This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How exactly is the Scrambled Eggs thing a myth? It is quoted even in "Many Years from Now On" as said by him. Well, maybe McCartney has chosen to start enforcing that myth or something. I would just like to know where the claim that it is a myth originated.-- Deadworm222 16:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Most of this is from memory, with some fact-checking on the dates of his inductions into the Rock & Roll hall of fame and his knighting, so please go ahead and correct and expand where necessary. --KQ
"This was the first album released since their last album Let it Be in 1970." Lots of Beatles compilation albums have been released since 1970. My guess is that what this sentence means to say is that it is the first album of previously unreleased material since 1970. soulpatch
can you tell me what Category:Paul McCartney brings to the Paul McCartney article that the Paul McCartney article doesn't already provide itself? Kingturtle 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey is not a Wings song. It should be credited as Paul and Linda McCartney. It appears on thier album entitled Ram.
paul mccartney was a hero of the 70s bcause after the band broke up and John Lennon died (was murderd by a complete nut job) and after george died of cancer, or even after linda McCartney died he still wrote songes and still composed albums.
I agree with this entry, by and large, and consider it well-written, but it does seem a little too positive about McCartney's later music. It mightn't hurt to point out that his solo material is not remotely as well-regarded as his work with The Beatles. Since it notes (accurately, I think) Lennon's decline in productivity and influence in the later Beatles years, it mightn't hurt to mention how McCartney's work of a few years later doesn't appear to have aged well. --DR
I am sorry to have to disagree with you about this. Yes McCartney was great in the 1960s, but you should also remember that for kids growing up in the 70s rather than the 60s, Paul's solo stuff was fantastic. Please do not disregard stuff like 'Band on the run', 'My Love', and the poppier Wings 70s output. Paul always had a pop sensibility that appealed to me during the 70s. In fact there is not one song that I can say that I really dislike (other than Mull of Kintyre). There are so may I could mention that I still really love. You must remember that an individual's perception of songs will be subjective, but are often bound up with when they were growing up and getting into music for the first time. For me, Paul and Wings were up there with the best, and I really get tired of crtics saying he wasn't as good in his solo career. For me, he was!
Should the link to Knight go to Knight#ModernUse instead? I'm not sure if this is correct style. -- Theaterfreak64 19:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved all the Wings material into the Wings article, leaving only a brief recap here, and I've moved all the pre-Wings solo material from the Wings article into here. As it was there was part duplication, part uneveness of treatment. -- jls
Removed the line "*Was actually the only Beatle to graduate from Britain's equivalent of high-school; he majored in Art." - in the United Kingdom you don't "major" in anything - you go to secondary school, study a variety of subjects (all of equal importance) and sit exams - you don't graduate from secondary school, only from university. At the end of secondary education you should have a selection of pass certificates, there is no such thing as a "major". As McCartney is English I don't see why his education should be Americanised. Or why the writer assumed that everyone reading this is from North America.
What is this subsection about please..? -- Mal 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea McCartney was a Catholic, and have not heard it mentioned.
I cannot find any reference to Paul McCartney being a practicing Roman Catholic in adulthood. There is ample information indicating that he was raised within that tradition, however. I have ammended the text accordingly.
I am not sure if he attends Mass or not. I would like to think that he does but I am skeptical. His religion, however, is his own business. BlueKangaroo.
His mother was a Roman Catholic, but Paul is not a practising Catholic. Incidentally, Harrison's mother was too, whereas both John and Ringo had Protestant upbringings. This is not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but there may peripheral influence in song lyrics, behaviour, etc. Raymi
Paul McCartney's World Tour 1989 - 1990. After having released his "Flowers in the dirt" album in summer of 1989, Paul McCartney was headed for another world tour. The interesting thing in this connestion is: The tour started in Norway, late autumn 1989 with a concert in Drammenshallen in the city of Drammen. This was a kind of "testing concert" before the real tour took off in 1990. For people in Norway this was a great event! The Beatles as a group never toured Norway during their career, but Paul McCartney and The Wings played in Oslo in 1972. Who could ever forget one of the extra's of the concert: "Long Tall Sally" with Paul at his very best! Therefore, the Norwegians were very proud when Mr.McCartney announced that his tour of 1989 - 1990 was to start in Drammen, Norway! The concert was indeed a memorable one, and in particaular for one in the audience: The Crown Prince of Norway, Haakon. The heir to the Norwegian crown was then a 17 - year old teenager with a keen interest in pop and rock music, and in the press stated that the concert with Paul McCartney was "a truly magnificent event!" Written by a dedicated fan of Paul McCartney, Mr.Tor Arne Eilertsen Norway
How on Earth could the description of the "McCartney" album mention Meat Loaf and his cover of "Hot as Sun" and not mention "Maybe I'm Amazed"? Wow. -- Stevestrange 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
On 22:35, 22 October 2005 anon 24.22.58.112 introduced a large, unwikified text segment on Wings that reads like an almost certain copyright violation (it's part IV of some larger work and has the tone of being written for something other than an encyclopedia, it was the only edit this anon ever did, etc.). Even if it was legit, which I highly doubt, it belongs in the Wings (band) article, not here. I've reverted this whole insertion to the previous short section that refers to the Wings article. Wasted Time R 12:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
This whole section had been removed in a 20:51, 9 October 2005 vandalism by 172.203.51.60, who committed other vandalisms at the same time that I will repair. Geez, this article really fell apart.... Wasted Time R 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be good to somewhere mention that Paul is left-handed and that he played bass guitar for the Beatles. Just a thought.
an anon ip changed the age in this sentence to 17 (I don't know which is correct so please can someone more knowledgable check it): "and John Lennon, whose mother died when John was 18." Arniep 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
John was born on the 9th October 1940. His mother, Julia, sadly was run over and killed on the 15th July 1958, three months before his 18th birthday.
