Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Beatles: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:14, 13 July 2012 editAndreasegde (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers51,262 edits →Straw poll← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:43, 9 January 2025 edit undoWWGB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,421 edits →No Mention of Billy Preston: comment 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}} {{Talk header}}
{{Article history
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{British English Oxford spelling|date=September 2010}}
{{Notice|Consensus per is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal.}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=2004-05-30, 13:39:51 |action1date=2004-05-30, 13:39:51
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive1
|action1result=promoted |action1result=passed
|action1oldid=3784789 |action1oldid=3784789


Line 14: Line 10:
|action2date=09:54, 29 August 2006 |action2date=09:54, 29 August 2006
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Beatles/archive1 |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/The Beatles/archive1
|action2result=demoted |action2result=removed
|action2oldid=72577242 |action2oldid=72577242


|action3=GAN |action3=GAN
|action3date=20:01, 29 August 2006 |action3date=20:01, 29 August 2006
|action3link=Talk:The Beatles/Archive 8#Win, lose, I don't know
|action3result=listed
|action3result=passed
|action3oldid=72671416 |action3oldid=72671416


|action4=GAR |action4=GAR
|action4date=16:42, 5 February 2007 |action4date=16:42, 5 February 2007
|action4link=Talk:The Beatles/Archive 12#Result of the GAR
|action4result=kept |action4result=kept
|action4oldid=105813598 |action4oldid=105813598
Line 30: Line 28:
|action5date=01:43, 26 April 2008 |action5date=01:43, 26 April 2008
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Beatles/archive1 |action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Beatles/archive1
|action5result=reviewed
|action5oldid=207650552 |action5oldid=207650552


Line 45: Line 44:


|action8=GAR |action8=GAR
|action8date=3 June 2009 |action8date=16:02, 3 June 2009
|action8link=/GA1
|action8result=kept |action8result=kept
|action8oldid=294191579 |action8oldid=294191579
Line 52: Line 52:
|action9date=18:48, 26 September 2009 |action9date=18:48, 26 September 2009
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive2 |action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive2
|action9result=not promoted |action9result=failed
|action9oldid=316345517 |action9oldid=316345517


Line 58: Line 58:
|action10date=18:51, 3 November 2009 |action10date=18:51, 3 November 2009
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive3 |action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive3
|action10result=promoted |action10result=passed
|action10oldid=323736820 |action10oldid=323736820


|currentstatus=FA
|maindate=June 18, 2004 |maindate=June 18, 2004
|maindate2=July 7, 2017
|topic=Arts
|otddate=2009-09-26
|currentstatus=FA
|otdoldid=316366605
|otd2date=2010-09-26
|otd2oldid=387169415
|topic=music
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Beatles, The|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=FA|core=yes|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Top|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=Top|listas=Beatles, The}} {{WikiProject The Beatles|importance=Top|apple=yes|john=yes|paul=yes|george=yes|ringo=yes|epstein=yes|martin=yes|display=Beatles}}
{{WikiProject Rock music|class=FA|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Biography|core=yes|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=Top}}
{{WikiProject Merseyside|importance=top|class=FA}} {{WikiProject Rock music|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Merseyside|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject The Beatles|class=FA|importance=Top|apple=yes|john=yes|paul=yes|george=yes|ringo=yes|epstein=yes|martin=yes|also-beatles=yes|display=Beatles|listas=Beatles, The|mainpage=yes|mainpagedate=] ]}}
{{WikiProject England|class=FA|importance=top}} {{WikiProject England|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=top}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Arts|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=top}}<!-- Please do not remove or change these categories unless the article is removed from the core biographies list (unlikely) or the grading changes (likely)-->
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
| blp=yes | blp=yes
}} }}
{{Press|collapsed=yes|date=August 17, 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org='']''
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|text=More banners|1=
|date2=October 12, 2012 |url2=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444657804578048534112811590.html#articleTabs%3Darticle |title2= Editors Won't Let It Be When It Comes to 'the' or 'The' |org2='']''
{{VA|topic=Art|level=3|class=FA}}
|date3=January 2013 |url3=http://harpers.org/archive/2013/01/help-2/ |title3=Help! |org3='']''}}
{{OnThisDay |date1=2009-09-26|oldid1=316366605 |date2=2010-09-26|oldid2=387169415 }}
<!-- Please do not remove or change these categories unless the article is removed from the core biographies list (unlikely) or the grading changes (likely)-->
{{press |date=August 17, 2009 |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Misplaced Pages-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |title=The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008 |org=]}}
{{Consensus|The consensus, per the closures of and , is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.}}

{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{All time pageviews|112}}
{{Annual report|], ], ] and ]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Feb 9 2014 (24th)|Nov 28 2021 (22nd)}}
{{Annual readership}}
}} }}
{{find sources notice}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K |maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 29 |counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:The Beatles/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:The Beatles/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
Line 94: Line 105:
<!-- DO NOT DELETE ABOVE THIS LINE --> <!-- DO NOT DELETE ABOVE THIS LINE -->


== Years active ==
== Likely erroneous and trivial Kafka claim ==

Requesting an uninvolved opinion on this dispute over whether to include this possibly dubious claim that Mr. K is/was a reference to Kafka, and/or is this likely erroneous claim notable enough for inclusion in this overview article. ] (]) 01:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no debate that fans' speculation that Mr. K was a reference to Kafka was probably erroneous--indeed, that's part of the point. This instance of fans' speculation is provided as an example of fan behavior and engagement with Beatles lyrics. That is the basis for its inclusion and the basis on which comment is appropriate. ] (]) 04:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

<blockquote><s>''Sgt. Pepper'' was the first major pop/rock LP to include its complete lyrics.{{sfn|Lewisohn|2010|p=236}}</s> Those lyrics were the subject of intense analysis; fans speculated, for instance, that the "celebrated Mr K." in "]" might in fact be the surrealist fiction writer ].{{sfn|Gould|2007|pp=423–25}}</blockquote>

1) This is trivia, that perhaps belongs at "]" or the ''Sgt. Pepper'' article if anywhere, but not here, 2) it's inaccurate speculation by Gould anyway, Mr. Kite was certainly not Franz Kafka, Kite is mentioned by name on the 1843 circus poster that inspired the song.(MacDonald, 2005, pp.237–238) ] (]) 23:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:I very strongly agree again! ] (]) 23:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

