Talk:The Beatles/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Protected

"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"? I feel a trip to WP:LAME coming on, but please feel free to reach consensus here then go to WP:RFPP when you've reached one. If anyone feels like a trip through the archives for previous consensus, feel free, but I have better things to do. --Rodhull andemu 00:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Espoo is simply pulling up websites that haphazardly spell it without an uppercase "t" in "The Beatles". There are equally legit websites that spell it as "The Beatles". This one for example. Ward3001 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the previous discussion.... endless. Read it if you dare. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Having checked it, that seems to be old, and whatever consensus there was seems now to be reflected here. It may be that consensus needs to be renegotiated, but given Espoo's post below, I feel disinclined to unprotect for now. Up to you. --Rodhull andemu 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks official enough to me. Giving The Beatles as an example of the capitalization standard is quite clear to me. Thanks , Rodhullandemu. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That consensus (of WP editors, i.e. mostly amateurs) seems to have ignored what most carefully edited publications do, namely spell it "the Beatles" even though "the" is part of the name. It seems the WP consensus also ignored or was even ignorant of what McCartney and Lennon themselves did, namely spell it lowercase: [1] --Espoo (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And WP Style is not necessarily the standard style of carefully edited publications. It's its OWN publication. F'rinstance, "carefully edited publications" always place commas and periods to the left of quotation marks. Wikipedia only does so if the comma or period is actually part of the quote. I fail to see how the Official Style of other publications is relevant to Wikipedia style. Carlo (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mostly amateurs"??? And what makes you such an official expert on this topic compared to the rest of us "amateurs"? The last time I checked, Wikipedia is a group effort that operates by consensus, not self-appointed experts. Ward3001 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems you still haven't understood the main cornerstone of WP. Everything should be based on reliable sources, and consensus is only necessary and desirable if the reliable sources conflict. Most reliable sources however lowercase "the Beatles" in running text. The Beatles official website is not reliable on this issue because they use both spellings, i.e. don't use a professional copyeditor. Some professionally edited publications use uppercase, but most use lowercase. That is what the discussion linked to above seems to also be saying, so i really don't know what made the consensus come out in contradiction to most carefully edited (e.g. published on paper) publications. --Espoo (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia as well or better than you do, as do most other editors of The Beatles' page. And I understand that one of the "cornerstones" of Wikipedia is that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You have not provided an official source that specifically states how the name of the group is to be spelled. You have only given examples of how various websites spell it. And I have given examples of spelling it a different way than you suggest, including from The Beatles' official website, which you astoundingly claim is not reliable on matters related to The Beatles. So sources conflict, and until you provide a source that definitely states that it should be spelled "the Beatles", there is no consensus for change. So let me suggest that you try to find such a source instead of condescendingly telling the rest of us "amateurs" what we know or don't know about Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP policy is to follow usage in reputable sources. Most reputable sources lowercase. The official Beatles website hasn't made up its mind, and so WP should definitely follow the majority of reputable sources. The discussion linked to above unearthed mainly sources for lowercase, including all major UK newspapers that specifically mentioned "the Beatles" in their style guide. McCartney and Lennon use lowercase too. You have not provided any reputable sources that defend uppercase, only the official Beatles website which uses mostly lowercase and inconsistently sometimes also uppercase and therefore does not defend your claim well. Someone mentioned a reputable biography that uses uppercase, but that seems to be an exception, as shown in the long discussion linked to above. --Espoo (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the fourth time, "you have not provided any reputable sources that defend" lowercase! And NO, Wikipedia should not "definitely follow the majority" of sources. This is not a tally of sources. Please, please read WP:CON. There is no consensus to change the previous consensus for uppercase. Period. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And for the at least fifth time, I had already provided many reliable sources when you wrote this as you know very well since you've replied although ignored to the posts containing them below. And you have not provided reliable sources for uppercase, and only one link that shows Beatles.com is inconsistent. And can't you think of any better argument than to purposely misquote me?! WP should definitely follow the majority of reputable sources.--Espoo (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have provided sources that use lowercase, as I have provided sources that use uppercase. You have NOT provided a reliable source that unequocally states that it must be spelled with lowercase. Do you comprehend the difference??? Both of us have provided examples. Neither of us has provided definitive proof from an external source about how it must be. And the previous consensus and Wikipedia music guidelines are for uppercase, which, by policy, is the way it will always stay unless there is a change in consensus. And there is no such thing as a consensus of one. So I am not going to continue going over and over and over the same argument that you keep presenting. I don't mean to be rude, but if you continue saying the same thing over and over and over again, you do not have consensus to change and until you get consensus to change or come up with a different argument, this is my last response. There are far more important things to do on Wikipedia than responding to the same argument again and again. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have gone to great pains to summarise the previous discussions and shown that the vast majority of reliable sources exclusively use lowercase. You ignored that childishly and had and have provided only one page whose usage is inconsistent. WP MOS says nothing about "proof" and WP policy states very clearly that articles should follow usage in reputable sources. In case there is inconsistency, it clearly states to follow the majority, and in this case it's a crushing majority. We now have to wait for others who are more objective than you to evaluate the huge list and overwhelming evidence I compiled in the new section below. Please do refrain from further participation in this discussion unless you can provide new sources. --Espoo (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA will not allow me to make an honest response to your arrogant and condescending tone, but who the hell do you think you are, telling someone whether they can or cannot participate in a discussion? I will participate in this discussion whenever I damn well please. And I will kindly ask you to refrain from personal attacks in calling me or anyone childish because we express our opinions. I will not template you as you seem to have been around a while, but I will suggest that you refresh your memory by reading WP:NPA. And if you wish to make further personal attacks on me, please be kind enough to other readers of this talk page to do so on my talk page so they don't have to read these useless exchanges between you and me. Thank you. 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you consider the description of your actions as childish to be a personal attack, and I wish to sincerely apologise for that, but you must admit it's not a very aggressive response considering that you simply ignored all my work and sources and simply keep repeating your same illogical argument about me not having some definitive source. Your single inconsistent source is simply a (very bad) joke compared to the huge list of reliable sources for lowercase. Your actions can be interpreted as much more aggressive than my use of the ill-chosen word "childishly".--Espoo (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, although I doubt your sincerity. And I will simply say that neither of our positions is a joke and leave it at that to avoid violating WP:NPA. My final comment until a new argument is presented, a new consensus develops, or there are additional personal attacks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand that I consider your behavior (of ignoring all my work and claiming your one inconsistent source is enough to cancel the evidence provided by a huge list of reliable sources) to be much more aggressive than my use of the ill-chosen word to describe your behavior? Don't you think you should apologise for your behavior? --Espoo (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You set up a false premise and ask me to defend it. You don't know what I am ignoring or not ignoring. Just because I don't repeatedly respond to the same argument that you present again and again does not mean I am ignoring anything. And even if I was ignoring some part of your argument, it is absurd to equate that to a level of aggression as name-calling by referring to me or anyone as childish. I don't believe you will find any description of ignoring an argument as aggressive in WP:NPA. If a school child is being called names and decides to ignore it and walk away, that is not being aggressive. In any event, I don't think your mindreading skills are quite sharp enough to know what I ignore or don't ignore. I have no obligation to respond to anything you write; just because I don't doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. Ward3001 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Official spelling "the Beatles"

Despite numerous links to reputable sites that use the correct spelling with lowercase, Ward3001 started an edit war. He first ignored the links and then went through the official Beatles site to find and quote (on my talk page and now above) one of the few pages ([2]) where it's spelled incorrectly. This kind of cherry picking and accusing others of the edit war one has started oneself is ridiculous. Most other pages on the Beatles website and most other reputable sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica, Rolling Stone magazine, including the ones provided in my first edit summary, use lowercase:

