Talk:The Beatles/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Add Devin McKinney to Further reading?

I would like to add Devin McKinney's book Magic Circles: The Beatles in Dream and History to the Further reading section. I know there are a zillion books about the Beatles, and I couldn't find (possibly through inexpertise) any criteria for inclusion. I grew up with the Beatles and have read maybe a third of the zillion books; this is one of the few, and the only one by an author who didn't grow up with the group, that's really challenged me to change the way I think about them. Briankharvey (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links

On 24 February, a number of wikilinks number of wikilinks were removed. Though duplicate links were the target, it appears several valid ones got the axe as well. I can get to this over the weekend, but if anybody's got the time before then...—indopug (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The diff you provided is for the Watchmen article. Did you mean to post a diff for The Beatles article here, or did you mean to post your comment to Talk:Watchmen? GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC) There must be a "Who Watches The Watchmen" joke in there somewhere. :-)
Quando paramucho me amore de felice carathon. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes parasol. Er... that's all I got. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ouch. Fixed the link. Now to check what I posted at Talk:Watchmen.—indopug (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"The history of music"

"The beatles are the most commercially successfull and critically acclaimed act in the history of music.."

Thats hard stuff. im a beatlesfan, so dont get me wrong, but i honestly doubt that. Are the beatles more succesfull and respectet than mozart, bach and beethoven!? mostly , when the beatles are compared to classical musicians it is supposed to be a compliment for the beatles. for example it is written in the article about william mann:He achieved notoriety for his assertion that the Beatles were "the greatest songwriters since Schubert" That doesent sound like the beatles are the most respectet of all time , even though its from 1964. And the commercial succes of mozart is hard to compare to pop-musicains. for example the trade name of mozart is supposed to be 5 billion us-dollar.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.44.148 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. As great as The Beatles were, their music is not in the same league as Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Also, the citation given does not support the claim "... in the history of music". It says "... they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century." [1] The article should say: "... in the history of popular music". I will go ahead and make the change. Stanley Oliver (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
While Stanley Oliver did eventually get around to discussing what the sources say, both of you began your posts by giving your own opinions on the matter. Not helpful. But in response to those comments, were Mozart , Bach and Beethoven not "popular" composers and performers? Don't get sucked in by thinking that there is some clear distinction between "classical" and "popular" music. Do you really think that the music of those three was called "classical" in its time? HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

in wikipedia popular music is described as music with wid appeal and as contrast to classical. i think the statement the beatles were the most acclaimed act in popular music is absolutly okay, but the superlative for the hole history is not acceptable and i would say that in every article.. mozart, bach or beethoven arent ( clearly) the most acclaimed act either, so maybe it would be okay to name them all as one of the most acckaimed acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.4.164 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm a little disappointed to see the removal of the first sentence of this article that had been there for many months. The leading line "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music," seemed to be a very elegant summation of their place in the canon. There is evidence to support both that more people listened to them than Mozart or Beethoven (not that it matters) and that contemporary popular music is in fact distinct from earlier eras of Western music. I think we ought to consider bringing the old leading line back to the article. 99.2.104.73 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing and odd that music from 50 years ago is described as contemporary. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
That is possibly because usage of the word "contemporary" in advertisements and other media has led you (or others reading this) to believe that the word means "modern". It means "from the period being discussed: of that time". So contemporary used for present times means "of this time" which is where I feel the confusion lies. Britmax (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that contemporary means modern. And I'm as confused by that post as I am by much of this discussion. The whole thing seems to be built on some unclear to me, unstated assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Some Early Inaccuracies

I only noticed a couple things, but:

Pete Best and Paul McCartney were arrested for setting fire to a condom in their dressing room. Not a tapestry.

They appointed Epstein manager in December of 1961, and auditioned with Decca on New Year's Day 1962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.48.212 (talk) 15:25, July 3, 2013

Can you show us reliable sources supporting those claims? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Add link for those who mis-spell

Could someone who knows the intricacies of wiki coding please add a link at the head of the article to "beetles" / "beetle". Thanks. I had a bash and couldn't figure it. (p.s the article is absurdly long. It's a book. It needs splitting into main and subsidiary articles.) LookingGlass (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted this addition as the alternative spelling already exists as a redirect. I feel that this will be of more use to anyone who searches using the wrong spelling while giving us as few hatnotes at the top of the article as possible. As to your other point, the article is split into some subsidiaries but they are a band who are still famous forty years after they split up. I'm afraid they will have a long article. Another problem is that people add "missing information" to the article because they do not realise that the subsidiaries exist and that the "missing" information is there. Britmax (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation practice

In which section will you place this? Or is it relevant to this page? Its up to someone more knowledgeable than me.

According to an in interview with Yoko Ono in 2012, John Lennon practiced Transcendental Meditation (taught by Maharishi) up until he died (as did George Harrison, which is well documented. And Paul and Ringo have said in many interviews that they still practice the technique today.)

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/06/27/yoko-ono

(its at the end of the interview.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many ogg files?

I count 8 oggs and many of the clips are from songs not critically discussed in the text, i.e. many have dubious FURs. I suggest that we trim out a few, leaving only those with solid FURs. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Magic Mystery Tour

Why there is no record of The Magic Mystery Tour on the Discography?. ltamborrell 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the text, but not listed since it wasn't a UK LP. In the UK it was released as a double EP. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

Why isn't Jeff Lynne listed? After all, he produced the last two Beatles singles, as well as solo albums for Paul, George and Ringo. The Wookieepedian (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • According to Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts: "The following uses of this field should be avoided: 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). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What about Klaus Voorman? 86.128.241.188 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Voorman never played with the Beatles. He played with two former Beatles and he played with Lennon when Lennon was still a Beatle. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles Genres

I know this has been said before, but it is a good point. I think it is very narrow minded and misleading to only put Rock and Pop as the Beatles' genres on their main wiki page. I'm not saying we put every single genre they've ever played, because they've played all of them, but we should at least add the ones they are famously known for. I think "psychedelic rock" and "rock and roll" should be added, since a huge amount of their old material was rock and roll, and most of their later material was psychedelic rock. For example, Damon Albarn's wiki page lists every genre he has recorded in, and he has recorded a lot of different genres. If we did this to the Beatles, they would be listed as Blues, Folk, Hard Rock, Country, Raga, Classical, Baroque Pop, Progressive Rock, Jazz, Experimental Rock, Soft Rock, Pop Rock, etc. I'm not saying we do that, all i ask for is to add the two i mentioned. The Beatles were much more creative than just "Pop and Rock". Just ask anyone with the tiniest bit of knowledge about music, and they will agree that psychedelic and rock n roll are two of their main genres. So i vote that at least Psychedelic Rock and Rock & Roll should be added to the Beatles' genres. Y45ed (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a better argument for editing dowen the Damon Albarn infobox than increasing the entries in this one. Why would we just take the two you like and not the others? It is much simpler, comprehensible and in line with the guidelines to use the two general terms.--SabreBD (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
1. I just used Damon Albarn as an example. That was just a minor point in my argument. 2. They are not just "the two genres i like", they are in fact two genres that the Beatles recorded in most. I made that perfectly clear. Any other band will list a wider range of genres, not just two vague general terms. I'm in no way saying we should add all the Beatles' genres, because that would look something like this: Rock, pop, blues rock, psychedelic rock, r&b, folk rock, pop rock, hard rock, rock and roll, baroque pop, classical, jazz, music hall, heavy metal, country, skiffle, raga, indian, experimental rock, surf rock, beat, progressive rock, soul... And that would just be ridiculous. So all I am proposing is that just a few of their main genres are added, otherwise people who are new to the Beatles will see that they are just "rock" and "pop" which will not give them a good idea of what the beatles are. You could call any band "rock and "pop", like The Beach Boys, The Monkees, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, Gorillaz, Aerosmith, David Bowie, The Who, but that doesn't stop people from opening their mind a bit and adding some new genres to their wiki page. Why are the Beatles excluded from that?Y45ed (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Because the guidelines say go for generality. It would also be very difficult to prove that those two are the ones the Beatles used the most and they are covered by rock and pop.--SabreBD (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with SabreBD. Further, far too much time is wasted on these infobox discussions, which rarely if ever lead to an actual improvement of the article. Rock and pop are umbrella terms that cover nearly every genre the Beatles ever recorded in. It's a fool's errand to attempt to list every notable genre in the infobox, and there is absolutely no guideline that suggests that we should do so. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles logo as the infobox title

Just like on the Jethro Tull page, where a GIF image of Ian Anderson's silhouette is used in the title of the infobox, the GIF image of The Beatles logo could be used in the title of the infobox on The Beatles' Wikipedia-page.

I think this would make the page look a lot more interesting and professional and it would be great to see this on the page!

