Talk:The Beatles/Archive 21

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Capitalization—use of "The" mid-sentence

There's more important issues to deal with (Ringo Starr isn't a GA yet, for example...). Dendodge _T\^C 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)}}

Those who feel this unimportant will accordingly not feel the need to spend any time at all on the debate or to block the adoption of what I'm asserting is common usage and can be seen, for example, in articles about the Beatles in the New York Times as well as the liner notes of Sgt. Pepper.PL290 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, PL290, but many of us have spent considerable time debating this, including references to liner notes, the New York Times, and much more. It's all in the archives. Whether the issue is important or trivial, believe me: it has been thoroughly debated. Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussed before, yes, resolved, no. I have removed the resolved tag as per the notes on its page; please do not add it while consensus is being sought. Consensus is not immutable and can change.

In the MOS talk page we've just been discussing capitalization and the use of "The" mid-sentence. The discussion was actually triggered by the Beatles article's use of "The Beatles" mid-sentence, because it's at odds with common usage in the wider world. The MOS talk reached a consensus to the effect that common usage should prevail on a case-by-case basis, so I'm about to update the Beatles article accordingly. In case anyone should doubt that this is indeed common usage, it's easily verifiable by a quick search; for example, this article about the Beatles in the New York Times and this one. The Beatles at the start of a sentence, but the Beatles otherwise. As far as noteworthy sources are concerned this can be seen to be the common usage. Furthermore, in addition to published sources generally, the Sgt. Pepper liner notes, for example, also demonstrate this usage:

“

So the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein, who was very wary of all the complications in the first place, had his assistant write to everyone. Mae West replied "No, I won't be on it. What would I be doing in a lonely hearts club?" So the Beatles wrote her a personal letter and she changed her mind.

”

— Sgt. Pepper (CPD 7 46442 2), liner notes where Peter Blake recalls the preparatory work for creating the cover picture

Should anyone still have any remaining concerns about this edit, I would ask them not to simply revert it but to research the common usage for themselves if necessary and to refer to the detailed discussion on the MOS talk page where the consensus was reached. PL290 (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. We've been through this tired old loop too many times already. Our starting point is here. Consensus has existed for a very long time for the way it is now; the most recent, and lengthy discussion is here and I see no discussion here. Whatever discussions have occurred at the MOS talk page, this change is out of process. Please revert and seek a new, properly-negotiated consensus. Or, preferably, stick with the existing one. Rodhull andemu 14:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Our starting point is here"—I can't help noticing that that cites Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy as its authority, which is an abandoned page with a banner saying it's no longer relevant or consensus unclear. PL290 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, I see you say in the most recent and lengthy discussion here, "there is an existing consensus, however uninformed (and that is not a value judgement) at a higher level than here, and (b) since making a change to that existing consensus requires comprehensively sourced input, it deserves to be considered there rather than here because of its implications". In my case I discussed to reach consensus at a higher level and that process is criticized. What then is the correct level at which to establish this consensus? PL290 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just may take this off my watchlist. Is there some record for the same issue popping up again and again regardless of the consensus or how much discussion has been devoted to such a trivial matter (and I can just hear a lower-case "t" supporter piping in, "if it's so trivial, then leave it at "the Beatles"). This topic must be in the top-five recurring stupid MOS arguments. Maybe I'll just start typing ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR ME. freshacconci talktalk 14:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

freshacconci, was the upper-case style in force throughout these recurring arguments, or has the article ever existed for any length of time with the lower-case style and still attracted the same level of debate on the subject? PL290 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Several points made in initial responses by Rodhullandemu and freshacconci; I see there's a great deal of history to this discussion, and associated strong feelings both ways by numerous parties. I acknowledge the possibility that my judgement and research so far of what constitutes common usage may have been too superficial, and that I'll turn out to have been mistaken. But I don't think so yet, and it's on this common-usage basis that I'll continue to seek a consensus for making the change. I fully see that the onus is on me to seek that consensus, as was commented in the edit summary that reverted my edit. I have never doubted that, which is why I discussed this in MOS until consensus was reached, but since that process has been critizized here I need to know more about what constitutes an acceptable process so that I can continue the consensus-seeking. (I will make further responses separately to some individual points, to enable clear thought and discussion of each point. As a parting thought for this edit, if the matter has come up "too many times already" and "again and again", I can't help wondering, has the upper-case style been in force in the article throughout this long period during which the matter keeps rearing its head? Or has the article stood for a period with the lower-case style, and has it also been the source of great debate in that form? This brings to mind freshacconci's point about a "lower-case "t" supporter piping in" with a futile comment, but is perhaps actually an interesting question, or at least one I'd be interested to know the answer to.) PL290 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I invite you first to conduct a thorough review of previous discussions to gauge the balance of opinion on this issue. Rodhull andemu 16:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That being a reference to WP:LAME, I must respect the validity of both your and Freshacconci's now-stated opinion that this is a highly trivial matter, but with the greatest respect, I therefore cannot help wondering at the speed and force of the reaction by each to my edit! I do mean this with the greatest respect and I await with the greatest interest further contributions from you both and from others, urging all parties to try to maintain respect in this discussion and to recognize that even if consensus can clearly be shown to have existed (and it's not clear to me yet, I have to say, but I will go on reading), consensus is not immutable and can change. PL290 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue was debated at considerable length last August, with wide participation. It took disproportionately long for its subject matter, and was draining to all. I see no reason to relitigate at this time, as it were, in the absence of compelling reasons, and it seems apparent so far that there is little will here to do so. We have a standard acceptable to all involved. It's trite to say that when you open a can of worms, ensure you have a larger can in which to replace them, but I for one would not feel confident in the outcome of a debate in most potential participants, having gone through it all in minute detail nine months ago, don't feel willing to do it all again. Having said that, WP:RFC is still open to you. Rodhull andemu 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PL290, I usually would agree with your concerns about "the speed and force of the reaction", except for the fact that this issue has been argued over and over and over, with nothing near a consensus to make a change. I fully respect your right to raise the issue. What concerns me the most, however, is when we have to start repeating the same arguments again and again and again every few months. You have excercised your right (legitimately) to raise the issue again. My advice for you and for everyone who has previously been involved in this issue is to simply cite the relevant archives (as has been done), and wait to see if new opinions from other editors emerge. If more opinions emerge, we then may have a productive use of our time in discussing. But if the same people say the same thing that has been said in the past, we've wasted a lot of time over nothing. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The speed and force of people's reactions probably reflects the fact that, although consensus can change, the process for changing it (or agreeing not to change it) can be wearying in the extreme, especially when it is regarding something at the level of whether we capitalise the "T" of "The". And although this is clearly a trivial decision, it is important to have a consensus...otherwise people will continually change it one way and the other. So, what PL290 is seeing is a bunch of people thinking "Oh no, have we really got to go through all this yet another time?" (speaking for myself, anyway). If you can hear a dull thudding sound, it is of editors banging their heads on walls. Bluewave (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001 and Bluewave, points noted and understood completely (and completely understandable); I will of course keep all this in mind as I continue to consider the best course of action. I will also be very glad of an answer to the question no one has yet answered, namely, has the upper-case style been in force in the article throughout this time of great debate, or has there been a period when the lower-case style was allowed in the article for any length of time and itself attracted such great debate? I think it's a very interesting question and wonder if it's significant that no one answers it. PL290 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only respond based on my memory over the last few years. Except for brief periods when it might have been changed without consensus, my memory is that it has been "The Beatles" for several years at least, and probably since the early days of the article. Maybe the best way to determine that would be to randomly select dates throughout the page history and see how it was, keeping in mind what I said about brief changes that had no consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Addition: I did a quick pick of random pages (completely unscientific). In the earliest days of Wikipedia (around 2001 and 2002), there was some inconsistency (probably the nature of Wikipedia itself back then), with more occurrences of "The" rather than "the". As time passed, and especially after consensus was achieved a few years ago, it became much more consistently "The". That's my very quick analysis, but I welcome more refined statistics if anyone wishes to take the time to do it. An important point to remember, however, is that any inconsistency during the early years does not mitigate a later consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will add my input yet again. I state that the group is "The Beatles" for legal reasons as that is how it was registered as a trade mark in various countries. I found in an auction page the legal document registering the name "The Beatles" as a trade mark at [1]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, agreed, the group name is not in doubt as "The Beatles". The point that I'm making is not about what constitutes the name, but rather, I'm asserting that we should follow what I believe to be the common usage for how titles beginning "The" are rendered mid-sentence, for example, sentences about the Beatles. PL290 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If the group consistently referred to themselves as simply "Beatles" as the band's name, then I can see your point. But the group consistently referred to themselves as "The Beatles" so that is the way the band is identified in all articles when referring to The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, could you provide a reference for group consistently referred to themselves as "The Beatles" as I feel I should follow that up. PL290 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood PL290, but again, this is well-covered in the archives, with a consensus of "The Beatles". Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, I accept that a lot of people have spent a lot of time on this in the past, and I don't for one minute want to belittle that. But I do make the point that it seems futile for one "side" to tell the other it's trivial when demonstrably they don't think so themselves! And as to the actual debate, does not the very fact that the issue has arisen again and again, to the extent now being stated with such exasperation by several here, and, perhaps crucially, during a period throughout which the upper-case style has been in force, suggest that any consensus that was achieved was marginal at that time and perhaps no longer holds? Consensus is not immutable and can change. PL290 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