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] --Espoo (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No Espoo, you were the one who refused to discuss on talk and decided to continue reverting without doing so, even after I asked you to do so. And please explain this page from The Beatles' website that spells it "The Beatles". This is from the official Beatles website. You can't have it both ways. You can't use The Beatles' website to argue for "the Beatles" when that website clearly spells it both ways. Many websites carelessly spell it "the Beatles". You need official verification that it is "the Beatles" instead of "The Beatles", not just examples on websites of the spelling because you can find it both ways. Now, if you get a quote from Paul McCartney something along the lines of "It should be spelled 'the Beatles'", then I'll accept your argument. But the examples that you pull up are neither conclusive nor official statements about the spelling. Ward3001 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"'The Beatles' is a registered trademark of Apple Corps Limited": That is often seen on copyright notices for The Beatles, for example in the fine print at the bottom here. Note the quotation marks surrounding "The Beatles", as well as the uppercase "T" in "The". Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Carefully edited publications like Rolling Stone magazine and Encyclopaedia Britannica that always use lowercase throughout the whole definitive article on the Beatles are more reliable than the official Beatles website if this uses both spellings, but as i already pointed out, your page is an exception; most of the pages there use lowercase. And no, it is not necessary to discuss something when reputable sources have been provided and the person who reverts provides only personal opinion. You simply ignored the reputable sources and reverted because you confused and still confuse graphic layout decisions with official spelling. And here's your quote from several of the horses' mouths: [8] --Espoo (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider Revolution In The Head, probably the most critically acclaimed book on t/The Beatles ever published, to be a highly reputable source. It uses "The Beatles" throughout. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, h2g2 is NOT the BBC, although hosted by it; it is a self-published source and therefore not reliable.--Rodhull andemu 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that Rolling Stone is more reputable on this issue than the official Beatles website. You can see it spelled both ways on very reputable websites. You're grasping at straws. And YES, it is necessary to discuss contentious edits on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting, especially after you have been asked to do so. And please look at the section above about the previous consensus regarding this issue. To change the spelling, you need a change in consensus. It's fine for you to seek that change here, but please don't revert and please let the issue be discussed thoroughly before making changes. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See above about Rolling Stone vs. beatles.com. Show me some reputable websites that spell it both ways (instead of lamely simply claiming they exist). That is in fact already more or less proof that they are not reputable. A well-edited (e.g. paper) publication would never use two different spellings (except in quotes of course). I checked the talk page about the spelling issue and researched carefully before editing the article and provided links to reputable sources. You ignored these and reverted with the aggressive and personal opinion and irrelevant (layout) comment "Wrong. Look at their albums. Look at Ringo's first drum kit. Ridiculous". I had no idea that the issue had been discussed and that a consensus, albeit misguided because lacking enough info, had been reached. I did nothing wrong (see WP:BOLD), and you should not simply revert when someone else has clearly researched and sourced their edit. You should have started a discussion before reverting and saying someone else's work is ridiculous since only unsourced material can be removed from WP by simply reverting. And it's quite funny that neither you nor the others supporting the uppercase reacted to the McCartney and Lennon quotes. --Espoo (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus which had developed over the years is to use "The Beatles" with a capital "T" when referring to the band and to list the individual members as John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr in that order and always in that order. Now let's move on. These petty arguments over things etched in stone keep us from talking about more serious matters. I've posted this edit war in [9] alongside the related member lineup edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus which had developed over the years - where, on WP? Encyclopedias and most books and carefully edited definitive articles on major music websites use lowercase, as shown above. --Espoo (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As already noted, here is the discussion for the previous consensus, and here is a statement from WikiProject Music. And for about the third time, "carefully edited definitive articles on major music websites" also use uppercase. Ward3001 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And as mentioned in one of the above links, I'll give a link again which trumps everything, [10] which lists both "Beatles" and "The Beatles" as registered trade marks. So legally, it IS "The Beatles." Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As you are no doubt both aware, the links do not prove what you say they do, on the contrary. The discussion showed that the vast majority of carefully edited texts and major UK newspapers use lowercase and that there was almost no support for uppercase except widespread use in less reputable sources and among fans. The defenders of WP's quality and policies were simply exhausted by repetition of claims that uppercase is OK and common without sources to back up those claims. Revolution In The Head seems to be a rare exception, and that was apparently not eve mentioned in the discussion.

And the statement says "For example, the Beatles is not correct, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy," but links to [11] which says "This page has been abandoned..." and has a link to "Last revision of policy page before abandonment" which says "the Beatles" or "The Beatles": Due to lack of agreement, the WikiProject no longer has a policy on this issue.

And the trademark argument was shown to be illogical; if two out of three Beatles and the majority of serious publications use lowercase, WP does not need to conform to the lawyers' tricks to make more money for the Beatles, and the trademark and your link say nothing about whether it should be "the" or "The"; it specifically lists only THE BEATLES and BEATLES, which are also only logos and not even the official Beatles website uses THE BEATLES or BEATLES in running text. If anything, the trademark site proves that the official name is both "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" and (the) "Beatles", without an article, in which case an article (obviously small) can and must be added due to English grammar and that that article is not part of the (second possible form of the) name.

See also [12] --Espoo (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument does not hold water as it was a styling decision to label the With The Beatles (Wikipedia's title) album as "with the beatles" in all lower case and in the same typeface as the word "stereo" or "mono" on the sleeve, also in all lower case letters, which was how EMI labeled the stereo or mono designations in the early 1960s. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You skipped all my proof for "the Beatles" and tried to divert the discussion by talking only about the lone "the beatles" example, which was only there to show that whether or not capitalisation is used on an album proves nothing about correct use in running text. You simply tried to skip the fact that your trademark link proves that "the" is not even necessarily part of the name.--Espoo (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the argument doesn't hold water because Espoo has provided a statement from exactly zero out of the four Beatles stating that it should be spelled with lowercase. Zero. Ward3001 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I provided quotes by both McCartney and Lennon above. I'm pretty sure you read the link i provided after the words "what McCartney and Lennon themselves did, namely spell it lowercase" above.--Espoo (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have provided proof of nothing. Here is a repeat of my final comment on this issue above: You have provided sources that use lowercase, as I have provided sources that use uppercase. You have NOT provided a reliable source that unequocally states that it must be spelled with lowercase. Do you comprehend the difference??? Both of us have provided examples. Neither of us has provided definitive proof from an external source about how it must be. And the previous consensus and Wikipedia music guidelines are for uppercase, which, by policy, is the way it will always stay unless there is a change in consensus. And there is no such thing as a consensus of one. So I am not going to continue going over and over and over the same argument that you keep presenting. I don't mean to be rude, but if you continue saying the same thing over and over and over again, you do not have consensus to change and until you get consensus to change or come up with a different argument, this is my last response. There are far more important things to do on Wikipedia than responding to the same argument again and again. Ward3001 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have gone to great pains to summarise the previous discussions and shown that the vast majority of reliable sources exclusively use lowercase. You ignored that childishly and had and have provided only one page whose usage is inconsistent. WP MOS says nothing about "proof" and WP policy states very clearly that articles should follow usage in reputable sources. In case there is inconsistency, it clearly states to follow the majority, and in this case it's a crushing majority. We now have to wait for others who are more objective than you to evaluate the huge list and overwhelming evidence I compiled in the new section below. Please do refrain from further participation in this discussion unless you can provide new sources. --Espoo (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys guys, step back, take a deep breath and look at this page. You will need some time to read it, and you will see that this problem has been dicussed in detail. It split the project right down the middle, and was the mother of all mothers of whatever these wars are about. Please read it.--andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more, andreasegde. And unless Espoo can come up with a definitive source that clearly, unequivocally, and authoritatively says it should be lowercase, instead of repeating the same thing over and over (which will not wear us down, Espoo, because there are too many people interested in this page), we need to just stop this silliness and stop cluttering up the talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I read that page in great detail and already summarised it in my posts above (mostly amateurs for "The", two professionals and almost all reliable sources provided for "the") and now in great detail in the new section below.--Espoo (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, stopping this back and forth/tit-for-tat is always good. I did accumulate this little collection, so it's clear which I am in favour of (or is that in favor of? :) Apologies to Espoo, but I'm glad you are here to work on articles about the/The Fabs. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have cooled own a little now, I'll step back from being an admin preventing edit-warring to being a run of the mill purveyor of quality articles. I spent more time than perhaps is strictly necessary trying to find an external consensus for this issue, only to find that there isn't one. However, I don't think that's very important; our own Manual of Style has developed taking cognisance not only of those external guidelines, but also of input from contributors here. And our MOS has grown organically into generally accepted subdivisions to fit particular classes of articles arranged by topic and subtopic. As far as I can see, there is a Project-level consensus for "The Beatles" as against "the Beatles". That consensus should be challenged and debated at the Project level rather than the article level because of its wider implications. External guidelines are just that; but here, consensus may reject those guidelines as inappropriate for Wikipedia, especially in particular circumstances. --Rodhull andemu 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Without wishing to stir anything up, I did find this: Three prime ministers attended the conference, but, The British Prime Minister is Gordon Brown on MOS/Titles.--andreasegde (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood that. That capital T is the beginning of a new sentence. Apparently the italics are not clear enough.Espoo (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rodhullandemu, as I showed with the links above, that supposed consensus leads to a page that says there is no consensus. In any case, this issue cannot be dealt with on a global level. Some bands perhaps and in fact no doubt do not adhere to normal English spelling habits (and then even the reliable sources I listed for "the Beatles" will write "The Somethings"), but this does nothing to change the fact that "The Beatles" is not used in the vast majority of reliable sources and makes this WP article look like a fan page, not an encyclopedia.--Espoo (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a consensus developing, or even starting, for your proposal. Perhaps a look at WP:STICK would be a good idea. --Rodhull andemu 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you an admin? Don't you agree that it's not a very logical moment to talk about consensus not developing when I just presented a long list of sources that should be the basis of the real and honest discussion that should now start? Everybody is free to add reliable sources for "The". We have to wait at least a while before trying to find a consensus based on the accumulated total of reliable sources. So far no one has even responded to the content of the accumulated evidence for most common usage in reliable sources. You congratulated me on the work, thanks for that, but even you didn't yet respond to the content of my work and its implications.--Espoo (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rodhullandemu, but as I read his comment, he did not say that a change of consensus cannot develop or that the issue is being dismissed because of lack of consensus. He simply said that a consensus has not developed. (And this is my statement, not his), there is no consensus of one, because as it stands right now, you are the only editor advocating your position. And one editor repeating the same argument over and over does not bring that position any closer to the consensus agreement unless others decide to support that argument. Let's see if others adopt your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

