the rock music project

Join the rock music project today, it needs your help. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Join this one as well - you've got more participants... :))--andreasegde (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section of article

Something of the line of "Musical genres and influences" to explain the wide variety of styles The Beatles made music under, and examples of these songs,

Something roughly along the lines of -

Heavy Metal - Helter Skelter, I Want You (Shes so Heavy) Folk - Blackbird (song)

That is only very VERY rough though. Sir Richardson (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of a clue what you're trying to say, but if you are suggesting adding to the list of genres for The Beatles, that is a definite no-no unless there is consensus to do so. There was a lengthy and difficult consensus reached to only use the genres of Rock and Pop. Don't make changes without achieving change of consensus here first. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I see this on all the individual song articles too; all the time. What are we talking about, several hundred songs, and several hundred genres, all differently sourced, and all contested? No thanks. Let It Be. --Rodhullandemu 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
We already have the Musical Evolution section, we can maybe give a few examples of different song styles there. I don't think a new section is necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my lack of clarity, I wrote it last night while very very tired, and after doing so went to bed........ha,

Yes, I would be interested in explaining some more styles The Beatles experimented with, such as Heavy Metal, Folk, and so on. Sir Richardson (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FA

Let's focus on the important things - like getting this article to FA | Dendodge .. TalkContribs 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or on the current Collaboration of the Month - Yellow Submarine (song) | Dendodge .. TalkContribs 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The vs. the

Just because I think this is the greatest discussion in the history of humankind, I'm opening it up again with a third and possibly fourth option: THE BEATLES, or The BEATLES.

My assertion is based on the incontrovertible fact that the titles of works of literature and film come from the media itself: the title of a book is what it says on the title page, nothing else. That's why it's called the title page. The spelling used on the book's spine, front cover, publisher's catalog, or author's ten thousand word essay on the subject means bupkes. Title page is all. Similarly, the title of a movie comes from the title card in the film itself, and the title card alone, which is why it's "Sunset Blvd" and not "Sunset Boulevard".

This lacks logic. English has definitive articles. Not all languages do. The article itself is not part of the name. Were the article embedded in a phrase (eg 'Buddy Holly and the Crickets') you'd consider the article part of the title - but you would never capitalise it. 'The Beatles' at the beginning of a sentence uses an upper case 'T' not because 'the' is part of their name but because it's the first word in a sentence. I too have noticed this (rather typical) bastardisation taking place. It's a 'latter day' type of thing roughly equivalent to interpretations of Procul Harum lyrics or the assertion the Beatles put a mysterious VW on the cover of Abbey Road for a purpose. I too have seen it; and I don't like it any better than the Beatles themselves.

For records, the only equivalent is the labels on the discs themselves. This applies to the artist as well.

We are fortunate that many scans of original Beatles' records are available online, as their records are highly collectible. For instance, see http://www.fab4collectibles.com/capitol_lp_albums.htm, where you will see that the original Capitol records in the US say THE BEATLES on the labels (as on BEATLEMANIA! with THE BEATLES, and all subsequent Capitol issues). Only their first US LP release, Meet The BEATLES! says otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, all Parlophone issues, which surely must be considered authoritative, at least in the early days, say THE BEATLES.

Capitol are not original releases. Capital may not be used as authentic references.

I also submit that the official logo of the group, the "dropped T" logo that appeared on Ringo's drum head and elsewhere, says THE BEATLES. Or does it? The logo has an enlarged B, suggesting that THE EATLES should correctly be rendered in small caps. It doesn't matter; the labels take precedence. Forget I said anything about the logo.

Can we forget the rest of it too?

All this nonsense about what various writers and website creators have used is as nothing. THE BEATLES made records, and the records say THE BEATLES on them. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 19:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh ... sorry, but no. Titles printed on books, films, and albums often use all capitals regardless of what the official spelling is (if there is an official spelling). And this issue has been beaten to death too many times to start fighting all over again just as soon as we finish a battle. No offense. I'm sure you wrote this in good faith. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed.
Wikipedia naming conventions call for using "The Beatles" as it is not nice to type "THE BEATLES" as typing words in all caps is not nice and is the written equivalent of screaming. All-caps is mainly allowed with acronyms. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. OBVIOUSLY. But that does not mean 'the' should be generally capitalised. Wiki uses a system whereby links must begin with an upper case character. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN one must always refer to them as 'The Beatles'. See 'The Hives' - where 'The' is INTENTIONALLY part of their name. It is not with the Beatles. All this is really discomforting as it's been taken to hysterical extremes already. It's time for common sense to return to this discussion of This British Rock Group.
Please read the archives about whether "The" is intentionally part of their name. You will find almost endless debate there. And please stop shouting. Ward3001 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
How many pointless debates does one article need? Having random all-caps words in the middle of an article would look stupid. Let's stick with the consensus we've got and focus on the more important issues. Capital letters DO NOT MATTER! ¡ Dendodge .. TalkContribs ! 09:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at thebeatles.com and johnlennon.com, and they both use the uppercase and lowercase "t" (Sometimes in the same paragraph). I think the message is that it is not settled, so we should just pick one and use it consistently. Usually with Wikipedia style issues where there are two roughly equal answers, you go with the one that came first. Here, the answers are roughly equal; I know I can come up with valid reasons for either. The earliest version of the article available in the history shows the lowercase form, so that is what should be used throughout the article. -Rrius (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all been said before ... again and again and again. Read the archives. Ward3001 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User Rrius said this: "we should just pick one and use it consistently". Well, Rrius, we did pick one, we are using it consistently. I further suggest totally ignoring any more debate about this on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just keep picturing George Harrison somewhere, laughing his ass off as he hums "He's So Fine"... ;-) Zephyrad (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sergant Pepper