PL290, please leave it. I support "the" and so I am not someone from "the other side" but I will still tell you this is trivial. There are reasons do it both ways. The most important things are to have a simple rule and to have the articles employ that rule consistently. I may be in favor of "the", but I've accepted "The" as part of consensus discussions here. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I can respectfully but strongly disagree. By no means has the consensus been marginal. The consensus has been very clear. Again, read the archives. The fact that the issue pops up every few months does not suggest a weak consensus in the least. It is simply the Wikipedia process. Anyone can express any opinion on a talk page, and with the popularity of The Beatles there are many ideas that come up here; sometimes the ideas generate some discussion, and sometimes they fizzle. Both situations have happened on "The" vs. "the" in the past, but there has never been any change in consensus. And no one on this page has once said that consensus is "immutable". Yes, consensus can change on Wikipedia, but thus far in this discussion it has not even approached a change. Now, I mean no offense by this, but I think you have made your points very well and very clear here, and I'm sure you already know that consensus is not changed by one or two editors repeating the same points in a discussion. So I again refer you to the archives, and this is my last comment unless new editors express opinions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I knew it was going to be one of those evenings. You've destroyed your own argument, because the antipathy shown by other editors so far shows that (i) it is a minor point (ii) which has already been extensively been debated (iii) current consensus would seem to demonstrate that there is little will to change (iv) or go through the same arguments once more. Sleeping dogs, and all that. There are no "right or wrong" answers here, but the balance of consensus would appear to be "Let It Be". Rodhull andemu 18:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, I think the most compelling argument is to compare The Beatles' name with the title of a movie, TV show or book. I understand others would disagree with this based on the fact that "The Beatles" is a name, not a title, other than The Beatles, which actually might be a good example. My initial resistance to upper-case-T (UCT) was grammatical. I felt in the middle of a sentence, lower-case-t (LCT) looked better: "In 1964, the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show." However, when considering a title (how about: "To the best of my knowledge, the Beatles have never been mentioned on the Office) is incorrect. So, the idea that the UCT looks "incorrect" in the middle of a sentence is rendered rather mute in the face of a title beginning with "the". Now of course, a title is in italics which separates the title from the rest of the text and The Beatles as a band name wouldn't be italicized, while The Beatles the album would be (if you're the kind of wanker that always refers to the White Album by its proper name, and then sigh and roll your eyes when someone looks confused). I'm not up on anything to do with the legalities of the name but I now lean towards UCT (I believe in the last straw poll I was neutral, but I do stick with consensus on this). So I'm with Rodhullandemu in that there seems to be a general weariness to this issue but that should not be taken as a sign of complacency (i.e. it was decided before you got here, so shut up) nor does it indicate that the consensus is weakened by a desire to leave it alone. If PL290 feels that strongly about it and wants to re-open the discussion, I think we need to respect that. In the end, no consensus is written in stone. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Freshacconci, "The Office" is an interesting example, and there are other examples too of when the definitive article is always capitalised, such as The Hague. It might be possible to analyze this and categorize things into one or other of these camps. However, I would ask the question, is it necessary or desirable for an institution such as Wikipedia, which commands respect and seeks that respect as a serious encyclopedia, to take the approach of making up its own rules and justifying them in this way, when there is already an established common usage? So my point is to assert that it would be preferable firstly to identify, in a quantifiable way, whether there is indeed an established common usage, which I believe there is, albeit perhaps with exceptions, which may be in the minority and may be from sources not considered noteworthy. And secondly, to adopt that common usage. This, and only this, is my basis for the attempt I've started to try and establish consensus for change. PL290 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick hit-and-run comment about the title of this article. Since I also consider this quite a trivial matter, I am not going to pursue this unless you really want me to. (I will not be watching this article.) It seems to me that there are two types of names:

Names of relatively obscure entities, which are hardly ever used
Names of important entities, which are frequently used and have a chance to develop as a part of natural language

A typical example for the first category is a little village in a country in which English is not spoken. A typical example for the second category is any settlement in an English-speaking country, or any large city elsewhere. I believe that the Beatles fall into the second category, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone here disagrees.

For entities of the first type there is no choice but to use the official name/name in the original language, if necessary in transcribed or simplified form. For entities of the second type there is often a choice between the official name (per birth certificate, original language, etc.) and the commonly used English name. E.g. Praha vs. Prague, München/Muenchen vs. Munich. WP:COMMONNAME is a very clear rule dictating what to do in this case: Use the common name. It's made even clearer by the clarification in WP:NAMING#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise.

So in Wikipedia, it's Prague and Munich. By this rule, the name of this article would have to be Beatles, not The Beatles, since the Beatles is how they are commonly known and we don't use normal definite articles in titles. (It's even clearer in other languages; as you can easily verify, the definite article in front of "Beatles" is normally translated : les Beatles, die Beatles, los Beatles; it would be strange if English were an exception.)

WP:MUSTARD is currently contradicting WP:COMMONNAME, so we can leave it inconsistent, change MUSTARD, or change COMMONNAME. I think MUSTARD should be changed. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from with this, but I can't agree at all with changing the article itself to just "Beatles". Upper-case or lower case it's always been The/the Beatles. Without "the" it's simply incorrect. freshacconci talktalk 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "The" is genuinely part of the title of "The Beatles" and many other things, so in my opinion it should be the higher-level guidance that changes to permit "The" as the first word of a WP title. But mid-sentence usage is another matter. PL290 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) When I started this discussion and two editors gave a negative reaction, my first response quickly acknowledged the possibility that "my judgement and research so far of what constitutes common usage may have been too superficial, and that I'll turn out to have been mistaken. But I don't think so yet". There remain obstacles to my moving from that position, in the form of unanswered questions about assertions made which purport to be the basis for "The Beatles" mid-sentence despite this being at odds with the things I've cited including Sgt. Pepper liner notes. As far as the archives are concerned I said previously that I'll keep reading and will still do so. Meanwhile:

Any assistance in finding the key place where consensus, by no means marginal, is recorded will be appreciated as it's not immediately clear from the links so far.
I would urge existing contributors to respond with compelling answers where there remain unanswered questions of mine left as my response to their replies.

These two things will help me to move forward from my current position. And I take the point that there has not yet been visible support for my assertion yet in this discussion, so we shall have to see whether that remains the case and this too will obviously affect my judgement of the best course of action from here. PL290 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The last couple go-roudns on this were drawn out affairs where blood was spilt and that's why a number of experienced project members have asked you to give this up. I sincerely hope you do. This is not an open and shut case, despite your comments above that lead me to believe you think it is. You keep asking for links and compelling arguments about the specific style issue and we keep telling you we're tired of this particular topic and want to leave well-enough alone. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

John Cardinal, thanks, I'm hearing this loud and clear, and perhaps I should have spelled out sooner that I'm keeping open-minded about the issue and can see that letting it be may well be the best course of action. Until I reach that point though, my focus is to understand and have visibility of a compelling consensus I am told was reached. To this end what I keep asking for is not compelling arguments but compelling answers to specific questions I've asked of participants in this discussion, whose responses purport to show or prove the consensus but have not yet done so (from my reading to date at least, for which, if flawed, I apologize). PL290 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here. I'm changing the article back to include proper English. ARE YOU HAPPEH NOW. Paperxcrip (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Consensus is against you. Please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. There is consensus to treat "The Beatles" as a compound proper noun, and until you successfully change that consensus, it stays as it is. Rodhull andemu 01:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let. It. Go.

Seriously, this is the one thing that ever made me consider whether I wanted to edit Wikipedia again; not only do I support "The" as the correct use, but when I found that the majority of references supported using "the" I found I had to follow references - however, the majority of editors of the Beatles related articles preferred using the capitalised variant... I withdrew from the project, yet still watchlist the relevant main articles and use my subsequently acquired admin tools to help moderate - it isn't going to be fixed any day soon, and I would rather leave the open sore weeping yet continuing otherwise excellent editing than decimating the editorship of what is generally a Wikipedia flagship group of articles. You don't like it? Tough. You like t/The Beatles? Please add your enthusiasm and knowledge, but please do not stir up the potential shitstorm that remains in capitalising the "T"... Ultimately, a good article with outstanding issues is better than a bad article in exact terminology. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of the old edit war regarding the name of ABN AMRO which some anal retentive editors citing MOS insisted on "ABN Amro" based on some journalistic citations which called ABN AMRO "ABN Amro" even though ABN AMRO is their legal name. Present and former ABN AMRO customers and clients, myself included, objected to the MOS police moves. It took a new straw poll in which the ABN AMRO boosters prevailed to keep the article name ABN AMRO. That article's talk page is still longer than the actual article for that reason. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree—Let It Be. Can we please work on something useful to the project now? Ringo's still in need of a whole hunk a'lovin', and a lot of very important articles aren't even past stub class yet. Let's do something useful—does a capital letter really matter that much? Is anyone really that anal? Dendodge _T\^C 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles genres

