Talk:The Beatles/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Pop before Rock?

The Beatles in opinion were much more a Rock band than they were a Pop band, so therefore I have placed Rock before Pop in the genres section of the article's infobox. Sir Richardson (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In whose opinion? In any event, there is no implied order of importance in an infobox, which is meant to be a quick overview of the topic of the article. It scarcely matters a toss, but I wouldn't be surprised if your edit was reverted on the basis that multiple previous editors have reached some agreement on this, but welcome to the lions' den. Hope you survive it. --Rodhullandemu 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say "my opinion", but I missed out the "my", oddly enough. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well even so, the infobox is intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive; some might argue that they were mostly pop, even up unto and including Abbey Road and Let It Be, but that's a matter of interpretation which, to be honest, isn't worth arguing. Most of us have better things to do, I believe. --Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most of us have better things to do, I believe." LOL, hear hear, and so say all of us. :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Section headings are not meaningful

The headings of a couple of the sections seem illogical, and indeed the contents are not good.

I refer first to "1963–64: American success". The Beatles had no 'success' in America in 1963 to speak of. In fact, this was the year Beatlemania arose in the UK, and the word itself was coined by the British media. They had their first no. 1 singles, held the no. 1 album for 8 or 9 months, played the Royal Variety, released "She Loves You", the best-selling UK single ever (at the time)... what has this to do with America?

And then, the next section, "1964–66: Beatlemania crosses the Atlantic". Hardly. It crossed the Atlantic in 1964, but to characterise the whole period this way is absurd. Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver... that's what The Beatles were doing, not crossing the Atlantic. Those albums weren't even issued there, Capitol assembling their own collections which cannibalised the group's UK LPs and singles. 86.151.17.162 (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "1963–64: American success": They hit it big in America in 1964. I don't see the problem.
Regarding "1964–66: Beatlemania crosses the Atlantic": Headings are very concise. Yes, The Beatles did albums during that period. But we can't list the albums in the headings. I don't see a problem with this one either. Ward3001 (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed the subheading as American success did not come until after the JFK assassination so I made 1963-64 "Invading America". I've limited "Beatlemania crosses the Atlantic" to 1964 and made 1965-66 "World fame and musical maturity." How's that? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your changes, but just to clarify things, JFK was assassinated on November 22, 1963. People in the U.S. knew about The Beatles in 1963, although much less so than a few months later. The Beatles did not arrive in ("invade") America until 1964. The Beatles had American success in 1964, so the heading "1963–64: American success" is neither more nor less accurate than "1963-64: Invading America" in terms of timeframe. But I'm happy with either heading, so I'm not challenging your edits. Ward3001 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just take out the dates? 'Record contract' and others would easily stand alone.--andreasegde (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold, as one often reads, and have taken out the dates and have also simplified some headers. Dates as titles belong in a timetable, IMHO. (Ouch!)--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes look fine to me. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreational drug use

The Recreational drug use section is under "Legacy," but is not about legacy, but about their own use. Anyone have a good source of their "influence" in this arena? (John User:Jwy talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

McCartney signing a petition to legalise marijuana that was published in a national newspaper, admitting that he took LSD, and Lennon saying The Beatles had given up taking drugs after meeting the Maharishi, even though they hadn't admitted they had taken many before then. I think, given that every word they said was rabidly taken down and published, it would have had a not inconsiderable influence on people at the time, and even now, as it is still talked about. McCartney has admitted that every song with word "high" in it was about drugs. Lucy in the sky, anyone? :)--andreasegde (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying they had no influence in this area, just that we are not describing it here. We only say what they did, not the reaction of the culture. In a legacy section, I would expect the emphasis to be on the influence. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh.. now I understand. Apologies. You should go ahead and do it (watch out for the POV stuff, though.) :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the documentation - as I ask, "Anyone have a good source of their 'influence' in this arena? " (John User:Jwy talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary

First para:

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

is this accurate? Apart from the fact that it is not correct to say Harrison played "Lead" and Lennon "Rhythm" guitar, shouldn't it say in addition: John Lennon played piano plus other instruments, Mccartney played guitar and piano plus other instruments. Also, this summary says nothing of their song writing - which was an equal contribution to the Beatles.

This would be more accurate:

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

86.149.191.223 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)MarkTerrell

The lead is just a summary, there to give the basics. Why not mention that Harrison played sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)? And Ringo wrote songs as well. faithless (speak) 00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Lennon and McCartney's songwriting / keyboard contribution to Harrison's sitar playing is not a valid argument - it purposefully attempts to make the songwriting and keyboard work look minor, when in fact it is major.
We need to get a perspective:
McCartney wrote or co-wrote more than half the songs which is worthy of being in the summary, Lennon also. (Starr wrote less than 2% - not worthy of summary). McCartney and Lennon played keyboards on many songs, Harrison played Sitar on a few.
Lennon and Mccartney are recognised as being two of the greatest songwriters of the 20th century, yet the summary does not acknowledge them as songwriters at all!
How about:
It's not perfectly worded, butit can be refined before we do anything with it. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Better to stick with the lead being a summary, as "faithless" suggested. The controversies about who wrote what will never end -- partly because The Beatles themselves don't remember accurately. As for who played what -- it will serve to describe that briefly. The details are too complicated for an opening section: It might be said that Paul could and did play any of the standard instruments very well, and John played the standards, except drums. George was mostly a guitar man. Ringo wasn't accomplished at any instrument, except drums. But even that gloss is both too simplistic and too complicated for the intro. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The suggested changes seem a bit long to me. The status quo is not incorrect, it just isn't the fullness of correctness. That is not needed for the lead. Simplicity is better for the lead. No need to encourage excess detail up-front. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

J&P Duo

John Lennon credits the "J&P Duo" on the Imagine album on the record sleeve in reference to Oh Yoko!. The song was noted to have been written in 1968. Is it possible that this is a reference to the John Lennon and Paul McCartney songwriting duo?

The credit is "J&P Duo Group: Backing vocals". Can't imagine Lennon wanting McCartney in on the songwriting of a song about Yoko, but who are the "J&P Duo Group" singing vocals?--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It means John and Phil (Spector) who did the backing vocals together. There's footage somewhere of them in the studio, rehearsing the track. Nothing to do with Paul. 86.151.16.171 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

I don't think this page quite covers the outstandingness of The Beatles career. They were THE most successful, etc band ever not one of the most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclay1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Current members" vs. "Former members"

I have a nitpicky problem with the way the "Current members" and "Former members" fields in the infobox are being used. Template:Infobox Musical artist#Past_members states that "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the 'Current_members' field." While this is obviously not policy, it is common sense and common practice and reflects the intended use of the fields in the infobox. Put simply, there are no "current members" of the Beatles, as the band has been broken up for nearly 40 years. All of the members are "former members". There are very few musical artist acts I have come across that don't follow this convention (see for example Pink Floyd, Audioslave, and Joy Division – all FAs about inactive bands), and I don't see a particular reason why this article shouldn't. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus here that we should list John, Paul, George, and Ringo as "Current members". The only discussions I can find on it are this one from two years ago, this very brief one from last year that no longer applies because the fields it references don't exist anymore, and this one from May that wasn't much discussed and doesn't seem very logical. In any case, consensus can change, and it just doesn't seem to make sense. True, the upper field no longer displays as "current members" as it used to, but the lower field still says "former members", which implies that the persons listed in the "members" field are the current members, which of course is not the case here. Insisting that this article follow a different format just doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Obviously the John/Paul/George/Ringo lineup was the most notable, but separating them in this way, even though the band is long broken up, seems both incorrect and disengenuous. It suggests that the group is still active in some way, when obviously they aren't. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very old issue that has been discussed extensively in the past, with the consensus to leave it as it is now: Current member are John, Paul, George, and Ringo. See these archived discussions:
Also see Template talk:Infobox Musical artist/Archive 3#Defunct musical groups
To change it, we need a change in consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would go for former members. It makes sense.--andreasegde (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But if we use former members for J, P, G, and R, then there would be six former members (including Sutcliffe and Best). I think there needs to be a distinction between the ones who achieved legendary status and those who didn't. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be chronological: Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr, Best, and Sutcliffe. I think people know who "John Paul George and Ringo" are, but Sutcliffe and Best could be under "Early members", and not "Former members"? BTW, Lennon and Harrison could never be thought of as current members, because they are deceased. --andreasegde (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about:
all in the 'former members' field? The horizontal rule separates them, and people can easily work out why by looking through the article. If it's not immediately obvious to someone, it will act as a 'hook', causing them to read more of the article, and maybe edit it. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support IllaZilla's proposal. He explaimed it perfectly clear what's wrong with current listing. It makes not sense to list anyone at current members for defunсt bands. Ward3001 provided links to past discusions, but those discussions are way outdated. Again, consensus may change. Netrat (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we even need Sutcliffe and Best in that box? They didn't record any Beatles songs, and didn't really shape the band (besides providing the name and, according to some accounts, the hairstyle) - one of them died during the Hamburg days, and the other was fired before the band did anything. The certainly deserve mention in the main article, but we don't list Andy White, Billy Preston et al. in the infobox, so why should this be any different? 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because they were once official members of the band. Unlike White and Preston who played with them but never officially entered the band (White was only a temporary fill in). Also, look at the infobox. It calls John, Paul, George and Ringo "Members" not CURRENT members, I think that is acceptable since we all can agree that when you think of the Beatles, THEY are the members. Right?

Harrison's death

I wonder if this belongs under "Recent projects and developments," if an editor more familiar with the page wanted to consider if there was a more appropriate section? I don't want to spoil the party... RomaC (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the Beatles

From this page: http://beatles.com/core/beatles/intro/

And I quote from none less than Derek Taylor:

I have never seen anything like it. Nor heard any noise to approximate the ceaseless, frantic, hysterical scream which met the Beatles when they took the stage after what seemed a hundred years of earlier acts. All very good, all marking time, because no one had come for anything other than the Beatles...

Now geez, wankers, if the very Derek Taylor doesn't use 'The' then how long is this Wikipedia joke going to go on?

Or do you clowns really think you have a right to rewrite history?

Don't you see people are laughing at you?