::Agree with what? Please reread the source so you can properly comprehend it: It's not Gould that "speculates" that Mr. Kite was Franz Kafka. He's describing something ''fans'' read into the song, as an example of the intense analysis the album as a whole prompted among ''fans''—the sort of thing we may take for granted now but which was then virtually unprecedented and thus noteworthy. Whether the fans were right or (probably) wrong, their unusual level of intellectual engagement is an important ''historical fact'' about the album and its reception. That's why the passage was in there when the article achieved FA status, and that's why I've restored it. ] (]) 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
:::That it was included when the article made FA is irrelevant. I imagine I could find several things that should not have been included. If it's important, then it should be at the ''Pepper'' page, or the "Mr Kite" page. Also, I disagree that the "intense analysis" is notable in and of itself. Many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics, this is not unique to ''Pepper'' or the Beatles. Bottom line, that Gould cites fans who were wrong does not make this appropriate for inclusion. There is no "Paul is dead" section for example. ] (]) 00:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually, it's ''very'' relevant that it was included when the article made FA. That version was heavily vetted by multiple Wikipedians. Your undiscussed edits have not been. You've also (perhaps willfully) missed the point that I tried to articulate very clearly for your benefit: Yes, ''now'' "many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics", but that was ''not true then''. ''Sgt. Pepper'' was precedent-setting in that regard, particularly in how ''significant'' the lyrics were understood to be. Bottom line, Gould is describing a historical turning point that affected how popular music fans would appreciate and understand the objects of their affection for decades after. The comparison to the "Paul is dead" urban myth is entirely off point. ] (]) 00:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Per: "Yes, ''now'' "many band's lyrics are analyzed by fans and critics", but that was ''not true then''."
:::::Do you have sources to back this claim up? Are you saying no fans or critics analyzed the lyrics of Bob Dylan prior to 1967? ] (]) 01:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Have you read ? Gould does not actually say that this was a notable theory, nor does he provide any notes for it. Main point here, the celebrated Mr.K is clearly Mr. Kite, and even if some fans thought otherwise, it would constitute the fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority, as no evidence is provided that ''any'' fan thought Mr. K was Kafka, and really, Gould is not even claiming that outright, it's mentioned rhetorically/hypothetically in his book. He also says that this intense anaylsis of lyrics started prior to ''Pepper'', with earlier Beatles songs, and as I said above, Bob Dylan. ] (]) 04:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I've read page 423 of Gould's book, among many other pages. Thanks for asking.
::::::I've edited the sentence to make clear that fan's speculations were "often fanciful." In brief, it provides a memorable, specific, useful example of the sort of engagement that Poirier describes in more general terms in the following two sentences. The source is Gould, whom we have accepted as a very high quality source. Your insistence that Gould might not be saying what he's clearly saying--which is that fans speculated that "Mr. K" might be Franz Kafka--but is rather for some reason willy-nilly hypothesizing that himself, is very odd; if we knew Gould to do that sort of thing, he wouldn't qualify as a very good source at all. In sum, you have articulated no basis for doubting his statements in this case, so I feel we can move on. ] (]) 05:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::: I just meant that all Gould says is, "Did the celebrated "Mr.K" refer to Franz Kafka?" Hardly an unambiguous statement that fans speculated as much. I'll ask again, is there any other source for this claim? ] (]) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} McCartney: George Martin: " say, for example on 'Mr. Kite', 'This song's about a fairground ... I want to get the feeling of the sawdust and the feel of the ring'".(Coleman, 1992, p.369) "'Mr. Kite' was taken straight from an antique circus poster, which John transposed".(Coleman, 1992, p.540) Lennon: "Look there's the bill, with Mr. Kite topping it. I hardly made up a word".(Harry, 2000b, p.107) ] (]) 02:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:I have never heard of this claim. If you look at the poster here (and John pictured with a copy of the poster here ), you'll see that the above description (of everything being on the poster) is correct ... "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," "Pablo Fanque," "Henderson," "trampoline," "Over men and horses, hoops, and garters, lastly through a hogshead of real fire." The song lyric "Messrs. K and H assure the public ..." must certainly refer to the aforementioned Kite and Henderson, as they are addressed that way multiple times in the song ("And Mr. H will demonstrate ten somersets ..."). The Kafka reference makes no sense and we have no reliable sources to support this hypothesis. --]&nbsp;] 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::I could go on. The poster says "'''Mssrs. KITE and HENDERSON''', in announcing the following Entertainments '''ensure the Public''' that this Night's '''Production will be''' one of the most '''splendid''' ever produced in this Town, '''having been some days in preparation'''." In the song lyrics, this becomes "'''Messrs. K and H assure the public''' their '''production will be''' second to none. '''Having been some days in preparation''', a '''splendid''' time is guaranteed for all." Practically every word of the song has this same pattern.John has never claimed, nor is there any evidence for the idea that, something besides the poster contributed to the song lyrics. I don't think this claim deserves any credence. --]&nbsp;] 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Of course I agree 100%, and suggest "]" as a much better example from this era of fans analysis of the Beatles lyrics, which could actually be sourced to several ]s, versus Gould's vague, unsupported and unsourced claim. ] (]) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
::::You should be aware that Gould is a reliable source. Suggesting improperly that he is not does not help your case.—] (]) 06:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I think a couple fo things come to mind here. First of all, I think we are a little bit jaded as editors in the current age; ''Sgt. Pepper'' was an album that completely changed the landscape of rock as it was known at the time. It was a concept album on par with a traditional opera. Almost everything in it was ground-breaking. Add to that the time in which it was released - it was the beginning of the Hippie movement wherein little made sense to the disillusioned young people in the aftermath of the 50's. The album was something they could look to that could provide meaning to it all.
::::Unfortunately, sometimes those meanings and interpretations, though plentiful, went very far afield. That there were such is both notable. Illustrating any one of them is to offer any one theory ] that belongs only in the song article itself. Not the main article. Even with citations. - ] (]) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::But the presentation clearly does not offer the "Kafka theory" a preference—it is presented as a signal ''example'' of those interpretations. That it does, indeed, go rather far afield is part of what makes it a good example. The high-quality source adduced obviously agrees that it serves as a good example of the interpretive engagement it inspired. Just from the standpoint of good writing and narrative building, an example is certainly called for here. GabeMc's suggestion that "]" (and presumably the "LSD theory") is a "much better example" is a mixed bag: yes, it's a more famous example, but it's also rather redundant of the "Norwegian wood"/"cannabis theory" discussed earlier in the article. What makes the "Kafka theory" particularly useful in this context is it demonstrates were now reading (or attempting to read, depending on how you define such things) "deep" topics into Beatles songs. I see the other example Gould references is the "A Day in the Life"/"suicide theory." That's a viable alternative, but still not as revealing as the "Kafka theory" example.—] (]) 06:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::: A '''key point''' that is being completely ignored here is whether or not DocKino and DCGeist's interpretation of is even accurate to what the author is attempting to convey. Does Gould categorically say that this was indeed a known fan theory? If so where? Or is he speculating hypothetically about fan's ridiculousness while asking a rhetorical question? If the Kafka example is such a good one, then why is Gould the only source (that I know of anyway, and indeed no one has offered another)? ] (]) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::: I can't see any alternative to the observation that you are either being (a) deliberately misleading or (b) extravagantly forgetful in making your '''emphatic''' claim that a "key point...is being completely ignored here." See, for instance, the comment I made on June 10 above: "Your insistence that Gould might not be saying what he's clearly saying--which is that fans speculated that 'Mr. K' might be Franz Kafka--but is rather for some reason willy-nilly hypothesizing that himself, is very odd; if we knew Gould to do that sort of thing, he wouldn't qualify as a very good source at all." ] (]) 03:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: So why not quote the Gould text that actually says fans thought Mr. Kite was Kafka? Seems like an easy way to prove your point. ] (]) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Because we don't manipulate and encumber the article to "prove points", GabeMc, that's why. Gould's meaning here is clear and his status as a high-quality source is settled. As I wrote before, "you have articulated no basis for doubting his statements in this case." ] (]) 04:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Gould states it in a hypothetical/rhetorical manner, not as a statement of fact. For example, Gould does not say, "Fans speculated that Mr. Kite was Kafka", what he ''actually'' writes is, ''"Did the celebrated "Mr. K" refer to Franz Kafka?"'' A question, not a statement. ] (]) 04:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Here it is in context:
:::::::::::<blockquote>Within weeks of its release, the album had become the subject of a cultlike body of lore that was widely shared by Beatles fans. Did the celebrated "Mr. K" refer to Franz Kafka?</blockquote>
:::::::::::This is an example of the outcome of a process known as ''writing''. We make the obvious connection between sentence 1 and sentence 2 through a process known as ''reading''. ] (]) 04:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} I can tell by your incivility and insulting approach that you are losing this arguement. Lets just get an outside admin to sort some of these disagreements out shall we. Such as your use of "rollback" to restore your perferred content. ] (]) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:I'm very surprised to hear that you care so much about civility, GabeMc, as you have been characterizing my edits in an uncivil and insulting manner here for well over a week now. And you did this despite having enjoyed the fruits of my editorial labor on the McCartney FAC, which you had requested. ] (]) 04:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:: Well, I'll be more careful, as I certainly do not want to be uncivil to anyone. As far as, ''"And you did this despite having enjoyed the fruits of my editorial labor on the McCartney FAC"'', 1) at ], 2) You have made only , which resulted in . ] (]) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:I agree with GabeMc regarding where this info should be placed. It does not belong here but should be at the "] article. However, it was not Gould who was speculating, but fans - Gould simply documented it. NOTE: My statement here is not part of the uncivil argument between GabeMc and DocKino above. Both of them need to calm down, ], and ]. ] (]) 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::Agree with GabeMc and RedSoxFan2434. Put this Kafka info, reasonably trivial speculation in my view, in the song article, if at all. A note that author Gould speculated to that effect is enough. As a old Beatle fan I don't believe I have ever heard of this Kafka theory. John always said he wrote 'Mr. Kite' off the vintage poster, and I understood Mr. K to mean Kite. ]]] 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

* Also, it this not a ] issue? To present to readers that Beatles fans made up wacky speculation paints their fans as kinda looney IMO. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

* FTR, this issue also came up at . The issue was raised by an oppose !voter for the same reasons I have raised it here. DocKino was the only FAC commentor who pushed for its inclusion. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