I was wondering why is Beatles genres only two when they were so creative. they are only rock and pop on wikipedia but should be something like this Rock, pop rock, psychedelic rock, experimental rock, rock and roll, classical, pop, hard rock. This should be changed because many people go into wikipedia maybe writing a essay about The Beatles and are going to write their genres and they are only find Rock and Pop thats just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jongudni (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you did that, there wouldn't be much room left for the article. It has been discussed in the past.--andreasegde (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus, You shouldn't use Wikipedia to write your essay—we are an entry point to help you find reliable sources, which should give you all the information you will need. Dendodge _T\^C 10:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jongundi. The Beatles aren't pop really. They have much more Beat, Rock and Roll and psychedelic Rock (and even Blues Rock) songs than pop songs. I can only think of about 5 pop songs by the them in fact. FootyStavros (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that "pop" by today's standards or those pertaining in the 1960s? Vast differences. Talent, to name only one. Rodhull andemu 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The genre question seems to be a perennial debate—and it's not just The Beatles. It makes me wonder why article content pertaining to genre is singled out as an exception to WP:No Original Research, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. It seems to me that if verifiable facts about genre are available, the article should cite the source, and if not, it should not make any statements about genre. PL290 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say it as McCartney said: "Hey guys, we're a big act", or if it really comes down to the wire, write, "Genres: All of them..."--andreasegde (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Beatles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and I find it to be fairly good. The images check out, there is one dead link but that has already been tagged. It should be fixed though. The Lead is a little underdeveloped, per WP:LEAD it should summarize the entire article, there are portions left out. That said I don't see enough here to delist it. I feel that the article needs to be developed and improved as one of WP's primary articles. It could certainly be FA quality of someone would step up and take it to the next level. Overall I will keep the article at GA. H1nkles (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

{{deadlink}} fixed. Rodhull andemu 16:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see enough here to delist it... Overall I will keep the article at GA."

I'm not too happy that this message seems to lean towards a GA Tsar that has the sole power to approve or disapprove of all GA articles. Leaving a message like this seems more like a threat than help.--andreasegde (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Isn't it the point of GAs is that anyone can review, promote or delist them? It's meant to be a relatively simple process, unlike FAs.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can, but the tone of the message implies something else. H1nkles has already apologised for any misunderstanding.--andreasegde (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatles' Influence

The Beatles were a huge influence on so much of America. They had become so popular and inspiring to their audience that they were called “the new religion” (McKinney 143). The Beatles even influenced a lot of today’s popular bands such as The Byrds, The Bee Gees, The Electric Light Orchestra, Oasis, and there have been many other bands who have experimented with sounds that are relatively similar to that of The Beatles. Throughout time this has given these bands the reputation of being “Beatle-esque” (Gregory 142). Even the original rock and roll style was created by The Beatles. When they made their first appearance in America they were clad in leather jackets and jeans. Their manager was the one who convinced them to change their style and wear suits, but other artists and young people had already picked up on the leather jacket and jeans trend, and it have made it stick ever since (Gregory 142-143). This is evidence which proves The Beatles really had started it all as mentioned by a loving fan “A start, a new dawn. You see, the Beatles are the original. They started the look, everything. And they are the greatest group ever” (McKinney 86). The Beatles were very easy for people to relate to and no matter where you went you could find someone who would gladly admit to feeling this way (McKinney 52). The Beatles weren’t perfect. They said what they wanted to say, which encouraged so many people of that time and people of today to do also. The term Beatle-mania was also formed because of the influence The Beatles had on people (McKinney 51). It was used to describe the hysteria expressed by teenage girls who were very, very big fans of The Beatles. Now it is used as a name for tribute groups that impersonate The Beatles. To leave such a large impression on a group is a hard thing to do, and something most artists will never be able to accomplish. Most bands just fizzle out especially after they have split up, but just like everything else they did The Beatles surprised the world even more when the band remained popular long after the split.

Bibliography: McKinney, Devin. The Beatles In Dream and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003. Gregory, Hugh. A Century of Pop a Hundred Years of Music that Changed the World. Chicago: Cappella Books, 1998.

The article already contains links to The Beatles' influence on music recording and The Beatles' influence on popular culture. The information does not need to be duplicated here. Ward3001 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello...Concerning the influence and impact of the Beatles [[2]]

< Mikhail Gorbachev was the last General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the last head of state of the USSR, serving from 1985 until its collapse in 1991.

He said, "more than any ideology, more than any religion, more than Vietnam or any war or nuclear bomb, the single most important reason for the diffusion of the Cold War was...the Beatles.">

[[3]] : < Beatles 'brought down Communism'>

< One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest director Milos Forman says in the programme: "It sounds ridiculous but it's not. I'm convinced the Beatles are partly responsible for the fall of Communism."

Canadian-based academic Dr Yury Pelyoshonok, who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s, backs up his claim.

"The Beatles had this tremendous impact on Soviet kids. The Soviet authorities thought of The Beatles as a secret Cold War weapon," he says.

"The kids lost their interest in all Soviet unshakeable dogmas and ideals, and stopped thinking of an English-speaking person as an enemy.

"That's when the Communists lost two generations of young people. That was an incredible impact." >

[[4]]

-Artemy Troitsky said : < "The Beatles, Paul, John, George and Ringo have done more for the fall of Communism than any other western institution.">

[[5]]

< It's been 40 years since Koes Plus topped Indonesian charts with songs influenced by The Beatles..>...< However their Beatles' style caused legal problems for the members in 1965 and the government then accused the band of promoting decadent Western culture and jailed the members.>

[[6]]

< I have literally thousands of memories of the lads but certainly one of the most important is the following. Serving in the British Army in Borneo in 1965 I noticed that children knew almost no english.There was no television nor newspapers but there was radio.Whilst walking through a jungle clearing with some friends I was amazed to see and hear a group of children sat in a circle holding hands singing "I Should Have Known Better". We stopped to listen and when they had finished we clapped them, they smiled at us and said one word - BEATLES! I was astonished and moved then and still am whenever I recall this memory.>

[[7]]

< Mongolia To Erect Monument To The Beatles >

[[8]]

< Beatles Monument to Appear in Samara >

[[9]]

< Beatles Monument to be Officially Open in Yekaterinburg >

[[10]]

< The Lima district hosts what is billed as South America’s sole public monument to Lennon, a quirky, life-size statue of the bespectacled songwriter performing with guitar. >

[[11]]

< Communist Party daily Granma last year included the Beatles on a list of the most "relevant" figures of the 20th century, below Castro, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, and Argentine-born guerrilla Ernesto "Che" Guevara.>

[[12]]

< Plaque commemorates early Beatles’ gig >

[[13]]

< New Beatles museum opens in Hamburg >

[[14]]

< The Most Important People of the Century >

[[15]]

< Icons of the century >

I think it's a good information...Bye Bye --Roujan (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Studio years

When some content was recently split to sub-articles, "Studio years" got a corresponding sub-article "The Beatles: the studio years". The latter has since been renamed "The Beatles' studio work" which loses the point. It's already been commented that the previous name was better, and I agree, but the problem may be that it only communicates the point once you know. I'm bringing this up here because I suggest we give the section here a better name, and rename the sub-article to correspond once more. The sections/sub-articles rightly don't fall into neat calendar-year groups (for example, during 1966 there are several different main themes, each already covered separately in the U.S. tours, Backlash & controversy, and the start of studio years). So, to avoid the title missing the point, how about looking at it from the other point of view: for instance "After concert years" and "The Beatles after concert years". Or perhaps even "After concert days" and "The Beatles after concert days".PL290 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Touring might be a better term here than "concert"; it just seems like a more precise term. Radiopathy •talk• 07:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Section and sub-article now retitled, per Talk:The Beatles' post-touring studio years. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seltaeb

Can we put back the link to Seltaeb? It only needs a sentence and I suspect it gets completely overlooked unless it’s mentioned on the main page. Cheers, --Patthedog (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. The Seltaeb article is close to a GA, so somebody should look at it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2/3 of the former "America" section is now about Seltaeb, and the section is titled "America, and the Seltaeb episode". That's way too much. Seltaeb might warrant a mention in this article, but not 2 hefty paragraphs. The section title should be restored to "America". This is not an article about the history of merchandising. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seltaeb came about as a result of America, but it could be separated, yes. Given its effect on Epstein, and that of Epstein's demise on the band, it's far more than merchandising we're talking about here, which is why I thought to give it that much space. Perhaps it should be separated from America? America needs a better summary so warrants more space itself anyway. I've restored "America" as a section title. PL290 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the pp. 113-118 of The Love You Make—the source for the Seltaeb incident being a contributing factor in Brian's death—and it doesn't say anything about Seltaeb contributing to his 1967 depression. I can believe it was, but the cited source doesn't say so and the section here and the other article should be revised or a better source identified. Laying Epstein's death at the feet of Seltaeb is an overstatement. There were multiple contributing factors in Epstein's death.

In any case, the Seltaeb incident detracts from something that was more important: conquering America. Certainly it was more important to The Beatles—who knew nothing of Seltaeb at the time—and to the rock'n'roll world which until then had been dominated by American acts. Two hefty paragraphs on Seltaeb is too much. One short paragraph is more appropriate.

Perhaps a paragraph about Epstein's death somewhere in the "Studio years" section could mention his Seltaeb blunder and other factors that contributed to his depression, amphetamine addiction, and death.

