Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 09:43, 9 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	The Beatles is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004, and on July 7, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 29, 2006 Featured article review Demoted August 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 5, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept April 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 16, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept September 26, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 3, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 26, 2009, and September 26, 2010. Current status: Featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

The Beatles Top‑importance This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Misplaced Pages. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: For this article Condense, clean and refactor the "Musical evolution" section. Remove uncited fancrufty statements. Source "Achievements" section, intergrate into article or write in prose, not bullet points. Ultimate goal: Get back to FA status For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. Biography: Musicians / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Rock music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Merseyside Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. "Editors Won't Let It Be When It Comes to 'the' or 'The'". The Wall Street Journal. October 12, 2012. "Help!". Harper's Magazine. January 2013.

The consensus, per the closures of this RfC and this RfM, is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 112 million views since December 2007. This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: February 9 to 15, 2014 (24th) November 28 to December 4, 2021 (22nd)

Years active

now that the beatles have released a new track, should the years active be changed to “1960-1970, 2023” 92.11.169.139 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They also released new tracks in 1995 and 1996, but consensus up to now has been that was not a fully-fledged reunion and therefore should not be listed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should change it. I mean they were active again to release the song so I can't see no reason why it should be changed Adavid299 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Threetles is not the Beatles. As George Harrison said in 1989, "There will be no Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". Tkbrett (✉) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And 5 years later, Harrison changed his mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. 41.174.50.101 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the years active section should be changed to ''1960-1970'', 2023''. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to add 2023, then why not 1995? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were not active in 2023. Only Paul and Ringo (The Twotles?) were active. WWGB (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

They did use John Lennon's voice from a demo recording, they also used Ai on it. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a footnote after the "1960–1970" mentioning the one-off completions of songs in 1995–96 and 2023. While it's probably not enough for direct inclusion, I think it warrants a footnote. Chessrat 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough for consensus, but I agree with regards to adding 1994-1996 (or whatever the specific dates were) and 2022(-2023?) in a footnote attached to the years active section. These three songs are Beatles songs: all four are on them, and they were recorded and released as Beatles songs. Regarding George's quote, that was before they reunited (regardless of the definition) to work on Anthology in general (and the three reunion songs in particular). (And, theoretically, we could also maybe add 1981 because of "All Those Years Ago" and Ringo's second wedding having the three surviving Beatles on it.) I don't think there's any need to change the timeline, though, even though no one mentioned that here. I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1981 had three out of the four members playing some music together in a studio not under the Beatles name and privately attending a wedding. It doesn’t come anywhere close to counting. Humbledaisy (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

With 1981, I was just throwing it out there. That is a very good (and obvious) point (that I forgot) about All Those Years Ago, but I still think Ringo's second wedding is possible. I've never read about it in a biography yet (not that it may not be there, but just that I haven't read as many books on the band as I'd like), but it is possible that Ringo or a guest at the wedding (maybe a drunk guest, given the way weddings usually run) referred to the group as The Beatles. For a comparison (that may or may not work well), I believe CCR's uncredited appearances on one of Tom Fogerty's solo albums, plus two reunion by performances by two or all or the surviving members at class reunions or something, are considered to be CCR reunions. So, yeah, maybe it would make more sense to leave All Those Years Ago out, but I still believe strongly that sessions for the three reunion singles should be placed in a footnote (and possibly the band members section in the article). Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable secondary sources say?

• In the first volume of The Beatles as Musicians (1999), Walter Everett describes the songs as "the first post-1969 recordings involving all four group members" (p. 286), while also describing the group working on the songs as "the three ex-Beatles" and "the Threetles" (p. 286–287).
• Alan W. Pollack refers to the songs as simply "new Beatles songs".
• In the epilogue to the second edition of Tell Me Why (2002), Tim Riley describes the songs as "reunion singles" and he describes the Anthology as a "reunion project" (p. 390).
• In Volume 2 of The Beatles Diary (2001) by Keith Badman, he alternates between calling it a "Beatles reunion" (p. 519) and referring to the group as "The 'Threatles'" (p. 521).
• In Revolution in the Head (1997), Ian MacDonald writes "the ex-Beatles" (p. 377) and "the former Beatles" (p. 378) when describing work on the songs. In the preface to the first revised edition, he places the term "reunion" in scare quotes (p. xv).
• In The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles (2009), different writers provide different takes. John Kimsey describes the '90s songs as "new Beatles song" (p. 236), but Gary Burns is dismissive, often using scare quotes to describe the '90s songs, which he writes "were released under the Beatles' name" (p. 218). He also writes: "A reunion of sorts finally happened in 1995, with the surviving 'Threetles' adding accompaniment to two John Lennon demo tapes. ... A music video was produced and released for each of the 'new' songs." (p. 218). He also refers to it as "the long-anticipated, albeit virtual, reunion" (p. 222).
• In The Beatles In Context (2020), Walter J. Podrazik writes that "Paul, George, and Ringo with the video of their new song 'Free As A Bird.'" (p. 146), and Joe Rapolla writes "the surviving band members dubbed on top of two Lennon demos to produce the first new Beatles songs in a quarter-century" (p. 319).
• In the third edition of The Rough Guide to the Beatles (2009), Chris Ingham refers to the group as "the 'Threetles'" (p. 73), while using scare quotes to describe the songs as "the Threetles' two tracks" (p. 133), "'new' Beatles music" (p. 73) and "the 'new Beatles single'" (p. 74).

