![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Did the Beatles actually do these drugs, or what? If they did, it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.190.52 ( talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Their drug use is mentioned in the McCartney and Lennon articles, so it should be here. " Got to Get You into My Life" being one clear example. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be mention of the Beatles' Grammy winners, including Love, which won two awards last night. 147.70.242.40 ( talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Beatles and drugs, The Fabs and naughty substances :) Any thoughts? -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be fine to lump everything as being British, but that would also mean that Canadians and Mexicans are USA Americans (which both countries would violently disagree with). I have quite a few friends who are Scottish and Welsh, and they would disagree with being treated in such a way. When you are born in a country, then that is what you are. I may be European, but I am English, as my mother can testify. :) -- andreasegde ( talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the name, the thing they were known for, the city they came from, and then the country. Read the infobox. Of course it was called British Invasion, or Brit-pop, because it looks/sounds better than Eng-pop, UK-pop or English Invasion. Calling them a British pop group smacks of nationalistic fervour, and should be nipped in the bud. Oscar Wilde is described as an Irish poet, but was born to Anglo-Irish parents. Get rid of the flags, folks. -- andreasegde ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, who were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I think that is as clear as anyone could want. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It has now been changed to "The Beatles were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I find this admirable, and I approve this message. -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The question has arisen as to how the Beatles should be described in the lead--whether they should be identified as "English" or "British". I'd like to ask contributors to add or revise the arguments below and to help determine consensus to place a vote (with minimal other commentary/discussion there for ease of counting) in the section below. ( British Isles (terminology) may be relevant for understanding the difference between the two terms.) Robert K S ( talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! Forcing a choice as if they were mutually exclusive. Was Johnny Cash an Arkansan or a Merkin? Jatrius ( talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I will bet any other project 1,000 thingys that they don't have as much fun as this one. Now let's talk about the Beekles coming from Liddypool, which is part of the European Onion. What do I care? :)) -- He's off again... ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate myself for asking this, but are there really articles about Beatles' musicals? (In the deep corners of my mind I think I have spied one or two, but I refuse to accept that I have. The Heeby-Gee-Bees and Peter Luncheon are lurking in the shadows, methinks... :) -- andreasegde ( talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He left in 1969, so he should be in 'Former Members' Zazaban 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The group broke up because Lennon stated (privately) his intention to leave it. They agreed to make no public announcement until the forthcoming Let It Be album had its run. McCartney violated the agreement in publicly announcing the break-up, and he did so to promote the sales of his first solo record McCartney (recorded in secret) and to jump-start his solo career. He also deliberately mischaracterized the break-up, suggesting that he, McCartney, was the one quitting. In any case, Lennon is no more or less a "former member" than Harrison, Ringo, and McCartney--or for that matter than Sutcliffe and Best. TheScotch ( talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/955196.stm I'll let an expert give the verdict, I don't know which is true, although naturally the Beatles' own words would be better. 85.82.180.82 ( talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a modern-day image of Buckingham Palace to demonstrate where TB received their MBEs? Maybe one of the TB with the awards, but what's the point of a recent photo of the location? Booglamay ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There's only one photo of the Beatles taken around 1964. There is no photo of them in their later years with longer hair, but there is a photo of Buckingham Palace, which seems out of place and unnecessary. Would anyone mind if I got replaced the Buckingham Palace photo (of which there is one at the palace article) with a later photo of the Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 ( talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is a little long, how about adding it to MiszaBot's auto-archiving list, such that discussions with no contributions newer than (say) 30 days get archived automatically? Stephenb (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking a quick Google round, I find this attributed to McCartney OR Harrison, but not Lennon. It may take a while to assess the reliability of these sources, but in the meantime the issue should be regarded as moot, and not the subject of edit-warring; that will only end in tears. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[1] (Barry Miles, The Beatles Diary) [2] (Craig Cross, The Beatles day by Day) [3] (Jay Warner, On this day in Music History) [4] (Peter Blecha, Taboo Tunes). Whether these all share one source, which may itself not be reliable, is moot. However, as far as WP:V and WP:RS go, we should cite Harrison as the speaker of this quote unless a better source is found. Of the above, I consider Blecha to be the most reliable because at least he cites his sources. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Who was really the lead singer? John or Paul because in the article it says one thing but in a book about the rock band it said something different. Please respond if you think you truely know. I really love the Beatles different genres of music. If you look where it says genres there is a whole lot listed. Beatlesrock ( talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oy! When did Ringo replace White? Some chap wrote in when Martin hired White over the other's recommendation but didn't say when White was finally deposed by Ringo (ref. 2nd paragraph under RECORD CONTRACT). I searched the article using "ringo" but didn't spot it. Did I just blow by it?! JimScott ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include a lineup history for The Beatles, if only to be consistent with most other musical band articles? Sutcliffe wasn't around long, but he was instrumental. Fdssdf ( talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay this is the introduction that was used when this was a featured article.
"The Beatles were a British rock music group from Liverpool, England held in very high regard for both their artistic achievements and their considerable commercial success, and have amassed an enormous worldwide fanbase that continues to exist to this day.. Comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, the group shattered many sales records and charted more than fifty top 40 hit singles. They were the first British pop act to achieve major and ongoing success in the United States, scoring twenty #1 hits in the USA alone, becoming the biggest musical act of the twentieth century. EMI estimated in 1985 that the band had sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though officially credited as written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music(about 2500 versions of it exist).