In any case, the source issue is major; someone has interpreted something in pp. 113-118 that isn't there, or mis-cited the information, or something. It has to be removed or re-cited to a source that actually supports the assertion that Seltaeb contributed to Epstein's depression. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove it. America already needs doing more justice in this summary, and Seltaeb isn't helping that. We can introduce something about it in a more appropriate way in due course. Perhaps others have suggestions about the best way to do this but sorting out the citation issue is probably a prerequisite as it affects its significance. PL290 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, the reference to Epstein’s depression regarding Seltaeb doesn’t deduce that he committed suicide as a result! I’ll get the relevant source for the “depression” reference, but it doesn’t change the fact that Seltaeb was a big deal and should be included in the main article. --Patthedog (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the Seltaeb blunder wasn't important, but it's not on a par with their success in America. The topic is probably more important to the Epstein article. If a source can be found that says Seltaeb was an important factor in Epstein's 1967 depression, then it's important to the Beatles because Epstein's death was important. Absent that, it's a blunder by Epstein that cost them gobs of money but it's not on a par with losing publishing rights, for example. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting that it was more important or bigger than Jesus or whatever than their success in America. I was merely suggesting that it might merit a meagre sentence in the main article. Anyway, why aren’t you out celebrating the USA’s progression in the Confederations Cup? I will go through the Selteab article checking for mistakes ASAP, but the bones of it are sound and should be out there. Most people have no idea that it ever occurred and would find it interesting. Cheers,--Patthedog (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Two sentences are in. Good grief, how easy was that?--andreasegde (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think that the use of "I’m not suggesting that it [Seltaeb] was more important or bigger than Jesus or whatever" by Patthedog was extremely clever, and very funny indeed. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't know... :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Andreasegde. The "depression" thing was down to me and I will sort it. John was right to bollock me! --Patthedog (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, doesn’t the ref say page 217 for Peter Brown? On that page he describes Epstein’s lifestyle being consistent with someone who is greatly depressed (doesn’t use the word but he was obviously very unhappy) and naming Seltaeb as one of the causes for it. Seltaeb is consistently mentioned throughout many books as being a major worry for Epstein, so is it not fair to say it was a contributing factor regarding his depression? I will wait for a response before changing anything. --Patthedog (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Put like that it remains original research. It sounds extremely likely to be the case, but it needs a source before we can state it. Unhappy does not equate to depressed. PL290 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, finding any direct references to his depression (I’m not a doctor, but let’s face it, he obviously suffered from depression) in any context is very hard. Books refer to his “paranoia” or “fear” etc and infer depression. So, I’ll probably put that “it was a contributing factor regarding his paranoia” or something. That sounds a little unkind, but Seltaeb affected him emotionally as it stoked his fears (that The Beatles wouldn’t renew their contract and Klein was lurking) and lowered his self esteem (that he was incompetent in business) and it formed a part of whatever it was that tormented him. I’m happy with the mention it gets in this article though, so this should probably be moved on to the Seltaeb discussion page now- viewers watching on BBC 1 should therefore retune to BBC 2. --Patthedog (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As we switch channels then, just to clarify my "unhappiness does not equate to depression" comment: I share the opinion that he obviously suffered from depression, so the comment was meant to be about the WP:OR of making the connection. I will await with interest further broadcasts on the other channel. PL290 (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And now, on Channel 4, we will look at Brian Epstein and his being depressed, crestfallen, dejected, despondent, dispirited, down, downhearted, low-spirited, melancholy, sad, spiritless, unhappy, bummed out (my favourite) cast-down, down in the dumps (also good) in the dumps, in the pits, low-down, on a downer (it gets better all the time) ripped, taken down, torn up. Take your pick. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bummed out" sticks out(so to speak) although it does prompt the imagination a little too much - for my liking anyway. I think there was a scene in Mel Brookes’ “Blazing Saddles” that had a bar room brawl crashing through various other film sets? This argument / discussion reminds me of that a little bit as it spreads to other pages (see PL290 (talk). Let’s take it to Particle Physics next.--Patthedog (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It only spread there based on this edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We interrupt this broadcast to bring you an important announcement: an editor has managed to unearth the much-needed sources so has been able to update the main article with all the required seltaeB information. Great job, John. PL290 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

“Ahem. On be’alf a’committee I would just like to add my congratulations also. I must admit it were touch and go there for a while, but the lad pulled it off in grand style. Well done son, yer played a foockin’ blinder!”.--Patthedog (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition.

Seriously, I am glad the two of you approve. The parts I added about Epstein's death and the Seltaeb influence on it could be improved, both in terms of the content and the sources, but it's a start. Overall, the article needs some work to recover from the split into sub-articles, but we are moving in the right direction. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading

I am overcome with joy that there are so many new articles being worked on, but the main article (this one) reads like a version of Hello magazine, and needs a very good clean with a stiff brush for style and facts. --andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This significant article should not be left on WP:Former featured articles for ever. The splitting of detail to sub-articles has made it a manageable size: perfect for working on more closely now to take it back to FA, if efforts can be coordinated effectively to that end. PL290 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever taken the rocky road that is called an FA review? Believe me, I would rather slit my gizzard with a blunt axe and have my internal organs fall onto the floor in a haphazard way than go through that process again. It’s not about the references, or anything else for that matter, it’s about whether the big boys upstairs think an article is worthy of their faint praise (which they never, ever give – preferring to spew their complaints out like a manic washing machine with the door open). They pummel the article you have diligently worked on, and stick a stiff rod up your rectum, but in the best possible taste, you understand. I wish you the best… --andreasegde (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should explain that I made over 3,000 edits to the Paul McCartney article, and it still didn't pass. The complaints were that it was too big, not enough info was in it (Doh?) and that they just don't like him very much. (The latter was a lie, but I think you'll get my drift...)--andreasegde (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Blackjacks

Can someone provide supporting citations about the early Liverpool group The Blackjacks? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to be the nearest- Pete Best's old band, but never The Beatles. Rodhull andemu 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See here (bottom of p.21) and here. As the second one mentions, Lewisohn (Chronicle) says they (John & Pete Shotton) used the name "The Black Jacks" for only the first week, changing to "Quarrymen" before others joined. Mainstream Nerd (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

True.--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!, Elvis and Rubber Soul

I think this section is way too much, and should be filtered into the article.--andreasegde (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently undergoing a good article reassessment. A former featured article.

Why does it still say this?--andreasegde (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article's openning two paragraphs

Since I never log-in (and probably never will), improvements can be made on this article's openning two paragraphs, should any editors may like to try, since I can't. Here's what I have (four things need to be changed for this article's improvement):

Paragraph 1; openning line should read: The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed in Liverpool, England in 1960. During their career, the group (hailing from Liverpool) consisted of...
Paragraph 2; should read: United States (as United States); also, All Time (as All-Time); and, finally, The Beatles topped it (as The Beatles topped that list.)

Hope this helps... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be an Admin. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my friend, I appreciate that. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done 'em, apart from the "All Time", because that is how Rolling Stone printed it.--andreasegde (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again! Change, or rather improve, the article's very openning sentence to this (it must read exactly as this) and I will reward you with an Original Barnstar award that you should have originally received for your creation and work on the article Seltaeb:

The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England in 1960. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done it as I thought it should be.--andreasegde (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Backlash and controversy

What about the protests at them performing in the Budokan in Japan?--andreasegde (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuff somehow previously placed in the previous section that actually has nothing to do with the "was" vs. "were" arguments

Good openning sentence for this article, Unschool. It's about time somebody got it right (i.e., refering to this article's "veteran editors"). Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here; however, it seems somehow ridiculous that a consensus cannot be reached on how to describe The Beatles at the most basic level. About a year ago, there was a debate going on, and I boldly wrote] "The Beatles were a pop and rock band from Liverpool, England" as the opening sentence. That version persisted for a long time, until people thought it should be tinkered with. Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics? Rodhull andemu 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics?" Probably because "here's another place you can be: fixing a hole in the ocean"... many of us have been there (and will probably go again). PL290 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stereo Box Set Image

I uploaded a promotional photo of the new remastered stereo box set for viewing. It has been tagged for speedy deletion, which I have contested. The purpose of this photo is to show a new item in the Beatles catalog. Please comment if you think this image is helpful and should stay.

The image is copyrighted by the person/company who created it. You have to prove either that you are the author of the image, or that the copyright holder consents to having it used (e.g. the source of the image contains a statement to that effect). ... discospinster _talk 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Was and were

"The Beatles was a pop/rock group that formed in 1960."

It can't be "were".--andreasegde (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. There is strong consensus throughout Wikipedia that UK bands take plurals since they are treated as mass nouns. See, for example, the edit note at the top of Genesis (band) and discussion on rerlated Talk page. Even searching for "The Beatles were" in WP gives 213 hits; a search for "The Beatles was" gives 47 hits, generally referring to The Beatles (album) or The Beatles (TV series), and never to the band as an entity. Since the article is written in British English, it should stay that way. The alternative is to alter all the other articles to match, resulting in multiple edit-wars and possible yet another trip to WP:LAME for this topic. Let It Be, please. Rodhull andemu 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear (with respect, andreasegde). I also found evidence of warring over this on Pink Floyd. If you google the rationale for the British English use of plural verb for collective nouns, or look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you admittedly find some grey areas and contradiction between rules and examples given, but please let's settle for this convention and use "were". It's good enough. PL290 (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, proper nouns which have the form of a plural (e.g., removing the "s" can refer to an individual of the group) take a plural verb in both British and American English usage, even when not specifically referring to the individuals. Compare the number of Google results for "The Beatles were a group" (>1000000) to "The Beatles was a group" (<10). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore my note about the Google hits, I think something about my Google preferences made it unreliable. However, recall Harrison's lyrics: "You may think the band are not quite right / But they are, they just play it like that" ("Only a Northern Song"). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The openning line to this article should read as this:

The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England.

Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are all gonna be put into a small box called a 'Nothing Box' (read about Alex). Both Lennon and McCartney said "It was a good, little rock n' roll band/group". Singular, not plural. Eat your hats, and darn your socks.--andreasegde (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's precedent for being flexible with it. "We were a good band"/"It was a good band". As Elvis Costello put it: "Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"We were a good band"/"It was a good band", is totally correct, GTBacchus.--andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Small boxes" are no substitute for long-standing consensus and application here. When I remember the 1950s and early 1960s UK groups, they were always plural, as in Gerry & the Pacemakers or The Searchers. The first group to abandon "The", IIRC, were Traffic- but they were still referred to as a plural mass noun, as in "Traffic are" or "Traffic were"; and to an English audience, any other number is so grating as to be painful. If Lennon had said "we were a good, little rock n' roll band/group", nobody would have any complaint about that. There is enough nonsense already about Beatles articles without supporting this further nonsense. Rodhull andemu 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: "The team is here", or "The team are here". Which is right? --andreasegde (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly, the first; but usage differs according to context. Even on BBC News, they are inconsistent as to number. But that is not a concern of ours. There is strong historical consensus in Wikipedia that UK musical groups here are considered as mass nouns, and treated as plurals, and to upset that particular apple-cart seems to me to be particularly pointless. However, I may change my mind as usage develops, so please ask me again in another fifty years time, although you might need to do so via a seance. Meanwhile, let us stick with the status quo ante, please. Rodhull andemu 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Andreasedge, you're way off here. Americans say "was", the British say "were". The Beatles were a British band, so it's "were". Simple as that. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a very subtle difference, but the difference is there. The Beatles was a group, but The Beatles were Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. The use of 'was' could only be used a few times in this article, but to not use the correct verb is lazy. Like, that's wot I fink, anyways.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not another grammar-based dispute, please. We had enough after the the/The arguments. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and add information to articles (I'm not accusing anybody here of not doing that, but it is pertinent to my point). If somebody wants to find out about The Beatles, they won't start tutting and shaking their head because they think we've used the wrong verb - they will just look for the information they need and move on. These disputes add nothing to the article, and shouldn't occur until we have every article under our care at FA standard - most of them are still stubs! So come, Beatle people, and let us rise out of the realms of stubbiness before we begin to discuss the minor subtleties of the English language. Why not work on the current collaboration of the month, or take a stub under your wing and personally try your very hardest to get it to B-Class? Or, why not help us build a pyramid of excellence, topped by a shining Featured article on The Beatles, and surrounded by sp hi nx es? So pull up your moptops and help us make this project the most fab of them all!

tl;dr summary: This argument is pointless, so work on articles instead. Dendodge _T\^C 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

C'mon Dendodge (and the rest of you nay-sayers) this is fun. If anybody doesn't want to answer these posts, then just don't reply, but I am not going to let go of this one. After all, the logo for The Beatles were on Ringo's bass drum, and The Beatles were the name of the group. You can't argue with that. :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've just remembered, British Telecom are a large company in the UK.--andreasegde (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

andreasegde, The logo for The Beatles "was" on Ringo's bass drum (and it still is!), and The Beatles "was" the name of the group. Also, British Telecom (BT) "was" a large company, and Bell Telephone (also BT) "was" also a large company, now their just BLTs. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear 76.198.234.254, it is called reverse psychology, with a little bit of humour thrown in for good measure. The Beatles were a good name for a group, don't you think? :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They sure "was" my friend, sure "was"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we is agreeing 'bout what the thing is. I pity them coyotes that doesn't know what they is talkin' about. It's jus' plum ignorance, and lazy what go with it.--andreasegde (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis true. We werz always agreeing. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's either Vera, or Joe. Which one? "Nice to see ya, to see ya, nice!"--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a soapy dish...alcoholic side-effects!?!? Bless you!!! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagship

I have been working through this article to clean and polish it, because this article should be the flagship.--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, I have had to put quite a few of these, ^{[citation needed]}, in. It's quite shocking, frankly.--andreasegde (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

09/09/09

I can't wait for 9 Sep 2009 to get here. I'll make sure I'm getting my CDs. For those young people out there, this will be a good time to discover The Beatles for the first time. For those older people (including myself and my Beatles colleage editors - most of whom I've yet had any communication with, but soon will), this will be a great time for us to personally re-discover their music. There is no music on Earth since the great European composers of Bach (1600's), Moazrt (1700's) and Beethoven (1800's), that really changed music like The Beatles (1900's) have. To my editor friends, we know that both this article and the discography article (and possibly the other side-articles) will definately change. I'm ready to work with all of you on this when it happens (yes, and that includes you too, Andre!) Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you sign in with a name you will. BTW, remastering the albums is selling coal to Newcastle, or a fridge to an Eskimo, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My friend andreasegde, I think it'd be best if I stay working on discographies rather than main articles, of which you're an expert on (I might contribute through messages via talk page --like this one-- if the page is protected like that of The Beatles), because I'm just not sure anymore if to use the word "was" or "were". Best, Mr. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of humorous conversation

20:07, 16 July 2009 Radiopathy (talk | contribs) m (43,884 bytes) (→One After 090909: deleted per WP:Talk_pages#Important notes)

I knew, I just knew it. Call me an old duffer and a pig in a poke, but I knew it. I did, really.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll you what; I'm going to save the deleted discussion on my page. So there, with knobs on.--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks andreasegde, good idea. I accept that Radiopathy was right to ban it, really, if fun is dirty and naughty, or it was excessively frivolous and irrelevant to improving the article. My intent was to boost morale, thereby precisely contributing to improving the article, but that could only work if all can receive the material in that spirit which evidently is not the case. Let's take heed and respect the wishes of others in this regard in future. To those finding it a funny and morale-boosting exercise though, please now switch channels to User_talk:Andreasegde#One_After_090909 where the vision may yet evolve further! Sir PL290 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was right, but he's not getting a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Records/CDs

Andre, I only have CDs, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You can sod off as well. My name is not Andre, and I am not your friend. You didn't send me a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll send two cards to you my friend, Andre. It's like this: Tom Baker appeared in the best Dr. Who episodes, but Tristan Farnon portrayed the best Doctor! How's that? --76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lennon & McCartney Sutcliffe

The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate sell memorabilia and artifacts of Sutcliffe's, which includes a rare sheet of white paper on which is written the chords and lyrics to a song Lennon and Sutcliffe composed together: "As I stood on the doorstep of romance, You told me, Then you threw your loving arms around me, and you gave me, yes gave me, you gave Peace of Mind..." The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate

So now we know why Macca got upset with Sutcliffe.--andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More like why Lennon got upset with Wooler. PL290 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:))) Wooler forgave J. Lemon after having seven bells of faeces kicked out of him, and it being reported in a national newspaper. Now that's what you call a real man, or one sandwich short of a picnic.--andreasegde (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop/rock

For God's sake's Andre, change the lead back to how it was, and take "and" out. It's not supposed to be "pop and rock", it's supposed to be "pop/rock"! I know you agree with me my friend, like I agree with you on "was and were". Thanks... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Of all the article I watchlist, this is about the worst for unnecessary tinkering with minor details that I have ever seen. I'm not surprised in the slightest that many otherwise committed editors have long since given up the futile struggles here. We are volunteers, remember, and supposed to be a community, but I despair that this article will ever regain its featured article status while this trivial wrangling continues. I have better things to do than argue an established convention about "was" and "were", or genres. Keep it simple, Let It Be and don't rock the boat, otherwise I, for one, am out of here. Whilst that may mean you get your own way, well fucking hot dog, but does it improve the article? Rodhull andemu 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rod! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Put simply: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That's where I stand. Rodhull andemu 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this pop/rock thing and trying to avoid despairing about the article too, but my take is different: I've never heard of a group being called that with or without a slash! The Beatles were a rock group. Their musical style encompassed many genres (which we all keep hearing about too) including, of course, pop. But they were a rock group. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear PL, rock is spun-off from pop, which as you know (pop that is) happens to be the older of the two, and encompassing a wider range of music, giving pop (genre) presedence over rock. Back in the 1960s, '70s, and 80s, this wording was often coupled together, with a dash in-between them, forming pop/rock. This type of grammer began to cesae in the early 1990s with the overall change in popular music itself, as the days of "good" music of the '60s, '70s and '80s was coming to an unfortunate end. Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OY, Mush! Don't start getting on your "Let's find a scapegoat" high horses with me.