No. But then "people" don't have a Manual of Style in general or one directed towards articles like this. It would help if you did a little reading up before throwing abuse around. --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Would anyone be okay with me adding Badfinger into the list of associated acts? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that associated acts should be very limited. There's a tendency by some editors to try to include every artist or group that is even remotely related to a band. Infoboxes should be very brief. One or more Beatles were members of each group currently listed. Why should Badfinger be considered an associated act? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think other artists recorded on Apple, performed a bit on some songs by one or more Beatles, and recorded songs written by a Beatle. Ward3001 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree - limit the list to bands which featured at least 1 Beatle. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Name one that recorded on Apple, was produced by the Beatles, recorded songs written by a Beatle and played on three of the Beatles solo albums. There are none. Badfinger was intrinsically connected to the Beatles, they were by far the most associated group not to feature a single member of the band and I think the most obvious and glaring exception to the 1 Beatle rule. - 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's accurate to say that Badfinger might not have been successful without The Beatles, but that's a far cry from being "intrinsically connected to the Beatles". I'm not even convinced Badfinger deserves a mention in the article, and certainly not in the infobox. Badfinger has a brief section in The Beatles' influence on popular culture. I think that's enough. But let's see if a consensus emerges. By the way, Billy Preston and Yoko Ono (solo) recorded on Apple, recorded songs written by a Beatle, and even performed on albums by The Beatles, but they certainly don't belong in the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ward3001, Badfinger might not have been successful without the Beatles, but they were not so overwhelmingly important in the Beatles career to warrant mentioning them any more than they already are in other articles.MissPijon (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Since the semi-protection on this page expired on 7 January, 96 edits have yielded this much change. Clearly, the vast majority of edits have been vandalism and reverts. The last period of protection lasted a month, I think it would be worth re-protecting the article (semi) for longer this time. Any opinions? Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Aitias has taken care of it, semi-protecting the article for three months. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure since the Beatles are so popular, this page will be under attack forever.MissPijon (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personnally, one day I would like to see "Yellow Submarine" removed from the list of "Studio Albums" since it is only a sountrack to a movie containing mostly previously released matterial and several insturmentals not even written by The Beatles. Plus, The Beatles themselves DID NOT consider it one of they're albums, they had almost nothing to do with it much like the film.--NewChampion (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Music Samples

I personally like the way they are constructed on the Lennon, McCartney and Harrison articles. They each have two songs which are arguably their best known and they are all relavant to the article. Lennon includes "In My Life" and "A Day in the Life", McCartney includes "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude", and Harrison has "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Here Comes the Sun". Now if only we had "Dont pass me by" and "Octopus's Garden", ohh well. My question is what music samples should be in this article? I personally think there should be only two just like the Lennon, McCartney and Harrison articles. Chasesboys (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to construct a representative sample without banging into fair-use problems. Even picking from early ("Please Please Me"?), middle ("A Day in the Life"?) and late ("Get Back"?) is almost certain to lead to intense disagreement. As for Ringo, no problem with "Octopus's Garden", since it's (I think) the only song on which he gets sole songwriting credit, but I'd prefer "Act Naturally" as an early example of his vocals, and ties in with Help! (film). --Rodhullandemu 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of Three samples in this article. Like you said early, middle/prime, and end of the Beatles career. Like it is currently constructed, I just want to know why the consensus is "I want to hold your hand", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Get Back". Chasesboys (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"IWTHYH" is an example of their early rock 'n' roll, and was an instrumental part of the American Invasion, "SFF" is a prime example of their changing musical styles, and "GB" perfectly shows the philosophy of their final project as well as being one of the songs they played at their rooftop concert. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the beatles were a rock and roll fame to fortune band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.42.81 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

reunion or not?

Was the anthology project during 1994-1995 a renunion? Because one poster thinks otherwise, his argument was how can it be a renunion without John? Well how could The Beatles be active without John? either way Led Zeppelin has had reunions without Bonzo and so have other bands with deceased members, in my opinion the Beatles were not "active" during the anthology project and it is misleading to say that they were when they were'nt. Even the article itself states it as "reunion and anthology", so how can you argue against that? Saying they were active means that they got back together and decided to become a band again, and in this case they did not. Chasesboys (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, a reunion only makes sense if it happens to create and perform new material with the original members; I don't see the 1994-5 releases as creating any new material, merely remixing and possibly some re-recording. That, to my mind, is not a reunion. The Led Zep analogy to my mind is also faulty, because although the remaining members have performed live together, they haven't released any new material under the Led Zep imprint. That, I think, is the deciding factor. Occasional live performances by the remains of a band do not necessarily constitute a "reunion", as such. Even Queen no longer perform as Queen, nor issue albums as Queen; at best, and only in live performance, they are "Queen with Paul Rodgers". As regards the point at hand, I don't regard the 1990s project as a reunion. If Paul McCartney, George Harrison or Ringo Starr have described it as such, fine; but my recollection is that they haven't. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A reunion is not described as creating new material, it is described as Led Zeppelin is doing now, which is "not" creating new material, The Beatles did not announce that they were The Beatles again and that they were going to be creating new albums and songs, that is what my idea is about being "active", the anthology project was in fact a reunion for Paul, George, Ringo and George Martin. If they were active during the project then how come they didnt announce that they broke up for a second time? Wouldnt they have to, because otherwise they would still be active up until today. Which is not the case, you can stick to your horses, but the project was a reunion for the three surviving Beatles, not because they decided to become The Beatles again like you are trying to argue for. Chasesboys (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Leaving your own opinion aside, any reliable source describing these recordings as a "reunion" would be good enough for encyclopedic purposes. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please get off your horse and READ, every single person has described it as the reunion, look at this article look at other articles, look at this article The Beatles reunions, look at this http://www.therockradio.com/2006/12/paul-mccartney-regrets-not-finishing.html, look at this, The Beatles did not announce that they were getting back together and were going to be "The Beatles" again, so please look for what being active actually means, The Beatles broke up in 1970, I cannot believe you are trying to disagree, if you are saying it was not a reunion then we should change everything and say they officially broke up in 1995, right? Please do not warn me about opinions, you should worry more about your own, Rod. Chasesboys (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bollocks. A reunion is, by definition, a re-creation of a union, and if one of the pieces of that union is unavailable, it can't happen; however hard it is, my last post was in good faith; again, if you can find reliable sources to cite it as a reunion, fine. My opinion is irrelevant, as is yours, because neither of us is a reliable source on that issue. Now, YOU find such a source citing it as a reunion, or drop it. Also, realise the distinction between "every single person has described it as the reunion" (which there is no way you can substantiate) and any other proposition. All I am asking for is reliable evidence that the 1994-5 sessions have been reliably described as a "reunion". Is that such a fucking tough proposition to handle? --Rodhullandemu 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/15323464/review/5989975/the_beatles_anthology. There rolling stone magazine, is that fucking realiable for you? I just gave you like 5 examples, You have not given one, accept defeat and please, admit you are wrong. Chasesboys (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one Chasesboys (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, and requiring me to prove a negative is disingenuous of you, per this. Also, Wikipedia is not a battleground; stop treating it as one. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's cool off, fellas. Chase, why do insist on adding little things, like "cultural icon", "de facto leader", and "reunion"? And you feel so strongly about these things. I don't get it. Anyway, when these sources say "reunion", they mean that we are seeing the living Beatles together again, like a family reunion. The Anthology was just a greatest hits retrospective with some bonus material. They didn't record new songs and they didn't tour, they didn't do anything but make one of the best "best of" albums ever. So, if consensus matters, I say no reunion. And let's keep cool heads. Belasted (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose "reunion". In addition to the reasons noted above, generally the remaining members of a band must agree that it's a "reunion". George Harrison, when asked whether there would ever be a Beatles reunion, replied, "Not as long as John Lennon remains dead".[1] Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First off belasted, the reason is because they are true statements, obviously Lennon is a cultural icon, he was in fact the leader, and the anthology was a reunion for the surviving beatles, you can disagree if you want. Second, Ward that statement is irrelevant to the fullest because it was given five years before the anthology project, of course Harrison would say that because he didnt want to go on tour with just McCartney and Ringo, when it came to the Anthology Project, if he kept his word, he would have declined to contribute to Lennon's songs, but he didnt, so your source is "outdated", to say the least. I really am ashamed that you Belasted and Ward would choose favorites here and look against the facts, I gave 5 sources and he gave none, yet you side with his "opinion", besides belasted, you have no idea what those sources mean when they say reunion, so please dont put words in other people's mouths, this is an outrage for Wikipedia. Look at the facts again please, and vote again. Chasesboys (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh and belasted if my memory serves me correct, McCartney and Harrison did record a new song entitled "All for Love", so if your definition of a "reunion" is correct, then this would qualify, or do you have some loophole to jump through to prove me wrong? Chasesboys (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My statement is not irrelevant. It expressed the sentiments of one-third of the remaining Beatles, regardless of when it was done. John Lennon did not come back to life, so we have no reason to assume that George Harrison changed his mind. And Chase, no one is "choosing favorites". We are having a discussion about an issue. We have opinions. Don't cross that line of personalizing this issue as you have done frequently in the past when you didn't get everything you demanded. Talk about issues, not contributors. I was hoping you had moved past that, but if you keep it up I'm going straight to WP:ANI. You've already had a civility complaint made against you, so please be careful. Ward3001 (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Harrison's comments were about touring, not a reunion with the surviving beatles, The Anthology Project was a reunion Ward, if your saying it was not a reunion then you are saying the Beatles officially ended on 1995, not 1970, If you agree with that then go ahead and be wrong, this was a reunion, The Beatles were not an active group during the anthology project like you Belasted and Rod are arguing for, it was a reunion to create three songs for the project, not a decision to be a group again and call themselves the Beatles, how can you even argue that they were "The Beatles" during the project is beyond me. Chasesboys (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And if this is indeed the consensus, then I will go ahead and change the intro into saying the band officially ended in 1995 because that was when they were last active, right? Or am I wrong here as well? Oh and they never officially broke up after the project so I guess I will change it to say 1994-present, because they never broke up after the project, I mean after all it was not a reunion, right? Jesus Christ, what a bunch of crap. Chasesboys (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Loophole: The song was never released. And I would say a new album would be more appropriate, not just a song. Outrage is a ridiculous sentiment for such a minor issue. No one is taking sides. And I'm not putting words in people's mouths, I'm interpreting their words, which is what you have to do when reading what people write. My interpretation my differ from yours, but that doesn't mean I have no idea what the sources mean. The Beatles are a franchise beyond the band. While the band was active only up to 1970, the franchise keeps going. Your outrage is outrageous and I recommend that you calm down or you won't be getting anyone on your side here. Turn off your mind, relax, float downstream, and all that good stuff. Belasted (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your idea of a reunion is outrageous, are you saying that everyone in those articles, and Led Zeppelin, and everyone who says calls the Led Zeppelin reunion a "reunion" wrong? Jesus Christ, how could everyone be wrong here? Tell me. Even the wikipedia articles including this one and the one I posted above state it as a reunion. Chasesboys (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So a reunion is not a reunion unless, the band creates an entire album with new material? Am I correct? That is what I call, BEING ACTIVE, You have the words flipped Belasted, please think hard about what being active means. Tell me that the Beatles officially broke up in 1995, yeah right. Chasesboys (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Chase, please tell us how you know "Harrison's comments were about touring" and not the entire concept a Beatles reunion. Give us a source. And please calm down. Ward3001 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward, please stick to the subject, move the fuck on with this Harrison Comment, I dont know how you can even give that quote out when the Beatles reunited five years after the quote. Chasesboys (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question: How do you know Harrison was referring only to touring? This is my last comment on this issue. And this is my last warning about your incivility. Ward3001 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the other bands' reunions. All I know is that the Beatles Anthology wasn't a reunion. And they broke up in 1970, while The Beatles as a franchise, continued and still continues with merchandise and things like Love (Cirque du Soleil). And I don't know why you're lashing out at me. I would leave your inclusion of the reunion, because it's not a huge deal to me. I haven't reverted your edits. I'm only saying what I think somehow this issue outrages you. Belasted (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If they broke up in 1970, then this would have to constitute as a reunion belasted, Its either one of two things, they got together to become a band again, or they had a reunion, which one is it? Your arguing that they decided to become the Beatles, when they didnt. Chasesboys (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
So what is it? Did they officially get back together or did they "reunite" for the Anthology Project? Please inform me, Ward and Belasted. Chasesboys (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My 2p-worth. "Reunion" means different things when applied to different groups of people: I don't think a "class reunion" is the same as a "band reunion". A band reunion implies its members getting back together to make music (cos that's what a band does). In my book, the surviving Beatles getting together for a pint isn't a reunion; appearing together on a chat-show isn't either; collaborating on making a documentary about themselves isn't; recording together in a studio arguably IS. But if one of them is only present on tape (because he's dead), it arguably isn't. Whether the getting together to record constitutes a reunion is probably only settled by how they saw it themselves. That would need a citable source, then. Bluewave (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So how can you say this and yet agree with these editors who are saying The Beatles were "active" during the Anthology Project, if they were in fact "active", then that would mean they intended to get back together again and become a band, so everything is wrong with that argument because if they were active then the final lineup would have consisted of McCartney, Harrison, and Starr, and Lennon would have to be in the former members section, The Anthology was more of a Reunion then it was them being active and getting back together again, but since this is the consensus, I guess I will make these changes, unless someone can tell me if they were not indeed active. Chasesboys (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to agree or disagree with anyone in particular: just expressing an opinion. Personally, I don't think I'd say that "The Beatles" were "active" during the Anthology Project. Individual members of the band were active, but I don't see how "The Beatles" could be active without John. This is just the way that I interpret the words. But then "consensus" is arrived at by looking at how lots of people see things. I'm just one opinion. Bluewave (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Beatles were active during the anthology

