Talk:Ringo Starr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Death?

The overview box on the right says that Ringo Starr deceased on the 18th of December, but I was unable to fing any confirmation on any Website. This information might be false.

Organization

I've reorganized this article a bit -- created separate sections for early years, role in the Beatles, then everything after the Beatles. This makes it easier to follow, and also puts it a bit more in line with the Harrison article.

Also, I've reorganized the material in the Beatles section. It should be drumming first, then singing, then songwriting, since that was the order of importance of his roles in the Beatles. The contribution his personality made needs to be added, as someone noted above, as well as his country mustic influence. I'll try to do that next. The post-Beatles material also needs a lot of work. --jls

"The post-Beatles material also needs a lot of work." Do you mean the article or Ringo's actual material!?!?! Ha HAHAHAHAHA

I've just adjusted the post-Beatles stuff a bit. The films are now a separate topic; the section titles include years; and the potpourri of more recent history has now been divided into music-related and TV-related stuff. The section was almost unreadable as it was -- I hope it is sufficiently structured now.

Jtnet 10:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From a recent edit

This was deleted almost immmediately (it certainly didn't belong at the top of the article like that), but I thought I'd paste it here in case there's anything important (or even true - it's the first I've heard of it):

According to "The Beatles Anthology" book printed in 2000 on page 33 (this is the United States version I'm quoting.) "My real name is Parkin, not Starkey. My grandad was named Johnny Parkin. When my grandfather's mother remarried, which was pretty shocking in those days, she married a Starkey, so my grandfather changed his name to Starkey too. (I went to have my family tree done in the sixties, but I could only trace back two generations -- and they couldn't find me. I had to go to my family to find out, and even they hadn't wanted to say anything in case the press found out.)"

This makes me think that The Beatles page should be changed to reflect this or that this information needs to be proven false. However I believe that this is most likly true as it is one of the few books that they contacted all of the living members of The Beatles to write this book. (This is according to "The Beatles Anthology" book to be released in fall 2000 which I think is at least partly accurate.)

-GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've said in my recent edit, it certainly doesn't belong in the first line of the article. He received his MBE as Richard Starkey, his songwriting credits are as Richard Starkey. Secondly, now I have time - vandals blocked - to read this more closely, I think you misunderstand the quote. He's saying that by rights he is a Parkin, through the male line. When his great grandmother remmaried, his grandfather changed the male line to Starkey. Richard is legally Starkey, and always has been, but had things been different he would have been a Parkin. Am I right?

Right or wrong, if I find it in the first line again I'll be deleting on sight. We don't rewrite history round here, we simply chronicle it. --kingboyk 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, further logic to say I'm right. He traced his family tree back 2 generations because they were Starkeys. The trail stopped there, because prior to that they were Parkins. That does not legally or for the purposes of our article make him a Parkin. It's no more than trivia (and could go into the trivia section). --kingboyk 06:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I support mentioning it somewhere appropriate (trivia, family background, a footnote to one of those, something). I oppose it being in the lead sentence, it's not relevant enough to be a lead sentence thing, IMHO. I've added the page to my watchlist as well, and will revert on sight unless the person who puts it in discusses it here first. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

There's been a lot of vandalism of this page in the last weeks.And it consists in changing a few names ( like "Hamburg" to "Ham Bug" ), which makes it hardly locatable.

Why aren't the last changes watched ? Maybe we should lock the page, I don't know.

MrGater 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been crazy tonight, and I've just blocked 2 IP addresses for an hour. I didn't have this article on my watchlist but will add it now. In future if you see vandalism as organised as this, please rush over to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report it, or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to request protection. --kingboyk 05:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the date he became a grandfather to 1965 again. Since that date definitely is incorrect I've changed it back to 1985.

Ringo's death?

Why does someone write in the article "Ringo passed away December 9, 2006 peacefully in his home in Reading, England at the age of 52." First of all this seems totally untrue as nothing reports his death (and no reports about fading health exist), secondly the age is totally wrong as Ringo is 66 years old. I guess this entry is a bad joke and should be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.65.192.6 (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Did he die?

I heard from our teacher who is a fan that Ringo Starr died not long ago. Is it true?

no Anger22 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell your teacher to read a book sometime. --andreasegde 09:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a theory that he died in a car crash in 1966 and the remaining Beatles embedded several clues in their lyrics and record sleeves. For example, He's intorduced as "Billy Shears" on Sgt Pepper; and on the cover he wears a black shirt when the others wear white; And on The White album he sings the song "Goodnight" to his fans; and in "Don't Pass Me By" the fake Ringo recounts the car crash in which he was killed.

...but, of course, the main thrust of the "death theories" always involved Paul, not Ringo, and most of the same clues can be read to support that as well. "Looking Through a Glass Onion"! Jtnet 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ringo Starr vs. Apple Sauce

Is it really a coincidence that Ringo was in an apple sauce commercial, or was the japanese word part of the stage name etymology? --Nintendude 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: the recent sauce → juice edit — seems to be correct [1] [2] unless he did both. Femto 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"last" song

' Starr did all this without ostentatious flash: the only drum solo in The Beatles' catalogue is on "The End" (in some senses the "last" Beatles song) ' The parenthetical was removed but if there's a source for it, I think it's a neat thing to keep. Unsourced? Must go. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources could prove that Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded, and they could also show that "The End" is the song they originally wanted to place last. It was a last-minute change of heart (similar to the laugh track after "Within You, Without You") that led them to put the "Her Majesty" snippet in there as a "deflating moment". So in this sense, which is one of "some", I'm sure the statement can be backed. (Orig. author could look it up.)

Jtnet 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The article would need to say specifically in what sense. Just writing "in some senses" isn't good enough.

Re: "Sources could prove that Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded...":

I don't think they could because the truth of the contention depends on what one means by "the last album the Beatles recorded". Although much of Let it Be had been recorded before any of Abbey Road was recorded, the last Beatles recording sessions were Let it Be sessions. Let it Be was also, of course, the last Beatles album released while the Beatles were still extant, which certainly should count for something. I always thought it was interesting that the last Beatles single (in the United States), "The Long and Winding Road", ends with "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"--although that's one too many yeahs, and the Beatles had already cannibalized the expression in "All You Need is Love".TheScotch 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. You know your Beatles history as well as anyone here. They recorded the basic Let It Be stuff, learned to hate each other, went their own ways, and Paul gathered them (incl. George Martin) back together for one (probably final) record. The story is recounted in numerous sources. Then they recorded Abbey Road, then they decided to give (inaccurate quote/John) 'the shittiest pile of badly recorded shit' to Phil Spector to salvage it. During this time, there were some re-recordings and even a completely new song ("I Me Mine"), which could either be considered the last Beatles song or the first Threetles song, as you like it.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Let It Be was issued after the Beatles had broken up. There was all that discussion betw. the three and Paul, concerning the scheduled release dates of Let It Be and Paul McCartney, which he circumvented by quitting in April. Let It Be was released as an album in May, I think. (Singles had been released previously.)

So yes, there are two ways of seeing this, but the last album recorded by the Beatles within the concept of being an "album", and not "repairs and re-edits and overdubs" in a salvage effort, was Abbey Road. Let It Be was the last studio album released by the Beatles.

This can be verified and therefore the "some senses" could be properly defined. I agree that the wording is too vague.

(BTW I agree that the "yeah yeah yeah yeah" in LAWR was interesting because it did seem to signal something, and in its strange way to give the lyric a level of depth it might otherwise have lacked.)

Jtnet 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Also, please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Let It Be was issued after the Beatles had broken up. There was all that discussion betw. the three and Paul, concerning the scheduled release dates of Let It Be and Paul McCartney, which he circumvented by quitting in April.":

Paul McCartney did not quit the Beatles. He was, in fact, the only one of the four never to quit. Ringo quit during the "White Album" recording sessions and was persuaded to return. George Harrison quit during the (original) Let it Be sessions and eventually returned. (Whether this took persuading I don't know. John Lennon is said to have remarked, "If he's not back by Tuesday, we'll get Eric [Clapton]", which I assume to be some sort of joke.)

When John Lennon told Allen Klein he was quitting, Klein offered to be his personal manager and advised him to keep silent until Lennon had a solo album ready to be released, reasoning that the news could help advertise the album. Instead Lennon blurted out his intention at a Beatles meeting. The group agreed to disband and agreed further to keep the break-up secret until sometime after the forthcoming Let it Be was released, reasoning in this case that the public would be less likely to buy a new record from a group that had ceased to exist.

Paul McCartney recorded McCartney covertly, booking studio time under a pseudonym. He accompanied the record with a press release announcing that he, Paul McCartney, had quit the group, attempting, no doubt what Allen Klein had in mind with Lennon. The differences, of course, are, on the one hand, that McCartney was lying (you can't quit a group that had already disbanded), and, on the other hand, that McCartney had breeched his agreement to keep quiet about the Beatles's break-up.

In any case, again we find that the question of which Beatles album was last depends entirely on how you define "last".TheScotch 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We are basically saying the same thing in two different ways. The story as recounted is well known and we both know that it was Paul who announced the breakup -- hence my "quit" comments. I remember that day quite well, unfortunately! (I was simplifying the story, because this is the talk page.) But your conclusions are correct, and I think still that "some senses" can be defined properly. For my tastes, the sense in which Abbey Road was the final album and "The End" was to be the end of that album is something that makes that song remarkable -- and by chance all four players played solos on that song.