== Restoration of trivial details ==

<blockquote>Reports circulated the following year that McCartney was hoping to complete "Now and Then", a third Lennon demo worked on during the Anthology sessions. It would be credited as a Lennon–McCartney composition with the addition of new verses, and feature a new drum track by Starr and archival recordings of Harrison playing guitar. In March 2008, Apple Corps sued to prevent the release of another set of recordings made in 1962 during the group's Hamburg Star-Club residency, which the would-be distributor falsely claimed represented Starr's first live performance with the group. That November, McCartney discussed his hope that "Carnival of Light", a 14-minute experimental recording made at Abbey Road Studios in 1967, would receive an official release.</blockquote>

To me, this is all trivial, and a bit crystal ball, afterall, the third demo was never completed, and the "Carnival of Light" never released. The lawsuit is not notable, considering how little detail the article provides about the Beatles' legal disputes with each other, which are breezed over without any detail at all. This was, and still is a great place to trim the already long article. Any thoughts, suggestions? ] (]) 00:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:IMO, the sentence on "Now and Then" should be moved to ]. (Currently, that section only mentions "All for Love" as the potential third new Anthology track, but it could do with a better source.)
:I agree with the removal of the "Carnival of Light" sentence. McCartney's 2008 comment "I hope it'll be released one day!" temporarily brought the track back into the news, and I think that update is noteworthy enough to be ]. However, it's too trivial to mention in this band overview article. --<span style="font-family:monospace">]<sup>]</sup></span> 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

::On reflection, I agree that "Now and Then" probably doesn't pass the bar for inclusion here, as it doesn't even exist at this point as a Beatles recording (and arguably never could). I've reverted my restoration of it.
::The situation with "Carnival of Light" is significantly different, I believe. This is ''the'' major Beatles recording--not an alternative version, not a live version, not a demo version, but a unique composition--that remains unreleased. It still seems quite deserving of a single sentence here. ] (]) 06:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::: I agree with Doc on "COL", and with the current language, so I've removed the RfC tag, as this seems to be resolved. ~ ] ] 02:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== Lewisohn, ''The Complete Beatles Chronicle: The definitve day-by-day guide ...'' ==

I notice that DocKino has changed all the copyright dates for this book from 1992, to 2010, without discussion. Trouble is, the text is copyrighted to Lewisohn 1992, not 2010, which is merely the latest edition of the book, not the copyright date. Doc, do you even own this book? ] (]) 01:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:The bibliographic reference is to the ''revised'' 2010 edition. That is the proper citation. Period.
:So, Gabe, do you own all the books cited in the article, or in the Paul McCartney article you're attempting to raise to FA status? ] (]) 05:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, I do own ''every'' single book listed in the McCartney sources, not every in the Beatles, but most, and some that aren't. Is your point that we use the publication date and not the copyright date? For example, MacDonald, 3rd edition, was last copyrighted in 2005, yet the edition was published in 2007? Should cites to MacDonald 3rd edition use the 2007 date of publication, or the 2005 date of copyright? Or, why then is there a "year" and an "edition" field in the cite book template? ] (]) 05:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:: Also, the 2010 edition (Lewisohn) does not state that it's "revised", only that it was published in 2010. ] (]) 06:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:::The year of ''publication'' of the referenced edition is always the proper date to cite. If the referenced edition is not substantively revised from an original edition, then it is customary to note, in some secondary manner, the publication year of that original edition as well—which is usually (but not always) the original copyright year.—] (]) 06:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I almost agree, except instead of "the original copyright year", I suggest the most recent, which is the best indicator of the most recent date in which the text was "substantively revised". ] (]) 06:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::To materially "agree" (or "almost agree"), first you must understand. The copyright year is never the basis for what is given in the citation or the bibliography. It is always the year of publication. Often the copyright year coincides with that, but it's essentially irrelevant. When composing a citation or a bibliographic entry, provide the ''year of publication'' of the edition you are referencing.
:::::P.S. I have corrected the glaring redundancy/error in the latest version of the Lewisohn 2010 bibliographic entry: we don't state that it's a "2010 edition" of a book published in 2010. I gather Doc noticed that the entry had claimed that it was a "revised" edition; now you state that it is not. Well, I'm afraid that's the only sort of information that is suitable for ]'s edition field: "Revised", "2d", "Enlarged", or similar. (As an aside: ] does not have a dedicated field to indicate the original publication date of a book in the event that you are referencing a later edition that is substantively unchanged. It's one of the reasons I avoid using the template in the articles I focus on; template-free, I can provide original publication dates in brackets following the publication date of the referenced edition. But perhaps this is a template that could be directly improved...?)—] (]) 08:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::: <s>The entry only claimed it was a revised edition because Doc, presumably without actually owning a copy, changed it to revised from 2010.</s> ] (]) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That didn't sound like something Doc would do, so I did a little research. It didn't take me long to discover that it was YOU who originally identified the 2010 edition as "revised" in the bibliography, .
:::::::This is a very disturbing discovery. I have been trying to warn you that personalizing your disagreements over content was helpful to nobody, and certainly not to the article. Now it seems you are distorting history in your desire to cast blame. There's no excuse for this, but I believe an apology is in order.—] (]) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Okay, fair enough. I clearly made a mistake in stating that it was revised, and in assuming that Doc changed it. Call it a brain fart, I certainly wasn't intentionally lying. My bad, I fully apologize to Doc. ] (]) 21:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Very good.
:::::::::Look, both you and Doc are hard-working, conscientious, skilled editors who are a credit to the project. You have different strengths and sensibilities, so it's natural that disagreements will arise. And that's not necessarily a bad thing: from opposing viewpoints, as long as a collaborative spirit is maintained, a superior synthesis can emerge. But shifting from discussion of content to charges, and countercharges, and blame-casting makes that impossible (and, lord knows, I speak from experience). To all involved: remember to assume good faith (really, that should be EASY in this case), and focus on content, content, content.—] (]) 21:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: I agree, thanks for helping DCGeist. I will take all your excellent points to heart. ] (]) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Also, while I am sure you and Doc are correct in using the pub date versus the CR date, it is worth noting that almost every book I check indicates the copyright date, but very few contain the publishing date. Just a thought. ] (]) 20:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Also, don't you find it a bit misleading to use a 2010 date for a book the author has not substantively altered in over 20 years? This could give some readers the impression that Lewisohn recently completed the book, thus it's as up-to-date as almost any source available on the band, which is not actually true (e.g. Spitz, Gould, Harry and Miles). ] (]) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::No. I do not find it misleading. For two reasons: (1) Providing the date of publication is the professional standard around the world. Anyone who cares about citations can and should be aware of that fact. (2) Even if an edition has not been substantively altered, the all-important pagination may have changed. A proper citation aims at a page. That page MUST be the actual page in the specific edition cited. I hope that is clear.
:::::::As for indicating the date when something was actually first copyrighted (and please be aware, THAT date does not always reflect when something was actually written), that's a different issue. As I stated before, in articles on which I focus, I avoid using the cite-book template in part for exactly the reason that it does not facilitate the indication of the year of original publication when a later edition is referenced. Yet many people prefer the cite-book template for its advantages in other areas. Fair enough.—] (]) 09:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree that ideally both the CR date and the publication date should be mentioned. In the templates I use, you can indeed indicate both, year= most recent CR, edition= most recent publication date. As far as misleading the reader. Look at it this way: as it stands now, a reader of this article would think the Lewisohn book in question was written post-''Anthology'', when if fact, the text was last CRed pre-''Anthology''. In short, a reader would think the info was last updated just two years ago, when in fact it hasn't been updated in over 20 years. ] (]) 03:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::(1) It doesn't matter what you "can" do with a template if what you are doing is wrong. The "year" field is for the year of publication, not copyright. How many times must I repeat the point that this is the professional referencing standard?
:::::::::(2) Why, may I ask, have you chosen to rely so heavily on a text that you acknowledge is "over 20 years" old when they have been many high-quality sources published in the field in the intervening years that cover much (if perhaps not all) of the same material?—] (]) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Why? Lewisohn is the world's most widedly accepted/respected expert on the Beatles. ~ ] ] 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