Then I will put Lennon's name in the former member section because it is a guideline to be correct, right? Lennon was not there for the project, so he is now supposed to be in the former members section, this is why I say move that date to reunion so we wont have to do this, but this is a necessary change if they were indeed active during the project, like everyone here seems to be agreeing with. Chasesboys (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

After studying a number of different band-related articles, I now think we should put all of the members into former members. Since The Beatles are in fact not active at the moment. Chasesboys (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Active during anthology again.

Someone show me a source that says they were an active band and wanted to become The Beatles without Lennon during the anthology, otherwise I will remove that part all together, I wont even say it was a reunion, I will just simply remove it since it does not qualify as being "active" or "reunion". Chasesboys (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Like Ward gave the quote from Harrison, The Beatles would not get back together again without Lennon, so if this is in fact true, then they were technically not "active" during the anthology project, right ward? please give opinions on this matter. Chasesboys (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we please remove the Anthology project from the infobox as being active

This would erase the controversy that has occured completely. Not to mention that The Beatles could not have possibly been active as a group without John Lennon, as said by George Harrison, The article is implying that The Beatles were an active band that got back together which is what active means, please disregard the feelings you have for me and just think about this. I dont believe that the project should be listed as a reunion anymore either, but it shoud DEFINITLEY not be posted as being active. Chasesboys (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Update about Beatles Video Game

This needs to be updated with the news of its release date being 9/9/09....Number 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigT232 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already there. Are you proposing we make a reference to the Number 9? That would be a bit trivial at this point. Belasted (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You All Were Too Nice to Cheeseboy

That Chaseboys guy was so far out of line above, he should have been blocked and you all should have resumed your quiet lives editing the Beatles page without him. This is the kind of crap that made me walk away from this whole thing over a year ago. And it's still going on. You reap what you sow. McTavidge (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well he was making his points forcefully, although perhaps too forcefully for other editors not to lose patience. It seems to have died down for now, and I see no merit on raking over the ashes. --Rodhullandemu 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

More on Elvis

Okay, the articles has seen some improvements in this regard but I still find the overall tone unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia and some of the references dubious. People take too easily statements as facts if they are uttered by some celebrity or are published in a book. A book is after all not a peer reviewed (scientific) journal. Unfortunately some ideas are reinforced by footage such as this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWSfqQcJ9tE "he was very big with CIA" says Ringo! Right... he was also very big with FBI, president Nixon, and who else? FACT: Recently released FBI files on EP reveal that he got just a little more than a tour of the FBI headquarter building, only because of his undeniable popularity, being in fact denied a meeting with J Edgar Hoover. I wouldn't call that being very big with the FBI at all. Then of course there's the meeting with president Nixon, when Elvis allegedly expressed his wish to have the Beatles banished/silenced because the felt threatened by them. FACTS: By the end of the 60's/early 70's the Beatles were history (although every one of them continued to enjoy popularity independently), while Elvis was in the midst of a very successful (yet meteoric) comeback: The NBC Comeback Special, the highly praised early Vegas shows and the documentary made about it (That's the way it is), and a string oh hits which - at least in the US charts - were able to wrestle anything Beatles (or anybody else for that matter) released at the time: Suspicious Minds, In the ghetto, Polk Salad Annie, Don't cry daddy, Kentucky Rain, etc. Elvis had a million more reasons to feel threatened during his “lost decade”, and yet he didn't do anything about it that we know of... More importantly, Elvis covered a few Beatles songs during his comeback, and both live and studio versions (audio/video) stand as proof. Yesterday, Hey Jude and Something come to mind, but there might have been others as well. One has to question Presley's musical choices in view of the “evidence” presented in the article. Why would anybody perform a song he/she dislikes, or that boosts the fame of somebody he considers worthy of contempt in front of millions of people (allegedly “Aloha from Hawaii” reached 1 billion viewers). Wikipedia, check your facts! 81.96.127.72 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the parts of the article that mention Presley are fine. You object to a section that is sourced and the text includes the name of the author making the assertion. I have read those claims elsewhere, and so I believe it is appropriate to include them. If you have a reliable source that disagrees with the statements here, you can add that to the article and cite it. Lastly, your use of "FACTS" doesn't help your position. Most of what you included doesn't relate to the article's claims, and there are no such things as "FACTS" without evidence. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with John Cardinal. Anon 81.96.127.72, you so strongly advocate peer-reviewed, scientific journals as sources and criticize the article for not having such sources, and then inexplicably you provide us nothing as sources for all of your "FACTS". Ward3001 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If officially released RCA albums and video footage don't count as FACTS that Elvis Presley performed (and therefore appreciated) those songs both BEFORE and AFTER the meeting with FBI and/or Nixon, then either you need your head checked, or you need to consult a dictionary. Consult the RCA catalogue or EP discography! Really nothing more to be added on the said topic.81.96.127.72 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The operative word in your comment is "nothing"; the sourcing for your statements amounts to nothing. Read WP:V and WP:RS. Please give us the links to "RCA albums and video footage" that support your statements "By the end of the 60's/early 70's the Beatles were history" and Elvis "got just a little more than a tour of the FBI headquarter building". Otherwise, please stop wasting our time on this pointless matter. And watch your tone with comments such as "you need your head checked". That amounts to incivility and a personal attack. Ward3001 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The "officially released RCA albums and video footage" aren't sources that counter the claims in the article. The article does not say that Presley never recorded versions of Lennon/McCartney songs; the article says, among other things, that Presley "disapproved of The Beatles's anti-war activism and open use of drugs." I don't know why Presley recorded the songs; he may have liked the songs, or thought they would help increase sales of his albums, or whatever. In any case, it's quite possible to both record the songs and disagree with the political opinions of the songwriters. — 22:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

a better lead

This article's lead could do a far better job of acquainting the uninitiated with the significance of the subject. There have been lots of "rock and pop bands from Liverpool," lots of acts "rooted in Rock & Roll and skiffle," lots to set trends and so forth. But none of this explains to someone who knows little or nothing about the Beatles (and as someone who lived in Asia for many years, I can tell you there are many in this category) what distinguishes them from any other musical act. Whatever the significance, it should be stated in the very first sentence, so that if that's all a person reads he/she will have some idea of the subject's importance. We can quibble over nuance, but a better, more comprehensive lead would be something like:

xxxxxx The Beatles were a British rock & roll band that revolutionized popular music and played a significant role in the stark cultural changes that marked the 1960s, particularly in the Western world. Aside from influencing everything from fashion to political sensibilities, the Beatles were one of the most commercially successful musical acts of all time, selling records in large numbers for decades after their 1970 dissolution.

The group comprised an evolving roster of members from 1957 until 1962, when it arrived at the four-man line-up that achieved world-wide fame in 1964: John Lennon ...