Their earliest compositions were mainly rock ‘n’ roll or R&B-rooted pop songs with the occasional ballad. But they grew increasingly eclectic as composers, arrangers and performers over the years. They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Despite the wide array of musical styles utilized, Beatles recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles canon included songs flavored with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop, ska and many other musical genres. They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (with "Strawberry Fields Forever") and early heavy metal (with "Helter Skelter"). Their use of George Martin’s chamber and baroque orchestrations on songs such as "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" was another first in contemporary popular music.
They also pioneered many innovative production techniques and their epoch-making 1967 LP Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is often cited as one of the first concept albums. Their clothes, hairstyles and choice of musical instruments made them trendsetters throughout the decade; their growing social awareness, reflected in the development of their music, saw their influence extended far beyond the music scene into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s; and their enduring popularity with successive generations of both fans and musicians has cemented their reputation for being one of the most influential music artists of all time. The group disbanded in 1970 amid much strife. Thirty-five years later, in 2005, the American entertainment industry magazine Variety named them the most iconic entertainers of the 20th century[2]. "
Why not use that? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado ( talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay but what is so flawed about that paragraph? I'm sorry but all of that information is true, or at least generally all of it is true. I'm sorry to break it to you guys but The Beatles are unarguably the most important, legendary, revolutionary, influential band in the history of man. If you guys like to sugercoat their achievements that's your problem but the intro WILL be put back in.
Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (
talk)
00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, badboys or whatever your name is, you have officially lost the plot mate. Sugarcoating? What in gods name are you talking about? That ridiculous paragraph that you think is so wonderful is the only thing that is sugarcoated. "England held them in a high regard"? Are you serious? They WERE a popular band. It's over mate, go to a fan page. And if you don't understand what wikipedia is all about then please don't comment on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.238.140 ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
the article implies an ondioline keyboard was used on this song yet when the ondioline wiki page is opened this clarifies the matter and in fact states thats a clavioline keyboard was used as such this link seems pointless and perhaps the beatles entry should be updated.
i realise this may seem trivial,
apologies.
vin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinto212 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started to notice in a lot of different articles, statements which refer to an event happening in a particular season of the year. Now if the season is somehow relevant to the statement, then I can see how it needs to be included, however when the season has no relevance whatsoever, I find this to be completely unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unneccessary and irrelevant information and secondly, unless the country of the occurance is stated, a season is meaningless. Seasons happen at different times for every country therefore when people read a statement like the one below, they do not know what to make of it.
Under the heading 'Breakup: Let It Be', it says "The Beatles recorded their final album, Abbey Road, in the summer of 1969"
I feel there should be some sort of guideline regarding the use of seasons. If a season is used as a way of referring to a quarter of a particular year, a country needs to be stated also to give people a gauge to go by. -- 58.179.238.140 ( talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey why arent the beatles on itunes? I heard that it was because Jackson was refusing to allow it but i think thats a load of rubbish, does anyone have any info on it.. Cheers Realist2 ( talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
More tabloid lies about jackson being mean spirited then i guess, no supprise, nothing chances fast, cheers this will come in helpful. Realist2 ( talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael_jackson#Finances<-- here is a quick copy and paste from the King of Pop article, theres some stuff on his involvement in the beatles catalog, correction northern catalog, it might be helpful , it might not, there are some sources there. Realist2 ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Brenda Lee says in an interview used as source in her in her article that the little known Beatles opened her UK and German tour in the early sixties. She then goes on to say that she took a Beatles demo to her record company but they turned them down. She then states that six months later they had a huge hit with I Want to Hold Your Hand, but when that was released in the USA The Beatles were already huge stars. Can anyone shed any light on this please? Pat Pending ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What the hell happened here today, all that vandalism looks suspicious to me. Request for semi protection is in order if it occures again. Im going to request semi protection for the Jacko talk page latter so if you want me to make a second request let me know. See ya. Realist2 ( talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not know you were an admin, i think there should be a new rule on wiki where all admins user names should appear in bold RED that way their easier to track down when you need their help. Realist2 ( talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Realist2 ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only just became aware of this today. Mariah Carey has just over taken elvis for the most US #1 singles by a solo artist. Elvis has 17 , mariah has 18. Of course the beatles still have their 20 but my friends it looks highly posibble the the beatles will lose their crown by the end of the year. TheY really need to get their singles on itunes ASAP. Realist2 ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So that if or when the event occurs it gets sourced, something the page lacks a little, im sure you will agree. Realist2 ( talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd edit this myself, but I don't have the authority.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure George Harrison was on the Ed Sullivan show during the first performance. The article does state that Neil replaced him, but after reviewing pictures from that night and a video on yahoo videos of that same performance, it's quite obvious that George was the one there and not this Neil guy. If you want to see the video, just go to yahoo and type in The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show or something like that. The first appearance should show up and you'll see it there.
