Talk:The Beatles/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

"New" Paul McCartney letter as it pertains to The/the Beatles.

I'm curious what editors think about the letter that surfaced recently, by McCartney to a mystery drummer. Paul appears to use a lower case "the" mid-sentence, and an all upper case when he singed it THE BEATLES. Does this have any bearing on the long-standing difference of opinions on the matter?

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1017/Paul-McCartney-letter-offered-tryout-to-mystery-drummer

— GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I support "the Beatles" on purely grammatical grounds. Even if I leaned the other way, I don't think Macca's usage would sway me. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Jackson's acquitistion of the catalog

This article says that Jackson out-bid a joint bid from Ono/McCartney, but on the Northern Songs article, it says that McCartney thought the catalog was too pricey and Ono did not bid at all. Can someone please reconcile the two. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither statement appears to be actually sourced, so that's a toughie. I'll do some research and see what I can find out. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

McCartney and Ono made a joint bid for ATV in 1981 that was unsuccessful. In 1984 the company was offered for sale again and was purchased by Jackson but there was no joint bid by McCartney and Ono at that time. To say that Jackson outbid a joint bid by McCartney and Ono is incorrect. Piriczki (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

If you go to the article Paul is Dead and click on "What links here" on the side, it says there is a link to that article from this one. But I can't find it in here. Where is it?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear it's only linked through the template in the footer. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Small but substantive edit to lead section

I just edited this:

They achieved mainstream success in the United Kingdom in late 1962, with their first single, "Love Me Do". Gaining international popularity and acquiring the nickname "Fab Four" the following year, they toured extensively until 1966.

to this:

They achieved mainstream success in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "Fab Four" the following year. By 1964 they were international stars, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

It's too easy, I believe, to read the former version as stating that they became internationally popular in 1963. The text of our article, at least, does not support that. The only internationally relevant information it addresses for 1963 is a five-day tour of Sweden, which hardly qualifies, I think. Anyone have an issue with the edit, or any suggestions for further improvement? One thing I was pondering was whether it would be valuable to introduce the term "British Invasion" into the second of the two sentences in question. DocKino (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Beatles were not international stars until early 1964, most sources agree, although one could argue that it really began in late 1963. As per your suggestion to introduce the term "British Invasion" into the second of the two sentences, that sounds good to me, and it is quite notable that they were not the only British band that made it global at that time. I think it's proper to frame Beatlemania in the context of the larger "British Invasion", and it is especially notable that the Beatles, while perhaps not the first UK artist to achieve success in the US, they certainly are the most important to the early stages of the "British Invasion". — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do use the term "British Invasion", please do so in a way that doesn't suggest that the US is the only country that matters. It's very US-centric terminology. We Brits were here all the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I think by definition, a "British Invasion" band is a UK act that had success in the US, circa 1964-1966. So really, it's no more US-centric than stating that rock and jazz began in the US, it's simply a fact. — GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the new wording. I also believe that it's clear in the article that 'British Invasion' is an American term describing the success that many UK bands had in the US, and that it doesn't discount The Beatles' success in the rest of the world. Radiopathy •talk• 00:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The wording by DocKino is fine. @GabeMc - it's simply the terminology "British Invasion", without clarification, that's problematic. It's got nothing to do with jazz, r&r, etc, originating in the US, which everyone accepts. Referring to it as, say, ".. the success of acts from Britain, known in the US as the "British Invasion"...." would be fine. But the term "British Invasion", without any context, is simply not globally acceptable, because it refers to how the music was received within the US only. No-one in Britain - unless they were describing events in the US, specifically - would call the success of British acts at that time a "British Invasion", because it doesn't apply here (that is, in Britain), for obvious reasons. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, no, it's nothing to do with jazz or rock per se, those are just examples, how about this. In 1944 the Allies invaded France, and though it had worldwide repercussions, the invasion took place in France, not globally. The term "British Invasion" is an American term to specifically describe UK acts that gained popularity in the US. It has nothing to do with the music scene in Britain, or France, or Germany, or one might say the "British Invasion" began in Hamburg, Germany, in 1960. It's really no different then the "skiffle craze" in the UK, which is a UK term for a UK phenomenom. Not that Wiki is a RS,. but look at the British Invasion page, it clearly states: "The British Invasion is a term used to describe the large number of rock and roll, beat, rock, and pop performers from the United Kingdom who became popular in the United States during the time period from 1964 through 1966." — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As I was partially responsible for writing the paragraph in question, I suppose I should chime in -- The Beatles weren't really "international" stars in '63. Most in the United States hadn't heard of them. They were certainly entirely unknown in most of the rest of the world as well. The biggest event in terms of jump-starting their popularity was unquestionably the '64 American tour. I support the revised paragraph. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

People have raised some very good points. Something concise but clear like the following I think would work, if consensus is that it's a worthwhile addition. An edit from this:

By 1964 they were international stars, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

to this:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the US pop market, and they toured extensively through mid-1966.

My sense is that in the history of pop music, the impact of British bands on the largest pop music market in the world is significant enough to merit mention in the lead of the article on that movement's spearhead. So there's that question and then the one, of course, of phrasing: I think it is important, if it's to go in, that it not be long-winded. DocKino (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds good to me DocKino, I would suggest this minor change however: " ... the US pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966." This would help make it clear that they toured not just the US market during this period. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes to both DocKino's and GabeMc's contributions. Radiopathy •talk• 01:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree--I think that's very good, GabeMc. DocKino (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I like everyone's suggestions! However, I think this might flow better with the surrounding text:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent "studio years", produced what critics consider some of their finest material including the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), widely regarded as a masterpiece.

Thoughts? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it Evan. But I still say we need to make it clear that they toured the world through 1966, and not just the US, as it kinda sounds like now. And I can't help but feel "masterpiece" is a little too close to puffery. I think we should frame Pepper more along the lines of "influencial" or "important" or even "ground-breaking", but to call it a "masterpiece" seems a bit much, though I agree, it is IMHO, and I know the current language in the lead calls is such. — GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. My suggestion was largely a lazy copy-paste job on my part with some edits to match the others' suggestions. So:

By 1964 they were international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent "studio years" produced what critics consider some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

How's that? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks better to me Evan, this version is superior to the current language, IMHO. It makes me wonder though, would "By 1964 they achieved international success," be better than, "By 1964 they were international stars,"? — GabeMc (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would. But, let's drop the comma after "success" and drop in a "had" between "they" and "achieved" to make it seem more like one complete thought. "By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market." Here's another thought -- would "American pop market" make more sense than either "United States" or "US pop market"? I'm not sure if the MoS addresses that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to go with United States, as there is more than one country in the Americas. How about changing, " ... produced what critics consider some of their finest material," to " ... produced what some critics consider their finest material,"? Ala:

By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

— GabeMc (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking re: the US/United States/American thing. I have absolutely no problem with your wording, but I do have another issue to bring up -- are the quotation marks around "studio years" really necessary? Unless it's a direct quote (and it doesn't look like it is) I don't see why they need to be there. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Evan, I think you are correct about the unnecessary quotation marks around studio years, they should be removed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with all this, except I believe "had achieved international success" is inferior to "were international stars." No information is gained with the longer-winded version, and it sounds...a bit long-winded and like a Wikipedia cliché. "International stars" is accurate and a very well supported summary of the information contained in the primary text. Most of all, we have "achieved mainstream success" in the immediately preceding sentence. Let's let plain language hold sway here. DocKino (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band will be in italics, correct? GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, Batty! Thanks for pointing that out.

The way I see this, we have two options going for us. First, the one Gabe, Doc, and I hammered out:

By 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

and the revised suggestion by Doc:

By 1964 they had become international stars leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. They toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

So, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's opinions here. If I am, feel free to punish me with trouts. :) I would support a consensus for either of these options, but I do think I lean toward the "international stars" version after further consideration. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another annoying thought: Should that be "by the end of 1964" rather than "by 1964? That version seems to make it sound like they had achieved all that by 1 January 1964, at which time the British Invasion hadn't even begun. I think we could safely say that their international popularity (or "stardom") was firmly established by the beginning of '65, though. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not married to, " ... achieved international success ... ", though I do think " ... had become international stars ... " is also a little close to puffery, but it's not a deal breaker for me in terms of support. I think the "achieved mainstream success" in the immediately preceding sentence could easily be copy edited out. Evan, as per "by the end of 1964" rather than "by 1964"? I think "by early 1964", or "by early February 1964" would be the most accurate, as they certainly had arrived in a big way by 7-9 February 1964. However, their songs began to be played by on US radio by the end of 1963, so really, it started then, but I think the official "Invasion" should be dated to February 1964. — GabeMc (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All looks good to me. I'd change it myself, but I figure I'll wait for others to chime in so we can have something closer to consensus. How's this for a proposed change?

By early 1964 they had achieved international success leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

The only change I made from the earlier suggestion was to change "1964" to "early 1964" and change "they" to "the band" at the beginning of the second sentence in order to avoid the constant and somewhat annoying use of "they". Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your changes Evan, they improve the flow of the prose. As one last arguement against using, " ... had become international stars ...", which I find slightly fanboyish, and un-encyclopedic (it's sounds more like a biography then an encyclopedia, just my opinion).

