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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
This section contains the sentence "Public figures called for McCartney to be tried by a jury for drug-smuggling." Can we clarify this, as - perhaps suprisingly - there are no juries in the Japanese criminal system. Does the author mean that there was some dispute over whether Japanese law was fair in this sense, or has the author simply added "by a jury" without realising that this would have been an impossibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.75.56 ( talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an example of vandalism isn't it. 'One of McCartney's first girlfriends was called Layla, whom McCartney remembered as having an unusual name in Liverpool at the time. Layla was slightly older than McCartney and used to ask him to baby-sit with her, which was a code word for sex.'. I won't remove it myself as I don't know for sure - AresAndEnyo ( talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It was taken from Miles' book, by yours truly. I'll repeat the reference.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done it, but 10 points go to AresAndEnyo, because it did look like vandalism, and the name of the girl mysteriously changes to various other ones from time to time (old Romeo Macca must have put it about a bit... :).-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The section on 2000s is getting bloated. It appears that editors are starting to put in a paragraph about every concert that Paul McCartney takes part in. I think this section needs some serious trimming, any other thoughts? Jons63 ( talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be chopped out if it's in Paul McCartney (solo), which is close to GA status, if anyone wants to take it there.-- andreasegde ( talk) 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 07:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be more accurate stats on his show in Québec City. Estimates say 250 000 people that could be filmed with the helicopter but it excludes a large portion of the crowd that was sitting rather than standing and therfore out of reach of light. I've heard Radio Estimate calling up to 85 000 people filling in the dark. Need to add the (atleast) 10 000 people from lévis and the couple thousands that were at the Parliament/behind the site and Higher on the plains and in other nearby parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.156.117 ( talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Heyjudesample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this 1989 recorded interview with Paul McCartney. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits and relevance, and hope that an editor will find the time to check out the interview and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section of this page. I appreciate your time.
Crawdaddy!
[1]
Mike harkin (
talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this picture is one of the best pictures we have in WP for McCartney. It's a good depiction of McCartney with his band, of the special atmosphere of the performance, and adds significantly to the visuality of the article. I've put it in the center in appropriate width. Thoughts? Noon ( talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is their nothing about the Beatles on this page? I understand that they have their own page but The Beatles were his launching pad and his most famous band.-- 72.16.114.224 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of this section in the article - they're "dating", fine. Do we include a section on anyone he dates? Do we have verifiable sourcing that this is a "relationship"? Also, this is not the place for a bio of Shevell: if she is notable enough - and I don't know that she is - then set up a separate article for her. But her bio details do not belong here, even though they are sourced and I removed them. Finally, the entry was poorly worded, ungrammatical, and unevenly cited. I think the section should be removed completely pending something more significant about a relationship. Tvoz/ talk 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does this douche bag Alan Durband have a prominent place and picture in this article ? Seems like someone self-serving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.159.93 ( talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not notable that McCartney is a football fan. That would seem to be true of a lot of people in England, and a few more in Europe... I suggest that section be deleted. — John Cardinal ( talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There are citations, and "The Beatles never were reported as commenting upon any preference for a local club", is also cited in the referenced pages, as in "Did any of the Beatles ever express an interest in football, in particular whether they favoured Liverpool or Everton," asks Steven Draper, "or did they steer clear of the subject for fear of alienating potential fans?" which is ref #300, or thereabouts...-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, now... "get a grip" is a light-hearted comment that anyone might say to a colleague, and is meant as nothing more than a "little joshing", as an American might say (or not? :) I won't even comment on your answers above, because that would only waste time, as we both know. I apologised about my zeal for keeping references on your page (before I read this page, BTW) but my opinion of you still stands. You're a good man, John, and I know we heartily disagree sometimes (ouch!) but I respect you, even despite the disagreements. I can't say fairer than that, can I? (ouch!.. :))-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sir John Cardinal, you are a scholar and a gentleman, as I always suspected, but now know to be true. :)-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway... I would agree with you that the whole 'Football' section was badly written (by me, mostly... ouch!) and should be smoothed over with a stiff brush, but not cut. I still stand by its inclusion in the article because of the references, but mostly because it contains info (and a quote from Linda) that shows a side of 'Macca' that was not really known until it was included in this article. Shouldn't Wikipedia be better than the others because of its depth of detail? I think the Brian Epstein article is brilliant, because it says almost everything about the man, and it was once quoted as being very factual in an English national newspaper. (Kingboyk knows about this). I am more than willing to discuss this.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Not yet official, but: April 4th 2009 Paul will give a benefit concert for the David Lynch Foundation and in memoriam Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Location: New York City. -- Josha52 ( talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am new here; I added some lines on 12/10/08 and then removed them because I have not been a part of the creation of this excellent summary about McCartney. What do you think abt this type of opening, something like this: PMcCartney is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential musicians, performers and songwriters ever. He is perhaps the most famous living musician and celebrity in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello- thank you TwoRoads and Tvoz (and thank u tvoz for your positive comments); thanks for the constructive input. I simply think readers (especially those who do not understand how important McCartney is) to understand McCartney's greatness and importance to music, entertainment and the world. I think it is hard to put it into words. On wikipedia and elsewhere, I like to 'give credit where credit is due', if you know what I mean. Perhaps there are polls and features that list the "Top 100 most influential musicians in history" and so forth, etc, etc, and surely McCartney will be at the top of the list. I will always discuss before adding anything. Thanks.(btw, I am a writer with a passion for the truth...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Macca has joined the One Little Indian record company. [2] I suppose this means he doesn't get any more free coffee from Starbucks, huh? :)-- 90.146.214.190 ( talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"McCartney has claimed that it was he, and not Lennon, who made The Beatles aware of political issues". I have put this in (with a reference) but in all honesty it seems as if Lennon's title idea for a McCartney solo album, Paul McCartney Goes Too Far, has really come true. Johnny must be bristling (in that Japanese stone vase that Yoko keeps him in)...-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was him. The bloke with two thumbs up in the air. Not sure about him being best mates with Sutcliffe. I recently read that Lennon wanted to shag him (Macca) as "Bohemians should be open to everything", but Macca's fondness for breasts and dislike of 'members' got in the way. The revelations sure do shed a new light on those happenings in Hamburg...-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and since when was Paul a peace activist? GabeMc ( talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently in "Many Years From Now" Paul claims to have been the first person to get Mick Jaggar high, Mick disputes this. GabeMc ( talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) where the f*** is your problem, surely paul is a peace activist, ever heard of no more land mines campaign, the concert for new york, everything he does for PETA and much more.
and at least he and john got mick and keith hooked up on wirting their own songs, that's a feat i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.134 ( talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
When are Wikipedia editors going to learn that stopping vandals is just as important as teaching new users how to format references properly? The enemies may be within the walls, but the defenders don't know how to hold a bow and arrow.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added Kt to the intro, just before MBE, because without it it can be confusing to those not familiar with Brit titles. For instance, I did a google and discovered just how muddled some people can be. One of the most popular answer sites on the web says the following -- "Sir James Paul McCartney recieved his MBE because of (unlike a lot of other ridiculous reasons for unnecessarily giving knighthoods away) his contributions to the music industry." Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|supp=
(
help)). 17 March 2003.