All of which doesn't diminish other remarkable aspects of, say, Let It Be or the happenings of and around that record.

Jtnet 08:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can specify clearly and succinctly the sense, and if the sense is sensible, then we're fine. I'm still not convinced we can meet these conditions, however. (This is complicated enough without my pointing out that the Hey, Jude album was released in between the release of Abbey Road and Let it Be--but in the United States only. Nevertheless....) Was "The End" the last Abbey Road song recorded? If it was, then in what sense was Abbey Road the last Beatles album? In the sense that it was the last collection of new material released by the Beatles before their break-up was prematurely announced by Paul McCartney? That strikes me as labyrinthine. In any case, I don't think there's anything remarkable about "The End" occurring (nearly) at the end of Abbey Road because this is surely the "end" to which the lyric really refers. The song has no other reason to exist. At least Jethro Tull's "Wind-up" (the last song--really the last song--on Aqualung) is a pun. TheScotch 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand your arguments, I am surprised you don't understand mine. I don't find it labyrinthine, or at least not particularly so. (Not more than many other events and aspects concerning the Beatles.) Nor is the interpretation in question in any way obscure, since it can be taken from any number of texts on the Beatles. However, though I support the original author's intent here, I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree over this point for now. At some point, however, I will source his/her statements -- as soon as I find time to delve into the texts -- just because I would appreciate reaching some sort of accord with you. Until then, I don't think we will make much more progress on this.

Jtnet 09:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[The problem with something like this is that there is no absolute truth. But to me, discrediting the original author's intent is like a dog biting its own tail. From wikipedia:

re. Abbey Road being the final album or not:

Abbey Road is the eleventh official album recorded by The Beatles. Although its release preceded that of Let It Be, it was the last album to be recorded.

...

After the near-disastrous sessions for the proposed Get Back album (later retitled Let It Be for release), Paul McCartney suggested to producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album "just like the old days. .. just like we used to," free of the conflict that began with the sessions for The White Album. Martin agreed to this if the band would be "the way they used to be." In their interviews for the Beatles Anthology series, the surviving band members stated they knew at the time this would very likely be the final Beatles' product, and therefore they agreed to set aside their differences and "go out on a high note."

re. the position of "The End":

"The End" was initially intended to be the final track on Abbey Road, but it is followed by "Her Majesty". In the first practice mix of the medley, constructed on 30 July, "Her Majesty" followed "Mean Mr. Mustard"...

...etc. This labyrinth has already been walked through a thousand times by a thousand people.]

Jtnet 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "After the near-disastrous sessions for the proposed Get Back album (later retitled Let It Be for release), Paul McCartney suggested to producer George Martin that the group get together and make an album "just like the old days. .. just like we used to," free of the conflict that began with the sessions for The White Album.":

Wikipedia articles are not valid sources for other wikipedia articles--or for anything else.

The circumstances regarding George Martin and Abbey Road are often misconstrued and misrepresented, and frequency doesn't make misconstruction or misrepresentation valid. George Martin had quit EMI and had begun to work independently as a producer. That meant that if the Beatles wanted to use him for Abbey Road they had to hire him. Given the animosity in recording the "White Album", Martin could easily have been somewhat reluctant to be hired and might well have had to be persuaded.

"The group" was "together" until Lennon announced his departure and it formally agreed to disband, which took place after the recording of Abbey Road. By the time of Abbey Road the recording group and George Martin were legally entirely separate entities--as they had not originally been. (Paul McCartney has, and has had, a vested interested in obfuscating the circumstances surrounding the Beatles breaking up, and has not hesitated to obfuscate or to encourage others to obfuscate on his behalf.)TheScotch 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that wikipedia is a source for other articles. (I am however showing a typical situation where if you try too hard to get it one way here, you will have to do a lot more housecleaning.) The wiki article does reflect something which could be sourced again and again, and would, I would say, be seen as a "generally accepted truth". I do know how long they were together, when they recorded what, who was there and who wasn't -- as well as anyone who has read Lewisohn or MacDonald etc. etc.

As I said, I think we will have to agree to disagree for now. I think we should drop the thread as it has a potential to turn sour. No need for that amongst fans.

Jtnet 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

References to Ringo in text and exception.

In accordance with discussions over at The Beatles:Project and elsewhere I have changed all references from "Ringo" to "Starr"/"Ringo Starr", except one. This is where Carl Palmer says he sold his drumkit to Ringo. Whilst it is not in quotes it is very likely to be reported speech, and therefore I have kept it as is. In any event, this article is the one where the policy is least effective - since Ringo IS Ringo. I am sure that I have seen "serious" articles elsewhere in the past where The Beatles are named as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Ringo.LessHeard vanU 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory Sentence?

The sentence "Starr commented that the other Beatles gave him very explicit instructions on what to drum so it's worth bearing in mind that he was to an extent "programmed"" seems to contradict the paragraphs above it. Is this a legitimate sentence? If so I think it needs a source and needs to be rewritten for clarity.

sections

This article could really do with a lot more subsections. Stevage 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Old Wave LP

The article stated that "Old Wave" was only released in Germany, Canada and Brazil but I have seen this LP as being released in Scandinavia as well as Australia. I have lived in both places and currently reside in the latter. Does anyone know of other countries where this LP may have been released? I have added this information to the article relating to what I have stated.--Peter Jensen 13:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

external links - Russian (?) entry

Is this just a joke title to the correct link, or simply vandalism? I don't want to remove a legit link just because it reads juvenile in English.LessHeard vanU 20:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

References and citations from a book: A quick and easy "How-To"

Important: Read this on the editing page, or it won't make sense. Click on the "edit" icon. >->->->->->->

How to put a reference in an article:

Use a book, and start with this:

The name "Spitz" is the surname of the author.

Add this in the middle:

Spitz, Bob. The Beatles: The Biography, Little, Brown, and Company, New York, 2006. ISBN 1845131606

You will find this information in the book you have.

The whole thing looks like this:

When you want to repeat a reference from the same book in the same article, use this:

That’s all.

Note: Copy the information over to notepad, or Winword, and insert the information there, and then copy it back to the page. It will save time…

Note: Make sure the page you are editing has a "References section". (This one has.)

--andreasegde 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Does anyone else think that 42 "citation needed" tags in this article is a bit excessive? I think there is a "this article does not cite its sources" banner that could go at the top without constantly interrupting the flow? If the same philosophy was applied to every article - i.e. that practically every single statement needs a citation - then 90% of articles would be nothing but a forest of these tags.

The George article is the same, I agree it makes it hard to read (as you tend to pronounce all the 'citation needed's in your head). Perhaps a symbol, rather than the actual phrase might help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.199 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, there are far too many citation tags, and many of them are unnecessary. If a Starr song appears in a film, it doesn't really need a print citation since it is credited in the film.--Son of Somebody 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Last Apple Album?

"Blast From Your Past" was not the last album released on Apple Records by a long shot. There have been many others since then. Ever heard of "Anthology" or "Let It Be...Naked", or "Love"? Those are all Apple releases.206.113.132.130 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I'm not sure that this article really needs the 'Trivia' section - one piece of rough information does not qualify for an entire section. I am planning to delete the section 'Trivia' in 24 hours if nobody objects. --Liamshaw 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody object? Please say either way - I'd hate to do it without getting feedback from others first. Liamshaw 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on; I'll have a quick look and see if the item can be placed elsewhere... LessHeard vanU 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It could have been included elsewhere if there was a link which may have shed light on what Full House is. As there wasn't I removed it myself. Liamshaw, best thing in these instances is to be bold and remove/amend as you see fit - with a note in the edit summary. If someone else thinks it should stay they can revert it with explanation. LessHeard vanU 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, apologies for my nervousness. However, I've now, at the recommendation of Freshacconci on the Beatles WikiProject talk page, changed "Other Information" into "Trivia". Hope you like. Liamshaw 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Error in the Miscellenea Section

"In 1990, Starr was the first of the Beatles to become a grandfather with the birth of a daughter to his son, Zak, who is also a drummer and not only plays drums for the Who but also for famous britpop band Oasis, though he is only a semi-official member. Starr arranged for Zak to receive drumming instruction from his idol, the late Who drummer Keith Moon, who was a close friend of his."

How Can this Be When Keith Moon Died in 1978? So Ringo Arranged for his Grandson to have drumming lessons from his friend who died 12 years before the kid was born? Did Ringo not get the memo that Moon had died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puppet funk (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Read carefully. Ringo's son Zak was tutored by Moon; Zak was born in the 60's, long before Moon died. John Cardinal 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Ringo?

This section seems highly non-notable. The campaign obviously didn't catch on. Any objections if I delete it? Or at the very least drastically reduce it and merge it with another section? --Auximines 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The points could be removed, especially if the references link to those same points, or similar points, and merge into "Miscellanea" since that's what this item is, until he actually is knighted. Freshacconci 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought all four Beatles were simultaneously knighted. No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

No, I think yo're confusing that with when they got MBE's.--Crestville 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, only Paul's been knighted. They all received MBEs in the 60s. I don't think you can be posthumously knighted either, so George and John are out. Just leaves Ringo. And why not? Christ, they knighted Tom Jones! Freshacconci 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Ringo & the other Beatles give back their MBEs in protest of Vietnam?