135px
A square quartered into four head shots of young men with moptop haircuts. All four wear white shirts and dark coats.
The Beatles in 1964
Top: Lennon, McCartney
Bottom: Harrison, Starr
Background information
OriginLiverpool, England
GenresRock, pop
Years active1960–70
LabelsParlophone, Swan, Vee-Jay, Capitol, United Artists, Apple
Past members
Websitethebeatles.com

WackoPsyco69orsomething (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would look cooler with the official logo, but it might give the impression that the band somehow approved the article. See also WP:BANDLOGO. GoingBatty (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

File:The Beatles on Green Hill in Almaty, Kazakhstan.jpg

The Beatles also have a monument statue in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Arthur Robinson (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Arthur Robinson: Nice monument, but where do you think it would fit in the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've put it in the legacy section, where there was no picture. It seems quite suitable there, and it's nice to have a colour pic, as many in the article are B&W. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

Several segments of the lead paragraph don't read very well, in my opinion.

The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960. Their best-known lineup, consisting of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, became considered by many as the greatest and most influential act of the rock era. Rooted in skiffle and 1950s rock and roll, the Beatles later utilised several genres, ranging from pop ballads to psychedelic rock, often incorporating classical elements in innovative ways. In the early 1960s, their enormous popularity first emerged as "Beatlemania", but as their songwriting grew in sophistication, they came to be perceived by fans and cultural observers as an embodiment of the ideals shared by the era's sociocultural revolutions.

First of all, became considered by many as is very clunky and might not even be grammatical. Why isn't it is considered, instead of essentially putting two past tense verbs together - are they no longer considered one of the greatest? Also, considered as does not appear to be used properly here (see TheFreeDictionary's usage notes: "As is sometimes used superfluously to introduce the complements of verbs like consider, deem, and account, as in They considered it as one of the landmark decisions of the civil rights movement. The measure was deemed as unnecessary. This usage may have arisen by analogy to regard and esteem, with which as is standardly used in this way: We regarded her as the best writer among us. But the use of as with verbs like consider is not sufficiently well established to be acceptable in writing."). "Considered as a candidate" is a proper usage of the phrase but "considered as the best" doesn't make any sense - if you replace it with a synonym and say "regarded as the best", it sounds correct. I would recommend replacing the section in question with is considered by many to be, or is regarded by many as.

Secondly, the verb choice in describing the Beatles musical variety is questionable. First off, utilize is an unnecessarily verbose version of use. And a person doesn't use a musical genre, just as they don't do a genre. They perform within the definition of a genre, or they explore/experiment with, etc. I can offer numerous alternatives here: the Beatles later explored several genres... the Beatles' music later expanded into several genres... the Beatles were later influenced by several genres. Regardless of what the meaning of the sentence is, the word choice just doesn't fit. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • How about this? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks better, although I would still argue there's no reason to say "became widely regarded" when "is widely regarded" sounds better and is more accurate. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's good now. Although I'm inclined to say the subject of the second sentence (and thus, the item that "is widely regarded as the greatest act") should be "the band", rather than "their best-known lineup", since a lineup is an abstraction, I don't feel as strongly about that as I did the other changes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we can avoid 3 short sentences like that with something along the lines of The group, best-known by its lineup consisting of..., is widely regarded, or The group, with its best-known lineup consisting of..., is widely regarded. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not at all a fan of using an S/V split in that position. It puts the group and a rock band too close together for my taste. What do you think of this edit? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That sounds alright, although I would again point to the question of saying "became" vs "is". What about either of these: Best-known by their lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they/the group are widely regarded.... or Consisting most famously of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they/the group are widely regarded.... Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, I think that "best-known" line-up stuff is not great. They only have one well-known line-up, and it's that line-up that recorded all the hits; there are not multiple line-ups of varying fame. I think became is better than is here because the first graph is setting the stage for their accomplishments. It was "with those four guys" that they became famous, so what's the issue here? Also, if we use is, it would be the only present tense verb in the whole first paragraph; all the others are past tense. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour

Since the Magical Mystery Tour album is now part of the band's core catalogue,[2][3] the "discography" section of this article should also list Magical Mystery Tour and perhaps be subtitled something like Core catalogue or Main discography instead of Original UK LPs. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-mn0000754032
  2. ^ http://www.thebeatles.com/album/magical-mystery-tour
  3. ^ http://www.thebeatlesonline.co.uk/thebeatles/thebeatles/The-Beatles-In-Stereo-Vinyl-Box/19VF0000000?back=
  • You'reNotMyBrain, do you know of any WP:RSs that explicitly state that MMT is now part of the band's core catalogue? Because that first source doesn't say that (see WP:OR) and the second one is not reliable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's one from the official Apple Corps authorised Beatles website: [1] Quote: "the US-originated Magical Mystery Tour, now part of the group's core catalogue" Why aren't the other two reliable though? They're both from the official site, authorised by Apple. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you're correct. I misread the link as an online retailer. It's not that they are unreliable, it's that they do not explicitly state what this latest source does. Based on that, I would say you can go ahead and make that change. Nice work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget Past Masters! :) The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

cancer, smoking, and death

George Harrison blamed smoking for his cancer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-87109/Ex-Beatle-blamed-smoking-cancer.html Surely there would be some value to people in knowing this fact--it might even save a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.248.245 (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to add it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Not so fast. 1) The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and it should never be cited to in an FA. 2) This article is about the Beatles, not Harrison. 3) It already says that Harrison died from lung cancer, so it's not a big stretch to assume smoking contributed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
So why leave it as just an assumption? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, we don't go into any detail at this article regarding the murder of Lennon; we just mention that he was killed, so why would we go into speculative detail regarding the possible causes of Harrison's cancer? Also, as I said above, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, so even if we were going to add more detail about this we would first need a WP:RS. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Gabe. Besides, then we'd have to go into the stabbing which didn't help matters. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why No Mention of Motown in the Influences Section?

I was writing up some new content for the article Chicago blues and I wanted to say something like "the Beatles were influenced primarily by Motown but later British bands such as the Rolling Stones and Yardbirds were influenced more by Chicago blues" so I came to this article to verify that and get a reference but was surprised that there was no mention of Motown in the article, especially in the Influences section. I'm looking for a good book on the Beatles to verify that but wanted to check and see if anyone objects to making a change like that once I find the appropriate reference? MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you; its a glaring omission. Lennon repeatedly made references to Smokie Robinson, and how many of his songs were the Beatles "trying to be Smokie and the Miracles". I fully support an expansion of the section to include the towering influence of Motown. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but any new text should also cover the many other R&B artists whose songs the Beatles recorded, and who directly influenced them - such as The Shirelles, Arthur Alexander, The Coasters, etc. - most of whom were not part of Motown. See List of songs covered by the Beatles, as a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
A big problem with MadScientistX11's post is the use of the word "primarily". That's a massively POV position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Its not at all a problem unless its written in the article that way; this is just a talk thread. FWIW, this section could justify a dedicated topical article of its own, as there is really no end to a list of the groups, acts and genres that influenced the Beatles. A list of those who did not influence then would be much easier to compile. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Experimental music