Can someone who is able to change that? Or maybe just let me know if I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrie rocks ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't the pic used in the infobox used on the Ed Sullivan Show article under "The Beatles"? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A Day in the Life - i got this article up to GA yesterday, you might want to add it to the beatles project. Yours Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 08:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't there a front picture? -- The monkeyhate ( talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Beatles-singles-iwanttoholdyourhand-1.jpg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg isn't the front picture? It has a fair use for this article. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it be added to "see also"? Vordabois ( talk) 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Beatles has sold 170 million of album copies according to the RIAA. Here. -- Efe ( talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
since the beatles have disbanded, shouldn't all of them be listed under "Former Members"? LukeTheSpook ( talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that having the core (George, John, Paul, Ringo) listed as "current members" and listing former Beatles (Sutcliffe,Best) as "former members" makes most sense to me. Noting them all as "former members" would be confusing to a novice, regardless of the fact of the groups 1970 dissolution. GBrady ( talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed before at [7] and [8] in which it was determined that the group's lineup at the time of its formal breakup is acceptable. As Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best had left the group before it became world famous, they were acceptable as "former members". Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the word "school". This would imply to most American readers a Bus just for students. In fact they met on the top of a regular double decker bus. Lemonflag ( talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the reasons for the breakup?
Shj95 ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Steelbeard. You can't sum it up in 1 point. There was displeasure on the part of George with his material not being used as often as John and Paul's, group irritation at Yoko's presence for sessions, the lack of Epstein's stabilizing presence ,and probably just a desire to stretch their own individual wings. GBrady ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the "formation" section should be shortened significantally, with some of the reasons in the 2nd paragraph paraphrased instead of quoted (such as Lennon's). Also, I suggest that the third paragraph be nearly eliminated, with two to three sentences summarizing that the band went through a number of drummers, and that they toured Northern Scotland as a back-up band for singer Johnny Gentle, as well as the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As a Beatle fan (or a fan of The Beatles) I never knew this stuff, and the reason I first came to Wikipedia was to clear-up these missing bits of information. Lennon had/has 3 half-sisters, and two half-brothers, and McCartney has one brother and one half-sister. Harrison has a sister who lived/lives in America, and was the first Beatle to visit the USA. Is that not important? Everything should be here, and then this will be the most comprehensive page about The Beatles that you can find anywhere. Put it all in, and let the Wikipedia servers deal with it. This should be the fountain of all knowledge about The Beatles, and so it should be.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also just realised that Larry Parnes is not mentioned at all. This is a travesty, as it was a major stumbling-block for The Silver Beetles.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I never want to go near an FA again, so good luck. The FA boardroom finds lots of things to complain about, including your tie, Mr Epstein. :) Whatever Mr Wales said in WP:WEIGHT can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, by thousands of different editors, which was his point, IMO...
I also believe that every single thought The Fabs had should not be included, but living, breathing (and sweating, as drummers do) human beings should be. What's the point of copying other paper encyclopedias? Is that why we are here? If that is the case, all one has to do is look at one of the respected ones, and then just paraphrase everything in it.-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this article is 84,493 bytes, and William Shakespeare is 84,030 bytes, and that is an FA. Maybe it's just the writing that needs improving, and not the content. -- andreasegde ( talk) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: "an FA is not too short AND not too long", which means here that it is good, but not good enough. I seriously believe that FAs are looked upon by the powers that be as only being good enough if they are about a serious subject by the snobs up above. It would be interesting to know how many Pop/Rock etc., articles are FAs, and how many articles there are about scientists, philosophers, etc. It's an elitist thing, and Pop music is not considered to be worthy by the boys in the (metaphorical) suits. Some articles slip through to FA of course, but only if they have the weight of a project behind them. (I speak from experience, because I have heard the phrase "not notable enough" too many times).
For this article to gain an FA it would have to be chopped to pieces, and would then later be deleted to a B-class for not having enough information.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. However, this consensus can be considered closed. A second consensus can be found below. Please feel free to vote there. Thanks. Cheers,
Kodster (
heLLo) (
Me did that)
21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My next suggestion is that everything regarding the name should be moved to a new section called something to the extent of "Names". For an example, see AC/DC, a featured article. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In England, the word "band" is followed by "are". Thus, it would be "band are recognized". The reasoning to that would be that there are several members in a band. Since this a British band, it should use "are", not "is". Besides, it uses "are" everywhere else, and we have to be consistent. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[out] All true, but "the band" is not necessary: I edited it to be grammatically correct in both British and American English, which I hope will keep everyone happy. (And let's remember that it is always "The Beatles are", to American ears as well as British, despite what some might think.... except when talking about the white album, in which case we'd again do a work-around so as to not sound illiterate to anyone.) Tvoz/ talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the opening paragraph speak about this English pop group's influence as it related to somewhere called the United States, and not for example Germany? I can predict all the lame justifications that will be put forward to explain this, however the real reason is simply the usual American centric bias which Wikipedia specifically cautions against in it's guidelines.
'Parochial View' 28th May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 ( talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL @ 'other countries'. It is a good thing that I appreciate sarcasm. I am just worried that some people may think you are being serious.
'Parochial View' 1st June 2008.
-- Wikidunn ( talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I agree, the opening sentence shouldn't be so US-centric, they were more than just an 'American invasion band', or whatever that is. Surely British pop invasion of the '60s is something that only applies to American pop culture, and as this band had a far reaching effect in many countries, this is a very narrow minded opening sentence. Its impact on the American invasion should be linked to the relevant article and not even mentioned in the opening paragraph; which should be purely to describe the band in more general terms, and not label them a US specific term.