David Underdown (
talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Heyjudesample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
McCartney seems to be the first major rock star in the world who is also known as a stamp designer.:
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources, as you did to
Paul McCartney. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ward3001 (
talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When will this page be PROTECTED? It's about time...-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is an influential bass player, with a unique sound. He practically introduced the world to what an electric bass is and sounds like (that Hofner is iconic). How come no text in here about that? - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.244.4 ( talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
come on guys, make this article, i would make it myself if i only would know how to describe bass playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.8 ( talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's incredible, Paul McCartney was one of the most influential Bassist of the history of pop music, and there is absolutely nothing on the main page. [3]
< Jack Bruce, ace of bass. Who are the best bass players of all time? ‘Simple,’ Jack Bruce says. ‘Jamerson, McCartney, Pastorius and me’ >
STANLEY CLARKE: < Paul definitely had an influence on my bass playing, not so much technically, but more with his philosophy of melodic bass liens-especially as I hit my teens and the Beatles' records became more adventurous >
WILL LEE: < "Growing up in Texas in the early '60s, I was so obsessed with the Beatles' music that I didn't feel like a fan, I felt like I was in the Beatles. About the same time I switched from drums to bass I became aware of who gave the band its charm and personality, from visual tunes like "Penny Lane" to the group's repartee wtih the press. It was the same fellow who was able to take a poor-quality instrument like the Hofner bass and create magic on it. I especially dug Paul's funky, Motown-influenced side, evident in the bass line from Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey," or even in the syncopated part from "A Day In The Life." Paul's influence on bassists has been so wide-spread over numerous generations that ther's no denying he's in everybody's playing at this point. We're all descendants. He played simple and solid when it was called for. But because he had so many different flavors to add to a song, he was able to take the instrument far beyond a supportive role. Paul taught the bass how to sing.>
BILLY SHEEHAN: < The reason I got involved with music in the first place was because I saw the Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show." I watched all the girls going crazy, and I figured this was thebest business in the world to be in. Later on, when I got more deeply into music, "Sgt. Pepper" was a break-through record for me. I must have listened to it several hundred times. What intrigued me was how totally musical every aspect of it wasespecially Paul's melodic, fluid bass lines. When my band Talas was starting in the mid '70s [the Beatles' tribute show] Beatlemania was big, and we used to play entire gigs of just Beatles tunes. I've learned so much from Paul about playing, writing, and playing and singing at the same time that I should probably start sending him checks. Most bassists get into the flashy players, but I think the reason Paul is often overlooked is that what he was doing wasn't really obvious. It was so brilliantly woven into the context of the songs. One of my favorites is the bass line from 'Rain.' I still use it to test the low end of an amp. That Paul happens to play bass is a great boon to all of us, because he made us realize that there are no limitations to being a bass player. >
STING: < It's hard to separate McCartney's influence on my bass playing from his influence on everything else-singing, songwriting, even becoming a musician in the first place. As a child, I would play my Beatles albums at 45 RPM so I could hear the bass better. He's the Guvnor.>
Tomorrow i will give others links
-- Roujan ( talk) 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
In 2000, Guitar magazine : Bassist of the millennium [5]
1 - John Entwistle
2 - Paul McCartney
-- Roujan ( talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Paul's bass playing is one of his most defining features, I think there should be a section devoted to his bass playing. It would be easy to ammass several respected quotes about his influence on the forgotten rock guitar, the bass. In 1980, John Lennon said "Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period." GabeMc ( talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's because medias (non competent about music) don't talk about Bass, so even the fans of The Beatles don't talk about Paul the Bassist. And it's incredible, because this guy was one of the most influential bassist of history of popular music of the 20th century. -- Roujan ( talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone just added Elvis Costello to the list of Associated acts. Well, I don't know anything about that. And while we're on the subject, would it be wrong to add Michael Jackson to associated acts? I don't know what properly constitutes "associated acts", which is why I ask. Belasted ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Paul has an MBE, and we've all heard him called "Sir Paul" by the media. Yet the Wikipedia article Order of the British Empire explicitly states 'Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title "Sir" (male) or "Dame" (female) before their first name.' Perhaps the MBE is his award from the 60's (the one Lennon gave back) and McCartney has since got KBE? If so article should be changed. Can someone please clarify this situation? -- Boston ( talk) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The page is quite long. Some material could be cut that is already present in other articles, but I don't think that would make a big difference. On the other hand, we could drop the size considerably by moving entire sections to other articles. For example, the Relationships section is probably long enough to warrant a dedicated article. Please offer an opinion, and if you favor a specific move, please describe it. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, that means the "Relationships" section could become a GA in its own right. Hmmm.... :)-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that we should also consider the headers in the TOC that have the most standalone content on them. These are the most likely to be improved to GA,A, or FA status, and are generally larger sections that when removed would cut down the article size the best. -- Floydian τ γ 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) "musical career after The Beatles" isn't terrible, but it defines the topic based on what it isn't rather than what it is. I agree that "solo" is restrictive, but personally I like it better than "musical career after The Beatles". Most of the albums he released from 1970 on, except for Wings, and even when collaborating, were credited to him alone. (I'm thinking of work with Elvis Costello, for example, rather than Liverpool Oratorio.) it would help if there were a pithy contributor to this discussion! — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Musical career now summarised. I'm still organizing/deduplicating the resulting material in the career article. Looking at the main article now, it strikes me marriages and relationships could possibly stay after all should probably still be replaced by a summary and its detail be moved to a new sub-article—thoughts on this? Someone may feel like doing this, especially if anyone feels it needs expanding at all. I'm not saying it does, just that that's of relevance to the split question.
PL290 (
talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages still seems to be a good candidate for a sub-article. PL290 ( talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ Split-apart}} tag as requested by the GA Reassessment. Taking three things into account:
my suggestion is that in due course we split out the relationships to a sub-article as already discussed, substituting a comprehensive summary in this article, but not split anything else out. PL290 ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
CHANGE HIS NAME TO "SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY! HE WAS KNIGHTED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.31.43 ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) and he is a legend ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.171.153 ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on the MBE link which took me to a page which explained what that means.. however it says that the "sir" only applies to the top 2 (knight commander and knight grand cross) ranks... so the question is: is t sir paul or is the link wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.244.12 ( talk) 10:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The word "Macca" appears several times in Notes but "Macca" isn't anywhere else on the page. Shouldn't it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.90.65 ( talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It is now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You have proved the point that Rhone stating she had a miscarriage in 1960 was wrong, as she would have been too young. Rhone's memory is faulty, or the interviewer's ears.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a 'clarification needed' tag next to the remark about Paul living with the Ashers (here's the dif); I've found a reference to this on page 107 of Tony Barrow's book "Paul McCartney now & then..." here on Google Books. I'm not exactly sure how to format a ref for something from Google Books - if someone could, please. Radiopathy •talk• 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a reference to McCartney losing the rights to perform his own songs when Michael Jackson bought them? I read at the weekend that Jackson had sold most of his interest in them to pay debts so there was now little chance of McCartney ever buying them back, but there are a number web sites saying he was leaving them to McCartney in his will, and this one says he did. However, the text of his will is here and there's no mention of McCartney at all. Richerman ( talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Response: I bring your attention to this: "I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now". Does this not sound rather arrogant and self-opinionated? “"I will”, “final determination” and “seven days from now”? Is this a threat by McCartney’s Landlord? It certainly seems so.
What about "This article will be monitored, and a final decision will be made" AFTER consultation with the people that actually work on it, via the talk page.
Let’s go back to the comments: “In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass”, and, “I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader.”
“It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair-use image in the article.”
Let me explain: ““It is unclear to me”, means you need an explanation. Why don’t you ask for one? “It is the only Fair-use image in the article.” Only ONE Fair-use image in a whole article? Doesn’t that say enough about a photo that could NEVER be replaced with a free-use photo?
“It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD”. It wouldn’t hurt, but would it FAIL a GA review? The mind boggles.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Dot Rhone is going back in, because no explanation is needed.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Some information on the publishing rights. [6] -- Roujan ( talk) 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Musical career section, under the After The Beatles sub-topic, might it be best should the paragraph's second sentence, which begins as: After releasing the solo album McCartney in 1970..., might it be best if it were to read instead as: After releasing his solo album... in other words, changeing "the" to "his".?.?.!.!... Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney's article lead mightily should read as: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is a... Might somebody, one of the veteran editors, change this?. Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is the most successful musician and composer in the entire history of popular music. (The rest of that sentence could be used someplace in another sentence.) Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea... how about a partial restoration of this sub-topic, which could probably be made smaller and more brief, a paragraph pertaining to each girl, maybe:
Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, Heather Mills' article is the biggest. It might have something to do with her 'laughing gear' being open most of the time.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There were a number of deadlinks. All have now been fixed. One statement, "On 28 July 1968, The Beatles were photographed ... with McCartney wearing a Liverpool F.C. rosette" could not be sourced, so the statement's been removed by this edit. If someone deems this important to go back then it will need a source. PL290 ( talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is incredibly unneutral in favour of McCartney. It reads more of a publicity article than it does an encyclopedia. There is no mention in the slightest of the critique of McCartney's numerous poorly critically received projects and solo albums. Nor is there any of the criticism of his perceived public persona. Jacob Richardson ( talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"People also assumed that Lennon was the 'hard-edged one', and McCartney was the 'soft-edged' Beatle,[18] although McCartney admitted to 'bossing Lennon around.'[231] Linda McCartney said that McCartney had a 'hard-edge'—and not just on the surface—which she knew about after all the years she had spent living with him.[18] [232] McCartney seemed to confirm this edge when he commented that he sometimes meditates, which he said is better than "sleeping, eating, or shouting at someone".[161] Isn't that enough?-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Paul's page is the least neutral I have seen on wiki. How is "he is responsible for 32 hits" neutral, he co-wrote 27 of them. And why are all of his record breaking accomplishments listed at least twice in full detail? GabeMc ( talk) 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Jacob Richardson. This article has a serious NPOV problem.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice the article has a mixture of footnote styles, with some including the title of a work defined in the References section. I suggest we standardize to one style, and personally I don't think there's any need to keep repeating the title as well as the year when the work is defined in References. (Except in the unlikely event that the section lists more than one work by that author in that year.) See WP:CITESHORT#Shortened footnotes. PL290 ( talk) 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone added Michael Jackson to the associated artists list again, which was reverted; Stevie Wonder was already on the list and survived the revert. I personally don't think either one belongs there, but if we do include Stevie, we must also include Jacko, yes? Radiopathy ?talk? 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, eight days a week later, and someone else added Jacko, someone else reverted, and we're still left with Stevie Wonder. Smash or Trash? Radiopathy •talk• 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello my old veteran editor friends... O.K., I hope you don't mind of me taking Stevie Wonder ("Ebony & Ivory") out of the infobox, as he, like Michael Jackson ("Say Say Say"), whose not in it either, had appeared only on a one-time collaboration project with McCartney. Carl Davis appeared only on Paul's debut classical album, the entire project, too, and he's not even listed. If Carl Davis and MJ are not listed in the infobox, then Stevie cannot be, in the best interest of being equal and fair. So, I am removing him from the infobox. I agree with you absolutely on this, Rod. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly known as User talk:76.198.234.254)
Why is there nothing about the Paul is dead urban legend on this page? 76.127.235.42 ( talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Why though if the legend was fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.9 ( talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know the rest of these names not shown in the discography? -- Discographer ( talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how is Paul McCartney the most successful songwriter and singer in the history of popular music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 ( talk) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor 75.68.57.211 must have been hiding in Fritzl's cellar for quite awhile.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the first section not give Paul 100% credit for all the hits he was a co-writer on. It says he was responsible for 32 hits when it should say he was a writer or co-writer. Wings had 6 #1s in America, Linda helped him write 3 of them. GabeMc ( talk) 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this newly added "Influence on others" section with Ramones info is relevant to the article. It doesn't demonstrate anything notable about McCartney beyond fame (something which is self-evident without such examples). "Paul McCartney often signed into hotels under the alias "Paul Ramon". Douglas Colvin read of this added an 'e' to the end of that surname and changed his name to Dee Dee Ramone. Dee Dee's band adopted the name of the Ramones. All of the band members all adopted the surname 'Ramone'.[241] [242] [243]" PL290 ( talk) 07:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at John's river, and it was high. Superbowl audition. Jacksonville, Fla. unworthy... Manta is a nice name for a peace of music. Starcharms 75.202.12.59 ( talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention of how acrimonious the divorce between Macca and Heather Mills was? Surely, there should be some mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.35.62 ( talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I see details of personal life in colourful detail for many other living personalities and there's no mention of anything at all here, considering how much attention it got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.193.145 ( talk) 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Rutles? That was George.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose inserting "international icon" in the first sentence. McCartney is without a doubt an international icon. Dougmac7 ( talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"...one of the reporters asked "Very early?" McCartney said "yeah" and then asked the reporters if they all knew, they added "yeah." McCartney then said, "It's a drag, isn't it?""