This is an attempt to reach consensus. I believe that "experimental" should be added to the Beatles' infobox genres. They were one of the most experimental bands out there. They experimental with different genres, techniques, and instruments, and they produced the type of music that was unheard of in rock at the time. Adding "experimental" will also give readers a better idea of the varied musical styles the Beatles' played. "Rock" and "pop" just sounds plain and simple. Finally, experimental is not one of the forbidden and pointless sub-genres, it is a broad term, just like rock and pop. It doesn't narrow down the Beatles' music to one sound or style. Mrwallace05 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that you know what constitutes experimental music. The experiments by the Beatles were simply experiments in popular music. They were not the kinds of experiments that result in something so challenging and different that it makes most people deny its standing as "music". Experimental music is conceptually so eccentric that it can never sell well, yet the Beatles sold millions. Regarding your wish to categorize the Beatles as experimental, I don't know how best to put it, but "no way" comes to mind. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You cannot base it on how well it sells, it's based on the music. The Beatles did stuff that no one had ever heard of at the time. Backwards guitar solos, tape loops, crazy effects, non-traditional rock instruments, strange concepts, everything. Mrwallace05 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bink. All the experimental stuff that you listed above was created within the confines of rock and pop music. What's the big Beatles hit that wasn't rock or pop? How many "experimental" tracks did they record anyway, because I can think of only a couple, and remember, it was the 60s, so experimentation is a quality of nearly every band from that era. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The most experimental Beatles song I can think of is "Revolution 9" which is almost purely musique concrète after the fashion of Stockhausen's "Gesang der Jünglinge". This track certainly challenged the listener, probably so much that many of them skipped it in subsequent plays of the album. Is this a typical Beatles track? No, not in the slightest. It was very unusual for them, and it was not a success on its own. We do not categorize things based on one or two outliers. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
But you seem to be making out that all experimental music is way more strange and obscure than it actually is. For example, Radiohead are obviously experimental, and many of their songs are very Beatlesque. Plus Radiohead also sold millions and are still considered experimental. To quote the Wikipedia article on the genre, "1960s rock groups like The Beach Boys and The Beatles began adding musical influences outside the common field of popular music of those days: non-western music and musical instruments as well as ideas, concepts and techniques copied for traditional classical music as well as modern classical music. They experimented with all kinds of new recording techniques like reverse tape recording." And although my request is for "experimental" to be added to the infobox as a general term, there are loads of full-on experimental Beatles songs. Revolution 9, as you said, Only A Northern Song, I Am The Walrus, Wild Honey Pie, Strawberry Fields Forever, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, Being For The Benefit of Mr Kite, What's The New Mary Jane, and Within You, Without You, just to name a few. Mrwallace05 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Interference by sockpuppet of MrWallace50. Let's discuss the issue without resorting to socks. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think MrWallace50 has a point, listen to any Beatles album from Revolver through to Yellow Submarine, and maybe Abbey Road. These albums were unlike any rock or pop music from the time, and are famously very experimental. And you can't really say that experimental cannot be within the realms of rock or pop in order for it to be experimental, just ask Radiohead or Plastic Ono Band. And it's not like, if consensus is reached, experimental music would be the only genre in the infobox, it would clearly be put after Rock and pop, which obviously suggests that rock and pop are the band's primary genres. Y45ed (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
No no no, let me just assure you I am NOT a sock puppet (I assume that's what you were implying), in fact I am a strong disliker of sock puppets myself. You should realise that just because you disagree with something doesn't mean everyone else has to disagree as well. Always assume good faith in users making an edit or discussion, as believing someone to be a sock puppet purely because they agreed with someone is quite the opposite. Y45ed (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that you've agreed with Binksternet's message. Does that make you a sock puppet as well? According to your faulty logic it does. Y45ed (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • IMO, both Y45ed and Mrwallace05's editing habits are more than a bit suspicious for such "new" accounts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The two accounts were started in the same week of January 2013. They have both uploaded non-free images of Klaatu, the band. Their interaction chart shows an unusual confluence of interests: Klaatu band songs and albums, Beatles band songs and albums, Meat Loaf and the Eagles. I think an investigation is in order now that both accounts have teamed up to vote on the same issue. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I don't know how else to put it, you're wrong. Y45ed (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason that users become sock puppets is when account A wants to make an edit to an article which may be controversial, and will potentially be reverted, so they create account B, and on account B they will support account A's edit so that, to other editors, it appears like there is something of a small consensus. The two accounts will try to collaboratively achieve something that could not be achieved by account A alone. Look at the edit chart. Is there anything that fits this description? Really the only slightly suspicious thing here is the fact that we both joined Wikipedia on the same week, which is just pure coincidence when you consider how many people join Wikipedia weekly. Y45ed (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Mrwallace05 and Y45ed have an impressive 57 pages in common. Also, it's interesting that at the top of both of their talk pages are warnings for genre warring just 9 days apart, and from two different editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Two issues here. One is a sockpuppetry allegation, which now comprises nearly half the thread! The other is experimental music. If it's really bothering the sock puppet accusers, could they perhaps take those allegations to the proper forum., and actrually do something about it? As for experimental music, obviously we have an article with that name, giving a definition that is quite narrow. For a term that's so widely used in the world of music, and was certainly used to describe Beatles music when it was being created, that article is weird, but it's what we have. So, according to Wikipedia, Beatles music isn't experimental, but there are plenty of sources saying it is. Interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't bother with SPI, it's a waste of my time. 2) There is a difference between experimenting with music and experimental music, the terms do not mean the same thing; they are not synonymous. Please read the article. As Bink said above, "Rev 9" was the only thing close to experimental, and maybe the unreleased "CoL". Buddy Holly experimented with double-tracking, but he didn't record experimental music. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I've read the article, and found it interesting. It's obvious to me that the term has been used used far more widely than that article suggests, but I'm not going to fight that battle. It's interesting that we have a whole article based on such a narrow definition, with hardly a suggestion that it could mean anything else. That's not a good article. There's a little bit of discussion about this on the Talk page, but it hasn't been followed up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
That article does seem very narrowly focused, but I presume it represents scholarly musicological sources. Regardless of where we draw boundaries, though, I think it's safe to say that the Beatles are not best known for their more progressive, experimental, or avant-garde work, most of which was produced quite late in their career. It also seems to me that they were versatile enough that adding one minor genre could open the door to many more, leading to a cluttered infobox. I’m not very familiar with the genres used in rock-&-pop articles … if there’s one for eclectic or similar, that might be a better way to sum up their various departures from the mainstream.—Odysseus1479 00:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Odyssues. The Beatles did produce quite a bit of music that could be classified as experimental, but not enough to make experimental be added as one of their general genres, although I do think there NEEDS to be some other genre added that sums up their complexity and difference and shows that they weren't just your average rock band. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the most narrow definition of experimental music, the one used by musicologists. The narrow definition is the one I was taught in my music studies in college, by those who were actually making experimental music, for instance by professor Pauline Oliveros who is categorized as an experimental composer. The narrow definition includes musique concrète such as tape music and manipulated electronics, non-traditional microtonal music, unpredictable or aleatoric music with random elements—stuff like that. To the layman, experimental music is nearly unlistenable, equal to or worse than "Revolution 9". The Beatles were not known as makers of unlistenable music. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this discussion is still going on but I wanted to weigh in. I agree that many of the Beatles songs -- more than Revolution #9 -- can be thought of as experimental. Especially if you include stuff John did as a solo artist before the breakup, the Two Virgins album. Tomorrow Never Knows for example, you have to say that was experimental, listen to George Martin's description of how they got those effects, taking bits of tape spliced together manually, etc. Here comes the Sun has a very unconventional rhythm based on Indian music, I am the Walrus, etc. But having said that I agree that we shouldn't include experimental in the InfoBox. There just wasn't enough of it and they are so well known for pop and rock. They were very eclectic, if we started adding ever genre that they recorded some songs in they would have just about every type of music in the infobox. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO, you are confusing rock/pop songs with experimental rhythms and instrumentation with experimental music, which, though narrowly defined, is certainly nothing that the Beatles did much of aside from maybe two tracks. "I am the Walrus" is a rock song with unorthodox instrumentation in places, but it is absolutely not experimental music in the strict sense, per Binksternet. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Beatles Barnstar Brainstorming

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-25/WikiProject_report mentions that there's an editor who makes barnstars by request. I've been thinking for a while that we should have a Beatles Barnstar for those people who do great work maintaining and improving articles related to the Beatles. Before I ask this editor if they are willing to make a Beatles Barnstar, does anyone have any ideas about the image? (Or does anyone want to make one themselves?) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, GoingBatty! It might be nice if we used a PD image of the band. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Pepper Cover

Sgt. Pepper's elaborate cover also attracted great interest and study:[172] a collage designed by pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth, it depicted the group as the fictional band referred to in the album's title track[173] standing in front of a crowd of famous people.[174] The heavy moustaches worn by the group reflected the growing influence of hippie style,[175] while cultural historian Jonathan Harris describes their "brightly coloured parodies of military uniforms" as a knowingly "anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment" display.[176]

I guess its worth to mention that collage does not meet the idea and fact, how this 'picture' was created. In this world of 'photoshop' or the older times 'collage' connecting to a picture, implies the idea that pieces of images were put together to create a new image. This is partly true for the pepper cover. The 4 were photographed together with real (lol) life-sized photoprints(clued to hardcover)/items surrounding them and arranged in a photo-studio. Then photos were taken. I find this incredible work of the artist worth mentioning.

It could say a collage (actually a real photo, consisting of life-sized photoprints surronding the real Beatles) by pop artists Peter....

Thought I should add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.61 (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sound Lyrics rights

In 1981, financial losses by ATV's parent company ACC led it to attempt to sell its music division. According to authors Brian Southall and Rupert Perry, Grade contacted McCartney, offering ATV Music and Northern Songs for $30 million.[363] According to an account McCartney gave in 1995, he met with Grade and explained he was interested solely in the Northern Songs catalog, if Grade were ever willing to "separate off" that portion of ATV Music. Soon after, Grade offered to sell him Northern Songs for £20 million, giving the ex-Beatle "a week or so" to decide. By McCartney's account, he and Ono countered with a £5 million bid that was rejected.[364] According to reports at the time, Grade refused to separate Northern Songs, and turned down an offer of £21–£25 million from McCartney and Ono for ATV Music. In 1982 ACC as a whole was sold to Australian business magnate Robert Holmes à Court for £60 million.[365]

Three years later, Michael Jackson purchased ATV for a reported $47.5 million. The acquisition gave him control over the publishing rights to more than 200 Beatles songs, as well as 40,000 other copyrights.[366] In 1995, in a deal that earned him a reported $110 million, Jackson merged his music publishing business with Sony, creating a new company, Sony/ATV Music Publishing, in which he held a 50% stake. The merger made the new company, then valued at over half a billion dollars, the third largest music publisher in the world.[

Though quoted, due to the dominance of the EURo today, it would help the reader nowadays to know what figures we are talking about. I wonder, is Britishpond 20 million more or less than Michael's bailout of $47 (btw. even when quoting don't forget to mention USD as currency, as many other countries use the $-sign for their money).