Okay, this heading name has to change. According to Manual of Style, heading names should generally not contain the name of the article. (Exceptions do exist, like if this was about the album officially called "The Beatles", then it's okay). So, any suggestions? I changed it to "fame", but Steelbeard1 changed it back, saying that the real fame began in 1963. I think an appropriate title is "1960–1970: Rise to fame". Please comment. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Right - I didn't think you were - I misread the above and other comments too quickly and thought you were reflecting what someone else had suggested in a peer review or in preparation for a FAC review. But I stand by my last sentence regarding integrity and the (sometimes oppressive) FA process. Tvoz/ talk 03:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the end of this sentence: "The band's final live performance was on the rooftop of the Apple building at 3 Savile Row, London, on January 30, 1969, the next-to-last day of the difficult sessions for what eventually became the Let It Be album, along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons." What does "along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons" refer to? That he was there? Was he the engineer for the sessions? I'd be happy to rewrite the sentence but I don't know what was meant -it doesn't make sense to me this way. Translation please? Tvoz/ talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States.[4]"
OK, ive noticed this on the Janet Jackson and Britney Spears article too. I cant help but feel we are putting words in the RIAAS mouth. The RIAA is only counting albums, its only saying the beatles are the best selling album group. They do not include single sales and probably wouldnt appreciate us suggesting they do. Like I said, everyone seems to be doing it, probably without realizing what the RIAA are actually saying.
Im not disputing the sales of the beatles in america but what the article claims isnt supported by the RIAA who are only talking about albums. Its as if everyone has forgotten about singles and downloads. Thoughts. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
make a subgenres section. π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ $Φǚɭ ђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about this section. It reads like a trivia section ( oh no!). It still has to be changed to prose, but we need to work it out so that it's not just a collection of random facts. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, completely slipped my mind. 2 days ago I managed to convince the Elvis people to intergate their achievements list seen here. It was done within hours. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
<deindent for readability
Well the original section has been copied here so that editors can research these points and add them into the article. These things do not happen overnight and I, for one, spent quite some time today trying to find a suitable copy of the Guinness Book of Records, to no avail, and as if I can afford it anyway. Once all that can be sourced has been, that might be a better time to assess how best to present the information. At least at present there is sourced information there, and the possibility that someone will come along and add more should not be overlooked. --
Rodhull
andemu
22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This indenting is getting to be too deep to be readable: please continue the discussion here. -- Rodhull andemu 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, it needs to be worked on at a sub page, THEN decide what to do with the pieces. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the sources used in the article are questionable, as reliablity goes. For example, Geocities is used, as well as a number of self-published sources. A lot of the info found in these sources will have to find a different source or will have to be removed. :( Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Which ones, we should take a look, you would be supprised how often people agree on what is/isnt reliable. Luckily we have an Admin at hand..... ;-) --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article could do with some info on how the Beatles were received by critics. Just a thought, feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would remind editers to look for reliable sources for the Beatles achievements section. Fan sites and "Snope" are not going to help get this article through a FA review and will likely result in it lossing it GA symbol if an editer were to have it reassessed. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As someone who's worked on several FA and GA articles, I'm frankly disappointed at the quality of this article. Yeah, i know it's a former FA that worked its way back up to GA, but for a band of this stature and one that has been so exhaustively covered by sources, it should be much better. There are also some very basic problems with this article, such as:
Here's a few band FAs to use as models: The Smashing Pumpkins, Stereolab, Metallica, R.E.M., Radiohead. It will also be a big help to talk to editors who have worked on these articles for advice. Useful references fo those without access to libraries or without the money to buy books are the Time magazine and New York Times archives at time.com and nytimes.com, respectively. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Paul McCartney about the origin of the band; whether they were founded as The Beatles or evolved from earlier bands. That entry has McCartney as a co-founder, and if they are an incarnation of an earlier band then this may not be the case. This entry explicitly has the band forming in 1960, which I do not think is defensible. No source known or cited has such an event, merely a name change, and it does seem to reflect a retroactive view.
I suggest qualifying the statement to reflect the true series of events. No one today talks of Abel Tasman discovering Van Diemen's Land but most sources will note this is what Tasmania was known as (without getting too pedantic). I propose altering all entries to give "then known as The Quarry Men" or similar.
Alternately if there is some evidence (document, event, ritual, naughty ritual, etc) of founding, or qualitative difference between The Beatles and The Silver Beetles then please cite. MartinSFSA ( talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Ward3001.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Todo" list needs changing now, there isnt an "achievements" section anymore. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is kind of, but know it looks like they only have 3 achievements. Hmm. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best if we all work on and discuss Ruhrfisch's Peer Review of the article. It basically covers all the main points we have, but it's a bit more organized and makes it easier to work on things step-by-step (the way I like it). Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Vital Article and it's about one of the most important bands of all time, blah blah blah (just kidding).
Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at WesleyDodds points above. indopug ( talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This is becoming a pet peeve of mine. Did the Beatles actually do these drugs, or what? If they did, it should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.190.52 ( talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Their drug use is mentioned in the McCartney and Lennon articles, so it should be here. " Got to Get You into My Life" being one clear example. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be mention of the Beatles' Grammy winners, including Love, which won two awards last night. 147.70.242.40 ( talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:BanglaDeshCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Beatles and drugs, The Fabs and naughty substances :) Any thoughts? -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It might be fine to lump everything as being British, but that would also mean that Canadians and Mexicans are USA Americans (which both countries would violently disagree with). I have quite a few friends who are Scottish and Welsh, and they would disagree with being treated in such a way. When you are born in a country, then that is what you are. I may be European, but I am English, as my mother can testify. :) -- andreasegde ( talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's the name, the thing they were known for, the city they came from, and then the country. Read the infobox. Of course it was called British Invasion, or Brit-pop, because it looks/sounds better than Eng-pop, UK-pop or English Invasion. Calling them a British pop group smacks of nationalistic fervour, and should be nipped in the bud. Oscar Wilde is described as an Irish poet, but was born to Anglo-Irish parents. Get rid of the flags, folks. -- andreasegde ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, who were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I think that is as clear as anyone could want. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It has now been changed to "The Beatles were a pop and rock group from Liverpool, England." I find this admirable, and I approve this message. -- andreasegde ( talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The question has arisen as to how the Beatles should be described in the lead--whether they should be identified as "English" or "British". I'd like to ask contributors to add or revise the arguments below and to help determine consensus to place a vote (with minimal other commentary/discussion there for ease of counting) in the section below. ( British Isles (terminology) may be relevant for understanding the difference between the two terms.) Robert K S ( talk) 17:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! Forcing a choice as if they were mutually exclusive. Was Johnny Cash an Arkansan or a Merkin? Jatrius ( talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I will bet any other project 1,000 thingys that they don't have as much fun as this one. Now let's talk about the Beekles coming from Liddypool, which is part of the European Onion. What do I care? :)) -- He's off again... ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate myself for asking this, but are there really articles about Beatles' musicals? (In the deep corners of my mind I think I have spied one or two, but I refuse to accept that I have. The Heeby-Gee-Bees and Peter Luncheon are lurking in the shadows, methinks... :) -- andreasegde ( talk) 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
He left in 1969, so he should be in 'Former Members' Zazaban 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The group broke up because Lennon stated (privately) his intention to leave it. They agreed to make no public announcement until the forthcoming Let It Be album had its run. McCartney violated the agreement in publicly announcing the break-up, and he did so to promote the sales of his first solo record McCartney (recorded in secret) and to jump-start his solo career. He also deliberately mischaracterized the break-up, suggesting that he, McCartney, was the one quitting. In any case, Lennon is no more or less a "former member" than Harrison, Ringo, and McCartney--or for that matter than Sutcliffe and Best. TheScotch ( talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/955196.stm I'll let an expert give the verdict, I don't know which is true, although naturally the Beatles' own words would be better. 85.82.180.82 ( talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a modern-day image of Buckingham Palace to demonstrate where TB received their MBEs? Maybe one of the TB with the awards, but what's the point of a recent photo of the location? Booglamay ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There's only one photo of the Beatles taken around 1964. There is no photo of them in their later years with longer hair, but there is a photo of Buckingham Palace, which seems out of place and unnecessary. Would anyone mind if I got replaced the Buckingham Palace photo (of which there is one at the palace article) with a later photo of the Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.130 ( talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is a little long, how about adding it to MiszaBot's auto-archiving list, such that discussions with no contributions newer than (say) 30 days get archived automatically? Stephenb (Talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking a quick Google round, I find this attributed to McCartney OR Harrison, but not Lennon. It may take a while to assess the reliability of these sources, but in the meantime the issue should be regarded as moot, and not the subject of edit-warring; that will only end in tears. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[1] (Barry Miles, The Beatles Diary) [2] (Craig Cross, The Beatles day by Day) [3] (Jay Warner, On this day in Music History) [4] (Peter Blecha, Taboo Tunes). Whether these all share one source, which may itself not be reliable, is moot. However, as far as WP:V and WP:RS go, we should cite Harrison as the speaker of this quote unless a better source is found. Of the above, I consider Blecha to be the most reliable because at least he cites his sources. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Who was really the lead singer? John or Paul because in the article it says one thing but in a book about the rock band it said something different. Please respond if you think you truely know. I really love the Beatles different genres of music. If you look where it says genres there is a whole lot listed. Beatlesrock ( talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Oy! When did Ringo replace White? Some chap wrote in when Martin hired White over the other's recommendation but didn't say when White was finally deposed by Ringo (ref. 2nd paragraph under RECORD CONTRACT). I searched the article using "ringo" but didn't spot it. Did I just blow by it?! JimScott ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include a lineup history for The Beatles, if only to be consistent with most other musical band articles? Sutcliffe wasn't around long, but he was instrumental. Fdssdf ( talk) 04:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay this is the introduction that was used when this was a featured article.
"The Beatles were a British rock music group from Liverpool, England held in very high regard for both their artistic achievements and their considerable commercial success, and have amassed an enormous worldwide fanbase that continues to exist to this day.. Comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, the group shattered many sales records and charted more than fifty top 40 hit singles. They were the first British pop act to achieve major and ongoing success in the United States, scoring twenty #1 hits in the USA alone, becoming the biggest musical act of the twentieth century. EMI estimated in 1985 that the band had sold over a billion records worldwide[1]. Their ballad "Yesterday" — written and sung by Paul McCartney (though officially credited as written by Lennon-McCartney) — is the most-covered song in the history of recorded music(about 2500 versions of it exist).