- Well, this is simply not true! He didn't ask them "if they all knew" (there was no need for him to ask them whether they knew about John's death as this was the main topic of the interview!) his question for the reporters was "Done there, yeah?" meaning that the reporters were done recording this interview, and then he said "Drag, isn't it?" meaning that the interview was just terrible. Just check this video on "Youtube" and you'll see it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZh_BqJqKns
Paul said that the interview was a "drag" mainly to let the reporters know that their questions were just damn stupid. Trikita ( talk) 08:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This was made to sound like a wording thing but watch Paul say it, it's a lame response by any standard. It's not the reporters fault, Paul is granting them some answers, he does not have to. Paul later overcompensated when George died. I'm sure George would have laughed a blue streak hearing Paul call him his "younger brother". GabeMc ( talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sure he has a decent record collection at home and could have easily avoided the press that day. GabeMc ( talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
John Cardinal said: {{cquote|"morning-after interview"]]
It wasn't an interview or the morning, Paul stopped and talked for about 20 seconds, and it was late afternoon-early evening. "I was just shocked you know. It's terrible news." It's a drag isn't it. Okay cheers, goodbye." [1] Have you even seen it? GabeMc ( talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | I think McCartney's original reaction was lame, but I sure hope (A) no close friend of mine is murdered. | ” |
You don't know Lennon very well, that is clear, he was not "close friends" with Paul when he died, and had not been close with him for over 12 years. Lennon would laugh if he heard Paul say that, IMHO. GabeMc ( talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added Sir Paul's coat of arms. Cheers. A1 Aardvark ( talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The coat of arms description makes no sense... Mpd1989 ( talk) 13:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I might be a little off with this, but does anyone else think the whole Paul is Dead conspiracy be mentioned? 174.126.114.155 ( talk) 05:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I was listening to Paul McCartney's song on the radio today "Let It Be" and wondered if he were a Catholic since the song refers to "Mother Mary". I could not find anything in this article discussing his religious beliefs although a quick search on Googlebooks reveals he was baptised in the Catholic Church, his mom was Catholic, dad was Protestant, and they agreed to raise their boys Catholic. It would be nice to know if he did or did not practice this faith and have some part of the article discuss this important part of most people's lives. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul is not catholic, Mother Mary is his mother, whose name was Mary. GabeMc ( talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "responsible" implies solely, or by his own efforts alone but least 24 of Paul's hits are co-credited to at least one other writer.
20 of these hits were Beatles songs, 3 McCartney co-wrote with Linda, and one with Michael Jackson.
I suggest writer or co-writer is better than "responsible". GabeMc ( talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This is straight from Guinness:
“ | "Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008). [2] | ” |
Even Guinness uses written/co-written versus "responsible".
Paul had 9 #1 hits in America, if you include all 21 Beatles hits you can get him to 30, but man, that's reaching, he had virtually nothing to do with at least 8 of those Beatles hits, and of those 30, 25 are co-written. If 25 of 30 are co-credited, than how can he be "responsible" for them all.? GabeMc ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
But if we use written/co-written, then we would have to take "For You Blue" off the list, it is credited soley to Harrison. But we can still include the Peter and Gordon hit Paul wrote. So he should be at 30 tops. You can justify giving him EVERY Lennon/McCartney, but come on, the Harrison songs too. 20 beatles hits, 10 paul hits seems like the best choice for original research. GabeMc ( talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, my friend. I'm a Beatles' fan since 28 years. Since 28 years, I always read that The Beatles obtained twenty (20) singles number one in USA during their career (1964-1970). And nobody has ever disputed this number. I can cite this 20 singles, but my friend, concerning < For You Blue >, i don't understand.
Are you sure of being right?
Look this fabulous link : [9].
Like you see, in USA on May 11, 1970, the single < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > was released. It was the song < The Long And Winding Road > who became number one. Why on your link, they wrote < For You Blue > number one.??? Because it's the B.side of < The Long And Winding Road >. If so, it's a mistake. And it's easy to prove it. Look carefully your link and compare with my link. Except < For You Blue >, the other B.side are not counted number one.
So, Why only the B. side < For You Blue > is counted number one.?
Now, look this other link : [10]
1 - You can see the single < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > number one.
For me ir's clear, it's one single who became number one. (it's not two songs who became number one)
And it's easy to prove it : Look the single < Come Together / Something >, it's the single who became number one, not the two songs : Now, look your link : < Come Together > reached number one, but not < Something >
So why on your site [11], they count 2 songs number one for one single - < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > and for another single - < Come Together / Something > they count only 1 song number one.
For me it's clear, it's a mistake. But, if it's not a mistake, please my friend, I want an explanation.
I don't want to die idiot. (lol)
-- Roujan ( talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is my position : I'm sure that officially the group The Beatles obtained 20 singles number one in USA. Look this link. It comes from Billboard 1998
<If Carey moves up one slot next issue, she will collect her 13th N°1. That will tie her with Michael Jackson in third place among artists with the most chart-topping singles, behind only the Beatles (20) and Elvis Presley (17)> -- Roujan ( talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
John, look at Paul's article objectively, and check the source for his 32 us hits, it's a 23 minute BBC interview with Mishal Husain, while Paul was in Denver, Colorado in 2005 for a show, with no confirmation WHATSOEVER of 32 US hits.
Also, you say his 32 hits were cited below and you took the time to revert my edit, but you didn't bother to check. Not if the fact in question is the same as below, which it isn't, below it says 29 US #1s, or if the source is valid, which it isn't, it has the invalid source mentioned above.
Here is the citation that you used to revert my edits, tell me I was wrong, the same citation for Paul's 32 US #1s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4414102.stm
All I added was "citation needed".
BTW, I saw Paul at that show in Denver, he rocked hard! Amazing to do Helter Skelter in your encore, and nail it! GabeMc ( talk) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This source is not only a boring 23 minutes long, it does not confirm any US hits, let alone 32 #1s. Have fun wasting your time watching it. A tactic perhaps? Cite a source, with a long boring interview, and nobody will check it. Just noob editors like me. GabeMc ( talk) 03:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Great revision to 31 John, you rememberd that Michael Jackson wrote "The Girl is Mine", but "Let Em In" wasn't a Billboard Hot 100 #1, it peaked at number three, but did top the Adult Contemporary chart, but here in America, that would get a chuckle, so unless #3 counts as #1, it's 30 #1s in the U.S.
