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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
What is the preferred way to resolve conflicts on facts relating to the Beatles? eg if one or more books written by biographers (whose knowledge of events is only second-hand and third-hand) print a date in good faith and then subsequently first-hand sources - the people in question - emerge and publish information that contradicts the date offered by the author(s) - and makes clear that the prior biographies were erroneous - how should we deal with it? Do we say that such and such source say "this date" but the protagonists have published a version that asserts "that date". Or if the protagonists are credible and properly published do we defer to them as having the best perspective? This is not academic. Biographers often make errors. The first editions of the authorized Hunter Davies biography of the Beatles (published in 1968) had many errors that were eventually corrected in subsequent editions. If Wikipedia had existed in 1968 - we'd have had a conflict between a cited book - that contained mistakes - and provable fact. Which could then be changed only on publication of the correction. Would we have pitted the two versions against each other in a "on one hand this and another hand that" approach? What would have been the tipping point at which the erroneous facts would have been removed? The problem especially arises if there are errors in books that don't have second editions - and those books are cited in a Wikipedia article. Do we stick with the error - because it is a citable source? Do we defer to the protagonists - if the protagonists have published differing info? Or do we include both assertions? Davidpatrick ( talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The things are ever so complicated and i have to say all stories surronded this band, I saw James Paul McCartney a real leader as memeber who kept on the group together,he plays a lot music instruments, was a good student at primary school, he composes easily,i know he depressed after the dissolution, John Winston Lennon was a leader as an author at especially the beginning, i know he liked poetry and did the school of arts,i know he wanted to leave the group after meeting Yoko Ono, George Harisson was a reserved person but i see him very keen, he was the younger, i know he couldn't put more than a song in an album, john tell him how to write a song in a same mood...Paul didn't want to help him one day they were disputing when they recorded Let it Be,he introduced the indu music, one day he said they could run a danger by meeting people like kennedy ...Ringo started in 1962, i know he stayed in bed during two years , he worked at a factory of wood, eight days a week was his elocution, paul john and george helped him a little... he wrote with george uctopus garden.he wanted to be actor. Brian Epstein was their manager and george Martin their arranger productor. I saw a film when they begun in Hambourg, they were really different, i saw Lennon and McCartney always fussing and fighting each other about the drummer, McCArtney was on horse lennon was mixing with feelings, they were with pleasant wommen.... there was Breaks durring Let it be session.... Later yoko forbidden julian for some mock up... I think lennon later was tired for commitments...his solo songs had a very sensed I think McCartney didn't want to be involved as a singer, he is not like that ..but he was right in a certain point of view. He said in Beatles he was free how to write songs.i apreessied flaming pie and drivin rain....he did hearted work in a classiacal album, but it's not the pain to be accidented with a taxi when he say i appressiate your own song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.103.149.93 ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The sentence "They have been inducted into
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of
John Lennon." should read, "They were inducted into
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of
John Lennon."
DiamondKnight19 (
talk) 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The addition of The Beatles' inclusion in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been reverted. Would it fit better in the third paragraph of the lead with their other accolades? GoingBatty ( talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Do The Beatles play Rock n' Roll or just Rock. Do they also play Prog Rock? Superastig ( talk) 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Read this article, good grief. It's a Wiki-politically-correct summary of the most artistically influential popular group in musical history. Vapid and bizarre. The style doesn't conform to ANY social convention. It's a bunch of pro and con lackwits mouthing off. No, Wikipedia, you aren't the wave of the future. You're the wave of ignorance supported by emotion. Give yourselfth a big pat on the back. God, what morons. 76.126.217.195 ( talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the 1970s grupos category of the article, because the beatles are not of that time, his was separated in 1970.-- JamesMarshallHendrix ( talk) 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The info box at the side of the page lists Pete Bast as dead instead of Stuart Sutcliffe 81.132.151.65 ( talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the information. Bevo74 ( talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the general rule be that the 'mold' spelling should be used because it is a directly from a quote rather than, 'mould' even though 'mould' is the correct British spelling? Bevo74 ( talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The style of this article follows Oxford spelling, which is a widely recognized and completely proper form of British English spelling. There have been a couple of attempts recently to change the style of the article on the baseless grounds that Oxford spelling is not proper BE spelling. Per WP:RETAIN and the general principle of stability, those edits have been reverted. DocKino ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
The quality of the writing has deteriorated for the FORMATION AND EARLY YEARS SECTION since 2008 in The Beatles Wikpedia article. The sentences are no longer flowing and complete but are instead banal, boring and pedestrian and curiously are almost constructed as though they were hurriedly jotted down in a classroom by a disinterested student in short form.
For example the current awkward opening sentence "Aged sixteen, singer and guitarist John Lennon formed the skiffle group The Quarrymen with some Liverpool schoolfriends in March 1957", was once in 2008 a more fluent "In March 1957, while attending Quarry Bank Grammar School in Liverpool, John Lennon formed a skiffle group called The Quarrymen".
The current rather lifeless
"Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a guitarist after he and Lennon met that July. When McCartney in turn invited George Harrison to watch the group the following February, the fourteen-year-old joined as lead guitarist"
was in 2008 a more lively and interesting
"Lennon met guitarist Paul McCartney in St. Peter's Church, on 6 July 1957; Lennon added him to the group a few days later.[7] On 6 February 1958 the 14-year-old guitarist George Harrison was invited to watch the group, which was then playing under a variety of names, at Wilson Hall, Garston, Liverpool.[8] McCartney had become acquainted with Harrison on the morning bus ride to the Liverpool Institute, as they both lived in Speke. Despite Lennon's initial reluctance due to Harrison's young age, Harrison joined the Quarrymen as lead guitarist at McCartney's insistence after a rehearsal in March 1958.[9][10] Lennon and McCartney both played rhythm guitar during that period and, after original Quarrymen drummer Colin Hanton left the band in 1959 following an argument with other band members, had a high turnover of drummers. Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe joined on bass in January 1960."
My main point is that when I first encountered the Beatles Wikipedia article a few years ago I was very impressed with the succinctness and clarity of the prose, the accuracy of the informaton and the lively way The Beatles story had been laid out. So how can this now be fixed other than copying and pasting the older Wikipedia version? I tried editing it myself but my entry was quickly expunged. Can we begin with improving the quality of The Formation and Early years. How do we do this? The history of The Beatles should be interesting? The Beatles story IS a fascinating subject. It should not read like a lifeless biography pulled down from a dusty library shelf.-- Kentjohnston ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change "The Beatles were" to "The Beatles was" (in the very first sentence).
85.30.164.81 ( talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
The reference to sexual advances by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is unfounded. It must have been initiated by people with their own agenda, or someone who is anti-Hinduism. I am not connected with Maharishi foundation or any of his disciples in any way, but, based on my knowledge of yogis of his caliber, the sexual allegations are not credible. Often such allegations are made by non-Hindus. Please see reference to NY Times article below.
The New York Times reported in 2008 that Harrison and McCartney reconsidered the accusations. McCartney said that the rumors of sexual impropriety were raised by Alexis Mardas who "had agendas of his own, and may have fabricated (or at least exaggerated) the story".[81] In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[89] Harrison commented, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[90] Farrow's autobiography is ambiguous about the incident: she describes "panicking" and fleeing after the Maharishi put his arms around her in a dark cave, immediately after a private meditation session.[91] Deepak Chopra, who met and became a "disciple of the Maharishi's" in the 1990s before later splitting, said in 2008 that the Maharishi had a "falling out with the rock stars when he discovered them using drugs".[80][92][93] In their obituaries of the Maharishi, Rolling Stone and Bloomberg news service stated that the rumour of impropriety was "unfounded" and never proven.[4][94][95] Yoko Ono said in 2008 that if Lennon were alive he probably would have reconciled with the Maharishi.[94]"
Please consider editing the Wikipedia content on the Beatles. Not to do so would be a great disservice to a holy teacher like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Thank you. Krish
Kshetty49 (
talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed this template. The justification for adding it was that 10 non-free images was too much for a single article and that the sound files are not all discussed within the article. This is a Featured Article, certainly a priority article, and a pretty long one at that. 10 images is not too many and all the sound files are discussed within the context of the article. Adding the template rather than discussing it here first is a problem for a high-traffic article. Thoughts? freshacconci talktalk 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen any article on this subject. Maybe it would be nice to put a sentence or two on the main page.
When the Fabs said that they wouldn`t play in front of segregated audiences, they gave pop music a new-found social conscience. By Bill DeMain for MOJO http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-1319.html -- Roujan ( talk) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Beatles have won twelve Grammy Awards. I understand that only seven were awarded during the existence of the band, but nevertheless in the third paragraph it may be significant to mention the other five awards. After all, Grammy awards should not be something to be made light of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.94.123 ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. [ [1]]
The Beatles' Grammy Awards
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy Hall of Fame (The Recording Academy Hall of Fame Awards consists of early recordings considered of lasting, qualitative or historical significance. )
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Trustee Award
1972 -- The Beatles
Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Presidents' Award
The Beatles' Academy Awards
I only counted for the band (The Beatles)...but not the grand total (The Beatles + solo career) (Note: The Beatles won a lot of other awards outside USA) (Note: I have not counted how Paul McCartney won awards, but it must be a incredible number)
-- Roujan ( talk) 14:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
About Philippines : When people talk about Philippines, they repeat the same thing : it was a disaster for The Beatles. Yes, it was a huge disaster for them. And on the main page we can read the reasons.(The Beatles declined an invitation). But if it was a political disaster, it was a triumph with the public. http://991.com/Buy/TopItems/LennonGlasses/Stiffed.aspx
< On July 4, The Beatles held two soldout concerts at the Rizal Memorial Football Stadium with a combined attendance of 80,000; the evening concert registered 50,000 paying audience, being rivaled only in size by the concert The Beatles gave at Shea Stadium in New York on August 15, 1965 >
It's just my opinion, but i think that this information should not be hidden because it reflects the incredible success of The Beatles in the Philippines.