John did. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Until Ringo is knighted this section should go.

It's a moot point now that he's dead, but presumably Lennon's returning his MBE--in protest of Britain's involvement in Biafra as well as its support for the United States's involvement in Vietnam--would make him an unlikely candidate for knighthood. Both Rudyard Kipling and Ralph Vaughan Williams refused to accept knighthood, and it's questionable whether Lennon would have accepted his had it been offered. (Conan Doyle had his fictional Sherlock Holmes refuse a knighthood, but Conan Doyle himself hadn't the backbone to refuse his own.) TheScotch 08:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excerpts from the Ringo Rama Radio Hour Interview, ca. 2003, discussing the song "Elizabeth Reigns":

Interviewer: Perhaps the only English phenomenon as big as the Beatles is the Royal Family.

Starr: I don’t feel they’re relevant any more. ... [In the song] I shout ... “God save the queen, if you know what I mean, we don’t really need a king.” I think it should end with this queen. ... I think we can have the pageant without...them. I think they should have built a hospital in the name of the queen mum, but they didn’t, they just decided not to pay taxes and keep their money.

Interviewer: At the end of the song ― which is a balanced view of the queen and company ― you say, “Well, there goes me knighthood.”

Starr: There goes me knighthood – yes, I think it has gone, well and truly…

Interviewer: Does that bother you at all?

Starr: No, I don’t want to be a sir, I want to be a duke or a prince. So if they come through with that, I’ll seriously consider it.

Jtnet 16:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He "failed" to achieve?

In the "After the Beatles" section it constantly mentions how he "failed" to do things, such as top the UK charts. Maybe I'm being antsy, but that struck me as being very critical and degrading to him.

7FlushSetzer 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In relation to his former band, and his former bandmates, it can be argued that he failed to be quite as stupendously succesful as them. However, if you think you can provide a better NPOV wording then please do so. You may also wish to point out that he was a better selling UK singles artist than the other four in the early 1970's (but you had better get a decent ref for that!) LessHeard vanU 22:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringo topped the American charts twice in 1973, before John Lennon had managed it once. Lennon sent him a telegram demanding to know when Ringo would write him a number 1! At that point George had had 2 US number 1s, Paul 3. If the article reads as a succession of "failures", it may be factually correct for the UK but may still be worded in a misleading way.

Irish?

Am I right in suggesting that of all the Beatles, Ringo was the only one who didn't (or couldn't) claim Irish descent? We know of Paul and John, and I had always assumed that George had some Irish in him somewhere.. but did Ringo? I ask because he is listed in the article List of Irish people#Notable people of Irish descent as being of Irish descent. --Mal 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Who in Liverpool is not of Irish decent, Liverpool is sometimes jokingly referred to as the real capital of Ireland. Starkey is an Irish surname to my knowledge! George is connected on both sides, his paternal grandgather Harrison came from Co Waterford, Ireland. 86.40.10.82 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reminded of a sketch on Goodness Gracious Me - "Indian!" :-) --kingboyk 02:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Starkey is certainly not a common name in Northern Ireland (though that doesn't necessarily mean that its uncommon in the Republic also). Having done some research on it, it looks as though it is of English and/or German origin - not Irish. However, that doesn't mean that people with the surname Starkey hadn't settled in Ireland at some point.. after all, FitzGerald is a common name in the RoI, but its not an Irish name - its Norman.

Gleave (his mother's maiden name) is also not an Irish name.

According to Alan Clayson's biography, Straight Man or Joker? he was described as the only Beatle not to have had Irish blood.

His maternal great-great-grandfather was a Cunningham (a ancestral surname I have in common with Ringo). This is common in Ireland (particularly in Ulster), but it is primarily Scottish. However, it has been used as an Anglicisation of some Irish surnames.

His maternal great-great grandfather was a Johnson - and that is even harder to determine when it comes to ancestry, being such a common surname throughout the English-speaking world.

I can't see that Ringo has any Irish ancestry at all. Even if he does.. somewhere along the line, it is tenuous at best. I'm going to remove him from the list.

As for who in Liverpool is not of Irish descent.. ermm.. non-Irish descended people perhaps..? lol --Mal 21:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

People thinking he is Jewish?

http://jewsrock.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=challah.view&page=L mentions something I'd never heard before - some fans believing that Ringo has Jewish ancestry. Can anyone find a source suggesting that he does (I know he doesn't, before anyone asks....)--MartinUK 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Beatles Anthology, they mention that some people thought he was Jewish. I forget the rest of the anecdote, but suffice it to say he is not. --RealGrouchy 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

During the Beatles tour of Canada, French-Canadian separatists made death threats against "the English Jew." This was mentioned in Peter Brown's The Love You Make, I believe. Starr is not Jewish, as he had responded at the time. The assumption is based--how do I put this delicately (and without making it look like this is my opinion)--on the size of his nose. Freshacconci

Can we get a picture of modern Ringo?

He looks QUITE a bit different from how he did decades ago (with the exception of his nose!).

I know I seem lazy by just asking someone else to do it, but I'm still learning things here.

7FlushSetzer 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone more experienced in Wiki-ing than I tell me: Can I scan a page from one of his CD booklets and use it for this purpose? The two photos in the article at the moment (Avedon and White Album) are also probably copyrighted, yet they are known and distributed all over the world. And appear in this article. Perhaps I could use the same logic for the photos in, say, RingoRama. Jtnet 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay, a new main picture is up. A blocky, pixelated painting of Ringo more than 30 years ago.

7FlushSetzer 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is he dead yet

Someone should mention hes the oldest beatle of all history.--70.241.27.30 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in the first paragraph. Freshacconci | Talk 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Family

Good grief, Maureen Starkey is mentioned only once (because McCartney wrote a song about her) and Zak only once because Ringo played drums with him. Montagu Square and Sunny Heights are not mentioned at all. How can this be so? --andreasegde 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles

If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical difficulties with the Ringo article ("disappearing" text)

I'm having a technical problem with the Ringo Starr article and I just can't figure it out. I was a bit upset about its poor organization again (I had cleaned it up somewhat in July) and I started to edit it, when I realized only about half of the problem was poor article organization.

The other half appears to be a technical glitch of some sort.

Take a look at the section "Possibility of knighthood" (as of today, 30 Oct.). The last paragraph (currently something about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic mentioned in the heading. And it doesn't! But if you go into edit mode, you will see that awards are technically in their own section, "Awards and Recognition." It's just that the section heading and the first few paragraphs of that section itself just... well, disappear. I tried editing there at that "location" in the article, and it seems as if whatever is placed immediately behind "Knighthood" just gets sort of swallowed. Not only the text itself, which doesn't appear, but headings are not recognized and therefore also do not appear in the table of contents.

Thus I cannot get the article to appear correctly and completely on screen, and I've tried this now on three different computers.

I therefore must assume that the problem exists in general. What am I -- and all of us Ringo editors -- missing here? What's happening? Can anyone help?

Jtnet 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The "notes" link preceeding the missing section was incomplete. I fixed it I think, but someone may want to check that I haven't messed up anything else in the process.

--Jd204 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be okay now. Thank you for that! -- Jtnet 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Starkey Jr

Has he ever actually been called this (the Jr bit, I mean)? If so, it would be useful to have a citation for the "Junior". Bluewave (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you forgot to remove Jr from the infobox, so I took the liberty of removing that. --Spiby (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Zargoth the Destroyer of Worlds?

Fix, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ringo's daddy

Why don't we have his father's name mentioned. I believe it's Richard Starkey ,Sr. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "Nobody Told Me" that was released on Milk and Honey and John wrote for Ringo to release- he also wrote "Life Begins at 40" for him but that was not released until John Lennon Anthology so that needs to be changed.

4.233.41.86 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Controversy

There seems to be no mention of the business (last year?) when he put his foot in it by saying that he'd never go back to Liverpool. And then his figure in a Beatles topiary display was beheaded. I don't know the whole story and came here looking for it. I'm sure it's significant given the Beatles relationship with Liverpool.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.84.104 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandals!

it says on Early Period bit Ringo Starr Is A Type Of Cheese as funny as it is can sombody please change it?? 81.96.254.143 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Films

Does anyone remember a movie that Ringo played two roles in it? It was a prince and the pauper type of movie and it may have only beena tv movie. For some reason, Merv Griffen had a cameo in the movie.

Please tell me that I'm not crazy and this movie exists. It would have came out in the mid 1970's.

• It was a TV movie from 1978, just called Ringo. He plays himself and trades places with someone named Ognir Rrats (played by him). I don't know about Merv Griffin, but Mike Douglas was in it. freshacconci talktalk 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ringo didn't play both roles, the other ringo was Hank Jones, IMDB.com, john ritter was on that movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No Fan Mail?