So please can somebody recalculate/translate the offered and paid sums into today's value and/or currency? Would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.61 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a quasi-random selection of three online calculators for each currency I get approximately
USD – 2013 $ / 1981 $ = 2.55; 2013 $ / 1984 $ = 2.25; 2013 $ / 1995 $ = 1.55
UKP – 2013 £ / 1981 £ = 2.75–3.65 (Higher values were given for indices other than CPI or purchasing power, up to 6.00.)
So respectively, and roughly: $75M, £65M, £16M, £70–85M, £180M; $105M, $170M, >$3/4B. You should be able to use 2013 UK/US exchange rates to interconvert these values. Caveat: there are many ways to compare the historical value of money, and in the present context income or stock-market indices might be more appropriate measures than the CPI.—Odysseus1479 09:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jude and Revolution

Shouldn't mention be made of Hey Jude and Revolution? 107.221.229.121 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Dear Sirs,

First, I hope that my edit requests "work" here. I even created an account to try to edit "The Beatles" page, but it is "semi-protected," and, I am not yet able to make any edits myself. My concerns and edit requests about "The Beatles" page appear below...

There are some mistakes (typos) that I saw on "The Beatles" page regarding the VERY NAME of the band itself. In the caption below the photo of the two guitars and amplifier, the first word in the name of the rock group needs to be capitalized... THE Beatles. (Emphasis added, but NOT all caps, of course, in the word "The.") That is, please change the Beatles to The Beatles. And, there needs to be a period added at the end of the caption, I believe.

The same mistake about the band's name is made in the second line of the first "main" paragraph of the article, and, again in the first and fourth lines of the second paragraph. That is, please change the Beatles to The Beatles. The same mistake is made in the "Discography" section on the "Further information" line. That is, please change the Beatles to The Beatles. Also, the same mistake is made in the "External links" section on the "Hugo Keesing" line. That is, please change the Beatles to The Beatles.

I didn't read the ENTIRE article, so you might want to check for other typos in the band's name, too. As these typos dealt with the VERY NAME of the band, I just HAD to write, ya know? I thought (and hope) that you would like to know what I found...

Thank you! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a typo. It's deliberate. See Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_19, for example. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammar of "The Beatles"

The first sentence of the wiki page reads, "The Beatles were an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960." The grammar mechanism of the above sentence is incorrect. It should read, "The Beatles was an English rock band that formed in Liverpool, in 1960." I understand why people would mistakenly think "were" should be used: "The Beatles" can be used as both a singular noun and a plural noun. "The Beatles" is a band, but "The Beatles" (which indicates John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr) are singers. The first usage of "The Beatles" is as a "band" or a "group," similar to the usage of "United States" as a whole noun. Meanwhile, the second usage of "The Beatles" is as "singers" or "people". Again, "The Beatles" can be used as both a singular noun and a plural noun. However, in the first sentence of the wiki page, "The Beatles" should be regarded as a singular noun, because "The Beatles" is described as "an English rock band." I do realize that a band is regarded as plural in most wiki pages for some reason, but such grammar is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinyeom1023 (talk • contribs)

Some disagree. See Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_21#Was_and_were. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

Hey all! There's a mistake here in "History of The Beatles" in the "1957–62: formation, Hamburg, and UK popularity" section of the article. The "T" in "The Bea..." should not be in cap. I know there's already a consensus about this one. Thanks. 125.212.121.12 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 125.212.121.12 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: "The Beatles" is the name of the band and is a proper noun. Please show us the consensus to ignore proper grammar before reactivating this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is a consensus on this point, see top of this page. Piriczki (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Why are the sales figures for the Beatles being constantly revised on this site. Where does the figure of 600 million come from? I do not hesitate to point out that no less an auhtourity than the Guiness Book of Records in the 1985 deition-read that again-1985- put their sales a 1,000 million, which is a billion to those who are mathematically challenged. Please stop trying to revise history, and confine the 600 million figure to the dustbin where it belongs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.65.6 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The one billion discs and tapes world record has been omitted from the Guinness Book of Records for about 10 years now. If legitimate, it would certainly still be a world record I would think. Piriczki (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

British slanted

Where is is written, and why should this page be slanted only toward British (UK) releases, when this Wiki is supposed to be for the entire English language, and not to only one English-speaking country? I'm referring to leaving out two of their albums that are known around the world and should be included somewhere in the Discography section: Meet the Beatles! (1964), and The Beatles' Second Album (1964). --Katydidit (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

British band. British releases. British english. These were the albums the Beatles made. The American albums were created by Capitol Records. There is a wiki Beatles discography page which includes the American releases, so it's covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography) ok? Hotcop2 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I always thought it was more a case of WP:RECENTISM as many editors only have first-hand familiarity with the Beatles' catalog on compact disc which didn't come along until 1987. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic is for language and spelling, not content, and should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think focussing in on those releases the Beatles worked on directly and mentioning the releases their record companies did keeps the article concise, accurate and useful. A lot of work has been put into the article to keep it from sprawling out of control and such concentration works for me. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Like Hotcop2 said above, the British releases are the intended albums that the Beatles made and wanted released. The American albums released by Capitol Records were not planned by the band and consisted of various tracks from their already released British LPs. See their discography page for their full list of albums. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Hotcop2 and TheOnlyOne12. This isn't about nationalities, the UK albums were constructed by the Beatles, the US "butcher albums" were assembled by Capitol, and as such they are really not Beatle albums in the strictest sense; they are more like compilation albums, which we do not include in the bio. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with those three. Because of due weight, even a featured article, which is supposed to be completely comprehensive, cannot include everything the group ever did. The US albums were made without the consent of the group, who disliked them, suffice to say that Yesterday and Today says a lot about the "Butcher cover" and very little about the musical content for a good reason. About the most positive spin I could give is that the US version of Rubber Soul was perceived by Brian Wilson to be a "folk rock" album which in turn spurred him to creating Pet Sounds, but that's a pretty tenuous link. This guideline works in the opposite direction - I believe the UK release of Surrealistic Pillow was different, but the article treats the US release as the important one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There has already been consensus to add Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters to the main article's discography, but apparently "a new one has to be made". Here's the original:

"Since the albums Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters are now part of the band's core catalogue, the "discography" section of this article should also list these and perhaps be subtitled something like Core catalogue or Main discography instead of Original UK LPs. Sources:

" Obviously it would be silly to add all their U.S albums, but MMT and PM have both been official added to the Beatles' core catalogue by Apple studios. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Magical Mystery Tour was initially released as a double EP and LP soundtrack album. Past Masters is a compilation album that consists of the Beatles' A-sides and B-sides. Both records may have been added to the band's "core" catalogue but they are not original studio album releases. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hence we could change the heading to Core catalogue as it was before, until it apparently needed another consensus. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Been a long while without any action here, so I've reverted the section back to the previous sourced and agreed edition. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I invite further discussion: Only one of the recent posts seems to support your position while the others pretty strongly contradict it. I still believe the best choice is to describe the albums "Beatles slanted," that is the music as they were involved in producing the final result. The two "collection" CDs (MMT and Past Masters) are a bit of a corner case, but they complete the catalog of all songs neatly. I am not reverting back, but encourage those who support either side to speak up. It didn't seem to disturb too many when it was changed from the older consensus. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Genres

I think the genres section as it is now is a bit confusing. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it ordered chronologically instead of stylistically? Ex: "With the release of their 1966 B-side 'Rain', the Beatles began to incorporate psychedelia into their music." Anyone else agree? Twyfan714 (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos

The page doesn't seem to have any photos of the four of them other than the one of them after arriving in the U.S. in 1964. There are plenty of more official-looking photos of them available - is there any reason we don't upload them? Fair use concerns or something? GranChi (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those photos are almost certainly in copyright and Wikipedia has a policy of minimum use.--SabreBD (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

A few years ago, a major brouhaha was instigated by an editor who wanted to change the "British spelling" at John Lennon, Sex Pistols and this article from, um, common spelling (like the Beeb uses on its news site, not to mention most major British newspapers) to Oxford spelling (-ize instead of -ise). The rationale for his change was WP:COMMONALITY. He completely ignored WP:RETAIN, which applied to this article at least, since the earliest available version of the article contains the "-ise" form - "epitomise" - the tenth word - in the first sentence.