About Japan : Strangely I have not seen anything on the main page. Yet it seems that there are things to say.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/beatles-live-budokan-0 In this memo from the British national archives, a U.K. ambassador reports on the Beatles' wild 1966 trip to Japan. (page 3)
< In the event, the 'Operation Beatles' which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. No fewer than thirty-five thousand policemen were mobilised or alerted, at a cost of an estimated thirty thousand pounds.>
Another link : http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html -- Roujan ( talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a very interesting link about the music of The Beatles: Not on the hair of The Beatles, not on Lsd, not on Yoko Ono, not on Brian Epstein, not on George Martin, not on the dead of Paul McCartney in 1966. NO, a link on the Beatles Music. The Beatles were first and foremost musicians and composers. And like composers, they were unique. Very unique. And that is exactly what we can discover on this fantastic, fabulous link. [ [2]]
<In 1989 the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack started to analyze the songs of the Beatles. He published his first results on internet. In 1991 — after he had finished the work on 28 songs — he bravely decided to do the whole lot of them. About ten years later, in 2000 he completed the analysis of the official Beatles' canon, consisting of 187 songs and 25 covers. Here we have ordered this massive work in five categories. And, for your convenience, we've added an alphabetical, a canonical and a chronological index as well as a short introduction.>
Obviously, every phrase, every word is interesting, but here are some excerpts. And I think that these extracts should be incorporated into the main article, because-and I repeat that this relates to the music of the Beatles and especially some of the most important features of their music.
On the Chapter <dossiers> clic on <Beatles' studies> and after clic on <Words and chords> and you will obtain this page: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml
It's an article by Ger J. Tilleken. (Born In 1949 Studied Sociology At Leiden University, And Is Now Working At Groningen University In The Netherlands)
Extract : <As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>
And this is one reason why Nick Stone wrote this. (on this link http://www.learningmusician.com/features/0207/AlanPollack/ ) (Nick Stone was born in Wiesbaden, Germany and raised in various American army bases and suburbs. He is currently an independent scholar and musician living in the San Francisco Bay Area)
Extract : < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.>
Well, if you read carefully these articles, you will find lots of great information. Probably because all these guys who wrote these articles are musicians but also they are very serious.
-- Roujan ( talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi -Nick R
I understand what you say and I agree. But here's the problem: On the main page I read the chapter < Musical style and evolution >. It's perfect but this article does not mention the basis of their music: Their chords and their chord sequences. The Beatles were very special about these two criteria. I think in a serious article on the Beatles music, we can't ignore these characteristics. I can't imagine it. Nothing justifies this. It's my opinion. Why write an article on the Beatles music and don't write that < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.> and < As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>
Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page? -- Roujan ( talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino
I understand that you control Beatles page. You choose what you like and reject what you do not like. Did you see my question above: <Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page?>
These two important sentences talk about Beatles' music. Do you think that we should not talk about music when we talk about The Beatles? Do you think that Wikipedia must conceal the unique characteristics of Beatles' music?
Because you control Beatles page, i have no choice. I must request
1- Do you accept these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music?
2- Do you refuse these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music? -- Roujan ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor rightly requested discussion for opening sentence prior to any alterations, so changed the sentence from The Beatles.. "are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music"... to .... "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music". In my opinion, the former sentence should remain. To state The Beatles are "one of" is inaccurate, generic, nor reflective of their status.., Pink Floyd are "one of"..., The Beatles meanwhile are "often recognized" and routinely top polls as the most acclaimed act in popular music, [3] [4] and commercially are certified #1 by the RIAA, [5] and Billboard. [6] To have "one of".. is akin to altering the Jimi Hendrix article from .."He is widely considered to be the greatest electric guitarist in musical history".. to "he is one of the greatest electric guitarists". Therefore, i support the original sentence that The Beatles..."are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music". Aussie Ryan 1987 ( talk) 21:36, 04 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello freshacconci: You wrote: <As far as most commercially successful we would need some hard stats to back that up with no uncertainty.> Yes indeed, perhaps it's impossible to determine the most commercially successful. But if you want to do it, you can designate The Beatles. There are many elements. Just 1 example: Their professional career debuted in 1962 and finished in 1970. Only 8 years. And who is the biggest sale of the twentieth century? I'm sure you know it. -- Roujan ( talk) 11:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello DocKino
The sentence is <the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music>
critically : Elvis Presley cannot compete against The Beatles. The Beatles wrote their songs (not Elvis Presley). The Beatles created musical innovations and studio innovations (Not Elvis Presley). Beatles songs are among the most covered songs in the world. (and i can't exclude they are the most covered in the world).
commercially: I don't understand why you talk about sales of one billion for Elvis. You can find the same figure for The Beatles since 1985. About the <World Music Awards 2008> on November 9, 2008 in Monte-Carlo Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry
Another thing. I saw you talk about Billboard and RIAA. Wait a minute, please. In USA, during his career of 22 years (1956-1977) Elvis Presley obtained 17 singles number 1 and 9 albums number 1. In USA, during their career of 7 years (1964-1970) The Beatles obtained 20 singles number 1 and 14 albums number 1. (And The Beatles weren't an American band!)
To write < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music > is not a lie. It's a fact. If you analyse their influence, their innovations and their success you understand why The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music. Like you can read on <allmusic> : < Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did > http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-p3644
And finally finish with humor: On the morning of December 21st 1970, Elvis Presley showed up announced at the gates of the White House in Washington, D.C. He carried a letter, handwritten on American Airlines stationary, addressed to President Richard Nixon...
But In August 1964, The Beatles returned to the US for a second visit, this time remaining for a month-long tour. A request was received from the White House press office, which asked for The Beatles to be photographed with the new President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, laying a wreath on the grave of John F. Kennedy. The request was politely declined by The Beatles as it was not the group's policy to accept "official" invitations. (lol) -- Roujan ( talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino
It's an endless discussion. But i have an idea. Why can't we mix the two sentences? Look : < The Beatles are one of the most critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music and they are among the few artists who are often (or sometimes) recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music.> It seems correct, no? -- Roujan ( talk) 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your sentence is that it's not objective. It does not reflect the full reality. Your sentence conceals an indisputable fact: < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music >. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Wanting to conceal this fact is not an objective act. -- Roujan ( talk) 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I put references to support that the Beatles are the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed
http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1948-09art.htm
For international sales the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) ranks The Beatles in the number 1, Michael Jackson number 2 y Elvis number 3.
http://verdesmares.globo.com/v3/canais/noticias.asp?codigo=137250&modulo=808
Please consider de above information. Is no enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
About the criticism, there is another addition to rolling stone (high quality) that does not refer to the Beatles as number 1? About sales, if RIAA (only for USA, the largest market in record) and IFPI report that The Beatles are number 1, who would have to declare? Remember, sales of The Beatles are certified, others are only estimates.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If some sources say the Beatles are more successful and some say Elvis is, then "are often recognised" is correct. Perhaps we could re-word it saying they are the most successful band ever? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The beatles are the most successful is said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, who says to Elvis? The beatles are the most critically acclaimed is said by Rolling Stone(if you do not want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), who says to Elvis? Sales for the Beatles are certified, not only his record company said.
Fgonmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But in the U.S. yes, the RIAA and IFPI international level. If in Britain there were no certificates in the 60's, this affects the Beatles and Elvis.
I ask again
The beatles are The Most Successful Is Said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, Who says to Elvis? Even IFPI ranks Elvis third, after Michael Jackson.
I put the link to best selling artist of wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
The beatles are The Most Critically Acclaimed Is Said by Rolling Stone (If You Do Not Want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), Who says to Elvis? Even Rolling Stone ranks Elvis third, after Bob Dylan.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Beatles are ranked # 1 in 100 Greatest Artists and have 11 of the 500 Greatest Album, with 4 in top 10, including the # 1 Sgt Pepper's , that's not being the most acclaimed? These classifications are made by critics, is not a popularity poll.
You expect someone to make a mathematical calculation to prove?
I am posting the link to 500 Greatest Album of Rolling Stone and a link to The Virgin All-time Album Top 1000 List by Colin Larkin. I also put in who is a Colin Larkin:
Colin Larkin was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by Jools Holland as 'without question the most useful reference work on popular music' and by The Times as 'the standard against which all others must be judged’.
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/virgin_1000_v3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Larkin_%28writer%29#cite_note-2
If after that, not want to change, OK.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino.
Our initial discussion it was about this sentence:
< are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music >
And not like you wrote:
< the most commercially successful act ever >
Excuse me, but you forgot to write the word : critically
By deleting the word critically, you change the whole meaning of the initial sentence, the first sentence: our discussion.
So, your arguments are inadmissible. You must use the initial sentence with the words commercially successful but also critically
But about commercially successful and critically, we can do the comparison between Elvis Presley and The Beatles. let's go
1 - commercially successful
You wrote : < I can see how badly you want to "prove" that the Beatles are the most commercially successful act ever, but it's not going to happen. You know, commercial success involves not only record sales, but concert appearances, of which Presley had far, far more as a major star than the Beatles did. And what about his dozens of musical films versus the Beatles' handful? >
Yes and indeed, there are many different criteria to evaluate commercial success. For example and like you refer to concert appearances, i'm not sure at 100%, but on this particular criterion The Rolling Stones are perhaps the most commercially successful act ever.