<deindent> No, I am not saying a consensus can't develop in the slightest. What I am saying is two things: (a) there is an existing consensus, however uninformed (and that is not a value judgement) at a higher level than here, and (b) since making a change to that existing consensus requires comprehensively sourced input, it deserves to be considered there rather than here because of its implications. Now, addressing the development of consensus on this particular point, it is apparent to me that there is significant resistance to an overturning of the status quo. That issue seems to me only to be surmountable by cogent and irrefutable arguments, and so far, all I have seen is the production of a mass of citations from both sides which by any analysis, are persuasive rather than binding. On that basis, whatever external sources, or examples, may say, it is our own internal processes that govern usage, rightly or wrongly, as if there is an objectively "correct answer". It's plain that there can be no such answer. The fact that proponents of both sides of this debate have elicited both credible and questionable sources should be a major clue here. Now, the bottom line is that this is not a competition to get a preferred wording (or even a capitalisation) into the article, because even below the bottom line, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for our readers (remember them?) and if we are pissing about with irrelevant detail, we are losing sight of what we are here for. </rant> --Rodhull andemu 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a lowercase on "The" Beatles would result in this article having to be renamed to simply "Beatles". And that's not their name. Anyway, you make a pretty poor case here and it looks like you're just trying to pick a fight here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify to whom you're replying here, because in a complex debate, which may have implications elsewhere, that might be relevant? Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 01:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaizer13, the Beatles article in Britannica is in fact called "Beatles, the", but that is not necessary. WP should follow usage in reliable sources and most of them use "The Beatles" in the heading of a biography or other main article on the band but use "the Beatles" in running text. I'm very sad that you should think an attempt to apply the basics of professional copyediting to WP is nothing but an attempt to pick a fight. On the contrary, the current use of "The" in running text is not only amateurish but picking a fight with most biographers and other professionals writing on the Beatles, in other words trying to show that they are wrong and the fans are right, which also makes the current form of the article look like a fan page. --Espoo (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, unfortunately there is no "mass of citations from both sides" since the proponents of uppercase have so far presented only one single source and that in fact uses both upper- and lowercase inconsistently. And correct spelling including capitalisation is definitely not irrelevant detail; it is one of the main elements differentiating amateur from professional publishing. Since almost all professionally edited texts use lowercase in running text, the current article is definitely amateurish and in violation of WP's policy of being based on reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"

The following list of reliable sources is mostly a summary of these old discussions of this issue and although I even added some new sources for “The”, this extensive list shows clearly that the vast majority of reliable sources use lowercase. The discussion members even included professional copyeditors, but the members favoring “The” decided to use that in clear violation of WP’s core principles by simply yelling in larger numbers and longer. Most importantly, they hardly presented any sources supporting their claims. These do exist but seem to be very much less common and apparently mostly or all less reliable than the major publishers, but they also include publications like The Beatles Anthology and the official Beatles website Beatles.com that, (in the case of Beatles.com inconsistently) promote the uppercase use that apparently tries to emphasise the band’s uniqueness and please its lawyers and fans. More or less proof that this is a trend based on marketing issues that does not reflect the original way even the Beatles themselves used the article is that Ringo Starr’s website now uses uppercase though it still used lowercase in December 2006 (see Jack Yan 12:27, 22 December 2006) and no doubt later too. -- Espoo (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources recommending or using only "the Beatles" in running text (not at beginning of sentences or in other “beginnings” or situations with traditionally exceptional capitalisaation, e.g. on drums or albums or in parts of titles using larger font than preceding words):

Encyclopaedia Britannica exclusively uses "the Beatles" in many articles on the topic, for example the following: "adopted the name the Beatles in 1960" in the main article called "Beatles, the" and "long after the Beatles" in the article called "Rolling Stones"(!) and "figures such as Sinatra and the Beatles outlast the craze" in "Fashion" and in all the other 35 articles including "rock (and roll)" that use the name in running text. (Quoted from the CD version, some parts of these texts can be viewed in the free online version.)

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Rolling Stone magazine exclusively uses "the Beatles" (more than 30 times) in one of the world's most definitive articles on the topic, the Beatles biography. The only use of uppercase is in referring to albums.

The biography at AllMusic.com

Hunter Davies’s biography

Probably most if not all biographies printed by major publishers, as explained here by simpatico: “…none of my Beatles books use this seemingly correct grammatical convention[…] I have 7 of them, and I checked them all.” For example:

Not all of these are the ones I have, but these are some Beatles books that have the "Search Inside" function at Amazon. To be fair, I did come across one book that had "The Beatles," by I think majority rules. I could link to more if you'd like, but I have homework... —simpatico ^hi 04:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most if not all at least major British newspapers: The Times, which specifically mentions "the Beatles" in its style guide, The Independent[13], The Guardian[14], The Daily Telegraph[15], The Sun[16] A British professional copyeditor that participated in the old WP discussion said that all major British newspapers s/he knows use “the Beatles”.

The New York Times [17]

News.com [18]

The CEO of Apple Corps as quoted on BBC’s website: [19]

Note that an official document from Apple Corps cited below repeatedly uses "The Beatles". So this item actually should go in the list that uses "the" and "The" inconsistently. Ward3001 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lennon’s official website

As pointed out by Espoo, this is not a secondary source. Ward3001 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Epstein’s website

As pointed out by Espoo, this is not a secondary source. Ward3001 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCartney and Lennon as quoted on this “edited guide” of h2g2, which means it’s a reliable source (see this for more info).

Reliable sources recommending or using only "The Beatles" in running text (not at beginning of sentences):

NME.com [20] Not as reliable a source as an encyclopedia, published books, major news outlets, and the other sources quoted above, but apparently typical of at least some publishers in the music industry.