How about this:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" the following year. By early 1964 they had achieved international success, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with that! As I said before, I support "achieved international success" over the "international stars" version. I had meant to make that clear above, but I mistakenly left that bit in there. I think I copy and paste too much! : ). I'm fine with your suggestion, and actually think it's the best proposed so far. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good, well, let's wait to see if Doc has any suggestions/objections before we change the article. — GabeMc (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nudge about this, but the contortions we go through to avoid anyone anywhere possibly accusing us of puffery yield turgid, lifeless writing and are entirely unnecessary. "They gained popularity" is Wikipedia-cliché, mediocre expression--especially when it's echoed a sentence later by "They had achieved X success". "They became stars" is strong, proper, direct, better English and very well supported by the very well sourced text. Think about how the people we admire express themselves in the world outside Wikipedia. Does an excellent author choose to write "They gained popularity" over "They became stars"? Does an excellent speaker choose to say "They gained popularity" over "They became stars"? It is OK to say in plain words what happened. That's not puffery. That's good English composition. DocKino (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't followed this debate throughout, but they did not "become stars" when "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in the UK. They gained popularity and "became stars" over the next year or so, particularly once "From Me To You" made no. 1 in the UK in May 1963. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, to clarify, I think Doc might have mixed up the text strings here, and Doc, please correct me if I am wrong. I am suggesting we use, "They gained popularity ... " instead of, "They achieved mainstream success ...". And I am suggesting we replace, "... they had become international stars ...", " with " ... they had achieved international success ... ". — GabeMc (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, I hear you, I do, you make a good point about lifeless writing, and I agree, the quality of the writing should not suffer for fear of WP guidelines. I'm curious though, why is, "They gained popularity ... " more of a Wikipedia-cliché/mediocre expression than, "They achieved mainstream success ..."? How married are you to " ... had become international stars ..."? — GabeMc (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Doc, while I would prefer to avoid the term "stars", I am willing to agree with you for the sake of compromise, also, this would avoid the repetition of the word, "success" in the paragraph, how about this:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom in late 1962 with their first single, "Love Me Do", and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively through mid-1966, and during their subsequent studio years produced what some critics consider their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's very well done, and we should move forward with that. DocKino (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just one thing -- be sure to leave the bolding on "Fab Four", as it is now. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is a quibble, and if no-one wants to take it on board that's fine, but in the UK the boom in their popularity happened during 1963, not late 1962. "Love Me Do" was, in itself, a minor hit that would have been quickly forgotten were it not for their increasingly successful follow-ups through 1963. The text that says that they "gained popularity... in late 1962" doesn't seem to reflect the growing Beatlemania of 1963 in the most accurate way possible. What do people feel about something like: "They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do" was a hit in late 1962, and acquired the nickname "the Fab Four" as Beatlemania grew in Britain over the following year." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, except don't link Beatlemania, already linked in first graf of the lead. DocKino (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I hadn't checked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I like Myrtle's revision. Please Please Me was actually quite a bit bigger than Love Me Do, at least in the UK. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Over the first year, each single was a bigger hit than the previous one. Myrtle ?! Guy aka Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in at the end of this thread. I have no particular opinion over the contents here, but would it be possible to keep the language as "they toured extensively until mid-1966" rather than "through mid-1966"? From a British English viewpoint "they toured extensively through mid-1966" could be misunderstood as them touring extensively in mid-1966 but at no other time. Let me know if this would be possible — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. This is just to let you all know that I'm going to be out for a few days, possibly a week. I'm with Stradivarius on the "until" bit, so whatever you guys decide (within the bounds of our established common ground) has full absentee support from me. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple points here:

• 1) @Ghmyrtle, thanks for the fine suggestions, I agree that Beatlemania should be mentioned in this graph, as building during 1963, that's exactly what the graph needed. I think to call "Love Me Do" a hit in 1962 is a bit contentious however. The song charted in London's four major weeklies, and was moderately successful, a #1 in Mersey Beat, but as it is now the text string sounds like the song was a hit in the UK in general, in 1962, which is debatable, it only charted for a week in any significant London paper, plus the rumours about Epstein buying 10,000 copies to make it chart make the claim of "hit" suspect.
• 2) @Mr. Stradivarius, you make a good point here, and thanks for joining the discussion. My concern here is that "until mid-1966" sounds more like June or July than the end of August, at least to me. So the problem could be solved by being more specific with the date, but it might raise the issue of inconsistant date specificity within the graph however, i.e. "late 1962", "early 1964", "1967 album", "early 1964", "29 August 1966" or "late August 1966".
• 3) @Evan, why does the "Fab Four" neeed to be in bold?

How about:

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do", briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies in late 1962. They acquired the nickname the "Fab Four" as "Beatlemania" grew in Britain over the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively until late August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. During their subsequent studio years they produced what many critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the reference to "...briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies...", and support DCGeist's reversion of that text in the article. Although regional charts existed in the UK at the time, the clear emphasis was on the national charts, as published by Record Retailer, the pop music weeklies and the BBC. Although there were significant variations between those charts - and nefarious goings-on existed to ensure high chart placings - they were and are regarded as the only charts that really matter, and the fact they were published nationally in London is irrelevant. The Record Retailer chart, in which "Love Me Do" reached its peak of no. 17 on 27 December 1962 ([1]), is now regarded as standard - and it was in that chart for 18 weeks, surprisingly, so not "brief". And Bill Harry describes the story that Epstein bought 10,000 copies as a myth - [2]. So, the text should say something like: "They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in late 1962...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, the text string, "...briefly charted in several major London musical weeklies...", is a paraphrase from Harry, "TBE", 2000, page 869: "The single reached its highest position of No. 17 in one London music paper for one week only, was No. 27 for one week in another, but at least managed to make its presence felt in all four London musical weeklies, reaching No. 24 in Disc and No. 32 in Record Mirror, in addition to the Melody Maker and New Musical Express placings." I believe Harry is incorrect here, it hit No. 17 in Record Mirror, and it's odd that Harry does not mention the Record Retailer numbers at all. He may have them mixed up with Melody Maker.

The source you provided here seems to agree with Harry's claim that the song charted for one week only, though I think that's the US release referring to being #1 for a week, and the source, about.com, is user generated, so it isn't really a reliable source anyway, so I'm not sure what your source is for, " ... it was in that chart for 18 weeks." I'm not disputing the info per se, I just don't know the reliable source for it.

As far as the claim that Epstein artificially boosted the song's chart position, while Riley and Brown and others may well be wrong about this, Epstein, as a primary source, is not the most reliable person to use to refute that claim. I also know Lennon refuted the claim, but he might not have known, or he might have lied, both are equally possible, IMHO. According to Alistair Taylor, personal assistant to Epstein, later general manager at NEMS and Apple Corps, "Brain bought boxes and boxes of 'Love Me Do' ... [l]ater , when it came onto the charts, he bought several thousand more, hoping to push it higher, and draw more attention to it, but after a while we realized that it could only go so far."(Spitz, 2005, pages 357-358). Notice Taylor says "we"? Harry can call it a rumour all he wants, but he wasn't there, but Taylor's is a first-hand account, and he claimed to be an eye witness to the rumoured "padding" of "Love Me Do" by Epstein. Nevertheless, I agree with you and DCGeist, there is no need to be overly detailed here. I think your suggestion to use the text string, " ... became a minor hit in late 1962." solves this issue nicely, and is well supported by the sources.

How about this?

They gained popularity in the United Kingdom after their first single, "Love Me Do", became a minor hit in late 1962. They acquired the nickname the "Fab Four" as "Beatlemania" grew in Britain over the following year. By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. The band toured the world extensively until late August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. During their subsequent studio years they produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. The source for "Love Me Do" entering the UK chart on 11 October 1962, remaining there for 18 weeks and peaking at no. 17 is Betts, Graham (2004). Complete UK Hit Singles 1952-2004 (1st ed.). London: Collins. p. 63. ISBN 0-00-717931-6. - it's one of the standard sources on UK charts and uses the Record Retailer chart for that period. The reference on the About.com site is to the US release in 1964 reaching no.1 there, not the UK. Whatever the truth of how it reached the UK charts, it did reach the charts - which makes it, by definition, a hit. The fact that it was in the charts for 18 weeks - an unusually long length of time in the UK chart of that time (which was a Top 50) for a record that got no higher than no. 17 - shows that it must have been genuinely popular and selling through word of mouth and radio plays, rather than hype. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reliable source Ghmyrtle, Harry must have this one wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) and he neglected to mention the Record Retailer stats. And I agree, it's 18 weeks on the chart is certainly not "brief". In fact it would appear only three other Beatles singles stayed on a chart longer in the UK, "From Me To You" (21 weeks), She Loves You" (33 weeks), and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" (22 weeks). I'll go ahead and implement the changes to the lede, as we appear to have a clear concensus now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. I made three tiny, nonsubstantive changes for visual style, grammar, and writing style. with a net change of 0 bytes. DocKino (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

British/English

The Beatles belonged to everyone in Britain. Remember the "British Invasion ".

They should be called a British band not English.

john medda 27/11/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmedda (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles

Should more information be added about each individual? I think it would be usefull to add how and where The Beatles met. Also how they not only knew each other, but were friends before they even decided to start the band. Moonstarfairy (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Those things are all described in more detail in the article The Quarrymen. --Nick R^Talk 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lennon, Cynthia (2005). "John". London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-92091-6.