On this particular criterion, Elvis or The Beatles can't compete against The Rolling Stones. Elvis or The Beatles broke tons of record about concert appearances, but it's the same thing for The Rolling Stones. In reality, you can also write that there is tons of acts who were most commercially successful than Elvis or The Beatles on this particular criterion.
So, on this particular criterion, you can't write that Elvis or The Beatles are often recognised the most commercially successful act ever.
But because you must use many different criteria to evaluate commercial success, you must also use the sales and the charts. And on these two criteria, The Beatles were superior to Elvis Presley. Believe or not, during their career, (only 8 years :1962-1970) The Beatles broke more record sales and more records charts than Elvis Presley during his career (21 years : 1956-1977). It's a fact. In reality, in the history of popular music of the twentieth century, and about the sales and charts, The Beatles were the most successful act ever. It's a fact. And it's one of reasons why this band is often recognised the most commercially successful act ever. (but there are other reasons)
I think you don't know the unique success of The Beatles. The Beatles broke so much and so deeply records sales and record charts, that at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up - The Beatles was in possession at more of Record sales than anyone. You can see an overview of this document (not exhaustive) List_of_The_Beatles%27_record_sales
Be careful!!! this document does not represent all records sales or records charts that The Beatles broke during their career. NO...NO...NO. It represents only the records sales and records charts which was still valid at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up!
Can you name another act with so many records sales or records charts at the end of the twentieth century. Obviously, NO. This is absolute proof, indisputable, because it's mathematical that about sales and charts, The Beatles are the most successful act ever
Beatles 1 - Elvis 0
But if i use another criterion, like for example musical films, it's possible that Elvis Presley is the most successful act ever. Who else, Suppose
Beatles 1 - Elvis 1
For instant, and for the most successful act ever : 1 - 1
Note : Interesting that The Beatles score a point with their music. Elvis Presley with cinema.
2 - critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response)
And it's one of reasons that in term of music, The Beatles are constamment way ahead Elvis Presley. Musicians, Scholars, Historians, Critics prefer The Beatles than Elvis Presley because with The Beatles, we can talk about music: Their < outrageous chords > like said Bob Dylan, their incredible chords progression, their innovations. Elvis Presley was essentially a singer...then...
Beatles 1 - Elvis 0
Like you see about critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response), The Beatles are way ahead Elvis Presley.
Finally by adding critically and commercially successful we obtain
Beatles 2 - Elvis 1
And it's for this reason that The Beatles are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music. -- Roujan ( talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So we will change the opening sentence? "One of The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed Acts in the history of popular music" to "are Often Recognized as The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed act in popular music"
I can not find any valid argument for not changing
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we will not change the opening sentence--certainly not on the basis of what's been put forward here so far. If you sincerely "can not find any valid argument for not changing," it can only be because you are not fluent in English. You have not provided the necessary sourcing for the "critically acclaimed" aspect of your desires, and you have failed to prove your point or establish a consensus in support of the "commercially successful" aspect of your desires. DocKino ( talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
From your point of view, together with the Beatles, who else is among the most critically acclaimed. If you agree that the Beatles are, where you base. What references do you have? I have already put the reference of The Virgin All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin, Is not valid for you?. If both Rolling Stones and All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin stated Sgt Pepper's and Revolver respectively are the biggest albums, in addition to Abbey Road and White Album are in the Top 10, That does not mean they are the most critically acclaimed? Another reference states that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed?
If you have references to declare that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed, put them. Or, if you have references at least to declare that the Beatles are, along with other artists, most critically acclaimed, put them. I have already put Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album), The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000), Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door (The last two rejected by you). You have not put anything. And we're not discussing my fluency in English.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fgonmar
About the "critically acclaimed" you mention <Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album)>, <The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000)>, <Acclaimed Music> and <Digital Dream Door>, but you forgot the <Rock and Roll Hall of Fame> http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-beatles/bio/
<Though popular music has changed considerably in the decades since the Beatles’ demise, their music continues to reach and inspire new generations of listeners. Half a century after their humble origins in Liverpool, the Beatles remain the most enduring phenomenon in the history of popular music. -- Roujan ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Recognition for the Beatles is almost unanimously by critics.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Here I put other references that prove that the Beatles are the most critically acclaimed
http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1998/vh1artists.htm
http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/
Greetings
Fgonmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.223.137.50 ( talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"VH1 does not know about music? There is not repetitive, is another organization. Then in who you trust? Alone in Rolling Stone? Rolling Stone says the Beatles are the greatest artists of all time. Definitely you have anything against the Beatles or you hurts your favorite artist is below the Beatles, you do not believe in anyone and just write what you personally believe.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My poor writing is not related to what we are discussing here, and is not your problem.
Fgonmar. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fgonmar (
talk •
contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me if the first sentence in the article is not a complete sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.253 ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The query has been moved to
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com
|
---|
Greetings, Within the Beatles material on Wiki I count 137 backlinks to one website: http://BeatlesBible.com. After reviewing Wiki policies regarding external linking, it appears that these backlinks violate one or more of 3 Wiki guidelines: #4 links intended to promote a website, #5 links intended primarily to sell products or services, and #11 links to most fansites. For discussion purposes, I've enclosed a listing of the Wiki backlinks pointing to BeatlesBible.com below:
aeternumls.org 1 alabamapublicrecordsearch.org 1 bg.wikipedia.org 1 dattolos.org 1 en.wikipedia.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 en.wikiquote.org 1 es.wikipedia.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fr.wikipedia.org 1 2 gilbertojr.ocorpo.org 1 id.wikipedia.org 1 it.wikipedia.org 1 ru.wikipedia.org 1 tr.wikipedia.org 1 Note: These include the English, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, and Turkish versions of Wikipedia. While I do like the BeatlesBible.com fan site I like several others as well, none of which are linked to from Wiki apparently in accordance with Wiki policies. Fiatlux5762 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs)
I didn't say the links are spam, I said the links violate at least 3 Wikipedia policies. Change the policies or delete the links. If the press picks up that you've got 137 backlinks to a site that violate your own policies *someone* who is favoring the BeatlesBible website is going to have a lot of explaining to do to God. Seriously, I know some people believe that anything associated with the word Bible is automatically THE authority but these links gotta go or 3 policies gotta be changed. Period. Fiatlux5762 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs)
Discussion moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com as per DocKino request. Fiatlux5762 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs) |
Hi guys this is to inform all that i will be linking all the book (that are now digitized) in the refs and further reading section today. I have recently done this to John Lennon by request and now have been asked to do this page as well. I normally dont do requests - but this article and Johns page are both in the top 100 most viewed pages, so i guess i will take the time to make it all nice. Moxy ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This section, as written, omits enough detail and offers such an over-simplified description of the subject that it borders on being inaccurate or misleading. Just to recap the history of Northern Songs, the company was formed in February 1963 by Dick James, with James and his partner owning 50%, Lennon and McCartney 20% each and Brian Epstein 10%. At that time Lennon and McCartney signed 10-year publishing contracts with the company. In November 1963, George Harrison signed a 5-year contract with Northern. In 1965 the company went public with Lennon and McCartney each retaining 15% of the shares and James and Silver 37.5%. In March 1969, James and Silver sold their shares to ATV without telling the Beatles. ATV and the Beatles then made competing bids to gain a controlling interest in the company but in May a consortium of shareholders agreed to accept ATV's offer. In October 1969 the Beatles sold their remaining shares in Northern Songs to ATV. This might be too much detail for the article but I think it points out how the article contains a somewhat conflicting account and fails to adequately describe the company and its history. Piriczki ( talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are several book and newspaper sources:
Piriczki ( talk) 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be a mention of Edward Lear and the Goon Show under influences. Although not musical, what we remember from the Beatles are the lyrics, so it does seem right. 92.7.184.138 ( talk) 10:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is grammatically correct that a plural word such as "Beatles" normally requires "The" before it (especially at the beginning of a sentence) or "the" when used mid-sentence. Therefore leaving "the" out altogether is usually grammatically incorrect. Exceptions would be in sentences such as "The last two Beatles' albums ..." There is no grammatical excuse for leaving "The" out before "Beatles" at the start of a sentence. A sentence beginning "Beatles released two albums ..." sounds odd because it is odd and also incorrect. Afterwriting ( talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor apparently decided to single-handedly make wholesale changes in the article without the slightest bit of discussion. Many of these changes blatantly lower the article's quality, improperly eliminating the subjects' first names on initial mention in the primary text, for instance, and introducing many improper style changes and inconsistencies. I have reverted all these changes pending proper discussion here in Talk. DocKino ( talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I tuned out on the interminable "The"/"the" debate well before Andreasegde's "Triangular diplomacy". Having now read through it, I concur it yielded a consensus to replace most of the mid-sentence occurrences of the band's full name--though I would say that there was clearly no consensus established to remove all such instances. The consensus appears to have been to allow, as a first step, Andreasegde to make the relevant edits as he saw fit and then for other contributors to examine the results and, as usual, improve on them as called for. That's what I've done. For the most part, the results were satisfactory, with two caveats:
(1) It is good and standard practice to have the subject's name near the opening (i.e., first or second sentence) of each significant portion of the article--in this case, that mostly means historical sub-sections. This provides an anchor for the many pronoun references that will follow and greatly eases reading, especially for those who may decide to start reading the article at some midpoint. I restored the band's full name where it naturally appeared mid-sentence in five such cases.
(2) In a few cases, I did feel that the elimination of the band's name resulted in strained or stilted phrasing--a problem anticipated by several commentators in the "Triangular diplomacy" thread, including some who stated their general support for the pronoun-substitution concept. Again, I encountered just a few such cases--three, to be exact. I'll describe each:
All eight [now seven] cases in which I reintroduced the full name mid-sentence may be efficiently viewed via this edit.