Should we include a section about Ringo's video on his website telling fans not to send him fanmail anymore? It's all over the news today (Oct.13th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.46.93 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote about it in the Recent Years - Other news items section. wdansey 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdd123 (talk • contribs)

Ah baloney. Just when I was about to send him my first fanmail, dated October 21, 2008. Anyways; yes, it should be included (as he's a celebrity). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I saw him on Youtube making that announcement he looked, and sounded, a bit drunk. Maybe he fell off the wagon?--andreasegde (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tax risistance

Anybody want to discuss his owning a home and claiming residence in Monte-Carlo for tax reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment moved from top of page

SOMETHING IS WRONG. FIX IT PLZ. THANX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.154.204 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Something is missing. Tell us please. Thanks! Cycle~ (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

page move to Richard Starkey; name not legally changed

If his name was never legally changed, this should be page moved to his legal name. Please, no fanboy opines. Cite policy or forever hold your peace. Tks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy: Wikipedia:NAME#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things (John User:Jwy talk) 07:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, was his name ever legally changed? This must be mentioned in the article. If never legally changed, needs MOS-approved wording: "better known by the stage name Ringo Starr Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with it as it is. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Only accuracy matters. Am changing until proof of name change is offered. Thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Under English law, a name can be changed "legally" by simply deciding to use a different name. Your legal name is whatever you choose to call yourself. What proof of name change are you looking for? Bluewave (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A move would be ridiculous - Ringo Starr is quite clearly his commonly used name. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No I dropped the page move idea a long time ago. The only change that ws necessary was a minor rewording of the first sentence. But Starkey himself goes by Richard with his friends, and I am stunned that English law truly recognizes "going by a different name" as a legal name change. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I believe his friends call him "Richie"... but the argument for the current article name is that it is what the huge majority of readers will likely search under, his birth name would be a redirect for the few that wish to test the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

he didn't change his name legally but he registered ringo starr as working name or artistic name so is so legal as his real name and when people know a artistic name better than real must be used that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.241.227 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ringo's Daddy

I believe it's Richard Starkey, Sr. Does anybody have sources, so we can add him? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I also believe it is Richard Starkey but I don't believe he has ever called himself Sr (Sr and Jr are not particularly common usages in the UK). However, I don't have a source for either the name or the lack of the Sr. Bluewave (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He says in the Anthology book that his family name is Parson, not Starkey. Radiopathy •talk• 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

no discography???

why is there no discography as in many other wiki-articles? i think it could be helpful.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.57.233 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Beatles drummers

The article says "there are five individual occasions where the drummer on a Beatles track is someone other than Starr":

1. Love Me Do
2. P.S. I Love You
3. Back in the U.S.S.R.
4. Dear Prudence
5. The Ballad of John and Yoko

However, our article on Happiness is a Warm Gun states that Paul was the drummer. Is (was) this the case? If so, is it the only time not documented in this article? If not, we need to look into this. Cycle~ (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be the case for Martha My Dear too, although it's pretty much a McCartney song. Either way, the paragraph in this article is misleading! Cycle~ (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a couple on Anthology where Best was the drummer. Maybe we should simply remove the paragraph, rather than trying to make it perfect. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely – I'm not sure how much more it could be improved. Besides, the opening sentence, "claims have been made that Starr, in fact, did not drum on many tracks for the group" is awfully weasely. I think there needs to be mention that McCartney played drums on some songs during the White Album sessions, but there's no need to categorise every song that Starr didn't drum on. Cycle~ (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He was definitely on Happiness is a Warm Gun. In the Recording Sessions book by Lewisohn, there is a comment about Ringo saying between takes that he has trouble shifting into the different tempo changes. Radiopathy •talk• 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good articles

Article Rating Core articles

The Beatles Good Article

John Lennon Good Article

Paul McCartney Good Article

George Harrison Good Article

Ringo Starr B-class

'Nuff said?--andreasegde (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I wrote this on my blog, and have been slowly picking away at this article since before then, but no-one seems to have taken me up on my offer yet. We could manually make this the collaboration of the month if you want, but that shouldn't make much of an impact (it seems I'm the only persont hat does anything to the COTMs). Maybe we should start a massive collaboration drive, the likes of which have never been seen by mortal eyes... Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice there've been requests Here, There and Everywhere for Help! to bring this article to GA standard. With a view to contributing to this, I've just read it for the first time, making notes as I went. In my judgement, the article is well written and and broad in its coverage, and now just needs the following actions prior to nominating for GA:

• The prose just needs a minor tweak here and there, plus a new Lead; I'm happy to take this on;
• There are specific missing citations. We need to bite the bullet and either add these or remove the statements. I propose to add tags in the dozen or so obvious places I noted. I do not have the citations to hand myself but hope others can respond and add a citation when possible till this is fixed.

In my judgement, once the above two actions are completed, the article will be good as a GA nominee. I will soon proceed as above unless there are objections to this. PL290 (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP PRESS In an exclusive interview today, Starr revealed his thoughts to Wikipedia contributor PL290 on being the only one of the Fab Four not at GA standard:

• PL290: How do you feel... does it worry you to be alone?
• Starr: No, I get by...
• PL290: Do you need anybody?
• Starr: What would you do if I lacked ci-ta-tions? Would you stand up and walk out on me?

Well people, we know what he means... and there arent't really that many left to do... so let's get to it, especially you lucky ones with good sources at your fingertips, for A Hard Day's Night, Eight Days a Week, and then, Tomorrow Never Knows, it will be Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! time for this soon to be GA Nominee. PL290 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

PL90, what great work, you Tosser.--andreasegde (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Skill

The section "Drumming ability and appreciation" seems to take the word appreciation to mean only positive comments. In fact, the way it reads currently, with nothing but admiration and praise, I can't help thinking that the laddie doth protest too much. NPOV requires that the article not only reflect how highly regarded Starkey is/was by his colleagues, but also how he is popularly considered not-especially-good (justified or not). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find good sources of notable mentions of disdain for his drumming, than by all means add them. Belasted (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV doesn't require "that the article not only reflect how highly regarded Starkey is/was by his colleagues, but also how he is popularly considered not-especially-good (justified or not)." Balance is only required inasmuch that "neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance". In other words, balance is ideal but we don't need to force the issue if it's not an issue. As Belasted states, if there are reliable sources, go for it. If not, we don't need to invent them, or trawl through blogs to find people who don't like his drumming. NPOV policy simply doesn't require it. freshacconci talktalk 23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Understand: I don't think Starkey is a bad drummer. But I've heard the viewpoint that he's "nothing special" so commonly and persistently that I'm amazed that it has been excluded from this article. There is no need to "invent" it. Why would Wired refer to the drummer of one of the most lauded bands of all time as "underrated"[3] if he were as well-respected as this article suggests? How would the (possibly apocryphal) quip by Lennon that "he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles" have gained such traction if it weren't a common POV? The defensiveness of this article (e.g. pointing out for no apparent reason that McCartney only redid a few of his drum tracks) indicates that some of its authors have been aware of his poor reputation... but the article seems to have been carefully edited not to actually acknowledge it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, it is difficult to find well sourced quotes to say that Ringo is mediocre. This may be down to a couple of things, firstly it is still uncool to diss ex-Beatles and secondly there are very few polls conducted where the question is "who are the five most mediocre drummers ever" - there is rarely a poll for the worse of any category in good reference sources. There is also the point that those who do rate Ringo are drummers themselves, while those who might have said he "got lucky" are not (there are notable exceptions, but the comments have never been provided in a useable source). In the end, if someone who may be considered an expert notes Ringo as being "nuttin special" in a decent source it can be referenced. It is only a matter of finding it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what point you are making about it being drummers who rate Starr. Are you saying that drummers have some reason to give him higher marks than he deserves? I don't know why that would be true.

Drummers (like me) tend to notice things that non-drummers don't. For example, Starr's cymbal work is superb. How many non-drummers would notice that? Some non-drummer musicians might notice it, but the general public probably wouldn't. It seems to me that many non-drummers rate his drumming based on how he looked when playing the drums, not based on what he played, and that's a big mistake. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what Jason A. Quest is trying to get at, and why the article may seem defensive (and without clearly indicating why it seems defensive), is this popular notion, by some, that Ringo got "lucky" and that his drumming was nothing special. I'm guessing if you look through the history of this article, there are instances where editors have attempted to place personal opinions about Starr, which have been reverted and other editors over time have perhaps over-compensated as a knee-jerk defence, by perhaps over-stating his ability. The thing is, there are plenty of reliable sources (from drummers and critics) who do rate him highly, whereas those that feel he's not very good tend to be unpublished. My guess it comes from the notion of rating drummers by not traditional skill (what I think John Cardinal is referring to in the ability that only another pro can spot) but instead by the "showmanship" you get from later drummers (such as Keith Moon, an excellent drummer, but who would have been out-of-place in The Beatles) and then of course the later prog-rock drummers. I remember having an argument with a Rush fan in the early 80s over the skill of Neil Peart versus Ringo. To someone who only sees skill in hitting every drum in a 30+-piece kit in every song, yeah, Starr seems too straightforward. But as a non-musician myself, I've always preferred Starr's approach and always suspected he was better than some gave him credit. I always loved the drums on "Ticket to Ride" and "Rain" but didn't know why or how to articulate it. In the end, we can only go by the reliable sources. Perhaps the section on his ability could be strengthened by discussing his reserved drumming style, his own dislike of solos and other flashiness and his style being suited to a band that emphasized song-craft and band-cohesion over virtuosity. I know Ian MacDonald discusses this quite a bit in Revolution in the Head. In the end, Harrison was never flashy as a guitarist either. Starr and Harrison de-emphasized solos and virtuosity. It's interesting that the more elaborate Beatle guitar solos are by other musicians (McCartney and Clapton). We can then mention, if there are good sources, that sometimes there's a popular notion that he was not a great drummer, but that he is in fact greatly admired by critics and other drummers. That way it acknowledges that there is some discussion on the matter without giving it too much undue weight. I think it could be comparable to the "Yoko broke up The Beatles" nonsense that continuously pops up in the Yoko Ono article. Yes, some feel that way, but the actual story is complex (that McCartney was the first to publically quit, that Lennon actually left the band earlier, that in fact, The Beatles with or without Ono's presence would have probably broken up when they did. Again, many writers do discuss that at length: the hatred of Yoko is more about sexism and racism than anything else). freshacconci talktalk 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question - I don't think drummers overstate Ringo's abilities, they recognise them in contrast to the (negative) critics who very often are not. My major point is, as Belasted notes, that it is difficult to find good sources for less than fully positive criticism, since being commented as "okay" or "alright" does not tend to find itself being quoted in publications that want to sell (who seriously can quote someone who says "Ringo was useless"? The fact it is said devalues the reliability of the source). Specialist publications will print opinions that do not lend themselves to hyperbole, which is why you will get a lot of drummers rating Ringo even if he was not of the very very best (the stuff that the mainstream are aware of). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