Should the article be catogorized into Category:Bands with fictional stage personas?, Or maybe just the album's article itself? Sir Richardson (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Concept, The Beatles abandoned the idea of fictional personas before completing the album. If this is correct, the category does not belong in either article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They also never appeared on stage with fictional stage personas.--andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

Former members

I listing all members as 'former members' in teh [sic] infox. Please refer to this and see that I am right in doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Past_members Tom Green (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the advice in the template, there is longstanding consensus here that we continue to list the four main members as current. It has been discussed on at least three occasions, and I invite you to discuss the matter again here before making that change. --Rodhullandemu 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
One of those old discussions is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist/Archive_3#Defunct_musical_groups Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And, for completeness, the others are here and here, the last one no more than four months ago. --Rodhullandemu 15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So to sum it all up, in the history of the group since they began calling themselves The Beatles in 1960, there have been six members total. The group was originally John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best. Sutcliffe left in 1961 and Best was sacked in 1962 in favour of Ringo Starr before the group recorded their first record for Parlophone, "Love Me Do." The group's lineup from their first record in 1962 to the formal breakup in 1970 was stable and consisting of John, Paul, George and Ringo. That's why they are listed as "Members" and why Stu and Pete are listed as "Former members." Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No individual is currently a member of The Beatles, as the band is defunct. The infobox is aimed at the casual reader for at-a-glance FACTS. Tom Green (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that we should follow the general consensus, and change the guidelines if necessary. Otherwise this argument will just go on and on and on. 81.157.70.54 (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually we have been following the general consensus for a long time, and the consensus has not changed. But a few editors occasionally feel the need to stir things up again. Ward3001 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Former members" relates to a group that still work together. If you could communicate with Lennon and tell him that he is a "former member", he would say, "Up yours! I was The Beatles!". :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to communicate with Lennon, become a Lennonist like me. It's the best religion ever - John comes to you in your dreams! Densock|Dendodgein public 11:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

One billion records

I highly doubt that this is an accurate figure. Is there a more reliable source that we can reference to back-up this claim? If not, I think this figure should be removed. If this figure is indeed accurate, it should be easy to find another, more reliable source. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A google search on '+"Beatles"+"billion records"' turns up many references, some of which credit EMI as the source, although I haven't found EMI itself saying so. I think the source used is as good as any, but it can always be replaced with another one.
But why do you doubt it? Carlo (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess after doing some more research, this claim becomes slightly more believable. I found, on About.com, the following explanation: "When you add up all of the Beatles albums, singles, CDs, and videos that have ever been sold, the total surpasses 1-billion." This seems to be more plausible than the "one-billion-record-sales" claim, since the Beatles had dozens of singles and videos, and this new explanation takes into account singles and video sales. What do you think? Should we add this explanation to the article and replace the old reference with the About.com article? ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 19:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"Records" includes albums and singles, so there is nothing ambiguous in the article. Videos likely are a small proportion of the sales, as the video age came long after The Beatles broke up. Ward3001 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

I think The Beatles' drug use is grossly understated here. Drugs played a rather large part in their story. They were all pill poppers in the early years. Following the time that they were introduced to marijuana, all were complete stoners, and they've admitted as much in many interviews, including for The Beatles Anthology. The "occasionally in the car during the filming of Help!" is better described as "every day potsmokers." Except for Ringo, they were all arrested at least once for marijuana (Paul as late as 1980). As for harder drugs, in the middle 60s, John and George, at least, took acid frequently, John virtually every day. John also dabbled with cocaine and heroin. So, I would say this section is not really accurate.