Their earliest compositions were mainly rock ‘n’ roll or R&B-rooted pop songs with the occasional ballad. But they grew increasingly eclectic as composers, arrangers and performers over the years. They composed songs and arranged them in a wide array of musical styles – occasionally fusing genres. The constant factor in the vast majority of their songs was their focus on melody. Despite the wide array of musical styles utilized, Beatles recordings were readily identifiable because of their distinctive vocals. In addition to their core pop and rock styles, The Beatles canon included songs flavored with folk, country, rockabilly, blues, soul, doo-wop, ska and many other musical genres. They were also pioneers of new musical directions such as psychedelia (with "Strawberry Fields Forever") and early heavy metal (with "Helter Skelter"). Their use of George Martin’s chamber and baroque orchestrations on songs such as "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" was another first in contemporary popular music.
They also pioneered many innovative production techniques and their epoch-making 1967 LP Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is often cited as one of the first concept albums. Their clothes, hairstyles and choice of musical instruments made them trendsetters throughout the decade; their growing social awareness, reflected in the development of their music, saw their influence extended far beyond the music scene into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s; and their enduring popularity with successive generations of both fans and musicians has cemented their reputation for being one of the most influential music artists of all time. The group disbanded in 1970 amid much strife. Thirty-five years later, in 2005, the American entertainment industry magazine Variety named them the most iconic entertainers of the 20th century[2]. "
Why not use that? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado ( talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay but what is so flawed about that paragraph? I'm sorry but all of that information is true, or at least generally all of it is true. I'm sorry to break it to you guys but The Beatles are unarguably the most important, legendary, revolutionary, influential band in the history of man. If you guys like to sugercoat their achievements that's your problem but the intro WILL be put back in.
Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (
talk)
00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, badboys or whatever your name is, you have officially lost the plot mate. Sugarcoating? What in gods name are you talking about? That ridiculous paragraph that you think is so wonderful is the only thing that is sugarcoated. "England held them in a high regard"? Are you serious? They WERE a popular band. It's over mate, go to a fan page. And if you don't understand what wikipedia is all about then please don't comment on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.238.140 ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
the article implies an ondioline keyboard was used on this song yet when the ondioline wiki page is opened this clarifies the matter and in fact states thats a clavioline keyboard was used as such this link seems pointless and perhaps the beatles entry should be updated.
i realise this may seem trivial,
apologies.
vin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinto212 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started to notice in a lot of different articles, statements which refer to an event happening in a particular season of the year. Now if the season is somehow relevant to the statement, then I can see how it needs to be included, however when the season has no relevance whatsoever, I find this to be completely unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is unneccessary and irrelevant information and secondly, unless the country of the occurance is stated, a season is meaningless. Seasons happen at different times for every country therefore when people read a statement like the one below, they do not know what to make of it.
Under the heading 'Breakup: Let It Be', it says "The Beatles recorded their final album, Abbey Road, in the summer of 1969"
I feel there should be some sort of guideline regarding the use of seasons. If a season is used as a way of referring to a quarter of a particular year, a country needs to be stated also to give people a gauge to go by. -- 58.179.238.140 ( talk) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey why arent the beatles on itunes? I heard that it was because Jackson was refusing to allow it but i think thats a load of rubbish, does anyone have any info on it.. Cheers Realist2 ( talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
More tabloid lies about jackson being mean spirited then i guess, no supprise, nothing chances fast, cheers this will come in helpful. Realist2 ( talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael_jackson#Finances<-- here is a quick copy and paste from the King of Pop article, theres some stuff on his involvement in the beatles catalog, correction northern catalog, it might be helpful , it might not, there are some sources there. Realist2 ( talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Brenda Lee says in an interview used as source in her in her article that the little known Beatles opened her UK and German tour in the early sixties. She then goes on to say that she took a Beatles demo to her record company but they turned them down. She then states that six months later they had a huge hit with I Want to Hold Your Hand, but when that was released in the USA The Beatles were already huge stars. Can anyone shed any light on this please? Pat Pending ( talk) 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What the hell happened here today, all that vandalism looks suspicious to me. Request for semi protection is in order if it occures again. Im going to request semi protection for the Jacko talk page latter so if you want me to make a second request let me know. See ya. Realist2 ( talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not know you were an admin, i think there should be a new rule on wiki where all admins user names should appear in bold RED that way their easier to track down when you need their help. Realist2 ( talk) 16:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Realist2 ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I only just became aware of this today. Mariah Carey has just over taken elvis for the most US #1 singles by a solo artist. Elvis has 17 , mariah has 18. Of course the beatles still have their 20 but my friends it looks highly posibble the the beatles will lose their crown by the end of the year. TheY really need to get their singles on itunes ASAP. Realist2 ( talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So that if or when the event occurs it gets sourced, something the page lacks a little, im sure you will agree. Realist2 ( talk) 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd edit this myself, but I don't have the authority.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure George Harrison was on the Ed Sullivan show during the first performance. The article does state that Neil replaced him, but after reviewing pictures from that night and a video on yahoo videos of that same performance, it's quite obvious that George was the one there and not this Neil guy. If you want to see the video, just go to yahoo and type in The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show or something like that. The first appearance should show up and you'll see it there.