THE POINT IS, find good sources for criticism and add them. At this point, that's really all there is to it. Belasted (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity... I remember reading the quote by Lennon about how Ringo was "not the best drummer ever, not even the best in the Beatles!" When I read it, it wasn't from a reliable source, and I couldn't find one, and this was long before I was a Wikipedian. I sent an email to snopes.com to see if they had any answers, but I never got a response. This was a few years ago. Is this a real thing, was he kidding, where was it? Anyone know? Thanks. PS. This is not trivial forum discussion. It could be incorporated into the article if worthy. Belasted (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I too think that this article paints him in a far too-positive light (the common viewpoint I've encountered is that he's just mediocre). However, as has been said, we gotta go by sources, and it looks like sources say he's great. On the Lennon quote, a google search ^{"best+drummer+in+the"+lennon+ringo&btnG=Search&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USCA292CA303&sa=2} shows that it's probably a legit quote, but I can't find any legit sources in there. Who knows, maybe he actually was an amazing drummer. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

With The Beatles, Starr was an orchestral percussionist, and beyond criticism. Although playing a right-handed drum kit, he started fills with his left hand, which is very hard to copy. Having said that, it should be stated that a comment about him being known by many as not very good should be in, just to show how dim people can be. I say this because I had to correct someone only last night about this silly misconception.--andreasegde (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we need a good source describing the phenomenon. We can't just say "some people think he sucks." (John User:Jwy talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I think I'll check "worst drummers of all time" on the net, to find something.--andreasegde (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Belasted above (THE POINT IS...), but also a second point: technical ability as drummer is one thing, and musical contribution as drummer is another. The article is currently weak on both. It needs more (sourced) statements for both (a) he is an adequate drummer and there are drummers who are technically more capable and he's the first to admit it, which needn't detract from (b) his musical contribution to The Beatles (which the Steve Smith quote sums up so well). That is in fact why I gave the Smith quote prominence in the Lead in an earlier version: it is a major fact about Starr. Yes it is Smith's "POV" but only in the way, say, a music critic's "POV" is quite acceptable to quote. But it seems at least one person didn't agree about that prominence in the Lead! :) PL290 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There (to coin a phrase); how easy was that! Thoughts about some prominence in the Lead again now for the Smith quote, as was added a month ago by this edit but has since faded away? PL290 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead now updated to include balanced summary of drumming ability. PL290 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Lead now updated", according to our Great Leader. We do not have to worry anymore.--andreasegde (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem #9

"Starr is considered to have influenced various modern drumming techniques, such as the matched grip, placing the drums on high risers for visibility as part of the band, tuning the drums lower, and using muffling devices on tonal rings.[29]" The drummer in the article, Steve Smith, talks about his own POV.

1. The matched grip was used before Starr learned it. 2. Placing the drums on high risers was the set designer's job and not Starr's. 3. Tuning the drums lower is bullfaeces, as he was always asked to make his drum sound different for every recording, which he did. 4. Muffling devices (such as a towel on the snare) was because it was not as loud when rehearsing. It's gotta go... --andreasegde (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the sources don't support it, they yes, it must go. PL290 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From the same reference, [29], this should be used instead: "Starr is the first to admit that he is not a technician on his instrument. But his creative input, time feel, unorthodox fills, and emphasis on serving the music helped make The Beatles' music what it was." That will do. --andreasegde (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Something along those lines, yes; see also my comment in Skill above. PL290 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Something along those lines, yes". Get off the fence.--andreasegde (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul on drums?

Hold on here! Now Paul gets drumming credit for Dear Prudence and not Birthday? Where did this come from?

And that's a solo in Birthday? Radiopathy •talk• 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Clayton says, "Paul, George and John managed a composite drum section for Back In The USSR. They were about to minister likewise for Dear Prudence when the prodigal returned".(p.184) So it seems Prudence had only come out to play in this list; she has now been removed from the list and sent to her room to meditate and take things more seriously. Turner says Starr too was involved in Birthday so it doesn't belong on this list of Starr-free tracks. I've removed the "2 solos" sentence as unsourced/POVcruft. PL290 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think PL290 means "Clayson", not "Clayton", right?

Anyhoo, it's likely that Clayson is wrong. Lewisohn lays out the sessions in sequence with dates and Starr was clearly absent during the "Dear Prudence" recording sessions. Lewisohn mentions Starr's exit and return, and there are no "Dear Prudence" recording sessions except during Starr's absence. MacDonald supports Lewisohn. I have not read Clayson but I trust Lewisohn and MacDonald more. In addition, my own ears tell me that it's not Starr; in particular, the hi-hat/cymbal work is not up to snuff. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes: to my (lay) ears the Dear Prudence drum track is rather reminiscent of McCartney's first solo album: very foursquare, without Ringo's characteristic syncopations. Solicitr (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of reverting my reversion based on John Cardinal's comments. A ref would be needed though. Speak up, all! Radiopathy •talk• 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Duh! The ref is already there! Radiopathy •talk• 04:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to comment along the same lines. Given the number of times it's been challenged, I was already coming to the conclusion Clayson (yes, he's who I meant) was probably wrong (or just so appallingly vague as to have left it unstated, thereby allowing the interpretation I placed on his words which, if you re-read them above, don't even actually say Starr drummed...). Also, the latest edit summary cited Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head", although unfortunately no specific citation was provided or added to the article. So yes, personally I would say Clayson should now be discounted on this point. I notice the sentence already has Lewisohn as a citation, so reverting your latest revert would do it. PL290 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Our ears tell us that McCartney came out to play on "Dear Prudence"—as we're told he did on more than one Beatles studio track, to supplement Starr's offerings—but Lewisohn tells us (more convincingly than Clayson implies the opposite) that Starr did not, as he had himself gone out to play. The dear lady has accordingly now been reinstated in the list of non-Starr tracks. PL290 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We're coming close to original research here, are we not? I believe in the conclusion and I don't want to be a pain about it, but we should probably make some attempt to make it verifiable. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jwy, if you're referring to my comment "our ears tell us", that part is not crucial. The cited source does verify the statement made in the article. Hope that clarifies. PL290 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think some comments on this page are OR, but we've also discussed two very reliable sources, Lewisohn and MacDonald, and that's what makes any associated edit to the article verifiable. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you've identified some possible other OR, any you care to tag, I'll try and fix, as I have a couple of books. PL290 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I put my fingers where my mouth was - or whatever. Lewisohn is pretty un-ambiguous about McCartney on drums for Prudence, a little less so on USSR (first take, Paul - two additions, unclear). LOVE that book. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"as I have a couple of books". Which ones? Internet, or are they in storage?--andreasegde (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way Paul is drumming "Dear Prudence", not in a million years, that is incorrect I assure you. GabeMc (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian MacDonald in Revolution in the Head (p. 310) also credits Paul as drummer on "Dear Prudence". MacDonald is the main source used in Wikipedia for track personnel on Beatle songs. freshacconci talktalk 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources in addition to MacDonald say it was Paul. Those same sources say Ringo was not physically at the sessions for "Dear Prudence": it was recorded when he had quit the band and was on a boat somewhere. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if it weren't reliably sourced (which it is); why is is so hard to believe that Paul played the drums on that track, GabeMc? "Not in a million years?" Because... why? Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't roll?