The group has its origins in 1957, when .... xxxxxxx

It's worth remembering that people will be reading this all over the world, and that many younger people outside the West have only the foggiest notion about the Beatles' significance, even if the music they listen to is a product of conventions the Beatles established. (Having lived in China for many years, I'm speaking from experience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgay88 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the lengthy time it's taken to achieve consensus for the current lead, and whereas I wish you well, I largely think it's OK as it is. One problem with your proposal is that it fails several of the guidelines in WP:LEAD as well as introducing unencyclopedic wording. So sorry, no. --Rodhullandemu 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the current lead that fails the guidelines, particularly the one about getting significance in the first sentence. And what word guidelines does the proposal violate? There are no peacock words here. Cgay88 (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you have to remember that the lead is intended to introduce the topic as neutrally as possible. What I am not happy with in your proposal is "revolutionized", "stark cultural changes", "political sensibilities", all of which would need justification by sourcing, in the main article. I'm not sure your version would be an improvement, but I'm happy to wait and see what other editors think. --Rodhullandemu 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The only word here that that might be loaded is "stark," which could be construed as disapproval. I'm sure we could agree on a more neutral word. I don't think "revolutionized" is biased -- even people who hate the Beatles agree they up-ended convention, for better or worse. Likewise with "political sensibilities," which takes no position on whether this influence was good or bad. This is as neutral a phrase as, say, "views on art." We'll see what others think, of course. Cgay88 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AGREE with Cgay88, I agree with the changes he proposes. Chasesboys (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph does a pretty good job of laying on the praise for them. The proposed changes seem to be summed up with the sentences: "In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles number one on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.[4] According to that same magazine, The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today." I think that's pretty accurate. To say more would be to say they were virtually the ONLY ones to have any impact in the 60s, when in fact there were many musicians and other people who influenced culture and even influenced the Beatles. And no, Chases, I'm not just trying to disagree with you. This is really how I feel. Belasted (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
But you were talking about the first sentence. Well, I agree in that case. It does seem a bit pathetic the way it is. But sourcing and not being biased would be tough. Belasted (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed it, The Beatles were more Rock then pop so I took that out, I am expecting it to get reverted by either you or Ward, SHOCKER. Chasesboys (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus?

I see the lead has been changed somewhat, claiming consensus. A discussion lasting less than 24 hours, and in which less than a handful of editors have participated, can never establish a new consensus, especially in such an important article. The editors who have taken great care over writing this article over the years do not necessarily edit every day and deserve to have their views heard. Compare an article deletion discussion, which runs for five days. I am going to revert any changes. --Rodhullandemu 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the change made was not even the same as what was proposed in the non-consensus. Belasted (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the incarnation of The Silver Beatles. There is also no mention of the relationship between The Quarrymen (as existed then) and The Quarrymen who exist today and play the hits from back then. Although a formative phase, there's a fair bit of material from back then and it would be good if this were added to give the article a bit more context. Going from forming almost straight to Beatlemania, with little in between, doesn't give much of an impression of how it all happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.150.243 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is not the entire article. All of those details come later, as they should. Ward3001 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


No mention of the UK

It seems odd that in the introduction any mention of the Beatles being British is not found. This is common thoughout wikipedia articles on British bands who originate in England. It seems to be a dileberate attempt to exclude the rest of the UK rather than to be proud of the bands origins.

As mentioned above this is a worldwide website and many will not be familiar with UK and reading this article may not even realise that the Beatles are from Britain at all. Also British a far more neutral term than English as the UK is an internationaly recognised country while England is not. The change I would suggest is putting in the band information box origin: Liverpool, UK and keeping the rest of the article the same to please certain editors.82.41.43.182 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the United Kingdom is not a country. Second, England is an internationally recognized country. However, the term "British" is quite acceptable. Radiopathy •talk• 16:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not particularly interested what is mentioned in the article, but the United Kingdom IS a country, officially recognised in the UN and internationally. The UK's full name is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However, as the Beatles were from Liverpool, part of England which itself is a constituent part of the UK then frankly any of the terms "England", "Britain" or "The UK" would be perfectly acceptable. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm an American and a bit out of place in this discussion, but I believe the English vs. British issue (in many articles, not just this one) is one that has been argued at great length, with no good solution. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the lead starts with describing them as "from Liverpool, England" to avoid the controversial terms "British" or "English". I welcome comments from my friends across the Atlantic, but it seems a bit awkard to use the phrase "from Liverpool, England, United Kingdom". Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm also American, but very aware of my roots. It can be argued on one hand that Ringo is the only "truly" English Beatle, but on the other hand, all of the Beatles were born in England, and all claimed Liverpool as their hometown. It might be overkill to tack on United Kingdom or to mention it repeatedly in the article, although we might consider including the image Flag of the United Kingdom.svg after Liverpool, England in the infobox. Radiopathy •talk• 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I added it. Radiopathy •talk• 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, to our IP friend, the terms United Kingdom and UK are both used in the second paragraph of the lead. Radiopathy •talk• 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Former Members

The Beatles do not have current Members, even if they did, Lennon is dead, as is Harrison, even saying that, The Beatles are not currently active, They should all be in the former members section, like these articles,

You cannot possibly argue against this, otherwise you are just being assholes. This is clearly a sign of obstructionism if you argue against me on this subject. Chasesboys (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Freshacconci, you wanted to discuss, then discuss. Please state why you think that Lennon, even though he is dead, and Harrison, even though he is dead, and McCartney and Starr, even though they are not currently active with The Beatles, should be in the current members section. You reverted it and wanted to discuss. Please tell me why you think this. Chasesboys (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My, you get more and more likeable by the minute. I will overlook the blatant incivility because it serves nothing at the moment. You're too easily wound up, obviously, and perhaps you really can't help yourself. In the end, all your edits will be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else. If you look into the archives for this talk page, you'll see the first of more than a few discussions on this topic. You can read that over, and if you use the search function, way at the top of this page (do you see it?), you can find more opinions on this, people other than you, people who have opinions, but do not to wet themselves when they don't get their own way. I will respond further on this, when I have time, and not by your schedule. I don't usually respond to tantrums. Okay, I do. I can't help myself. But, I do it in my own time, and since I am otherwise occupied, I will leave you in the capable hands of others on this page. Take care, freshacconci talktalk 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I can give two fucks about the archives, there can be no consensus if it is a wrong statement, there are no current members, and yes I do wet myself over bull shit because some of the shit on here is in fact bull shit, you gave no reason as to what you think, SHOCKER, if you have no opinion in this matter, get the fuck out of here, otherwise state your damn case. Chasesboys (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, it must be a policy to be an obstructionist on The Beatles, since you and Ward, and Belasted get so damn wet about me saying Lennon was a cultural icon, cry baby cry, or saying that The Beatles are considered the greatest rock band of all time, cry baby cry, these are true statements, there is no reason to be negative about these things when they are in fact true, read a damn book and you will know. Dont give that bull crap about neutral policy, not stating the obvious like I just posted above is disregarding the neutral policy itself because you are taking the side of wrong and negative. Please be neutral on these touchy subjects. Chasesboys (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus for the infobox states that the "members" are John, Paul, George and Ringo. This is the lineup from the first record in 1962 to the breakup in 1970. Before they became famous, there were two earlier members who are listed as "former members", Stu and Pete. There is always the occasional rogue editor who wishes to shake things up and they get beaten back by the long established Wikipedia Beatle community. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

I'm rapidly losing patience here; this truculent edit-warring is unacceptable, and I am willing to stake my Adminship on it. Chasesboys, you seem bent on getting your own way, despite other editors, not that you give them a reasonable chance to react to your unilateral changes, and that, to me, seems like you're trying to disrupt to make a point. Over all my time here, this article has seen some differences of opinion, and largely, they've been resolved amicably. Such a major article necessarily attracts many editors, with differing points of view, and it has reached a more or less stable state. Now, while there is room for Boldness, Reversion and Discussion, it is important to get this cycle in perspective, especially when measured against the truth. But there is also another guideline, Revert, Block and Ignore, and this position is rapidly being approached. And, Chasesboys, you can take this as a final warning for WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, because the very next time you use language as above, you're out of here. If you have a problem with this, WP:WQA and WP:AN are open to you, should you continue to be allowed editing privileges here. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That section is for current members, in case you didnt know, please inform me how they are current members in the Beatles. Unless I am mistaken and they are still a group, even with the deceased Lennon and Harrison. Chasesboys (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If you read the archived messages on this very subject, the "current members" part of the template which is shown publicly simply as "members" can be used if the group had the same lineup during their successful years. That is obviously the case with The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not when they were active during the project, there is the problem with your consensus, if they were active, then he would have to be put in the former members section, you cannot disregard the simple rule of consistency, steelbeard, you know this. Chasesboys (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You are both wrong, you have so many issues it is unbelievable, first you say they are active during the project, then you say that Lennon is a member, when in fact if you follow the rules of wikipedia and stay consistent you would have to by your own consensus take Lennon out and put him into the former members section, just like stu, tell me the difference between stu and lennon, they both died, there is no double standard on information, and there are NO member in the beatles at this moment, get that through your heads, your consensus is wrong and obstructionist to the MAX. Chasesboys (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The consensus could be wrong, but nobody agrees with you. So why don't you let it be. Belasted (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ohh you are right, the consensus is wrong. Chasesboys (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Then seek to renegotiate it, but politely. Be careful because your next edit might be your last here otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with this view. I've warned two of the participants to dial it down but Chasesboys, you need to dial it down a lot. You're not just being incivil, you're being actively disruptive and it needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I passed a message to a fellow member of the Wikipedia Beatle community who also is an administrator with the power to block. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

← We have had numerous discussions on this matter, and all of them have resulted in the same consensus. If it were up to me Sutcliffe and Best would not be in the infobox at all, and the fab 4 would be in the "former members" field. If it were up to you, the reader would be misled into believing Sutcliffe and Best were active band mambers who recorded with the band (that being the big difference - and don't mention "My Bonnie", because they were just a backing band on that). My point is that consensus is against you, as we want to make some distinction between the fabs and the not-so-fabs. Your incivility doesn't help too much either, to be honest, and it's not going to make us agree. If you can think of a better way to separate them, please suggest it.
I, personally, would have no problem with putting them all in the "former members" field, with a little italic note above Stu and Pete that mentions that they didn't record witth he band (maybe "pre-recording:" or similar). Just my (long-winded and rambling) 2 pence. Dendodge TalkContribs 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This was a good reply, My edit would not confuse the reader because the intro clearly states that Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr were the primary members, if anything the consensus is confusing the reader because it makes it seem that Lennon was alive during 1995-1996, because that is when they were "active" like the consensus is stating, There are too many issues on both parts of the infobox. Chasesboys (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Then what do you think to my suggestion of a little note in the infobox? Like:
| Past_members = [[John Lennon]]<br/>[[Paul McCartney]]<br/>[[George Harrison]]<br/>[[Ringo Starr]]<br/>''Pre-recording members:''[[Stuart Sutcliffe]]<br/>[[Pete Best]]
or something? (You can probably word it better). Dendodge TalkContribs 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is not very forgiving when it comes to variations. The current version emerged after the infobox format was altered to publicly state "members" in the area the template gives as "current members". Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If it were up to me I would erase the Anthology project from the Active section and just leave the members and past members as it is. If the consensus goes against what I proposed then I could live with your idea. The way it is right now is just a disgrace to The Beatles, and the wikipedia community. Chasesboys (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

I know polling is evil, so I want rationales and discussion - not just mindless supports - but this might help to resolve this conflict.