Can anyone verify the page numbers to the two cites to: Lennon, Cynthia (2005). "John". London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0-340-92091-6? Because either these are incorrect cites, or this version of the book is vastly different than both the Crown, and the Three Rivers editions. Also, this ISBN is a limited edition signed book that retails in the US for $200-$300, so should we be using such a rare edition (1000 copies worldwide) to cite the article when the Crown and Three Rivers editions can be bought for $5-$10? — GabeMc (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but it would seem more reasonable to source it to the most widely available edition for ease of verifiability. We'd need to verify the page numbers, though, like you said. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of ellipsis usage in article

I noticed that the article does not use ellipsis to indicate removed text within quotes. This violates the WP:MOS, specifically, MOS:QUOTE, which states: "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text." Is there any reason why this article should not be copy edited in this regard so as to bring it inline with current Wiki guidelines? — GabeMc (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason at all. Ellipses (or, in certain cases, bracketed interpolations) are mandatory here and in every respectable publication. Give us a couple instances you've found, so people can recognize the problem, not reproduce it, and learn to correct it. DocKino (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding MOS:QUOTE, an ellipsis should be used in the following cases:

• "a sequel of the highest order—one that betters the original by developing its own tone and adding depth."
• "could not carry a tune across the Atlantic"
• "proceed, with the help of a five-piece group and a Fender Stratocaster electric guitar, to shake the monkey of folk authenticity permanently off his back";
• "the distinction between the folk and rock audiences would have nearly evaporated";
• "showing signs of growing up".
• "the way The Beatles go on is just there, and that's it. In an age that is clogged with self-explanation this makes them very welcome. It also makes them naturally comic."
• "truly coming into their own as a band. All of the disparate influences on their first two albums had coalesced into a bright, joyous, original sound, filled with ringing guitars."
• "a natural melodist—a creator of tunes capable of existing apart from their harmony".
• "sedentary, ironic personality"
• "characterful lines and textural colourings"

There are many more like this. Correct me if I am wrong. — GabeMc (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First quote fine--no ellision from middle of quoted text, no ellipsis necessary.

Second quote unsure--couldn't find it in Spitz on Amazon (n.a. on Google Books).

Third quote fine--again, no ellision from middle of quoted text, no ellipsis necessary.

Fourth quote fine--once again, no ellision from middle of quoted text, no ellipsis necessary. (Though original "distinctions" mistranscribed as "distinction". I'll make the correction.)

Fifth quote needs work. Per source, should be:

and "The Beatles' audience...would be showing signs of growing up."

But better to rephrase for concision, to avoid ungainly echo ("audiences" in immediately preceding phrase) and to eliminate that ornery ellipsis:

and Beatles fans "would be showing signs of growing up."

Given that three of the four examples I could find are not problematic, I suspect, GabeMc, that you may be under the misapprehension that ellipses are necessary at the beginning or end of quoted material when the quotation does not come from the beginning or end of a sentence. In fact, that is entirely unnecessary. The very fact of quotation indicates that (almost invariably) there is material immediately before and after the excerpted material that is not reproduced--in contemporary style, the addition of an ellipsis in such a case is regarded as redundant and uninformative (even more so with our logical punctuation style). It is in those quotations where we elide material within the span of a quote that ellipses are incumbent. DocKino (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the third, fourth, and fifth are close enough in the original text that our article's long-standing style of semicolons here is not most appropriate and a continuous quotation with ellipses is called for in this case. I'll make that change. I do suspect that the further examples you've added in the interim, GabeMc, are not problematic for the reason I explained above. DocKino (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean Doc, thanks for explaining that, and yes, I was mistaken in the sense than I thought ellipses were needed when text, "drops" in out of context. How about?:

• "the clash between John and Paul was becoming obvious", he wrote, and "as far as Paul was concerned, George could do no right."[117] — GabeMc (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't access the original text in this case, but it looks fine to me. Exiting the quote to interpolate a reference to the speaker and then reentering the quote--a style very common in journalism--obviates any need for an ellipsis. In general, an ellipsis is called for only when text is elided internally: that is, both after the first word that follows the opening quote mark and before the final word that precedes the closing quote mark. DocKino (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited text reads, "as far as Paul was concerned, George could do no right-Paul was absolutely finicky." I thought MOS:ELLIPSIS might apply, since the guideline states: "An ellipsis (plural ellipses) is an omission of material from quoted text; or some other omission, perhaps of the end of a sentence"[emphasis added] Also, the guideline instructs us that, "there should be no space between an ellipsis and: "a quotation mark directly following the ellipsis ("France, Germany, and Belgium ...")." or a "sentence-final punctuation, or a colon, semicolon, or comma (all rare), directly following the ellipsis ("Are we going to France ...?")." So the guideline not only defines an ellipsis as an omission, "perhaps of the end of a sentence", it gives us two examples with ellipses at the ends of sentences. Am I wrong here Doc? Aren't you saying there is no need for an ellipsis at the end of a sentence even if it is not the actual end of the quoted sentence? — GabeMc (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly, emphatically what I am saying. Sadly, very very sadly--as you demonstrate--we are featuring very unfortunate, outdated examples in our MOS...examples that, quite evidently, are not routinely echoed on Wikipedia, let alone in high-quality sources being published around the English-speaking world today. I wish I could engage with the MOS over this, but I am all too familiar with what time and effort that entails, and I just can't afford to expend it now or in the foreseeable future. All I can tell you is that up-to-date style guides on either side of the Atlantic encourage us not to indulge in redundant, uninformative, obvious, laborious ellipses at the very beginning or very end of quotations. (Though yes, an ellipsis is called for when text is elided between quoted text and a terminal substantive quotation mark such as a question mark or exclamation point.) And I must add that our MOS is only a guideline, not a policy, and that its current examples in this regard are painfully unrepresentative of contemporary English style generally and unrepresentative of prevalent Wikipedia style specifically. DocKino (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The above conversation has reminded me of something. When I added the quotations from MacDonald's Revolution in the Head to the "Musical style and evolution" section, I wasn't sure how to handle the presence of a footnote in the middle of the quoted text about Ringo's drumming. The full text reads:

• "As for Starr, long travestied as an amiable mediocrity riding The Beatles coat-tails, he is nothing less than the father of modern pop/rock drumming – the modest man who invented it. His faintly behind-the-beat style subtly propelled The Beatles, his tunings brought the bottom end into recorded drum sound,¹ and his distinctly eccentric fills remain among the most memorable in pop music."

The superscript "1" points to a footnote reading:

• "¹ Aided, of course, by Geoff Emerick's revolutionary microphone set-ups and sound production tricks."

When I originally added that quotation, I considered incorporating the text of the footnote into the quote, or using an ellipsis to indicate the omission of the superscript "1" and the footnote. I decided against quoting the footnote as the section was mainly about composition styles rather than production styles, and also because it would have required so great an alteration of MacDonald's sentence that it wouldn't have been a quotation any more. And I decided against using an ellipsis there because I thought of the footnote as an optional extra that's not really part of the sentence, and thought of the superscript "1" as too minor a punctuation mark to require an ellipsis to note that it was omitted.

Was that the right decision?

(Incidentally, I've just corrected the article so that the omission of "– the modest man who invented it" is reflected with "ellipsis-then-period" rather than "period-then-ellipsis".) --Nick R^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, per your comment, "All I can tell you is that up-to-date style guides on either side of the Atlantic encourage us not to indulge in redundant, uninformative, obvious, laborious ellipses at the very beginning or very end of quotations." While I agree in principle with the later part of this comment, I have found a few current reliable sources that disagree with the former.

• "Random House Webster's Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation" (Random House, 2008, page 266):

"When the ommision comes in the middle of a sentence, three points are used. When the ommission comes at the end of one or more sentences, four points are used."

"Note: If the sentence is complete, the period is added, resulting in four spaced periods. If the sentence is incomplete, use only three dots for the ellipsis."

• "The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style" (Garner, 2000, page 122)

"If you quoted that sentence but ommitted some words in the middle and at the end, it would look like this: "Shakespeare's speech ... seems to have represented rather well the cultivated usage of Elizabethan England, particularly in the area around London ...."

• "Common errors in English usage" (Brains, 2003, page 70)

"If the ellipsis falls between sentences, some editorial styles require four dots, the first of which is a period: From the same paragraph in Moby Dick: "almost all men ... cherish very nearly the same feelings...."

• "Good Word Guide" (Manser, 2011, ebook, no page supplied)

"If the quotation does not start at the beginning of a sentence, the ellipsis preceeds it: '... a good fellow of infinite jest', and when the end of a sentence is omitted, the three dots of the ellipsis are sometime follwed by a fourth, to indicate a full stop: 'Cudgel thy brains no more....'"

• "Copyediting and Proofreading for Dummies" (Gilad, 2007, page 129)

"Occasionally, four dots will appear when ellipses are used at the end of a sentence or when completing a thought; see Chapter 12 for an explanation."

— GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than provide counterexamples from style guides and many publishing company house styles--leading us further into territory that really belongs on the WP:MOS Talk page--I propose to reframe the discussion, thus:

Notwithstanding the presence of one suggestive example in the WP:MOS ("France, Germany, and Belgium ..."), our Manual of Style does not mandate the use of initial and/or terminal ellipses with quotations. The guideline's pertinent directive--"Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation"--can readily be interpreted to allow a style that does not employ initial and terminal ellipses, but only internal ellipses--that is, those ellipses that signal that material has been omitted in the course of the quotation. That, in fact, is how the directive is interpreted in most Wikipedia articles I have ever encountered, and certainly in every Featured Article which with I have had any substantial involvement (this one, Elvis Presley, Sex Pistols, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, House (TV series), Tender Mercies, The Kinks, Parks and Recreation (season 1)). I have never seen in the Featured Article Candidacy process--our primary "best practices" venue--any reviewer calling for the inclusion of initial and terminal ellipses in any article that does not employ them. Given that, given our Manual of Style's overarching directive that "[w]here more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason," and given that there is no substantial reason to alter the long-standing, proper, consistently applied, and altogether common style employed in this article, that style should be maintained and we should return to the very interesting matters of content and expression we've been discussing. DocKino (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said DocKino. I agree 100%, though I do think that perhaps an effort should be made at WP:MOS, specifically, WP:ELLIPSIS, to make it clear to Wiki editors that indeed, "more than one style is acceptable" in regards to ellipsis usage, and more importanty, "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason", though I suppose the two clauses current prominence in the WP:MOS lead should be taken as a blanket statement for any and all cases included within the MOS purview. Doc, should you ever desire to take on that daunting task at the WP:MOS Talk page, please do let me know, I would like to contribute to that discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lennon's departure

In response to GabeMc's cite-needed tag earlier today, I dove into Google Books and Amazon Read Inside to properly reference the discussion of Lennon's declaration that he was quitting The Beatles on 20 September 1969.

By far the most comprehensive discussions of the event were in two recent biographies of Lennon: Norman (2009) and Riley (2011). It immediately became apparent that "legal matters", as we had said, were not so much the issue as outright profit-related matters. It turned out further that the two best sources, Norman and Riley, give accounts that contradict each other on an essential point. Norman asserts that when Lennon made his declaration, a new contract with EMI had already been completed, while Riley states that business manager Allen Klein was then in the middle of tense negotiations for that self-same contract. Riley's account is more detailed, and I find it more compelling--but not (as demanded in U.S. criminal courts) proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Both sources must thus be adduced. Unfortunately, Riley's tome is only readable at present on Google and Amazon via its eBook version, lacking pagination. I am customarily loath to cite a book if I can not provide its page numbers, but it seems necessary in the present case, for the moment. (One or the other of us will be able to lay hands on the book soon enough.)

On a broader point, I do suspect that this sort of citation issue will soon become increasingly and more lastingly common, as more and more worthwhile books are published only in electronic format. DocKino (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In Lennon's Rolling Stone interview in 1970 he said that Klein told him to keep quiet "because there was a lot to do with the Beatles business-wise and it wouldn't have been suitable at the time to announce my departure." McCartney's account in his 1970 lawsuit to dissolve the Beatles partnership relates the timing more specifically to the Captiol deal. McCartney has given differing accounts whether Lennon told the others during the meeting convened to sign the new Capitol contract (September 20) or in a meeting days prior to that. Either way it was after Lennon returned from Toronto where he first told Klein he was quitting (on the plane to Toronto for the concert held on September 13). Piriczki (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And Riley quotes still another variation from McCartney--indicating that Lennon told the other band members he was leaving at a "group meeting" on September 20 and that this date preceded the signing of the new Capitol contract. At any rate, there does appear to be a consensus (if not unanimity) in the literature that Sept. 20 is the date he broke the news to the other three; there is significant difference of opinion and historical interpretation, however, concerning exactly why he agreed to keep publicly silent. DocKino (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, sourcing a Wiki article with electronic books without pagination should be avoided at all costs, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While hard-copy sourcing is always preferable when practical, I must disagree that sourcing to eBooks without pagination "should be avoided at all costs." I don't believe that kind of blanket prohibition is in line with either the purpose or the letter of our Verifiability policy (let alone the looming future of the publishing industry).

As it happens, I see now that our Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline gives detailed, helpful instructions for citing unpaginated eBooks. Unfortunately, we encounter another problem in the present case: The {{sfn}} citation template we employ in this article does not currently support the "at" or "quote" fields that allow for better pinpointing of source material within an eBook.

In sum, Riley is a high-quality source, which I believe is vital to cite in the passage in question. For the moment, we could break style, and build an ad hoc cite that looks like our sfn cites, with the addition of "at" or "quote" information. My preference would be to just leave it for the moment, until one of our tech wizards updates the sfn template or we get access to the hard-copy of Riley's book, either as a result of Google or Amazon making it readable online or one of us putting hands on it. DocKino (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's unfortunate the sfn template does not allow for further detail, to at least have the chapter info would be useful. I may be wrong about, "should be avoided at all costs", that might be a bit harsh. I just think to cite to a book without informing the reader where in the book the cite refers, is not much better than simply putting a tag, and may in fact be worse, since inline, it gives the appearance of a full-citation, and that the statement or claim has already been properly sourced, and thus requires no further work, which is misleading. This issue is apparent at John Lennon, where we have eight quotes sourced to Sheff 1981, all without pagination. Though, perhaps when citing to sources without pagination one should include a tag, to remind editors that the citation is accurate, though incomplete. Which I guess is better than no source at all, also, I'm sure you are right, one of us, or another helpful editor will be able to provide the pages in due time, so this is fine as a temporary solution, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I waded into the sfn template documentation, and before my eyes completely glazed over, I saw it supported a "loc" field, which appears to yield essentially what "at" does in the cite book template. I was thus able to add the chapter number to the citation. Hard-copy pagination still preferable, of course, but at least it's no longer as thin as those disagreeable "Sheff 1981" citations you pointed out. DocKino (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Section of lead may need some changes

Topic 1

"The nature of their enormous popularity, which first emerged as "Beatlemania", transformed as their songwriting grew in sophistication. They came to be perceived as the embodiment of ideals of the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s."

Is it just me or does this section need some copy editing? — GabeMc (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the first sentence as problematic; the natural presumption, I think, would be that their songwriting steadily grew in sophistication over the course of their career as a band. I'm not sure adding something like "in the mid-1960s" would be all that helpful in context.DocKino (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you and think one could assume "their songwriting grew in sophistication" as they aged, but it reads, "The nature of their enormous popularity ... transformed as their songwriting grew in sophistication." This strikes me as . What "transformed" about their popularity? — GabeMc (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see your concern about the second sentence. The question is whether or not we need to spell out up here what we spell out and source in the primary text, in the "Legacy" section: "[T]he group grew to be perceived by their young fans across the industrialized world as the representatives, even the embodiment, of ideals associated with cultural transformation. As icons of the 1960s counterculture, they became a catalyst for bohemianism and activism in various social and political arenas.... [emphasis added]." I'm fine with keeping the lead as is there, but let's see if anybody else is also having an issue with it. DocKino (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting coincidence that J.R. Hercules made these edits, [3][4], with the summary, "Removed ridiculous POV", because that is, in a nutshell my issue with the second sentence, and the graph in the "Legacy" section which supports it, which currently reads as follows:

The Beatles changed the way people listened to popular music and experienced its role in their lives. From what began as the Beatlemania fad, the group grew to be perceived by their young fans across the industrialized world as the representatives, even the embodiment, of ideals associated with cultural transformation. As icons of the 1960s counterculture, they became a catalyst for bohemianism and activism in various social and political arenas, fuelling such movements as women's liberation, gay liberation and environmentalism.

While I'm not suggesting Gould isn't a WP:RS per se, I am suggesting that pages eight and nine of "Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain, and America", is about 70-80% Gould's personal opinion, his POV, for which he supplies no sources, no quotes, and few factual assertions that could actually be verified. While his bibliography and notes for the book are extensive, he provides none for the factual assertions and opinions which he gives in pages eight and nine. I believe that until these claims are attributed, in the text to Gould, this violates WP:NPOV. Much of the source provided (Gould|2007|pp.8-9) is comprised of statements that are too vague to be unambiguously verifiable. Further, a careful reading of the source reveals that Gould does not claim the Beatles "fuelled the womens, gay, and environmental movements" but that they were a " ... main tributary ..." or really just a part-of the 1960s, and a cultural environment that produced those movements. All the activism stuff was John and Yoko anyway, when did you ever see another Beatle at one of Lennon's hippie rallys? — GabeMc (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources ... an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• A simple formulation – what does it mean?
  A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" was about the different ways in which we present facts (uncontroversial statements) versus opinions (value judgement or disputed views). What Wikipedia states directly is facts and only facts. Opinions can be reported too, but they cannot be stated directly – they need to be converted into facts by attributing them in the text to some person or group.