I am struck by the lack of references in this article. The information in this article needs to have documented sources, IMO. 67.177.215.10 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, JJ 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC) was not logged in.
Is there any reason why the all Beatles' main pictures have been changed to 1962/1963 era images? I don't think pictures from that era are reflective enough of each Beatle's life to warrant being the main image.
-- Bbsrock
This article twice references the song 'Here Today' as a eulogy to John Lennon. In fact PM has denied that it was written for John, adding 'If that's what people want to think, that's fine.' I think we should take his word for it or at least mention his denial. Tripper 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that he wrote Here Today for John... Here's an interview about it: http://www.youtube.com/w/Paul-McCartney---Here-Today?v=3vqX5dFnnzc&search=Paul%20McCartney
Ok. I might be a bit obsessive, rock music being my forte, but Paul McCartney was not left handed. He was right handed. He found Italic textplaying the guitarItalic text difficult with his right hand, but he did everything else right handed. I haven't made a change to the page, but I think I might, because in my mind this is a large error, and somebody ought to correct it. If not me, then at least somebody may agree. . .
I just changed it 15 minutes ago but it was changed back, apparently. I've seen him sign autographs a million times, he is right handed.
From every article Ive read he is left handed...in the early days he couldn't afford a left handed guitar so he used a normal one, then when the whole beatlemania started he got a free left handed bass. That's just from what I've read. ( Revo 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
Was "Mary Mohin McCartney" his mother's full name? I have never seen the middle name shown anywhere before but perhaps it just isn't usually cited.
I thought that Jane Asher was his fiancée. Am I right? DavidFarmbrough 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Pauls mother was born Mary Patricia Mohin on 29th September 1909 at 2, Third Avenue, Fazakerley, Liverpool. Therefore, Mohin was her maiden name.
Paul and Jane never officially declared their engagement (well, Paul didn't anyway!)but Jane officially anounced it was off during BBC's Dee Time (whatever happened to Simon Dee?) on 20th July 1968. It was his affair with Francie Schwartz that ended their relationship.
I corrected the piece about him being left handed and then discovered that someone had removed it! Weird. I have put it back. (It's gone again! What do I do?) I suppose that all those fantastic mental images of him holding his Hofner the opposite way to the other two right handed players are hard to ignore. Paul plays guitar in the left handed position but does everything else with his right hand. Who was the left handed Beatle? Actually, it’s Ringo. And it was because Ringo set up his kit in the traditional right hand playing format that made him sound slightly sloppy coming out of fills etc. I personally think that contributed to the Beatle sound.
Well perhaps he was in 1986! But in 1981 Philip Norman wrote in "Shout The True Story Of The Beatles" Quote: Paul, strangely, made little progress (in learning to play the guitar). His left handed fingers found it irksome to shape the patterns of black dots shown in the tuition book, and his right hand, somehow, lacked the bounce necessary for strumming. Then he made the discovery that, although right handed for every other purpose, he was a left handed guitar player. End quote. This might be the biography in question however (perhaps reprinted in 1986) Obviously not going to argue with the man himself. Let me look into this!
You fools, he plays the guitar and bass left handed because he didn't have a teacher. He WRITES with his right hand, and in every other way is a right hander. Paul McCartney is RIGHT HANDED and no one should change the article to say he is left handed, you fools.
Well, he was left-handed, but then right-handed Billy Shears replaced him. SpeedKing1980 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is, was and always will be LEFT HANDED! I have seen him sign autographs on many occasions. Shout! is not a reliable source for any information, particularly about Paul. Clare Sherman
Why didn't he sing BLACKBIRD at the Grammys (for Coretta Scott King)? Would've had far more meaning than yesterday or fine line. Seems that once again, Sir Mc has gone for the crowd-pleasing route...
Although I believe McCartney is a complete moron for opposing the seal hunt in Canada, somebody should write about it in his article. -- Devahn58 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Devahn 58, I would not consider McCartney as a moron but (as I have seen in the past) as a misinformed celebrity that is used by certain groups to justify a lie that as been circulating for the past 20 years. The pups (as seen on the newspapers headlines) haven't been hunted for the last twenty years but it makes a better picture! The hunt brings an economy boost to our region and is considered as one of the most awaited activity that is compared to our lobster season.
The market is not only for China or other countries, the meat is considered as a delicacy here at Iles de la Madeleine, the fur and byproducts (omega 3) are opening new markets that are giving jobs to people on the Island. I once was against this type of hunting, but when I found out how it was misrepresented by some factions who hired a misguided fellow to make that gruesome picture (killing of a pup in the 70’s) I started to look for the facts The fisheries and aquaculture management as a site that describes sealing in Canada. As the saying goes here, “aux Iles c’est pas pareil”. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/forum-colloque2002/forum-colloque2002_e.htm and http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/infomedia/2005/im01_e.htm -- Pdoucet41 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Havre-aux-Maisons
THE SEAL HUNT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR AT LEAST EDITED FOR BIAS AND OBSCENE SPELLING ERRORS. AND OBSCENE STUPIDITY. I HATE WIKIPEDIA.