"he couldn't do a roll to save his life" says George Martin, and Martin certainly said it. But it's a rather weird comment, since Ringo certainly could roll (the intro to All You Need is Love is just one of many examples). What's the procedure for balancing an otherwise aythoritative source who our ears tell us is dead wrong, without going OR? Solicitr (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it merits further balance, the procedure is, as ever, to add material backed by a WP:RS. But I'd say the balance is now quite nicely there. It's been discussed for a while by numerous editors (see #Skill above) and the Martin quote is one of those added to a section about Starr's drumming being both criticised and praised, intended to give just the balance of which you speak. Not being able to do something to save your life can be (and clearly was in this case) a facetious way of saying "could be better at it"; note too Starr's remark in the same section, "I'm really left-handed playing a right-handed kit. I can't roll around the drums because of that". PL290 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Check Lewisohn's Sessions book: the drum roll in the intro to All You Need is Love was done as an overdub after the session/broadcast finished and it's not specified who actually did the roll. Radiopathy •talk• 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the orchestra's percussionist to me. The snare's tuning is much higher, and it precedes the brass section. Ask John Cardinal, he also knows about this stuff.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with andreasegde, I suspect that roll was done by the the orchestra's percussionist. That's OR, of course, but since I was asked...

I also agree with PL290. The point wasn't that Starr couldn't do a roll at all, the usual interpretation of Martin's comment is that he could be better at it. Starr's "roll around the drums" comment was probably meant to indicate that moving smoothly from higher-pitched drums to lower-pitched drums—which is from left-to-right when a kit is "right-handed"—is harder for someone whose left-hand is dominant. Moving the other way is easier because in that direction, the left hand can lead. You can lead with your left even when going from left-to-right, but it's definitely harder.

All this OR aside, I think the article is appropriately balanced with regard to his skill. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Start being real editors, and not just fans.--andreasegde (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't help. If you disagree, be specific. Otherwise, we can only react to what appears to be your air of superiority, and that won't help the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Smith (musician)

1. Who is this person? His own article has only one (yes, one) reference. This almost made me laugh out loud on Mr. Smith's page: "Many nights a walk past Steve's Harvard street home you could hear him practicing in a small shed in his back yard." Good grief...
2. Acclaimed or not, what are his comments doing in the lead? They're being touted as more important than Phil Collins' comments, or any one of a thousand (household name) drummers who have complimented Starr's drumming.
3. From the same PAS article Smith contributed to, I found this: "Jim Keltner, who recorded with Starr countless times (first on percussion on Ringo's "It Don't Come Easy" and then on many double-drum tracks on various Beatles solo projects), as well as touring on Ringo's first All Starr Tour, sums up Starr's contribution: 'When you think of Ringo, it's impossible to not think of The Beatles, and when you think of The Beatles, you remember those perfect songs with the perfect drum parts. When you hear the live BBC tapes, recorded with no more than two or three mics, and the way he's laying it down, you know Ringo is one of the greatest rock drummers of all time'." Smith is here, but not Keltner? Do me a lemon... (Yes, I know that Keltner's page has no references, but McCartney got through English and French customs without a passport, because they knew who he was.)--andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Smith is the drummer from Journey. That's not a favorite band of mine, but he's pretty widely known for his technical chops. He's written instructional books (I know, who hasn't?), been interviewed many times in music and percussion mags, etc. I am not opposed to removing the information or re-ordering it to give weight to more widely known drummers. BUT, I thought it was incorrect to remove it because you didn't know who he was, or because his WP article is not well referenced. If we remove it because we don't think it's necessary, or because there is better content to replace it, or for some other article that's more directly related to improving the article, then that's OK with me.

Regarding Keltner, he's also widely respected but his comments could be viewed as biased given his many projects with the various ex-Beatles. I am not against including his comments, just mentioning the point. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To me there are good grounds for things being as they are in the Lead, but that's not to say it can't possibly be done any other way. The Lead should summarise the article and must therefore show the balance of criticism and praise. Currently the article's longstanding Smith quote is part of the equilibrium we've reached to do that, but I have no personal preference for Smith over Keltner or anyone else for this purpose. Given John Cardinal's reply, perhaps there's no need to change anything, but if someone wants to propose a specific change I'm sure we can all be open-minded about it. PL290 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All of which said, I do note that that Smith quote serves the purpose particularly well in that it emphasizes the creative aspect of Starr's drumming and its effect on Beatles music, rather than saying "greatest drummer in the world" (implying technically greatest) which would set all the arguments off again. With this in mind we should choose any substitute with care. PL290 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion comes back to the Keltner/Smith opinions, please note that Keltner played with almost everyone at some point (SOME exaggeration, but not much), so his praise of Ringo would probably be even more informed than Smith's. Not saying we need to change anything now. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jwy when he said, "his praise of Ringo would probably be even more informed than Smith's." That's a very logical argument (which will be ignored) but I don't agree with the kind of tripe from other concerned editors, like, "I thought it was incorrect to remove it because you didn't know who he was". Does anybody know, apart from Journey fans? I even think the Buddy Rich quote (which is referenced, but is not in the article) said, "He's adequate, no more than that" is more telling, and balanced, as is Keltner's opinion, because he has played with practically everyone. As there seem to be some fans of Steve Smith (musician) here, I will back off from this, as this article needs a mountain of help to get it to a GA, and reviewers don't take kindly to warring.

BTW, the comments, "To me there are good grounds for things being as they are in the Lead" smacks of utter laziness, or a total POV bias, and "perhaps there's no need to change anything," which sounds like sitting on the fence with a cup of tea in one's hand, as well as "I'm sure we can all be open-minded about it", and "The article's longstanding Smith quote is part of the equilibrium we've reached", makes me want to throw up into a dirty bucket. It's the old trick of "Let's talk about this (as long as I get my way in the end)". I've been here long enough to know which end of a cow the manure product comes out of. I'm sure we can put on an apron and talk about "What a drama", but the wood can be seen through the politics.--andreasegde (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that PL90 doesn't answer anything if it disagrees with his own point of view? In all his glory, he hopes it will wilt and fade, but it won't. Up yours, "Hello!" magazine editor--andreasegde (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ringo Starr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm passing this article, as I think it meets all the criteria. I was concerned about the prose, but on a closer look, the prose itself is fine. The article layout and flow needs some work though, and parts of it feel like choppy sentences tossed together randomly, especially near the end. I'll also point out "Drumming ability and appreciation" does not mention any examples of his ability being dismissed (except for Lennon's joke), which would be fine if no one has dismissed it, but the first sentence of the section says that someone has. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent years: 1985-present

I think this section could be organized better. It's developed into a bit of a hodgepodge

== Recent years: 1985-present ==
=== Music: albums, concerts/tours, awards, appearances ===
=== Other news items ===

Suggestions? My questions are:

• Should we continue to list awards here as well as in "Awards and recognition" section? (Possibly yes, possibly no; have a look at what awards there are. I'm leaning towards excluding awards from this section.)
• Can we improve on these two subsections ("Music..." and "Other...")? The names are bit clunky, and the split's not quite right because the McCartney reunion is of "other" interest despite being an appearance...). Different subsections? No subsections?
• Should we anyway combine the section with the one above ("After The Beatles: 1970-1984") as it seems a bit arbitrary to call everything since 1985 "recent". I'm leaning towards "After The Beatles" with decade subsections 1970s, 1980s... for all of this. If there are no comments I'll probably reorganize along those lines in due course. PL290 (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Television

This section seems to be largely a collection of trivia. I'd say other than giving Thomas the Tank Engine a mention somewhere in the article, this section should really go, as it's not noteworthy. If no one objects to the suggestion I'll probably remove it in due course. PL290 (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm's "mixed feelings"

The article stated "Storm had mixed feelings about losing Starr;[24][25]". After looking at ref [24] I have removed these words pro tem: they insinuate that Storm had a low opinion of Starr but ref [24] only states "Rory Storm was magnanimous about the theft of his drummer". If someone who can enlighten us about what Spitz said wants to argue for its inclusion, fine (hopefully reworded to make the meaning clear) but failing that it appears inconsequential. PL290 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge filmography ?

I noticed that someone embedded Ringo Starr filmography into this article with this edit. It got reverted, but as it's a straighforward list and adds value to this article, it looks like a good idea to me. I see this merger was suggested 5 years ago on the filmography talk page but not tagged or discussed. I'll tag for the proposed merger and await discussion here. PL290 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. PL290 (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Starr had his first gig with The Beatles on 13 March 1961

Using a book as a reference, if the fact is inacurate, is just pointless. Rinho Starr drummed with the betles in 1961 but not for a gig, just in a recording studio in hamburg, backing his bass player Lou Walters with Harisson, Lennon and McCartney as sidemen. He drummed with the beatles in early 1962 the day Pete Best got flu. Aldejerph (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've updated the article with the correct dates as given by the Bill Harry book. PL290 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking over

Starr became The Beatles' drummer after Best, their original drummer, was dismissed. Thus, Starr took over from Best. Recently the article text has twice been altered to state that Starr "took over for" Best--the last time stating that "from" was a typing error. I've never heard of "took over for" used like this. It wasn't "for" Best--it was against him! Is this American English, perchance? This article uses British English. I've reverted it. PL290 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd use "for Best" if Best had asked Starr to perform in his place. So, for example, if Best couldn't make a gig, Best might ask Starr to "take over for me." In the actual circumstances, Best was not involved in the change and so I think "from Best" is more accurate. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Jr"?

Coming back to this page after a long absence, I notice that his name has been changed to Richard Starkey Jr. Is there any evidence for the "Jr"? It is an unusual way for a British person to be named and I've never heard him referred to with the "Jr" title. I would bet a lot of money that it doesn't say "junior" on his birth certificate! Bluewave (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see PL290 has fixed it. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Page Protection?