— GabeMc (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In regards to:

"The Beatles changed the way people listened to popular music and experienced its role in their lives.{{sfn|Gould|2008|pp=8–9}}{{sfn|Wicke|1990|pp=49–53}} From what began as the Beatlemania fad, the group grew to be perceived by their young fans across the industrialized world as the representatives, even the embodiment, of ideals associated with cultural transfiguration."{{sfn|Gould|2008|pp=8–9}}{{sfn|Stark|2005|p=2}}

@DocKino, I'm not sure how adding the Stark and Wicke cites avoids the issue of stating opinions as facts. " ... changed the way people listened to popular music and experienced its role in their lives", is still a vague and philosophical opinion. Having two, three, or more cites does not change this. "What Wikipedia states directly is facts and only facts. Opinions can be reported too, but they cannot be stated directly – they need to be converted into facts by attributing them in the text to some person or group." So this statement of opinion still needs to be attributed to an author, versus being stated directly, and as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice, as it currently is. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stark calls them, "... one of the century's major symbols of cultural transformation ...", which is quite different then, " ... the representatives, even the embodiment, of ideals associated with cultural transfiguration." As far as the text string, " ... the representatives, even the embodiment ...", Gould writes: " ... the Beatles would serve as prominent symbols, spokesmen, or, as some would have it, avatars of this great international upheaval." So the use of embodiment here to paraphrase Gould is sourced to the weasel words, " ... or, as some would have it, avatars ..." Certainly the Beatles weren't the representatives, perhaps they were representatives, or symbols in general, but not "the representatives". Either way, this is still an opinion, not an unambiguously verifiable fact, and it therefore needs to be attributed, in the text, to an author. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As per, " ... the group grew to be perceived by their young fans across the industrialized world ... ", what Gould actually writes is, " ... Beatlemania would coalesce into one of the main tributaries of a broad confluence of pop enthusiasm, student activism, and mass bohemianism that would flood the political, social, and cultural landscape of much of the industrialized world during the 1960s, spinning off whorls and eddies-the women's movement, the gay liberation movement, the environmental movement-in it's wake."[emphasis added] So again, Gould is not claiming the Beatles were, " ... fuelling such movements as women's liberation, gay liberation and environmentalism", rather that, " ... Beatlemania would coalesce into ...", " ... a broad confluence ... " of social movements, " ... that would flood the political, social, and cultural landscape of much of the industrialized world during the 1960s ... spinning off whorls and eddies-the women's movement, the gay liberation movement, the environmental movement-in it's wake." So not only is this paraphrase not accurate to the source, it's another opinion that needs to be converted to fact and attributed, in the text, to an author. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The "changed the way" statement does seem borderline opinion-y to me, the "came to be perceived" sentence as well, but slightly less so. I think attributing it to the author (preferably with a direct quotation) would be the best for "changed the way". Regarding the idea of them being the "embodiment" of the counterculture, I think that statement is basically okay as is, though it could do with some sourcing. Let's change it to "perceived by many" to avoid opinion as fact. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me...

A reading of the literature confirms that both the "changed the way" and "grew to be perceived" clauses accurately reflect prevailing points of view (WP:Five pillars: "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view...") that are or were widely held (WP:NPOV: Opinion "should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. [emphasis added]). The only adjustment called for here is to attribute "changed the way" to historians or scholars or the like.

The "catalyst" clause is more problematic. A review of the literature shows that Gould draws unusually strong connections between The Beatles and the three named movements (especially with environmentalism); however, those connections and others like them are raised in a general way by many, many sources. Most specifically, I found multiple sources suggesting that The Beatles were a driving force in sexual liberation (a phenomenon more than a movement), which in turn fueled the women's lib and gay rights movements. Here we can either quote and attribute to Gould, as GabeMc has suggested, or recast the sentence from the ground up. DocKino (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@DocKino, I think we agree in principle, the opinions currently in the graph need to be attributed to the authors they are sourced to, in the text whether it be Gould, Stark, Wicke, or others. I still think you are misreading Gould however, I could be wrong, but as I stated above what Gould actually writes is, " ... Beatlemania would coalesce into one of the main tributaries of a broad confluence of pop enthusiasm, student activism, and mass bohemianism that would flood the political, social, and cultural landscape of much of the industrialized world during the 1960s, spinning off whorls and eddies-the women's movement, the gay liberation movement, the environmental movement-in it's wake."[emphasis added]

IMHO, Gould is not claiming the Beatles were, " ... fuelling such movements as women's liberation, gay liberation and environmentalism", he is stating " ... Beatlemania would coalesce into ...", " ... a broad confluence ... " of social change, " ... that would flood the political, social, and cultural landscape of much of the industrialized world during the 1960s ... spinning off whorls and eddies-the women's movement, the gay liberation movement, the environmental movement-in it's wake." Gould is saying that the broad confluence of social change, which the Beatles were " ... a main tributary ...", spun off those movements, not that the Beatles fuelled those movements, though nothing in 1960s culture existed in a vacumn. Let's assume Gould is claiming this, then what exactly did a Beatle ever do for gay rights, womens lib, or environmentalism? If Gould is making this claim then I think it needs to be backed up.

As per, "I found multiple sources suggesting that The Beatles were a driving force in sexual liberation ... ", that may well be true, but I can find multiple sources that claim Sasquatch live in the forests around the world, it's possible I guess, but multiple sources do not make it true. Marylyn Monroe, Jane Manfield, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Elvis Presley, Ann Margeret, Rita Hayworth, and Betty Page did at least as much for sexual liberation in the US than the Beatles ever did, and years before they arrived. Hugh Hefner was a far more influential figure in sexual liberation in the US, and he began publishing Playboy in 1953, more than a decade before the Beatles influenced anyone in the US. I think this claim is dubious, overreaching, and too vague to be unambiguously verified as fact. If claims like this are to be included, then it should be clear that it's an opinion from a specific source, and some reasoning should be included if possible, such as concrete facts that can be verified.

Also, we still have the issue of the S/V split: "The nature of their enormous popularity ... transformed as their songwriting grew in sophistication." This is vague and needs work. What transformed about their popularity? The phrase " ... came to be perceived ... " needs a by whom clause, because there were plenty of people from the 1960s, and beyond that, who do not perceive the Beatles as anything more than an extremely popular pop/rock band. So really, they are only "perceived" as the "embodiment" of the 1960s by their fans, not by the entire world in general. — GabeMc (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic 2

Here's something different that's beginning to leap out at me in the second paragraph:

"During their subsequent studio years they produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

There's no outright error there, but given that the current critical consensus seems to hold that Revolver was their second greatest ("finest") album--indeed, the article references the Rolling Stone critic's poll that ranked it as the third greatest album of all time--I'm not sure this sentence holds up that well. In addition, our recent edits have substantially lengthened the paragraph, and a little trim wouldn't hurt. What do people think about a simple cut from the middle of the sentence, thus:

"During their subsequent studio years they produced the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

Or something along those lines? Possibly inserting a clause describing the nature of its influence? DocKino (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point here DocKino. Revolver ranked #3 on said Rolling Stone top 500 list and Rubber Soul ranked #5, so really there are two pre-studio years albums that garner much praise from Rolling Stone. However, Pepper ranks #1, The Beatles ranks #10, and Abbey Road ranks #14 on said list. Of the five Beatle albums that cracked the RS top 14, three are studio years efforts. So on the surface I am inclined to think we should be general about the period, as the lead currently is, rather than to specifically single out Pepper as the influential late-60s Beatles album, as there were at least three significant contributions from the band during those years, although few would argue that Pepper isn't the most significant studio years Beatle album. However, The Beatles is their best-selling album, and to some critics and fans, one of the band's finest, on par with Pepper. — GabeMc (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For that reason I think the text string, " ... they produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album ...", accurately describes the period, and makes clear that Pepper isn't the only studio years album that was influential/important, but rather "included" with "some" of their "finest material", which also includes pre-studio years material. To me, "During their subsequent studio years they produced the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.", sounds like Pepper was the only notable contribution from the band during 1967-1970. Also, Please Please Me and With the Beatles rank #39 and #53 respectively on the same list, so, " ... some of their finest material ... " takes on more meaning in that context. I'm certainly open to further discussion on this topic, and my opinion is not set in stone. — GabeMc (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe that dropping the "what critics consider" clause would make the sentence a little too Pepper-centric. Some (not I, but some RS's) treat Revolver as being as influential as, if not more influential than, Sgt. Pepper. To reduce the mention of material to Pepper alone would be a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Evan. I'm curious what your thoughts on "Topic 1" are, also, Cynthia's book "John" in regards to sourcing using that rare edition that does not match the Crown or Three Rivers editions. — GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Gabe! My opinions on the other two issues have been logged. :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But the importance of Revolver is exactly my point. What the sentence effectively conveys now is that The Beatles' "finest material" included Sgt. Pepper and perhaps one or more of The Beatles, Yellow Submarine, MMT, and/or Abbey Road. Whatever any one of us might think (I much prefer Abbey Road to Sgt. Pepper), that is an incorrect summation of critical consensus. The roster of the Beatles' finest (album) material begins with Sgt. Pepper and Revolver--that's what high-quality sources fairly clearly say. And Revolver was not recorded during the "studio years" (a jargon-y term I don't favor and which, for instance, neither Gould nor Norman ever use). Again, while the sentence as currently composed is not plainly erroneous, it is effectively misleading and should be improved upon--perhaps by mentioning Revolver in addition to Sgt. Pepper. DocKino (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Between the mid and late 1960s, as they increasingly focused on studio recordings, they produced several of their most critically acclaimed and influential albums, including Revolver and Sgt. Pepper." Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ghmyrtle. I think that's a great basis for improvement. Slightly tweaked:

In the mid- and late 1960s, as they increasingly focused on studio recordings, they produced several of their most critically acclaimed and influential albums, including Revolver (1966) and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967).