I don't recall a consensus ever being reached - the whole experience was just so frustratingly typical of Wikipedia, and when the smoke cleared, I noticed the "British English Oxford spelling" tag on this article's talk page, where it sits to this day.

I think it's time to revisit the issue, since it was never discussed rationally and no apparent consensus emerged. Should we have Oxford spelling on only two Beatles-related articles while all the others don't? Should they all be changed? I think that since a significant few of the principals of the last -ise/-ize debacle have departed that the atmosphere now is conducive to a civil discussion.

I personally favour respect for WP:RETAIN primarily, since this article appears to have evolved using the -ise form. Radiopathy •talk• 01:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What spelling convention did they follow at Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool in the 1950s? HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree – those -ize endings should be avoided. Aside from the issue of WP:RETAIN, what's paramount is that for decades now, the use of -ise/-isation has far outweighed -ize/-ization in the UK. Even back in the 1980s, when I was at school, the latter form was viewed as American-only, along with spellings such as color and leveled (as opposed to colour and levelled). Looking at Wikipedia's article on Oxford spelling, I'm surprised to learn that The Times Literary Supplement still favours Oxford in this regard; be that as it may, one simply doesn't see -ize/-ization appearing in UK publications unless the suffix is part of a name. So surely the encyclopaedia's Brit Eng articles should follow the form most commonly used.
This applies to serial commas also, in my opinion. They're antiquated in British English, Australian too, and (I learn from that article) in Canada also. A third point of style would be whether to retain end punctuation in a quote when the quoted portion does not constitute a sentence in its own right – perhaps it's only a short phrase, or a word or two. In British English, it's far more common to put a comma or full stop from the reproduced material outside the end quote mark/inverted comma in those instances. (In other words, to ignore the fact that the punctuation happened to sit inside a short quote originally.)
I've lived in Australia for quite a while (although I still work with UK authors and publishing houses), so I'd welcome input from the UK-based editors out there.
I don't mean to downplay the rationale for WP:RETAIN in this discussion, by the way. It's regrettable that the precedent was established on what appears to have been dubious grounds. JG66 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree and have edited the tag and the article accordingly. --John (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Marvellous! Someone might want to check how those -ise words are rendered in Jonathan Gould's book, though, from which the article contains a quote or two.
Also, would I be pushing my luck if I hoped to move forward with those second and third issues of style, mentioned above? All opinions welcome. As I say, I'm simply interested in adhering to the form of Brit English style & spelling that's most widely used (and by a long way, I suggest). Especially in articles on something as progressive as pop or rock music. In the same way, if I were to work on articles about a Dylan song, an Elvis album, or Ry Cooder's film soundtracks – all of which I'd love to do – I would expect the style to follow the most popular American Eng conventions, without any need to compromise to Brit English. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your second issue, MOS:SERIAL only requires consistency within an article; the variety of English is not relevant. As for the third, I believe MOS:LQ is already in agreement with your position: also regardless of national dialect, stops only go inside quotation marks when present in the source and the quotation constitutes a sentence or more.—Odysseus1479 08:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but both the issues – serial commas; placement of end punctuation for quotes – retain plenty of ambiguity in the way the MoS handles them.
MOS:SERIAL proscribes both article-wide consistency, as you say, and reasons of clarity as regards the approach we should adopt. Which doesn't address the either/or factor touched on in the Serial comma article. I'm keen to establish whether, in a Brit Eng-style article on rock or pop music, we should ever use a serial comma as a rule. Take two of the first three sentences in the lead to The Beatles, where (I believe) inclusion of a serial comma before the word "and" is quite unnecessary – the relevant phrases being "With John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr …" and "Rooted in skiffle, beat, and 1950s rock and roll …" Those examples appear to show that serial commas have been used for the sake of it, one might say; my point is that I don't believe this approach is at all in keeping with the most widely used form of modern-day British English. I would expect to see them in Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, etc., of course, because the serial/Oxford/Harvard comma is so prevalent in American English.
MOS:LQ is also noncommittal, even to the point of being contradictory. A more helpful guideline relative to those "Arthur said" examples would be how to handle a case when "unacceptable" (not "deplorable") is the word that's reproduced in sentence 2. From my experience, many US writers would go for: Arthur said that the situation was "unacceptable." That approach would appear to be supported in the MoS (because the full quote is "The situation is deplorable and unacceptable."), yet the MoS also deems that allowance could or should be made in situations where "[The period's] coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary." The latter guideline is the one that, I believe, accurately reflects the approach most commonly used in British English.
Translating this to The Beatles, I think there's no end to the examples of quoted fragments (incomplete sentences) where end punctuation "within the quotation" can be "considered unnecessary". In the section titled Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, we have full stops in quotes as follows: "redefining what was expected from popular music."; "a true hybrid, conforming to no recognisable style or genre of song."; "listening to the group's music with a degree of engagement that he, as a teacher of literature, could only envy." Under Magical Mystery Tour, "The White Album" and Yellow Submarine: "a kind of fantasy morality play about the grossness and warmth and stupidity of the audience."; "a great deal of raw footage showing a group of people getting on, getting off, and riding on a bus." – and so on. In these cases, the appearance of periods in the original text is incidental to our reproduction of fragments of that text; the criterion for placement should depend on how we're choosing to absorb the quote into our sentence, because those quotes are only fragments (that just happen to have appeared at the end of sentences in their original form).
That's my understanding of the correct approach, in line with modern British English, which is why I thought it relevant to bring up these two issues when Radiopathy opened the discussion. (Please keep the comments coming, of course …) JG66 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree with eliminating the serial comma - here and at any other article on a British topic. WP:LQ advises "logical punctuation" - which looks suspiciously like British punctuation; any changes you would make, based on the examples you give here, would fall well within the guideline. Radiopathy •talk• 03:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks – that and Odysseus1479's comment are both encouraging. As far as removing serial commas in every article on a British topic, while I fully agree, I think it could be quite an uphill battle. But certainly, in anything as progressive as UK popular music and modern culture generally, there's simply no place for them in these articles. I'm in no rush – and it would be good to read some other opinions here first – but I will make those changes I proposed in this article.
I'm still confused by the guideline, though: "logical punctuation" seems to advocate the US approach (no?) – that single-word example I mentioned: Arthur said that the situation was "unacceptable." Whereas I'm talking about changing to Arthur said that the situation was "unacceptable". – even if a period (comma, semicolon, etc.) followed the final word in the quote's original form. JG66 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is the example I think you want, directly from WP:LQ:

Correct: Arthur said that the situation was "deplorable". (The period is known not to be in the source, its presence in the source is uncertain, or its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary.) Radiopathy •talk• 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, sure. My point is just that it would be way clearer if the example cited used the word "unacceptable" instead of "deplorable". That way, it's clear to everyone that just because "unacceptable" is followed by a full stop in the text originally, we don't have to reproduce the full stop when paraphrasing the text if we happen to include that particular word at the end of our sentence. JG66 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to say, I'm making a start on addressing those two issues in the article. I'm also picking up a surprising number of words that I'd think should be wikilinked, only some of which I'm linking at this stage. The way I understand it, all names and relevant words should be linked again in the main body after their appearance in the lead section, almost as if the lead hasn't appeared at all. (Someone please set me straight if that's not the case.)
  • I'll make my way through the article over the next couple of days. If any other people want to weight in at this discussion, then please do. I'm confident these changes are entirely correct for an article on the Beatles (for any Brit popular music article, for that matter) – but I don't relish the thought of getting through this long, long article, only to find we've got some problems(!). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sales

Why does the figure for the sales of Beatles recods, discs snd tapes keep being altered? The 1985 Guiness Book of Records had their worldwide sales surpassing " a 1,000 million". which is the sme as 1 billion. Where does the figure of 600 million come from? Did someone manufacture it out of thin air? Also, the 177 million figure for sales in the USA, which comes from Billboard, is for albums only. It does not include singles, which put their sales in excess of 210 million. Please research issues more carefully before altering establihed sales figures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.65.6 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To mark 10 years since the release of "Love Me Do" EMI compiled sales details to the end of June 1972 of recordings made by the group and by individual members. The reported total was 545 million "units" or "singles equivalents". This consisted of 85 million albums and 120 million singles. Each album was counted as five "units" and the total singles included EPs, which were counted as two singles. Guinness claimed "the all-time Beatles sales by the end of 1978 have been estimated at 100 million singles and 100 million albums" and later changed that to "the all-time Beatles sales up to May 1985 have been estimated by EMI at over one billion discs and tapes." By 2008, according to Apple, "the London-based company has administered the catalogue of The Beatles releases of the 1960s that have sold to date more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs." Piriczki (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A couple more style points, further to #Oxford spelling

Okay, I've gone through the whole article applying those style points discussed above. I tried to supply detailed edit comments as I went (severely limited by space, unfortunately), for changes that were in any way outside the brief. As the occasional "*note …*" comments outline, there are a few instances where the text needs to be looked at, I suggest; if I've got the energy, I'll raise those issues here soon. (I really didn't intend to get involved with this article to any great degree, but I noticed these issues, along with a few more general ones regarding content.)