There was a great deal of factual errors about the seal hunt in this article, which I deleted. Also much of the inaccurate information was not directly relevent to Paul McCartney, and anyone interested in the seal hunt can follow the link to the Wiki entry on that topic.
There's no way a section on the seal hunt should be this long: it takes up almost a third of his entry when other, much more major events in his life (wife's death) merit a couple of sentences. The seal hunt is not even a major aspect of McCartney's activist history: his anti-landmines campaign, for example, has gone on much longer, as has his involvement with PETA, cancer charities, music education, etc. In terms of headlines, his pro-Irish stance in the 70's and anti-Thatcher stance in the 80's also generated more controversy at the time. If anything activist related deserves its own section it would be his founding of LIPA (Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts), but even that would be overkill if it was this long. The seal hunt section should be transferred to the seal hunt entry and be reduced to one sentence in this entry. 12.171.23.34Angel
I was wondering why this 'fact' was included. It seems slightly leaning toward POV to me, and I'd personally need convincing that it has anything to do with Paul McCartney. For example, did alleged corruption affect Paul McCartney or impact his use of drugs or the consequences? Did the allegations of DS corruption affect any of this? If not, then I suggest the allegation is removed from the article. -- Mal 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit in the 2000's section about an upcoming CD. If you didn't know about it, it does exist, I helped record it! Sorry, forgot to login. That IP is actually me - User:simongoldring
I support restoring the parenthetical pointing out that he's known as Paul. Alternatively, perhaps make the formalism parenthetical?: "Paul McCartney (born June 18, 1942; formally known as Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE or sometimes Sir Paul) " ... That places the emphasis where it belongs. As Steve says, hardly anyone knows him as Sir. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Only Lennon returned his MBE - Paul still has his. Clare Sherman
There's been a few edits back and forth between myself and an IP over how to word the section about Lennon/McCartney and McCartney's more notable songs. I'm a bit edited out and would welcome a 3rd party review/edit. -- kingboyk 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Image:PMcCartney.JPG being taken off the article? All its copyright information is there; I see no reason why it should be removed.
Unless I hear from other editors (more than one!) that I'm wrong on this, I'm vetoing the use of McCartney3.JPG. I'll say it again, to my eyes it is quite an ugly picture. Macca was a 60s heartthrob remember? I don't see much "handsome" in that picture. (Personal story about taking a gf to see Macca deleted!) -- kingboyk 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Two of my editing tasks today were supposed to be writing a new section in The KLF article, and reworking the intro to this one. I find a {{ inuse}} on The KLF and somebody already doing it, and an anon IP has redone the intro here! :-) "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE Kt., known simply as Paul McCartney," pretty much covers it per the Manual of Style. I might remove "simply" though. -- kingboyk 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that Macca was promoting a "Buddy Holly" day during the 90's. I don't know what happened there, but I am pretty sure that he purchased the Holly publishing rights. I think this could be included in the article. LessHeard vanU 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You'd be hard pushed to find a quote from Paul McCartney saying that he supported Everton, or in fact any of the Beatles saying they favoured any team at all. None of the Beatles were part of the 60s explosion of football in Liverpool, being as they were part of the 'Art Set' with no interest in sport at all. If you google McCartney and Everton it just self references back to Wikipedia.
I can remember reading an article quoting Linda as adopting Liverpool FC as her team whilst Paul was a mild Evertonian. I can't find it now however.-- Sammysausagechops 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 'Eleanor Rigby' should be used an an example of a song generally attributed to McCartney alone. In Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now", Barry Miles writes (pp. 276-277) that there are only two songs on which John and Paul significantly disagreed over authorship. Eleanor Rigby is one; John claimed to have authored a significant amount of the lyrics. (The other is "In My Life", where Paul claims to have written the melody.) In The Beatles Anthology (p. 208) John is quoted as saying (in 1980) that "'Eleanor Rigby' was Paul's baby, and I contributed to the education of the child". I think it's better if another song is cited. There are many to chose from; for the sake of argument I'll substitute "Penny Lane" since that was another hit single from around the same period and its authorship is generally undisputed. - Jim Butler 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Re edits from 72.29.165.14: Lennon was in on Michelle a little bit (if McCartney's own account is to be trusted; cf Many Years). It seems reasonable simply to list a few famous (and undisputed) songs from across his career with The Beatles. thx, Jim Butler 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the dates on the third son Paul is mentioned to have, but it does say that it was born in 1977 and died in 1976... which unless he was in cahoots with Michael J. Fox, is highly unlikely. Myfriendbrenn 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Did Macca get the gong a second time? I note that all four members are listed in the (Members of) The Order of the British Empire page - but I know that they returned the medal/honour in the late 1960's. As such no other band member is noted as being an MBE, and nor should Macca unless he has been subsequently re-awarded it. As I previously mentioned, my lack of interest in the arcane British civil awards system means that I do not know what the situation regarding McCartney is. However, if he has not been re-Invested then he should not be given the title in the header. LessHeard vanU 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't "return" an honour. You can send back the medal, but that's merely a symbolic representation of the honour, and the only way of actually ceasing to be a member of the Order once appointed is to be thrown out by the Sovereign. Proteus (Talk) 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
John was the only Beatle to return the medal. He had his chauffeur Les Anthony collect it from Aunt Mimi in Poole, wrapped it in brown paper and sent it to the Queen at Buckingham Palace with the message, " I am returning this MBE in protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against "Cold Turkey" slipping down the charts. With love, John Lennon. Bag Productions. He also sent letters to The Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Central Chancery. The Honour itself remains. The other three Beatles were happy to receive and keep theirs. -- Sammysausagechops 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check the news and ensure it is updated.(I'm having tea.) LessHeard vanU 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:70.23.135.95 vandalised the history section today.-- Anchoress 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
In what way?(query added by User:195.93.19.23 13:47 01 June 2006)
Is it important? I suggest that it is less so than not signing your comments. LessHeard vanU 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As above.