Paul had 9 #1 hits in America, if you include all 21 Beatles hits you can get him to 30, but man, that's reaching, he had virtually nothing to do with at least 8 of those, and of those 30, 25 are co-written. GabeMc ( talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Plus, isn't what you are doing now "self research", since you do not have a valid source staing Paul's total U.S. #1s? GabeMc ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Paul's Hot 100 #1 hits in America.
1)"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" co-written with Linda McCartney 2) "My Love" co-written with Linda McCartney 3) "Band on the Run" co-written with Linda McCartney 4) "Listen to What the Man Said" 5) "Silly Love Songs" 6) "With a Little Luck" 7) "Coming Up (Live at Glasgow)" 8) "Ebony and Ivory" 9) "Say Say Say" co-written with Michael Jackson 10) "A World Without Love" a Lennon/McCartney credit performed by "Peter and Gordon".
So yes, if you count "For You Blue", a song credited soley to Harrison, and if Paul was "responsible" for ALL 21 Beatles hits you can get Paul up to 31. GabeMc ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Of those 31 credits 24 were co-written, 1 was not even written by Paul. GabeMc ( talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
John Cardinal said:
“ | Paul was a member of The Beatles when "For You Blue" was released, and the text explains what number ones were listed. | ” |
Wrong again John, the text says he "was responsible for", and "For You Blue" is used in that tally. Maybe you should check the text before correcting me all the time. GabeMc ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. | ” |
GabeMc ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I dispute giving Paul an extra hit for a Harrison song, he made no co-writing agreement with George, but I will let it go, and accept that on WP all 21 Hot 100 Beatles hits go to each Beatle, and their hit tallies start at 21. GabeMc ( talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I know how Guinness got to 33 #1s. If you don't count "For You Blue", Paul had 20 with the Beatles, 11 more with his name on it in America, and two hits in the UK that were not hits in America, "Pipes of Peace" and "Mull of Kintyre". GabeMc ( talk) 00:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this needed in the intro? I don't think so.
Or if it is, maybe we should list all of Paul's hits that were not "composed entirely by McCartney". GabeMc ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows "Yesterday" was Paul's song, this only clutters the intro and helps only the most challenged of Beatles fans. GabeMc ( talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not suitable writing for the intro. GabeMc ( talk) 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Since nobody has counted since 1965, this has got to be an estimate, plus this is not the best source(I mean the article not the BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/569537.stm
And it merely states:
“ | McCartney's Yesterday earns US accolade
Sir Paul McCartney's Yesterday is the most played song by a British writer this century in the US, it has been revealed. The track is the only one by a UK writer to have been aired more than seven million times on American TV and radio and is third in the all-time list You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' made famous by The Righteous Brothers topped the league as the only song to have been played more than eight million times. |
” |
GabeMc ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
PM needs a citation for 60 gold discs and 100 million singles sold, I don't have the book handy or I would cite it. GabeMc ( talk) 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
McCartney is listed in Guinness World Records as the most successful musician and composer in popular music history, with 60 gold discs and sales of 100 million singles
-- Roujan ( talk) 10:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, friend.
A copy of Guinness World Records ?...No. Is it possible to obtain a direct information by Guinness World Records ? I think no.
Look
1 - [13]
Now write, < Guinness World Records > and you get this : [14].
And now, you can get zero information, simply because < Guinness World Records > gives no information. So, i'm sorry but i'll try to find another solution.
-- Roujan ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Does the Guinness World Records entry really deserve two mentions in the lead? GoingBatty ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You can get to 32 if you include Elton John's cover of "Lucy" with Lennon on guitar and back-up vocals, which was a Hot 100 #1 in 1975. GabeMc ( talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching the discussion based around defining a list of number one songs McCartney was "responsible for", based on the use of that phrase in the lead. The figure now includes a variety of different things. I propose we tackle this another way, for two reasons:
So I suggest it would be better if we tackle this the other way round:
PL290 ( talk) 09:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
To GabeMc : Elvis obtained 17 singles N#1, but if i use your method, Elvis obtained zero singles N#1.
Michael Jackson with his solo career + Jackson5 + (say say say with Paul McCartney) obtained 18 singles n#1 , but if i use your method Michael Jackson obtained 8 n#1 ( say say say is a collaboration with McCartney, and others number one was composed by other composers.
Are you agree?
-- Roujan ( talk) 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A friend of ours said Paul made 'slant-eye' photos after being released from Japanese jail and that the photos were on one of his albums? I cannot find them. True or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see the sleeve pics, cannot find. Would you have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
To me, this seems out of place in the intro, and it belongs elsewhere IMHO. GabeMc ( talk) 02:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of this:
McCartney is the most successful songwriter in UK singles chart history, based on weeks that his compositions have spent on the chart, and as a performer or songwriter, McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, and has sold 15.5 million RIAA certified albums in the US alone.
I suggest this:
Based on weeks that his compositions have spent on the chart, and 24 number one singles to his credit, McCartney is the most successful songwriter in UK singles chart history. As a performer or songwriter, McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, and has sold 15.5 million RIAA certified albums in the US alone. GabeMc ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of this:
“ | Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942) is an English singer-songwriter, poet, composer, multi-instrumentalist, entrepreneur, record and film producer, painter, and animal rights and peace activist. | ” |
This:
“ | Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942) is an English singer-songwriter, composer, multi-instrumentalist, poet, painter, and animal rights activist. | ” |
Any objections to removing entrepreneur, record and film producer, and peace activist from the lead? GabeMc ( talk) 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Discographer, good points on the activism, I am 35, and I don't remember him doing any Peace stuff at all, but I am sure he did. GabeMc ( talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I moved "poet" to procede "painter", as suggested. GabeMc ( talk) 21:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree, thanks for the input, I was not aware that Paul produced albums for other artists, do you have any good examples? GabeMc ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of some more good examples of Paul being a Peace Activist? I am trying to compile a list. -- GabeMc ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I set-up the references to be sfn compatible. I will convert as many citations as I can but would welcome some help. GabeMc ( talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Musical Career section, it says "By May 1960, they had tried several new names, including 'Johnny and The Moondogs', 'The Nerk Twins', and 'The Silver Beetles'".
I suggest removing The Nerk Twins. That name was never really seriously considered for the band; it was just what John and Paul called themselves when the two of them were performing in Paul's cousin's pub in Berkshire.
My limited research shows it was "The Silver Beatles" (not Beetles) (I know you did a cut and paste); I have edited the line in the article already and invited correction if my spelling change is wrong.Bull Market 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In the concert programme for his 1989 world tour, McCartney wrote that Lennon received all the credit for being the avant-garde Beatle,[65] and McCartney was known as "baby-faced", which he disagreed with.[237]
Presently the second to last paragraph of the article has the above sentence without enough specificity to identify who things what about who, i.e. too many pronouns/instances of non-specificity. This paragraph needs some clarification.Bull Market 01:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it true Paul contributed to Brave New World (Steve Miller Band album) as "Paul Ramon?" It's mentioned in the article but there are no sources for it. ~DC Talk To Me 06:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
An IP keeps changing "English" to "British" without discussion. We've had this discussion before with regard to whether The Beatles were a British or an English band, and the consensus was "English". I feel that that description here is perfectly fine as well. Radiopathy •talk• 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
So we wouldn't, then, include The Beatles in a list of 60s so-called 'British Invasion' bands? 86.158.126.1 ( talk) 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)andrew_w_munro
http://genrootsblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/paul-mccartney-at-64-liverpool-and.html-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"British" might be Scottish or Irish," Ireland is not connected to Briton in anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.47.3 ( talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, but Northern Ireland most certainly is. Radiopathy •talk• 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that United Kingdom and UK have come and gone from the infobox a few times in the past few days. Is the consensus that the sovereign state is unnecessary - that England is considered the "country"? I have no real objection personally to include United Kingdom - or actually "UK" to keep the infobox uncluttered. Radiopathy •talk• 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we set up automated archiving of this talk page using MiszaBot. If there are no objections I'll set it up presently. PL290 ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I find this to be somewhat excessive:
Like John Lennon, McCartney is primarily known as a singer-songwriter. The lead of Lennon's now featured article refers to him only as such in it s opening sentence, elaborating upon his other interests in the article's infobox and other sections. I'd favour McCartney's to do the same. Sir Richardson ( talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Sir Richardson ( talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
This section contains the sentence "Public figures called for McCartney to be tried by a jury for drug-smuggling." Can we clarify this, as - perhaps suprisingly - there are no juries in the Japanese criminal system. Does the author mean that there was some dispute over whether Japanese law was fair in this sense, or has the author simply added "by a jury" without realising that this would have been an impossibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.75.56 ( talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an example of vandalism isn't it. 'One of McCartney's first girlfriends was called Layla, whom McCartney remembered as having an unusual name in Liverpool at the time. Layla was slightly older than McCartney and used to ask him to baby-sit with her, which was a code word for sex.'. I won't remove it myself as I don't know for sure - AresAndEnyo ( talk) 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It was taken from Miles' book, by yours truly. I'll repeat the reference.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done it, but 10 points go to AresAndEnyo, because it did look like vandalism, and the name of the girl mysteriously changes to various other ones from time to time (old Romeo Macca must have put it about a bit... :).-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The section on 2000s is getting bloated. It appears that editors are starting to put in a paragraph about every concert that Paul McCartney takes part in. I think this section needs some serious trimming, any other thoughts? Jons63 ( talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It should be chopped out if it's in Paul McCartney (solo), which is close to GA status, if anyone wants to take it there.-- andreasegde ( talk) 05:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 07:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be more accurate stats on his show in Québec City. Estimates say 250 000 people that could be filmed with the helicopter but it excludes a large portion of the crowd that was sitting rather than standing and therfore out of reach of light. I've heard Radio Estimate calling up to 85 000 people filling in the dark. Need to add the (atleast) 10 000 people from lévis and the couple thousands that were at the Parliament/behind the site and Higher on the plains and in other nearby parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.156.117 ( talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Heyjudesample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this 1989 recorded interview with Paul McCartney. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits and relevance, and hope that an editor will find the time to check out the interview and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the external links section of this page. I appreciate your time.