I'll note, finally, that Andreasegde's own spate of edits left three instances of "The Beatles" mid-sentence, in the "Musical style and evolution," "Awards and recognition," and "Song catalogue" sections--further evidence that there was no consensus to purge the article of all such uses of the name, which would be insensible overkill. In the end, good writing and ease of reading are far more important than our stylistic wranglings. DocKino ( talk) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's great that an article about The Beatles playing music by The Beatles and detailing Beatles' albums recorded by The Beatles is also called The Beatles. Good, no?-- andreasegde ( talk) 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Andreasegde, are you OK? I have corrected my misplacement of the apostrophe in "fan's screams" (thanks for pointing out that excruciatingly minor error) and restored the missing "were" in the Jesus passage (thanks for pointing out that truly excruciating error). That aside, your remarkable..."commentary"...reveals that you possess an extraordinary taste for sarcasm but complete disregard for improving this article and no cognizance of ordinary English locution. There is nothing to do but shrug, sigh, and stand guard.
Oh, just one question, buddy. Purely curious: When the great PL290 finally brought this article to FA status--a process in which I was happy and proud to play a supporting role--where the heck were you? DocKino ( talk) 08:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Could this image be removed?: The Beatles and Lill-Babs 1963.jpg
There are two issues. I have dozens of books on the Beatles, and I don't offhand recall reading about Lill-Babs. Perhaps this has been discussed; well and good. However the picture itself is professionally unacceptable. An image enhancement, probably using "edge sharpening" or "unsharp mask", were used to brighten the photo. It's a common practice, but when it is overdone (as here), and shown on a recent, bright LCD monitor, it's jarring and pixelated. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Gunmetal Angel has sought to alter the long-standing title "After the break-up" to "Post-break-up," while making the odd suggestion that there is something less than "proper" about the former. Aside from the awkwardness, even ugliness, of the double-hyphenated "post-break-up," it's a less fitting phrase. I encourage editors to take a look at the results of a Google Books search on the phrase "after the break-up": three of the first five books are actually about The Beatles. That's more than sufficient high-quality support for the existing phrase. DocKino ( talk) 04:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Why have I never heard of this?
"Three days after their relationship began, John Lennon and Yoko Ono appeared in public for the first time, for the lunchtime launch party and press conference for Apple Tailoring (Civil and Theatrical), the second boutique from Apple Corps. It took place at Club Dell'Aretusa, at 107 King's Road, Chelsea, London."-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So, I would like to place these templates on the bottoms of the following pages:
The Beatles The Beatles discography
Some users seem to object. I put time and effort into these and I would appreciate it being rewarded. I think it's pretty obvious why these are an improvement. It improves navigation. Hoops gza ( talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed the font. Thanks. Hoops gza ( talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, as far as I can tell, only the following artists have articles for every song in their catalogue:
And then the following artists have articles for every song on SOME of their albums:
Please add to this if there are other artists in this group. Hoops gza ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
To what are you referring? Hoops gza ( talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
One of several sources from the UK Intellectural Property Office which state that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd is at [11] Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As I've been reverted for following what is on this page, which is it then? The statement at the top of this page or [[ [12]]] Bevo74 ( talk) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] But Andreasegde's statement "It's definitely 'The'" is at odds to the statement at the top of this page: "Consensus has been reached to use 'the Beatles' instead of 'The Beatles' in running prose" — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 08:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
[13] The Beatles' trademark document, which says, "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " Therefore, the use of 'The' must be used as it is part of a trademark. Definitely the end of.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. It was difficult bouncing around three pages. The page for discussion is here: [14]-- andreasegde ( talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Folks, this is becoming a leetle bit silly :). Most Beatles editors are perfectly happy to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on this point. This was shown about four months ago when there was clear acquiescence with this edit in the discussion specifically addressing the question. It was then demonstrated again—a month later—in this edit by User:Rodhullandemu, an admin with keen oversight of Beatles articles, who stated, "Consensus is for lower-case "the", per Talk page" in his edit summary. This page has over a thousand watchers: these and other related edits were accepted without demur. I am a bit busy in real life at the moment, so can't watch this discussion too closely, but having taken this article to Featured status I would prefer to see it comply with the MoS. I hope others will begin to voice their (previously silent) support—after all, complying with Wikepeda guidelines is something editors are generally expected to attempt to do. PL290 ( talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So where are we with consensus? The Mos/music, and MoS discussions seem to have both decided on "the" in running text. This discussion seems more or less balanced (I throw in that the trademark MoS says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" - since that seems to have been a red herring). So what now?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC).
I notice that both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES" are trademarked, and that the mark includes stylized text, i.e., all caps. Strictly following the trademark would require using the BEATLES or THE BEATLES in the article (which I'm not suggesting). Besides, MoS:TM states "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'" and MoS:MUSIC says "the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose." Piriczki ( talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that capitalisation is important to trademarks. If "The Beatles" is trademarked, than no one else can use that name, no matter how they capitalise it. Whether or not to capitalise "the" is irrelevant to "The Beatles" being a trademark. If Apple Corps do not capitalise "the Beatles" then they clearly don't care about the trademark style. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So,
Proposal For the reasons immediately above, this band's name should not be considered an exception to MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article). — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that both Steelbeard's and my arguments are invalid, but that does not make it so. I'll leave Steelbeard to say whether he accepts your dismissal of his argument or not. For my part, I have evidently failed to make clear my argument against your proposal, so let me state it one more time:
It seems that there is some confusion as to what is being proposed, with some editors believing the statement “the band’s name is The Beatles” to be a counter-argument to the proposal (in fact, the statement is a premise of the proposal), so I’ll try to re-present the argument more clearly.
Premises:
Conclusion:
Proposal:
Notes:
Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Anybody fancy a pie and a pint? -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose. Specific cases where "the" should be capitalized mid-sentence are: when quoted, e.g. ... and according to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, “they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles”. Read 'em and weep, because that is exactly what is written in the MoS.. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
These are some sources currently used to verify the article that use a lower case "the":
— GabeMc ( talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no numerical consensus for using either The Beatles or the Beatles. An independent admin could evaluate the discussion and reach a closing decision either way, or close as no consensus. It might be worth looking at proposals for dealing with the situation, as it appears there is not even consensus as which consensus is more binding, that decided locally, or that decided on guidelines. My understanding based on previous discussions and specific policy is that guidelines take precedence over WikiProjects and small groups of editors working on an article or group of articles. Policy would dictate that in a dispute such as this, that the wider community view is the one taken - which would mean that "the Beatles" would be the preferred usage. Though there is also the understanding that guidelines reflect actual community usage, and the argument has been used here that there is a consensus to use "The Beatles" in this article. However, there appears to be no such consensus at present, and such a consensus has not been long standing, as this article has mostly through its history used "the Beatles". It is possible that usage of "the Beatles" / "The Beatles" will continue to be debated and fought over, with perhaps only the most determined (rather than the most appropriate) usage prevailing. Anyway - possible outcomes:
Anything is possible. My preference is for #1. SilkTork * YES! 11:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So this doesn't roll on for ever, can I take it that we have a consensus for #1, close this discussion, and move forward with the actions outlined. SilkTork * YES! 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As a note for — GabeMc, you should look at your favourite pages, because these: "first referred to as The Pink Floyd Sound", "album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn", "with The Dark Side of the Moon", "opening of The Roundhouse", "in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "for the film The Committee", "at the same time that The Beatles", "in history, The Wall", "with The Royal Fusiliers", "attended The Perse School", "the group became known as The Abdabs, or The (Screaming) Abdabs", "and The Division Bell", "solo album, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking", and "originally titled The Bike Song", seem to show that you like it that way. Wow, you took Roger Waters to FA with those, huh? -- andreasegde ( talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been debated many times, so you lower casers are WP:LAME. I am truly shocked that Silk Tork, who has been here long enough and should know better, actually did what he did. It has been reverted.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines have been and are being followed. The issue has been discussed, and the options outlined. Sometimes the outcome is not to the liking of individuals. This is an aspect of being part of a collaborative project. We have procedures in place for when somebody is unhappy with a decision, and reverting is not one of them. It is inappropriate to force one's opinion. We prefer to follow consensus, to use discussion, and to refer to guidelines. That has been done in this case. There is no local consensus for either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", therefore we use the wider consensus of the guidelines which is for "the Beatles". Referring to wider consensus is, as detailed above, the policy on Wikipedia. See WP:CONLIMITED.