The Beatles Anthology

The biography "Revolution In The Head"

Ringo Starr’s website, but this still used lowercase in December 2006 (see Jack Yan 12:27, 22 December 2006 and no doubt later too.

The apparently only major UK newspaper that uses uppercase is the Daily Telegraph: The Daily Telegraph

Several US newspapers, but since most reliable UK sources use lowercase, this cannot (according to MOS) influence use in a Wikipedia article on a UK band. The Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, USA Today

Reliable sources inconsistently using both "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" in running text (not at beginning of sentences). According to the professional standards common in the publishing industry, these are by definition not reliable at least on the issue of spelling etc. (e.g. punctuation), so please only list sites that have special merits in terms of content or relevancy:

The official Beatles site beatles.com uses mostly "the Beatles" in its biographical section on several pages, namely the pages [21], [22], [23], and [24]. Some pages (including 2 of those that use "the") also use "The".

Espoo pointed out below that inconsistency could be due to typos. So maybe their use of "the Beatles" is a typo ... maybe not. Ward3001 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on trademark issues. Remember that according to Wikipedia policy, WP should normally follow the most common usage in reliable published sources even if this does not conform to the wishes of a company or its lawyers. More specifically, the logo of the band is not the same as its name. See Lego vs. LEGO

This website shows that the trademark is both BEATLES and THE BEATLES, which proves that the official name is both "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" with the article and "Beatles" without an article. However, in the latter case (Beatles) an article (obviously small) can and must be added in running text due to English grammar though that article is not part of the (second possible form of the) name. This link specifically says nothing about whether it should be "the" or "The"; it specifically lists only THE BEATLES and BEATLES. In addition, these are only logos.

While “The” should be changed to “the” in many WP articles on bands that always use “the” in their name due to the same reasons mentioned above (most common use in reliable sources), the case for lowercase in “the Beatles” is even more clear because they didn’t even always use the article, as also shown by the trademark link above. As Metropolitan90 wrote in the discussion linked to above: “…from the band's album covers, it's not obvious to me that they considered the word "The" an essential part of their name. Note that the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album to which a great deal of attention was paid to the production of the cover, shows the band name as "BEATLES" instead of "THE BEATLES". The word "The" was similarly omitted from the front cover of Beatles for Sale and Magical Mystery Tour. Obviously, several of the band's albums do refer to them as The Beatles as opposed to just Beatles (and other album covers do not display the band name at all on the front), but this just suggests to me that the band considered the word "The" in their name to be optional. --Espoo (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of reliable sources using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"

Well done! Now all you need to do is take it here and establish a project-wide consensus, and then bring it back here. Since there was a lengthy debate barely ten months ago, you may wish to start a new thread. --Rodhull andemu 18:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on representativeness of secondary sources provided using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"

DENDODGE'S STRAW POLL IS HERE.--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Please do not add comments here before the poll explanation because they prevent others from seeing the following words)

Do you agree or not that the above list of sources is sufficiently representative to show that the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources uses "the Beatles" in running text? If you do not agree, please add reliable sources showing uppercase use in running text.
Please also note that there are sources below and elsewhere on this page that use "The Beatles".
Users are reminded of the fact that Wikipedia uses consensus - not voting.

Agree

Espoo (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Croctotheface (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
McTavidge McTavidge (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not agree

Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ward3001 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
‘The’ in ‘The Beatles’ is the definite article. Sentences only need one definite article, be they in a proper noun or not. Hence to say ‘the The Beatles’ is just repetition of the word and if anything overcomplicates matters.Patthedog (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Beatles" is their name, their name is not, "Beatles" 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Libs (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I like The Who as well as The Beatles. I'm not so keen on The The though. John Lennon however was the Beatle who was shot by a madman. Having said that, Pete Townshend was the member of The Who who wrote most of the songs, I think. The group's name The Beatles was often seen on Ringo Starr's bass drum, even as early as this (note the 'antennae' on the 'B'!). --Setanta747 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Like above, the band isn't titled "Beatles." It's "The Beatles." The "The" is a definite article for the band name. 01kkk (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's manual of style is not based on the style used in secondary sources. Names of bands are capitalised on wikipedia. The name of the band is The Beatles. maxsch (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I usually say it with "The." SchfiftyThree 23:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Undecided

Not undecided as such, I just don't think it's relevant. There are reliable sources for both; so Wikipedia can choose either. The decision was made to use uppercase for band names, as is clear from the WikiProject Music Manual of Style. If editors wish to seek a consensus to change this, they should be raise the matter there, NOT at this talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

DENDODGE'S STRAW POLL IS HERE.--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This straw poll is not irrelevant and much closer to the content and purpose of WP policies concerning Wikipedia:Verifiability. The other straw poll below is formulated such that people can give their personal opinions about what spelling they prefer, which is irrelevant for deciding this issue. Please refrain from vandalising this poll. --Espoo (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true, Espoo. Last time I checked, personal opinions were allowed on talk pages and in formulating consensus; that makes them quite relevant to deciding this issue. Please do not assume that you own this talk page or any straw poll. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources uses "the Beatles" in running text and Wikipedia is the only major Internet source using "The" in the middle of a sentence, this shows that WP's policy of following usage in reliable secondary sources was not followed in reaching the old consensus and personal opinion was given way to much importance.

BTW, your vote above automatically cancels itself since any administrator can easily see that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources listed show lowercase use. The few sources using uppercase above and the other 4 or 5 on this page (some of which are interpreted incorrectly or simply mistakes violating the publisher's own style guide) are not more than anomalies that warm the cockles of many fans and make professional editors cringe.

Specifically because use of "The" in running text is considered "cool" by fans but a violation of basic principles of English spelling by professionals, the decision about the/The Beatles will decide whether WP continues to remain an amazingly good chat site and forum or whether it joins the ranks of real encyclopedias in terms of spelling etc., i.e. this question is not trivial at all although it looks that way to many non-professionals. --Espoo (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are only relevant for content disputes, not style disputes. Just because more sources may follow one does NOT mean we have to. Neither is "correct" or "incorrect". As it is a style issue, the right place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, not here. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

General discussion

OK... When it is alright to say "I like Beatles", or when someone says this project should be called "Beatles' Project", or even when everybody says that "Beatles were John, Paul, George, and Ringo", I will accept it. Personally, to say "I like Beatles" (meaning the whole group) makes me feel sick.--andreasegde (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody doen't know when to give up, and start working on articles, because this is just wasting time.--andreasegde (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Andreas, it's worse than that. It's about "The" vs "the" and is clearly going nowhere. We've moved beyond WP:STICK into WP:DICK territory, and if all the effort expended here had been thrown at articles, we'd now have five more good articles or one more featured article. --Rodhull andemu 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Tvoz/talk 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote once upon a time: As I see it, we're [still] down to very little in support of Big T and lots in support of Little T. * * * It strikes me that Big T is a preference in search of a justification -- sometimes it's the new thing (in which case new is good); sometimes it's the long-established usage (in which case old is good); sometimes it's what I was taught in the crib (in which case there's no citeable source for it); sometimes it's what Tony Barrrow wrote in the liner notes (but Derek Taylor didn't); sometimes it's what Bob Spitz (an American) wrote in his book (but Hunter Davies (an Englishman) didn't in his); and sometimes it's a US/UK difference (in which case we Americans can't really contribute to the debate anyway so what's the point?) (though that's a red herring actually -- there's plenty of UK Little T usage to contradict that view). We have been given three authoritative sources [and several more recently], each directly on point: the Economist's style guide, the Guardian's style guide, and the (very influential) Chicago Manual of Style. After all this, I guess I don't understand why we are still looking for a justification for Big T.McTavidge (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Economist's style guide says, or the Guardian's, or the Chicago. None are right or wrong. We have our own style guide, WP:MoS, and its subpages. That is where this discussion should be taking place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it matters what they say -- it's all about verifiability against outside sources.McTavidge (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. In writing Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia's Manual of Style trumps everything else. If you want to change how things are written on Wikipedia, you need to get consensus to change Wikipedia's MoS. Ward3001 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifibility and sources are only relevant to a content dispute, not a style dispute like this one. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I perceived two points in what Pawnkingthree wrote, one of which was that there is no definitive external authority to appeal to ("None are right or wrong"). As to the other point, I tried about a year ago to get the topic discussed on the Wikipedia manual of style and it was summarily dismissed. Maybe they care now? McTavidge (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And if there is no definitive external authority, we use Wikipedia's consensus, and the consensus is "The Beatles". Even if there is an external authority, on matters of style (not content), Wikipedia can create it's own style. And if your attempt to discuss this on the talk page for Wikipedia MoS was dismissed (maybe there was a reason??) and you want to bring it up again, please do so. But that does not mean MoS issues should be dealt with here. Ward3001 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed there is no definitive external authority; I was just telling you what he was saying. And it's "its," by the way. McTavidge (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A sentence should not begin with a conjunction, by the way. Ward3001 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New Oxford Dictionary of English: It is still widely taught and believed that conjunctions such as and (and also but and because) should not be used to start a sentence, the argument being that a sentence starting with and expresses an incomplete thought and is therefore incorrect. Writers down the centuries from Shakespeare to David Lodge and the New York Times Book Review have readily ignored this advice, however, using and to start a sentence, typically for rhetorical effect, as in the following example: What are the government's chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Espoo (talk • contribs)