That's already a much better reflection of critical consensus. DocKino (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is probably better as far as critical consensus, but I'm not convinced that it's better in regards to notability. While many writers and publications would place Revolver above Pepper, I think we also have to consider the fact that Pepper is by far the album that is considered by scholars and laypeople alike as a masterpiece. People who couldn't even name all four Beatles have heard of Sgt. Pepper, and I'm not sure the same is true of Revolver. I don't know of any off the top of my head, but I'm fairly certain many publications have also ranked Rubber Soul above any of the other albums, so I feel that if we add Revolver, this thing could go on forever. Leaving it as is makes it clear that Pepper has primacy in the period as the Beatles' most popular and most acclaimed album. Shoehorning Revolver into the lede is wrong, IMO. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@ DocKino and Ghmyrtle, I agree, "studio years" sounds like insider jargon to me also, I'm certainly not against finding a creative way to avoid its useage in the text, though the terms are also used in section headings, so that would have to be worked out as well, but nothing a basic copy edit couldn't fix. @ Evan, I agree with you, we should either mention, "the Beatles' most popular and most acclaimed album" of that period, or we should name two, or three, or four, depends on who you ask. Personally, I would add The Beatles before I would add Revolver, though I do agree with critics who single it out as one of their top finest albums, and it's also a bit tricky because the graph is currently chronological so to add Revolver after mentioning their global touring and final concert would be problematic. I would also take Rolling Stone with a big grain of salt. The have been nearly 100% flattering to the Beatles from day one, IMHO. Jan Wenner has made alot of money from selling magazines and books about the Beatles, so he is not really a neutral source. After all, 10 of 12 Beatles albums made the RS 500. In a nut-shell, "their most popular and acclaimed album" from the post-touring years, 1967-1970 is unquestionably Pepper. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about a simple solution like this, (adding the previous sentence fragment for context):

" ... until August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. The band subsequently produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

If I had to go with a variation of Ghmyrtle's suggestion, later tweaked by DocKino, I would propse this as working prose (adding the previous sentence fragment for context):

"... until August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. From 1966 they focused on studio recordings, producing several of their most critically acclaimed, commercially successful, and widely influential albums, including Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)."

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The adverbs don't seem necessary, and in my view this is starting to become an unnecessarily long listing of their albums. Either mention two of them (Revolver and Pepper), or none at all. I'd go for:

"... until August 1966, when they performed their last concert. From 1966 they focused on studio recordings, producing several of their most acclaimed, successful, and influential albums, including Revolver (1966) and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, per the descriptive adverbs, stating "acclaimed" begs "by whom", stating "successful" begs "by what measure", and stating "influential" begs "to what extent", afterall, some very obscure albums are influential, without being "widely" influential as was Pepper. As per, " ... an unnecessarily long listing of their albums. Either mention two of them (Revolver and Pepper), or none at all." Why mention Revolver over The Beatles, which was the best-selling album of the 1960s, and is the band's best-selling album ever, so in my mind it is more notable than Revolver, and it's exclusion seems arbitrary. Pepper, The Beatles, and Abbey Road, are the top three best-selling albums of the 1960s, so their inclusion is justified, if Revolver's is based on it's critical acclaim. As per, " ... performed their last concert." This is not as accurate as, " ... final commercial concert." because one could argue that the roof-top jam at Apple Corps was actually their final performance together as a group, though it was not commercial in the sense that no income was generated by it. I do agree with you Ghmyrtle, in that the word, "increasingly", should be dropped from the second sentence, (I'll make that change above, versus restating the entire text string here again). — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much swayed by GabeMc's argument for listing these four albums. Yes, an argument could be made for Rubber Soul, as well--but an argument could also be made that its overall impact (commercial, critical, influential) was not at the level of these four, and its inclusion would obligate us to go through unproductive contortions in summarizing the chronology as tightly as we need to do in the lead.

On the other hand, we just cannot repeat "commercially successful" and "critically acclaimed" from the immediately preceding paragraph. "Best-selling" is not a solution either: that leads off the paragraph which immediately follows. Possible solutions:

• "...producing several of their most widely influential albums..."
• "...producing several of their most popular and influential albums..."

Other possibilities? DocKino (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a great point about the redundancy from the first graph, I missed that. Hmmm ... — GabeMc (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How about:

" ... until August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. The band subsequently produced what many music critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the widely influential and innovative albums, Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)."

Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

First thought: "Subsequently" not possible. Revolver.

Second thought: Characterizing critics as "music" critics is laborious. And it's hardly just critics who affirm the importance of these albums. Cultural historians certainly do as well.

Third thought: "Innovative" works well here. DocKino (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree on all three points. How about?:

" ... until August 1966, when they performed their final commercial concert. From 1966 they produced what many critics consider to be some of their finest material, including the the innovative and widely influential albums, Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles (1968), and Abbey Road (1969)."

Is it getting better? 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's great. The one tweak I would make is to reverse the order of the adjectival clauses thus, for chronology and logical cause-and-effect: "...the innovative and widely influential albums..." DocKino (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great suggestion Doc, I'll change it above in the working prose versus restating it here. — GabeMc (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been a week now, and with no objections I will go ahead and make the edit per our consensus here. — GabeMc (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Rubber Soul in the lead

As per our discussion here, we agreed that it would be difficult to mention Rubber Soul in the lead, within the list of notable studio years albums. We could include Rubber Soul as such:

"By early 1964 they had become international stars, leading the "British Invasion" of the United States pop market. In 1965, they released Rubber Soul, an album hailed by critics as a major step forward in the maturity and complexity of the band's music. They toured extensively around the world until August 1966 ..."

Or something like that, any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note clutter?

Concerning the band's name changes in 1960, the primary text currently reads thus:

According to Beatles experts Mark Lewishon and Bill Harry, they used the name "Beatals", through May, when they became "The Silver Beetles", before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By July they had changed their name to "The Silver Beatles", and in August, to "The Beatles".

I don't believe that the recent addition of the following note, whose content is largely redundant, contributes any vital information:

According to Beatles expert Bill Harry, Lennon is said to have substituted the "a" in the band's name "The Silver Beetles" to yield "The Silver Beatles", circa July 1960. However, it is unclear where the additional "a" came from in the band's previous name, "Beatals", which dates to early 1960 according to both Harry and Beatles expert Mark Lewishon.

What it does do is add yet another note callout to a passage already replete with them and necessitate the creation of a "Notes" section, which we have avoided to date. I believe the note should be struck. DocKino (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree Doc, I was trying to convey that Harry says Lennon added/substituted the "a", but that the sources are unclear or contradictory in the timeline, ergo, if they were Beatals in January 1960, an extra "a" had been added long before July 1960, as Harry states. But I agree in the end, the inconsistency in the sourcing, or the specific lack of clarity about the additional and the substituted "a", is not in itself notable. — GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

India

This is wrong: "Immediately afterward, the band members made their first visit to India." The flight from the Philippines landed in India, leaving the Fabs some hours to visit the local town/city and buy clothes and instruments, before their flight to London.--andreasegde (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Harrison in I Me Mine, they spent four days in India. Piriczki (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Although not to be taken as a source, this tells more, and in Harrison's own words.--andreasegde (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good source, information-wise, Andreasegde. According to it, The Beatles arrived in India "early in the morning of 6 July." Taking a look at this, we find out that "their overnight flight left late in the evening" of 7 July. That's a two-day trip, however unplanned. DocKino (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"50-55%"...of what exactly?

Well I think it's one of those points that often gets missed in the general sources. And at times it is made to sound as though Jackson got all the money from Beatles records post-1985, I think it's a good bit of info, to know that Lennon and McCartney each have been receiving between 16-27% of the proceeds generated by the commercial applications of their compositions. To leave it at "writer's credit", when the quantity is known, begs a quantity tag IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, it just needs to be clear to what the percentages refer for those unfamiliar with how music publishing works. The passage could go something like this:

Despite their lack of publishing rights to most of their songs, Lennon's estate and McCartney continue to receive their respective shares of the writers' royalties, which together are 33⅓% of total commercial proceeds in the US and which vary elsewhere around the world between 50 and 55%.