Let It Be

Leave it as it is, with JPG&R in "current", and S&P in "former":

  1. Besides, the public infobox says "members", not "current members." Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. This way makes the most sense. I think most people would understand this better than any other way. I don't think people will be confused and think that they are still active. Belasted (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. JPG&R in "Members", and S&P in "Former". Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. This makes the most sense to me, since "current" doesn't show up on the actual article.--Ducio1234 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Leave as is. The Anthology activity is inconsequential no matter what you call it. (P.S. Can we argue about this again next year? It's one of the 3 or 4 little Groundhog Day moments we get to enjoy on this project, albeit with more attacks than in the movie.) — John Cardinal (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Leave it the way it is. If the goal is clarity, that is by far the most clear and "fixing" it when it isn't broken will create more problems than it solves. Carlo (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Leave as is. Nothing has been suggested that would make the article better. Bluewave (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Move all to former with no segregation

Simply cut & paste the code from "current" and add it to the beginning of "past":

Move with a note

As above, but with a note in the infobox stating that Sutcliffe and Best did not release any recordings as The Beatles:

  1. For factual accuracy and as a compromise, and per my above comments. Dendodge TalkContribs 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Well I could let it Be now that the Anthology issue is resolved, but this would be much more accurate to state since there are no members currently, not to mention it would follow the consistency of the sentence "The Beatles were a band....". Chasesboys (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Other

This is not a "polling is evil" section - this is for proposing other suggestions:

This is not a straight poll, but a way to structure discussion. Dendodge TalkContribs 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin never changed their Line Up and they are all listed under former members, I do not see why any one would exclude the Beatles when they publicly disbanded and Paul and George Joined other Bands. --Nothingbutgrains (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin had the same lineup throughout its history. The Beatles, as stated too many times earlier, had two members who left before they became world famous. As they were Beatles, they had to be included, but to make all of the Fab Four former members would be confusing as there are six former members in all. Listing John, Paul, George and Ringo as "members" and Stu and Pete as "former members" obviously ends the confusion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference

The first reference seems wrong to me. The pages that's linked doesn't seem to say anything about the beatles. And even if it would, wouldn't a link like http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifrxqw5ldse be more appropiate to support that they were the most influential band in popular music? 84.27.225.105 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that may be a better source, but I haven't read the whole article yet. In the meantime, I fixed the existing ref to point to the proper page. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have covered The Beatles

FYI. Ikip (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

I found a spelling error in the area of "Backlash and Controversy" where it says, "Under tremendous pressure from the American media, Lennon apologised for his remarks at a press conference..."

Not an error; it's British spelling. See WP:ENGVAR. Ward3001 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

America

Hi guys.

Reading the article, I think there is a bias issue here with the disproportionate coverage given to what was happening in America, whilst virtually ignoring the UK for several years. Don't forget the Beatles were a UK band, working and recording in England. It seem silly that the article bridges from the "Love Me Do" era to "Help!" with the following two sub-categories:

1.4 American releases 1.5 America

You will note that it mentions for example, that the US declined to issue "From Me to You" and that Swan unsuccesfully released "She Loves You", without even troubling to mention the successful UK releases - their first no. 1 and the best-selling UK single ever respectively. Then there was the album "With The Beatles", all composed by Lennon-McCartney, which was historic, then the "Hard Days Night" film, shot in England...

There's no denying the importance of the Beatles breaking into America, and the US releases and tours definitely need to be mentioned, but they are not the central pillar of what the Beatles were doing during the years 1963 to 1965. On the contrary, from the group's perspective they merely toured there once (in 1964), and were in any case less than impressed with what Capitol were doing with their recordings. They were not especially focussed on what was going on in America. I'd say the mid-1965 tour (incuding Shea Stadium) is particularly significant, but not, for example, "Another unusual release was the Hear The Beatles Tell All album, which consisted of two lengthy interviews with Los Angeles radio disc jockeys". MegdalePlace (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the article quite adequately presents a balanced coverage of the pre-America years, the "British invasion" of America, and then The Beatles as a worldwide phenomenon. I don't mean to minimize the importance of their early success in the UK, and I don't think the article does that. As they advanced from the UK to America to the rest of the world, each stage of their success made them a larger phenomenon, so there naturally will be greater coverage as they became more successful. For readers who want more details about any particular portion of their career, there is a link to History of The Beatles. All of the details in that article do not need to be duplicated in The Beatles. Ward3001 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the pre-1963 coverage is fine too, but it is hardly balanced after mid-1963, until mid-1965. Just the sub-heading "America" upsets the history. Becoming a worldwide phenomenon is significant of course - they 'conquered' Europe, and were in Paris when they heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" had gone to number 1 in America. They also went on to tour Australia and the Far East. The trouble is, during the era the article focuses almost (although not entirely) on America, and American records. "Worldwide" would be better than "America" and "American Releases" in my view, but still there needs to be an account of what the group were up to in the UK. It's almost entirely missing from the history as presented here. They custom-made their UK albums, and custom-recorded several singles - which aren't mentioned, while Capitol's marketing policy, which had nothing directly to do with JPG+R, is. MegdalePlace (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, but I continue to disagree. There are other articles linked in The Beatles with a lot more detail. Everything that Wikipedia has to say about them is not (and should not) be included in this one article. But, let's see if anyone else expresses an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments. I will just say that I do realise the amount of info which is in other articles, and it would be impractical to try and get everything crammed in here. I don't want to do that.
My point is about getting the most important points more coverage than the less important ones (example, covering the "Hear The Beatles Tell All" interviews, whcih was just a cash-in, in an article which does not mention "Can't Buy Me Love", Macca's first A-side, at all). I think it would be a positive step towards getting back to FA status. MegdalePlace (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's very important to recognize that all the important principals (The Beatles, Martin, Epstein) looked at America as the big mountain to climb. Until The Beatles made it in America, they (and most other British artists and industry players) viewed America as the source of rock'n'roll and the rest of the world as imitators. Thus the article should not be changed to something that indicates they made it in the UK and then they made it world-wide. Based on quotes in numerous books, that's not how they looked at it. Their success in America was a unique and major achievement that opened the doors for many subsequent acts and that should remain prominent in the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, John. It was very important - a unique achievemnet as you say. My point is, it's wrong to portray that as the only thing which is noteworthy betwen the end of 1962 and mid-1965. What about the establishment of Lennon/McCartney as writers? Recording their first albums? Shooting A Hard Days Night? Playing the Royal Variety Show? The birth of Beatlemania? Surely all these are far more relevant to the band than a whole section dealing with Capitol's release policy. They are fundamental parts of the group's story, but they are ignored, whilst frivolous material is included.
I have already given numerous examples of the disproportionate coverage given to relatively unimportant events in America, such as Capitol decining to issue "From Me To You" while it isn't mentioned as being released in Britain at all. How can Capitol NOT releasing it be more significant than Parlophone releasing it, and it being the group's first numebr 1?
There is a comment you make which I would disagree with: "The article should not be changed to something that indicates they made it in the UK and then they made it world-wide". In my view, that's exactly what it should be changed to, because that's precisely what happened. I know they held American success as the ulitmate goal, but an awful lot happened between Love Me Do (end of 1962) and "Help" (mid-1965) which had nothing at all to do with the USA. (John writing his first book is yet another example.) To ignore the whole period - a third of the group's lifespan - except as relevant to America is ludicrous. Sorry, but it is.
I'll give one more example to make my point, then if no-one wants to support me, I'll give up. This example is the group recording the German-language "Sie Liebt Dich" and "Komm Gib Mir Deine Hand". In my view, these recordings are not significant enough to be mentioned in a main article on the group. However, the following is included: "Swan also issued the German-language version of "She Loves You", called "Sie Liebt Dich"".
Let's consider this for a second: If the German-language recordings are significant at all, it's because 1. They were the group's only foreign-language recordings; 2. They uniquely carry co-composer credits with Lennon/McCartney from non-Beatles; 3. They were recorded in Paris, not London. None of this is mentioned in the article, and rightly so in my opinion. That the recordings exist at all is a footnote in the Beatles' story. That Swan re-issued one is a footnote within that footnote. So I would argue that the coverage as it stands doesn't represent the Beatles story - it specifically represents the Beatles' record releases in America, which is not the purpose of this article. Am I wrong? MegdalePlace (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Bluntly, I don't care to participate in a discussion about which specific items should be added or removed. Getting worked up about the details seems counter-productive until there is agreement about the gist. Making it in America was viewed by The Beatles as a major goal and a major achievement when it was reached. Among themselves, they discussed it repeatedly. To equate it with success in other countries is not correct; it doesn't match The Beatles' stated goals and it doesn't acknowledge the importance of the US to rock'n'roll music at that time. Whether German language recordings are mentioned or not, or the issues with American labels, I don't really care. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
And those specific details might be added to History of The Beatles (if they're not already there, and they're well sourced), but not here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MegdalePlace. It's a big jump from the record contract to American releases. --andreasegde (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with MegdalePlace. Undoubtedly the success in America was a unique and major achievement, particularly, as has been pointed out, coming at a time when America was seen as the source of rock'n'roll and the rest of the world as imitators. But at the moment it has disproportionate prominence in the article. I think MegdalePlace has got it absolutely right in saying, There is a comment you make which I would disagree with: "The article should not be changed to something that indicates they made it in the UK and then they made it world-wide". In my view, that's exactly what it should be changed to, because that's precisely what happened. I couldn't have put it better myself; that was exactly my own reaction. So I support the addition of more material about the period leading up to success in America to give a more balanced context for that success and, if felt necessary to limit article size, the removal of less significant material such as the German releases. PL290 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Condensing the history section

