Talk:The Beatles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Introduction

Hope you all didnt mind but I thought the introduction to this wonderful article was a bit lame and down played somewhat. I took the liberty to rewrite it a little.

The picture in the header is lame. I think it in no way acurately represents who The Beatles were or what their music was all about. Not to mention their image. Someone who has never heard of The Beatles (a disturbing thought, but quite possible nonetheless) that pic is the first thing they see may well deduce that The Beatles are nothing more than some run-of-the-mill rock band from the 60's, which they are most definately not.207.157.121.50 04:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Why are The Beatles refered to as the "Beatles" in this article? they were "The Beatles" NOT "Beatles" you wouldn't put the "Who" or the "Kinks" would you? Lion King 19:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What, more influential than Pat Boone??? Wahkeenah 02:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes more influential than even Pat Boone (steelslide)

Not possible! Not even John Tesh has that much influence. Trekphiler 15:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well i thought I had changed the introduction. I guess I had better do a little homework on how to contribute to Wikipedia.

You did change it, and someone thought it was a bit gushy (i.e. Point-of-View), so they changed it back, more or less. Wahkeenah 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Care should be taken that no matter how you rewrite the first few sentences of the main article, the table of contents not be buried so far down that a new reader has to scroll down just to read the table of contents. In other words, try to keep the table of contents in plain view for first time readers new to Wikipedia. A "cleanup" template ought to be attached to the main article if this isn't done soon.

I'd argue that POV remains a little less than neutral in some spots (e.g. in the paragraph on "bigger than Jesus"). The writing style of many paragraphs makes this also quite painful to read at times. I tried to do some cleanup this evening (while preserving as many Anglicisms as I was aware of), but in my opinion it could use some more work both on POV and copy edit. 24.236.82.169 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a link to the disambiguation page? Or change the re-direct from "Beatles" -- I don't want to read about some band when I want to read about a bug.

Uh... the bug beetle is spelled differently...

How can the Beatles possibly be referred to as a rock band?

New pic in header

Don't like it (the early 1967 shot) in the header, but my opinion is likely made up of around half personal taste and half the notion that their earlier "Beatlemania" era image (which has been shifted further down) is more encyclopedic and helpful. Is this 1967 pic more appropriate because it was taken at about the mid-mark of their worldwide fame as an active group? Likely not :) But I thought about it. Wyss 10:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

An anon has put the Sullivan pic back in the header. Yay. Wyss 15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Wyss - I made the change, saw it was reverted from a server ID but thought it mightve come from you since it looks like you've put alot of time and care into this page.

So my quick take - Would like to see it go back to early67 shot up front, but would like to first discuss. Couple reasons - You've got two similar early Beatles pics on the page, each good and representative for the period, but I dont think they have the impact of the early67 shot.

A good leading image should almost communicate what it is in a splitsecond, with strong, simple impact to anchor the article, be 'iconic' if you will. That first picture just seems too busy to me to put up top. Lots of photo caption text there too.

Second youve got a whole section in the article dedicated to the early Beatles - seems like a great place for that image to go (better than where the early67 shot is now placed). And other than the single images from the White Album, the only group shots are from the early British Invasion/'Beatlemania' period.

This gets into a 'music culture' arguement I realize but for many the Beatles represent much more than that early phase.

Lastly, of all the Beatle images, that early67 image is one of their strongest. Its used in The Rolling Stone Rock Encyclopedia (all editions). Its called their Rembrandt image, because of the hallowed lighting, and strong/subtle poses.

I've got a little photoediting/magazine layout background - if you look at some quick touchups I've done elsewhere on Wiki - Talking Heads, Van Morrison, Woody Allen - the similar look/feel is a strong, expressive-yet-simple image up top that anchors the article. More art than science for sure! :)

Sorry to belabor this point Wyss -- seems we both agree its an important page, meriting appropriate attention. My thoughts, open to further discussion. -- Barrettmagic 10:45 August 9 2005

First, I didn't put up any of the Beatles pics. My role around here is more like a mother hen I guess, cleaning stuff up and fussing over PoV and "strange" additions. I've contributed some text and balance and so on.

I've no doubt about your graphic talents, the 67 picture looks fine except for the fact that I don't think it's representative enough of the Beatles :)

Now this is likely partly personal taste, anything with a "hippie" look has to be rather extraordinary for me to like it. For example, I sort of like the "White Album" individual pics, and I think the Sgt Pepper's look was amusing. Anyway it's not for me to decide. Truly, whatever the consensus goes for is ok by me.