Crawdaddy!
[1]
Mike harkin (
talk) 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this picture is one of the best pictures we have in WP for McCartney. It's a good depiction of McCartney with his band, of the special atmosphere of the performance, and adds significantly to the visuality of the article. I've put it in the center in appropriate width. Thoughts? Noon ( talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is their nothing about the Beatles on this page? I understand that they have their own page but The Beatles were his launching pad and his most famous band.-- 72.16.114.224 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of this section in the article - they're "dating", fine. Do we include a section on anyone he dates? Do we have verifiable sourcing that this is a "relationship"? Also, this is not the place for a bio of Shevell: if she is notable enough - and I don't know that she is - then set up a separate article for her. But her bio details do not belong here, even though they are sourced and I removed them. Finally, the entry was poorly worded, ungrammatical, and unevenly cited. I think the section should be removed completely pending something more significant about a relationship. Tvoz/ talk 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does this douche bag Alan Durband have a prominent place and picture in this article ? Seems like someone self-serving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.159.93 ( talk) 06:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not notable that McCartney is a football fan. That would seem to be true of a lot of people in England, and a few more in Europe... I suggest that section be deleted. — John Cardinal ( talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There are citations, and "The Beatles never were reported as commenting upon any preference for a local club", is also cited in the referenced pages, as in "Did any of the Beatles ever express an interest in football, in particular whether they favoured Liverpool or Everton," asks Steven Draper, "or did they steer clear of the subject for fear of alienating potential fans?" which is ref #300, or thereabouts...-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, now... "get a grip" is a light-hearted comment that anyone might say to a colleague, and is meant as nothing more than a "little joshing", as an American might say (or not? :) I won't even comment on your answers above, because that would only waste time, as we both know. I apologised about my zeal for keeping references on your page (before I read this page, BTW) but my opinion of you still stands. You're a good man, John, and I know we heartily disagree sometimes (ouch!) but I respect you, even despite the disagreements. I can't say fairer than that, can I? (ouch!.. :))-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sir John Cardinal, you are a scholar and a gentleman, as I always suspected, but now know to be true. :)-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyway... I would agree with you that the whole 'Football' section was badly written (by me, mostly... ouch!) and should be smoothed over with a stiff brush, but not cut. I still stand by its inclusion in the article because of the references, but mostly because it contains info (and a quote from Linda) that shows a side of 'Macca' that was not really known until it was included in this article. Shouldn't Wikipedia be better than the others because of its depth of detail? I think the Brian Epstein article is brilliant, because it says almost everything about the man, and it was once quoted as being very factual in an English national newspaper. (Kingboyk knows about this). I am more than willing to discuss this.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Not yet official, but: April 4th 2009 Paul will give a benefit concert for the David Lynch Foundation and in memoriam Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Location: New York City. -- Josha52 ( talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am new here; I added some lines on 12/10/08 and then removed them because I have not been a part of the creation of this excellent summary about McCartney. What do you think abt this type of opening, something like this: PMcCartney is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential musicians, performers and songwriters ever. He is perhaps the most famous living musician and celebrity in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello- thank you TwoRoads and Tvoz (and thank u tvoz for your positive comments); thanks for the constructive input. I simply think readers (especially those who do not understand how important McCartney is) to understand McCartney's greatness and importance to music, entertainment and the world. I think it is hard to put it into words. On wikipedia and elsewhere, I like to 'give credit where credit is due', if you know what I mean. Perhaps there are polls and features that list the "Top 100 most influential musicians in history" and so forth, etc, etc, and surely McCartney will be at the top of the list. I will always discuss before adding anything. Thanks.(btw, I am a writer with a passion for the truth...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Macca has joined the One Little Indian record company. [2] I suppose this means he doesn't get any more free coffee from Starbucks, huh? :)-- 90.146.214.190 ( talk) 14:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"McCartney has claimed that it was he, and not Lennon, who made The Beatles aware of political issues". I have put this in (with a reference) but in all honesty it seems as if Lennon's title idea for a McCartney solo album, Paul McCartney Goes Too Far, has really come true. Johnny must be bristling (in that Japanese stone vase that Yoko keeps him in)...-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was him. The bloke with two thumbs up in the air. Not sure about him being best mates with Sutcliffe. I recently read that Lennon wanted to shag him (Macca) as "Bohemians should be open to everything", but Macca's fondness for breasts and dislike of 'members' got in the way. The revelations sure do shed a new light on those happenings in Hamburg...-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and since when was Paul a peace activist? GabeMc ( talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently in "Many Years From Now" Paul claims to have been the first person to get Mick Jaggar high, Mick disputes this. GabeMc ( talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC) where the f*** is your problem, surely paul is a peace activist, ever heard of no more land mines campaign, the concert for new york, everything he does for PETA and much more.
and at least he and john got mick and keith hooked up on wirting their own songs, that's a feat i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.134 ( talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
When are Wikipedia editors going to learn that stopping vandals is just as important as teaching new users how to format references properly? The enemies may be within the walls, but the defenders don't know how to hold a bow and arrow.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added Kt to the intro, just before MBE, because without it it can be confusing to those not familiar with Brit titles. For instance, I did a google and discovered just how muddled some people can be. One of the most popular answer sites on the web says the following -- "Sir James Paul McCartney recieved his MBE because of (unlike a lot of other ridiculous reasons for unnecessarily giving knighthoods away) his contributions to the music industry." Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|supp=
(
help)). 17 March 2003.