No sir, I call myself a Beatles fan (OH! IN YOUR FACE PRETTY BOY!!). Ha ha, only kidding. Though somehow I get the impression you are too. JHard trance/Bulgarian folk rock? I fucking hope you are at any rate. I draw the line just before we get to Harrison's "wonderwall" or Lennon's "Wedding Album". There's only so much weird self indulgance my ipod can take.-- Crestville 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some criticised that McCartney should quit his music job as it is an unnecessary luxurious activity" I read this in the article and I really am at a loss to understand this.
We appear to be on first name terms with Macca again... Also, "It is now generally accepted that McCartney was the motivator for much of The Beatles' later work." By whom? Is there a source/citation available? My understanding was that Macca and Lennon were pulling the group in different directions as their personal tastes evolved, and that Harrison was demanding more creative input as well. Magical Mystery Tour and the filming of Get Back/Let It Be was supposedly Macca's idea's, but the song writing splits were much the same as before. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ps. I have only just realised why Macca/they were going to call the record "Get Back". An album named "The Beatles Get Back"!!
Did people not take to his ideas back then either? I thought people agreed with him. Still, he was probably right in so much as we didn't have the jobs to support an influx of immigration. I'm sure my lovely Beatles did not mean to be racist. As a possibly chilling not - 100 Greatest Britons; 2002; check #55. And then, even more chillingly, it comes before #62!
I do!-- Crestville 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" You did the 100 Greatest Britons paragraph, and forgot to sign it! (grin) No milk at bedtime for you! LessHeard vanU 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I do so heartily apologise. What I meant to say is "I usually do, you don't need to remind me my old salt". A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.-- Crestville 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did this name come from, and what does it mean? (unsigned query by User:72.153.182.96 19:51 13 June 2006)
That's interesting. I never knew that. Funny how only Macca caught on. You got a source for that? We could include it.-- Crestville 09:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but before that he says "Paul's broken a glass, broken a glass, Paul's broken a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass he broke today.-- Crestville 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So...this seems like a pretty good article =) Any chance we could start the ball rolling on a peer review, maybe one day bump it up to FA-class? - MBlume 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PAUL!!!!! WE ALL STILL LOVE YOU VERY MUCH!!!!! -- Ian911299
I notice in the opening paragraph it is stated that McCartney is 'the richest entertainer of all time'. While I myself think that is probably correct, I am wondering if it has ever been verified by a reputable source? There is no inline citation. Rdysn5 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This may just be a personal beef, but songwriters are musicians. Singers are definitely musicians. Changing to singer, instrumentalist, and songwriter, if that's alright. - MBlume 20:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
someone put Sir Paul's coat of arms there like was done with Sir George Martin
I'm removing [2] the statements about his wealth which I'd fact-tagged on 24 June [3]. Any good sources on this? AFAIK Paul chooses not to comment on his net worth. cheers, Jim Butler( talk) 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is football in inverted commas. I hope it isn't some American taking a swipe at "soccer" not being real football, given that "soccer" has been around for longer. I've therefore wikified it, sureley the better option. Also, is there actually a solid source for his alleged support of Everton. It's something I've heard on a number of occasions, but nobody seems to be able to back it up. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 7:55 (UTC)
Just as I thought, it seems hard to find a solid reference for his support of Everton. He admits that his uncles supported them, and allegedly said that "I am SUPPOSED to support Everton". Whether he is a football fan, but is a neutral, or does support Everton and doesn't want to alienate any fans, I think that if nobdy can provide a solid citation, then it should be removed. Have at look at these two articles. Both give an accounty of the ambiguity. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 8:28 (UTC)
http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/theknowledge/0,,1104898,00.html
http://www.macca-central.com/macca-news/morenews.cfm?ID=1290
Regular editors of this article: Please note that you have unanswered suggestions at the peer review page. It's good form to thank the contributors and act on their suggestions. Perhaps a Todo list is needed? -- kingboyk 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've failed the article for GA. It needs several copyedits, and some images need fair use rationales, but most of all, you need references. 7 footnotes and 3 references is nowhere near enough. Statements like, "Out of all The Beatles compositions, it is claimed only 27 were composed by both equally"; who claims this? Can you cite it?
I scanned your peer review, and most of the problems have been recognized there. The "Achievements, world records, and miscellania" section is really a trivia section, and if this is heading for GA or FA status it needs to go. Either delete the entries or incorporate them into the article. Good luck. - Dark Kubrick 07:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The co-writer was shown as George Martin. Maybe the Kellogg substitution is wiki-vandalism - introduced by an IP address rather than a registered user. - Kittybrewster 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proof:
1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.
2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.
3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.
Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-to-front? Or maybe they are not of the real Paul McCartney? Peter Jensen 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I never cease to wonder at the stupidity of the human mind. Some mothers do have them, but why do they all have to come to Wikipedia? Peter Jensen 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Good pick-up. Some people are awake after all. Don't you just love subliminal hooks, they always catch someone. But it has now been changed. Play nice! Peter Jensen 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
How exactly is the Scrambled Eggs thing a myth? It is quoted even in "Many Years from Now On" as said by him. Well, maybe McCartney has chosen to start enforcing that myth or something. I would just like to know where the claim that it is a myth originated.-- Deadworm222 16:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Most of this is from memory, with some fact-checking on the dates of his inductions into the Rock & Roll hall of fame and his knighting, so please go ahead and correct and expand where necessary. --KQ
"This was the first album released since their last album Let it Be in 1970." Lots of Beatles compilation albums have been released since 1970. My guess is that what this sentence means to say is that it is the first album of previously unreleased material since 1970. soulpatch
can you tell me what Category:Paul McCartney brings to the Paul McCartney article that the Paul McCartney article doesn't already provide itself? Kingturtle 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey is not a Wings song. It should be credited as Paul and Linda McCartney. It appears on thier album entitled Ram.
paul mccartney was a hero of the 70s bcause after the band broke up and John Lennon died (was murderd by a complete nut job) and after george died of cancer, or even after linda McCartney died he still wrote songes and still composed albums.
I agree with this entry, by and large, and consider it well-written, but it does seem a little too positive about McCartney's later music. It mightn't hurt to point out that his solo material is not remotely as well-regarded as his work with The Beatles. Since it notes (accurately, I think) Lennon's decline in productivity and influence in the later Beatles years, it mightn't hurt to mention how McCartney's work of a few years later doesn't appear to have aged well. --DR
I am sorry to have to disagree with you about this. Yes McCartney was great in the 1960s, but you should also remember that for kids growing up in the 70s rather than the 60s, Paul's solo stuff was fantastic. Please do not disregard stuff like 'Band on the run', 'My Love', and the poppier Wings 70s output. Paul always had a pop sensibility that appealed to me during the 70s. In fact there is not one song that I can say that I really dislike (other than Mull of Kintyre). There are so may I could mention that I still really love. You must remember that an individual's perception of songs will be subjective, but are often bound up with when they were growing up and getting into music for the first time. For me, Paul and Wings were up there with the best, and I really get tired of crtics saying he wasn't as good in his solo career. For me, he was!
Should the link to Knight go to Knight#ModernUse instead? I'm not sure if this is correct style. -- Theaterfreak64 19:25, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved all the Wings material into the Wings article, leaving only a brief recap here, and I've moved all the pre-Wings solo material from the Wings article into here. As it was there was part duplication, part uneveness of treatment. -- jls
Removed the line "*Was actually the only Beatle to graduate from Britain's equivalent of high-school; he majored in Art." - in the United Kingdom you don't "major" in anything - you go to secondary school, study a variety of subjects (all of equal importance) and sit exams - you don't graduate from secondary school, only from university. At the end of secondary education you should have a selection of pass certificates, there is no such thing as a "major". As McCartney is English I don't see why his education should be Americanised. Or why the writer assumed that everyone reading this is from North America.
What is this subsection about please..? -- Mal 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea McCartney was a Catholic, and have not heard it mentioned.
I cannot find any reference to Paul McCartney being a practicing Roman Catholic in adulthood. There is ample information indicating that he was raised within that tradition, however. I have ammended the text accordingly.
I am not sure if he attends Mass or not. I would like to think that he does but I am skeptical. His religion, however, is his own business. BlueKangaroo.
His mother was a Roman Catholic, but Paul is not a practising Catholic. Incidentally, Harrison's mother was too, whereas both John and Ringo had Protestant upbringings. This is not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but there may peripheral influence in song lyrics, behaviour, etc. Raymi
Paul McCartney's World Tour 1989 - 1990. After having released his "Flowers in the dirt" album in summer of 1989, Paul McCartney was headed for another world tour. The interesting thing in this connestion is: The tour started in Norway, late autumn 1989 with a concert in Drammenshallen in the city of Drammen. This was a kind of "testing concert" before the real tour took off in 1990. For people in Norway this was a great event! The Beatles as a group never toured Norway during their career, but Paul McCartney and The Wings played in Oslo in 1972. Who could ever forget one of the extra's of the concert: "Long Tall Sally" with Paul at his very best! Therefore, the Norwegians were very proud when Mr.McCartney announced that his tour of 1989 - 1990 was to start in Drammen, Norway! The concert was indeed a memorable one, and in particaular for one in the audience: The Crown Prince of Norway, Haakon. The heir to the Norwegian crown was then a 17 - year old teenager with a keen interest in pop and rock music, and in the press stated that the concert with Paul McCartney was "a truly magnificent event!" Written by a dedicated fan of Paul McCartney, Mr.Tor Arne Eilertsen Norway
How on Earth could the description of the "McCartney" album mention Meat Loaf and his cover of "Hot as Sun" and not mention "Maybe I'm Amazed"? Wow. -- Stevestrange 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
On 22:35, 22 October 2005 anon 24.22.58.112 introduced a large, unwikified text segment on Wings that reads like an almost certain copyright violation (it's part IV of some larger work and has the tone of being written for something other than an encyclopedia, it was the only edit this anon ever did, etc.). Even if it was legit, which I highly doubt, it belongs in the Wings (band) article, not here. I've reverted this whole insertion to the previous short section that refers to the Wings article. Wasted Time R 12:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
This whole section had been removed in a 20:51, 9 October 2005 vandalism by 172.203.51.60, who committed other vandalisms at the same time that I will repair. Geez, this article really fell apart.... Wasted Time R 13:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be good to somewhere mention that Paul is left-handed and that he played bass guitar for the Beatles. Just a thought.
an anon ip changed the age in this sentence to 17 (I don't know which is correct so please can someone more knowledgable check it): "and John Lennon, whose mother died when John was 18." Arniep 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
John was born on the 9th October 1940. His mother, Julia, sadly was run over and killed on the 15th July 1958, three months before his 18th birthday.