== Break up ==

I don't think the article covers their break up as well as it might. Certainly it deserves to have its own sub-heading and there's a lot of commentary that could be referred to, for example, relating to Yoko's influence.] (]) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
:(w/tongue in cheek) I would tend to agree, and would usually be more than willing to put in the effort to improve this aspect of the article, but uncertainty about other editors "restoring" to a previous/preferred version makes me a bit aprehensive about putting in several hours work that may well be removed due to a "long-standing" version that is not to be altered without prior permission. ] (]) 02:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
::ok, well I've done it myself anyway. There were many reasons why the group broke up and it's pretty obviously wrong for the topic to be lumped in with 'Abbey Road and Let It Be'. Nothing controversial about my edit - and no reason I can see why it should be reversed. ] (]) 08:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
:::I can see that having a dedicated section summaring the reasons for the break-up would have some benefits, but overall I disagree with its addition for several reasons:
:::*Sections 1 to 4 of this article are in purely chronological order (it's only with section 5, "Musical style and development", that we bring together stuff from all over their career), and that pattern is broken if you add a break-up section within section 3.
:::*Adding such a section would only duplicate material that's already mentioned in the main chronology.
:::*Although I can't find a page where it's specified, AFAIK single-paragraph sections are discouraged at Misplaced Pages. In order to be worth adding, the section would need to be expanded by a couple more paragraphs.
:::*At the moment, the reasons for the break-up are mentioned as they come up in the main chronology, and the full article ] is linked to both in the lead section ("After their break-up in 1970...") and in the ] at the start of the 1957–1962 section. I think that prominent links to that dedicated article are preferable to a new section that breaks the chronology and duplicates content from elsewhere. (In my opinion, the only big advantage of having this new section is that it gives us an excuse to use a ''Main article:'' or ''Further information:'' template to link to ].)
:::I've noticed an inconsistency that's come up with the addition of this section: the section "Abbey Road and Let It Be" mentions 10 April as the date of McCartney's announcement (citing Lewisohn and Spitz), and the article ] gives the same date; whereas this new section and ] specify 9 April, citing . Maybe the difference in dates is because one is the date the Q&A/press release was carried out and typed, and the other is the date the pre-release copies of the album were sent out to critics?
:::--<span style="font-family:monospace">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
::::While I do accept that the events surrounding the break-up can't be both 'chronologically slotted' and 'grouped together' at the same time, the break-up itself is too significant not to be referred to in its own section. The article ] already exists and I think it would be a real pity if the ability of ''this'' article to cover such topics is compromised because of a slavish adherence to chronology.] (]) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Nick R. The addition of such a section, on balance, would not be a good idea. Don't break the chronology.—] (]) 06:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::I see my edit has been reversed by DCGeist. To repeat what I said before; there were many reasons why the group broke up and it's pretty obviously wrong for the topic to be lumped in with 'Abbey Road and Let It Be' - actually, to be frank, it's a blatant flaw in the article. The subject is clearly of significance and deserves to be covered properly, in its own right.] (]) 21:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

* While I agree in principle that the chrono should not be broken at 1970 (if we can help it), I also think Obscurasky makes a valid point. How can a comprehensive article on ] not include a summary of the causes of their break-up? If a reader came here to discover what caused them to split, they would not find anything close to an appropriate summary of the root causes. That sub-articles exist is not a strong rationale for avoiding details here. For example, we summarize all their albums, and many of their songs, though indeed sub-pages exist for these as well. Specifically, we are , despite several editor's opinions that the material belongs either at the song's page, or the album page, if anywhere. Afterall, why is it not enough to just mention ''Sgt. Pepper'', and link to the sub-page which should contain all the exhaustive details? Often on wikipedia, what material is essential to the main article and what material should be "farmed out" to sub-articles is highly subjective. For example, the article currently dedicates three sentences w/quotes to the ''Let It Be'' movie, no longer in print, and only two sentences to their break-up. '''Question''' What is the most notable event/aspect of 1970 in regards the Beatles? Some detail could be mentioned in a note, but the last time I attempted to introduce a note section I was stopped. ] (]) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::Obscurasky: I'm afraid not. The story of ''Let It Be'' and ''Abbey Road'' is interwoven with the band's breakup. What would be a blatant flaw would be to shatter the chronology.
::GabeMc: Actually, the article already includes quite a bit of information about the tensions that led to the band's breakup: John's loss of interest in collaborating with Paul and his "granny music"; his insistence on having Yoko in the studio; the dispute over the managerial selection. There's also the description of Harrison's and Starr's personal aggravations and walkouts, and Lennon not even wanting his songs on the same side of ''Abbey Road'' as McCartney's. What vital point is missing?—] (]) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::What information there is, on the topic, only appears in a disparate and disconnected fashion. The event is too significant to be covered like that.] (]) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I agree, and expound with verbosity below. ] (]) 22:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::DCGeist, good points all. Look at it this way, if a reader of wikipedia wanted to know why they broke up, they would have to read/scan the entire article and they would also need to read between the lines a bit, then yeah, they might understand that they didn't get along so well generally toward the end, but wouldn't that be implied in any band who breaks-up? ''"What vital point is missing?"'' 1) McCartney's controlling nature regarding their musical collaboration, 2) Yoko wasn't just there, she gave creative advice, e.g. "Beatles try this, Beatles try that", 3) Macca was pushing for a tour 4) Lennon's Plastic Ono Band efforts, currently mentioned only in passing 5) Epstein's death, though summarized in general, and indicated as a turning point, does not tell the reader who "picked-up the slack" afterward (e.g. Paul and Aspinall). As the article currently reads, they had a manager, then he died, and then they went on. It does not explain who took care of Epstein's duties post-mortem. Which is actually more of a cause then Epstein's death, who wasn't the best, and had made several crucial mistakes. In theory they could have found someone even better than Epstein, reducing their stress, instead of taking so much on themselves. 6) While we mention that Harrison was getting annoyed, the article does not explain that he was also being ignored and stiffled creatively as well, a much more crucial point. 7) Apple Corps is also mentioned only in passing, and not at all as a major factor to their stress at the end of the 1960s. 8) Drug/alcohol abuse. 9) Marriage/children. 10) Creative dissonance. The lack of collaboration, ''Abbey Road'' and "granny music" bits do not cover it, John and Paul were not only not getting along personally, they were moving in fundementally different musical directions, which caused significant dissonance between them. There may be more. ] (]) 22:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::::If a reader is specifically interested in the breakup, without learning about the band's whole history, that reader's in luck: we've got a ] devoted to their narrow interest! As for the preceding list, I could see adding to this summary overview article the two or three most salient points in terse fashion at appropriate points in the chronology.—] (]) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Which specific points would you support adding to this summary overview article? ] (]) 22:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::Referencing your list, items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are all touched on sufficiently in the context of this summary overview article. Item 3 is relatively minor and far from unique to the Beatles. If there is something enlightening that can be stated succinctly about items 1, 7, and 10 that could be worthwhile—1 and 10 might well be combined, in fact.

:But honestly, the focus is all wrong here. Misplaced Pages presents a massive article on the Beatles because of their musical and cultural significance—the etiology and manner of their breakup really doesn't educate us much about that significance. More important, I believe, is understanding where they came from. There's nothing in the article about their socioeconomic background, nothing about the Liverpool milieu from which they hailed—that's much more important to understanding where they fit and from where they evolved. (That lack is especially surprising given that a fair amount of space is devoted to a quote describing the Hamburg red-light district, which sounds like any other typical red-light district around the world. Why is that a good use of space?) Beginnings, not endings, are what needs more attention here.—] (]) 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::No one is trying to change the focus - and in any case who says the article exists only to educate readers on the band’s musical and cultural significance? Many readers will have a more general interest in the band's 'history' and the break-up is unquestionably a very significant event in the history of The Beatles. It troubles me that the focus of the article actually seems to centre around its format (we can't break the chronology!) and that it is this which is dictating whether or not a section on the break-up should be included. ] (]) 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I agree with Obscurasky. Their break-up deserves its own sub-section. Afterall, we have a sub-section on "Events leading up the the final tour". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

== More restoration of trivial and excessive details ==

<blockquote>September saw the launch of an American Saturday morning cartoon series, '']'', that echoed ''A Hard Day's Night'''s slapstick antics over its two-year original run.{{sfn|McNeil|1996|p=82}}</blockquote>