Discussion on this matter can go round in circles, and nobody is really willing to carry on the debate. If anyone really things that my actions are inappropriate, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While it is exhausting to keep talking, that is at least less disruptive than reverting. See Wikipedia:Reverting. SilkTork * YES! 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Howabout THE BEATLES, as it's roughly shown on the front of Starr's drums. PS: And Lennon thought it was tough enough explaining the spelling of Beatles with an a. GoodDay ( talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I see the Arbitration request is not going well. WP:LAME seems to be the consensus there. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (First solo Beatle recording corrected by Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) )
— GabeMc has proven that he has no wish to make any kind of progress on this. This is after I pointed out to him the numerous Big Ts in an article he took to FA (which he then changed). I suspect his motives, and will wait for other editors that want to reach any kind of consensus.-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My personal approach is to always use a person's or entity's proper name in the first reference to them in a paragraph and then to usually only use "he", "she", "it", "they" (etc) in subsequent references unless the name is required for clarity of who or what is being referred to. Afterwriting ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But does anyone actually agree that the proposal stated above is acceptable? Please say yes or no, in whichever fashion you prefer, but less is more. :)
This section is not here to go over that again.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
What is the preferred way to resolve conflicts on facts relating to the Beatles? eg if one or more books written by biographers (whose knowledge of events is only second-hand and third-hand) print a date in good faith and then subsequently first-hand sources - the people in question - emerge and publish information that contradicts the date offered by the author(s) - and makes clear that the prior biographies were erroneous - how should we deal with it? Do we say that such and such source say "this date" but the protagonists have published a version that asserts "that date". Or if the protagonists are credible and properly published do we defer to them as having the best perspective? This is not academic. Biographers often make errors. The first editions of the authorized Hunter Davies biography of the Beatles (published in 1968) had many errors that were eventually corrected in subsequent editions. If Wikipedia had existed in 1968 - we'd have had a conflict between a cited book - that contained mistakes - and provable fact. Which could then be changed only on publication of the correction. Would we have pitted the two versions against each other in a "on one hand this and another hand that" approach? What would have been the tipping point at which the erroneous facts would have been removed? The problem especially arises if there are errors in books that don't have second editions - and those books are cited in a Wikipedia article. Do we stick with the error - because it is a citable source? Do we defer to the protagonists - if the protagonists have published differing info? Or do we include both assertions? Davidpatrick ( talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The things are ever so complicated and i have to say all stories surronded this band, I saw James Paul McCartney a real leader as memeber who kept on the group together,he plays a lot music instruments, was a good student at primary school, he composes easily,i know he depressed after the dissolution, John Winston Lennon was a leader as an author at especially the beginning, i know he liked poetry and did the school of arts,i know he wanted to leave the group after meeting Yoko Ono, George Harisson was a reserved person but i see him very keen, he was the younger, i know he couldn't put more than a song in an album, john tell him how to write a song in a same mood...Paul didn't want to help him one day they were disputing when they recorded Let it Be,he introduced the indu music, one day he said they could run a danger by meeting people like kennedy ...Ringo started in 1962, i know he stayed in bed during two years , he worked at a factory of wood, eight days a week was his elocution, paul john and george helped him a little... he wrote with george uctopus garden.he wanted to be actor. Brian Epstein was their manager and george Martin their arranger productor. I saw a film when they begun in Hambourg, they were really different, i saw Lennon and McCartney always fussing and fighting each other about the drummer, McCArtney was on horse lennon was mixing with feelings, they were with pleasant wommen.... there was Breaks durring Let it be session.... Later yoko forbidden julian for some mock up... I think lennon later was tired for commitments...his solo songs had a very sensed I think McCartney didn't want to be involved as a singer, he is not like that ..but he was right in a certain point of view. He said in Beatles he was free how to write songs.i apreessied flaming pie and drivin rain....he did hearted work in a classiacal album, but it's not the pain to be accidented with a taxi when he say i appressiate your own song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.103.149.93 ( talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The sentence "They have been inducted into
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of
John Lennon." should read, "They were inducted into
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of
John Lennon."
DiamondKnight19 (
talk) 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The addition of The Beatles' inclusion in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been reverted. Would it fit better in the third paragraph of the lead with their other accolades? GoingBatty ( talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Do The Beatles play Rock n' Roll or just Rock. Do they also play Prog Rock? Superastig ( talk) 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Read this article, good grief. It's a Wiki-politically-correct summary of the most artistically influential popular group in musical history. Vapid and bizarre. The style doesn't conform to ANY social convention. It's a bunch of pro and con lackwits mouthing off. No, Wikipedia, you aren't the wave of the future. You're the wave of ignorance supported by emotion. Give yourselfth a big pat on the back. God, what morons. 76.126.217.195 ( talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the 1970s grupos category of the article, because the beatles are not of that time, his was separated in 1970.-- JamesMarshallHendrix ( talk) 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The info box at the side of the page lists Pete Bast as dead instead of Stuart Sutcliffe 81.132.151.65 ( talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the information. Bevo74 ( talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the general rule be that the 'mold' spelling should be used because it is a directly from a quote rather than, 'mould' even though 'mould' is the correct British spelling? Bevo74 ( talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The style of this article follows Oxford spelling, which is a widely recognized and completely proper form of British English spelling. There have been a couple of attempts recently to change the style of the article on the baseless grounds that Oxford spelling is not proper BE spelling. Per WP:RETAIN and the general principle of stability, those edits have been reverted. DocKino ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
The quality of the writing has deteriorated for the FORMATION AND EARLY YEARS SECTION since 2008 in The Beatles Wikpedia article. The sentences are no longer flowing and complete but are instead banal, boring and pedestrian and curiously are almost constructed as though they were hurriedly jotted down in a classroom by a disinterested student in short form.
For example the current awkward opening sentence "Aged sixteen, singer and guitarist John Lennon formed the skiffle group The Quarrymen with some Liverpool schoolfriends in March 1957", was once in 2008 a more fluent "In March 1957, while attending Quarry Bank Grammar School in Liverpool, John Lennon formed a skiffle group called The Quarrymen".
The current rather lifeless
"Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a guitarist after he and Lennon met that July. When McCartney in turn invited George Harrison to watch the group the following February, the fourteen-year-old joined as lead guitarist"
was in 2008 a more lively and interesting
"Lennon met guitarist Paul McCartney in St. Peter's Church, on 6 July 1957; Lennon added him to the group a few days later.[7] On 6 February 1958 the 14-year-old guitarist George Harrison was invited to watch the group, which was then playing under a variety of names, at Wilson Hall, Garston, Liverpool.[8] McCartney had become acquainted with Harrison on the morning bus ride to the Liverpool Institute, as they both lived in Speke. Despite Lennon's initial reluctance due to Harrison's young age, Harrison joined the Quarrymen as lead guitarist at McCartney's insistence after a rehearsal in March 1958.[9][10] Lennon and McCartney both played rhythm guitar during that period and, after original Quarrymen drummer Colin Hanton left the band in 1959 following an argument with other band members, had a high turnover of drummers. Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe joined on bass in January 1960."
My main point is that when I first encountered the Beatles Wikipedia article a few years ago I was very impressed with the succinctness and clarity of the prose, the accuracy of the informaton and the lively way The Beatles story had been laid out. So how can this now be fixed other than copying and pasting the older Wikipedia version? I tried editing it myself but my entry was quickly expunged. Can we begin with improving the quality of The Formation and Early years. How do we do this? The history of The Beatles should be interesting? The Beatles story IS a fascinating subject. It should not read like a lifeless biography pulled down from a dusty library shelf.-- Kentjohnston ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Please change "The Beatles were" to "The Beatles was" (in the very first sentence).
85.30.164.81 ( talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
The reference to sexual advances by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is unfounded. It must have been initiated by people with their own agenda, or someone who is anti-Hinduism. I am not connected with Maharishi foundation or any of his disciples in any way, but, based on my knowledge of yogis of his caliber, the sexual allegations are not credible. Often such allegations are made by non-Hindus. Please see reference to NY Times article below.
The New York Times reported in 2008 that Harrison and McCartney reconsidered the accusations. McCartney said that the rumors of sexual impropriety were raised by Alexis Mardas who "had agendas of his own, and may have fabricated (or at least exaggerated) the story".[81] In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[89] Harrison commented, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[90] Farrow's autobiography is ambiguous about the incident: she describes "panicking" and fleeing after the Maharishi put his arms around her in a dark cave, immediately after a private meditation session.[91] Deepak Chopra, who met and became a "disciple of the Maharishi's" in the 1990s before later splitting, said in 2008 that the Maharishi had a "falling out with the rock stars when he discovered them using drugs".[80][92][93] In their obituaries of the Maharishi, Rolling Stone and Bloomberg news service stated that the rumour of impropriety was "unfounded" and never proven.[4][94][95] Yoko Ono said in 2008 that if Lennon were alive he probably would have reconciled with the Maharishi.[94]"
Please consider editing the Wikipedia content on the Beatles. Not to do so would be a great disservice to a holy teacher like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Thank you. Krish
Kshetty49 (
talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed this template. The justification for adding it was that 10 non-free images was too much for a single article and that the sound files are not all discussed within the article. This is a Featured Article, certainly a priority article, and a pretty long one at that. 10 images is not too many and all the sound files are discussed within the context of the article. Adding the template rather than discussing it here first is a problem for a high-traffic article. Thoughts? freshacconci talktalk 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen any article on this subject. Maybe it would be nice to put a sentence or two on the main page.
When the Fabs said that they wouldn`t play in front of segregated audiences, they gave pop music a new-found social conscience. By Bill DeMain for MOJO http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-1319.html -- Roujan ( talk) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The Beatles have won twelve Grammy Awards. I understand that only seven were awarded during the existence of the band, but nevertheless in the third paragraph it may be significant to mention the other five awards. After all, Grammy awards should not be something to be made light of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.94.123 ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. [ [1]]
The Beatles' Grammy Awards
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy Hall of Fame (The Recording Academy Hall of Fame Awards consists of early recordings considered of lasting, qualitative or historical significance. )
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Trustee Award
1972 -- The Beatles
Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Presidents' Award
The Beatles' Academy Awards
I only counted for the band (The Beatles)...but not the grand total (The Beatles + solo career) (Note: The Beatles won a lot of other awards outside USA) (Note: I have not counted how Paul McCartney won awards, but it must be a incredible number)
-- Roujan ( talk) 14:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
About Philippines : When people talk about Philippines, they repeat the same thing : it was a disaster for The Beatles. Yes, it was a huge disaster for them. And on the main page we can read the reasons.(The Beatles declined an invitation). But if it was a political disaster, it was a triumph with the public. http://991.com/Buy/TopItems/LennonGlasses/Stiffed.aspx
< On July 4, The Beatles held two soldout concerts at the Rizal Memorial Football Stadium with a combined attendance of 80,000; the evening concert registered 50,000 paying audience, being rivaled only in size by the concert The Beatles gave at Shea Stadium in New York on August 15, 1965 >
It's just my opinion, but i think that this information should not be hidden because it reflects the incredible success of The Beatles in the Philippines.