I am struck by the lack of references in this article. The information in this article needs to have documented sources, IMO. 67.177.215.10 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry, JJ 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC) was not logged in.
Is there any reason why the all Beatles' main pictures have been changed to 1962/1963 era images? I don't think pictures from that era are reflective enough of each Beatle's life to warrant being the main image.
-- Bbsrock
This article twice references the song 'Here Today' as a eulogy to John Lennon. In fact PM has denied that it was written for John, adding 'If that's what people want to think, that's fine.' I think we should take his word for it or at least mention his denial. Tripper 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that he wrote Here Today for John... Here's an interview about it: http://www.youtube.com/w/Paul-McCartney---Here-Today?v=3vqX5dFnnzc&search=Paul%20McCartney
Ok. I might be a bit obsessive, rock music being my forte, but Paul McCartney was not left handed. He was right handed. He found Italic textplaying the guitarItalic text difficult with his right hand, but he did everything else right handed. I haven't made a change to the page, but I think I might, because in my mind this is a large error, and somebody ought to correct it. If not me, then at least somebody may agree. . .
I just changed it 15 minutes ago but it was changed back, apparently. I've seen him sign autographs a million times, he is right handed.
From every article Ive read he is left handed...in the early days he couldn't afford a left handed guitar so he used a normal one, then when the whole beatlemania started he got a free left handed bass. That's just from what I've read. ( Revo 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
Was "Mary Mohin McCartney" his mother's full name? I have never seen the middle name shown anywhere before but perhaps it just isn't usually cited.
I thought that Jane Asher was his fiancée. Am I right? DavidFarmbrough 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Pauls mother was born Mary Patricia Mohin on 29th September 1909 at 2, Third Avenue, Fazakerley, Liverpool. Therefore, Mohin was her maiden name.
Paul and Jane never officially declared their engagement (well, Paul didn't anyway!)but Jane officially anounced it was off during BBC's Dee Time (whatever happened to Simon Dee?) on 20th July 1968. It was his affair with Francie Schwartz that ended their relationship.
I corrected the piece about him being left handed and then discovered that someone had removed it! Weird. I have put it back. (It's gone again! What do I do?) I suppose that all those fantastic mental images of him holding his Hofner the opposite way to the other two right handed players are hard to ignore. Paul plays guitar in the left handed position but does everything else with his right hand. Who was the left handed Beatle? Actually, it’s Ringo. And it was because Ringo set up his kit in the traditional right hand playing format that made him sound slightly sloppy coming out of fills etc. I personally think that contributed to the Beatle sound.
Well perhaps he was in 1986! But in 1981 Philip Norman wrote in "Shout The True Story Of The Beatles" Quote: Paul, strangely, made little progress (in learning to play the guitar). His left handed fingers found it irksome to shape the patterns of black dots shown in the tuition book, and his right hand, somehow, lacked the bounce necessary for strumming. Then he made the discovery that, although right handed for every other purpose, he was a left handed guitar player. End quote. This might be the biography in question however (perhaps reprinted in 1986) Obviously not going to argue with the man himself. Let me look into this!
You fools, he plays the guitar and bass left handed because he didn't have a teacher. He WRITES with his right hand, and in every other way is a right hander. Paul McCartney is RIGHT HANDED and no one should change the article to say he is left handed, you fools.
Well, he was left-handed, but then right-handed Billy Shears replaced him. SpeedKing1980 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is, was and always will be LEFT HANDED! I have seen him sign autographs on many occasions. Shout! is not a reliable source for any information, particularly about Paul. Clare Sherman
Why didn't he sing BLACKBIRD at the Grammys (for Coretta Scott King)? Would've had far more meaning than yesterday or fine line. Seems that once again, Sir Mc has gone for the crowd-pleasing route...
Although I believe McCartney is a complete moron for opposing the seal hunt in Canada, somebody should write about it in his article. -- Devahn58 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Devahn 58, I would not consider McCartney as a moron but (as I have seen in the past) as a misinformed celebrity that is used by certain groups to justify a lie that as been circulating for the past 20 years. The pups (as seen on the newspapers headlines) haven't been hunted for the last twenty years but it makes a better picture! The hunt brings an economy boost to our region and is considered as one of the most awaited activity that is compared to our lobster season.
The market is not only for China or other countries, the meat is considered as a delicacy here at Iles de la Madeleine, the fur and byproducts (omega 3) are opening new markets that are giving jobs to people on the Island. I once was against this type of hunting, but when I found out how it was misrepresented by some factions who hired a misguided fellow to make that gruesome picture (killing of a pup in the 70’s) I started to look for the facts The fisheries and aquaculture management as a site that describes sealing in Canada. As the saying goes here, “aux Iles c’est pas pareil”. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/reports-rapports/forum-colloque2002/forum-colloque2002_e.htm and http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/infomedia/2005/im01_e.htm -- Pdoucet41 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Havre-aux-Maisons
THE SEAL HUNT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR AT LEAST EDITED FOR BIAS AND OBSCENE SPELLING ERRORS. AND OBSCENE STUPIDITY. I HATE WIKIPEDIA.