Is "was/were" or "pop/rock" such a big deal? Nobody's gonna change anything without concensus. Notice how I didn't get into an edit war about it? I've had experience, Sonny Jim.
If 76.198.234.254 would get a soddin' account, he wouldn't have to keep posting complaints here. I changed it to pop/rock, Mr User.
If Rodhull wants to sod off because of this, then that's his business (well-respected as he is) but I could find much better reasons.
This article will ALWAYS have little differences and complaints, because of the group it's about. It's like going on holiday with your in-laws - it will never get better, no matter how many times you say you like them.
It's like this: If people want to leave complaints here, then just let them. You don't have to answer. If there is an edit war, it will be taken care of by the boys upstairs.
This project has never had the massive amount of input it is now experiencing (said the actress) so look on the bright side, and "cheer up", (Lennon) --andreasegde (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 76.198.234.254, don't bring God into this, or people will come round your house and start burning your records.--andreasegde (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have records any more, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IT DOESN'T MATTER! Nobody is going to care about whether we use a slash or the word "and". Come on, guys - can't we go one day without a grammar argument? I suggest that everybody here participate in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, and concentrate on working on articles for a change.

Back to the point at hand - I think it looks better using "and", but the difference is minuscule and not worth arguing about. Dendodge _T\^C 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dendodge , don't contribute to the hysteria by shouting. I have been bloody working on articles, and not "for a change". --andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the wording to the opening paragraph, I think I have a solution:

“The Beatles, a band that rocked Liverpool before blowing the rest of the world away were fucking awesome”. Or: “The Beatles, yeah? The fucking BEATLES for fuck’s sake! You want some?” Or: “You. yeah, you, ya fucking knob head! We’re talking Beatles here for Christ‘s sake, and if you don’t know who they were, then leave your head up your arse where it obviously belongs”.

I don’t mind which one is used.--Patthedog (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks are being well and truly laughed off. Now That's What I Call Humour III. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Darren Young

Seriously, Andre, as you probably already know, Johnny Gentle is really Darren Young. But quite honestly, concerning Tommy Moore, that is a good question. I'll check my vast assortment of EMI discographical records I have and get back to you on this... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, there is no Tommy Moore to be found...I've checked and checked, still nothing (though Tommy Steele toured with him breifly back in 1960). Also, Gentle's adoptive last name happens to be Askew. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Darren? Sounds like a child of the 80s. "Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours..."--andreasegde (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for acting like a fool above, my friend. Darren Young "could" be an alias that Johnny Askew (a.k.a. Johnny Gentle) used. So, I may quite possibly have the two names turned around, meaning that Johnny Askew is the actual birth name and Darren Young the adoptive. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It was John Askew (see Larry Parnes) and Askew and I share the same birthday. It explains a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good info, thanks Andre...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Moore and Cronckite

I've checked my discographical records for both Tommy Moore and Walter Cronckite...can't seem to recall either one. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, it was Thomas Moore, and Willie Crankhite. Try again.--andreasegde (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor old Johnny Gentle

Why is there nothing about Johnny Gentle and the tour of Scotland in this article or in The Quarrymen article? Not one mention. Tommy Moore? Who's he? Not a mention.--andreasegde (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is me thinking that anyone reading this actually knows who these two gentlemen are.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They're nobody, Andre (like us). Tom Baker or Peter Davison? Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Gentle was a brand of condom. Tommy Moore only had a snare drum. Tell me though andreasegde, Ringo was left handed - but set up his kit in a r/h format, is that correct? --Patthedog (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentle condom? No. Moore snare? no. Ringo? Yes, and that's why it's so hard to copy his fills, because he started them with his left hand on a right-handed kit (if there is such a thing...)--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Ringo's a lefty (I myself right-handed), but was both-handed when playing drums...maybe our friend Andre is too! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This dick is getting on my mammary glands.--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, a good example would be perhaps the intro to Drive My Car? (Yes, and mine too!).--Patthedog (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll send the girl I had over last night to ypur place. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, by the time you're done, you might be calling each other "bland glands"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, do you mean Johnny "the gentle" Lennon"? One and the same, maybe... --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Moore was one of Lennon's original school buddy members of the group. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, I don't know. Dis-regard the above I said. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have. Don't you have something important to do on The Bee Gees page? --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Course we know about the Moore Gentle insertion into the scheme of things. Dendodge said anyway. There are some funny words I don't understand appearing at a different place on this page, but perhaps it's because for the third day running I'm unable to read the screen when doubled up with tears of helpless laughter streaming down my face. PL290 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put poor Johnny on the Macca page aeons ago (he's still there as one line) but had to cut it back for the FA boys upstairs. The Scottish tour should have a paragraph all to itself. Look at the timeline and see where the towns were (in order) that they played in. The back of beyond and over the hillside just don't come into it, no-how.--andreasegde (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, does it go on The Quarrymen page, or here? They were called Long John and The Silver Beetles in Scotland, after all. Don't all rush at once...--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it at the end of Lennon's ex-school group page, but it should be more, such as: Tommy Moore having his teeth knocked out by a guitar after the van crashed, Lennon visiting him in hospital the next day and telling he had to get up and do the gig no matter how poorly he felt, and poor Tommy going back to the bottling works in Liverpool as a forklift truck driver because his girlfriend told him to. Now that's what I call a story, and it's all true, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say Quarrymen (well actually I'd say Quarry Men, but that's another story). It has all the background, and already has a.k.a. Silver Beetles in its infobox; Long John could join them there. After all, let us remember what Patthedog reminded us: we are talking The Beatles here. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied over a sentence from Macca, but I'll look for more. It was a classic crap tour, and very informative about how The Fabs lived up there. Sleeping on stairways, out of their trees most of the time, and having it away with anything that didn't have testicles.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This remark has evidently been reverberating in my subconscious but had become abridged: I thought you said they were sleeping in the trees most of the time. But of course if they did happen to do that, then we should note it somewhere (assuming there's a reliable source) and it should probably make its way into the first sentence of the Lead, in due time. PL290 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No wonder Ringo's left-handed, 'cause he was snaring the "drums" with his right hand! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First live appearance?

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "America" the wiki states that the first time The Beatles were on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show - in fact they were first on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite FIRST. In an interview I saw when Walter passed (last night) he stated that he wanted that little piece of trivia to be acknowledged. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170603n&tag=related;photovideo Thank you. NativeSonKY (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source that states that the Beatles appeared live with Cronkite? The way the article currently reads, it was a recorded segment on the CBS News, but their first live appearance was on Sullivan. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Declined Nowhere in that clip does it mention the Beatles, much less that the broadcast was live. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170873n - at about 2:45 of the video "Walter Cronkite: In His Own Words" the Beatles are seen talking to the reporter saying "We hope we have a good run..." NativeSonKY (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But nowhere does it say that clip was live. I see no need to change the article, which reflects that the Beatles first appeared on American TV on the CBS Evening News and first appeared live on the Ed Sullivan Show. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point - well taken - also didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into! Thanks for keeping it civil in my case! I didn't mean to cause you any pain, Uncle Albert :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeSonKY (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Erm, have a cup of tea and butter pie. :) And you've got a point about CBS Evening News being their first appearance; as I noted before, that is in the article. If it weren't, I would have added it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Beatles first performance on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show". Mine's a steak and kidney pie and a bottle of stout.--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into!" - NativeSonKY. #%@!storm? You don't visit this page very often then... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact that the first "live" performance of the Beatles in the US was on The Ed Sullivan Show. The first filmed appearance of The Beatles in the US was a little seen segment aired on the CBS Morning News on 22 November. It was this filmed segment which aired the following month on the widely seen CBS Evening News. The reason for the delay was the JFK assassination. If you really want to be anal retentive, Jack Paar played a filmed performance of The Beatles playing "She Loves You" on his show before they appeared live on Ed Sullivan. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Group or band - which one?

                                                                                       STRAW POLL CLOSED

I know the fuddy-duddys like me will say "group", because Long John and Pauly always referred to them as a rock 'n roll group (Macca once said they were "a great act") but some of the lads in short keks will go for "band", as in rock band. I'll go either way, but no funny business after the lights are out... Straw Poll time, as it makes it less painful, especially if you're swinging both ways...