Anyone else out there tired of seeing Ringo's page vandalized almost daily (and seemingly more frequently) by anonymous IP's? Falsely reporting his death, calling him "Big Nose", giving him the "Jr."... it just simply never stops. While some IP's may contribute positively, the vast majority just needlessly screw with this article. Any other voices out there looking for at least a brief break from the nonsense? Semi-protection is what I would like to see... Doc9871 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yea. Maybe leave Rod a note on his talkpage. MPFC1969 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Withnail & I

I presume the "Richard Starkey MBE" who is prominently thanked at the beginning of the closing credits of Withnail & I is the same chap? Might be worthy of a mention.Mr Larrington (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I suggest we set up automated archiving of this talk page using MiszaBot. If there are no objections I'll set it up presently. PL290 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done PL290 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Guitar?

Supposedly Ringo is capable of playing guitar, but has anyone ever actually seen him do this? 66.87.0.167 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Full Name

Allmusic states that his name is Richard Henry Parkin Starkey. Another source I've seen said Richard Henry Parkin Starkey, Jr. Another said Richard B. Starkey. (I think it just came from a movie though) Another simply said that he has no middle name. Anyone have a credible source as to what his middle name is, if he does have one. 70.69.132.168 (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

um-edited album

what was the album of late 80's never released, I know that ringo went to court to stop the release of that album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.215.216 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about a solo album of his or a Beatles record? You may be thinking of Sessions, which is eventually what became The Beatles Anthology. Evanh2008, Super Genius (User page) (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Starr & Nicol

The paragraph “1964 the Illness” states that «Starr was temporarily replaced for the Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Hong Kong and Adelaide concert dates». According to Hunter Davis, Mark Lewisohn, Bill Harry, Bob Spitz and many others, Starr was NOT replaced by Nicol in Sweden, just because no concert dates were scheduled in Sweden, where in fact the band had played in october 1963. --Lineadombra (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

protected

I think this article should be protected, Starr was a member of The Beatles, and [the article] is at risk for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.25.149 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I just submitted a request for this article at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. GoingBatty (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The page has been Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. GoingBatty (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of Beatles songs w/o Ringo on drums

Hi, the end of the section says that Ringo plays drums on all but 5 released Beatles tracks, and goes on to list the five tracks. However, the list is incomplete---from the top of my head, I can add "Martha My Dear", "Wild Honey Pie" and "Dear Prudence" to the list (check the personnel info on the song pages). I propose dropping the statement altogether, or at least leaving out the numbers unless we find a good source for them. Otherwise it ends up being original research on our part. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that it ignores the existence of Beatles songs that don't have drums at all (Eleanor Rigby, Good Night, She's Leaving Home, A Beginning, etc.). I say we cut the statement. It seems little more than trivia anyway. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Statement removed, as it was clearly original research with no citation to be had. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ringo Starr was/is a Songwriter and Record Producer

On main page we can read <Occupations : Musician, singer, actor>. Ringo Starr was/is also a Songwriter and Record Producer. --Roujan (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Image

The picture of him in the infobox is good, but is it possible to remove his fingers (at least, I assume they are his) and/or the blotch of purple at the bottom right? Interchangeable 22:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 @ the Beatles

FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles capitalisation RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Was this mediation ever resolved? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the poll consensus ended clearly in favour of "the"; however, NewYorkBrad has taken over two weeks and still hasn't officially closed the RfC. I must admit that I think it's a bit humourous, when I consider how many people berated us for not being able to resolve such a "simple" issue, yet one of Wikipedia's finest admins needs more than 14 days to close the RfC. I predict the recent drama at AN/I will be blamed, and now the "Frankenstorm" will likely delay the results even further. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical Anglican?

Ringo attended an Anglican evangelist Church as mentioned. In Liverpool particularly Dingle the Starkey family would have preferred the term 'Protestant'. Madryn St was and still is in a Protestant heartland of the area. Small but important addition to Ringo's WIKI page imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.132.134 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oddly defensive

I was reading this article after coming from a webpage (not a reliable source) that mentioned the common idea (which I remember well from those times) that Ringo Starr was less-than-fully respected as a musician, hoping to find a explanation and/or history of that idea developing and then being countered by other musicians. (Occasionally supported too, I'm sure; even masters have critics.) I was surprised to find all the supportive statements (including 17 cited references), but not a single sourced mention of dismissive claims. It makes the "Drumming skills" section look very defensive without ever saying why so many would feel compelled to praise Starr, who "has been the first to acknowledge the technical limitations of his drumming". Even that leading sentence, implying criticism, is just thrown out there with no sourcing.
I skimmed through the talk-page archives, but most of what I found was the typical personal-opinion stuff and uncited experience – like my own comment in the first sentence – that was a much greater problem in the early years of Wikipedia, and is no substitute for cited publications.
Does anyone have some sourced material that would supply the missing context to all this praise? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, there are a couple of references. 

1.) Ringo himself. He has always been self-deprecating when it comes to his performance doing drum rolls and huge flourishes. 2.)The story goes that when he auditioned for the Beatles they asked him if he does drum solos and he said, 'No', and they said, Great! You're In! McCartney reportedly said it was like pulling teeth trying to get Ringo to play the solo drum part on the 2nd side of the Abbey Road album. Hope that helps. JSJR 03012013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.56.97 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ringo's Name

One thing has always bothered me about Ringo's real name. His real name is Richard Starkey and his father's name is Richard Starkey therefore why isn't he known as: Richard Starkey Jr? JSJR 03012013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.56.97 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The terms senior and junior are only properly used when the parent and child share the same full name. That is first, middle and last names. I believe Ringo's full name is Richard Henry Parkin Starkey. If his father's name is simply Richard Starkey, it would be incorrect to call him Richard Starkey jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.228.64 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate

10 years ago, I read a biography of the Beatles in a book, and it said that Ringo Starr was born on July 12 instead of July 7. Which is his true birthdate? Mewtwowimmer (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

References 8 & 9 in the article give his birthday as July 7. What book were you reading? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ringo's place of birth

Ringo's place of birth is given as follows...

Liverpool, England.

This should include "Lancashire" between Liverpool and England (plus UK). At the time of his birth and up to 1 April 1974 the city of Liverpool was part of Lancashire. Could it be that some people don't like to admit to that little piece of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.10.13 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that was a question: I don't know. It's not particularly relevant to this talk page, either. Our manual of style doesn't seem to address this issue, so I'll let others figure this out. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of trivia

I am attempting to tighten-up the article in preparation for FAC, and as such I removed this trivial datum:

In 2000, he appeared in a television commercial for Charles Schwab Investments. As he sits with a group of young musicians trying to find a word that rhymes with "elation", Ringo suggests such financial terms as "dividend reinvestment participation", "market capitalisation" and "asset allocation". As the song "Money" plays in the background, the musicians stare at him in confusion. He finally says, "What? Too many syllables?"

However, User:Hearfourmewesique has twice restored the material, here and here. This trivial stuff will not make it through an FAC, but I guess I have to argue for its removal now. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support removal

1. As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Per GabeMc. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. So it's sourced? It's horrid and irrelevant. Rothorpe (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
4. The information in question is completely trivial. I see no reason to wait for an FAC reviewer to ask for it to be removed. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Perhaps useful if there was a well written and sourced discussion of how appearing in advertising affected/influenced/commented on his career, but the details of a single commercial is trivial. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
6. I also support its removal. Even though sourced it is trivial in the context of all the volumes of info that have been written about this iconic person. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal

1. Commercial or not, this is a multiple sourced (there are four sources at the moment) media appearance that is as valid as any other. Moreover, I have gone as far as 1000 revisions back, and this has been present in the article for a long time. Therefore, a new consensus must be fully formed before making such bold change. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This is trivial excess that will not make it through an FAC. It does not matter how long its been in the article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to exhaust editors with a close-to TLDR spread "discussion". Therefore, I will repeat my reasoning here as well: commercial or not, this is a multiple sourced (there are four sources at the moment) media appearance that is as valid as any other. Moreover, I have gone as far as 1000 revisions back, and this has been present in the article for a long time. Therefore, a new consensus must be fully formed before making such bold change. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:COATRACK. Also, 1) www.clipland.com is not a WP:RS, 2) its use of the commercial is likely a copyvio. Hearfourmewesique, is it safe to assume that you added this datum in the first place? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK refers to whole articles, so it is not really relevant to this case. As for your question – no, it was not me who added this in the first place, this article just happens to be on my watchlist and I just happen to detest trigger-happy deletionism. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you okay with its removal now, or do you want me to give this thread more time? If so, how long? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this has already turned into a triviaphobe convention, I have no further input here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page courtesy and sorry if I got a bit hot headed over this. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries Hearfourmewesique. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ringo's instruments

An editor has added: percussion and vocals keyboards to the list of instruments in the infobox. In my mind the infobox is an at a glance summary of important facts from the article. I don't feel it needs to include every instrument an artist has ever played. To my knowledge Ringo is not generally known for percussion and keyboards and this info should be removed. What do others think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He is best known for drumming and singing, that's it. Not keys and guitar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Rothorpe (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Best known for drumming and singing. That's what the infobox must display. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that anyone who knows Ringo's work with the Beatles would have to say that he is most definitely a percussionist! You only have to consult the Beatles Anthology DVD, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn to see the historical record of Ringo's percussion credits over many years of recording. With regard to his keyboard prowess there isn't as much verification available but he is most certainly recognised for his percussion work!!The Dart (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I just corrected my initial post above. The editor in question added percussion and keyboards (not vocals). So there seems to be clear consensus on leaving out keyboards. Re: percussion I'm not sure its so notable it needs to be in the infobox. Others thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it taken for granted that drummers can generally bang a few other things? Rothorpe (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Percussion refers to a range of instruments, both tuned and untuned, not just drums. It does actually include instruments such as marimbas, vibraphone, xylophone, glockenspiel and even piano. Don't be so facetious and puerile. I thought you claimed to be an English lecturer?The Dart (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if Ringo plays all those tuned instruments (and I think I've seen him at the piano), he is not notable for more than drumming and singing. Rothorpe (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal POV, but I can't be bothered taking this argument any further!The Dart (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, according to Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Replace fansite?