(sigh) . . . it was humour, Espoo. Ward3001 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I ever started a sentence with "And", or "But", I would wash my own mouth out with soap.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, you wouldn't want to do that. McTavidge (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Soap, anyone?--andreasegde (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rope, anyone? McTavidge (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be nasty, McTavidge, it doesn't suit you.--andreasegde (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The The

Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The):

On TV and radio:

The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads

Bands: Of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven (The Super Seven) it's OK...

The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Kooks The Verve and The Beach Boys

Newspapers:

The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet and The Wire magazine

Other sources using "The Beatles" -- Uncluttered version

In addition to sources identified on other parts of this page that use "The Beatles", here are some reliable sources that either use "The Beatles" or use both uppercase and lowercase (all have been added to the main list [here]):

Ringo Starr's official website

The Wall Street Journal

The Chicago Tribune

The Boston Globe

USA Today

The Times

The Daily Telegraph

The Guardian

The Beatles Anthology book

The New York Times Best Seller List

Apple Corp.

Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Other sources using "The Beatles" (cluttered version)

In addition to sourced identified on other parts of this page that use "The Beatles", here are some reliable sources that either use "The Beatles" or use both uppercase and lowercase. (All have been added to the main list [here]). (Please remember that US newspaper usage is not important according to Wikipedia policy since this is a UK band and since UK usage prefers lowercase about 40 to 1 in our current list of reliable sources.) >>> "Our current list of reliable sources"??? This section also contains a current list of reliable sources.:

Ringo Starr's official website (please remember that WP policy says to follow use in secondary, not primary sources)

The Wall Street Journal

The Chicago Tribune

The Boston Globe

USA Today

The Times

(please don't be angry about this being crossed out; it's still there but this makes it easier for people who are in a hurry to understand that this is not a source advocating use of uppercase - see below)

YES I AM DAMN ANGRY. STOP CROSSING OUT OTHER EDITORS' EDITS. Keep it up and some of us might decide to cross out your edits. You are violating Wikipedia policy.Ward3001 (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Times itself uses "the Beatles" in this article, twice. The reference to "The Beatles" occurred in material quoted from another source.McTavidge (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's even more convincing. The source happens to be Paul McCartney. Let's see ... I think he might have a bit of expertise. Wasn't he one the The Beatles? Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources is very clear, so we should not follow McCartney on this except when quoting him. And he too used lowercase before as shown in the links provided above. The Times specifically shows us what WP should be doing, using idiosyncratic The in the middle of a sentence when quoting a source that does that but normally adhering to the overwhelmingly most common use of lowercase in professionally edited secondary sources. See the Times's style guide.--Espoo (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Espoo, I believe we are entitled to take Paul McCartney's lead and use uppercase. Now if you want to argue whether McCartney is a legitimate source about the Beatles please do so elsewhere on this page and stop cluttering up this list. And again, you do not own this talk page, so please do not ~~strike through~~ my edits. You have a bad habit of doing that to others' edits. Ward3001 (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

The Guardian

(obviously a typo since it's uppercase only once and the other 4 times lowercase and since this is in violation of the Guardian's own style guide.--Espoo (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not obviously a typo. Obviously they use uppercase and lowercase. Every source that seems to support your argument is flawless, but you manage to nit-pick little details and find something wrong with every source that does not support your argument. Ward3001 (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that the Guardian's "style" is to jump around between upper- and lowercase arbitrarily? It's clearly a typo. McTavidge (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am seriously arguing that it may have never entered the writer's mind whether uppercase or lowercase should be used. It may be a typo, but it's not "clearly a typo". Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the best that can be said for it is that the Guardian's copy editor missed it; he or she should have enforced the paper's style guide. McTavidge (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'd like to check that out. Could you please give me a reference to the section of the Guardian's style guide about capitalisation of "The" in "The Beatles"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you retorted "Not obviously a typo" without even bothering to look at the link to the relevant section of the Guardian's style guide provided? --Espoo (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying I read this from the Guardian. Ward3001 (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But this single case of uppercase (4 times "the Beatles on same page) is obviously a typo (addition of introductory clause) since it violates the Guardian's own style guide[29]: lc for newspapers (the Guardian), magazines (the New Statesman), pubs (the Coach and Horses), bands (the Beatles, the Black Eyed Peas, the The), nicknames (the Hulk, the Red Baron) and sports grounds (the Oval); uc for books (The Lord of the Rings), films (The Matrix), poems (The Waste Land), works of art (The Haywain), music (The Kick Inside), television shows (The West Wing) and placenames (The Hague)''

The Beatles Anthology book

The New York Times Best Seller List

Apple Corp.

Ward3001 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is an extremely good point; if they don't agree, how are we supposed to? Do certain people in Wikipedia think they know better, and can teach every newspaper what is correct, or not correct? The ego of it all...:(--andreasegde (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, our and your opinion is completely irrelevant; what matters is use in professionally edited reliable secondary sources, which favors lowercase about 40 to 1 (Telegraph) at current, when discounting US newspaper use since this is a UK band and all reputable British sources found so far except the Telegraph use lowercase.--Espoo (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I checked for a third time, and I believe that opinions are quite relevant in forming consensus, including consensus for Wikipedia's own Manual of Style. Ward3001 (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, I read The Telegraph! Are you saying the newspaper doesn't know what it's doing? :)))--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, I do think that there is something of a disturbing principle being evoked by supporters of using a capitalized "The" in the middle of sentences. It seems that they believe that we should default to doing what the article subject would want us to do, rather than the common practice of secondary sources. Should we follow that same notion if, say, the article subject denies being involved in a scandal that's reported in the press? If we consider these publications reliable sources, how could it be that they're "wrong" about something so fundamental as this? Croctotheface (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop portraying the "T" advocates as a bunch of sinister sneaks trying to pull a fast one. As has been said numerous times elsewhere on this page, the capitalisation issue is a stylistic matter. No one is saying that proper sourcing is unnecessary for content issue. This is not a complex concept to understand if you will stop and think about it. Capitalisation is stylistic. Scandal is content. Wikipedia does not have to follow anyone else's policies other than its own for stylistic matters. Do you think that Wikipedia adopted its policy regarding British/American spelling from external sources? No, it created its own policy because that is a stylistic, not a content, issue. Ward3001 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, no more sinister sneaks trying to pull a fast one. I've had enough of that. From now on, it's sinister sneaks trying to pull a slow one ... a slow, painful death by capitaliz/sation. McTavidge (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a style issue. However, I don't think that a lot of the people on your side do, since they seem to be saying things like "the band's name is The Beatles" as their rationale, which suggests that they think it's a naming, not style issue. (Incidentally, there are a lot of editors out there who insist, for instance, that to render an all caps company name in title case represents "changing their name.") Anyway, I'm glad to see that you don't agree here.) But for those editors, those who think that this is about what is "correct" or "factual," then I want to invite them to consider whether they would defer to the band on other "factual" issues.