There was a great deal of factual errors about the seal hunt in this article, which I deleted. Also much of the inaccurate information was not directly relevent to Paul McCartney, and anyone interested in the seal hunt can follow the link to the Wiki entry on that topic.
There's no way a section on the seal hunt should be this long: it takes up almost a third of his entry when other, much more major events in his life (wife's death) merit a couple of sentences. The seal hunt is not even a major aspect of McCartney's activist history: his anti-landmines campaign, for example, has gone on much longer, as has his involvement with PETA, cancer charities, music education, etc. In terms of headlines, his pro-Irish stance in the 70's and anti-Thatcher stance in the 80's also generated more controversy at the time. If anything activist related deserves its own section it would be his founding of LIPA (Liverpool Institute of the Performing Arts), but even that would be overkill if it was this long. The seal hunt section should be transferred to the seal hunt entry and be reduced to one sentence in this entry. 12.171.23.34Angel
I was wondering why this 'fact' was included. It seems slightly leaning toward POV to me, and I'd personally need convincing that it has anything to do with Paul McCartney. For example, did alleged corruption affect Paul McCartney or impact his use of drugs or the consequences? Did the allegations of DS corruption affect any of this? If not, then I suggest the allegation is removed from the article. -- Mal 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit in the 2000's section about an upcoming CD. If you didn't know about it, it does exist, I helped record it! Sorry, forgot to login. That IP is actually me - User:simongoldring
I support restoring the parenthetical pointing out that he's known as Paul. Alternatively, perhaps make the formalism parenthetical?: "Paul McCartney (born June 18, 1942; formally known as Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE or sometimes Sir Paul) " ... That places the emphasis where it belongs. As Steve says, hardly anyone knows him as Sir. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Only Lennon returned his MBE - Paul still has his. Clare Sherman
There's been a few edits back and forth between myself and an IP over how to word the section about Lennon/McCartney and McCartney's more notable songs. I'm a bit edited out and would welcome a 3rd party review/edit. -- kingboyk 23:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is Image:PMcCartney.JPG being taken off the article? All its copyright information is there; I see no reason why it should be removed.
Unless I hear from other editors (more than one!) that I'm wrong on this, I'm vetoing the use of McCartney3.JPG. I'll say it again, to my eyes it is quite an ugly picture. Macca was a 60s heartthrob remember? I don't see much "handsome" in that picture. (Personal story about taking a gf to see Macca deleted!) -- kingboyk 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Two of my editing tasks today were supposed to be writing a new section in The KLF article, and reworking the intro to this one. I find a {{ inuse}} on The KLF and somebody already doing it, and an anon IP has redone the intro here! :-) "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE Kt., known simply as Paul McCartney," pretty much covers it per the Manual of Style. I might remove "simply" though. -- kingboyk 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that Macca was promoting a "Buddy Holly" day during the 90's. I don't know what happened there, but I am pretty sure that he purchased the Holly publishing rights. I think this could be included in the article. LessHeard vanU 19:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You'd be hard pushed to find a quote from Paul McCartney saying that he supported Everton, or in fact any of the Beatles saying they favoured any team at all. None of the Beatles were part of the 60s explosion of football in Liverpool, being as they were part of the 'Art Set' with no interest in sport at all. If you google McCartney and Everton it just self references back to Wikipedia.
I can remember reading an article quoting Linda as adopting Liverpool FC as her team whilst Paul was a mild Evertonian. I can't find it now however.-- Sammysausagechops 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 'Eleanor Rigby' should be used an an example of a song generally attributed to McCartney alone. In Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now", Barry Miles writes (pp. 276-277) that there are only two songs on which John and Paul significantly disagreed over authorship. Eleanor Rigby is one; John claimed to have authored a significant amount of the lyrics. (The other is "In My Life", where Paul claims to have written the melody.) In The Beatles Anthology (p. 208) John is quoted as saying (in 1980) that "'Eleanor Rigby' was Paul's baby, and I contributed to the education of the child". I think it's better if another song is cited. There are many to chose from; for the sake of argument I'll substitute "Penny Lane" since that was another hit single from around the same period and its authorship is generally undisputed. - Jim Butler 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Re edits from 72.29.165.14: Lennon was in on Michelle a little bit (if McCartney's own account is to be trusted; cf Many Years). It seems reasonable simply to list a few famous (and undisputed) songs from across his career with The Beatles. thx, Jim Butler 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the dates on the third son Paul is mentioned to have, but it does say that it was born in 1977 and died in 1976... which unless he was in cahoots with Michael J. Fox, is highly unlikely. Myfriendbrenn 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Did Macca get the gong a second time? I note that all four members are listed in the (Members of) The Order of the British Empire page - but I know that they returned the medal/honour in the late 1960's. As such no other band member is noted as being an MBE, and nor should Macca unless he has been subsequently re-awarded it. As I previously mentioned, my lack of interest in the arcane British civil awards system means that I do not know what the situation regarding McCartney is. However, if he has not been re-Invested then he should not be given the title in the header. LessHeard vanU 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't "return" an honour. You can send back the medal, but that's merely a symbolic representation of the honour, and the only way of actually ceasing to be a member of the Order once appointed is to be thrown out by the Sovereign. Proteus (Talk) 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
John was the only Beatle to return the medal. He had his chauffeur Les Anthony collect it from Aunt Mimi in Poole, wrapped it in brown paper and sent it to the Queen at Buckingham Palace with the message, " I am returning this MBE in protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against "Cold Turkey" slipping down the charts. With love, John Lennon. Bag Productions. He also sent letters to The Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Central Chancery. The Honour itself remains. The other three Beatles were happy to receive and keep theirs. -- Sammysausagechops 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone check the news and ensure it is updated.(I'm having tea.) LessHeard vanU 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:70.23.135.95 vandalised the history section today.-- Anchoress 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
In what way?(query added by User:195.93.19.23 13:47 01 June 2006)
Is it important? I suggest that it is less so than not signing your comments. LessHeard vanU 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
As above.