About Japan : Strangely I have not seen anything on the main page. Yet it seems that there are things to say.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/beatles-live-budokan-0 In this memo from the British national archives, a U.K. ambassador reports on the Beatles' wild 1966 trip to Japan. (page 3)
< In the event, the 'Operation Beatles' which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. No fewer than thirty-five thousand policemen were mobilised or alerted, at a cost of an estimated thirty thousand pounds.>
Another link : http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html -- Roujan ( talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a very interesting link about the music of The Beatles: Not on the hair of The Beatles, not on Lsd, not on Yoko Ono, not on Brian Epstein, not on George Martin, not on the dead of Paul McCartney in 1966. NO, a link on the Beatles Music. The Beatles were first and foremost musicians and composers. And like composers, they were unique. Very unique. And that is exactly what we can discover on this fantastic, fabulous link. [ [2]]
<In 1989 the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack started to analyze the songs of the Beatles. He published his first results on internet. In 1991 — after he had finished the work on 28 songs — he bravely decided to do the whole lot of them. About ten years later, in 2000 he completed the analysis of the official Beatles' canon, consisting of 187 songs and 25 covers. Here we have ordered this massive work in five categories. And, for your convenience, we've added an alphabetical, a canonical and a chronological index as well as a short introduction.>
Obviously, every phrase, every word is interesting, but here are some excerpts. And I think that these extracts should be incorporated into the main article, because-and I repeat that this relates to the music of the Beatles and especially some of the most important features of their music.
On the Chapter <dossiers> clic on <Beatles' studies> and after clic on <Words and chords> and you will obtain this page: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml
It's an article by Ger J. Tilleken. (Born In 1949 Studied Sociology At Leiden University, And Is Now Working At Groningen University In The Netherlands)
Extract : <As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>
And this is one reason why Nick Stone wrote this. (on this link http://www.learningmusician.com/features/0207/AlanPollack/ ) (Nick Stone was born in Wiesbaden, Germany and raised in various American army bases and suburbs. He is currently an independent scholar and musician living in the San Francisco Bay Area)
Extract : < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.>
Well, if you read carefully these articles, you will find lots of great information. Probably because all these guys who wrote these articles are musicians but also they are very serious.
-- Roujan ( talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi -Nick R
I understand what you say and I agree. But here's the problem: On the main page I read the chapter < Musical style and evolution >. It's perfect but this article does not mention the basis of their music: Their chords and their chord sequences. The Beatles were very special about these two criteria. I think in a serious article on the Beatles music, we can't ignore these characteristics. I can't imagine it. Nothing justifies this. It's my opinion. Why write an article on the Beatles music and don't write that < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.> and < As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>
Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page? -- Roujan ( talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino
I understand that you control Beatles page. You choose what you like and reject what you do not like. Did you see my question above: <Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page?>
These two important sentences talk about Beatles' music. Do you think that we should not talk about music when we talk about The Beatles? Do you think that Wikipedia must conceal the unique characteristics of Beatles' music?
Because you control Beatles page, i have no choice. I must request
1- Do you accept these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music?
2- Do you refuse these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music? -- Roujan ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor rightly requested discussion for opening sentence prior to any alterations, so changed the sentence from The Beatles.. "are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music"... to .... "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music". In my opinion, the former sentence should remain. To state The Beatles are "one of" is inaccurate, generic, nor reflective of their status.., Pink Floyd are "one of"..., The Beatles meanwhile are "often recognized" and routinely top polls as the most acclaimed act in popular music, [3] [4] and commercially are certified #1 by the RIAA, [5] and Billboard. [6] To have "one of".. is akin to altering the Jimi Hendrix article from .."He is widely considered to be the greatest electric guitarist in musical history".. to "he is one of the greatest electric guitarists". Therefore, i support the original sentence that The Beatles..."are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music". Aussie Ryan 1987 ( talk) 21:36, 04 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello freshacconci: You wrote: <As far as most commercially successful we would need some hard stats to back that up with no uncertainty.> Yes indeed, perhaps it's impossible to determine the most commercially successful. But if you want to do it, you can designate The Beatles. There are many elements. Just 1 example: Their professional career debuted in 1962 and finished in 1970. Only 8 years. And who is the biggest sale of the twentieth century? I'm sure you know it. -- Roujan ( talk) 11:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello DocKino
The sentence is <the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music>
critically : Elvis Presley cannot compete against The Beatles. The Beatles wrote their songs (not Elvis Presley). The Beatles created musical innovations and studio innovations (Not Elvis Presley). Beatles songs are among the most covered songs in the world. (and i can't exclude they are the most covered in the world).
commercially: I don't understand why you talk about sales of one billion for Elvis. You can find the same figure for The Beatles since 1985. About the <World Music Awards 2008> on November 9, 2008 in Monte-Carlo Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry
Another thing. I saw you talk about Billboard and RIAA. Wait a minute, please. In USA, during his career of 22 years (1956-1977) Elvis Presley obtained 17 singles number 1 and 9 albums number 1. In USA, during their career of 7 years (1964-1970) The Beatles obtained 20 singles number 1 and 14 albums number 1. (And The Beatles weren't an American band!)
To write < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music > is not a lie. It's a fact. If you analyse their influence, their innovations and their success you understand why The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music. Like you can read on <allmusic> : < Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did > http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-p3644
And finally finish with humor: On the morning of December 21st 1970, Elvis Presley showed up announced at the gates of the White House in Washington, D.C. He carried a letter, handwritten on American Airlines stationary, addressed to President Richard Nixon...
But In August 1964, The Beatles returned to the US for a second visit, this time remaining for a month-long tour. A request was received from the White House press office, which asked for The Beatles to be photographed with the new President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, laying a wreath on the grave of John F. Kennedy. The request was politely declined by The Beatles as it was not the group's policy to accept "official" invitations. (lol) -- Roujan ( talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino
It's an endless discussion. But i have an idea. Why can't we mix the two sentences? Look : < The Beatles are one of the most critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music and they are among the few artists who are often (or sometimes) recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music.> It seems correct, no? -- Roujan ( talk) 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your sentence is that it's not objective. It does not reflect the full reality. Your sentence conceals an indisputable fact: < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music >. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Wanting to conceal this fact is not an objective act. -- Roujan ( talk) 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I put references to support that the Beatles are the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed
http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1948-09art.htm
For international sales the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) ranks The Beatles in the number 1, Michael Jackson number 2 y Elvis number 3.
http://verdesmares.globo.com/v3/canais/noticias.asp?codigo=137250&modulo=808
Please consider de above information. Is no enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
About the criticism, there is another addition to rolling stone (high quality) that does not refer to the Beatles as number 1? About sales, if RIAA (only for USA, the largest market in record) and IFPI report that The Beatles are number 1, who would have to declare? Remember, sales of The Beatles are certified, others are only estimates.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If some sources say the Beatles are more successful and some say Elvis is, then "are often recognised" is correct. Perhaps we could re-word it saying they are the most successful band ever? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The beatles are the most successful is said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, who says to Elvis? The beatles are the most critically acclaimed is said by Rolling Stone(if you do not want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), who says to Elvis? Sales for the Beatles are certified, not only his record company said.
Fgonmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But in the U.S. yes, the RIAA and IFPI international level. If in Britain there were no certificates in the 60's, this affects the Beatles and Elvis.
I ask again
The beatles are The Most Successful Is Said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, Who says to Elvis? Even IFPI ranks Elvis third, after Michael Jackson.
I put the link to best selling artist of wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
The beatles are The Most Critically Acclaimed Is Said by Rolling Stone (If You Do Not Want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), Who says to Elvis? Even Rolling Stone ranks Elvis third, after Bob Dylan.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Beatles are ranked # 1 in 100 Greatest Artists and have 11 of the 500 Greatest Album, with 4 in top 10, including the # 1 Sgt Pepper's , that's not being the most acclaimed? These classifications are made by critics, is not a popularity poll.
You expect someone to make a mathematical calculation to prove?
I am posting the link to 500 Greatest Album of Rolling Stone and a link to The Virgin All-time Album Top 1000 List by Colin Larkin. I also put in who is a Colin Larkin:
Colin Larkin was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by Jools Holland as 'without question the most useful reference work on popular music' and by The Times as 'the standard against which all others must be judged’.
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/virgin_1000_v3.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Larkin_%28writer%29#cite_note-2
If after that, not want to change, OK.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi DocKino.
Our initial discussion it was about this sentence:
< are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music >
And not like you wrote:
< the most commercially successful act ever >
Excuse me, but you forgot to write the word : critically
By deleting the word critically, you change the whole meaning of the initial sentence, the first sentence: our discussion.
So, your arguments are inadmissible. You must use the initial sentence with the words commercially successful but also critically
But about commercially successful and critically, we can do the comparison between Elvis Presley and The Beatles. let's go
1 - commercially successful
You wrote : < I can see how badly you want to "prove" that the Beatles are the most commercially successful act ever, but it's not going to happen. You know, commercial success involves not only record sales, but concert appearances, of which Presley had far, far more as a major star than the Beatles did. And what about his dozens of musical films versus the Beatles' handful? >
Yes and indeed, there are many different criteria to evaluate commercial success. For example and like you refer to concert appearances, i'm not sure at 100%, but on this particular criterion The Rolling Stones are perhaps the most commercially successful act ever.
On this particular criterion, Elvis or The Beatles can't compete against The Rolling Stones. Elvis or The Beatles broke tons of record about concert appearances, but it's the same thing for The Rolling Stones. In reality, you can also write that there is tons of acts who were most commercially successful than Elvis or The Beatles on this particular criterion.