However, even setting that aside, I think that "use standard English" is a better style guideline than "do whatever the subject would want." I am nervous about deferring to what the subject wants on any matter, including one of style. "Do whatever the subject would want" is a bad rule to follow because, for one, it gives the appearance that we are here in service of the subject of the article, not the reader. Some of the expressions of support for capital The in the middle of sentences said stuff like, "sure, it's annoying to have that capital The, but it's what the band would have us do." That says to me that some editors see themselves as putting the band first, not the readers. If, for some reason, Paul and Ringo had nothing better to do and released a statement about how everyone should use a lowercase "the" in the middle of sentences, and then they played a video of John and George saying the same thing, many if not most of these "The" supporters would switch sides immediately. Croctotheface (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you're making quite unjustified assumptions about "T" advocates. I don't agree that most of us see this as anything beyond a stylistic issue. And to conclude that most of us would ignore what the members of The Beatles might have to say about this is absurd. One of the arguments is that The Beatles' website and websites of individual members is inconsistent, therefore Wikipedia is free to choose its style. If you'll read elsewhere on this page, one argument of the "t" advocates is that it doesn't matter what members of The Beatles say if enough reputable publications use "t". So if you're going to jump to wild, baseless conclusions about what editors are thinking, try doing it equally for both sides of the issue. Ward3001 (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to get so heated here. There are at least three comments in the "straw poll" section that support capitalizing because "it's the correct name" or some similar rationale. I've seen other such comments in other sections here. I am not making any "unjustified assumptions," I'm just reading the public remarks here. Also, just to be clear, I said that many here would obey, not ignore, what the members of the band said. If the band said clearly that they prefer lowercase "the" in the middle of sentences, I suspect that many votes for capitalizing would switch immediately. That, to me, is way too much deference to the subject of the article, even on what you and I agree is a style issue. Croctotheface (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not heated; just standing up to unfounded assumptions. But in any event, even though I disagree that "many votes for capitalizing would switch", it is pointless to speculate based on something that probably will never happen (i.e., members of The Beatles clarifying the issue). In my opinion, this entire issue is an inane waste of time. Let's not make it even sillier by speculating about who would change their votes if Lennon or Harrison spoke from their graves. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And, again, it's not unfounded. There was just a vote added since my last comment that said we should use "The" because it's on "merchandising." That kind of argument is a "do what the band does" argument, and I find it troubling that some people would have us adopt a rule to defer to the band on just about anything, including matters of style. Furthermore, that argument takes away WP's power to regulate it's own style; if this is a style issue, the question turns on whether "the" or "The" is better style in the middle of sentences, not what the band uses on their merchandise. Croctotheface (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem has been with your sweeping generalizations, which in more recent edits you have toned down some. You began by saying "supporters of using a capitalized 'The'" and "a lot of the people on your side", as if you were referring to almost the entire lot of us, which definitely is unfounded. And I'll say again, paying attention to what the band says is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't mean Wikipedia has to do what the band says, but it can certainly influence how editors craft Wikipedia's stylistic policies. Wikipedia has not lost any "power to regulate it's own style". Wikipedia is perfectly free to create its own style, which is why we have had such discussions in the past and why we are having this one right now (although it belongs on an MoS page and not here). Ward3001 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Capital won!

(Please remember that according to Wikipedia core policy, editing should be based on reliable secondary sources, not personal opinions, primary sources, or poll results.) This straw poll will be used to give an idea of consensus. Users are reminded of the fact that Wikipedia uses consensus - not voting. The poll closes on:

Saturday 16 August 2008, at 1:15am (UTC) --...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember WP:!VOTE --...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lower case...

Apepper (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Croctotheface (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Espoo (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
John Cardinal (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
McTavidge McTavidge (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} at 16:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital...

Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
One should read this...andreasegde (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ward3001 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Realist² (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
—MagnoliaFen ^(talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
‘The’ in ‘The Beatles’ is the definite article. Sentences only need one definite article, be they in a proper noun or not. Otherwise one would have to say “the The Beatles”, which would be silly.Patthedog (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Capital "The" for the name of the band, but see below - I don't think anyone thinks we should say "John Lennon is The Beatle I most admired" but just in case, I am also in as Conditional. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) This is not a vote and as such I choose to be in this column as well as conditional - I trust people can read and will understand why. In fact as I said I assume that no one in the capital camp would use the capital T when talking about an individual Beatle, and the conditional column is actually a subset of this one. Tvoz/talk 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
650 Norton (1951) (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I like The Who as well as The Beatles. I'm not so keen on The The though. John Lennon however was the Beatle who was shot by a madman. Having said that, Pete Townshend was the member of The Who who wrote most of the songs, I think. The group's name The Beatles was often seen on Ringo Starr's bass drum, even as early as this (note the 'antennae' on the 'B'!). --Setanta747 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The name of the band is The Beatles. maxsch (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The "The" is a definitive article towards The Beatles and is part of their name as a whole. 01kkk (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The Beatles. Libs (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Um...The Beatles rock! If the article name is "The Beatles", they should be referred to as such. :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer capital, as that is what I would usually say. SchfiftyThree 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Proper Name capital, merchandising and self-references support The not the. ThuranX (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conditional

Hotcop2 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
hornplayer2 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a band called The Beatles. John Lennon was one of the Beatles...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this is really a subset of Capital and should be seen as such: I love The Beatles as a band but John Lennon is the Beatle I would most want to meet. However, Paul, you're a really close second, so please email. My heart is with Neutral, because I do not think this matters at all and the capital T in the middle of a sentence is really annoying, but I'll go here because I most agree with this one/capital T. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral...

~~...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Switched to conditional.
freshacconcispeaktome 13:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC). I used to be a firm lower-case man, convinced that the "The" was some sort of crazy British thing. Here in Canada we mix-and-match Brit and US spellings to suit our purposes ("I had the honour of cashing that cheque until I realized it would bounce.") However, I've found some of the pro-The arguments persuasive, although not enough to get me off the fence. Question: did the editors for The The ever have to deal with this?
Since the name is The Beatles, it seems that would be the way to go, but "the Beatles" seems better stylistically. Enigma ^message 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
See above, with a nod of agreement to Fresh and Enigma. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Add your signature in the appropriate section...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added a 'conditional' section (i.e.Paul was one of the Beatles AND The Beatles were a band). I am going to remain neutral and take no stance on this...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 08:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources for this distinction in spelling? It looks like WP:OR that has been presented several times already in this and the old discussions.--Espoo (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A brief history of the The

Lennon was a Beatle (singular). Lennon and McCartney were the Beatles (plural) who went on holiday to Paris in 1961, but The Beatles (collective) later played in Paris.
Lennon was a Beatle. Lennon and McCartney were the Beatles who went on holiday to Paris in 1961, but the Beatles later played in Paris.
If you can’t see the difference, read it again.--andreasegde (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The first made more sense...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the first example makes more sense. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about it, the sentence does not make grammatical sense. The sentence should be "Lennon was a Beatle. Lennon and McCartney were Beatles who went on holiday to Paris, but The Beatles later played in Paris." Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense if you read it as though they were the only ones on the holiday...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then should that be "...Lennon and McCartney were the only Beatles who went on holiday in Paris..."? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense, yes, but the first example is grammatically correct (if ambiguous)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read it that you don't know which of The Beatles went to Paris, it's Cowabunga time.--andreasegde (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first. The group name is "The Beatles," it's the same kinda thing as President Bill Clinton vs. Bill Clinton was president. Proper name usage. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In "Lennon was a Beatle", Beatle is the short form of "member of The Beatles" in which "The" certainly deserves the capital letter. "Lennon and McCartney were the Beatles with the most whatever" is acceptable because Beatles is still standing in for "members of The Beatles". Isn't it? maxsch (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Hotcop and Max on this: Andreas' first line explains it clearly - "The Beatles" CAPITAL T are the name of the band, Lennon was the Beatle LOWER CASE T who stole my heart. There is, in my view, absolutely no reason to not evaluate the way the word is used every time we use it and either capitalize "the" - when talking about the band as a whole - or not capitalize "the" - when talking about one of the individuals. This is not complicated, it's not controversial, it's easy to implement unless one is incapable of discerning the very obvious distinction that Andreas has pointed out. And it has implications in many articles across the encyclopedia, so this discussion belongs at the project level if anywhere. I could have sworn we had decided this long ago. I must say, this discussion has become very pointy and the only reason I'm glad it's back is because it is the example I often cite when things get really hairy on one of the US political candidate article talk pages - saying you think this is heated? Check out the great The the wars on the Beatles' pages. But enough already. Tvoz/talk 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The only proper use of the lower case 'the' is if the singular "Beatle" is used either as an adjective or referring to an individual Beatle. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