I've started the process of condensing the history section and I encourage others to summarise the band's history further. Of course, the more detailed history would be in the History of The Beatles article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is, by definition surely, virtually all history! It doesn't seem logical for it to have a "history" section. That's my point in proposing the merger with History of The Beatles above. The subject matter is the same. Would it not be better to identify another, more logical basis for splitting parts off than "history"? PL290 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the article, it has ten sections of which the history section is by far the longest and with the most subsections. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me what in The Beatles article is not history. PL290 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
2 Musical evolution, 3 Films, 4 Legacy, 5 Discography, 6 See also, 7 Notes, 8 References, 9 Further reading, 10 External links Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, everything on Wikipedia is history because the future has not yet occurred. I agree with SteelBeard that a little trimming is in order. Then the overlap between this article and the history article will be fine. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you define a "sub-article"? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you start chopping, think about creating a new page for Formation, etc. We can create as many new pages as we like, so a very detailed Formation page that is linked to this article would be good, no?--andreasegde (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article on The Beatles' formation. It's called The Quarrymen which is already mentioned on top of the Formation section of this article.Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then what about pages detailing the other headers? They toured with Ken Dodd and Roy Orbison in the UK (plus many others) as part of variety show packages in the early days. This should be included in the sub-link pages. "In 1963, Orbison headlined a British tour with The Beatles, but by the end of the tour he was playing second fiddle to the Fab Four as Beatlemania gathered pace.[1] John Lennon later claimed that he had joked to Orbison that the Beatles were tiring of opening for him so Orbison agreed to switch." This is not for the main article, but it is very interesting. (P.S., I know about The Quarrymen, having spent a bit of elbow grease on it... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Roy Orbison isn't mentioned once in either this article or the History article. Lennon and McCartney wrote a song for Orbison that they used themselves, and then speeded up. (Which one?) This is a mishtake, officer, shurely?--andreasegde (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for sounding like I'm ranting (I'm on a roll here) but there is a whole article about "The Beatles in Hamburg" that is waiting to be written, as well as "UK and American releases", and "The Beatles in America". As always, the wet fish is to be applied when one sees fit... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; several good suggestions here. The structure I suggested in the new info just added to the merger proposal is only one way. If editors can come to an acceptance of the idea of losing the History of The Beatles article, which is trying to do everything in one place, and having several specific ones instead, that will be the breakthrough I think. The Beatles article can evolve much more freely from there even if it's not 100% balanced straight away. PL290 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A split suggestion box has been added to the History of The Beatles article so I suggest the discussion on splitting that article continue there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that there's now starting to be excessive condensing. I have restored some things to how they were and I think it will be best if condensing can be put on hold as much as possible until it's clearer what the consensus is about the splitting approach. Otherwise information that ought to be kept (albeit perhaps in a suitable sub-article) will simply be lost. PL290 (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you define a "sub-article"? If it's what I'm thinking, it's precisely what the History of The Beatles article should be split into. See Talk:History of The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if that's confusing terminology. All I mean is that The Beatles article could be described as "a higher level parent" in a hierarchy of all articles about The Beatles. So where The Beatles article has summary paras and a link to "see Main article...", I'm referring to those "Main" articles as "sub-articles" of The Beatles in that hierarchy. I'll avoid the term if it's not helpful. But the moot point seems to be whether the History of The Beatles article has any continuing relevance in the hierarchy. PL290 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
History of The Beatles is the more detailed article about The Beatles' history. That's the article to be divided into what you call sub-articles which would be linked from the main The Beatles article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems we're talking about the same end result. The benefit of doing it via a merger is that before deciding which new articles to create, we can eliminate a significant amount of material that's duplicated between History of The Beatles and The Beatles, and we can view the result all in one place. This will enable a more balanced judgement about what new articles to create, rather than performing a split only from the point of view of the History of The Beatles article. PL290 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
But in doing that, the additional details in the History of The Beatles article would be lost. For example, Ivor Arbiter is the musical instrument shop owner who designed the classic "drop T" Beatle logo. This is too trivial to include in The Beatles article but fits right in the History of The Beatles article. This would be lost if PL290 has his way. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Fear not, I certainly don't suggest we lose any details and this sounds like a misunderstanding. Under either proposal (split or merger) the additional details about Ivor Arbiter in the History of The Beatles article would ultimately be split out into a new article. In the case of the merger there's an additional opportunity to consider what those new articles are in a more balanced way. PL290 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then am I led to believe that you are dropping your opposition to splitting the History of The Beatles article which you clearly stated in the Talk:History of The Beatles page? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that is a misunderstanding. I've endeavoured to allay concerns expressed about the merger proposal and would like to think I've succeeded in doing so but if not, I would want to understand any remaining concerns and address them (or for others to be convinced that the split is preferable for some reason). Although the competing split proposal has the same ultimate aim as the merger proposal, I still feel it lacks the opportunity of balanced choice of new articles and doesn't appear to bring any benefit over the merger proposal, so my own recommendation is still the merger. PL290 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Then that still leaves the core issue on how to shorten the already too long article which PL290 has not clearly addressed. The crystal clear solution is to create new articles derived from the History of The Beatles article which would then have links from this article allowing for the condensing of the history section of this article. Any material missing from either that article or this article can be included in the resulting new articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If that is the only issue remaining and I have not clearly addressed it, then I will try and be clearer than I may have done so far: the already-too-long article The Beatles needs to be condensed. That is true now and will still be true after the merger. Merging before condensing makes sense because choice of new articles can then take all material into account. It would not be the end of the world to do it other ways but the one suggested appears to bring only disadvantages. PL290 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could both help with The Beatles in Hamburg (I only started it today, so don't slap me) but it will/should be a definitive account of their time there, and will be a sub-link to the main article. Not divide and conquer, but divide and support, perhaps?--andreasegde (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal and rationale

I propose that History of The Beatles be merged with this article.

My rationale for this proposal is that the two articles have exactly the same subject (being the history of The Beatles) and the same scope.

As supplementary relevant information, the two articles are both written with a very similar level of detail and have very similar existing contents:

Sections present in both articles
  • Formation
  • Hamburg
  • Record contract
  • America
  • Studio years
  • Let It Be + breakup
  • Post-breakup
  • Anthology
  • Recent projects and developments

PL290 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Extent of duplication and details of proposed structure

I'm adding this after some have already responded, to give greater visibility of the actual effect of the proposed merger, and I would ask all to pause and consider the proposal further in the light of what I've shown below. As promised, I've spent some time considering the existing articles The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles and their relationship and as a result, I'm more convinced than ever about the value of the proposed merger, not least because this exercise has highlighted how much straight duplication there is between the two articles. Please consider the possible merits of a merger resulting in the following new structure for The Beatles:

Suggested new structure resulting from merge/split activities

Early years

(summary paras here covering Formation, Hamburg/Cavern/Epstein/Record contract/Beatlemania/Fame in the UK)
link to new Main article: The Beatles: the early years (move relevant content there from both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles

American releases

(no change)

Invading America

(summary paras here covering America and US Beatlemania)
link to new Main article: The Beatles' part in the British Invasion (move relevant content there from both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, and give British_invasion a link to the new article

Help!, Elvis and Rubber Soul

(no change)

Backlash and controversy

(no change)

Studio years

(no change; appears identical in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Let It Be...

(no change; appears identical in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Post-breakup

(no change; appears identical in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Anthology

(minor changes; appears very similar in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Recent projects...

(minor changes; appears very similar in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Musical evolution

(no change)

Films

(no change)

Legacy

(no change)

Discography

(no change)

See also

(no change)

References

(no change; appears identical in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

Further reading

(no change; appears identical in both The Beatles and History_of_The_Beatles, ensure all details kept)

External links

(no change)

PL290 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support and opposition

  • Strongly oppose - It is simply not true that "the two articles have exactly the same subject and the same scope". The history article provides more details, and the information available on The Beatles is massive. There are two articles for the very good reason that there is enough information available for several articles on The Beatles. This proposed merger is contrary to usual practice on Wikipedia of splitting off separate articles when there is this much information on the subject. There certainly may be examples of articles where the split has not occurred, but that is just a matter of time. Naturally there is some overlap in the two articles, but that is to be expected and is appropriate. Merging the articles would either result in loss of useful and well-sourced information that has taken years to develop, or in an unnecessarily huge article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - as per Ward. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If they are currently too similar, the solution is to trim the history section in this article to make it more of a summary of the other, not to get rid of History of the Beatles which is too detailed to incorporate into this one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Beatles article is too long to begin with. The History of The Beatles article was created to allow for a more detailed history to be included so the main article's band history section could be condensed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support (well, I would, wouldn't I) - the subject matter is exactly the same, namely the history of the Beatles. By all means let's split certain subject matter off into separate articles, if applicable, but this is the same subject matter. So I strongly support this merger. PL290 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly thinking about it. I have never understood why the article The History of The Beatles was ever created. As with the Paul McCartney page (which is too long, I know) the sections in this article could be a summary, with links to a fuller history for the individual sections in new articles. Macca has a Solo page, so why not here? Slap me with a wet fish if I'm wrong, but the one mirror article is not detailed enough.--andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Rationale as splitter: I was asked to split the two at a peer review (can't remember if it was official or suggestions from a friend), and to trim down the main article to the important facts. Unfortunately, it all seems important to me, so I cold do with some help trimming the main article. Dendodge T\C 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy to help—I'm not intending to simply make a proposal and then sit back while others do the work. By the way, hope you don't feel criticized by my suggestion if you did the split, but no doubt it's grown since then to how it is now so it's probably not as if any one person has brought about this situation. I think it now needs someone (I would be willing) to sit down and come up with an overall structure, identifying which parts to split out. Not "history" which is the whole thing, but parts of that history, such as Andreasegde's suggestion of Formation, along with, say, UK pre-America, America... any one of which may benefit from its own main article. PL290 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds more like it! There is an awful lot of info missing from this article which The History of The Beatles doesn't cover. Linking each and every header to more detailed (and I mean detailed) sub-articles would be great, no?--andreasegde (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I offer this proposal my full support, and would be willing to use most of my free time to work towards it. Dendodge T\C 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Dendodge. Let us all start with The Beatles in Hamburg, and then move onto The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein (which, as you can see, is not an article yet.) This will satisfy the people who want to trim the main article, and greatly expand any reader's knowledge, but they will also provide more info than anywhere else about The Fabs. It's put up or shut up time...--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Magic Alex