So, on this particular criterion, you can't write that Elvis or The Beatles are often recognised the most commercially successful act ever.
But because you must use many different criteria to evaluate commercial success, you must also use the sales and the charts. And on these two criteria, The Beatles were superior to Elvis Presley. Believe or not, during their career, (only 8 years :1962-1970) The Beatles broke more record sales and more records charts than Elvis Presley during his career (21 years : 1956-1977). It's a fact. In reality, in the history of popular music of the twentieth century, and about the sales and charts, The Beatles were the most successful act ever. It's a fact. And it's one of reasons why this band is often recognised the most commercially successful act ever. (but there are other reasons)
I think you don't know the unique success of The Beatles. The Beatles broke so much and so deeply records sales and record charts, that at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up - The Beatles was in possession at more of Record sales than anyone. You can see an overview of this document (not exhaustive) List_of_The_Beatles%27_record_sales
Be careful!!! this document does not represent all records sales or records charts that The Beatles broke during their career. NO...NO...NO. It represents only the records sales and records charts which was still valid at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up!
Can you name another act with so many records sales or records charts at the end of the twentieth century. Obviously, NO. This is absolute proof, indisputable, because it's mathematical that about sales and charts, The Beatles are the most successful act ever
Beatles 1 - Elvis 0
But if i use another criterion, like for example musical films, it's possible that Elvis Presley is the most successful act ever. Who else, Suppose
Beatles 1 - Elvis 1
For instant, and for the most successful act ever : 1 - 1
Note : Interesting that The Beatles score a point with their music. Elvis Presley with cinema.
2 - critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response)
And it's one of reasons that in term of music, The Beatles are constamment way ahead Elvis Presley. Musicians, Scholars, Historians, Critics prefer The Beatles than Elvis Presley because with The Beatles, we can talk about music: Their < outrageous chords > like said Bob Dylan, their incredible chords progression, their innovations. Elvis Presley was essentially a singer...then...
Beatles 1 - Elvis 0
Like you see about critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response), The Beatles are way ahead Elvis Presley.
Finally by adding critically and commercially successful we obtain
Beatles 2 - Elvis 1
And it's for this reason that The Beatles are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music. -- Roujan ( talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So we will change the opening sentence? "One of The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed Acts in the history of popular music" to "are Often Recognized as The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed act in popular music"
I can not find any valid argument for not changing
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we will not change the opening sentence--certainly not on the basis of what's been put forward here so far. If you sincerely "can not find any valid argument for not changing," it can only be because you are not fluent in English. You have not provided the necessary sourcing for the "critically acclaimed" aspect of your desires, and you have failed to prove your point or establish a consensus in support of the "commercially successful" aspect of your desires. DocKino ( talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
From your point of view, together with the Beatles, who else is among the most critically acclaimed. If you agree that the Beatles are, where you base. What references do you have? I have already put the reference of The Virgin All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin, Is not valid for you?. If both Rolling Stones and All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin stated Sgt Pepper's and Revolver respectively are the biggest albums, in addition to Abbey Road and White Album are in the Top 10, That does not mean they are the most critically acclaimed? Another reference states that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed?
If you have references to declare that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed, put them. Or, if you have references at least to declare that the Beatles are, along with other artists, most critically acclaimed, put them. I have already put Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album), The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000), Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door (The last two rejected by you). You have not put anything. And we're not discussing my fluency in English.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fgonmar
About the "critically acclaimed" you mention <Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album)>, <The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000)>, <Acclaimed Music> and <Digital Dream Door>, but you forgot the <Rock and Roll Hall of Fame> http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-beatles/bio/
<Though popular music has changed considerably in the decades since the Beatles’ demise, their music continues to reach and inspire new generations of listeners. Half a century after their humble origins in Liverpool, the Beatles remain the most enduring phenomenon in the history of popular music. -- Roujan ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Recognition for the Beatles is almost unanimously by critics.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Here I put other references that prove that the Beatles are the most critically acclaimed
http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1998/vh1artists.htm
http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/
Greetings
Fgonmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.223.137.50 ( talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"VH1 does not know about music? There is not repetitive, is another organization. Then in who you trust? Alone in Rolling Stone? Rolling Stone says the Beatles are the greatest artists of all time. Definitely you have anything against the Beatles or you hurts your favorite artist is below the Beatles, you do not believe in anyone and just write what you personally believe.
Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
My poor writing is not related to what we are discussing here, and is not your problem.
Fgonmar. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fgonmar (
talk •
contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me if the first sentence in the article is not a complete sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.253 ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The query has been moved to
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com
|
---|
Greetings, Within the Beatles material on Wiki I count 137 backlinks to one website: http://BeatlesBible.com. After reviewing Wiki policies regarding external linking, it appears that these backlinks violate one or more of 3 Wiki guidelines: #4 links intended to promote a website, #5 links intended primarily to sell products or services, and #11 links to most fansites. For discussion purposes, I've enclosed a listing of the Wiki backlinks pointing to BeatlesBible.com below:
aeternumls.org 1 alabamapublicrecordsearch.org 1 bg.wikipedia.org 1 dattolos.org 1 en.wikipedia.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 en.wikiquote.org 1 es.wikipedia.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fr.wikipedia.org 1 2 gilbertojr.ocorpo.org 1 id.wikipedia.org 1 it.wikipedia.org 1 ru.wikipedia.org 1 tr.wikipedia.org 1 Note: These include the English, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, and Turkish versions of Wikipedia. While I do like the BeatlesBible.com fan site I like several others as well, none of which are linked to from Wiki apparently in accordance with Wiki policies. Fiatlux5762 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs)
I didn't say the links are spam, I said the links violate at least 3 Wikipedia policies. Change the policies or delete the links. If the press picks up that you've got 137 backlinks to a site that violate your own policies *someone* who is favoring the BeatlesBible website is going to have a lot of explaining to do to God. Seriously, I know some people believe that anything associated with the word Bible is automatically THE authority but these links gotta go or 3 policies gotta be changed. Period. Fiatlux5762 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs)
Discussion moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com as per DocKino request. Fiatlux5762 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 ( talk • contribs) |
Hi guys this is to inform all that i will be linking all the book (that are now digitized) in the refs and further reading section today. I have recently done this to John Lennon by request and now have been asked to do this page as well. I normally dont do requests - but this article and Johns page are both in the top 100 most viewed pages, so i guess i will take the time to make it all nice. Moxy ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This section, as written, omits enough detail and offers such an over-simplified description of the subject that it borders on being inaccurate or misleading. Just to recap the history of Northern Songs, the company was formed in February 1963 by Dick James, with James and his partner owning 50%, Lennon and McCartney 20% each and Brian Epstein 10%. At that time Lennon and McCartney signed 10-year publishing contracts with the company. In November 1963, George Harrison signed a 5-year contract with Northern. In 1965 the company went public with Lennon and McCartney each retaining 15% of the shares and James and Silver 37.5%. In March 1969, James and Silver sold their shares to ATV without telling the Beatles. ATV and the Beatles then made competing bids to gain a controlling interest in the company but in May a consortium of shareholders agreed to accept ATV's offer. In October 1969 the Beatles sold their remaining shares in Northern Songs to ATV. This might be too much detail for the article but I think it points out how the article contains a somewhat conflicting account and fails to adequately describe the company and its history. Piriczki ( talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are several book and newspaper sources:
Piriczki ( talk) 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There should be a mention of Edward Lear and the Goon Show under influences. Although not musical, what we remember from the Beatles are the lyrics, so it does seem right. 92.7.184.138 ( talk) 10:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is grammatically correct that a plural word such as "Beatles" normally requires "The" before it (especially at the beginning of a sentence) or "the" when used mid-sentence. Therefore leaving "the" out altogether is usually grammatically incorrect. Exceptions would be in sentences such as "The last two Beatles' albums ..." There is no grammatical excuse for leaving "The" out before "Beatles" at the start of a sentence. A sentence beginning "Beatles released two albums ..." sounds odd because it is odd and also incorrect. Afterwriting ( talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor apparently decided to single-handedly make wholesale changes in the article without the slightest bit of discussion. Many of these changes blatantly lower the article's quality, improperly eliminating the subjects' first names on initial mention in the primary text, for instance, and introducing many improper style changes and inconsistencies. I have reverted all these changes pending proper discussion here in Talk. DocKino ( talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I tuned out on the interminable "The"/"the" debate well before Andreasegde's "Triangular diplomacy". Having now read through it, I concur it yielded a consensus to replace most of the mid-sentence occurrences of the band's full name--though I would say that there was clearly no consensus established to remove all such instances. The consensus appears to have been to allow, as a first step, Andreasegde to make the relevant edits as he saw fit and then for other contributors to examine the results and, as usual, improve on them as called for. That's what I've done. For the most part, the results were satisfactory, with two caveats:
(1) It is good and standard practice to have the subject's name near the opening (i.e., first or second sentence) of each significant portion of the article--in this case, that mostly means historical sub-sections. This provides an anchor for the many pronoun references that will follow and greatly eases reading, especially for those who may decide to start reading the article at some midpoint. I restored the band's full name where it naturally appeared mid-sentence in five such cases.
(2) In a few cases, I did feel that the elimination of the band's name resulted in strained or stilted phrasing--a problem anticipated by several commentators in the "Triangular diplomacy" thread, including some who stated their general support for the pronoun-substitution concept. Again, I encountered just a few such cases--three, to be exact. I'll describe each:
All eight [now seven] cases in which I reintroduced the full name mid-sentence may be efficiently viewed via this edit.