Aside from those asterisked notes, a couple of points of general style that (I think) could and should be sorted out now:

Looking at the many London-published books and magazines I have, it's a spaced dash every time. As before, can any UK-based editors confirm that the most common form of dashes in Brit English is a spaced en? Which would obviously lead us to: can we change to spaced ens in this article?
  • Numbering. The approach regarding numbering is inconsistent throughout. The article starts off very much in favour of spelling out numbers (examples include: twenty-one weeks; Around fifty to a hundred journalists and photographers; an estimated four thousand fans gathered at Heathrow ... an uproarious crowd estimated at three thousand greeted them). By the end, that's completely abandoned: In the UK, the Beatles have 4 Multi-Platinum albums, 4 Platinum albums, 8 Gold albums and 1 Silver album. The approach I always favour is to use numerals from 21 onwards, meaning that our criterion is to avoid hyphenated numbers, and anything after that is similarly rendered in numerals. Any thoughts?
  • Commentators' views in past or present tense. Again, inconsistent throughout, and I've mentioned examples in my edit comments. Overall – although, I admit, I have changed a few examples to present tense, to be consistent within a paragraph (eg, Gould writes to match Gould describes) – I'd say that the article currently favours present tense. In my opinion, the latter option would be the way to go article-wide, unless the comments are clearly glued to the past; a quote from a 1960s review would be an obvious example of the latter scenario. This is partly because we've got a history unfolding, in the past tense, beside which the commentators' views serve as a modern-day take on those events – if not modern-day, then at least with a fair degree of hindsight that removes them from the chronological "voice". As with the issue of numbering, it's certainly not a Brit English-only issue, and I'd welcome everyone's input here.

To repeat, I'll raise any points regarding content if the urge happens to take me. But I'm hoping we can all agree that the three issues here deserve to be addressed asap. JG66 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right on this tense issue, I tend to find that present-tense works best in these circumstances, with the exception of the example you mentioned. It's important to separate the chronology of historical events which form the main content of the article from the commentary thereon, and I see using the past and present tenses as an effective way to do this and avoid any confusionGingerTheMinx (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well otherwise I tend to do a double take when reading through a chronology. We can have something like "The Beatles finished recording the album in November, at which point Lennon said …" followed by: "Gould wrote …" In those cases, a Monty Python-like voice in my head wonders: Oh, and what did Lennon have to say about what Gould wrote? I bet he wasn't too happy about that! As you say, the contrast in tenses clearly separates history from commentary.
Having waited a while since raising the above issues, I'll start imposing the spaced-ens as dashes now, per UK style, along with this present tense for commentators/critics' voices. I suppose I might as well address the inconsistent numbering while I'm there … If anyone's got any problems, I hope you'll let me know – I really don't want to do the work and then find people want to talk about it! JG66 (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why "on an album"?

In reference to the 2 cover songs (Dizzy Miss Lizzie, Act Naturally) on the (British) 1965 Help! album, I see:

"they were the last covers the band would include on an album, with the exception" (the exception is the Maggie Mae excerpt on the Let It Be album)

OK, except why do you use "on an album"? The Beatles also put out singles, and in the U.S. there was the Yesterday/Act Naturally single. (I understand John, George, and Ringo nixed Yesterday as a single in the UK, because it was so different from what the Beatles had put out up to that point.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Henry Grossman and Paul McCartney 2012 Book

Could you please have a look at the references and provide your opinion about inclusion of the following text in the Beatles article? Note the NY Times and CBS 60 Minutes sources:

Also in 2012 Henry Grossman and Paul McCartney published Places I Remember: My Time with the Beatles, revealing more than 1000 previously unpublished photographs.[2][3][4][5][6]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/arts/music/henry-grossmans-photos-of-the-beatles.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/capturing-history-jfk-beatles

Thanks, TheProfessor (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I agree with others who have rejected the addition, TheProfessor. I think it's great there's now an article on Henry Grossman (about time); but while the sources you provide above show the publication merits a place somewhere on Wikipedia, I just don't think it's here at the Beatles. (I'm slightly confused about McCartney's involvement, in fact ... Having only skimmed through those two cites you reproduced above, I can't see how Mac "published" Places I Remember – maybe I've missed something?)
  • I think this band article is missing quite a bit in the legacy/aftermath areas, and I've been intending to raise that here for a while. But still, I can't see that mention of a book of 1000 new photos of the band – even if McCartney is fully involved as co-author – belongs here. Maybe at Paul McCartney, I don't know. I mean, Scorsese's documentary George Harrison: Living in the Material World includes a lot of footage shot by Harrison himself of the Beatles years, which his estate saw fit to release, and I seem to remember that it was a big selling point when the documentary came out. But I wouldn't think that point need be made in this article either. Perhaps if we had a section covering the former Beatles' own/individual handling of the band's legacy, then it might be different, I don't know. JG66 (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Should there be any link from the Beatles article to the Henry Grossman article? A little more to consider:

http://www.thebeatleswebsite.com/places.html

TheProfessor (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Will you be including a mention of every book about the Beatles, or just this particular one? This is not a book "published by Henry Grossman and Paul McCartney." It is a book by Grossman with a brief foreword by McCartney. That exaggerated claim and the excessive number of references smacks of spamming to me. Piriczki (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Piriczki. Thanks for your discussion. You make a good points that 1) there are many books about the Beatles and that there needs to be a compelling reason to include this particular book; 2) Paul McCartney wrote the introduction, and was not a full co-author; and 3) The number of referencs should be limited to the most reliable (probably NY Times, unless there is additional information. I certainly want to protect Wikipedia from Spam. Please keep in mind civility, being welcoming, and assumption of good faith. Also, I suggest critical reading of sources and this particular book to have a solid basis for comments and evaluating importance/quality. TheProfessor (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm against including this as well, for the reasons given above by other editors. As an aside to the professor, continuing to remind editors about assuming good faith etc. is a failure to assume good faith on your part. Calidum Talk To Me 20:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Calidum and Piriczki. Stevie (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Consensus appears to be not to include the addition. My motivation was to add appropriate links in response to an Orphan article tag after I wrote the initial Henry Grossman article, and a perspective that Grossman's photos, books, and relation with the Beatles were notable. Please offer help editng or suggestions for appropriate links and connection with other Wikipedia content. TheProfessor (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Years Active

The page says that the Beatles were active from 1960-1970, but they were also active between 1994-1996, as the "Threetles". Seems like an important part of their career missed.

Enjoy some good reading. Radiopathy •talk• 05:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Could mention Beatles' influence on garage bands

Perhaps this article could mention the Beatles' influence on the numerous garage rock bands that sprang up all over the place, particularly here in the states, but also elsewhere around the world. We could make mention of this in one of the sections covering 1964-1966 years or in the Legacy part). After the Beatles' first Ed Sullivan appearance, hundreds of thousands of kids went running in droves to the music store to by a guitar or a set of Ludwig drums. Some people might even say that the Beatles were a little garage band form Liverpool that became the biggest band ever, and, wow, what a great way to inspire others to do pick up a guitar and start a band!Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Scenes

The scenes caused by the Beatles should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spam97deleter (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but that's an extremely vague statement. Could you be a little more specific about the changes you feel are needed? Britmax (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional achievement to be placed at the end of the top section, after the Rolling Stone item

In 2013, in its 55th anniversary issue, Billboard Magazine named The Beatles as the top Billboard Hot 100 artist of all time.<ref name="Staff">{{cite news|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5557800/hot-100-55th-anniversary-by-the-numbers-top-100-artists-most-no|title=Hot 100 55th Anniversary By The Numbers: Top 100 Artists, Most No. 1s, Biggest No. 2s, & More|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=Nielson Business Media, Inc|first=Billboard|last=Staff|date=2013-08-02|accessdate=2014-07-25}}</ref>

This comes from the List of Billboard Hot 100 achievements and milestones page, of which I am an editor. It seems like a logical inclusion following the lists over the years that the Beatles have topped. dnsla23 19:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page that includes many of The Beatles, George Martin, Lennon, and McCartney all-time chart records in the US.

Hi, I'm an editor of "List of Billboard Hot 100 achievements and milestones."