BTW, he's up for a GA review.--andreasegde (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein

This header needs a whole sub-article dedicated to it. There's an awful lot of info that could be put into it. Any takers?--andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can start tomorrow. Dendodge T\C 19:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Dendodge. Anyone else?--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got all the sources I need, and I know what I'm going to do—but what should I call the article? I can't think of a reasonable title. The Beatles at the Cavern Club and meeting Brian Epstein is all I can come up with, but it's a bit too long to be sensible. Dendodge T\C 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How about The Beatles: The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein? PL290 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That'll do—thanks! Dendodge T\C 16:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles' 1964 American chart achivements

Another new article which should be created should cover all those Beatle records which made the charts on the Capitol, Capitol of Canada, Vee-Jay, Tollie, Swan abd MGM labels. They were among the singles on 4 April 1964 which monopolised the top 5 positions on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The following week, a record 14 Beatle records were on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Links can be added to the Cashbox magazine charts on line such as at [2] which is the April 4 chart when The Beatles monopolised the top 5 on the Cashbox chart. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated in The Beatles' American releases. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations

The article now lacks citations where it had them before, and should have them now. Every assertion in the body of the article should have a citation, and it doesn't matter if the same assertion is made in a subarticle and is cited there. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

American releases

I've started to prepare a sub-article for American releases. PL290 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 

--Dendodge T\C 23:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History navbox

I created a navbox, {{The Beatles history}}, for use on our new sub-articles. Please use it on "yours" and remember to add to it with every split. Thanks!

(Of course, if you don't like it, I can delete it—it's just an idea). Dendodge T\C 23:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I've added it to The Beatles in America and The Beatles' American releases. I started to add it to The Beatles, but need other opinions about where to place it. Would it violate some convention to have it before "see also" in this case, given the voluminous notes and references? The idea being that the reader, having got to the bottom of the article text, can see the navbox straight away so be invited to continue reading in those articles. (On a related note, it displayed closed (hidden) by default in The Beatles, which I haven't looked into how to change.) PL290 (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd put it down at the very bottom, with the other navboxes—that way, the user can simply press "end" to get to all of them together. The collapsing is a navbox quirk—I can turn it off for this bar, if you'd like. Dendodge T\C 09:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OK - collapsing off, and the bar is now at the bottom of every article it links to. Remember to add more with every split! Dendodge T\C 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

History infoboxes

How should we format infoboxes in the new splits?

In The Beatles in Hamburg, the infobox has been copied almost exactly from this article.

In The Beatles: The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein, I have made the infobox relavent to that period.

In The Beatles in America, and The Beatles' American releases, there is no infobox used (it might not be appropriate to include on in those).

We ought to standardise this, so which should be used? Dendodge T\C 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which infobox: I'd have thought probably always the one from this article, anywhere a Beatle infobox is used. Can an infobox be put in a template, rather than copied?
Which articles: possibly all of them, actually? Not sure. Won't hurt to try. PL290 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The infobox in The Beatles: The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein was removed—the rationale is on the talk page. Dendodge T\C 18:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. Not quite all, then, anyway. PL290 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's logical to include the infobox from this article in all the others—that's from now, while the others only cover small segments of history—and I understand how adapting the infoboxes might cause confusion. It would probably be better to just put an image in the top right. Dendodge T\C 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Just an image might be good, yes. Either way, is it sensible/possible to make whatever goes top right a template, so its content can easily be changed? PL290 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if we want it all the same. By "image", I meant one relevant to that particular article, but we could have a vertical navbar (instead of the horizontal one we have now). What do you think would be best? Dendodge T\C 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point; how about both an image and a template containing an as-yet-unspecified something that might be a vertical navbox and/or something else that works well as a standard top-right "box"? At any rate, an image relvant to the article seems highly desirable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PL290 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good—I already used a picture of Brian Epstein in the Cavern in The Beatles: The Cavern Club and Brian Epstein, so I simply moved that to the top for now. I'll make a vertical navbox in a sandbox. Dendodge T\C 19:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dendodge/Sandbox/beatles history navbar

How's the one to the right? The "v-d-e" links lead to the main template, not my sandbox version, but the link's User:Dendodge/Sandbox/beatles history navbar if you want to change it. Dendodge T\C 20:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, anyway. PL290 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peak limiting on remasters

This is a very important issue for Beatles fans, since the Yellow Submarine Songtrack and the "1" album were subjected to hideous amounts of peak limiting just for the sake of loudness.Radiopathy •talk• 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy, I noticed you reverted my attempt to clean up this segment of text. The older version contained a very long side note that I reworked to avoid brackets. Long, bracketed passages should really be avoided in the article. Your revert was done without explanation. just64helpin (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The sentence was reverted and edited several times by several users, none of whom feel that they OWN the article, and none of whom felt the need to vandalise the Talk page just to make a POINT. Your attempts at condensing are commendable; we need more of that around here, but I think it's also obvious that you're not familiar with the issue covered in the edit and should perhaps just desist. Nothing personal. Radiopathy •talk• 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Beatles in UK and America

I'd be willing to work on America (i.e. Beatles in America), and suggest I start on that now rather than treading on Dendodge's toes by joining in too soon with Cavern Club and Brian Epstein; and andreasegde, if you're interested and have the time, I think you would be a very good person to put something together about the UK time pre-America, which you brought up before. PL290 (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You caught me thinking about that a few seconds ago. :) Beatlemania and the early tours have a lot of info that should be written about, as The Beatles played the British cabaret circuit with English singers, comedians and others on the same bill, as well as with visiting American stars of the day. Although I'll finish The Beatles in Hamburg first.--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Beatlemania in the UK is now in place and needs expanding along the above lines. I may well join in in due course, if that fits with what others are doing at the time. PL290 (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, would it not be prudent to think about splitting America into separate articles, or could you fit all the tours/TV shows/meetings/interviews up to Candlestick Park in one article? Just a thought...--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The Beatles in America is in place and needs expanding, and yes, like any article, depending on volume and level of detail or material added, both The Beatles in America and Beatlemania in the UK may well require further sub-articles of their own. In due course I may well join in expanding The Beatles in America too, as well as any of the other sub-articles, if that fits with what others are doing at the time. PL290 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Years Active

Hello. I know there has been much discussion about whether or not the Anthology sessions count as a reunion, and therefore if 1994-1995 should be listed as part of the years active. Currently, it is not. However, I believe that those dates should be included. During those two years The Beatles reunited, recorded new music, and released new music. You can't have more of a reunion than that! I think that adding the dates to the years active section will make this page more accurate and informative. CDaly (talk)

I agree. They definitely had a reunion and it should be listed as part of their years active.Mclay1 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The group has discussed this before and the consensus went the other way. I think a case can be made both ways but in the end I oppose the change you are suggesting. Lennon was not present, nor did he give his approval. (Ono acted for him, and that is not the same thing.) The other three had already worked together on "All Those Years Ago" and that wasn't called a reunion. I think the essence is that The Beatles did not reform; the surviving members got together on a side project. People define "reunion" differently and so we're unlikely to get complete agreement. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, on the basis that The Threetles didn't call it a reunion (did they?) and that McCartney has consistently said over the years that a reunion without Lennon would be unthinkable. Purely on semantics, I don't think in this case that a "re"-"union" is possible if an essential part of the "union" is missing. However, for us to call it such, without a reliable source, is original research, albeit of a minor kind, but still impermissible. I also oppose. Rodhullandemu 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, they did not create any new music - the remaining members took previously recorded stuff and added to it, and (I think I have said this before) the Lennon demo's it is based around were not written during the Beatles era and were for his solo career. As mentioned above, the surviving Beatles and the deceased's representatives did not refer to it as a reunion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I think that's the right position on this matter. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not a reunion. More of a revisiting. Belasted (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's quite a fundamental difference between "All Those Years Ago" and the Anthology stuff in that the former was credited to George Harrison and the latter to the Beatles. If they'd released it under "McCartney, Harrison and Starr" or something then you may have a point, but they were explicitly Beatles records. "Free as a Bird" wasn't a "side project"; it was promoted with the tag line "The first new Beatles song for 25 years". I don't really see how you can call it anything other than a reunion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But what they did with Anthology was with the explicit understanding that it was solely created for the sake of this one project. Really, when you think about it, they we're 3 Beatles who were just revisiting their amazing past, and for fun, did some work on a couple of unfinished songs by a deceased Beatle. But they were certainly not reunited in the sense that they were once again a unified band.
The "Anthology" project was promoted as a reunion. I mean, you can't get much more of a reunion than the three surviving members making and releasing new music using materials from the deceased member. Furthermore, they did release it under the moniker "The Beatles", and the two songs are generally known as the "reunion songs". This situation could be compared to Led Zeppelin's 2007 reunion, even though they did not record or release any new music. Also, they had 3/4 of the members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDaly (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Promotion, as in "trying to get as much attention/money from people as is possible and staying just on the right side of the law in doing so", is no basis to argue the validity. If the advertising dept had the nerve they would likely have noted that a seance was held in which Lenno suggested moving "Free As A Bird" into a minor key... Try to get past the excitement of the event and realise that it was a set of remastered songs and the opportune use of a dead members non Beatle demo tapes being played along with by the remaining individuals. With respect to Macca, George and Ringo, not having Lennon actively (not) participating in the recording means it was not a reunion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm dissapointing with all who says that the Anthology, is not a reunion. Well let me remember to all: McCartney, Harrison & Starr, REUNITED, to REMIX THE SONGS TAPES, of John Lennon. First, Free As A Bird, was recorded on Febraury 1994, and McCartney & Harrison, contribute with lyrics of the song, because it was incomplete, and then, the three (then) alive former beatles, added instruments. Second, Real Love, was recorder on February 1995, in this one, no lyrics were added. Nevertheless, instruments was also added to the song. Last, and MOST IMPORTANT, all of you, ¿DID ANYBODY SAW THE 9 ANTHOLOGY CD'S? There, expain all the beatles story, and this ANTHOLOGY REUNION. HERE'S THE MOST IMPORTANT. In the end of the eight anthology, there's the answers about the questions of this: McCartney: In all the conference press are making question if the Beatles will reunite again but, ¿What they're talking about? ¿Why not with Julian? I Don't want that interfere with this. ¿Or Sean? Harrison & Starr: Or Sean, yeah. Starr: But let me question you, would we reunite again? No. McCartney: And Yet, With Free As A Bird, we did it. ... ... (Close an eye slowly then starts Free as A Bird). This McCartney answers explain it's all. --TheOneBeatle (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, there was only the surviving beatles, but John was there too, i don't think that he is dissapointed, Yoko Ono was her manager in his solo carrer, and she gave the tapes to the other three former beatles, and then it was carefully remixed and recorded again, to don't dissapoint Lennon, please, i beg that all of you see the ending of the Anthology 8, and the Anthology 9. I'm in the right thing. All of us that we want that the anthology reunion years (1994-1995) include, all the against of us, will see soon that we are right. --TheOneBeatle (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See the other discussion just below (also helpfully titled "Years Active"). The question of whether it was a reunion is academic. It was not "years active". Whether or not it was in any sense a reunion, of any or all Beatles, it was just a temporary, retrospective project to look back at when they had been active. "Free As A Bird" was just a publicity stunt for the Anthology project—see A Hard Day's Write, p. 205. (I've now moved the other "Years Active" to form a sub-discussion of this one, to assist with future awareness.) PL290 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Years Active: separate discussion now moved within first