I'll note, finally, that Andreasegde's own spate of edits left three instances of "The Beatles" mid-sentence, in the "Musical style and evolution," "Awards and recognition," and "Song catalogue" sections--further evidence that there was no consensus to purge the article of all such uses of the name, which would be insensible overkill. In the end, good writing and ease of reading are far more important than our stylistic wranglings. DocKino ( talk) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's great that an article about The Beatles playing music by The Beatles and detailing Beatles' albums recorded by The Beatles is also called The Beatles. Good, no?-- andreasegde ( talk) 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Andreasegde, are you OK? I have corrected my misplacement of the apostrophe in "fan's screams" (thanks for pointing out that excruciatingly minor error) and restored the missing "were" in the Jesus passage (thanks for pointing out that truly excruciating error). That aside, your remarkable..."commentary"...reveals that you possess an extraordinary taste for sarcasm but complete disregard for improving this article and no cognizance of ordinary English locution. There is nothing to do but shrug, sigh, and stand guard.
Oh, just one question, buddy. Purely curious: When the great PL290 finally brought this article to FA status--a process in which I was happy and proud to play a supporting role--where the heck were you? DocKino ( talk) 08:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Could this image be removed?: The Beatles and Lill-Babs 1963.jpg
There are two issues. I have dozens of books on the Beatles, and I don't offhand recall reading about Lill-Babs. Perhaps this has been discussed; well and good. However the picture itself is professionally unacceptable. An image enhancement, probably using "edge sharpening" or "unsharp mask", were used to brighten the photo. It's a common practice, but when it is overdone (as here), and shown on a recent, bright LCD monitor, it's jarring and pixelated. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard ( talk) 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Gunmetal Angel has sought to alter the long-standing title "After the break-up" to "Post-break-up," while making the odd suggestion that there is something less than "proper" about the former. Aside from the awkwardness, even ugliness, of the double-hyphenated "post-break-up," it's a less fitting phrase. I encourage editors to take a look at the results of a Google Books search on the phrase "after the break-up": three of the first five books are actually about The Beatles. That's more than sufficient high-quality support for the existing phrase. DocKino ( talk) 04:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Why have I never heard of this?
"Three days after their relationship began, John Lennon and Yoko Ono appeared in public for the first time, for the lunchtime launch party and press conference for Apple Tailoring (Civil and Theatrical), the second boutique from Apple Corps. It took place at Club Dell'Aretusa, at 107 King's Road, Chelsea, London."-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So, I would like to place these templates on the bottoms of the following pages:
The Beatles The Beatles discography
Some users seem to object. I put time and effort into these and I would appreciate it being rewarded. I think it's pretty obvious why these are an improvement. It improves navigation. Hoops gza ( talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Changed the font. Thanks. Hoops gza ( talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, as far as I can tell, only the following artists have articles for every song in their catalogue:
And then the following artists have articles for every song on SOME of their albums:
Please add to this if there are other artists in this group. Hoops gza ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
To what are you referring? Hoops gza ( talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
One of several sources from the UK Intellectural Property Office which state that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd is at [11] Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
As I've been reverted for following what is on this page, which is it then? The statement at the top of this page or [[ [12]]] Bevo74 ( talk) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] But Andreasegde's statement "It's definitely 'The'" is at odds to the statement at the top of this page: "Consensus has been reached to use 'the Beatles' instead of 'The Beatles' in running prose" — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 08:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
[13] The Beatles' trademark document, which says, "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " Therefore, the use of 'The' must be used as it is part of a trademark. Definitely the end of.-- andreasegde ( talk) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. It was difficult bouncing around three pages. The page for discussion is here: [14]-- andreasegde ( talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Folks, this is becoming a leetle bit silly :). Most Beatles editors are perfectly happy to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on this point. This was shown about four months ago when there was clear acquiescence with this edit in the discussion specifically addressing the question. It was then demonstrated again—a month later—in this edit by User:Rodhullandemu, an admin with keen oversight of Beatles articles, who stated, "Consensus is for lower-case "the", per Talk page" in his edit summary. This page has over a thousand watchers: these and other related edits were accepted without demur. I am a bit busy in real life at the moment, so can't watch this discussion too closely, but having taken this article to Featured status I would prefer to see it comply with the MoS. I hope others will begin to voice their (previously silent) support—after all, complying with Wikepeda guidelines is something editors are generally expected to attempt to do. PL290 ( talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So where are we with consensus? The Mos/music, and MoS discussions seem to have both decided on "the" in running text. This discussion seems more or less balanced (I throw in that the trademark MoS says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" - since that seems to have been a red herring). So what now?
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC).
I notice that both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES" are trademarked, and that the mark includes stylized text, i.e., all caps. Strictly following the trademark would require using the BEATLES or THE BEATLES in the article (which I'm not suggesting). Besides, MoS:TM states "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'" and MoS:MUSIC says "the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose." Piriczki ( talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that capitalisation is important to trademarks. If "The Beatles" is trademarked, than no one else can use that name, no matter how they capitalise it. Whether or not to capitalise "the" is irrelevant to "The Beatles" being a trademark. If Apple Corps do not capitalise "the Beatles" then they clearly don't care about the trademark style. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
So,
Proposal For the reasons immediately above, this band's name should not be considered an exception to MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article). — Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that both Steelbeard's and my arguments are invalid, but that does not make it so. I'll leave Steelbeard to say whether he accepts your dismissal of his argument or not. For my part, I have evidently failed to make clear my argument against your proposal, so let me state it one more time:
It seems that there is some confusion as to what is being proposed, with some editors believing the statement “the band’s name is The Beatles” to be a counter-argument to the proposal (in fact, the statement is a premise of the proposal), so I’ll try to re-present the argument more clearly.
Premises:
Conclusion:
Proposal:
Notes:
Wrapped in Grey ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Anybody fancy a pie and a pint? -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose. Specific cases where "the" should be capitalized mid-sentence are: when quoted, e.g. ... and according to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, “they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles”. Read 'em and weep, because that is exactly what is written in the MoS.. -- andreasegde ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
These are some sources currently used to verify the article that use a lower case "the":
— GabeMc ( talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no numerical consensus for using either The Beatles or the Beatles. An independent admin could evaluate the discussion and reach a closing decision either way, or close as no consensus. It might be worth looking at proposals for dealing with the situation, as it appears there is not even consensus as which consensus is more binding, that decided locally, or that decided on guidelines. My understanding based on previous discussions and specific policy is that guidelines take precedence over WikiProjects and small groups of editors working on an article or group of articles. Policy would dictate that in a dispute such as this, that the wider community view is the one taken - which would mean that "the Beatles" would be the preferred usage. Though there is also the understanding that guidelines reflect actual community usage, and the argument has been used here that there is a consensus to use "The Beatles" in this article. However, there appears to be no such consensus at present, and such a consensus has not been long standing, as this article has mostly through its history used "the Beatles". It is possible that usage of "the Beatles" / "The Beatles" will continue to be debated and fought over, with perhaps only the most determined (rather than the most appropriate) usage prevailing. Anyway - possible outcomes:
Anything is possible. My preference is for #1. SilkTork * YES! 11:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
So this doesn't roll on for ever, can I take it that we have a consensus for #1, close this discussion, and move forward with the actions outlined. SilkTork * YES! 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As a note for — GabeMc, you should look at your favourite pages, because these: "first referred to as The Pink Floyd Sound", "album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn", "with The Dark Side of the Moon", "opening of The Roundhouse", "in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "for the film The Committee", "at the same time that The Beatles", "in history, The Wall", "with The Royal Fusiliers", "attended The Perse School", "the group became known as The Abdabs, or The (Screaming) Abdabs", "and The Division Bell", "solo album, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking", and "originally titled The Bike Song", seem to show that you like it that way. Wow, you took Roger Waters to FA with those, huh? -- andreasegde ( talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This has been debated many times, so you lower casers are WP:LAME. I am truly shocked that Silk Tork, who has been here long enough and should know better, actually did what he did. It has been reverted.-- andreasegde ( talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines have been and are being followed. The issue has been discussed, and the options outlined. Sometimes the outcome is not to the liking of individuals. This is an aspect of being part of a collaborative project. We have procedures in place for when somebody is unhappy with a decision, and reverting is not one of them. It is inappropriate to force one's opinion. We prefer to follow consensus, to use discussion, and to refer to guidelines. That has been done in this case. There is no local consensus for either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", therefore we use the wider consensus of the guidelines which is for "the Beatles". Referring to wider consensus is, as detailed above, the policy on Wikipedia. See WP:CONLIMITED.
Discussion on this matter can go round in circles, and nobody is really willing to carry on the debate. If anyone really things that my actions are inappropriate, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While it is exhausting to keep talking, that is at least less disruptive than reverting. See Wikipedia:Reverting. SilkTork * YES! 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Howabout THE BEATLES, as it's roughly shown on the front of Starr's drums. PS: And Lennon thought it was tough enough explaining the spelling of Beatles with an a. GoodDay ( talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I see the Arbitration request is not going well. WP:LAME seems to be the consensus there. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (First solo Beatle recording corrected by Steelbeard1 ( talk) 14:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) )
— GabeMc has proven that he has no wish to make any kind of progress on this. This is after I pointed out to him the numerous Big Ts in an article he took to FA (which he then changed). I suspect his motives, and will wait for other editors that want to reach any kind of consensus.-- andreasegde ( talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My personal approach is to always use a person's or entity's proper name in the first reference to them in a paragraph and then to usually only use "he", "she", "it", "they" (etc) in subsequent references unless the name is required for clarity of who or what is being referred to. Afterwriting ( talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But does anyone actually agree that the proposal stated above is acceptable? Please say yes or no, in whichever fashion you prefer, but less is more. :)
This section is not here to go over that again.-- andreasegde ( talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)