When refering to The Beatles as a group, the "T" must be capitalized because it is being used as a "Name" - "When I was fourteen, I went to see "The" Beatles." A reverse example would be A Flock of Seagulls. It's fine to write: "When I was at the beach, a flock of seagulls pooped on my new hat," - but to write: "I went to see "a" Flock of Seagulls" isn't, because it's also being used as a name, and needs to be capitalized. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's all about not being ambiguous. How many times have I heard that word?--andreasegde (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen so much debate about nothing. Literally nothing, because there is no right or wrong way to do it. In publishing (ie all the "reliable sources" referred to), each publication has its own style guide to establish consistency, and they decide for themselves how to write it. Either way is fine, neither is wrong, and consistency is all that matters. Is there a Wikipedia style guide? If not, refer to the style commonly in use. If there's no consistency in wiki, neither side is more or less correct, so just let it be.

Exactly right. It doesn't matter how others do it, as neither is "incorrect" despite what some users keep insisting. It's a style convention and therefore should be discussed on WP:MoS or one its subpages, not on an article talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job this discussion isn't about that well-known Motown group Four Tops! (Not signed by user)

They were the The Four Mop-Tops, weren't they? :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at [30]; they use "The Beatles" for the article about "Love", but the Derek Taylor history of the Beatles uses "the Beatles". I think we can argue that the band themselves didn't have a strong, or consistant view, but as DT was their press agent, and their "official spokesman", his preference should take precedence. Apepper (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why his preference? "3. That which is preferred; choice: His preference is vanilla, not chocolate". That is an argument in favour of both sides, is it not?--andreasegde (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Caption order

I have changed the layout slightly, to reflect the picture. After a brief conversation with another user, I decided to bring it here to see what established consensus: clockwise, relative to picture, top & bottom left to right, or some other version - any comments?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "relative to picture" means exactly (not a phrase I recall seeing before), and I find it odd that such a simple concept as "clockwise" has proved so confusing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me how the caption is described as long as it is clear to the reader. I also don't recall seeing the phrase "relative to picture". I think the average person understands "clockwise", but I also think the problem is that careless editors don't bother reading the caption carefully and are used to seeing pictures captioned top left to right and bottom left to right, but that is very awkward wording. I inserted a hidden comment in the caption cautioning people that the order of names was clockwise, meaning circular. I also think part of the confusion is that so many people are in the habit of saying "John, Paul, George, and Ringo", but that's not how they are ordered if we go clockwise. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Ward3001 (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added a bolded 'Top:' and 'Bottom:' to the caption and removed 'relative to picture'. Is that any better?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now this makes the cockles of my heart go all warm and cosy; Wikipedia editors working together in such a harmonious and positive way. Don't-ya just love it? I do. :)--andreasegde (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes a change from the never ending (and far more trivial) "The/the debate"...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this comes around like the rag 'n bone man every few months. "Any old bow-ons? Any old lowercase definitive article problems? I'll give you six pence for them, sonny..." :)--andreasegde (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why anyone cares. It's a measly capital letter or two here and there!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the same thing as this: "If people do not have a problem, they will find one". Considering the massive amount of problems that are evident on Wikipedia, one can only think of the word pedantic.--andreasegde (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true war veteran, with the scars to show for it. How can we get Vera back??? Tvoz/talk 17:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vera, Chuck & Dave

(What happened to Vera? Hope he hasn't gone to WP:MW.) Ward3001 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid my old comrades, Vera, Chuck and Dave (all three of them) have permanently checked out. I remember them going over the top, whistle blowing, in full regalia, and shouting, "Dey do doh, don't day?" I miss Vera a lot, 'cos he was the toppermost of the poppermost, La.--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that should be, "The Toppermost of The Poppermost".--andreasegde (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sad to hear the news, we were comrades at arms in certain edit wars. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He was/is a "brick", and very much missed. (I do miss the belly laughs...)--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Here be dragons - the The

The last go-round on the debate over whether to use "the" or "The" was the beginning of the end of my contributions to WikiPedia. I won't rehash that story: it's boring. I urge you all to stay civil, and don't care too much about the result. While I agree that having style rules, and following them, is important for a encyclopedia, there are other issues that are more important. For example, when more than one person is involved in making a decision, it's important to have a well-defined, well-understood process by which the decision will be made. Participants have to agree to follow the rules and accept the outcome whether it's the outcome they prefer or not. One may disagree with the rules, but that usually means starting a different discussion about whether the rules should be changed and must be separated from the original issue.

Lest you think this message is unnecessary, take a look in the archives. Each time this topic has come up, a little blood has been spilt. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people in Wikipedia think they are a part of one whole project, with everybody pulling in the same direction, but this is not the case. Some people contribute as self-elected clerks, and some contribute as semi-skilled workers. The problem is the difference (in numbers) between the two groups. (Admins have an impossible job, and I sympathise...) This problem (the The) is a mirror of that. No matter what the outcome of this is, 'the The' problem will arise again, without a doubt. Is there a middle ground? I think not, but I truly wish there was.--andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Primarily

Primarily the band consisted of...

why 'primarily'? and fuck whoever locked this arcticle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.13.29 (talk • contribs)

Read the article. The band had other members before they achieved huge success. And watch your tone; it could be construed as a personal attack. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "primarily" is not the optimal word here. 81.129.129.12 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How about, "during most of their recording career" (which allows for the session with Andy White and the times one walked out)? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthologies?

How come there isn't anything in the discog about the anthology releases? I know that it wasn't widely accepted by a lot of fans, but they were Apple releases all the same, and performed by the Beatles. Surely there should be some mention of them. I remember that as being a pretty big deal back in the 90s, especially with the new track that was released. 24.148.29.17 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be listed here. I suppose that was done to avoid overloading this article. --Rodhull andemu 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

I thought this article is semi-protected as the silver padlock is shown in the article. But anonymous IP addresses are still altering the article. Is there an explanation? Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the padlock is because of the tag at the very top of the article and that it was not removed with the semi-protection. I'd be interested in know 1) if I'm right and (if I am) 2) how to tell if a page is semi-protected. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the semi-protection expired on 7 December so I've removed the padlock template. If vandalism escalates, it can be reprotected. The way to tell if a page is protected is to look at the article logs; there's a link to them when you go to the article history, just below the page title. The log for this articles is here. Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx! (John User:Jwy talk) 04:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is getting vandalized again, so can the semi-protection be restored? If not, can vandals get blocked without warning for vandalising this article? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, the article has been semi-protected for a month. It seems that most edits since the 7th have sadly been vandalism and reverts. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Videoclips

Hi! I've found 10 videoclips released by The Beatles, whose not appeared in the films, and I think that it would be interesting if somebody put a link in the home page. Here they are:

01 Rain (30/5/1966)
02 Paperback Writer (30/5/1966)
03 Strawberry Fields Forever (13/2/1967)
04 Penny Lane (13/2/1967)
05 All You Need Is Love (studio) (7/7/1967)
06 Lady Madonna (15/3/1968)
07 Hey Jude (26/8/1968)
08 Hey Bulldog (studio) (13/1/1969)
09 Free As A Bird (4/12/1995)
10 Real Love (4/3/1996) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.40.115 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A link to where?--andreasegde (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatles meeting Elvis according to Klaus Voorman