David Underdown (
talk) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The image File:Heyjudesample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
McCartney seems to be the first major rock star in the world who is also known as a stamp designer.:
Please do not add content without
citing
reliable sources, as you did to
Paul McCartney. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ward3001 (
talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When will this page be PROTECTED? It's about time...-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney is an influential bass player, with a unique sound. He practically introduced the world to what an electric bass is and sounds like (that Hofner is iconic). How come no text in here about that? - Guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.244.4 ( talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
come on guys, make this article, i would make it myself if i only would know how to describe bass playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.231.8 ( talk) 11:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's incredible, Paul McCartney was one of the most influential Bassist of the history of pop music, and there is absolutely nothing on the main page. [3]
< Jack Bruce, ace of bass. Who are the best bass players of all time? ‘Simple,’ Jack Bruce says. ‘Jamerson, McCartney, Pastorius and me’ >
STANLEY CLARKE: < Paul definitely had an influence on my bass playing, not so much technically, but more with his philosophy of melodic bass liens-especially as I hit my teens and the Beatles' records became more adventurous >
WILL LEE: < "Growing up in Texas in the early '60s, I was so obsessed with the Beatles' music that I didn't feel like a fan, I felt like I was in the Beatles. About the same time I switched from drums to bass I became aware of who gave the band its charm and personality, from visual tunes like "Penny Lane" to the group's repartee wtih the press. It was the same fellow who was able to take a poor-quality instrument like the Hofner bass and create magic on it. I especially dug Paul's funky, Motown-influenced side, evident in the bass line from Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey," or even in the syncopated part from "A Day In The Life." Paul's influence on bassists has been so wide-spread over numerous generations that ther's no denying he's in everybody's playing at this point. We're all descendants. He played simple and solid when it was called for. But because he had so many different flavors to add to a song, he was able to take the instrument far beyond a supportive role. Paul taught the bass how to sing.>
BILLY SHEEHAN: < The reason I got involved with music in the first place was because I saw the Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show." I watched all the girls going crazy, and I figured this was thebest business in the world to be in. Later on, when I got more deeply into music, "Sgt. Pepper" was a break-through record for me. I must have listened to it several hundred times. What intrigued me was how totally musical every aspect of it wasespecially Paul's melodic, fluid bass lines. When my band Talas was starting in the mid '70s [the Beatles' tribute show] Beatlemania was big, and we used to play entire gigs of just Beatles tunes. I've learned so much from Paul about playing, writing, and playing and singing at the same time that I should probably start sending him checks. Most bassists get into the flashy players, but I think the reason Paul is often overlooked is that what he was doing wasn't really obvious. It was so brilliantly woven into the context of the songs. One of my favorites is the bass line from 'Rain.' I still use it to test the low end of an amp. That Paul happens to play bass is a great boon to all of us, because he made us realize that there are no limitations to being a bass player. >
STING: < It's hard to separate McCartney's influence on my bass playing from his influence on everything else-singing, songwriting, even becoming a musician in the first place. As a child, I would play my Beatles albums at 45 RPM so I could hear the bass better. He's the Guvnor.>
Tomorrow i will give others links
-- Roujan ( talk) 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
In 2000, Guitar magazine : Bassist of the millennium [5]
1 - John Entwistle
2 - Paul McCartney
-- Roujan ( talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Paul's bass playing is one of his most defining features, I think there should be a section devoted to his bass playing. It would be easy to ammass several respected quotes about his influence on the forgotten rock guitar, the bass. In 1980, John Lennon said "Paul was one of the most innovative bass players ever. And half the stuff that is going on now is directly ripped off from his Beatles period." GabeMc ( talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's because medias (non competent about music) don't talk about Bass, so even the fans of The Beatles don't talk about Paul the Bassist. And it's incredible, because this guy was one of the most influential bassist of history of popular music of the 20th century. -- Roujan ( talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone just added Elvis Costello to the list of Associated acts. Well, I don't know anything about that. And while we're on the subject, would it be wrong to add Michael Jackson to associated acts? I don't know what properly constitutes "associated acts", which is why I ask. Belasted ( talk) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Paul has an MBE, and we've all heard him called "Sir Paul" by the media. Yet the Wikipedia article Order of the British Empire explicitly states 'Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title "Sir" (male) or "Dame" (female) before their first name.' Perhaps the MBE is his award from the 60's (the one Lennon gave back) and McCartney has since got KBE? If so article should be changed. Can someone please clarify this situation? -- Boston ( talk) 10:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The page is quite long. Some material could be cut that is already present in other articles, but I don't think that would make a big difference. On the other hand, we could drop the size considerably by moving entire sections to other articles. For example, the Relationships section is probably long enough to warrant a dedicated article. Please offer an opinion, and if you favor a specific move, please describe it. Thanks. — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, that means the "Relationships" section could become a GA in its own right. Hmmm.... :)-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that we should also consider the headers in the TOC that have the most standalone content on them. These are the most likely to be improved to GA,A, or FA status, and are generally larger sections that when removed would cut down the article size the best. -- Floydian τ γ 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) "musical career after The Beatles" isn't terrible, but it defines the topic based on what it isn't rather than what it is. I agree that "solo" is restrictive, but personally I like it better than "musical career after The Beatles". Most of the albums he released from 1970 on, except for Wings, and even when collaborating, were credited to him alone. (I'm thinking of work with Elvis Costello, for example, rather than Liverpool Oratorio.) it would help if there were a pithy contributor to this discussion! — John Cardinal ( talk) 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Musical career now summarised. I'm still organizing/deduplicating the resulting material in the career article. Looking at the main article now, it strikes me marriages and relationships could possibly stay after all should probably still be replaced by a summary and its detail be moved to a new sub-article—thoughts on this? Someone may feel like doing this, especially if anyone feels it needs expanding at all. I'm not saying it does, just that that's of relevance to the split question.
PL290 (
talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages still seems to be a good candidate for a sub-article. PL290 ( talk) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the {{ Split-apart}} tag as requested by the GA Reassessment. Taking three things into account:
my suggestion is that in due course we split out the relationships to a sub-article as already discussed, substituting a comprehensive summary in this article, but not split anything else out. PL290 ( talk) 15:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
CHANGE HIS NAME TO "SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY! HE WAS KNIGHTED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.31.43 ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC) and he is a legend ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.171.153 ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on the MBE link which took me to a page which explained what that means.. however it says that the "sir" only applies to the top 2 (knight commander and knight grand cross) ranks... so the question is: is t sir paul or is the link wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.244.12 ( talk) 10:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The word "Macca" appears several times in Notes but "Macca" isn't anywhere else on the page. Shouldn't it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.90.65 ( talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It is now.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You have proved the point that Rhone stating she had a miscarriage in 1960 was wrong, as she would have been too young. Rhone's memory is faulty, or the interviewer's ears.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a 'clarification needed' tag next to the remark about Paul living with the Ashers (here's the dif); I've found a reference to this on page 107 of Tony Barrow's book "Paul McCartney now & then..." here on Google Books. I'm not exactly sure how to format a ref for something from Google Books - if someone could, please. Radiopathy •talk• 04:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a reference to McCartney losing the rights to perform his own songs when Michael Jackson bought them? I read at the weekend that Jackson had sold most of his interest in them to pay debts so there was now little chance of McCartney ever buying them back, but there are a number web sites saying he was leaving them to McCartney in his will, and this one says he did. However, the text of his will is here and there's no mention of McCartney at all. Richerman ( talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Response: I bring your attention to this: "I will be monitoring responses on this page and then make a final determination on the article's rating after seven days from now". Does this not sound rather arrogant and self-opinionated? “"I will”, “final determination” and “seven days from now”? Is this a threat by McCartney’s Landlord? It certainly seems so.
What about "This article will be monitored, and a final decision will be made" AFTER consultation with the people that actually work on it, via the talk page.
Let’s go back to the comments: “In all honesty, if I had to make a pass or fail without any editorial changes on this article I would pass”, and, “I am especially pleased with its extensive citations, which greatly aid the reader.”
“It is unclear to me why File:Paul and Dot Rhone.jpg is essential to the article. It is the only Fair-use image in the article.”
Let me explain: ““It is unclear to me”, means you need an explanation. Why don’t you ask for one? “It is the only Fair-use image in the article.” Only ONE Fair-use image in a whole article? Doesn’t that say enough about a photo that could NEVER be replaced with a free-use photo?
“It would not hurt to structure the WP:LEAD”. It wouldn’t hurt, but would it FAIL a GA review? The mind boggles.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Dot Rhone is going back in, because no explanation is needed.-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Some information on the publishing rights. [6] -- Roujan ( talk) 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Musical career section, under the After The Beatles sub-topic, might it be best should the paragraph's second sentence, which begins as: After releasing the solo album McCartney in 1970..., might it be best if it were to read instead as: After releasing his solo album... in other words, changeing "the" to "his".?.?.!.!... Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Paul McCartney's article lead mightily should read as: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is a... Might somebody, one of the veteran editors, change this?. Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Sir James Paul McCartney MBE (born 18 June 1942), formerly of The Beatles and Wings, is the most successful musician and composer in the entire history of popular music. (The rest of that sentence could be used someplace in another sentence.) Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 21:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea... how about a partial restoration of this sub-topic, which could probably be made smaller and more brief, a paragraph pertaining to each girl, maybe:
Best, -- 76.198.234.254 ( talk) 17:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Funnily enough, Heather Mills' article is the biggest. It might have something to do with her 'laughing gear' being open most of the time.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