Does anyone else find this trivial and excessive for an overview article that is already quite long? Also, is DocKino's edit summary of accurate? It seems misleading to restore/add details and summarize it as a copy edit. Any thoughts, suggestions? ] (]) 02:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:It is hardly "trivial and excessive." How many musical acts had directly inspired a television series to that point in history? I'll try to be more careful to note each and every time I restore a detail that was cut without discussion. ] (]) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:: 1) Why is it that you can restore material from years ago without '''any''' discussion whatsoever, but other editors cannot trim excessive details without discussion/your prior permission, 2) There is no mention of the lunchboxes, dolls and/or the other merchandising efforts that are far more notable than a short-lived cartoon which the band had absolutely no involvement? E.g., does the article mention ]? 3) Your edit summaries appear to be intentionally misleading/withholding, I could be wrong, but going through your edits, it becomes clear that you are restoring material ''sub rosa''. At any rate, a much more appropriate place for this trivia is ] or ]. ] (]) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

::::"From years ago"? Yes, it was there two-and-a-half years ago when the article achieved FA status, and it was also there a year ago, and it was also there a few months ago before you cut it without discussion. GabeMc, you can and repeatedly do cut anything you like without discussion--just don't get so shocked when it's restored. And do you really believe that what's now just a single well-sourced sentence merits an RfC? Fine, you can RfC anything you like, as well--just don't be surprised if people find that sort of approach a bit...overbearing. As for all the merchandise that's been produced, I'm not opposed to the addition of a well-composed, well-sourced sentence or two on that topic. And as for your personal charges and generally ungracious attitude, I'll do you the favor of not wading in there any deeper with you. ] (]) 03:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:To me, it seems reasonable to link to the TV series somewhere in this article, and the sentence quoted above seems a concise way of doing so. The cartoon series may have been merely a piece of tie-in merchandise, but I disagree that it's as trivial as the toys and lunchboxes: the cartoon series is noteworthy for the fact it led to the production of the ''Yellow Submarine'' movie (Brodax, Dunning and Percival worked on both), which currently has a paragraph devoted to it in this article. --<span style="font-family:monospace">]<sup>]</sup></span> 16:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

:: Nick, good point on the shared use of non-Beatles voice over actors. However, I have never really heard of the cartoon outside this article, though I do vaguely remember it. The high-quality sources do not write about it IME, presumably because they do not find it notable enough for inclusion in their books, there are of course exceptions. As I said above, since neither ], or their ] are mentioned, does this not then become an issue of ]? ] (]) 06:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:::No, that's not a compelling argument to eliminate a single sentence on a TV series depicting the subjects of the article. However, there may be well be a viable case to be made for adding a sentence on the instrumental role ''A Hard Day's Night'' played in kick-starting the creation of the Monkees--TV show and band. ] (]) 06:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

::::It would seem that my assertion: "The high-quality sources do not write about it", is in your words: ''"not a compelling argument"'', yet above you say: ''"As for the different versions of "Love Me Do", that actually draws a lot of attention in the literature and was a fair addition."'' Again, not to seem uncivil, but you appear to be contradicting yourself and changing your stance depending on whether or not you prefer the material in question. Can you provide a few examples of high-quality sources currently used to source the article that also cover this cartoon? ] (]) 05:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Maybe. If you admit that you regularly contradict yourself and change your stance depending on whether or not you prefer the material in question and apologize for accusing me of exactly what you do, I'll consider it. Regards, ] (]) 05:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

== One billion albums claim needs attribution ==

I noticed ] made which I contend. The billion albums claim needs attribution. 1) Guiness gets their numbers from EMI, a primary source, 2) one billion albums would mean they have sold twenty million per year for 50 years, highly unlikely, if not straight-up impossible, at least to ]. ] (]) 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC) For perspective, '']'' has sold around 100 million, in 30 years, which is about 3.33 million per year. So to achieve one billion in sales, the Beatles would have to have out-sold ''Thriller'' by a factor of over six to one, however, the Beatles highest seller is ], at 19X platinum, ''Thriller'' is 29X platinum. ] (]) 05:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:Please reread the sentence in question. It does not assert that The Beatles have sold a "billion albums." It says that they have "estimated sales of over one billion units." "Units" are albums ''and'' singles. ] (]) 06:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

::Okay, good point, however the source is still EMI, via Guinness and if their three best selling albums are at around 30 million worldwide, and their best selling single around 15 million, then the math still does not add up. If we assume they have around 200 distinct "units", then they need to average 5 million sold per unit, yet they have only released four singles ever that have cracked 5 million in global sales. According to ''Guinness'', they have sold 21 million UK singles, with "SLY" at nearly 2 million being the biggest seller. ] (]) 07:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::Also, , last year 247.6 million CDs, singles and EP/LPs were shipped. So that would mean that globally, the Beatles are selling at around 8% of the entire US economy's "unit" sales. Is that possible? ] (]) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Do you have anything that actually disputes the information? There are plenty of reliable sources that state the claim (citing EMI) so why shouldn't we. <span style="background:#66EE88">''']'''</span> 04:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::: Hot Stop, I don't dispute the material's inclusion, in fact I am the one who most recently added it (with attribution and sourcing). I am merely arguing that this extremely bold claim needs to be attributed in-line to the source, whichever one is used. ] (]) 05:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Having spent a couple days reading in and around the subject, I agree. I believe it's best to attribute the claim to EMI, as Guinness itself and other sources do. I've along those lines--take a look. ] (]) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

== "among the first true music videos". ==

{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=CBDA720}}
This dispute is self-explanatory I believe. ~ ] ] 08:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"described by cultural historian Saul Austerlitz as "among the first true music videos"."

1) this is not at all accurate, there were a multitude of "true" music videos made 35–40 years earlier, 2) "among the first true" is fancruft, it was better when we had Harrison claiming the "PW/R" promo films were a forerunner of MTV. ] (]) 05:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:The quotation is from Austerlitz's book on the history of the music video, issued by the well-regarded academic publishing house Continuum. He is a much better source for this sort of cultural history observation than is Harrison. ] (]) 06:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::I disagree, Harrison's quote was much more accurate, and informed the reader that he thought so, versus that it ''was'' so. It really does not matter who you are if your words are untrue, does it? Austerlitz is flat wrong, so who cares about how prestigious he and his book are? ] (]) 06:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Again, the question of what sort of connection there is between the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" promos and modern music videos is a matter of cultural history (overlapping here with aesthetic and industrial history). Harrison is not a cultural historian, and his passing comment is of scant relevance. We look to historians and critics to draw these sorts of connections. Austerlitz has authored one of the very few histories of the music video to be issued by a serious publisher. That's why we care about who he is. He, as much as anyone, qualifies as an expert on the history of the music video. Harrison does not.
:::On what reliable source do you base your claim that Austerlitz is "flat wrong"? We'd want to see a historian or critic describing those short films "made 35–40 years earlier" as music videos in the modern sense to even accept that there is an intellectual controversy over the matter. ] (]) 06:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
:::: First, you are adding ''"in the modern sense"'' to the actual quote in question: "among the first true music videos". However, does Austerlitz ''in fact'' use those terms ''"in the modern sense"'' in his book, specifically about the "PW/R" promos? Second, ''"on what reliable sources"'' you ask, well in Austerlitz's book of which we are speaking he calls the Beatles "innovators" of and their musical films "precursors"; "groundwork".(p.17-18) Also, in context what he ''actually'' writes of the "PR/R" promos is that they are "among the first true music videos because of their underlying logic" Underlying logic? An embarrasing mix of pseudo-intellectualism and fancruft, "so that they looked super cool" his rationale. On page 13 Austerlitz calls Fischinger's early 1930s films "proto-music videos." And he mentions that Jim Farber calls Fischinger's sequence "Toccata in Fuge" from ''Fantasia'' (1940) the first "long form music video". then tell me Austerlitz isn't giving earlier creds to the work done in the 1930, 40s, and 50s and that he is really giving the "modern sense" application credit to the Beatles? If so, on which page please so that we can discuss? On page 17 he describes Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock" (1957) sequence as a "proto-video". ] (]) 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::::: Good. It's settled. Austerlitz is accepted as an expert on the history of music videos. The quote stands. We are done here. ] (]) 05:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Prestigious beats wrong every time here – ] is what's important. ''']'''<sup>''']'''&bull;''']'''</sup> 12:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

::::Joey, the wiki policy you referenced above also says: So really, that the words, "among the first true music videos" appear in Austerlitz's book, does not satisfy the policy in and of itself. The statement is taken out-of-context and the source in question does indeed give much earlier credit to others in regard to "music videos" (see my comments above, and perhaps read a page or two of the book in question). ~ ] ] 03:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::It is not self explanatory. As i understand it one attributed view has been substituted for another contradictory quote. It would seem to make sense to include both, and let them argue with each other. That said, a concise explanation would help a lot in understanding what the RFC is about.] (]) 02:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Give ''all'' views, attributing each view to the source presenting it. Let readers make any other decisions. "Music video" in the sense of "video made for promotion of sales of a piece oof recorded music" seems nicely inapplicable to Fantasia, IMO. ] (]) 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

== have held the top spot in the UK longer than any other musical act. ==

"have held the top spot longer than any other musical act."