(Note: It's strange that nobody has gone solely for band yet...)--andreasegde (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Note #2: Isn't it nice? Tea with the vicar, a game of bowls, and a straw poll for afters. Nice, and not a smidgin of rain. Lovely stuff.)--andreasegde (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Group:

--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I say group also, because The Beatles was a (pop)/rock group. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they were definitely a beat group, at least to start with, so I say "group."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Pawnkingthree can say they were a beat group and be on this list then so can I! Beat group/group/phenomenon/ensemble. But definitely not a band.--Patthedog (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Group is the term that was generally used at the time and should be used first in an article, but if band is mixed in later a few times, no harm done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Chaz (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Cloned Pickle 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hotcop2 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Score one for the old folks - "group" is what we always said when we could talk about the Beatles in present tense, so I'd go for that if we want to choose only one but an occasional "band" here or there is ok. (My son saw Macca at Shea/CitiField on Friday, and he'd probably say "band", but he doesn't get a vote because he took his girlfriend to the concert instead of his mother.) Tvoz/talk 07:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Band:

They were a group, that is true, but they played instruments. I have nothing else to say. I think I would go with band Zobango (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles were a band, they weren't some opera. I'm pretty sure that George Harrison said that they were a Rock and Roll Band some time in The Beatles anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine and both can appear in the same article:

Either is fine; both can (and indeed should) appear in the same article. There is The Beatles: Rock Band—"The game has been developed with the blessing and critical input of Apple Corps, including former Beatles members Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr". But "group" is fine too and per User:SilkTork, variety is good. PL290 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:DGAF :) ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there really a difference between the two? Both terms redirect to musical ensemble, so you won't find a reason there. As far as I'm concerned, a rock 'n' roll band and a rock 'n' roll group are one and the same, so I'm fine with either or both appearing in the article. Krobertj (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The terms mean exactly the same thing as far as I am concerned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Both are fine, and are interchangeable. Group gets 2,222 mentions in GoogleBooks, while band gets 1,757 mentions. A slightly different result on the internet where band gets 20,600,000 hits, and group a mere 7,440,000. I hope this is a fun poll and that nobody is going to start some kind of ethnic cleansing with a Beatles mop at the end of it. Besides, there are other alternatives - I remember they were quite frequently called a beat combo or just four lads. Text is more attractive to read (and provides more information and education) if a variety of descriptive words are used. We are not Wikipedia Simple. Simples. SilkTork *^YES! 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Vint (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"Group" is a Sixties (or maybe even Fifties) term; we started hearing "band" in the Seventies. I still feel that either is fine, even when discussing a "group" that was only active until the end of the Sixties. Radiopathy •talk• 05:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
faithless (^speak) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
--Betty kerner (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think both terms mean the same thing, so either one is acceptable and can be used in the same article. -JayLeno175 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Either noun is fine with me.
Raiku : Chat 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) - There's really no difference.
This is silly. They were both. And the two terms can each be used for the Beatles in different contexts. They were the world's greatest rock group and also the world's greatest pop band. Why do you need to call them one or the other? Is the US a country or a nation? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

John in interviews used both -- "I met Paul and said, ``You want to join me band? Then George joined, and then Ringo joined. We were just a band that made it very, very big, that's all", "I started the band. I finished it" vs "It's only a rock group that split up, it's nothing important" etc.
ΠΑΕ.ΠΑΟΚ ₯ (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree this is silly! What next LP vs Album? The band used both; "rock band" didn't exist as a phrase in the UK in the early 1960s, the Beatles were a pop group, or a rock n roll group. Later on, they started calling themselves a rock band - probably through US influence. I find it unbelievable that anyone would be confused by using both terms. Apepper (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the interviews I recall of the Beatles included them saying that it was a band, however I really don't think this is really important. Seriously, what is te difference between a group and a band. Most importantly, WHO CARES! I am not dissing my favorite band but I have to say that this is a waste of time.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{S†rawberry Fields (sign)} 13:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised at people saying how silly this was, but felt they had to leave a comment. It's like complaining about the price of stamps when you don't use them.

I brought this up because when reading paragraphs with band, group, band, group, it left me confused, as in, "Hello, this my wife, Edna. She's my second spouse, because my first bride ran off with my ex-fiancée." Maybe I work too much on The Beatles' articles, and I'm going snowblind.
My thanks to everyone who took part, but especially because nobody argued (even though they did complain a bit). Democracy (ouch - not allowed) is alive and well, albeit living in a small vegan restaurant in Hove.--andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with people saying something's silly? It's relevant to their vote! When I first added the "either is fine" choice, didn't this edit and then this one say "that's silly" to me? I got over it! I don't see the need to castigate people who've helpfully participated in a straw poll and given their honest, relevant opinion to supplement their vote. But I do see that I'll be getting no Xmas card either this year. :) PL290 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from blatantly ignoring the "Straw Poll Closed", it seems you feel the need, PL290, to drag this into an argument, specifically when that is something everybody had had enough of. OK, Big Yin, I will tell you this:

I asked people for a simple vote. I didn't ask people to comment on whether it interrupted their dinner, or made their blood boil. It couldn't have been simpler.
If the people that seemed so hot under the collar about this poll put just one single reference onto the main page, it wouldn't have "citations needed", would it? You're backing the wrong horse, but I'll let you find that out for yourself. (Note: It doesn't have any now, because somebody decided to work on it.)
The edits I made were trying to be humorous, and lighten it up a bit. You should get out more.
I don't give a flying frig if you "got over it" or not. I started the soddin' thing, and I closed it. I don't need your take on my state of mind, and I certainly don't need to know yours.
I wasn't castigating anyone, I was expressing my opinion. You forgot to read that I thanked everyone, or are you selectively blind?
True, you're off my Xmas card list, because your kind of arrogance gets up my soddin' nose.
Now go find something better to do, and read the capital letters underneath.--andreasegde (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

                                                                                             STRAW POLL CLOSED

P.S.

The Beatles were quintessentially English weren’t they? McCartney met Lennon playing skiffle at a church garden fete. They then formed a group and (initially) wrote pop songs whilst drinking tea (spilling most of it). They lived here (lovely wet England) and paid a ridiculous level of tax for the privilege. It was “group” until “band” began to creep into our vernacular along with “guy” instead of “chap” in around ‘69. They were definitely never just a “rock band” anyway. I agree, it’s probably not worth getting out the axe for, but to those who ask “who cares?” well, I do actually, and that's why I voted. --Patthedog (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering exactly when groups were started to be called bands. I'm sure Macca would have thought of his father's "Jim Mac's Jazz Band", or the local brass band concerts his father took him to watch in the local park. How fashions change, as words that were once associated with the old fellas are picked up again. Anbody for a spot of sunbathing, a dip in the sea, a quick cuppa, whizz-bang tally-ho and all that malarky? Kettle's on...--andreasegde (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

American releases

===America===                           ! not an American release
===Australia and New Zealand===         ! not an American release
===MBE, Elvis and ''Rubber Soul''===    ! not an American release

PL290 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Australia and New Zealand" section was always strange, as they toured/played in Germany, Holland, Sweden and other places. The "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul is also strange. The Beatles at The Cavern Club being a prime example. Is it a timeline article? This may be the result of an explosion of new articles, without taking a step back to look at the main article from a distance. --andreasegde (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point we must remind ourselves that attempts were made to do exactly that (step back and review the article structure) before the new sub-articles were created. At the time those involved couldn't seem to find common ground on which to base the discussion. But anyway, that's the past so let's not dwell on it beyond learning a lesson from it. Straight away, andreasegde's reply's given me the thought that the article should have "Tours" or "International tours" as a section. Under "Tours" could go the summary of the U.S. tours, along with summary or summaries for all the others andreasegde just mentioned and more. "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul needs dismantling, I suspect. It's all about 1965, which may explain its existence, but of course touring happened in 1965 too. I think "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul needs to break away from chronology. "Tours" will include 1964, 1965 and 1966, while other sections devoted to significant themes ("Influences" for instance? e.g. Presley, Dylan, "their idol" Little Richard ...) can quite happily mention things pertaining to those years too. Food for thought, perhaps. Personally I think getting the structure right is the key to sorting the article out and getting it shining, flagshipshape and Bristol fashion. But for that to happen we are going to need some suggestions about an effective process; do we draft an outline structure (like mine above, but the whole article) on a subpage, and all keep editing it till it's right, conversing the while in edit summaries? Or perhaps there's an established and better way someone knows about. PL290 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Everything from "Formation" to "Recent projects..." is the group's biography/history. This is reflected in the outline structure we've now arrived at which is shown below (detailed levels not shown). These level 2 and level 3 sections are necessary to allow the TOC to make sense. The detailed levels and content still need work, but this gives a better basis for getting things into shape.

Citation needed

I added these to this article, because I was shocked.

As there were so many people willing to contribute to the the straw poll, why are they not willing to erase (by adding references) the "Citation needed" tags in the main article? Where are you when we need you? You have a voice that you are ready and willing to use, but how about some real edits? Are you all here just to state your opinion and/or complain? Please feel free to write "I do what I can", but when the basics are not there, don't even pretend that you care. "All mouth and no trousers", as the old blokes used to say.

Don't even dare to say that I should do it.--andreasegde (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you need a job doing, do it yer bleedin' self. Thanks for the input, y'all.--andreasegde (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Can someone change the references to Michael Jackson and the song catalog to the past tense? --JustW353

His death doesn't really change anything. His estate now owns or controls the publishing rights until his heirs get it. Changing it to past tense will make it seem like he sold the rights prior to his death. Until something is published which states what will happen, I suggest leaving it as is. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some minor mods, but I agree, it's too early to report what is going to happen to the song catalogue. Rodhull andemu 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello friends

this article seems interesting ( with sources)

[[16]]

--Roujan (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Glam band?

I know they started before the early 70's, but is The Beatles' later work ever considered glam rock? Look at their image from the Sgt. Pepper era. David Bowie's early work is very Beatlesque too, and Roxy Music I know covered several Beatles songs, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana Joye (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's cobblers.--andreasegde (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is cobblers? I think someone's drenched in drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana Joye (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialect for not a good idea. They were glamorous before glam rock, but at the end they all had (mostly) beards, which was not very glam rock, and was considered a bit hippy.

BTW, there's a little box at the top of this editing page, to the right of a 'W' with a red circle. Click on it.--andreasegde (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Members in the infobox

I was wondering why All four are listed as "members" even though the band broke up. Other bands that broke up like Cream (band) and Led Zeppelin have members listed under former members. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is right here; have fun!