So... let's have a poll! (Change the vote titles if mine don't seem right)Wyss 18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Beatles (L-R, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, John Lennon), in 1964, performing on The Ed Sullivan Show promoting their first U.S. hit song, "I Want To Hold Your Hand," and ushering in the "British Invasion" of American popular music.

Use the existing 1964 Fab Four shot in the header:

1. Wyss 18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Cigsandalcohol 13:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Hi. Contrary to Barrettmagic, I think the Sullivan picture is much more iconic. The impression I had when entering the page with the Sullivan shot was, in my opinion, very strong, immediate. I do not say that this pic is ultimately representative of The Beatles, because we all know they are hard to categorize and had various phases, most notably the two ones we are, in the matter of fact, opposing here ("boyish/hippie"). Although, having to make a decision, I go for this one. It represents one of the peaks of the Beatlemania, or at least the start thereof, so considering the popularity here matters (in terms of representativiy, iconicity,...), this shot has also this advantadge. I agree on the excess of text on the caption, but that has an easy solution - just cut the non-essential. It is simply an introductory photo. I don't even see the reason for the presentation of the members, let alone the little things about the show... What's important here is the presentation of The Beatles as a whole, a group, acting, together, and this pic does this job well. Really, the 1967 is better for introducing the members. I think there is room for both of them, but the 1964 on the top. Thank you.

P.S.: Forgot to mention: the importance of the classic image of the logo on the Ludwig drum bass...

The Beatles, early 1967.

Use the 1967 post-Revolver pre-Pepper shot for the header:

1. Barrettmagic 11:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC) - (Good descriptor) - Much stronger for top image: iconic, nice grayscaling (not so flat/fuzzy), and alot less busy than 64 Fab Four shot. (PS - those Sullivan shots are BEGGING to be cropped).

Who/Beatles

In a 1982 interview with the Rolling Stone, Pete Townshend of The Who stated that he didn't see The Beatles as a rock group. He said that they were more lighter rock with an occasional classic (not quite quoted exactly). Um, ouch! I thought that The Beatles and The Who were friends! What is this?

I think Townsend's notion of "rock" was different from yours (word usage, is all) and I'm sure he wasn't "insulting" the Beatles. I can say this because I was brought up by people who made the same casual distinction- bands like the Who or LZ were referred to as rock, the Beatles being referred to as "pop" or "rock and roll." That's only my experience, mind you, to show why I wouldn't read it as a put down or whatever. Now, original research aside, I've read that in the early and mid sixties there were two distinct genres, mods and rockers (this would be in the UK)... I've also read the Beatles were more often referred to as mods but resisted the label. Wyss 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

But the Beatles didn't necessarily fit the "mod" label; I think The Who came closer to it than they did. I guess people at the time were looking to label and be labelled. (In the same interview though, Townshend said that one of his favorite records was "Strawberry Fields Forever", so I guess it's alright in the end.) Thanks for answering

Then there's that funny bit in HDN when the clueless journalist asks Ringo, "Are you a mod or a rocker?" and he replies, "I'm a mocker." :) Wyss 04:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's one of my favorite movies (besides School of Rock and Help!) It was a perfect example of their trademark wordplay. Yup, that's Ringo for ya!!! :-)

I read the above. On a slightly different point, am I the only one offended by the description of the Beatles as "an early boyband"? Avalon 06:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Breakup of The beatles

This has been created by an anon, but it's a bit orphaned at the moment - it could probably do with some cleanup too. sjorford →•← 08:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating a new chapter

I have a comprehensive list of the Beatles' achievements regarding sales and charts. I would like to create a new chapter in the Beatles article as it doesn't really fit into any of the already existing chapters, like influence or trivia. I would like to put it after either "trivia" or "song samples" - it is a pretty long list. I don't know if there's a specific person in charge of this Beatles article. I could preview this list in here and wait for comments. It is pretty useful in my opinion and would certainly add value to the Beatles article. -- Robert Goertz 12:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good time to be bold :) (I'd say put it in the article under some heading like "Worldwide sales" or "Milestones" or whatever you think works) Wyss 18:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section on the Beatles' impact on global charts directly under the record sales section. Robert Goertz 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Gosh that section is informative, but runs really long. Shouldn't it go to a separate page much like the way a discography or filmography is set up now? Barrettmagic 14:00, 16 August 2005

I had the same thought. Yes, IMO it should be its own article (a few items could be sent back to the trivia section in the main article or wherever). Wyss 13:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, I thought it was running a bit too long, but I wasn't aware that a separate page could be created for it (newbie!). That was a good idea! Robert Goertz 16:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Yep - completed the redirect this morning. Good content there Robert Goertz, but the main page is getting really long and memory-intensive (Wiki standards suggest not exceeding 32K - The Beatles page is 98K). I may suggest even more offloads - the Madonna article is a great example. Virtually every listed section has its own dedicated page to keep the main article simple.