This tidbit from the lead is sourced to everyhit.com. It should be removed or properly sourced. ] (]) 06:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

:Yes, if this datum appears nowhere but on everyhit.com--as a brief survey suggests is the case--it should not be in the lead. ] (]) 07:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
::Nor the article body I would add, this is FA afterall. ] (]) 07:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

== McCartney's drumming while Ringo was on "holiday" ==

The article currently reads: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums on a couple of tracks."
* The trouble is this, the two tracks Macca drummed on during these two weeks were "BITUSSR", and "Dear Prudence", but since John and George also drummed on "BTIUSSR", wasn't Macca's solo drumming limited to just "Dear Prudence"? Otherwise, why are we not giving due credit to John and George's drum contributions during this period on "BITUSSR"? Would seem a ] issue here, to indicate Macca played drums on a couple songs, when really, solo, it's just the one during this specific period. The article should read: "Starr quit for two weeks, leaving McCartney to play drums with Lennon and Harrison on "BITUSSR", and by himself on "]", or something to that effect. ] (]) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

::While many sources ignore Harrison and Lennon's contributions to the drumming on "Back in the U.S.S.R.", they are on there and this does facilitate bringing in an excellent source, volume 2 of Winn's ''Recorded Legacy'' session breakdowns. The is designed to indicate that Macca was the primary drummer on USSR. ] (]) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Are we talking about drumming here, or playing percussion? Get your facts right.--] (]) 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::: According to MacDonald, 2005, pp.309-310, Lennon, Harrison and McCartney all played drums and percussion on "BITUSSR", but the basic drum track was played by Macca, writes MacDonald anyway. Lewisohn agrees that the basic drum part was played by Macca, but that two other drum overdubs were completed, which he ascribes to Lennon and Harrison.(Lewisohn, 1992, p.295) To call Macca the primary drummer on the track is a bit ] or a ], depending on what details Winn uses in his book. ~ ] ] 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Wrong. There is not the slightest ] or ] issue here at all. As you gain in editorial experience here, you'll come to understand that. ] (]) 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold on... As they were still using four tracks at the time, overdubs were a very definite luxury.--] (]) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
: According to engineer Ken Scott, who was there at the "USSR" session, they used "a composite drum track of bits and pieces ... the other three playing drums".(Lewisohn, ''Recording Sessions'', 1988, p.151) With four tracks you can bounce four to one, then feed it back in to another four-track as it's own track, ''ad infinitum''. Also, according to Lewisohn, they were recording on 8-track machines by ''The Beatles'' (1968) ~ ] ] 08:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
::Using four tracks to bounce down to one for the drums alone? Hmmm... Before going further with this, it would be pertinent to list what actual percussion instruments were played on the track. I don't have time to listen to it right now, but I will later. Anybody else want to check it out?--] (]) 10:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Per Lewisohn's ''Recording Sessions'', the basic rhythm track, recorded on a four track machine, consisted of drums (Paul), lead guitar (George) and bass (John). This was bounced down to another four track tape onto which two more drum parts, two more bass parts and two more lead guitar parts were overdubbed. Lewisohn indicates Paul played one of the bass parts and one of guitar parts so presumably someone else was playing drums while Paul was playing other instruments. ] (]) 13:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
::::P.S. Why is it considered undue weight to mention that McCartney played drums in Starr's absence in the Beatles article while the ] article says "it was a poorly kept secret among Beatle intimates that after Ringo left the studio Paul would often dub in the drum tracks himself." Seems there is an inconsistency here in the facts as well as tone. ] (]) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
::::: I just mean, J,P,&G all played drums on "USSR", so why do we give Paul sole credit when we know this is not accurate? ~ ] ] 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Because "playing drums" means sitting down and using both hands and feet. It's not just hitting a snare or a tom-tom, as that would be classified as percussion. They people that play a snare or timpani in an orchestra are percussionists, not drummers.--] (]) 08:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Paul plays the “basic drum track”, which I take to mean he sits down at Ringo’s kit, which is miked up and ready to go minus Ringo, and does the drummer’s job; just as he had to do on Band on the Run. Other percussion was added later by the others, because when you bounce and mix together using only four tracks (reducing existing tracks and at the same time adding in a live feed) you try and add as much as you can, as each time you do this you also add unwanted tape hiss – so definitely not ''ad infinitum''. It’s a case of all hands on deck, which is why John and George got involved. It’s unfortunate that they get a “drum” credit in the various books though, as that is a little misleading. Neither Lennon nor Harrison could play the drums to a recordable standard, although they could hit a drum. The sources explain that, I think, but perhaps the article could mention the drum overdubs on USSR if that is a problem.--] (]) 14:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::::: Patthedog makes a good point here. I think we can all agree that the basic drum track was Macca, John and George were overdubbed "banging" on Ringo's drum kit (to avoid calling it drumming). For perspective I'll ask a question, who played lead guitar on "USSR"? (I know, and the answer's applicability might surprise you). ~ ] ] 02:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::This thread is not about guitar solos; it's about who played drums.--] (]) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

== Decca audition ==

(31): The audition wasn't in 'early February' but on New Year's Day (1st January). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{Fixed}} - thanks! ] (]) 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

*"In November, during one of the band's frequent appearances at the Cavern Club, '''they encountered Brian Epstein''', a local record store owner and '''music columnist'''." Complete rubbish.
*"Epstein '''courted the band''' over the next couple of months and was appointed manager in January 1962." Epstein had to convince the parents/guardian first.
*After an early February audition, Decca Records rejected the band". This was in 1961, not 1962; before he signed them to a management contract.--] (]) 08:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

== Grammar!! ==

The grammar in this article sux!
Past and present tense are continually switched back and forth in the same sentence, let alone the same paragraph everywhere. Plural verbs are used with singular nouns.
In the lede paragraph we have "The Beatles were". "The Beatles" refers to a singular band, no? Many injections of "XXX writes" should be "XXX wrote" used in the same sentence/paragraph with past tense verbs. ] (]) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
:"sux"? :)) However, I do agree about the writes/wrote, as it should be the latter. One would never say, "Shakespeare writes".--] (]) 16:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
::And apparently The Beatles were/is construct is an American/British difference. To me ('merican), "The Beatles was" sounds completely wrong, but I understand the alternative. There have been discussions of this in the past. --John (]/]) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
::'''clarification''': I was keeping the tense the same as the example given. Singular sounds strange, no matter the tense. I am also not arguing against the singular. Its a British band so the article should be in that 'dialect' if that is truly how its done in British English. It just sounds strange (as colour ''looks'' strange) to me. But just as 'colour' is not an incorrect spelling for this article, the singular is not poor grammar (as I understand the British rules thereof). --John (]/]) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::To my knowledge, "The Beatles was" is nowhere in the article. ] (]) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Yeah it ("The Beatles is") does sound strange to say but think of ths sentence, "The Beatles are a rock group.". How can each Beatle person be a rock group? The correct grammar would be "The Beatles is a rock group." A singular group would be the noun qualifier for a singular verb conjugation. ] (]) 04:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::::It comes from "A policeman is here", but, "The police are here", because there is no plural for police. It's the same problem with "team". Google results: "is a rock group", 7,220,000 results, and 16,000,000 results for "are a rock group".--] (]) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::::: "Iggy Pop are a rock group" or "Wings are a rock group", just don't cut it. Regardless of how it sounds something isn't right with this logic. Some nouns end in an "s" without being plural. ] (]) 04:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Using "logic" and "English grammar" is an oxymoron, I believe. I suggest you watch for further information.--] (]) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::: No wonder English is such a mess and contains so many contradictory rules. Thanks. ] (]) 02:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::: It seems there are two scenarios to this. "The Beatles" can refer to the group, as a singular entity, and thus the sentence, "The Beatles is a rock group", would be grammatically correct. Since each member has become named a "Beatle", "The Beatles" also can refer to multiple people and thus the sentence, "The Beatles are all musicians", would be grammatically correct. The verb needs to match the noun and plurality can only be determined by the context in which the band name is used. ] (]) 04:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
</br>
But what about ""XXX writes"?--] (]) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
:Is XXX still writing it since 1980? Some grammar expertise would be appreciated here. I don't believe it is correct but not sure of the formal reason. ] (]) 04:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::I believe "XXX writes" is an Americanism, as one hears "This guy walks in a room" a lot nowadays when listening to Americans describing a film, or telling a joke. If no-one violently disagrees, it is time to correct the Present Simple "writes", to Past Simple "wrote", as this article is in British English.--] (]) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::: Agreed. ] (]) 04:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