Can someone who is able to change that? Or maybe just let me know if I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrie rocks ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't the pic used in the infobox used on the Ed Sullivan Show article under "The Beatles"? Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
A Day in the Life - i got this article up to GA yesterday, you might want to add it to the beatles project. Yours Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 08:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't there a front picture? -- The monkeyhate ( talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Beatles-singles-iwanttoholdyourhand-1.jpg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg isn't the front picture? It has a fair use for this article. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Should it be added to "see also"? Vordabois ( talk) 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Beatles has sold 170 million of album copies according to the RIAA. Here. -- Efe ( talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
since the beatles have disbanded, shouldn't all of them be listed under "Former Members"? LukeTheSpook ( talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that having the core (George, John, Paul, Ringo) listed as "current members" and listing former Beatles (Sutcliffe,Best) as "former members" makes most sense to me. Noting them all as "former members" would be confusing to a novice, regardless of the fact of the groups 1970 dissolution. GBrady ( talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed before at [7] and [8] in which it was determined that the group's lineup at the time of its formal breakup is acceptable. As Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best had left the group before it became world famous, they were acceptable as "former members". Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the word "school". This would imply to most American readers a Bus just for students. In fact they met on the top of a regular double decker bus. Lemonflag ( talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the reasons for the breakup?
Shj95 ( talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Steelbeard. You can't sum it up in 1 point. There was displeasure on the part of George with his material not being used as often as John and Paul's, group irritation at Yoko's presence for sessions, the lack of Epstein's stabilizing presence ,and probably just a desire to stretch their own individual wings. GBrady ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the "formation" section should be shortened significantally, with some of the reasons in the 2nd paragraph paraphrased instead of quoted (such as Lennon's). Also, I suggest that the third paragraph be nearly eliminated, with two to three sentences summarizing that the band went through a number of drummers, and that they toured Northern Scotland as a back-up band for singer Johnny Gentle, as well as the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As a Beatle fan (or a fan of The Beatles) I never knew this stuff, and the reason I first came to Wikipedia was to clear-up these missing bits of information. Lennon had/has 3 half-sisters, and two half-brothers, and McCartney has one brother and one half-sister. Harrison has a sister who lived/lives in America, and was the first Beatle to visit the USA. Is that not important? Everything should be here, and then this will be the most comprehensive page about The Beatles that you can find anywhere. Put it all in, and let the Wikipedia servers deal with it. This should be the fountain of all knowledge about The Beatles, and so it should be.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also just realised that Larry Parnes is not mentioned at all. This is a travesty, as it was a major stumbling-block for The Silver Beetles.-- andreasegde ( talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I never want to go near an FA again, so good luck. The FA boardroom finds lots of things to complain about, including your tie, Mr Epstein. :) Whatever Mr Wales said in WP:WEIGHT can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, by thousands of different editors, which was his point, IMO...
I also believe that every single thought The Fabs had should not be included, but living, breathing (and sweating, as drummers do) human beings should be. What's the point of copying other paper encyclopedias? Is that why we are here? If that is the case, all one has to do is look at one of the respected ones, and then just paraphrase everything in it.-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this article is 84,493 bytes, and William Shakespeare is 84,030 bytes, and that is an FA. Maybe it's just the writing that needs improving, and not the content. -- andreasegde ( talk) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: "an FA is not too short AND not too long", which means here that it is good, but not good enough. I seriously believe that FAs are looked upon by the powers that be as only being good enough if they are about a serious subject by the snobs up above. It would be interesting to know how many Pop/Rock etc., articles are FAs, and how many articles there are about scientists, philosophers, etc. It's an elitist thing, and Pop music is not considered to be worthy by the boys in the (metaphorical) suits. Some articles slip through to FA of course, but only if they have the weight of a project behind them. (I speak from experience, because I have heard the phrase "not notable enough" too many times).
For this article to gain an FA it would have to be chopped to pieces, and would then later be deleted to a B-class for not having enough information.-- andreasegde ( talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. However, this consensus can be considered closed. A second consensus can be found below. Please feel free to vote there. Thanks. Cheers,
Kodster (
heLLo) (
Me did that)
21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My next suggestion is that everything regarding the name should be moved to a new section called something to the extent of "Names". For an example, see AC/DC, a featured article. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In England, the word "band" is followed by "are". Thus, it would be "band are recognized". The reasoning to that would be that there are several members in a band. Since this a British band, it should use "are", not "is". Besides, it uses "are" everywhere else, and we have to be consistent. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[out] All true, but "the band" is not necessary: I edited it to be grammatically correct in both British and American English, which I hope will keep everyone happy. (And let's remember that it is always "The Beatles are", to American ears as well as British, despite what some might think.... except when talking about the white album, in which case we'd again do a work-around so as to not sound illiterate to anyone.) Tvoz/ talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the opening paragraph speak about this English pop group's influence as it related to somewhere called the United States, and not for example Germany? I can predict all the lame justifications that will be put forward to explain this, however the real reason is simply the usual American centric bias which Wikipedia specifically cautions against in it's guidelines.
'Parochial View' 28th May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 ( talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL @ 'other countries'. It is a good thing that I appreciate sarcasm. I am just worried that some people may think you are being serious.
'Parochial View' 1st June 2008.