Hello, I'm discussing Elvis on wikipedia and wrote something about the Beatles meeting Elvis Presley. It could be interesting for members of the Beatles discussion, too. Elvis meeting Beatles When McCartney said this (It was one of the great meetings of my life. I think he liked us.) he was 15 - 20 years older than Elvis when he died. A succesful musician and family man who was mild about Elvis' unfriendly behavior trying to find explanations and excuses. Lennon died even younger than Elvis. And if he wanted to become like Elvis before the meeting - Elvis (and his development) was only a role model what should not become of him afterwards. Maybe Jerry Schilling did not want to talk bad about dead persons and Lennon hoped that the Beatles and Elvis could start again with a better beginning next time. In Klaus Voormanns ("Revoler"-album-cover, bassplayer on many Harrison, Ringo and Lennon albums and friend of the Beatles since 1961) autobiograpy "Warum spielst Du nicht Imagine auf dem weissen Klavier, John?" it is written that Harrison said that the Beatles were stoned and that Lennon made an attempt to break the ice with a joke Elvis disliked. After Elvis seemed to be too shy to start the conversation and the rest of the Beatles were too nervous to decide what to do Lennon impersonated Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau and asked Elvis who was surrounded by the Memphis Mafia in a faked french accent "You must be Elvis?". Elvis played "Mohair Sam" by Charlie Rich (again and again almost the entire meeting so that the Beatles who were great fans of that song got nerved) and Elvis played basslines instead of starting a conversation. So Lennon and McCartney grabbed some guitars trying to jam with Elvis. They stopped when the stoned Harrison asked Elvis what kind of device were laying on the table. It was a remote control device for the tv. elvis made channel-hopping and playing loud bassguitar almost the rest of the meeting. McCartney was the only Beatle who got in any real conversation with Elvis talking about bassguitars, -styles and -players. There wasn't any meaningful talk with Ringo Starr who played pool with some of Elvis' people when the jam began. Voormann stated that Elvis disliked Lennon the most and did not care for the other Beatles.

Okay they met and there was no chemistry between them. Did it have any impact on Elvis? He did not like the Beatles before and not after they met. It is another anecdote from Elvis' view. But I think it would be worth reading in a article about the Beatles or John Lennon. He meant much more to them than the other way around (positive or negative). I only gave details about the meeting I've read in a german book which proably was not published in english language. It shows a very negative behavior of Elvis and I wished he would have act different but the sources are that way and having the Beatles Anthology on dvd I could see and hear Ringo Starr telling the story (only McCartney was very, very kind, maybe even a little bit white washing).

I copied and pasted it from the Elvis discussion site. It is a little bit different from your story. 87.162.13.126 (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Is there something wrong with my source?! Any reaction? At least Klaus Voorman knew and still knows the Beatles personally and very well and can give first hand information. I think he is a much better and reliable source than the sources you use now. Or are only sources written in english reliable to you? 87.162.37.152 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Although I accept that this probably happened, we don't regard discussion forums as reliable sources here, the reason being that anyone can contribute and there is normally no way to verify what is said. However, this is such an important issue that I would be surprised if it hadn't been mentioned in a more reliable way, such as one of the many biographies of the Beatles. Time permitting, I'll take a Google around and see what I can find. --Rodhull andemu 16:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's already a well-sourced paragraph on the meeting, although the forum comments have some different details. Ward3001 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The book's name is "Warum spielst Du Imagine nicht auf dem weißen Klavier, John", the author is Klaus Voormann, it was published by the Wilhelm Heyne Verlag of Ulstein List GmbH & Co. KG, Munich ISBN 3-453-87313-0 (www.heyne.de) in the year 2003. The chapter "Elvis meets the Beatles" is No. 17 (page 243 - 249). The reason for Voormann's research about the meeting was that a publication hired him to paint photo realistic images about this happening. The idea came from the photographer Fryderyk Grabowicz. The the two illustrations show : a reflecting billard-ball. On this ball you see a stoic Ringo trying to shot the ball while Elvis are trying to show and tell him how to play, the rest of the Beatles are standing in the background, in the foreground you see the billiard cue. On the second image there is a wurlitzer in the foreground while the Beatles admiring the records in it, Elvis looks reserved thinking what kind of people these strange guys might be. I did not make it up. Voormann interviewed Harrison, McCartney and Starkey about this subject and got almost three different stories. Proably they agreed all on the Peter Sellers imitation because it is not written who was telling this. Would like to know who could be a better source than the Beatles themselves after Elvis Presley died in 1977. Maybe it would be a good idea for many people to learn other foreign languages and I am not talking about the typical ones like chinese, spanish, french or russian but italian and german instead. Greetings 87.162.6.2 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

However, this is such an important issue that I would be surprised if it hadn't been mentioned in a more reliable way, such as one of the many biographies of the Beatles. Time permitting, I'll take a Google around and see what I can find. Do you ever heard about the term "language barrier"? Proably not since you are a natural-born english-speaking person. It is natural to you that everybody speeks in your language and that every information is avaible in that language. But it is not that easy. For example in general some infos are very easy to get in german but where never mentioned in any form in Italy and the other way around (that is my own experience). I think it is not a good idea to ignore information only because your are not ably to speak the language. At least I am able to understand both languages. It is not intended from you but I am sorry to tell you this a rather rude and arrogant common practice to focus only on american and english sources and rate it superior. Greetings, Franco 87.162.63.154 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why my infos get ignored but I'll give it one last try. I gave you the proof that the book exists. You can see that there is a chapter about the meeting between the Beatles and Elvis. I read the book and told you the quintessence. Klaus Voormann knew the Beatles since 1961 and they still know him and he is still in contact with them. He is nobody who makes up stories to earn some money or to get attention. If he would be such a person the Beatles (since they are no idiots) would have realized that in the last 47 years and would have ended the relationship. As I've already mentioned McCartney's statement were done 25 years after Elvis' death. Voormann asked them about the meeting because of the had to do a photo realsitic picture from the meeting. He was interested how they felt then and was not interested in a refection of the meeting some 40 years later. Since the wikipedia-article concentrates on the chronical happenings you should give the reader at least the right perspective and tell him or her that McCartney said this long after Elvis dead. Considering this it would be another good point of view how Lennon acted in the 60's when the Beatles actually met Elvis. Greetings Franco Deutschland 87.162.49.227 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The meeting was one of thousands The Beatles had with many people, (which also goes for Elvis) so does it warrant any special mention here? Any more about their one meeting in this article would give it too much importance, IMO. I must say that Elvis' connections with government agencies and his warning of the negative influence of The Beatles on american youth may even deserve an article by itself, with references, of course....--andreasegde (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Franco, Deutschland, could use his expertise (having Voormann's book) by adding to the Klaus Voormann article. It's close to a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think for the Beatles (especially for the two frontmen Lennon & McCartney) the meeting was not one of thousands. I agree with you it did not mean much to Elvis. Because of that I was the opinion it would fit better in the Beatles article than in the article about Elvis (it is in that article, too and I think it would not be necessary over there because it makes the Elvis article only overblown). As a reader in a article about The Beatles I would be more interested in what the Beatles thought about the meeting or how they acted instead reading about an unknown person like Martin Lacker (or even Elvis' cook, gardner or Chauffeur). I would suggest to take the Lacker comment out in favor for the Lennon behavior. It shows the different character of Lennon/McCartney. Why mention some Martin Lacker in a Beatles article? 87.162.49.34 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

This is an interesting and friendly discussion, and I thank you, Franco. :)

Anyway, Lacker is mentioned because he was there, and is quoted (with a reference as well, from a book). I think the meeting did mean a lot to both parties, but they tried to be very 'cool' about it. McCartney has talked about it, but not much. The biggest thing about it was Lennon asking Elvis why he (Elvis) didn't record songs like the ones in his Sun Records period, which Elvis sort of ignored by saying he was into films at that time. I still think "Elvis and The Beatles" could be an article. Chart competition, quotes about each other, Elvis' decline, his comments to goverment agencies and The Beatles rise... BTW, I think the meeting in this article is a bit too long.--andreasegde (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)