On the whole, I think the above indicates that there is no consensus among Beatles scholarship as to whether "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" can actually be deemed new Beatles songs. Some describe them as such, while others refer to Paul, George and Ringo as a distinct entity. Tkbrett (✉) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that this proposal has been raised quite a bit on this talk page over the last couple decades, and the result has either been no consensus for a change, or a consensus against including anything beyond 1960–1970. Here is a good read. Tkbrett (✉) 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, main period of activity is 60-70, but at least a footnote should point out these brief periods of work in the nineties and this decade. Bedivere (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with adding a complicating note into the infobox. The subsequent collaborations are already covered extensively in the body and in a dedicated article, and there is a sentence mentioning them in the lead. Better to leave the infobox as a simple summary rather than trying to complicate it for new readers. Tkbrett (✉) 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A few points (well, seven actually):

1. Arguments invoking the "Threetles" seem to be based on the proposition that the "Threetles" are something different than the Beatles instead of the "Threetles" being a subset of the Beatles (i.e. still the Beatles).
2. There's no such thing as the "Threetles". I checked Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. and I cannot find a single song from a band by that name.
3. The Beatles are whatever they say that they are. I checked their website and it says "Now and Then" is a Beatles song.
4. Most of the arguments against Beatles being active in 1995-1996 and 2023 seems be based on the WP:TRUTH: that because not all Beatles truly participated in the new recordings, it shouldn't really count.
5. I applaud Tkbrett's checking what reliable sources say. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.
6. This is a WP:Featured article and not counting the Anthology reunion seems to have long-standing article and community consensus. It's up to those wanting to change the years active to convince the other editors of the merits of the change.
7. This dispute seems rather WP:LAME to me.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This dispute is lame, especially the sentence that started this whole thing. I assume IPs and other editors who have done silly edits like this are young people who had no prior knowledge of the Anthology stuff. The Beatles were active from 1960 to 1970. Period. All other material released under that name were not done with the full band so everything else doesn't apply. If we want to add a footnote explaining "FAaB", "RL", and "NaT" then we can, but the active years should stay 60–70, full stop. – zmbro _(talk)

When Cadbury were sold to Kraft, that was the end of Cadbury in my eyes. But that is not how brands work. Band names are brands. The Beatles brand released albums and singles of new material from 1962-70, 1994-5, and 2023. That is the official word, it is supported by numerous sources posted here and in media reports and press releases. There is no wikipedia-worthy requirement for a band to include all original members. eg, Queen is listed as "1970-present", even though many fans might argue the band ended when Freddie died. ACDC have been active from 1970-present, despite only 1 member featuring on every album. 3 Beatles got together in 1994-5, wrote and recorded together, and released two singles as The Beatles. That is fact, and is mentioned within the main article. That is "being active". For what it's worth, less band activity took place in 1970, where only one song was recorded, also without John (not even a tape). M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If we only include time John, Paul, George, and Ringo were together in the studio or on stage, the Beatles were active from 1962-69. If we include all years the band was calling themselves "The Beatles" and were performing or recording, we have "1960-70, 94-95, 22-23". The "2022-23" feels silly for one track, but the recording process did span both years, if we trust Paul's claim to have "just finished" clearing up John's vocals in June 2023. If we consider the release years themselves to be activity, there is no debate that 1970 or 2023 should also be included. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This would cover every instance of performance, recording, or releasing of new material under the name "The Beatles", which is what this Misplaced Pages page covers. 1960-70, 1994-95, 2022-23.M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree.New Radicals and Pink Floyd are examples off the top of my head of bands that released two songs without formal reunion announcements and no concerts, and their infoboxes consider them as active years (2024 and 2022, respectively). At least a footnote should be included. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

(cont) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing Main Image

I believe we should change the main image to the Beatles arriving at JFK Airport. Rather than four cropped squares of the image, we should just have the original. It is being nominated for featured image and valued image too, so why not? Also, bands such as Queen, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC with free images use them, not squares of band mates faces. Why not the Beatles, they are no exception. It would be frankly stupid not to use the original image. And also, can we include a band logo in the infobox? Wcamp9 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the main image is good.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree and especially now that it is featured Wcamp9 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of the uncropped JFK shot personally. Is the objection to it that the folks in the background are distracting?