Welcome to Wikipedia, also! Radiopathy •talk• 04:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The way it is here actually makes more sense to me than listing them all us former members. I was wondering why no consistency though. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Distribution Tweak

The article refers to music distribution services such as "Napster" but clearly seems to be in the context of iTunes. Changing the text "Napster" (and the accompanying hyperlink) to "iTunes" seems prudent. Titomuerte (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

PL290 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The format (as it is) is not good, or shite if one was honest, as it should be divided into years, or albums. They did so much in each individual year that it should be noted. The Beatles in 1966, being a prime example as a good (but not yet a GA) article, and The Beatles at The Cavern Club being a bad example. Time to stop spewing articles into the ether, and concentrate on the facts.--andreasegde (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support splitting the History section into subsections by year. I wouldn't limit all of the sections too a single year, however. The pre-fame years can probably be collapsed into a section or two, and similarly the post-breakup years don't need a section by year. They can be split into decades, perhaps. The high-activity years should have a section per year. I also wouldn't get too hung up about year boundaries. For example, The Sgt. Pepper stuff should be discussed in 1967 even though the recording sessions started at the end of 1966. Let It Be can be discussed in 1969 even though the album was released in 1970. So, I propose:

1960 and prior
1961 and 1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s

I am not opposed to combing some years or grouping the early pre-fame years differently. I think the key is to make it an explicit timeline by year (or more). — John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I support year-grouping if it can be shown to work. So I'd avocate taking this a stage further and seeing what's in each group and whether this approach presents any difficulties. (BTW Hamburg included 1960, 1961 and 1962 so would end up in two sections per the above outline.) I suggest we need at least bullet points to indicate contents of each section to give confidence that the approach will work. PL290 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's OK to split up the trips to Hamburg. Each particular trip should be in one section, even if it spans the section's timespan (just pick a section).

That triggers a question: do the sub-articles have to cover the same time spans as the sections? My opinion is no. While "1960 and prior" and "1961 and 1962" are shown as two sections above, both sections could have "The Beatles - 1962 and prior" as their main article. I think one-to-one is better, but if the main article devoted to a specific section was shorter than we want, we could combine that section with the main article for the next or previous sections. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that. Hamburg (or whatever theme we use as an example) could appear in more than one section in this article; and be covered in detail by a single sub-article—however, it may be that that sub-article would become overcluttered and lose focus if we force it to be the one place for all expanded detail pertaining to that timespan. So, using your timespans or similar for sections in this article, should we perhaps aim for a complete set of timespan sub-articles (combined where size dictates, per your comment), but also some "theme" (as opposed to timespan) sub-articles where useful (the obvious example being Hamburg)? PL290 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is bloody madness. The Beatles in Hamburg is a perfectly good article, and splitting it would confuse the situation even more. There isn't an article about the 62 trip there, because it wouldn't be long enough. It is dealt with in the main article. The confusion is the main section. The Quarrymen deals with The Cavern, Brian Epstein deals with his involvement, Beatlemania the same, so what's missing? --andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall structure sucks, but I don't want to participate in bloody madness, so I'll bow out and you can decide whether to leave it or change it. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

John, please come back, this was a misunderstanding and I for one appreciate your input and hope it will continue. Andreasedge, you asked, "What's missing?" A wet fish is what's missing! No one's suggested splitting the Hamburg article. John was talking about sections in this article. Calm down and re-read! PL290 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, PL290, I'm out. I got a reminder of why I avoid editing the main article and the other biographies and so now I'll return to defending the articles from vandalism, removing unsourced stuff, helping with citations, etc. Less drama. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this use of years to split up the sections. A casual visitor to the article might know that the band spent time in Hamburg and that there was a period of massive success called "Beatlemania", but not know the exact years those took place. With more descriptive section titles, they'd be able to glance at the contents and jump straight to those sections, but at the moment they can't if they don't know the years.

The majority of articles on pop and classical musicians seem to use a combination of dates and descriptions: Bob Dylan, R.E.M., Björk, Blur (band), Eminem, Sonic Youth, Oasis (band), The Clash, Pink Floyd. Articles that use descriptions alone include Nirvana (band), Aretha Franklin, Run-D.M.C., Johnny Cash and Jimi Hendrix. One article (the only one I've found so far!) that uses dates alone is The Rolling Stones. --Nick R^Talk 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion so far there's been agreement that a year split is good, but you are right about the loss of immediate navigability to main themes. They're not really one-to-one with years. For the best of both worlds, how about leaving it as it is but adding a navbox or suchlike with links to "Beatlemania" and a handful of other main themes? PL290 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but I don't think my navbox suggestion really cuts it. So, how about this:

Dispense with the "Active years" and "Pre-1960" headings;
Introduce four new "theme grouping" level 2s as shown below, while keeping everything else the same:

==Formation== ! THEME

==Hamburg residency, and the Cavern Club== ! THEME

1960

1961–1962

==Beatlemania, and touring years== ! THEME

1963

1964

1965

==Controversy, and studio years== ! THEME

1966

1967

1968

1969–1970

Billy Preston & associated acts

Since Get Back was credited to The Beatles with Billy Preston, shouldn't he be an associated act? Also, it seems you could make an argument for Clapton, given his songwriting with Harrison and guitar playing for While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say no, fleeting collaborations like that are probably not relevant in the infobox. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For Preston or Clapton (or both)? Preston also was a session player on other songs (like organ on I want you she's so heavy). Deserted Cities (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Preston: he actually also played with The Beatles through most of the "Get Back" sessions, not just the one song. Radiopathy •talk• 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Associated_acts which tries to show what to include and what to avoid. It's a bit of a grey area but from my reading the key word is "act". I don't think session musicians who are themselves acts constitute associated acts. One example of what to avoid is "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)". PL290 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-breakup

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

I'm quite taken with this idea as it seems to meet everyone's needs. Thoughts/objections? PL290 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Years active the Quarrymen 1957-1960 the beatles Years active 1960-1970 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Quarrymen have their own article. The Beatles came into existence in 1960. The Quarrymen is considered to be an associated act with three members who would become Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-breakup

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

I'm quite taken with this idea as it seems to meet everyone's needs. Thoughts/objections? PL290 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we include folk rock in the genre

The Folk Rock article mentions the beatles countless time. I think we should include it in the genre. Since I'm not a regular editor here I'll let you guys decide. --Fire 55 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Zazaban (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason, I decided to be bold and added Psychedelic rock. Deserted Cities (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped for more discussion before doing this. Let's not forget that folk rock is a derivative of folk music and rock music, and whereas The Beatles may have borrowed stylistically from Bob Dylan in his 1965 electrification, and slightly later, The Byrds, in no way did they take anything much from folk music, considering their roots were unarguably in the 1950s American blues/R& B imports into Liverpool. Having said that, they were arguably magpies in that they were influenced by lots of things they heard- but that, in itself, is insufficient to apply folk rock as a general label. Consider this: as far as the UK is concerned, most musicologists would agree that Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span exemplify folk rock. I challenge anyone to find a source stylistically linking those two bands with The Beatles, or vice-versa. The influence is, if anything, minor. Similarly with Psychedelic rock; they may well have begun, or been a major contributor, to that sub-genre, but overall, if you really think those sub-genres need mentioning, it opens the floodgates to all sorts of other unsupported stuff. "Pop and Rock" is good enough, as far as I'm concerned, per Occam's Razor. Rodhull andemu 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue to at least keep Psychedelic, as they are fairly famous for that subgenre in particular. Zazaban (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(←)Again, if we're talking about sub-genres, there are too many to include sensibly (Hard rock, Country & Western, Comedy, Raga, etc). But we're talking not about sub-genres, but genres, and taking a broad view, I think pop (for the early years) and rock (for the later years) cover all the possibilities. Rodhull andemu 00:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said we include everything, I said including one because it is particularly significant. Zazaban (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The slippery-slope argument shouldn't apply here. It seems reasonable to include multiple genres in the infobox, say 3 or 4 at most. Just because they recorded a few songs in one style or another, doesn't mean we add it. Instead, if their famous for that style, we do add it. The Psychedelic rock article goes into great depths about the Beatles and even says "With their 1967 releases, The Beatles set the mark for this genre". Deserted Cities (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in this article, but we might want to start discussions at the album articles about minor expansion of the genres there. Radiopathy •talk• 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the previous suggestion that this article should stay with the 'aim for generality' path but The Beatles' album articles could be reviewed and expanded slightly in a few cases. (but hopefully not over-killed as some might tend to do with an album like the White Album) Peter Fleet (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)To repeat a comment I've just made where this came up elsewhere: we should source them like any other statement. If a WP:RS says it's "rock", then we say it's rock, and give an inline citation to the source. Otherwise, we say nothing because it is simply WP:OR. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Being as inclusive as possible while preventing edit wars, I would suggest: "Rock, Pop rock, Hard rock, Psychedelic rock, Folk rock, Experimental rock. Jacob Richardson (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See section The Beatles#Musical evolution which was recently tagged to invite verifiable statements about genre. Establishing consensus using verifiable content in this section (which is anyway of interest in the article) should enable the infobox to list the main ones without warring. PL290 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)