How's that? DocKino (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — GabeMc (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

50% for songwriters and 50% for music publishers. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp --Roujan (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion Roujan. The figures used in the article are from the source, Southall and Perry. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Excuse me but I thought you were looking for a source. Southall and Perry is a good source. --Roujan (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recordings purportedly made during Starr's first performance with the group

The above claim is made in the section The Beatles#After the break-up (1970–present) in reference to the proposed 2008 release of recordings made at the Star-Club. The claim that this was Ringo Starr's first performance with the group comes from the pre-release hype issued by Fuego and Collins, a convicted bootlegger. The supposed background of these tapes described by Fuego at the time was filled with inconsistencies and glaring errors if not outright lies. While there are three or four versions of the Star-Club recordings, it is well established that they all come from the Beatles' last engagement at the Star-Club in December 1962, four months after Starr joined and while they were under contract to EMI. The timing of the recordings has been a problem for those trying to release this material going back to the original Lingasong album in 1977, where it was claimed to be from earlier in 1962 but Ringo just happened to be sitting in that night. Fuego also tries to explain Ringo's presence by saying it was his first performance with the group (as opposed to the known date of August 16, 1962 at the Cavern). Considering the dubious nature of the source, the motives for their claims, and the wealth of other reliable sources that contradict them, I think the mention of this claim, even with the qualifier "purportedly" is misleading if not completely inaccurate and should be removed. Piriczki (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're discounting the power of "puportedly", which effectively casts the claim into doubt; I don't find the passage misleading at all. At any rate, the sentence needs to be phrased in such a way that the reference earlier in the section to 1962 Star-Club recordings is acknowledged: "The Beatles tried and failed to block the 1977 release of Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962. The independently issued album compiled recordings made during the group's Hamburg residency, taped on a basic recording machine with one microphone." My question: Are the recordings at issue in the 2008 lawsuit the exact same recordings that appear on the 1977 release?—DCGeist (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DCGeist, they appear to be different (though similar) recordings.

Piriczki, while I do believe the would-be distributor's claim is noteworthy and helps us identify this case versus earlier ones involving Star-Club recordings, I appreciate your point that it's our responsibility to establish that the claim was unequivocally false. (Side note: August 16 is the date Best was fired. The first Starr performance--per both Miles and Sawyers, each a strong source--was August 18, and not at the Cavern, but at a show in Port Sunlight, near Liverpool.)

I've edited the paragraph. See if what I've done addresses both of your questions and concerns. DocKino (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewisohn agrees, 18 August in Port Sunlight was the first Beatles gig after Ringo officially joined, Lennon officially invited him to join on 14 August. However, according to Lewisohn, Ringo Starr's actual first performance with the group was on 5 Feb, when he sat in for two shows for an ill Pete Best.(Lewisohn|1992|pp=58-59) — GabeMc (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabe. I've edited it per your observation to get it exactly right. I used Miles and Sawyers to source, but unfortunately only able to access eBook versions. If you can give us the Lewisohn page number(s) for the Port Sunlight performance as well, we can use him for both February and August, and ditch Miles & Sawyers. DocKino (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Top 50 Artists of All Time

Something called the "Top 50 artists of all time" based on some other list called the "All time top 1000 albums" has recently been introduced to the Legacy section on the basis that this particular poll of peoples' favorite albums is somehow relevant to the Beatles' impact on the development of the album as an art form. Personally I don't see the connection. Even if this were moved to some other section, the spate of recent additions of this list to various music articles and references to its author and a related web site reek of self-promotion. I propose that it be removed. Piriczki (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with your assessment, Piriczki. The poll obviously has no place whatsoever in the "Legacy" section, and I don't see any good reason for its addition anywhere else in the article. DocKino (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

UK popularity, Please Please Me and With The Beatles

This “...Police found it necessary to use high-pressure water hoses to control the crowds...” caught my eye in this otherwise really excellent article. Presumably referring to water cannon, it conjures images of French riots etc. I don’t remember anything so unsavory occurring in the UK (which is implied) in connection with the Beatles, and it would have required government approval anyway. Where did this happen?--Patthedog (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It happened in Plymouth on November 14, 1963. We did have it out of place, chronologically, so I've moved the sentence down, specified where it took place, and added another source for it. Thanks for your query on this. DocKino (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Plymouth! That explains it. They're all pirates down there - even the women have hairy chests. Cheers --Patthedog (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beatles Ranking in The All Time Top 1000 Albums

Can you please explain to me why you have removed my statement about the Beatles ranking in the All Time Top 1000? The first editor deleted the link on grounds of 'OR' ...meaning 'original research'. I reverted the edit because I checked the guide on OR it says: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, 'allegations', and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." My edit "the Beatles are ranked no. 1 in the All time top 1000" is certainly not original research, unless you think finding their ranking in this book is 'original research'. It is certainly not an 'allegation, synthesis, analysis' or anything like it, and I referenced 'a reliable, published source'.

Then it was deleted on Grounds of 'Promotion' with these words:

Rv, another of the countless, and pointless, "all-time" lists doesn't belong here. Also looks suspiciously like WP:PROMOTION. ??

Please check out the 'WP: Promotion' guidelines. I am not 'promoting' anything by saying "the Beatles are ranked No. 1 in The All Time Top 50 Artists of all time.." it is a statement of fact and the statement is made from a neutral point view and referenced to a reliable source. I am not saying anything that could be construed as 'soap-boxing'. I think maybe it is because I am new to the page my edits are being undone.

Finally it was removed on the grounds of Notability "No need for yet another non-notable poll". Can I suggest you plug 'All Time Top 1000 Albums' into google to see the countless references to it that come up on a google search, to check its notability? Wiki guidelines on 'notability' states this "It is as an editorial metric used to determine topics meriting a dedicated encyclopedia article.[1] In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time"[1] as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.".

I dont think you will have any trouble finding the Virgin All Time Top 1000 Albums on google and referred to in countless secondary sources that are independent of the topic, to assess it's notability, just put it in your search box. Thanks! I am not edit warring. But I am wondering why this page is so heavily policed that it isn't possible to add a factual referenced statement from a notable, reliable source? I will be very interested to know why the page is being so heavily policed?MelanieB2 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See the thread Talk:The_Beatles#Top 50 Artists of All Time above for comments on this specific matter from Piriczki and myself. In sum, the poll was completely out of place in the "Legacy" section, and in our editorial judgment, is not significant enough to add anywhere in the article.

More generally, I'm afraid you have misunderstood and misapplied the notion of "notability," which concerns whether a subject is deserving of a Wikipedia article in the first place--it has nothing to do with the content of any given article. (I do see that Mr Pyles referred in an edit summary to this "non-notable poll", using the word in a more colloquial fashion; perhaps this is what misled you. His reference to "original research" was also clearly incorrect.)

Regarding content, while all claims must be based on reliable sources, reliable sourcing is not sufficient for the inclusion of any given fact. If we included every reliably sourceable fact about The Beatles, this article would be literally millions of words long. So, we have to exercise editorial judgment about which select facts will be included and which will not. Why is this particular article so "heavily" policed, as you put it? Because it is a Featured Article, representing Wikipedia's very best work, and to maintain its quality, we apply very vigorous standards for the inclusion of new information. In the judgment of three editors, the results of this popularity poll do not meet those standards. I do believe your suggested addition was made in good faith and was not an example of self-promotion. Regards, DocKino (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Just passing, because this is on my watchlist, and I thought I'd comment. I concur that the addition of this content would not improve the article. The pertinent point is the one of editorial judgement. In the presence of so much raw information about a subject as there is here, making choices as to what to include, and what not to include is inevitable and essential. The way we ensure this is done fairly is simple, really. If there is a difference of opinion, we allow any user who is interested to comment, and then we assess the consensus from all of the comments. In this case, whilst the content you wish to add seems acceptable in itself, the judgement here, so far, seems to be that it would not improve the article to include it. I share that opinion on this occasion.

Incidentally, though I realise you would be unlikely to know it as a new user, you were, in fact, edit warring. That doesn't mean anyone is upset with you for anything, because it's just a description of what was happening, not a criticism. I nearly put a message on your page to warn you about that at the time myself, actually. The page at WP:WAR explains better than I can, I'd recommend having a quick look, because when people here talk about "edit warring" that is the definition they will be relying on. I hope that's helpful. Begoon ^talk 05:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi .. I have read and digested what you have said and I can see your points completely, you'll have to forgive my ignorance about the rules ..I thought you were being protective of the page because I was new to it and were just deletin the offending sentence with what I thought were dubious reasons, didn't know anyone was on the 'talk page' until it was pointed out to me and I am not promoting anything, I'm a school teacher with a lot of music books! But I can see your point that maybe it doesn't belong in the Legacy section. And understand that people are protective of it since it is a 'featured' article, I didn't know that. Happy to learn from more experienced eds like yourselves, so maybe next time I'll check the talk page if I am deleted! ThanksMelanieB2 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie - you may also want to see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If your edit is deleted, you may have to initiate the conversation, as you have in this case. Welcome to Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"One of the most successful" is correct but misleading

The Beatles are as states one of the most successful bands of all time. However, a truly accurate statement would be "The Beatles are the most successful of all time" which puts the band where it belongs. Bon Jovi or ABBA could be considered one of the most successful bands of all time and lumping the Beatles in with bands such as this or any other successful band does the Beatles an injustice. They are plain and simple "the most successful" and this needs to be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.34.141 (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When you can reliably source this, go ahead. Britmax (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve lead?

IMO, this needs work:

The nature of their enormous popularity, which first emerged as "Beatlemania", transformed as their songwriting grew in sophistication. They came to be perceived as the embodiment of ideals of the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s.

I suggest this as a step toward an improved working prose:

Their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania", and transformed by the late 1960s as their songwriting grew in sophistication. They would eventually come to be perceived by many writers, musicologists and fans as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the sociocultural revolutions of the 1960s.

Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's certainly an improvement. The only "nag" I still have with it, is that, to me, it still doesn't say "what" it "transformed" into in that sentence. But maybe it doesn't need to, the next sentence implies it, if we're just saying the nature of the popularity "evolved" or "matured" (neither of those words feel quite right to me either...). I see no real problem with it as you've edited it, but I'd like to think of a suggestion to "tighten" that first sentence. Begoon ^talk 08:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think it's quite clear that their popularity "transformed" into the perception that they were the "embodiment of the ideals shared by the sociocultural revolutions of the 1960s."

The phrase "writers, musicologists and fans" doesn't quite work. "Musicologists" wouldn't have a particular perspective about the sort of sociocultural matters in question. Maybe something like "many fans and cultural critics", or "many fans and cultural observers." DocKino (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just convincing myself that we are saying "The Beatles popularity started as Beatlemania and transformed by the late 60s into a perception that they were part of a social phenomenon". There's nothing incorrect in there, it just feels incomplete or awkward in some way as a description of their popularity over time. I'll think about it. Begoon ^talk 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I thought about it - there's plenty more later in the lead about general popularity, so it's fine, I'm nitpicking out of context. Ignore me. :-) Begoon ^talk 08:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, it would be clearer if the sentence break was moved, to differentiate between the "early" and "later" phases. Something like:

Their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania". By the late 1960s, as their songwriting grew in sophistication, they came to be perceived by many fans and cultural observers as an embodiment of the ideals shared in the sociocultural revolutions of the 1960s.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's got my vote. Much clearer. Begoon ^talk 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, well done Ghmyrtle. — GabeMc (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the link to sociocultural evolution is a bit off-target here. Other than that, just a little copyedit for sequence (their songwriting began to "grow in sophistication" before "the late 1960s") and flow:

Their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania". As their songwriting grew in sophistication, by the late 1960s they came to be perceived by many fans and cultural observers as an embodiment of ideals shared among the era's sociocultural revolutions.

Good? DocKino (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra good. Time you made the edit, I think :-) Begoon ^talk 04:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Will do. Gabe and Guy--if you have any further tweakage, go right ahead. DocKino (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion to improve lead.

I think this entire passage is a bit tedious and redundant with the first graph, overly detailed for the lead, and it could/should be removed from the lead:

Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960. Sutcliffe left the group in 1961, and Best was replaced by Starr the following year.

Any thoughts or suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit ambivalent on this one. There is definitely a disconnect with the first para, in terms of the sequence of content. It's almost as though the first para becomes a "lead" for the "lead", but maybe that's ok, per "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. "?

I don't personally mind it too much being in the lead, but I don't think it probably needs to be quite so long. I'm looking at The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd, which are, admittedly, only 'B' and 'Good'-Class, respectively, but have similar discussion about early line-up changes. I'll wait for other input, but I think, if it stays in, it warrants maybe looking at both paras, and if not, well, easy... Begoon ^talk 06:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Any thoughts Doc? — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act with the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like it might be the relevant discussion: Talk:The Beatles/Archive 26#Associated acts. I suppose I should offer an opinion too - I abstain, although I would tend to take the position taken by User:LessHeard vanU in that discussion. Begoon ^talk 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be debating the nature of POB, e.g. what constitites a member, in the above mentioned thread rather than if POB is actually an act that is asssociated with the Beatles. If POB is an associated act, then wouldn't Paul and Linda McCartney also be an associated act? — GabeMc (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the "gospel": Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. I might be back after I digest it. Begoon ^talk 08:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And here's a "digest" of related previous discussions from the archives:[5] to enjoy too. :-) Begoon ^talk 08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts: "The following uses of this field should be avoided: * Association of groups with members' solo careers." Isn't that exactly the way in which POB is being associated to the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like pretty much semantics to me, you can make a case either way. I'm beginning to wonder what the real point of the field is - if it isn't explained to the reader what the field means, then they will inevitably wonder the same things we are wondering. We could discuss this forever, but if the meaning of the field is unclear as displayed, then we will be the only ones who know what it means. I think that's a salient point here. Maybe the field description needs wikilinking, like "Labels" above it, to a definition. Begoon ^talk 04:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Plastic Ono Band an associated act with the Beatles? — GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it was an act formed while The Beatles were still active, as opposed to Wings, the Wilburys etc which only came into existence after the split. "Give Peace a Chance" was a Lennon/McCartney song (originally, anyway) and "Cold Turkey" was offered to The Beatles to record. There are closer links than other solo projects IMO.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion for the lead

"The Beatles are the best-selling band in history,[2][3] and over four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand."

1) Shouldn't we have a better source for, "The Beatles are the best-selling band in history"? 2) I would remove: "and over four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand."

Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On 2), For example, I think, "they have sold an estimated one billion records to date" is better than "four decades after their break-up, their recordings are still in demand." — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this?:

"The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales at over one billion units."[6]

— GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good--though since the figure is stated as "over one billion units" (which I do think is the best way to state it), the "to date" isn't needed. DocKino (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would "of" be better than "at" here? — GabeMc (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. DocKino (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good grief

How long are you lot going to haggle over the lead or anything else about this article? It's a friggin' Featured Article. Are there not enough Beatles' articles to work on, and improve? (Yes, there are...). Is this the only Beatles' page on your watchlist? The mind boggles.--andreasegde (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that amount of care is being taken because this is an FA. Thanks for the input. Begoon ^talk 04:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So let's refurbish and endlessly polish the flagship, and let the rest of the fleet rust.--andreasegde (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could add the most important improvements needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles#To-do list (or somewhere else more appropriate)? GoingBatty (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, as well as I do, that nobody looks at that. I'd prefer to comment here, thanks very much. BTW, I would appreciate an answer to my first comment, if it's possible, and not a redirect.--andreasegde (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. It seems (from the contributors' list), that Begoon ^talk has made NO edits at all to this article, and GoingBatty has made 29. Am I talking to the right people here? :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with andreasegde - I'm getting close to taking this page off my watchlist as I'm finding the constant discussion about tinkering with the lead tedious beyond belief. This is already an FA, hence, it is about as good as it's ever going to be. Let's focus our efforts on the many other Beatles related topics that are nowhere near FA.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm not one of the primary editors of this article, I can't answer how long they'll continue to tweak this article. However, I am interested in improving other articles, and have many Beatles articles on my watchlist. I hope you'll share more details on your ideas for improving other Beatles articles, no matter where you post them. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Paul McCartney is one that leaps to mind for me - it was an FA candidate a couple of years ago and could be again. Also although Something and The Long and Winding Road are still FA, it's been over five years since either was assessed and I'm not sure they would meet today's standards - they could use some work. Plus not one Beatles album is even GA class - that's quite glaring.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just made some fixes to each of the three articles you specifically mentioned, and I'm sure there's more that could be done. (Didn't look at the albums yet.) Would you be willing to start discussions on each article's talk page to suggest further improvements? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Parenthetical Descriptors in the lead

"John Lennon (rhythm guitar, vocals), Paul McCartney (bass guitar, vocals), George Harrison (lead guitar, vocals) and Ringo Starr (drums, vocals)."

Does anyone else find these a bit tedious, misleading, and incomplete, e.g. both John and Paul played some piano, and lead guitar, live and in the studio. Paul played the drums at times, George played the bass, etcetera. As it stands now, a quick glance of the article's lead would leave the reader assuming the lead guitar work on "Tax Man" or Sgt. Pepper was Harrison. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. These are the instruments they're most identified with. Many musicians in many bands sometimes pick up secondary and tertiary instruments, but there's no need to get more detailed in the lead section. This is a perfectly standard and informative way of describing the members' customary roles in the band. DocKino (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we "get more detailed in the lead section", I was suggesting less detail, remove the descriptors, let the article explain their various roles in the band, not the lead, it's way too complicated with this band to do it justice in the lead. — GabeMc (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Doc on this one, I think. As an overview of roles it's fine, and details are fleshed out later. If you remove it, and the theoretical "only person in the universe who doesn't know", has to start searching the article to find out Ringo was the drummer, for instance, the lead is failing its purpose somewhat. Begoon ^talk 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about the reader who leaves thinking Paul only played bass, the lead isn't doing it's job in that case either. — GabeMc (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but it still reads fine to me, especially in context (it's part of a dated narrative). I'm not saying I object to any change because it's perfect, but I can't think of a way to improve it without making it messy, and I'm not in favour of removing it entirely. Begoon ^talk 07:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Afterword: I guess removing "lead", "rhythm", and "bass" would solve one of your issues - but I'm not too keen on that, either, really. Begoon ^talk 07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Instrument list from http://www.beatlesbible.com/

GEORGE HARRISON Acoustic Guitar 12-String Acoustic Guitar African Drum Bass Claves Drums Electric Guitar Finger Clicks Güiro Hammond Organ Handclaps Harmonica Harmonium Maracas Moog Synthesiser Organ Percussion Samples Sitar Svarmandal Tambourine Tambura Tape Loops Timpani Violin Vocals --Roujan (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC) JOHN LENNON Acoustic Guitar Acoustic 12-String Guitar Banjo Bass Clavioline Cowbell Drums Effects Electric Guitar Electric Piano Hammond Organ Harmonica Harmonium Lap Steel Guitar Maracas Mellotron Organ Percussion Piano Samples Tambourine Tape Loops Tenor Saxophone Timpani

--Roujan (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would add "piano" to Paul's description, since he played quite a bit of it, some of it is actually signature, and was the band's principle piano player. Carlo (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)