There were a number of deadlinks. All have now been fixed. One statement, "On 28 July 1968, The Beatles were photographed ... with McCartney wearing a Liverpool F.C. rosette" could not be sourced, so the statement's been removed by this edit. If someone deems this important to go back then it will need a source. PL290 ( talk) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is incredibly unneutral in favour of McCartney. It reads more of a publicity article than it does an encyclopedia. There is no mention in the slightest of the critique of McCartney's numerous poorly critically received projects and solo albums. Nor is there any of the criticism of his perceived public persona. Jacob Richardson ( talk) 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"People also assumed that Lennon was the 'hard-edged one', and McCartney was the 'soft-edged' Beatle,[18] although McCartney admitted to 'bossing Lennon around.'[231] Linda McCartney said that McCartney had a 'hard-edge'—and not just on the surface—which she knew about after all the years she had spent living with him.[18] [232] McCartney seemed to confirm this edge when he commented that he sometimes meditates, which he said is better than "sleeping, eating, or shouting at someone".[161] Isn't that enough?-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Paul's page is the least neutral I have seen on wiki. How is "he is responsible for 32 hits" neutral, he co-wrote 27 of them. And why are all of his record breaking accomplishments listed at least twice in full detail? GabeMc ( talk) 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Jacob Richardson. This article has a serious NPOV problem.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice the article has a mixture of footnote styles, with some including the title of a work defined in the References section. I suggest we standardize to one style, and personally I don't think there's any need to keep repeating the title as well as the year when the work is defined in References. (Except in the unlikely event that the section lists more than one work by that author in that year.) See WP:CITESHORT#Shortened footnotes. PL290 ( talk) 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone added Michael Jackson to the associated artists list again, which was reverted; Stevie Wonder was already on the list and survived the revert. I personally don't think either one belongs there, but if we do include Stevie, we must also include Jacko, yes? Radiopathy ?talk? 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, eight days a week later, and someone else added Jacko, someone else reverted, and we're still left with Stevie Wonder. Smash or Trash? Radiopathy •talk• 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello my old veteran editor friends... O.K., I hope you don't mind of me taking Stevie Wonder ("Ebony & Ivory") out of the infobox, as he, like Michael Jackson ("Say Say Say"), whose not in it either, had appeared only on a one-time collaboration project with McCartney. Carl Davis appeared only on Paul's debut classical album, the entire project, too, and he's not even listed. If Carl Davis and MJ are not listed in the infobox, then Stevie cannot be, in the best interest of being equal and fair. So, I am removing him from the infobox. I agree with you absolutely on this, Rod. Best, -- Discographer ( talk) 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly known as User talk:76.198.234.254)
Why is there nothing about the Paul is dead urban legend on this page? 76.127.235.42 ( talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Why though if the legend was fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.9 ( talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know the rest of these names not shown in the discography? -- Discographer ( talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone tell me how is Paul McCartney the most successful songwriter and singer in the history of popular music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.57.211 ( talk) 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor 75.68.57.211 must have been hiding in Fritzl's cellar for quite awhile.-- andreasegde ( talk) 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the first section not give Paul 100% credit for all the hits he was a co-writer on. It says he was responsible for 32 hits when it should say he was a writer or co-writer. Wings had 6 #1s in America, Linda helped him write 3 of them. GabeMc ( talk) 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this newly added "Influence on others" section with Ramones info is relevant to the article. It doesn't demonstrate anything notable about McCartney beyond fame (something which is self-evident without such examples). "Paul McCartney often signed into hotels under the alias "Paul Ramon". Douglas Colvin read of this added an 'e' to the end of that surname and changed his name to Dee Dee Ramone. Dee Dee's band adopted the name of the Ramones. All of the band members all adopted the surname 'Ramone'.[241] [242] [243]" PL290 ( talk) 07:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I looked at John's river, and it was high. Superbowl audition. Jacksonville, Fla. unworthy... Manta is a nice name for a peace of music. Starcharms 75.202.12.59 ( talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention of how acrimonious the divorce between Macca and Heather Mills was? Surely, there should be some mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.35.62 ( talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I see details of personal life in colourful detail for many other living personalities and there's no mention of anything at all here, considering how much attention it got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.193.145 ( talk) 09:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Rutles? That was George.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose inserting "international icon" in the first sentence. McCartney is without a doubt an international icon. Dougmac7 ( talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"...one of the reporters asked "Very early?" McCartney said "yeah" and then asked the reporters if they all knew, they added "yeah." McCartney then said, "It's a drag, isn't it?""
- Well, this is simply not true! He didn't ask them "if they all knew" (there was no need for him to ask them whether they knew about John's death as this was the main topic of the interview!) his question for the reporters was "Done there, yeah?" meaning that the reporters were done recording this interview, and then he said "Drag, isn't it?" meaning that the interview was just terrible. Just check this video on "Youtube" and you'll see it yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZh_BqJqKns
Paul said that the interview was a "drag" mainly to let the reporters know that their questions were just damn stupid. Trikita ( talk) 08:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This was made to sound like a wording thing but watch Paul say it, it's a lame response by any standard. It's not the reporters fault, Paul is granting them some answers, he does not have to. Paul later overcompensated when George died. I'm sure George would have laughed a blue streak hearing Paul call him his "younger brother". GabeMc ( talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sure he has a decent record collection at home and could have easily avoided the press that day. GabeMc ( talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
John Cardinal said: {{cquote|"morning-after interview"]]
It wasn't an interview or the morning, Paul stopped and talked for about 20 seconds, and it was late afternoon-early evening. "I was just shocked you know. It's terrible news." It's a drag isn't it. Okay cheers, goodbye." [1] Have you even seen it? GabeMc ( talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | I think McCartney's original reaction was lame, but I sure hope (A) no close friend of mine is murdered. | ” |
You don't know Lennon very well, that is clear, he was not "close friends" with Paul when he died, and had not been close with him for over 12 years. Lennon would laugh if he heard Paul say that, IMHO. GabeMc ( talk) 03:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added Sir Paul's coat of arms. Cheers. A1 Aardvark ( talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The coat of arms description makes no sense... Mpd1989 ( talk) 13:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I might be a little off with this, but does anyone else think the whole Paul is Dead conspiracy be mentioned? 174.126.114.155 ( talk) 05:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I was listening to Paul McCartney's song on the radio today "Let It Be" and wondered if he were a Catholic since the song refers to "Mother Mary". I could not find anything in this article discussing his religious beliefs although a quick search on Googlebooks reveals he was baptised in the Catholic Church, his mom was Catholic, dad was Protestant, and they agreed to raise their boys Catholic. It would be nice to know if he did or did not practice this faith and have some part of the article discuss this important part of most people's lives. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 19:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Paul is not catholic, Mother Mary is his mother, whose name was Mary. GabeMc ( talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "responsible" implies solely, or by his own efforts alone but least 24 of Paul's hits are co-credited to at least one other writer.
20 of these hits were Beatles songs, 3 McCartney co-wrote with Linda, and one with Michael Jackson.
I suggest writer or co-writer is better than "responsible". GabeMc ( talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This is straight from Guinness:
“ | "Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008). [2] | ” |
Even Guinness uses written/co-written versus "responsible".
Paul had 9 #1 hits in America, if you include all 21 Beatles hits you can get him to 30, but man, that's reaching, he had virtually nothing to do with at least 8 of those Beatles hits, and of those 30, 25 are co-written. If 25 of 30 are co-credited, than how can he be "responsible" for them all.? GabeMc ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
But if we use written/co-written, then we would have to take "For You Blue" off the list, it is credited soley to Harrison. But we can still include the Peter and Gordon hit Paul wrote. So he should be at 30 tops. You can justify giving him EVERY Lennon/McCartney, but come on, the Harrison songs too. 20 beatles hits, 10 paul hits seems like the best choice for original research. GabeMc ( talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, my friend. I'm a Beatles' fan since 28 years. Since 28 years, I always read that The Beatles obtained twenty (20) singles number one in USA during their career (1964-1970). And nobody has ever disputed this number. I can cite this 20 singles, but my friend, concerning < For You Blue >, i don't understand.
Are you sure of being right?
Look this fabulous link : [9].
Like you see, in USA on May 11, 1970, the single < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > was released. It was the song < The Long And Winding Road > who became number one. Why on your link, they wrote < For You Blue > number one.??? Because it's the B.side of < The Long And Winding Road >. If so, it's a mistake. And it's easy to prove it. Look carefully your link and compare with my link. Except < For You Blue >, the other B.side are not counted number one.
So, Why only the B. side < For You Blue > is counted number one.?
Now, look this other link : [10]
1 - You can see the single < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > number one.
For me ir's clear, it's one single who became number one. (it's not two songs who became number one)
And it's easy to prove it : Look the single < Come Together / Something >, it's the single who became number one, not the two songs : Now, look your link : < Come Together > reached number one, but not < Something >
So why on your site [11], they count 2 songs number one for one single - < The Long And Winding Road / For You Blue > and for another single - < Come Together / Something > they count only 1 song number one.
For me it's clear, it's a mistake. But, if it's not a mistake, please my friend, I want an explanation.
I don't want to die idiot. (lol)
-- Roujan ( talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is my position : I'm sure that officially the group The Beatles obtained 20 singles number one in USA. Look this link. It comes from Billboard 1998
<If Carey moves up one slot next issue, she will collect her 13th N°1. That will tie her with Michael Jackson in third place among artists with the most chart-topping singles, behind only the Beatles (20) and Elvis Presley (17)> -- Roujan ( talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
John, look at Paul's article objectively, and check the source for his 32 us hits, it's a 23 minute BBC interview with Mishal Husain, while Paul was in Denver, Colorado in 2005 for a show, with no confirmation WHATSOEVER of 32 US hits.
Also, you say his 32 hits were cited below and you took the time to revert my edit, but you didn't bother to check. Not if the fact in question is the same as below, which it isn't, below it says 29 US #1s, or if the source is valid, which it isn't, it has the invalid source mentioned above.
Here is the citation that you used to revert my edits, tell me I was wrong, the same citation for Paul's 32 US #1s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4414102.stm
All I added was "citation needed".