No sir, I call myself a Beatles fan (OH! IN YOUR FACE PRETTY BOY!!). Ha ha, only kidding. Though somehow I get the impression you are too. JHard trance/Bulgarian folk rock? I fucking hope you are at any rate. I draw the line just before we get to Harrison's "wonderwall" or Lennon's "Wedding Album". There's only so much weird self indulgance my ipod can take.-- Crestville 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"Some criticised that McCartney should quit his music job as it is an unnecessary luxurious activity" I read this in the article and I really am at a loss to understand this.
We appear to be on first name terms with Macca again... Also, "It is now generally accepted that McCartney was the motivator for much of The Beatles' later work." By whom? Is there a source/citation available? My understanding was that Macca and Lennon were pulling the group in different directions as their personal tastes evolved, and that Harrison was demanding more creative input as well. Magical Mystery Tour and the filming of Get Back/Let It Be was supposedly Macca's idea's, but the song writing splits were much the same as before. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) ps. I have only just realised why Macca/they were going to call the record "Get Back". An album named "The Beatles Get Back"!!
Did people not take to his ideas back then either? I thought people agreed with him. Still, he was probably right in so much as we didn't have the jobs to support an influx of immigration. I'm sure my lovely Beatles did not mean to be racist. As a possibly chilling not - 100 Greatest Britons; 2002; check #55. And then, even more chillingly, it comes before #62!
I do!-- Crestville 12:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" You did the 100 Greatest Britons paragraph, and forgot to sign it! (grin) No milk at bedtime for you! LessHeard vanU 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I do so heartily apologise. What I meant to say is "I usually do, you don't need to remind me my old salt". A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.-- Crestville 15:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did this name come from, and what does it mean? (unsigned query by User:72.153.182.96 19:51 13 June 2006)
That's interesting. I never knew that. Funny how only Macca caught on. You got a source for that? We could include it.-- Crestville 09:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but before that he says "Paul's broken a glass, broken a glass, Paul's broken a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass, a glass he broke today.-- Crestville 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So...this seems like a pretty good article =) Any chance we could start the ball rolling on a peer review, maybe one day bump it up to FA-class? - MBlume 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY PAUL!!!!! WE ALL STILL LOVE YOU VERY MUCH!!!!! -- Ian911299
I notice in the opening paragraph it is stated that McCartney is 'the richest entertainer of all time'. While I myself think that is probably correct, I am wondering if it has ever been verified by a reputable source? There is no inline citation. Rdysn5 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This may just be a personal beef, but songwriters are musicians. Singers are definitely musicians. Changing to singer, instrumentalist, and songwriter, if that's alright. - MBlume 20:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
someone put Sir Paul's coat of arms there like was done with Sir George Martin
I'm removing [2] the statements about his wealth which I'd fact-tagged on 24 June [3]. Any good sources on this? AFAIK Paul chooses not to comment on his net worth. cheers, Jim Butler( talk) 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is football in inverted commas. I hope it isn't some American taking a swipe at "soccer" not being real football, given that "soccer" has been around for longer. I've therefore wikified it, sureley the better option. Also, is there actually a solid source for his alleged support of Everton. It's something I've heard on a number of occasions, but nobody seems to be able to back it up. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 7:55 (UTC)
Just as I thought, it seems hard to find a solid reference for his support of Everton. He admits that his uncles supported them, and allegedly said that "I am SUPPOSED to support Everton". Whether he is a football fan, but is a neutral, or does support Everton and doesn't want to alienate any fans, I think that if nobdy can provide a solid citation, then it should be removed. Have at look at these two articles. Both give an accounty of the ambiguity. hedpeguyuk 20 July 2006, 8:28 (UTC)
http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/theknowledge/0,,1104898,00.html
http://www.macca-central.com/macca-news/morenews.cfm?ID=1290
Regular editors of this article: Please note that you have unanswered suggestions at the peer review page. It's good form to thank the contributors and act on their suggestions. Perhaps a Todo list is needed? -- kingboyk 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've failed the article for GA. It needs several copyedits, and some images need fair use rationales, but most of all, you need references. 7 footnotes and 3 references is nowhere near enough. Statements like, "Out of all The Beatles compositions, it is claimed only 27 were composed by both equally"; who claims this? Can you cite it?
I scanned your peer review, and most of the problems have been recognized there. The "Achievements, world records, and miscellania" section is really a trivia section, and if this is heading for GA or FA status it needs to go. Either delete the entries or incorporate them into the article. Good luck. - Dark Kubrick 07:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The co-writer was shown as George Martin. Maybe the Kellogg substitution is wiki-vandalism - introduced by an IP address rather than a registered user. - Kittybrewster 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proof:
1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.
2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.
3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.
Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-to-front? Or maybe they are not of the real Paul McCartney? Peter Jensen 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I never cease to wonder at the stupidity of the human mind. Some mothers do have them, but why do they all have to come to Wikipedia? Peter Jensen 19:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Good pick-up. Some people are awake after all. Don't you just love subliminal hooks, they always catch someone. But it has now been changed. Play nice! Peter Jensen 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)