67.214.17.208 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Rob

Beatles on Ed Sullivan

Regarding The Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, The Beatles Wiki page says Brian Epstein "persuaded" Sullivan to have the band on the show. According to a quote from Ringo Starr in the book Anthology, Sullivan booked the band on the spot when he and The Beatles arrived at Heathrow Airport at the same time. Sullivan saw the pandemonium The Beatles created and invited them on the show.Ohara1988 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I think maybe you misinterpreted something. They arrived Feb. 7, rehearsed Feb. 8, and appeared on the show Feb. 9. Things just don't happen that fast. I remember people talking about their upcoming appearance on Sullivan before Feb. 7. Can you post the quote from Ringo here so that we can see what he said? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If nobody here has noticed, the Ed Sullivan picture is in danger of being deleted due to NFCC 8 concerns. It seems to me that this portion of the article could be expanded a bit to add why the physical appearance of the Beatles on the show was so important, such that the image became visually required in order to understand the point. Anyone up to the task? howcheng {chat} 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let it Be

I read in the article The Beatles' line-ups that John Lennon left the band in 1969. Does this mean that when they recorded the song and the album titled Let it Be, that John was not with them? --Nick4404 yada yada yada What have I done? 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article The Beatles (associated with this talk page) for the answer. Ward3001 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If for some reason you can't tell me the answer yourself, at least tell me what the subheading is. I don't feel like reading this entire article just for that bit of info. Nick4404 yada yada yada What have I done? 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why ask the question in the first place? Talk about laz-eee...--212.241.64.236 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The song and album were recorded in January 1969, before John "left" later that year (there was no official announcement however, for business reasons). --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. and U.K albums?

Is it really necessary to have separate pages for both the UK and US albums? I mean, they are the pretty much the same albums. Why two pages? These pages are unnecessary and should be one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.93.15 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate pages??? There is one page for The Beatles discography, and if you take a look at it, you'll see that prior to the Help! album, UK and US albums were different. Ward3001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1969-1970 Let It Be project

After the near-disastrous sessions for the proposed Get Back album (later retitled Let It Be), Paul McCartney suggested to producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album "the way we used to"[5], free of the conflict that began with the sessions for The White Album; Martin agreed. In their interviews for the Beatles Anthology series, the surviving band members stated they knew at the time this would very likely be the final Beatles' product, and therefore they agreed to set aside their differences and "go out on a high note." That "high note" was "Abbey Road" and was actually the Beatles last recorded album. "Let It Be" was recorded before Abbey Road but was released after Abbey Road because it took so long for Phil Spector to compile all the material containing on the tapes into a coherent album.

This passage (from the "Abbey Road" article and my own comments) should be inserted and into the main "The Beatles" article in the above subject after: Most of the performance was filmed and later included in the film Let It Be.

The total passage is important to Beatles history and helps the reader to understand that "Abbey Road" was actually the Beatles last recorded album. "Let It Be" was recorded before Abbey but was released later because Spector took so long to compile all the material included in the tapes. The way the section is, it makes Abbey Road an afterthought. --Dcrasno (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns. First and foremost, what are your sources? Additionally, there is some redundancy with material already in the article (e.g., the article already identifies Abbey Road as the final album). And what do you mean by "near-disastrous sessions"? I also have a problem with lifting word for word information from another article; a few words may be OK, but not this much. Otherwise, if you clean this up with regard to some of my concerns, it might work. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to inform a reader new to the Beatles who might read the group's history without reading the details of every album. The point is that with "Let it Be" the Beatles wanted to get back to their rock 'n' roll roots. After the "near-disastrous sessions" (Wiki's own descriptipn as a source) the band wanted to end their career with one more album with George Martin in the studio and their current style; "Abbey Road." Like I said, the original article makes Abbey Road sound like an afterthought instead of not just one of the best albums they did, but their swan song and their true last album. A new reader might not read the Abbey Road article and not know about this very crucial point in their history. --Dcrasno (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your statement, "the surviving band members stated they knew at the time this would very likely be the final Beatles' product" is not true AT ALL. Watch the Anthology DVD and hear Ringo say that "nobody thought it [Abbey Road] was the last song, the last session". This is POV that is fed by journalists wanting to put a full stop to their cleaned-up version of history.--212.241.64.236 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
But on that very same Anthology DVD, George Martin (hardly a POV pushing journalist) says, "everyone knew it would be the last"! --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

again, the part re "the surviving members..." is not my statement- it's yours- from the Wiki "Abbey Road" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcrasno (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, let's sort this out (using Anthology as a ref, which I am watching...)

Martin: "I guess it [Abbey Road] was happy because everybody knew it was gonna be the last".

Harrison: "Everybody decided we ought to do one better album" (than the Let It Be album).

Martin then said (after the "Something" video had been played): "Nobody knew for sure it was gonna be the last one, but everybody felt it was."

Starr: "There was always a possibility that we could have carried on. We weren't sitting in the studio saying 'This is it, the last record, the last track, last take'".

Harrison: "At the point we'd finished Abbey Road, it was really, the game was up, y'know, and we all accepted that."

My own opinion is that it was Spector putting the female choir and strings on "The Long and Winding Road" (Let It Be album) that made McCartney blow his top. (Alan Klein sent a letter to McCartney stating that the changes were needed to McCartney's own song). McCartney then decided to leave the band, as he felt his genitals had been cut off in a very unfriendly way...

The "unfriendly" phrase is a bit unnecessary here, isn't it ;-). (John User:Jwy talk) 03:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Read this: "While the released version of the song was very successful, the post-production modifications to the song by producer Phil Spector angered McCartney to the point that when he made his case in court for breaking up The Beatles as a legal entity, McCartney cited the treatment of "The Long and Winding Road" as one of six reasons for doing so."--andreasegde (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - that song would be way better without the choir. The way I see it, everyone knew tensions in the band were high (that's why Paul wrote 'Let It Be'), but they didn't know this was their last album. They knew they were going to go their separate ways soon, but they didn't know when. Dendodge|TalkContribs 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this, from Dendodge: "They knew they were going to go their separate ways soon, but they didn't know when". Absolutely correct, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As an added thought: Try to 'imagine' what the songs from Imagine, and McCartney's solo albums ("Maybe I'm Amazed" for one) would have sounded like if they had been recorded by The Beatles. It doesn't bear thinking about...--andreasegde (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

World Music Awards 2008

< The 20th Annual World Music Awards will take place on November 9, 2008 in Monte-Carlo

Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry >

[[2]] --Roujan (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles and Elvis

I've been a bit bold and added a bit about the time they met. It was a unique meeting and it gives some perspective to their story, particularly regarding Presley's Nixon meeting (what pills he'd been popping is anyone's guess. I mean Presley - not Nixon...). I think the anecdote about "I Feel Fine" is a good example of Paul's - and The Beatles' - humour. More could be added, but this is the Beatles article, not Presley's. Rikstar (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little too much in this article as it is, especially the long quote from McCartney.--andreasegde (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and have edited it.Rikstar (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Elvis originally gave John Lennon the inspiration to start what would turn into the Beatles. The Beatles Fan (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Across the Universe in Film section

I think the movie Across the Universe (2007) should be mentioned in the Film section. Though none of the Beatles took part in the movie, the names of many characters are references to their songs. Their music is used to help illustrate the story and dominates the soundtrack. References to and influences from the Beatles' music also seems to be incorporated quite a in the plot.(This is my first time posting something in a discussion so could someone tell me if I'm doing something wrong?)69.124.107.44 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)S.A.R. Girl in Blue

You've done it fine. I won't add it myself, as I'm not sure whether it warrants inclusion a none of The Beatles were involved, but I'll leave it to somebody a bit better at making decisions than I am. DendodgeTalkContribs 09:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be better here with other Beatles-related films. --Rodhullandemu 09:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles video game

MTV Games and Harmonix, the makers of Rock Band, are developing original non-Rock Band title exploring Fab Four's entire career and "visual imagery" So... yup. Someone add this to the present projects, or whatever. http://www.gamespot.com/news/6200313.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;3

It would have to be notable; The Beatles connection does not necessarily make it so. What if it never gets released, or flops? I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here, and if it becomes notable, it can be added then. --Rodhullandemu 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, given their (very successful) persnicketiness about granting permission to use their material, I would suggest that in itself is notable, no? (John User:Jwy talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
On that basis, since Apple Corps appear to have licensed it, OK, it's worthy of a mention, but I remember similar projects that ultimately sank without trace. Maybe I'm too old. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Grandchildren on your knee? - did the previous projects have approval? I'm old but haven't been paying attention. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WHY

are they called "ONE" of the of the bestselling bands? THEY ARE The Bestselling Band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.29.213 (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to fina a reliable source to prove that. It's also quite difficult to quantify (you always get people fiddling the figures - Brian Epstein did it on Love Me Do). Dendodge TalkContribs 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

carnival of light

the existence of this track wasn't revealed in november 2008, paul wanted it to be released with the anthology but the rest of the band didn't wanted it so it was avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.45.1 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for it, then it can be added to this article and/or the one about Anthology. But we don't do anything without sources. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
We have an article about it. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

man just read the wiki article about the song, there are all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.241.187 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Beatles 1 is Fastest Selling CD of All Time". Off the Beatle Track. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
  2. ^ a b c DiMartino, Dave. "Hitsville USA". Paul Trynka (ed.), ed. (2004). The Beatles: 10 Years That Shook the World. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. pp. 123. ISBN 1-4053-0691-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |editor= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help) Originally printed in Mojo magazine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_18&oldid=1099619100"