I have created and overseen many of the sections on that page, from artist to producer to songwriter. I have created many categories on that page that highlight the Beatles' all-time successes. This includes "most consecutive #1 singles", "most #1 singles in a calendar year", "producer with most #1s", "songwriters with the most #1s", and "songwriters with the most #1s in a calendar year", amongst others.

Could a link to this wikipage be included on the Beatles page, in some fashion, for Beatles enthusiasts? There's currently no section on all-time Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements (US or otherwise). Maybe one can be created for this?

dnsla23 19:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Associated Acts?

I imagine there might be a reason why Wings and the Traveling Wilburys aren't listed as associated acts. Can someone explain what the reason is? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Associated acts are those which have more than one member in common - which raises the question of why the Plastic Ono Band is included here. Radiopathy •talk• 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
For clarification, my reading of Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts suggests that there are multiple uses of the field. I don't see Plastic Ono Band fitting in (though I understand the connection). There are numerous instances of Beatles collaborating post-breakup, but no bands that I would consider "spin offs" of the Beatles. I'm not sold on Billy Preston. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it makes sense that Wings and the Wilburys wouldn't be included – they apply only to the Paul McCartney and George Harrison articles, respectively. But I see a good reason to have Preston and Plastic Ono Band here. Plastic Ono Band satisfies "A group from which this group has spun off", in my opinion; if numbers are a factor, as you're saying, Radiopathy, both Harrison and Starr were members of the band (given Lennon & Ono's concept of what constituted "Plastic Ono Band"). With Preston, he was given prominent credit on the sleeve (and the label) for the "Get Back" single – "The Beatles with Billy Preston". I'd imagine most readers would expect to see Billy's name here, no? JG66 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The template's documentation says to avoid "Groups with only one member in common". For Plastic Ono Band, the question is membership. At the moment, the group's article does not list Harrison or Starr. IMO, they are either members or not and the POB and The Beatles articles need to agree. To include POB here, I'd think we would need to agree that Harrison and Starr were members in the POB article. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The Plastic Ono Band article does list GH and RS, in the infobox. Formerip (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
<edit conflict> But they are – they're listed in the infobox there, as "past members". One of them (Harrison) is mentioned in the Lead also … JG66 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was pretty bad. Not sure how I missed that. This time for sure: IMO, Plastic Ono Band should be listed. I'm still agnostic on Preston. "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions..." hmmm.
Anyone against POB? Other opinions on Preston?- SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
More from me, if I may: He plays on Abbey Road also, he was an Apple artist from April 1969 onwards (produced by Harrison), he was in POB for December 1969 live date and Jan '70 "Instant Karma!" session (i.e. while the Beatles were still officially together), he was on Starr's Sentimental Journey. So Preston's part of a select Apple stable; aside from those examples, he gets the call for other Apple Records projects such as when Harrison produces Doris Troy in late 1969. Admittedly, Klaus Voormann and Alan White were also part of that stable (in a March 1970 interview, George talks about making it official – a sort of Apple House Band to back the label's artists); but with Preston, his involvement is way above theirs. He's certainly the only musician that merits the tag "the Fifth Beatle", imo. (I don't know what on earth Eric Clapton's doing on that list in the Fifth Beatle article.) Anyway … I'm not too bothered personally, but I do think Preston's "association" is enough to qualify for inclusion, given the criteria. JG66 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's particularly strong support for this "two members" rule? I can understand the desire to have a way of limiting the field contents, but this seems a bit of an odd one to me. Formerip (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought, given the fluid nature of POB, I'd say it should be included, and given Preston's involvement in multiple projects, he should, as well. Radiopathy •talk• 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Badfinger

Would it be appropriate to add Badfinger to the list? After all, they have many connections to the Beatles through McCartney, Harrison, Mal Evans, Geoff Emerick, etc. I've always thought of them as the Beatles' apprentices. The Wookieepedian (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, and it's not inaccurate to say they were "synonymous" with the Beatles. I think it goes back to what FormerIP was saying above, about the rigidity of a two-member rule. To my mind, the latter issue is one of those unfortunate situations where Wikipedia tries to squeeze everyone and everything into one generalised box, when in fact a more open definition of "associated" might serve the subject better. The Beatles, for instance, were/are well known for having nurtured acts on their record label – so the likes of Billy Preston, Badfinger, Jackie Lomax, etc are strongly associated with the band in the minds of most readers (I'd imagine). But then take the Rolling Stones: the associations that spring to mind there would be Nicky Hopkins, Billy Preston, Bobby Keys, Jack Nitzsche and more – all the people that brought something to the band, rather than what fed out from the group (as in the Beatles context). To non-contributing readers of Wikipedia's articles, "Associated acts" isn't defined; readers aren't privy to the back-room definition that's been reached by consensus (I hope) on an MoS or Template talk page, so it never surprises me when IP users arrive and add another name or two. It's one for Template talk:Infobox musical artist via a wider project page, if anyone's got the energy.
Oh, on the subject of a single generalisation/rule being applied in all instances, people might want to check out this discussion and poll on listing all personnel in alphabetical order in album articles. I raised it on the WP:Beatles talk page a day or so ago, but it strikes me now that the majority of people might well watch this band article rather than the project page. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

Must be erased the quote saying that the Beatles records were banned in Spanish radio stations. Spanish radio stations NEVER banned the Beatles who were extremely popular since the beginning: all their records, films and tv specials were big successes. Check the archives of this very conservative Spanish journal: http://hemeroteca.abc.es/

95.19.27.145 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Info in the article is sourced. Cannolis (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Harrison and Lennon playing drums on USSR?

This would indeed be interesting, but no citation is given, and Mark L doesn't mention this at all, plus the style is very much Macca's as heard on his duet sessions with Lennon. If you're going to protect an article, then make sure it's correct and no spurious unsubstantiated claims creep in. Cheers.

Protected edit request on 11 December 2014

http://jeffdroke.com/Beatles%20MSC.htm The Beatles in Memphis - August 1966 75.64.227.63 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Avono (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The EP note in the discography section

The current note mentions Long Tall Sally and Magical Mystery Tour. However, Long Tall Sally was only one of 13 British EPs, whereas Magical Mystery Tour is now recognized as part of the standardized core catalog. I propose deleting the first sentence and leaving the new note under the UK LP list as

When the above albums were reissued on CDs in 1988, the American Magical Mystery Tour album (1967) and the double CD compilation set Past Masters were issued so every Beatle track commercially released in the band's lifetime would be available in one set.

Thanks, Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Current members

All former members WP:LOCALCONSENSUS never trumps WP:V and WP:OR or common sense, logic, basic facts, etc. You have no sources claiming that The Beatles are currently composed of Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, and Starr and even if you did, those sources would obviously be in error. The Beatles do not presently have any members. I can easily find sources which say things like "former member of The Beatles Paul McCartney" but none which say "current member of The Beatles Paul McCartney". This is special pleading on the part of The Beatles to insist that only the Fab Four-era members are somehow delimited by themselves but {{Infobox musical artist}} does not exist for the purpose of classic line-ups or fan favorites. Only in instances where the line-ups are wildly complex or long (e.g. King Crimson) should they be skipped or truncated: this is not one of those cases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange: No where in the article do I see anything about current members. -- Calidum 20:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Calidum: Take a look again: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#current_members: "This field is only relevant for active groups." I hate to break the news to you but The Beatles are not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Koavf. Having them listed as "members" of a band that no longer performs or produces music is strange, especially considering that two of those people are deceased.--JOJ Hutton 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Koavf is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Well what's to stop us listing them in order of joining: Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Sutcliffe, Best, Starr? That would certainly look less weird than beginning the list with Pete Best. JG66 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@JG66: You are correct: as the template instructs, they are to be listed by order joining and not alphabetical order, as I had them listed. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Koavf: well, good. Because that order – or it could be Best, Sutcliffe, Starr at the end, I'm not sure – that does have some logic. I still appreciate the fact that there was a poll here a couple of years ago, where people worked to achieve a consensus based on reliable sources, and with a view to presenting the list of band members in a way that's true to the subject of the article.
I think this one-size-fits-all approach to articles is misguided. It makes sense to those who support and impose a guideline, but the average reader – perhaps millions of them – they don't know Wikipedia's policy on any given issue. They'd see an alphabetical list (and I think many would still see the order that we've just discussed) as an oddity; because they're so used to being presented with the Fab Four, and with Sutcliffe and Best as a minor footnote in the story. I guess it's all down to whether editors think these guidelines are worth policing each and every time. (I've seen some completely different approaches regarding artist chronologies in infoboxes, for example, from one artist to another. I don't question it; we need to be flexible, because some acts have historically had, say, repackaging campaigns competing against their current releases on a different label. For other acts, I notice, all live albums and compilations might be omitted, even when they're issued with the artist's full consent.)
As you now say, it is appropriate to go with a "Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Sutcliffe, Best, Starr" order, but the average person world-wide knows this band as "Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr, … and oh, you know – the other two". JG66 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@JG66: Well, I imagine a lot of folk don't know who Ron McGovney is either but they've heard of Metallica. It's not up to us to relay fan favorites or classic line-ups: we just provide neutral and objective information. Besides, if everyone is familiar with "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" then we really don't need to put it in here, either... The photo montage at the top has the well-known Fab Four line-up and that's really plenty of acknowledgement of it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, but never mind. JG66 (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