BTW, I saw Paul at that show in Denver, he rocked hard! Amazing to do Helter Skelter in your encore, and nail it! GabeMc ( talk) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This source is not only a boring 23 minutes long, it does not confirm any US hits, let alone 32 #1s. Have fun wasting your time watching it. A tactic perhaps? Cite a source, with a long boring interview, and nobody will check it. Just noob editors like me. GabeMc ( talk) 03:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Great revision to 31 John, you rememberd that Michael Jackson wrote "The Girl is Mine", but "Let Em In" wasn't a Billboard Hot 100 #1, it peaked at number three, but did top the Adult Contemporary chart, but here in America, that would get a chuckle, so unless #3 counts as #1, it's 30 #1s in the U.S.
Paul had 9 #1 hits in America, if you include all 21 Beatles hits you can get him to 30, but man, that's reaching, he had virtually nothing to do with at least 8 of those, and of those 30, 25 are co-written. GabeMc ( talk) 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Plus, isn't what you are doing now "self research", since you do not have a valid source staing Paul's total U.S. #1s? GabeMc ( talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Paul's Hot 100 #1 hits in America.
1)"Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" co-written with Linda McCartney 2) "My Love" co-written with Linda McCartney 3) "Band on the Run" co-written with Linda McCartney 4) "Listen to What the Man Said" 5) "Silly Love Songs" 6) "With a Little Luck" 7) "Coming Up (Live at Glasgow)" 8) "Ebony and Ivory" 9) "Say Say Say" co-written with Michael Jackson 10) "A World Without Love" a Lennon/McCartney credit performed by "Peter and Gordon".
So yes, if you count "For You Blue", a song credited soley to Harrison, and if Paul was "responsible" for ALL 21 Beatles hits you can get Paul up to 31. GabeMc ( talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Of those 31 credits 24 were co-written, 1 was not even written by Paul. GabeMc ( talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
John Cardinal said:
“ | Paul was a member of The Beatles when "For You Blue" was released, and the text explains what number ones were listed. | ” |
Wrong again John, the text says he "was responsible for", and "For You Blue" is used in that tally. Maybe you should check the text before correcting me all the time. GabeMc ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
“ | McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. | ” |
GabeMc ( talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I dispute giving Paul an extra hit for a Harrison song, he made no co-writing agreement with George, but I will let it go, and accept that on WP all 21 Hot 100 Beatles hits go to each Beatle, and their hit tallies start at 21. GabeMc ( talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I know how Guinness got to 33 #1s. If you don't count "For You Blue", Paul had 20 with the Beatles, 11 more with his name on it in America, and two hits in the UK that were not hits in America, "Pipes of Peace" and "Mull of Kintyre". GabeMc ( talk) 00:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this needed in the intro? I don't think so.
Or if it is, maybe we should list all of Paul's hits that were not "composed entirely by McCartney". GabeMc ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone knows "Yesterday" was Paul's song, this only clutters the intro and helps only the most challenged of Beatles fans. GabeMc ( talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not suitable writing for the intro. GabeMc ( talk) 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Since nobody has counted since 1965, this has got to be an estimate, plus this is not the best source(I mean the article not the BBC):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/569537.stm
And it merely states:
“ | McCartney's Yesterday earns US accolade
Sir Paul McCartney's Yesterday is the most played song by a British writer this century in the US, it has been revealed. The track is the only one by a UK writer to have been aired more than seven million times on American TV and radio and is third in the all-time list You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' made famous by The Righteous Brothers topped the league as the only song to have been played more than eight million times. |
” |
GabeMc ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
PM needs a citation for 60 gold discs and 100 million singles sold, I don't have the book handy or I would cite it. GabeMc ( talk) 02:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
McCartney is listed in Guinness World Records as the most successful musician and composer in popular music history, with 60 gold discs and sales of 100 million singles
-- Roujan ( talk) 10:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, friend.
A copy of Guinness World Records ?...No. Is it possible to obtain a direct information by Guinness World Records ? I think no.
Look
1 - [13]
Now write, < Guinness World Records > and you get this : [14].
And now, you can get zero information, simply because < Guinness World Records > gives no information. So, i'm sorry but i'll try to find another solution.
-- Roujan ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Does the Guinness World Records entry really deserve two mentions in the lead? GoingBatty ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You can get to 32 if you include Elton John's cover of "Lucy" with Lennon on guitar and back-up vocals, which was a Hot 100 #1 in 1975. GabeMc ( talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching the discussion based around defining a list of number one songs McCartney was "responsible for", based on the use of that phrase in the lead. The figure now includes a variety of different things. I propose we tackle this another way, for two reasons:
So I suggest it would be better if we tackle this the other way round:
PL290 ( talk) 09:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
To GabeMc : Elvis obtained 17 singles N#1, but if i use your method, Elvis obtained zero singles N#1.
Michael Jackson with his solo career + Jackson5 + (say say say with Paul McCartney) obtained 18 singles n#1 , but if i use your method Michael Jackson obtained 8 n#1 ( say say say is a collaboration with McCartney, and others number one was composed by other composers.
Are you agree?
-- Roujan ( talk) 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A friend of ours said Paul made 'slant-eye' photos after being released from Japanese jail and that the photos were on one of his albums? I cannot find them. True or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see the sleeve pics, cannot find. Would you have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
To me, this seems out of place in the intro, and it belongs elsewhere IMHO. GabeMc ( talk) 02:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of this:
McCartney is the most successful songwriter in UK singles chart history, based on weeks that his compositions have spent on the chart, and as a performer or songwriter, McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, and has sold 15.5 million RIAA certified albums in the US alone.
I suggest this:
Based on weeks that his compositions have spent on the chart, and 24 number one singles to his credit, McCartney is the most successful songwriter in UK singles chart history. As a performer or songwriter, McCartney was responsible for 31 number one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, and has sold 15.5 million RIAA certified albums in the US alone. GabeMc ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Instead of this:
“ | Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942) is an English singer-songwriter, poet, composer, multi-instrumentalist, entrepreneur, record and film producer, painter, and animal rights and peace activist. | ” |
This:
“ | Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE (born 18 June 1942) is an English singer-songwriter, composer, multi-instrumentalist, poet, painter, and animal rights activist. | ” |
Any objections to removing entrepreneur, record and film producer, and peace activist from the lead? GabeMc ( talk) 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Discographer, good points on the activism, I am 35, and I don't remember him doing any Peace stuff at all, but I am sure he did. GabeMc ( talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I moved "poet" to procede "painter", as suggested. GabeMc ( talk) 21:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree, thanks for the input, I was not aware that Paul produced albums for other artists, do you have any good examples? GabeMc ( talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of some more good examples of Paul being a Peace Activist? I am trying to compile a list. -- GabeMc ( talk) 05:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I set-up the references to be sfn compatible. I will convert as many citations as I can but would welcome some help. GabeMc ( talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In the Musical Career section, it says "By May 1960, they had tried several new names, including 'Johnny and The Moondogs', 'The Nerk Twins', and 'The Silver Beetles'".
I suggest removing The Nerk Twins. That name was never really seriously considered for the band; it was just what John and Paul called themselves when the two of them were performing in Paul's cousin's pub in Berkshire.
My limited research shows it was "The Silver Beatles" (not Beetles) (I know you did a cut and paste); I have edited the line in the article already and invited correction if my spelling change is wrong.Bull Market 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
In the concert programme for his 1989 world tour, McCartney wrote that Lennon received all the credit for being the avant-garde Beatle,[65] and McCartney was known as "baby-faced", which he disagreed with.[237]
Presently the second to last paragraph of the article has the above sentence without enough specificity to identify who things what about who, i.e. too many pronouns/instances of non-specificity. This paragraph needs some clarification.Bull Market 01:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it true Paul contributed to Brave New World (Steve Miller Band album) as "Paul Ramon?" It's mentioned in the article but there are no sources for it. ~DC Talk To Me 06:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
An IP keeps changing "English" to "British" without discussion. We've had this discussion before with regard to whether The Beatles were a British or an English band, and the consensus was "English". I feel that that description here is perfectly fine as well. Radiopathy •talk• 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
So we wouldn't, then, include The Beatles in a list of 60s so-called 'British Invasion' bands? 86.158.126.1 ( talk) 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)andrew_w_munro
http://genrootsblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/paul-mccartney-at-64-liverpool-and.html-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
"British" might be Scottish or Irish," Ireland is not connected to Briton in anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.47.3 ( talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, but Northern Ireland most certainly is. Radiopathy •talk• 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that United Kingdom and UK have come and gone from the infobox a few times in the past few days. Is the consensus that the sovereign state is unnecessary - that England is considered the "country"? I have no real objection personally to include United Kingdom - or actually "UK" to keep the infobox uncluttered. Radiopathy •talk• 22:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we set up automated archiving of this talk page using MiszaBot. If there are no objections I'll set it up presently. PL290 ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I find this to be somewhat excessive:
Like John Lennon, McCartney is primarily known as a singer-songwriter. The lead of Lennon's now featured article refers to him only as such in it s opening sentence, elaborating upon his other interests in the article's infobox and other sections. I'd favour McCartney's to do the same. Sir Richardson ( talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Sir Richardson ( talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)