* Per ]
<blockquote>Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Misplaced Pages policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. '''Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is.''' Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).(emphasis added)</blockquote> ~ ] ] 05:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Was this paragraph regarding ] misthreaded, here, (it appears to be misformatted also??) or how is it related to this section's discussion? If related, please supply details of this relationship for clarity of your point. Which quotation(s) are being referred to is not clear. ] (]) 13:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: When an article reads "XXX writes", often that same sentence has also quoted XXX. That's what I meant, not relevant? ~ ] ] 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I hear you on the tense thing. But really, why are editors bound to uphold rules of grammar they have never been taught? For perspective, would we allow, or even require southern slang into ]'s article? Or would we require proper English, regardless of the way Presley himself spoke it. Do we do this for articles on Irish subjects? Wales? Scotland? Does wiki enforce the subtle differences? Namibia versus Sudan versus Congo? French Canadians versus Eastern Canadians. Really, do we force editors to uphold the rules of diction proper to Omaha, Nebraska in the ] article? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 06:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::You are kidding, right? I mean, seriously?--] (]) 16:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

*Regarding the opening sentence of this article, I wanted to point out my thoughts and the underlying rationale for my edit. The most recent revision (until the one I made today) had displayed poor syntax and a very convoluted, wordy sentence. Although our great language loves to add conjunctions ad infinitum, there remains a need to utilize verbs when it will improve the overall clarity and syntax of a sentence. I definitely adhere to how the sentence is set up in BrE and believe the initial predicate is more than satisfactory. However, something needed to be done about the second part of the opening sentence, after "and." All thoughts, suggestions, and comments are appreciated. ] (]) 03:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

::It would have been helpful for you to contribute to the question being discussed.--] (]) 06:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:: Kabek88. It may have been a a bit harsh but... Yes, you are in the right section and right on topic but No, you are in the wrong section as it has become specialized in particulars (??). I find a huge distaste for the really bad grammar in the opening sentence and would start a new section on that first sentence but do not have time right now. Be my guest, if you can't wait. Funny thing is many first sentences in many paragraphs offend this same basic grammar rule. Then we can both bark and squawk like hell! ] (]) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Beatles '''were''' ..." is grammatically correct in British English as an entity such as a "band" is treated as a "collective noun" (a group of people) but in American English a band is treated as a singular noun. This difference is addressed in one of the style policy articles. ] (]) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:"The Beatles were ..." is correct in both British English and American English, see ]. ] (]) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

== The Beatles and the Beatles ==


now that the beatles have released a new track, should the years active be changed to “1960-1970, 2023” ] (]) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This article contains seventeen occasions of "the Beatles" (without a capital) and is inconsistent with the majority of spellings in this article. There should be no question on this issue after so much WP discussion, in the past, regarding proper spelling of the band name. ] and ] are templates that establish standards for the band name to be used in WP with a capital "The". ] definitely contains some self-contradicting statements regarding spelling issues. Regardless of this separate MoS issue, a standard has been established for this band's name and it needs to be followed here and every article mentioning "The Beatles". ] (]) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
: 1) ]! 2) You should look above at what the current consensus ''here'' is, it is not what you apparently think. It's time to move on. MoS is not a slave to trademarks, or we could never capitalize adidas, could we? ~ ] ] 04:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:: I am not getting the meaning of your last statement regarding addidas. I see nothing ''here''. ] contradicts itself on trademarks and no spelling is correct by one of the clauses if a trademark starts with a lowercase letter. I wonder how they can force capitalize a numeral? ] (]) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::: On adidas, their official logo is all lower-case. So if what you are saying is true, then the following sentence is incorrect: "Adidas was founded in 19XX." By your logic we would need to write: "adidas was founded in 19XX". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 06:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::: adidas seems very consistent about always using lower case in prose, even at the beginning of a sentence. (e.g. http://www.adidas-group.com/en/pressroom/archive/2012/27June2012.aspx ) ] (]) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::And what has that to do with anything here?--] (]) 10:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::Simply that "adidas" is an example where Misplaced Pages's MoS is different from the company's MoS. ] (]) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Also iPod, iPhone, iPad and eBay. How would you start a sentence with them without breaking either ''our'' MoS or incorrectly transcribing their trademarks? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Your exact examples using "iPod" and "eBay" are covered in ] and should be posted exactly to satisfy both the manufacturer's logo and our MoS. I have reported this to you previously on each article's talk page but you continue to use dirty politics to avoid collaboration with other editors. What MoS are you choosing this time? ] states:
::::::::::|<font color="orange">Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:
::::::::::: avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.
::::::::::: instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.
::::::::: </font>and<font color="orange">
:::::::::::Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized.</font> ] (]) 02:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC) </br>
:::::::::::: You're cherry-picking now. You cannot cite the MoS to defend your position whilst stating thet the same MoS is incorrect in its prescription to use "the" in the specific case of ]. Yes, there are some apparent contradictions in the MoS that should be fixed. Perhaps this discussion should be occuring at the MoS talk page. Since local consensus is just that, local, and not binding to related pages. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:07, 11 July 2012 (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. ] (]) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
: 99, I would strongly advise against any crusading on this issue, no matter how pure your intentions might be. First off, as far as I can tell, the previous discussions and the consensus achieved therein were primarily concerning this article, so your attempt to apply said consensus wholesale at ] (in the middle of a major FAC, no less) is misguided in the extreme, in my opinion. Furthermore, this is a disagreement that was listed at ]. None of the links you posted are policy, and as such are subject to application via consensus. While there was a consensus in the past, the fact that this debate made it to the aforementioned list had a significant chilling effect on anyone ever wanting to go through it again. Even though ], by my reckoning we have had a ] for quite some time to the effect that we should all just let it be (pun intended). Consensus at different articles can dictate which captialisation scheme should be used, on an article by article basis. There is no policy or guideline that says any different. Please, ]. For all our sakes. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:43, 4 July 2012 (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 ] (]) 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the heads up. Can you point me to some consensus discussion regarding this point? I haven't found any details yet. The only things I have found appear to result in the templates I have indicated which seem to dictate this is the way it should be done. It just hasn't been done yet as perhaps the involved parties may be fairly raw from the lengthy irritation as you seem to indicate. ] contradicts itself on this matter and either spelling would violate one of it's clauses. Perhaps it suffers the same fatigue as this issue. ] (]) 13:51, 4 July 2012 (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". <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::::And 5 years later, Harrison changed his mind. ] (]) 14:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree. ] (]) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
:I think that the years active section should be changed to <nowiki>''</nowiki>1960-1970<nowiki>''</nowiki>, 2023<nowiki>''</nowiki>. ] (]) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
::That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to add 2023, then why not 1995? ] (]) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
::The Beatles were not active in 2023. Only Paul and Ringo (The Twotles?) were active. ] (]) 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
:::They did use ]'s voice from a demo recording, they also used ] on it. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">] <sup>(], ]) </sup></span> 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
* by the same ip makes this whole thread suspect. ~ ] ] 05:37, 4 July 2012 (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, ] (]) 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Suspect of what? Please do not be presumptious and observe ]. I understand this road has been long for you, but please observe ] rules to improve this article. Basic good grammar is a prerequisite for readers to have faith in WP. Ridicule and sidetracking, at any level, are not productive for that end. ] (]) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
What do reliable secondary sources say?
*In the first volume of ''The Beatles as Musicians'' (1999), ] 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).
*] to the songs as simply "new Beatles songs".
*In the epilogue to the second edition of ''Tell Me Why'' (2002), ] 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), ] 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 ] (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.{{nbsp}}... 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 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. is a good read. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that ] and ] ] right now. This is only an effort at article ]; you have totally disregarded and misinterpreted the discussions on this topic (because they occurred before you came to Misplaced Pages?) and badgered and harassed any one who tries to adhere to established precedent. There really doesn't need to be any further discussion unless the stated purpose is to try to change consensus. Any more reverting of "The Beatles" to "the Beatles" will go to WP/ANI. <b>]</b> ] 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:And so say all of us.--] (]) 16:54, 4 July 2012 (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. ] (]) 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 ], 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:No, I'm calling your bluff, Radio. You're accusing me of ownership when the most significant change I have made to this article in the past four months has been . You've already gone to my talk page to accuse me of wikihounding you. As far as I can tell, you're inventing this fictitious scenario in an effort to shut me up. But I'm not going to play your game. If you want to see me me censured for something, take it to ]. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it. I have no stick to drop, so maybe you should consider checking the facts and taking a long, serious moment to think about it before you make any more . ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 09:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::A few points (well, seven actually):
:: Sounds good, but you had better double-check what the current consensus ''here'' is, right now, which is, "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal", not to avoid usage of "the Beatles", so if you want to revisit that old boring arguement feel free, and good luck gaining a consensus. ~ ] ] 22:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::# 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).
::: You have tooted this before but I still see no discussion, consensus, or reference link to any discussion, as I requested. I would like to examine this discussion/consensus so that I may be informed or where not to go or spend effort. So far I have only been informed of boogiemen hiding and waiting for me if I say the forbidden words. Inform me. ] (]) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::# 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.
::::Anon 99, I believe the consensus to which Gabe refers is the one linked near the top of this talk page: ]. But I sincerely hope you will not dredge up this perennial and silly issue for the umpteenth time. ] (]) 01:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::::# The Beatles are whatever they say that they are. I checked their website and it says "Now and Then" is a Beatles song.
::::# Most of the arguments against Beatles being active in 1995-1996 and 2023 seems be based on the ]: that because not all Beatles truly participated in the new recordings, it shouldn't really count.
::::# I applaud Tkbrett's checking what ] say. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.
::::# This is a ] 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.
::::# This dispute seems rather ] to me.
::::] (]) 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 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. – ''']''' <sub>(]) </sub>
: 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: (ec) Yeah, and I'll toot it again. Look at the top of this talk page, it reads "Consensus per is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal." This consensus was implemented nearly 18 months ago by ]. ~ ] ] 01:59, 5 July 2012 (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.] (]) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
::::: The agreement looks pretty simple even though I believe all the arguments missed the boat. I believe I have explained both uses as being correct depending on the different scenarios of text. "The Beatles" referes to the group as a single entity and "the Beatles" refers to all the group members as a plural entity. I hate the answer but can live with it, now that it is visible to me. It would have been much easier to explain this in one sentence than attempting all the ] that was starting. Thanks for the lessons. The mixing of plural and singular tenses is still really bad grammar and will be kicked hard by every English grammar student that passes by for all time. Some of the sentences are attrocious. Another section heading perhaps? ] (]) 02:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