Reference #183 for the Ringo Starr Homepage is a fansite that has collected quotes about Ringo's drumming. Should we remove the reference to the fansite and add links to the real sources instead? I did this for Lewisohn already as an example with this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to copy references from other articles, such as the three references in the fifth paragraph of Max Weinberg#Early life. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help User:GoingBatty! I've gone and removed the cite altogether, since it was only supporting two more people who were influenced by Starr and since there is already enough artists listed, IMO and since obviously dozens more could be added. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad you got rid of the fansite. However, there are now 11 people listed in that paragraph, and only a reference for the last one. Do we need a reliable source for the other 10 influenced drummers? GoingBatty (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch, I missed that. Hmmmm ... I'm tempted to just remove the whole lot, as the list of drummers not influenced by Starr would be shorter, but that might leave a glaring omission. I don't know where to start with sourcing 11 individual fans. I'm not sure if this website is reliable. What do you think, GoingBatty? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed the section. I link the following quote from the Ringo Starr Homepage, but would like to have more details on the source.

Editor of Modern Drummer magazine, presenting the Editor's Achievement Award to Ringo -- "What is beyond question is Ringo's impact on an entire generation of drummers who first became drummers as a direct result of seeing and hearing him play in the early days of The Beatles. Literally hundreds of thousands of players -- including some of the greatest drummers playing today -- cite Ringo as their first motivating influence."

A quote like than explains his influence, and also explains why there isn't a list of people. If we must add more people, I think they should be household names and have a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That's a perfect quote, but I wish I could it in a RS. What do you think of this edit? Maybe not a silver bullet, but it at least speaks to the point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. I've posted at Talk:Modern Drummer to see if anyone there can help. GoingBatty (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Need source

The solo section begins with "On 10 April 1970, McCartney publicly announced that he had quit the Beatles". Since Lennon was the one who actually split the band in late 1969 (which was also when Ringo started recording his first solo album), I would like to change it to that, and was wondering if anyone can find a source. The Wookieepedian (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the section on the Beatles the article states: "Following a business meeting on 20 September 1969, Lennon told the others that he had quit the Beatles.[110]" Then the first sentence of the 1970s: "On 10 April 1970, McCartney publicly announced that he had quit the Beatles.[111]" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

5th best drummer of ALL TIME, yet, this article makes it sound like he barely could hold the sticks. Ringo prided himself with creating a different drum part, unique, for every single Beatle song. He was very shaken on one song when he just could not "get it" in attempts to give the song it's own rift. Photo still's for that song show Ringo sitting alone on the back wall on a chair looking upset as Paul did the drumming.

Dusty Baker famously wrote that listening to his previous work he realized he only laid down power drumming rifts. Wanting to get better on high hats he listened to every Beatle recording trying to "get it" like Ringo. Hearing his own recorded attempts put him into despair. Next he hired a film crew to film his practice sessions. That did not help either. Dusty Baker wrote he had to give it up. He just could not match Ringo's ability to create so many varied drum patterns or cymbal variations.

                                                                     Ronnie SeCoy 
                                                                     singer - songwriter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.63.48 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC) 

Inaccuracy in place designations -- Princes Park not Dingle

Neither Madryn Street nor Admiral Grove are in the Dingle district of Liverpool.

They are in fact both in the Princes Park district of Liverpool.

Many printed articles and uninformed sources erroneously refer to this area as being in Toxteth, but the correct designation is Princes Park.

As the Ringo Starr article cannot be edited, this glaring error canot be corrected by other than privileged Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.240.238.235 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• That's quite interesting. You may well be correct, but then as you said virtually every known source on Ringo is incorrect, such as The Guardian: "The house at 9 Madryn Street, in the Dingle area of Liverpool, was due to be bulldozed as part of a multimillion-pound regeneration scheme" and The Telegraph: "(9 Madryn Street) is one of more than 400 houses in the Dingle area of Liverpool, known locally as the Welsh Streets because they have Welsh names, which have been earmarked for demolition since 2005." Can you provide any WP:RSs that support your above assertion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia: "Like many districts in Liverpool, there isn't universal agreement about where the Dingle begins/ends ... Some locals regard Dingle as being within the area encompassed by Warwick Street, in the north, Princes Road, Devonshire Road and Dingle Lane." Which would place both Madryn Street and Admiral Grove well within the Dingle district of Liverpool. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard WILLIAM Starkey

A bit difficult to correct errors in this article.
However: Ringo Starr is not born Richard Starkey. He was born Richard William Starkey.
His birth registration in on display in the Beatles museum on Albert dock in Liverpool, and it says:
«BIRTHS in the Sub-District of (handwritten:) Toxtett
No 331: Richard William, Boy»
(I have a photograph of it.)
Jostein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.29.216 (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. Using a picture of a birth registration as a source would be to use WP:OR. Are you aware of any WP:RSs that explicitly state this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, I’m not. I was made aware of this in a quiz-book (Friday early-morning-coffee-event at my working-place…) and I was quite astonished. That’s why I particularly checked this when I was in Liverpool this summer (to be a god father to my two teen-age girls!). So the fact is out there, I think. The main purpose of Wikipedia must be to get it right, isn’t it?. Jostein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.29.216 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. GoingBatty (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stan Lee

In the 2000s section, it states "Also that year [2006] it was announced he would be the star in a Pow! Entertainment animated film and comic book produced by comics creator Stan Lee." I don't recall either of these being released. If it did, we should add more info. If not, should it be removed from the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove forthwith. If the film or book is released they can go back in. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I don't see anything matching that description on IMDb. The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead

Over the past four or five weeks, User:You'reNotMyBrain has repeatedly made edits to the lead asserting that Ringo has sang several or many Beatles songs. I noticed that User:GoingBatty and User:Jwy do not agree with this language; I tend to agree with them. In an effort to establish what the current consensus here is, lets discuss and perhaps take a poll, so that this isn't an ongoing dispute that wastes anymore time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

He sang lead vocals on some of the band's songs, including "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Yellow Submarine" and their cover of "Act Naturally". He also wrote the Beatles' songs "Don't Pass Me By" and "Octopus's Garden", and is credited as a co-writer of others, such as "What Goes On" and "Flying".

Poll

Support using some

1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Support using many

1. I think this one works best in the context of the lead. The Wookieepedian (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Support using several

1. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Looking at the article's revision history, You'reNotMyBrain commented that He sang about 10-15 songs, plus co-lead vocals on Flying and Carry That Weight, and backing vocals on Bungalow Bill and others. I agree with Jwy's comment that 7% is not "many". Either some or several is fine with me. GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO, some and several have significantly different connotations, but I could support either. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I support several - Some is a very vague word, and "He sang some of the band's songs" doesn't sound very good. Some could mean anything depending on how one thinks of it, whereas "He sang several of the band's songs" is both more accurate, and more exact and direct. It actually gives the reader an idea of how many songs he sang, while some could mean any number of songs to someone who has little to no knowledge of the subject. You'reNotMyBrain (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• As a potential compromise that avoids using any of the proposed terms, what do you think of this edit:

On most of the band's albums, he sang lead vocals for one song, including "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Yellow Submarine" and their cover of "Act Naturally". He also wrote the Beatles' songs "Don't Pass Me By" and "Octopus's Garden", and is credited as a co-writer of others, such as "What Goes On" and "Flying".

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Looks good to me. The Wookieepedian (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition

I don't know if it's necessary to mention that he has not been inducted to the Rock and Roll and Hall of Fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.110.174 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, its definitely not necessary, and typically we do not go out of our way to assert a negative. If this is somehow notable, or if reliable sources have gone into some discussion regarding the who, what, where, and why, then maybe, if its notable to his bio. I assume that you think its odd that a Beatle has not yet been included, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that one; Ringo's solo career is not really the stuff of legend, even if he certainly is. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I mean I found it odd that the negative is asserted. That's like Non-Awards and Non-Recognition. I do not think it's odd he hasn't been inducted though...

Agreed and removed - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Its not that common, IME, but I also don't see a big issue with including the fact. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The section wasn't in chronological order (or any other order I could see), so I reorganized it. The first paragraph is now all about the Beatles (with a link to the full list of awards), and the second paragraph is all about Ringo himself. GoingBatty (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, GB! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)