The Beatles were active from 1960 to 1970 like the article says but they also had a reunion in years 1995 and 1996. Everytime this has been edited into the article, it has been deleted for some reason. Why? They definitely had a reunion - they recorded and released two new singles. How much more active do they need to be? This reunion should definitely be included under years active. Mclay1 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's a question of emphasis. The Beatles split in 1970 which is, I think rightly, stated as the end of their years active as a band. They had the brief reunion specifically to produce The Beatles Anthology and its associated musical releases—looking back on the time when they had been active. I don't think I'd say the reunion belongs under "years active" so I'm undoing your change in line with the earlier reversions. Please allow sufficient discussion here before any further change. PL290 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It was not a reunion of the entire band, since John remained deceased the entire time the others worked on the various Anthology projects. The surviving Beatles did not consider what they were doing to be a reunion. Radiopathy •talk• 14:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation please Radiopathy; the article currently uses the word reunion in the section The_Beatles#Reunion_and_Anthology, and the Free_as_a_Bird article cites George saying that the only way they could reunite musically as "The Beatles" was if John could be on the recording (which they then satisfied themselves was the case using the tape from Yoko). PL290 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe Harrison said "there won't be a Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". (Jason Fine, Olivia Harrison: Harrison, Simon & Schuster, 2002. ISBN 0743235819, 9780743235815. p.48) Bluewave (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Bluewave, when did he say it though, and was it a statement about the Anthology work? The discovery of the tape from Yoko appears to have changed what was possible. Is there a citation for "The surviving Beatles did not consider what they were doing to be a reunion", as in, that remained their attitude to the Anthology work afterwards? (If so then the WP articles need to stop referring to it as a reunion.)
We're splitting hairs here with the Harrison quote about reuniting musically. The Beatles, minus Sutcliffe and Best, were active from...well actually from 1957-1970; when Lennon became no longer available to contribute musically or to make decisions regarding the future of the band, The Beatles ceased to exist. Radiopathy •talk• 16:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Lennon's been dead since 1980 - you can't get any more inactive than that. You can superimpose his voice onto anything you like, but without his knowledge or consent it doesn't mean a thing.--Patthedog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not splitting hairs even finer, here, but I think it's OK to speak of the surviving Beatles reuniting for the project (which is what it says at present), but is not OK to say that The Beatles were reunited, nor that The Beatles were active. To me, there is an (admittedly fine) distinction between the activities of the Beatles and the activities of The Beatles. The former is what one or more Beatles are doing; the latter is what The Beatles, as an entity (including Lennon) do. Some Beatles were reunited; The Beatles were not. (But I promise not to sulk if people think this is just being pedantic.) Bluewave (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From the original point we now have 3 separate points, so if significant further discussion is needed it may be useful to separate one or more of them out into a separate discussion:

  • a) should infobox years active include 1995-96?
  • b) was 1995-96 in any sense a "reunion"?
  • c) were the 1995-96 musical releases by "The Beatles"?

From my hearing there is agreement that the answer to (a) is no. (b) is under debate (but if no, articles such as the current one should stop using the term reunion). That leaves (c) which can be ascertained from the published material (but if no, articles such as Free_as_a_Bird should stop using that band name). PL290 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

a) no, because b) there was no reunion, except in the minds of some Beatles fans who couldn't accept that the band was no more, going all the way back to 1970; c) the recordings were credited to "The Beatles", as was "I Me Mine", which had the same line up of Paul, George and Ringo. However, even though "I Me Mine" was recorded after Lennon left the group, it was done for a Beatles project that all four Beatles participated in while Lennon was still alive, and over which Lennon had decision making power. "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" were given overdubs long after Lennon died; they were songs which were from his career after The Beatles; they don't count as Beatles songs per se, except for the sake of royalties. Radiopathy •talk• 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell did you start a new topic with the exact same title as one just a little bit above this? Anyway, read that one. And my stance is, it's a revisiting, not a reunion. Minor semantic difference, sure, but it's enough. Belasted (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems there's more than one valid point of view regarding both (b) and (c), but WP:NPOV is our guide. If there were to be consensus, supported by noteworthy sources, that it was not in any sense a "reunion" and it was not in any sense "The Beatles" who created new recordings in 1995-96, then several WP articles would need changing to reflect that. Is anyone actually saying that is the case? I suspect not, and we may be getting bogged down in details that won't affect the outcome. As to (a), Mclay1 was good enough to start a discussion (albeit overlooking that there already was one) rather than start an edit war, so let's respect that; and the point of the discussion was that different editors keep reverting edits that add 1995-96 to "years active" in the infobox. Mclay1 cited (b) and (c) as the basis for including 1995-96, and others have debated these two points, but in my view, the overwhelming point is that the reunion was always intended to be temporary. It was for the specific, retrospective purpose of documenting a band which was and remained history. Did we wake up one sad day in 1996 to the news headlines "Not A Second Time?", reporting that things had not worked out after all and the Beatles had split up? No, we did not. So in my view, it was not "years active" and the answer to (a) is no regardless of the answers to (b) and (c). PL290 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The word "reunion" is not in the article anymore. Cup of tea, vicar?--andreasegde (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If the problem that we are addressing is the one that editors keep reverting edits that add 1995-96 to "years active" in the infobox, I think the real problem is with the relationship of infoboxes to their articles. An article can explain in detail what the various Beatles were doing in 1995-9 and can use words that express fine shades of meaning. The infobox must boil this all down to "active" or "inactive". So the infobox is never going to tell the whole story and is never going to agree absolutely with what is written in the article. The best we can do with the infobox is to decide what is most helpful to the reader. Similarly, questions b) and c) above are not yes/no answers. I could easily write a thousand words on b) (but I hope I don't have to). We don't need to give yes/no answers to b) and c): we just need to ensure that the article adequately provides the facts about them. Question a) does require a yes/no answer, and there seems to general agreement on "no". However, what we certainly should not do is to take the highly-simplified version of events from the infobox and somehow try to make the main article agree with it in every detail. Bluewave (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't split hairs. It is decribed as a reunion in other articles as they recorded new material. John being dead does not mean it was not a reunion, it just means it was not a reunion of all four Beatles, but the three surviving members recording together and releasing new singles is still of reunion of sorts. It is silly not to mention something about the 90s reunion under years active. It would be useful to people who do not know much about The Beatles - a lot of people I know think all The Beatles are dead and do not have clue that they ever recorded new material in "recent" times. Mclay1 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, it is splitting hairs. The group got back together to make some new music, that's the fundamental thing. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm dissapointing with all who says that the Anthology years, is not a reunion. Well let me remember to all: McCartney, Harrison & Starr, REUNITED, to REMIX THE SONGS TAPES, of John Lennon. First, Free As A Bird, was recorded on Febraury 1994, and McCartney & Harrison, contribute with lyrics of the song, because it was incomplete, and then, the three (then) alive former beatles, added instruments. Second, Real Love, was recorder on February 1995, in this one, no lyrics were added. Nevertheless, instruments was also added to the song. Last, and MOST IMPORTANT, all of you, ¿DID ANYBODY SAW THE 9 ANTHOLOGY CD'S? There, expain all the beatles story, and this ANTHOLOGY REUNION. HERE'S THE MOST IMPORTANT. In the end of the eight anthology, there's the answers about the questions of this: McCartney: In all the conference press are making question if the Beatles will reunite again but, ¿What they're talking about? ¿Why not with Julian? I Don't want that interfere with this. ¿Or Sean? Harrison & Starr: Or Sean, yeah. Starr: But let me question you, would we reunite again? No. McCartney: And Yet, With Free As A Bird, we did it. ... ... (Close an eye slowly then starts Free as A Bird). This McCartney answers explain it's all. --TheOneBeatle (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, there was only the surviving beatles, but John was there too, i don't think that he is dissapointed, Yoko Ono was her manager in his solo carrer, and she gave the tapes to the other three former beatles, and then it was carefully remixed and recorded again, to don't dissapoint Lennon, please, i beg that all of you see the ending of the Anthology 8, and the Anthology 9. I'm in the right thing. All of us that we want that the anthology reunion years (1994-1995) include, all the against of us, will see soon that we are right. --TheOneBeatle (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneBeatle (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_20&oldid=1219794662"