-- Wikidunn ( talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I agree, the opening sentence shouldn't be so US-centric, they were more than just an 'American invasion band', or whatever that is. Surely British pop invasion of the '60s is something that only applies to American pop culture, and as this band had a far reaching effect in many countries, this is a very narrow minded opening sentence. Its impact on the American invasion should be linked to the relevant article and not even mentioned in the opening paragraph; which should be purely to describe the band in more general terms, and not label them a US specific term.
Okay, this heading name has to change. According to Manual of Style, heading names should generally not contain the name of the article. (Exceptions do exist, like if this was about the album officially called "The Beatles", then it's okay). So, any suggestions? I changed it to "fame", but Steelbeard1 changed it back, saying that the real fame began in 1963. I think an appropriate title is "1960–1970: Rise to fame". Please comment. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Right - I didn't think you were - I misread the above and other comments too quickly and thought you were reflecting what someone else had suggested in a peer review or in preparation for a FAC review. But I stand by my last sentence regarding integrity and the (sometimes oppressive) FA process. Tvoz/ talk 03:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with the end of this sentence: "The band's final live performance was on the rooftop of the Apple building at 3 Savile Row, London, on January 30, 1969, the next-to-last day of the difficult sessions for what eventually became the Let It Be album, along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons." What does "along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons" refer to? That he was there? Was he the engineer for the sessions? I'd be happy to rewrite the sentence but I don't know what was meant -it doesn't make sense to me this way. Translation please? Tvoz/ talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States.[4]"
OK, ive noticed this on the Janet Jackson and Britney Spears article too. I cant help but feel we are putting words in the RIAAS mouth. The RIAA is only counting albums, its only saying the beatles are the best selling album group. They do not include single sales and probably wouldnt appreciate us suggesting they do. Like I said, everyone seems to be doing it, probably without realizing what the RIAA are actually saying.
Im not disputing the sales of the beatles in america but what the article claims isnt supported by the RIAA who are only talking about albums. Its as if everyone has forgotten about singles and downloads. Thoughts. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
make a subgenres section. π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ $Φǚɭ ђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about this section. It reads like a trivia section ( oh no!). It still has to be changed to prose, but we need to work it out so that it's not just a collection of random facts. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, completely slipped my mind. 2 days ago I managed to convince the Elvis people to intergate their achievements list seen here. It was done within hours. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
<deindent for readability
Well the original section has been copied here so that editors can research these points and add them into the article. These things do not happen overnight and I, for one, spent quite some time today trying to find a suitable copy of the Guinness Book of Records, to no avail, and as if I can afford it anyway. Once all that can be sourced has been, that might be a better time to assess how best to present the information. At least at present there is sourced information there, and the possibility that someone will come along and add more should not be overlooked. --
Rodhull
andemu
22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This indenting is getting to be too deep to be readable: please continue the discussion here. -- Rodhull andemu 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, it needs to be worked on at a sub page, THEN decide what to do with the pieces. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the sources used in the article are questionable, as reliablity goes. For example, Geocities is used, as well as a number of self-published sources. A lot of the info found in these sources will have to find a different source or will have to be removed. :( Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Which ones, we should take a look, you would be supprised how often people agree on what is/isnt reliable. Luckily we have an Admin at hand..... ;-) --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article could do with some info on how the Beatles were received by critics. Just a thought, feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I would remind editers to look for reliable sources for the Beatles achievements section. Fan sites and "Snope" are not going to help get this article through a FA review and will likely result in it lossing it GA symbol if an editer were to have it reassessed. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As someone who's worked on several FA and GA articles, I'm frankly disappointed at the quality of this article. Yeah, i know it's a former FA that worked its way back up to GA, but for a band of this stature and one that has been so exhaustively covered by sources, it should be much better. There are also some very basic problems with this article, such as:
Here's a few band FAs to use as models: The Smashing Pumpkins, Stereolab, Metallica, R.E.M., Radiohead. It will also be a big help to talk to editors who have worked on these articles for advice. Useful references fo those without access to libraries or without the money to buy books are the Time magazine and New York Times archives at time.com and nytimes.com, respectively. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Talk:Paul McCartney about the origin of the band; whether they were founded as The Beatles or evolved from earlier bands. That entry has McCartney as a co-founder, and if they are an incarnation of an earlier band then this may not be the case. This entry explicitly has the band forming in 1960, which I do not think is defensible. No source known or cited has such an event, merely a name change, and it does seem to reflect a retroactive view.
I suggest qualifying the statement to reflect the true series of events. No one today talks of Abel Tasman discovering Van Diemen's Land but most sources will note this is what Tasmania was known as (without getting too pedantic). I propose altering all entries to give "then known as The Quarry Men" or similar.
Alternately if there is some evidence (document, event, ritual, naughty ritual, etc) of founding, or qualitative difference between The Beatles and The Silver Beetles then please cite. MartinSFSA ( talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Ward3001.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Todo" list needs changing now, there isnt an "achievements" section anymore. — Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is kind of, but know it looks like they only have 3 achievements. Hmm. --— Realist2 ( Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best if we all work on and discuss Ruhrfisch's Peer Review of the article. It basically covers all the main points we have, but it's a bit more organized and makes it easier to work on things step-by-step (the way I like it). Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Vital Article and it's about one of the most important bands of all time, blah blah blah (just kidding).
Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at WesleyDodds points above. indopug ( talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)