PS - Robert - your User link page isnt set up - I see your name in red. You need a profile page to link to - see mine or others for reference. Barrettmagic 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Beatles vs. Kraftwerk

There is a user at talk:Kraftwerk who asserts that Kraftwerk's influence on the world has been "comparable" to that of the Beatles. He also seems to believe this is a consensus opinion. (Actually, he refers to it as a "fact" and feels it belongs in the lead paragraph.) Other opinions would be welcome there. . .)

The Beatles "more popular than Jesus."

Lennon once infamously claimed that the Beatles were "more popular than jesus."

Well if you take Wikipedias Most Linked to Page as a guide, They are!

258. The Beatles (6445 links) ... 285. Christianity (5726 links)

Richard Lester

Quoth the article: It focused on their hectic touring lifestyle and was directed in a black-and-white documentary style by an up-and-coming Richard Lester, who was already known for directing the television version of the Goon Show.

Now, I'm no Goons or Lester expert, but surely the only television version of the Goons (aside from the filmed recordings of some of the radio shows) was The Telegoons, which was a puppet show? I believe this has been confused with Lester's direction of The Running, Jumping, Standing Still Film, a short the Goons made in the late fifties.

I could be wrong though - as I said, I'm no expert. Thought I'd flag it up for attention from those who know more about these things. Angmering 19:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

New Band infobox

I have added a band infobox at the top of the page.

I think it looks good, but the downside is that the caption that accompanied the Sullivan image is lost.

What do people think? Is the infobox good, or should we stick with the regular picture and caption?

Images of the instruments

It's a good idea, but I find the pictures to be of rather low quality. Besides, my personal opinion is that all Wikipedia pictures should be surrounded by boxes and have a caption (but that's probably just me). I propose we either get rid of them or find new ones that haven't been manipulated. Perhaps they could be repalced with pictures of each Beatle actually playing something?--Deadworm222 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article may be a bit too heavy with pictures, anyway. Furthermore, the captions of some pictures are not up to par with the standards set by Wikipedia:Captions. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing to last names

I recently changed places where the beatles were reffered to by their first names to their last names. (See [1]). After doing so User:Wahkeenah wrote on my talk page:

Not to quibble too much... but in their glory years the Beatles were commonly referred to in the media by their first names. You've done some possibly-excessive changing to last names. Presumably trying to make it sound more encyclopedic. Not worth getting into an edit-war about, but worth discussing, maybe. :) Wahkeenah 10:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do agree it is not worth an edit-war over, so I heeded his/her advice about discussing. The reason I made the edits was, as User:Wahkeenah suggested, to make it more encyclopedia like.

Opinions? :-) Akamad 11:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I cringe whenever I see the first names used because it makes the article sound like something out of a fanzine. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it's the Internet, I'm neither "he" nor "her", I'm "it". :) But here's another clue for you all: The walrus's "Paw". OK, moving right along, you've got a point. Being a teen in the 1960s, if anyone said "John" or "Paul" or "George" or certainly "Ringo" in a musical context, it was understood. To the current generation it must seem kind of silly. It's hard for you all to totally comprehend Beatlemania. They were just all over the place, it seemed. I think at one point they had all 5 songs in the top 5 on Billboard, which is mind-boggling. However, other performers are also called by their first names. "Elvis" is an obvious example. Wikipedia goes to the Elvis Presley page if you enter just Elvis. And I lost count after at least 25 first-name-without-last-name references in the article. However, maybe that's arguably a different situation, because (1) he has been called by his first name almost universally from Day 1, in part because (2) it's an unusual name that is instantly recognizable. It's like in the 50s, if you said "Ike", that meant the President. And in the 40s if you said "Frankie", that meant Sinatra. However, with the obvious exception of Ringo, the Beatles' first names are common. And when strong rival rock groups such as the Rolling Stones are mentioned, you might call them "The Stones" for short, but I don't think "Mick" would be used frequently the way "John", "Paul", "George" and "Ringo" were. This would seem to be a judgment call. Wahkeenah 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Use last names. It's a matter of tone or usage. Informal, conversational use, "Paul" or "George" (or "Elvis") is OK; N in a formal setting, like an encyclopedia article. (Have to look again at the Elvis page & see what it does; suggest changing it that way, too, if need.) Trekphiler 15:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Breakup section

Would the breakup section that was recently added fit better in the History of the Beatles article? Because, to me it seems oddly out of place here. Akamad 09:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. (Caution: I support your proposal. Coming from me, this advice may not be considered wise by one or two borderline freaks.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I figure I should wait a while before any moves. As it turns out, the text was moved here from Breakup of the Beatles, which now redirects to this article. It was suggested on the article that the page should be merged with this one [2], but it appears no discussion occurred. Akamad 22:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see the comment about the instruments being lost in the Phillipines substantiated. While it is true that the money was taken, I don't believe the instruments were taken or lost as it is plainly clear that Sir Paul still uses his 1963 Hofner bass today. MA

It seems to me that any discussion of the Beatles' breakup is incomplete without discussing John Lennon's growing heroin usage in '68-'69. JD, Oct. 26 2005.

Yoko Ono

Okay, this subsection is a mess. It had the link as the section title! I put in a main article thing below it, and expanded it a couple sentaces. bu it needs serious work. Help! HereToHelp 13:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there was mention of the low quality of that section in it's talk page when it was a seperate article. Akamad 21:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For use on your user pages

This user is a loyal fan of The Beatles.

KHM03 11:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "fan" and a "loyal fan"? --Vunzmstr 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Variety Magazine...

In the Scotsman today [3]

"THE Beatles' enduring appeal was confirmed today when they were named the most important entertainers of the past 100 years.

John, Paul, George and Ringo beat the challenge of stars ranging from Elvis to Lassie to be crowned Icons of the Century by entertainment bible Variety."

Wyss 23:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I am working on a school project and planned to print out the first few paragraphs of this article; I found two bits of obscene vandalism. Can someone proofread it and check accuracy of the first three paragraphs? Thanks. --εγώ 19:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, everything works. You can compare different revisions of the article by looking at the page history. Thanks for helping out. Johnleemk | Talk 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

methinks that history is being re-written here! Before the "A" was added the Beatles were the SILVER BEETLES, at present, i'm relying on my memory,'til a find a better source than the web.Lion King 01:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought so! "Johnny and The Moondogs," "The Silver Beetles," then "The Beatles." this can be verified at, bbc.co.uk/radio1/johnpeel/artists/t/thebeatles Lion King 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

I work as an Information Clerk in a National Recreation Area. I meet people from around the globe. Once this couple from London were visiting with us and I told them that I'm a HUGE Beatles fan. The gentleman looked at his wife and smiled really big and said, "Tell Him". His wife has been at an early Beatles show before they hit the big time. In fact she said they were still wearing their leathers. I had to shake hands with them both for sharing that with me. The woman got the biggest kick out of me considering her as sort of a celebrity just because she saw The Beatles in their early years. So I thought all here would really enjoy this story.

Oh. Numerous years ago I jammed with a soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was from New York City. When he was thirteen he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1965. Then a few years after that I got acquainted with a guy who is a saxophone player in Nashville, Tennessee and who was a session musician at MoTown in the 60's. He jammed with The Beatles when they visited MoTown. Isn't life a blast!

User: bumpusmills1 14 December 2005 10:58 PM CST

==The Quarrymen== Who was, or is, Ken Brown? Lion King 01:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't bother, found him. Lion King 22:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Beatles #1 Forever!

The Beatles will never be topped! Many have tried and have fallen short of the mark. There are other music groups/artists who are really great, but they are not The Beatles. --Bumpusmills1 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Marc Tufano

References to Marc Tufano are defamatory of him and unless they are removed he will issue a claim for libel. Marc Tufano has never been involved with the Beatles and was NOT a member of the band.

Larry Williams

Larry Williams' name was deleted by mistake in the quest to delete the vanity insertion vandalism that has been been occuring in Wiki. Someone may want to correct that correction! ;) --Cjmarsicano 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In command

Didn't notice it in the article, so let me mention it: first rock group to do a command performance for QE2. Trekphiler 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wild One?

This movie was banned in the UK until 1968. How did Sutcliffe know Lee Marvin refered to the female members of the gang as "beetles?" He may have seen it in Germany, but by this time they were already The Beatles. Lion King 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles were named by John Lennon. See bbc.co.uk/radio1/johnpeel/artists/t/thebeatles Lion King 12:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ringo credited ?

How many songs did Ringo write/compose for The Beatles ?

I find only two ,Don't pass me by and Octopus's Garden,and one he has co-written with John and another member of the band.

MrGater 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Last Concert in Britain?

"The last official public concert The Beatles gave in the UK was on 12 December 1965. It took place in the Capitol Cinema in Cardiff, Wales. The venue has since been demolished and replaced with a shopping centre. (The Beatles' impromptu performance in January 1969 on the rooftop of their Apple Corps. offices was not a formal concert.)"

After watching the Beatles Anthology I noticed they'd played at the NME Poll Winners Party in mid 1966. Wouldn't this be the last official time they played in Britain? Or would you mean playing their own concert and not part of an awards show?

Influence of Elvis Presley

There is no doubt that the early Elvis Presley was an important influence on the early Beatles. Both in respect of the music he performed - and in terms of his stage persona and "attitude". Lennon and McCartney both referenced him a lot. George and Ringo - a little less so. But that influence was not the only early influence. Many others followed - including Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Carl Perkins, etc etc. To some degree Holly, Berry and co. started to impress them more because those artists (unlike Elvis) were also writing their own material. And after Elvis went in the army - and then re-emerged in his more family entertainer style - his impact on the Beatles lessened further.

I mention this because the article has had additions which I think overstate the significance of Presley on the Beatles. The initial impact (from April 1956) was huge. Presley came out of a void for them (Bill Haley excepted.) But by 1958 - there were all of those other artists also influencing the Beatles. One of the helpful barometers is to analyze the songs heard on the "Live At BBC" album. The tracks come from BBC radio sessions (1963-65) where the Beatles had the freedom to indulge their passions for the songs they most liked. Many more Berry and Little Richard songs than Elvis.

I think that the Beatles-Elvis paragraph should be modified to reflect the above facts. And there should also be some reference to the two key postscripts to the Beatles' relationship with Elvis. Their dismay (particularly Lennon's) on finally meeting Elvis in 1965 (and seeing what he'd become by then) - and their feelings (articulated in "Anthology") on discovering how Presley had denounced them in his exchanges with Richard Nixon in 1970. The Beatles never retracted the fact of their early appreciation of Elvis. But they did put those feelings in perspective in their overall conclusions about him. Davidpatrick 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

POV, art rock, progressive music

In the history section I changed:

"The Beatles to this day stand as one of the most innovative art rock bands of all time, and while they are considered by many to be the pioneers of progressive music, new generations seem to think of them as nothing more than a british pop band, but they were so much more. Sadly many of today's music fans seem to forget that without The Beatles, rock music would not be the same."

into:

"The Beatles to this day are regarded as one of the most innovative rock bands of all time."

The original section was quite obviously POV, and i also think that the references to 'art rock' and the Beatles being the 'pioneers of progressive music' are in essence meaningless. I would say the term 'art rock' is meaningless as rock is music is art, which renders the term 'art rock' meaningless. The term 'pioneers of progressive music' is meaningless in my opinion as what is progressive depends per definition on the time of conception of the music. You can't pioneer progressive music because all music was progressive at some point. --Vunzmstr 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

About the pop-art Beatles picture

This was just added today :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Beatles29ra.jpeg/300px-Beatles29ra.jpeg

I think it's a magnificient piece of art.Do you know who is the artist ? Where does it come from ?

Thank you.

MrGater 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's from 1, I think. Johnleemk | Talk 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture change

Why was the picture changed? I preferred the old one, as its resized thumbnail version is clearer than that of the darker new image. I don't think there were any copyright problems - both of them have the same copyright notice, and I think both would fall under fair use. So why the change? --Nick R^Talk 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Or we could use a free image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg .Geni 23:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We could put that somewhere in the article (thumbnailed of course), but I don't think it's as clear as the image we have now. I believe the photo is of them at the airport after arriving in America in 1964? —simpatico ^hi 06:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes a retouched version is now availible http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles_retouched.jpg .Geni 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The old picture better defines the beatles. Plus, that new picture is hard to see.

A thumbnail picture should be instantly recognisable and clear to the reader - this one is too dark and we can't even see their faces properly. By the way, the picture is by Richard Avedon, done in 1967.

So far it looks like we should put the old picture back... anyone else agree? --Nick R^Talk 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Lion King 16:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree! I was planning to make a post about why such a crappy picture was being used as the main illustration. The new one is much better, I'll add it back in. —simpatico ^hi 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)