I have fully protected this article for one month. This is a Featured Article and has been subjected to rigorous review. Any suggested changes can be discussed here and, if a consensus is reached, they can be implemented. Graham Beards (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The actual article infobox label doesn't say "current members" though does it? It just says "members". "Current members" only appears in the paperwork, so to speak. The Beatles settled into a foursome and there are tortoises in the Galapagos Islands who can tell you who these four were. Come on. Think about it. Britmax (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Britmax: But the band doesn't have any members. It's a defunct organization. Furthermore, reliable sources say that individuals like McCartney are "former members". This is a matter of common sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say "current members," but by distinguishing "Members" from "Past Members" the "Current" is implied. I think there must be some reasonable way to word the article to include all the former members of the Beatles, while giving pride of place to John, Paul, George and Ringo. Carlo (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That is why I said "but the article infobox doesn't say "current members". Britmax (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Britmax: Just because the output of the template doesn't read "current members" that is still what the field is and it reads "members" anyway, which is equally inaccurate and there are no sources to verify it (because it's untrue). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the extensive discussion of this matter in the talk page archives. Archive 28 would be as good a place as any to start. Britmax (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And then there are these:
Also see Template talk:Infobox Musical artist/Archive 3#Defunct musical groups
Let me know what you think. Britmax (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Britmax: I had already seen most of those. As I pointed out initially, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't trump WP:V or WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
You are of course free to argue that. Let me know how that goes for you. Britmax (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Membership Most commenters above agree that The Beatles have no "current members" and those who want to list deceased individuals like George Harrison as currently belonging to the band have provided no sources. I request unprotecting the article and editing the infobox as such. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Then you should have no trouble persuading an admin to do it for you, without lifting the protection. Why did you wait so long and raise this on Christmas afternoon? Did you think no-one would notice? Britmax (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Could we have the infobox list "main members" for the core four and "early members" for Best/Sutcliffe instead? Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Britmax: Because I had the day free (it's my only day off for two weeks) and it's been protected for one month, which was the stated goal above. Evidently, you think there's something more sinister but there's not. I didn't think "no-one would notice" as this is one of the most-watched articles on Wikipedia, no... @Dralwiki:: This defeats the purpose of the infobox's existing parameters. Why should there be special pleading for this one band? Is Brian Jones a "main member" of The Rolling Stones? What about Ron "Pigpen" McKernan in The Grateful Dead? It just opens the door to endless fans' in-fighting. The Beatles have no members, as they are defunct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That's great then. Have a good Christmas and New Year. Britmax (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give people information in a correct and comprehensible way. TO present the list of people who composed the group as if there was no difference between the four who composed it during the period of its worldwide fame and the two who had been members previously would be seriously misleading.PhilomenaO'M (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@PhilomenaO'M: It's represented all throughout the article. Again, we need sources to say that the 25 years deceased John Lennon is a member of a defunct group: there are none, as he's not. There shouldn't be special pleading for the fan-favorite line-up of any musical group, especially a defunct one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation errors

There are errors in references 77, 78 and 82 (Spizer). They do not link to the Bibliography. Graham Beards (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The errors are still there. Graham Beards (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Had a look at this. The details supported by the Spizer refs came in with this change last September. Mkbngr, as the person who added the text, would you have the full publication details?
Alternatively, I can't find any Spizer book published in 2004 – there's certainly nothing listed in Spizer's Wikipedia article. It seems we could cite much of the Vee-Jay info to this Goldmine excerpt from the author's book The Beatles' Story on Capitol Records. (It's about two-thirds of the way down that page.) Also, it seems likely that the same details would have appeared in Spizer's 1998 title The Beatles Records on Vee-Jay, but I can't access a preview for that or any other Spizer book, except The Beatles Solo on Apple Records. Spizer's description appears to have been quoted in a book by Larry Kane, but the preview for that gives no page numbers.
I might take a look in Schaffner's Beatles Forever if nothing comes to light. I'm sure he discusses the Vee-Jay situation and how Capitol came to get behind the Beatles by the start of 1964. JG66 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SNL Moment

In the mid '70s, Lorne Michaels offered $3,000 for the band to reunite. John and Paul considered going, but eventually decided against it. Would this be notable enough to include? http://www.accesshollywood.com/paul-mccartney-on-the-beatles-almost-reuniting-on-saturday-night-live-why-didnt-it-happen_video_1332921 Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to edit picture caption

The initial four panel picture is captioned wrong, the naming of Ringo and George are indeed switched. Please, anyone with authorization correct this error, thanks. Cheers!

````Matt P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.131.252 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison is on the viewer's left, Mr. Starkey is on the viewer's right. I believe we have it correct as is. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


They Gone Now

As timeless as i feel the Beatles are, even the article says they broke up in 1970, so why is their a current members section? All of the members are past members, also should we list a reunion in the late 1990's, as all 4 did record together, including John, who was represented in demos, for Anthology. 2 completely original songs that contained parts that were recorded in studio right before the release, not just a demo, is that criterion for a reunion? Please weigh in on what you think. Thanks. Joshua0228 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Check the archives above. There has been much discussion of the topic. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Specifically: a straw poll in April 2012 reached a consensus whereby, rather than any mention of "current" or "past" members, we'd just have "Members", which wold then be subdivided into "Principal" and "Other". So this was how it appeared on the page in May 2012. I wasn't part of that discussion, but it seemed to make sense (to me), there was plenty of debate, and a fair number of editors got involved. I know there were a few objections/reverts made over the next couple of years – eg, somehow the qualifier "Past" crept back in, but what's brought us to the current treatment was a change made in November 2014, followed by this discussion (which I was, er, involved in!). Before then, this is how the members were presented, dividing the members into Principal and Other groupings, per the local consensus from two-plus years before (but with "Past" added, of course). If we need to hold another straw poll, so be it. But really, the point is that many editors discussed this, it wasn't some secret ballot – and it works for readers. I'm just giving you a condensed version since my time on Wikipedia. As the archives show, the issue's been ongoing since 2006 or before. JG66 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So there seems to have been a general consensus that the Beatles are a now defunct organization with no current members, so why haven't we put it back to all past members with principle and others? That seems to be the method most people wanted right? So someone please tell me why that despite the poll saying we would make them all past members we still have current members? Joshua0228 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of the previous distinction of "Principal" and "other". Another option is listing the Fab Four in the infobox, then a link down to a more detailed member section (as at Queen). I would definitely want to distinguish JPGR, as that is the lineup under which they did all recording and achieved international fame. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Another thing to note is that Stu and Pete weren't the only early members of the Beatles. They were just the ones that were in for more than a few weeks. Tommy Moore, Norman Chapman, and Chas Newby (drums, drums, bass, respectively) were all in the band while it was called the Beatles also. Stu and Pete were definitely more important to the group, but these players shouldn't be set aside completely on this page. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we could add these to the "members" section of the article, and only keep the 4 principal members and a link to the "members" section in the infobox.--MASHAUNIX 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

None of this contrasts with my opinion. I am fine with principle and others divisions, but they are all past members, which was the only point I was trying to make. This topic seems to be closed. Having principal and others listed under past members seems to be a compromise. Joshua0228 (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So are we settled on JPGR in infobox under "Past members", with a link to a "Members" section lower on the page? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I like it, I'd wait a bit to see if someone contests it and if not, go through with the edit.--MASHAUNIX 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.thebeatles.com/news/studio-album-remasters-make-stereo-vinyl-debut
  2. ^ Koziin, Allan. 2012. The Beatles, seen from unusual angles. New York Times, December 31, 2012, accessed 7-June-2014.
  3. ^ Henry Grossman and Sir Paul McCartney. 2012. Places I Remember: My Time with the Beatles. Curvebender Publishing. ISBN 978-0978520021.
  4. ^ CBS. 2013. Capturing history. 60 Minutes. Correspondent Morley Safer.
  5. ^ Haglage, Abby. 2013. Four years with the Beatles: Beatles Photographer Henry Grossman on ‘Places I Remember’. The Daily Beast, March 27, 2013, accessed 7-June-2014.
  6. ^ Michalak, Jodie. 2014. My Time with the Beatles: Exclusive Interview with Photographer Henry Grossman. About.com, accessed 7-June-2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_31&oldid=1160968589"