I also think the JFK shot is better quality than either color images proposed in the section above. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, since it's Featured now, I'll change it Wcamp9 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the uncropped group photo. All the other faces detract from the subjects of the article. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the band is the clear focus of the photo (as they are the only figures in the foreground), but I also obviously know who the Beatles are, so I understand the argument. What about a crop just above their heads? Can't produce an example right now but can later. This would cut off Paul and George's wave, but would also remove most of the background figures. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The wide shot is a better picture, but the crop is better for illustrating the individual members' faces. The crop is better suited for the infobox, while the wide shot works better in the body. Tkbrett (✉) 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

When were the Beatles active?

I know their final album let it be released in 1970, but didn’t they sign the breakup papers in 1974? Should the years active be changed to 1960-1974? 2603:8001:8001:F591:B9A4:BEBD:E913:9657 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The 1974 dissolution was a legal dissolution of The Beatles and Co., one of their legal entities. Specifically, a partnership set up basically as a tax shelter which received all non-publishing income and was owned 5% by each Beatle and 80% by Apple (itself owned 25% by each Beatle). While an important step in the breakup and legal drama, its dissolution (or continued existence until 1974) didn't really have any bearing on the Beatles as a recording or performing musical act (Which the "years active" field is for). It was only formed in 1967 (and their earlier partnership, The Beatles Ltd. was formed in 1963). The musical act the Beatles is not coterminous with a corporation they set up to receive revenue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I do know that the last song (now and then) was produced in 2023 for some more information 50.127.5.36 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Songs modified after Lennon's death by the surviving Beatles are not considered part of their active years because the Beatles never worked together as a band on those songs. A number of their songs were remixed after the breakup, but they were not performed by the group as a whole. The last Beatles song recorded was I Me Mine in January 1970. At that point the band was a trio because Lennon had quit. Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the final song is “The End”, which was the last recording session to feature all 4 2603:8001:8001:F591:B868:2005:C4E5:B1EF (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, The End is on Abbey Road which was recorded in 1969. Look, read the articles on these songs instead of speculating. All of this is well documented. The issue isn't when they all four recorded a song together. It's what the last song recorded by the Beatles is, which is I Me Mine. The band still existed as a trio in 1970 when they recorded I Me Mine. Sundayclose (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok but it’s actually posthumous contributions by John and George to a demo 2603:8001:8001:F591:B868:2005:C4E5:B1EF (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No one records after they are dead. The posthumous contributions were made by the surviving band members after the Beatles as a band no longer existed. Sundayclose (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

True. 2603:8001:8001:F591:6DEE:5DDE:D441:6AB6 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This exact thing was discussed just over a year ago. At present, it is still at the top of this talk page. The consensus then, as it has been for many years, is to leave the infobox as 1960–1970. Tkbrett (✉) 03:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Missing: How Epstein's attention was drawn to the Beatles

I wonder why this story is not told here, where a lad requested "My Bonnie by the Beatles" to Epstein in his NEMS record store? Was it just never mentioned yet, or was it mentioned but deleted because it was considered too anecdotal? The story is told in the wiki article: The Beatles in Hamburg J.Moondog (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

if there are no objections, I will work on the addition of the aforementioned story. J.Moondog (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No Mention of Billy Preston

Shouldn't Preston be mentioned in the list of associated artists?! 2A01:E0A:9AA:C9C0:ECCD:B3A3:B7EE:15E3 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is strange that Jimmie Nicol subbed in The Beatles on six days and is listed at the top of Template:The Beatles, whereas Preston recorded and performed with them over ten days and is not listed there. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• FA-Class level-3 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in People
• FA-Class vital articles in People
• FA-Class The Beatles articles
• Top-importance The Beatles articles
• FA-Class John Lennon articles
• FA-Class Paul McCartney articles
• FA-Class Ringo Starr articles
• FA-Class George Harrison articles
• FA-Class Brian Epstein articles
• FA-Class George Martin articles
• FA-Class Apple Corps and Apple Records articles
• WikiProject The Beatles articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Rock music articles
• Top-importance Rock music articles
• WikiProject Rock music articles
• FA-Class Merseyside articles
• Top-importance Merseyside articles
• WikiProject Merseyside articles
• FA-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• FA-Class Pop music articles
• Top-importance Pop music articles
• Pop music articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report