: I agree.] and ] 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. ] (]) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll say this as simply as I can. . Whatever you believe is naught compared to the hundreds of posts detailing ferocious arguments about both by many, many editors over many, many years.--] (]) 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Wel I guess that their is an admishion the WP system don't work none too good in this Case and has a bad grammars (and grampars) as an easy to identitee mark left as a warning to all y'all that there read it. It will becomes instantly clar that WP is written by intellignarents that just plain don't give no carein to new reedars. That definitely wood be the quality I would wanna put my name on as part off. Those of y'all that jus wanna stop changes, as a controle think can do yur bess cause I knows all ya'll enjoy gettin another one band as a personell power and eghost trip. Y'all come byak now. I knows ya will. ] (]) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Very, very silly. Never forget the phrase, "Out of the pram, your toys, throw, don't".--] (]) 20:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Oh, very interesting. For anyone here wanting to peruse the thoughts of a certain editor, they should read . Apparently, Misplaced Pages "is run by a Nazi-like regeim of mostly snotty-nosed nerdpaks". Interesting, to say the least, for anybody sunning themselves on Wasaga Beach. :))--] (]) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::Please attempt to stay on topic and further WP quality of this article and all articles. Your use of racial amd offensive terms does not meet WP standards and could injure our reputation in future endevours. Your sidetrack of the issues being discussed here, i.e. bad grammar usage in the article, is not productive. The ad hominem implication via your phraseology is not appreciated. Thanks for the hints and tips on articles at a sensitive stage Yeah, I missed the ASCII hieroglyphs. ;-P ] (]) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


(]) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I bet this would be a much more fun conversation on ]. (or is it "the The" or "the the"?) If it's "Beatle Paul McCartney", is it then "The ]"? :-)
Seriously though, there are lots of areas where we can improve Beatles-related articles. If we were to prioritize all the to-dos, I hope that further "The/the" discussion would be low on the list. Let's keep editing! ] (]) 03:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


== Changing Main Image ==
* Nicely done ]! Appreciate the edits very much! Only two other occurences of this under ''Influences'' and ''Legacy'' paragraph headers. One definately refers to the band name but the other could refer to the individual people in the band and is fine the way it is stated. ] (]) 04:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
:I like ducks. No, not the little plastic yellow ones.--] (]) 04:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


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? ] (]) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
== First sentence - grammar errors and nasty implications. ==
:I think the main image is good.--] (]) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::Well, I still disagree and especially now that it is featured ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, since it's Featured now, I'll change it ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


== When were the Beatles active? ==
Here it is
"The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music"
] (]) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


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? ] (]) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
: In view of being enlightened to some of the differences in English grammars recently, and rules for the same being defined in WP, I withdraw any complaints regarding the usage of plural verbs with singular nouns. It seems BrE defines a collective group as plural. This makes the fst sentence just fine in my book. The double objective nouns using "and" without a verb is fairly standard and rings fine with my Canuck ears, also. ] (]) 04:41, 6 July 2012 (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. ] (]) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== "The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 ==
{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=1A398C6}}


::I do know that the last song (now and then) was produced in 2023 for some more information ] (]) 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
=== General Discussion ===
:::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. ] (]) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The here was improperly implemented by Andreas. The poll that preceded the "triangular diplomacy" implementation was not concluded properly, as We need to establish a new consensus by allowing the below straw poll to run its course. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I think the final song is “The End”, which was the last recording session to feature all 4 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok but it’s actually posthumous contributions by John and George to a demo ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::True. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 40px black">]]</span> 03:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Missing: How Epstein's attention was drawn to the Beatles ==
* '''Statement of position''' - From ]:


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 ] (]) 10:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Cambridge and Oxford use lower-case. So does Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon. Sources that use lower-case: Lewisohn, Harry, Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and others. In fact of my 50+ books on the Beatles, only those published by Omnibus use upper-case.


:if there are no objections, I will work on the addition of the aforementioned story. ] (]) 16:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
''The Associated Press Stylebook'' says to "avoid unnecessary capitals". The ''MLA Handbook'' says not to capitalise "the". ''The Chicago MoS'' states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." On page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the ''Chicago MoS'', the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A ''the'' preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." ''The Cambridge Handbook'' by Butcher, page 241 says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased". See ''Fowler's Modern English Usage'' page 293, they specifically use "the Beatles". The AP stylebook says to "avoid unnecessary capitals", so does ]. Also, and both use lower-case "t". ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


== No Mention of Billy Preston ==
===Straw poll===
Please indicate below whether you '''support''' ''adherring'' to the wikipedia MoS by implementing a consensus here, that ''prefers'' "the", versus "The", except of course when the band name begins a sentence. Please add a rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Shouldn't Preston be mentioned in the list of associated artists?! ] (]) 09:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Options'''
# '''Support''' adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t")
# '''Oppose''' adherring to the current MoS guidelines (upper-case "T")
# '''Maintain''' . ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
<br>
* '''Support''' - Per my statement above. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


:It is strange that Jimmie Nicol subbed in The Beatles on six days and is listed at the top of ], whereas Preston recorded and performed with them over ten days and is not listed there. ] (]) 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
'''PLEASE IGNORE THIS POLL'''. There is an ongoing poll , which ] is trying to demolish by placing a new fake poll on this page.--] (]) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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.
Article policies
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 
Featured articleThe 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004, and on July 7, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 29, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
August 29, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
April 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
September 26, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 3, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... 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 article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconThe Beatles Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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:
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians / Core
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
WikiProject iconRock music Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMerseyside Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEngland Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPop music Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis 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
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
ConsensusThe 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:


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)
Categories: