Jump to content

Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

This sentence

Formerly of The Beatles (1960-1970) and Wings (1971-1981), according to Guinness World Records, McCartney is the most successful songwriter in the history of popular music

bugs me, man. I like this better:

Formerly of The Beatles (1960-1970) and Wings (1971-1981), McCartney is the most successful songwriter in the history of popular music, according to Guinness World Records.

Any takers? Radiopathy •talk• 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree radio, your version flows better. — GabeMc (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Totally. Tvoz/talk 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Ringo?

Isn't it a bit weird for the section "Contact with fellow ex-Beatles" to be missing a subsection of his contact with the only other surviving Beatle? Tvoz/talk 03:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a Ringo section, afterall, Ringo is the Beatle Paul worked with the most, post-1970. — GabeMc (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Be Bold and add it then. ~DC Let's Vent 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says that McCartney used a Magritte painting of an apple for the logo of the Beatles’s company - this is mis-leading. He may have been inspired to have the company and logo as Apple because of a Magritte painting he owned, but the logo is a photograph - actually at least two, as it is diffrent for A- and B-sides of records - commissioned for the purpose. Jock123 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There were actually quite a number of pictures taken of apples: various green ones against black backgrounds, greens against red and blue backgrounds (which were used for the Red and Blue compilations) and red apples as well. It was a Magritte painting that gave Paulie the idea, but the painting wasn't a source of any of the various Apple labels through the years. Radiopathy •talk• 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "sir" in McCartney's name (and that of other Beatles) is erroneous

The title that the four Beatles were given is MBE, which does not entitle its holder to add the prefix "sir" to his or her name. Tdunsky (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be if it was based on the MBE, but he was knighted in 1997. This is in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If Macca had become a teacher, he would have been called "Sir" every day, and he wouldn't have paid all that tax.--andreasegde (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The genre was unlinked before...Pilmccartney (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.31.180.217, 16 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

| Background = solo_singer

change to

| Background = The Beatles/Wings/Solo

86.31.180.217 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done "Background" here refers to a code for the colour at the top of the infobox, which is already correct. Rodhull andemu 20:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Instruments

In the small description box of Paul, it says that he knows how to play are: Vocals, bass, guitar, piano, keyboards, drums, ukulele, mandolin. It doesn't say anything about the trumpet, which he also knew how to play. This needs to be added. --Snowconeboy789 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowconeboy789 (talk • contribs)

I also know how to play trumpet (you blow raspberry's into the mouthpiece, and manipulate the valve stops in various sequences to achieve "notes"!) The issue is, has Macca ever played trumpet to a recordable standard on record - or live? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RosenbergATL, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under "Musical Career" > "Since 1970"> in paragraph that reads "McCartney's enduring popularity has helped him schedule performances in new venues. He played three sold out concerts at newly-built Citi Field in Queens, New York (built to replace the Shea Stadium) in July 2009. On 18 August 2010, McCartney opened the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[64]", please add:

"On December 13, 2010, Paul McCartney played at the Apollo Theater in New York, which was simulcasted on Sirius Satellite Radio, the host of the event."

RosenbergATL (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this work as a source? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/arts/music/15mccartney.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=mccartney%20apollo&st=cse — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosenbergATL (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Shearonink (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Let′s nominate - Taro-Gabunia (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

English or British

I'm aware I'm running the risk of rekindling an old dispute, but I haven't been able to find anything about this in the talk page archives. Should we really describe artists like McCartney as English musicians? They are citizens of and carry the passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has the demonym British. We don't call Willie Nelson a "Texan singer-songwriter", we don't call Bryan Adams an "Ontarian rock singer-songwriter", etcetera. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed, edit warred over, straw polled, and agreed by consensus on The Beatles (see archives 11, 17, 23) and here (try archive 9) and probably other places too. All 4 of them are described as English here, as is the band. This is apparently a big deal to some of the UK persuasion, but to my Bronx ears, it's a lot of noise about very little. Seems to me he was born in England, so he's English. But what do I know. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

An addtion to what I wrote about the uncorrect statement about McCartney´s number 1 singles

9 of the Beatles number 1 singles were alone or maily composed by John Lennon, 4 were co-compositions.

Stockholm 3th of January 2011 Johan Cavalli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan43 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Aliases

Usually Wikipedia biographies include the person's aliases in the information box on the side. This article doesn't. If someone was to put them in, his alias is:Paul Ramone. --Snowconeboy789 03:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Charlton Athletic

The article states: "In 2010 there was heavy speculation surrounding McCartney that he was to head up a consortium launching a take-over bid for struggling Charlton Athletic. Links between the club and the famous musician go a long way back with Charlton's famous supporters anthem - Valley, Floyd Road - using the tune and a number of lyrics from the Wings song Mull of Kintyre." The only source for that claim is this link, which leads to a web forum. Not a reliable source at all. The entire claim ought to be removed imo, it reads like fancruft. 83.84.195.88 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecce Cor Meum

This was also the name of his second album of classical music. 92.7.198.215 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The caption under the image of Paul McCartney states July 10, 2010, Dublin Ireland. On that exact day, I was at a Paul McCartney concert in San Francisco, California, so I know for a fact that it's wrong. Either the date is wrong and this picture is from Ireland, or the date is right and the caption should say San Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticsrule (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul's Handedness

I noticed in this article it states that Paul is left handed. In Peter Brown's book "The Love You Make" ISBN 0-451-20735-1, pg 23. It says: "...although he was right-handed in most everthing else, he played the guitar better with his left hand." I think this is sufficient to warrent an edit to say as much. Maybe, "Although McCartney is right-handed, he plays guitar and bass left-handed." or something similar.69.112.105.82 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds perfectly reasonable. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Brown's book is incorrect. He is left-handed. Piriczki (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There are literally thousands of sources that indicate he is left handed. So I think this must be an error.--SabreBD (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It was I who started this section. I just looked for and found a video of Paul signing autograph and.... You were right. He was writing left handed. Brown did make an error. Strange though- you'd think that a guy who worked closely with him for years would know better...69.112.105.82 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The information from source 3 is not correct quoted or treated. McCartney is not behind "60 gold discs". The source, Guiness World Records, states that McCartney has written/co written.(Or with other words, not composed them all alone). The information from source 7 is not correct treated either. McCartney is not "on 24 Number 1".The source,Record Breakers and Trivia, sais that among the Number 1 are: 17 with the Beatles.

Johan Cavalli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan43 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Only with The Beatles, Paul McCartney obtained 66 singles number 1. 64 were obtained during their career -1962-1970- an average of 8 number 1 per year. http://tsort.info/music/faq_num1.htm --Roujan (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr World Peace ☮ Breast Cancer Awareness FREE “PINK CONCERT”

for immediate release: rumors reported by the Daily Star UK KEarth101 ABC NBC & CBS News & others regarding my tentative Sir Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr World Peace ☮ Breast Cancer Awareness FREE “PINK CONCERT” at The Hollywood Bowl tentatively scheduled August 27, 2011 will be addressed at our upcoming worldwide PRESS CONFERENCE scheduled in March in Beverly Hills … details to follow — David Harrison Levi – STARMAKER☆ Executive Producer Email tvcelebrity90210@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.29.201 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney as a bass player?

Dear all,

what do you think of adding a section on Paul McCartney as a bass player? Even though he is best known as a composer, singer and in general multi-instrumentalist, his skills on bass seem to stand out as well. In particular, if I look at the Wikipedia page for e.g. John Entwistle (bassist for The Who) and the references made there for his bass skills, Paul McCartney consistently comes up in the very same polls in high positions:

Would love to get your thoughts on that, Ben Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you're right. Paul McCartney is one of the most influential bassist of the popular music of the twentieth century. Even Jack Bruce admits : <Ask him who he regards as the best bass players in pop and rock history (see box) and he answers at once: 'If you’re talking electric bass, it’s very, very simple: James Jamerson, Paul McCartney, Jaco Pastorius, me'> http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4025183.ece
Another link : http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/paulbass.htm
Stanley Clarke : <Paul definitely had an influence on my bass playing, not so much technically, but more with his philosophy of melodic bass liens-especially as I hit my teens and the Beatles' records became more adventurous>
WILL LEE : <Paul's influence on bassists has been so widespread over numerous generations that there's no denying he's in everybody's playing at this point. We're all descendants. He played simple and solid when it was called for. But because he had so many different flavors to add to a song, he was able to take the instrument far beyond a supportive role. Paul taught the bass how to sing> --Roujan (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Roujan, these are really useful quotes you got there, thanks a lot for this! One of these days, I'll try to put a draft together. There are a few quotes I can get from Geoff Emerick's autobiography as well, e.g., that
  • Paul reluctantly took up the bass from Stuart Sutcliff
  • Paul tried to get that Motown sound
  • He [Geoff Emerick] mixed the bass really loud on the Paperback Writer/Rain single
  • Paul's bass lines were unusually melodic
  • Paul put incredible effort into crafting the bass lines
Let me know if you have more ideas of what should go in this part.
--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi --Georgepauljohnringo

Like you i've got Geoff Emerick's books (French version). Serious book. For instant i haven't got more ideas like you. But you are right. We must doing a great article about Paul/Bass. His influence on Bass was enormous. (for instant i'm looking for other items) --Roujan (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi http://www.gear4music.com/news/article/Paul-McCartney-the-best-bass-guitar-player-of-all-time/3PV/2011-03-28 "Paul McCartney 'the best bass guitar player of all time'"

Paul McCartney is considered one of the most influential Bassist of pop music. I think this information should be written in the introductory text. Do not include this basic information discredits the whole article. When i see there is nothing on this subject and in the same time on the main page i see an article about Paul Mccartney and the...football, i'm laughing. --Roujan (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lifestyle section: Activism – McDonald's boycott?

This supposed boycott was all according to Geoff Baker and there doesn't appear to be any evidence McCartney himself said anything of the sort. Unless a reliable source can be cited for this story it should be promptly removed. Piriczki (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Painter

Is it really necessary to mention that he's a painter in the opening sentence? I know he's a painter and his paintings have been exhibited in several different countries, but that's not what he's most famous for. I never even knew that he was a painter before reading the article and nobody I know knew that he was, either. The article mentions his work as a painter and I think that's enough. I don't think it belongs in the opening sentence. Any thoughts? --John of Lancaster (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would concur that it doesn't really belong in the opening sentence. The mention in the "Creative outlets" section should suffice. Film, writing and poetry are also mentioned in that section but not the lead and he is no more well know for those than he is his painting. Seems to be a bit WP:UNDUE having it there. MarnetteD | Talk 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Why isn't this page semi-protected? Are we just going to keep reverting the 'death entries' until Paul actually dies? Musdan77 (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It has frequently been semi-protected in the past. If you feel the level of vandalism is too high you can always make another request at WP:RFPP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It is now semi-protected once again.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Knighthood

Sorry, I know it's a small thing to some, but does the article mention the date McCartney received his knighthood? Section 8 - awards etc.(1997- but exact date?) I might have missed it. It's a kind of big deal in many ways. Thanks if anyone can document it. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Edit request from Aubenhairything, 1 June 2011

I believe that the image needs updating, and that the image that I have attached below should be used. It is more representative than a live performance and it is also a nicer photograph from an aesthetic point of view. Now that he is engaged, a picture of Paul McCartney post-engagement should be used, like the one below. The picture currently used does not show him looking as young as he really does.


/Users/benwellesley/Desktop/mcc.png

Aubenhairything (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done The image you have specified is invalid. P.S.: Please get familiar with WP policies. GaneshBhakt (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dontpassmebye

Edit request: Underneath the main picture of Paul Mccartney, it reads that Paul was in Dublin,Ireland on July 10, 2010. That is a false statement, he was in San Francisco, California on July 10, 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontpassmebye (talk • contribs) 06:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Up and Coming Tour article he was in Dublin on June 12, so I'll change the date. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

I think there are too many genres in the infobox. I think we should only include rock and pop because those are the only two genres in the infoboxes of the articles The Beatles and John Lennon and they're both featured articles. --John of Lancaster (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think those extra genres are there because of The Fireman and his classical music side projects. He has released three albums as The Fireman and five classical albums, so it's a not insignificant part of his discography.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bassist

Hi, I think the article totally lacks appreciation of Macca as a bass player. I consider it the best bass player ever. His playing in Penny Lane, for example, is pure genius and unmatched. For example in Ringo Starr's article there's a section about his drumming style. In that article you can read John Lennon saying Paul being underrated as a bass player as Ringo used to be as a drummer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygmarchi (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ygmarchi, there have been a number of suggestions to this effect already, see the archived discussion threads. Only so far, no one has taken the time to suggest a concrete text to be added and to go through with it :-) Best, Ben --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney dead?

I remember reading an article back in the 60's of Paul McCartney being dead. Can we confirm that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.144 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose we do that? The "Paul is Dead" urban legend has its own page at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Paul_is_dead. 2.222.18.243 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking people to confirm that you read the article? Montalban (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I am sick to the teeth of the Anti-Catholic vibe on British-related articles. For example why hasn't the 'English Roman Catholics' category been added to this article? --MaxPride (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As the article says, although McCartney was baptised as a Roman Catholic he did not have a religious upbringing and he says in this 2001 interview that "I don't have any sort of very strong religious beliefs" although he has "spiritual feelings." On that basis I think it's stretching things to categorise him as a Catholic.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

McCartney, Lennon and Harrison certainly have all mentioned that they have Irish roots. It's difficult to even know if McCartney could still be classed as a theist. Montalban (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

McCartney mentions in the interview at the beginning of Lewisohn's Sessions book that he had a 'C of E' upbringing. Radiopathy •talk• 17:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Relationships 5.5 Nancy Shevell

The information that the New England Motor Freight Company has been investigated by the Federal Government and has connections with the American Mafia is not supported by the footnote to which it's linked. Joseph Brian Scott (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, so I removed the unsupported info and updated the citation parameters. Even if NEMF is being investigated, and we could find reliable sources, I think she'd have to be very involved in the investigation for this to be relevant enough to mention on Paul's article page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Kon zar (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)I suggest that you should add jazz in the genres of music that sir Paul is associated with.He had approached jazz style (chords,vocals,bass style etc.)several times in the past,for example in "The long and Winding Road","When I'm Sixty-four","Honey Pie",his own father's "Walk in the Park with Eloise" etc. And I think that with his last album "Kissen on the Bottom",a pure jazz-style and origin record,he gained that.Thank You!

To be honest, Paul McCartney has done more jazz than classical music, if you don't count the McCartney songs that had orchestral backings done by George Martin and not Macca. Yet the latter is listed whilst the former is not. That said, I think neither should be listed as the genres we list should reflect what the musician is most well known for. Various musicians have delved into genres with little to no acknowledgement for it. Hell, he isn't even listed for his various endeavours into electronica. Kingkaling (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A common misconception is that anything with strings or brass (or even a full orchestra) is somehow "classical" music. Even the Spector-ized version of the Long and Winding Road doesn't qualify as classical, because it's simply a pop tune with orchestral instrumentation. McCartney's done some classical stuff, but I don't think it belongs in the infobox, and certainly not by the virtue of any strings-laden Beatles (or solo) songs. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Evanh in terms of Paul's Beatles work not qualifing him as an artist in the classical genre, but McCartney has released no less than six works that do indeed qualify as "classical", so I disagree that the infobox should ignore this. Had Paul released only one "classical" album I would tend to agree, but six makes him a bonefide dabbler in "classical" music. Also, these six "classical works" all come in the last 20 years, when Paul has released only seven new rock albums, so really, in the past 20 years, nearly half of his output has been in the "classical" genre. — GabeMc (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll admit, I didn't realize that he had released that many classical albums. Taking that into account, I'm open to discussing the idea of having "Classical" listed in the infobox, but I'm still not totally sure it belongs. First off, I do think there are too many genres listed already. I like the genre listing we've had going at The Beatles for a while now (and I quote, "Rock, pop"). It keeps it succinct and to-the-point while encompassing close to everything they did (we can argue whether or not Revolution 9 or Don't Pass Me By would fit into either category, but I don't want to derail this talk page). For this article, I have to imagine that we can work in a similar fashion. I doubt anyone would contest Rock and Pop as two genres that ought to be listed in the infobox, so (without assuming anything), I will say for the sake of argument that we can all agree on those. Beyond that, "psychedelic rock, experimental rock, hard rock," and "rock and roll" are pretty generally encompassed by those two genres alone. Indisputably, McCartney's primary notability arises from his work in those two genres. I suggest from here we discuss what other genres (including jazz, classical, avant-garde, and anything else that might be relevant) are significant enough to his public image and to the public perception of what Paul McCartney music sounds like. That can't be our only criterion, obviously, and I'm likely oversimplifying it grossly, but let's talk this through. Meanwhile, I've barely slept in over 48 hours, so bye-bye for now. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, rock and pop cover almost everything, there is no more need to list the subsets of rock than there is for pop, folk, electronic, dance, etcetera. Hell, Paul's done reggae-esque songs, but that not for the infobox. However, due to the significant amount of classical works, I would reccomend leaving that genre. Also, one could argue that the Fireman work, however it should be categorized be added/retained as well, having at least three releases. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I got all bold-y with it and removed everything except rock, pop, and classical. I'm open to discussing including genres for the Fireman work. I see our article lists the genres as "Ambient electronica, rock, psychedelic rock, hard rock, experimental rock", so which of those, if any, would you want to add? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Way to be bold! I don't know, does the Fireman work fall under rock and pop, or should we call it electronica or something like that. — GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think electronica would be a stretch for the infobox. It certainly applies to all the Fireman work that I've heard (far from all of it). We'll see what others think. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir

I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. WP:HONOR states that "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person". Per this policy, I am adding "Sir" to the infobox, though I fully expect it to be reverted. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That should not be reverted, good addition Evan. — GabeMc (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Year(s) for death hoax

I found this

'In late 1966, there was a hoax called "Paul is dead" ...'

No, the rumor was going around in fall 1969 around the time the Abbey Road album was released. The rumor was that late 1966 was when Paul died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a quick fix of the date and changed "hoax" to "rumor". The entire passage is badly written though and needs to be copyedited or completely redone. Piriczki (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Name in infobox heading

There are some odd things excluded from the parameters at Template:Infobox musical artist. For one, I know that "Sir" belongs there, as per WP:HONOR, but now I'm not sure whether we should use the name he's most well-known by (Sir Paul McCartney), or his legal full name (Sir James Paul McCartney). I'm going to go ahead and change it to include "James", but if anyone else has input, I'd appreciate it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the top of the infobox should display the name he is most known by, which of course is Paul, though Sir Paul is fine IMO also. The lede and "birth name" field in the infobox cover the "James" adequately. Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and Jimi Hendrix are three examples of musicians with different birth names than their "known" name, or alias, and their infobox attributes this as I suggested above. — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point, Gabe. I'll think about it, and may revert it myself later on if I can't find it specifically addressed anywhere. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Flowers on Drum Kit

Actually, it was George who placed the flowers on Ringo's kit. Refer to 'Living in the Material World' movie & many other sources on this.

I was under the same impression. Someone will have to check the source cited to verify... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
According to Harry, 2002, p.816 it was Paul who placed the flowers on Ringo's kit, however Lewisohn says it was Mal Evans (Lewisohn, 1992, p.296). In three different books Miles does not specify who placed them there, only that they were there. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, in the Beatles Anthology book, Paul says "We ordered millions of flowers and there was a big celebration to welcome him back in the studio." (p.312) — GabeMc (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... Quite a quandary. You'll notice that this article states that Harrison was responsible, also citing the Anthology as a source. When my copy of the LITMW movie arrives next week I'll see if I can get a direct quote. I really wish policy more directly addressed conflicting but reliably sourced information, as I've run into problems like this more than once. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, policy wise, we could state that the sources differ, perhaps in a footnote, a bit tedious for a rather mundane fact. Or I could just edit out the part that seems to give Paul credit. My guess is, Mal did all the "work", but the Beatles paid for it, but maybe they also helped arrange some flowers who knows. I'll just edit it so as to leave credit vague, since, apparently, it is. — GabeMc (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole Ringo section is filled with insignificant details and misleading or dubious claims. The trip to Greece was in 1963 and doesn't really illustrate anything about their relationship long-term and the details about it are pointless. The claim that Ringo quit over Paul's criticism is far too simplistic if not distorted. He had various reasons for leaving which he discusses in the Beatles Anthology and doesn't even mention arguing with Paul. Also, the claim that Paul secretly replaced Ringo's drum parts is so dubious it's laughable. Using Brown's book as a source here adds an inherently negative POV to the section. This whole section should be rewritten with better sources. Piriczki (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Paul ticked Ringo off over a fluffed tom-tom fill. They had already argued about how the drum part should be played ... and Paul's criticisms finally brought matters to a head." (Miles, 1997, p.495)
  • "The ill-feeling ... finally erupted ... after an arguement with McCartney over the drum part." (MacDonald, 2005, p.310)
  • "[McCartney] even recorded his own drumming for "Back in the USSR", the last straw that kept Ringo out of the studio", McCartney: "I'm sure it pissed Ringo off when he couldn't quite get the drums to "Back in the USSR" and I sat in." (Everett, 1999, p.165)
  • "In reality Paul had been partly responible for driving their drummer to resignation. Dating back to Quarry Men days, Paul had an unfortunate habit of telling his drummers what to play, and he was quite capable of having a bash if they didn't comply, which pissed [Ringo] off." Ringo: "Every time I went for a cup of tea he was on the drums." (Sounes, 2010, p=224)
  • "and the resentment that Ringo sometimes exhibited when Paul coached him too much on his drum parts." (Emerick; Massey, 2006, p.230)
I would be happy to entertain suggestions for content that isn't "pointless", and please do include sources. — GabeMc (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning that an argument took place, only its significance to this section. There was discord and arguments among all the Beatles during this period and this particular argument is not the only reason Starr quit, let alone an event that defines their personal relationship. Considering Starr has said: "I left because I felt two things: I felt I wasn't playing great, and I also felt that the other three were really happy and I was an outsider", it doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction of events to attribute it all to McCartney's criticism. And since Starr says it was Harrison who was responsible for the flowers, I don't see how flowers are relevant to this section.

This section has a lot of problems. First, the "pleasantly insincere" quote isn't directly attributed to Starr so it should read "according to author Bill Harry, Starr once described McCartney as 'pleasantly insincere'" unless the quote can be sourced directly. Some context would help too. Considering McCartney once described himslf as "pleasantly insincere" I wonder if the Starr quote is accurate in the first place. Also, the "greatest bass player in the world" quote has been edited in way that could change the reader's impression. The complete quote is

"Paul is the greatest bass player in the world. He is also very determined. He goes on and on to see if he can get his way. While that may be a virtue, it did mean that musical disagreements inevitably arose from time to time. But such disagreements contributed to really great products."

It might also be worth mentioning that this comes from Starr's affidavit in the 1971 dissolution case which was a particularly acrimonious period.

This section doesn't even mention that McCartney contributed to several of Starr's solo albums or that Starr played on several McCartney albums and appeared in McCartney's film Give My Regards to Broad Street, but it mentions a Greek hotel band in 1963? Piriczki (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Piriczki, I agree, there were several factors that led to Ringo leaving briefly, but this article is not the place to go into that amount of detail, such as Yoko Ono's presence, Ringo waiting around for hours while the other Beatles were either late or busy arranging, Ringo's paranoia/insecurity, and the general "weird vibe" of the White Album sessions. That detail belongs at the White Album page and/or Ringo Starr. As far as Paul and the arguement, based on my purusal of the sources, the final straw is either blamed on Paul, or it is left vague. Indeed Miles, writing in Paul's official bio says "Paul ticked Ringo off over a fluffed tom-tom fill. They had already argued about how the drum part should be played ... and Paul's criticisms finally brought matters to a head." (Miles, 1997, p.495) So the material in the article is well sourced. As far as "Starr says it was Harrison who was responsible for the flowers, I don't see how flowers are relevant to this section." Well, Starr and Harrison are primary sources, Lewisohn is not, and he says it was Mal Evans who did the work. Why are they relevant? Why is anything relevant? It completes the picture of Ringo's hissy fit. Remember, the Beatles Anthology is a primary source, and as such requires secondary sources to verify its content.
As far as the "greatest bass player" quote.
Current article version: "Paul is the greatest bass player in the world. But he is also very determined ... [to] get his own way ... [thus] musical disagreements inevitably arose from time to time."
Complete quote: "Paul is the greatest bass player in the world. He is also very determined. He goes on and on to see if he can get his way. While that may be a virtue, it did mean that musical disagreements inevitably arose from time to time. But such disagreements contributed to really great products."
I can't see where the article version is misleading, perhaps you can elaborate on this. Also keep in mind the article is quoting Harry, whose wording includes "But he is also very determined" and it ends at "time to time".
As far as including material on Ringo and Paul's musical collaborations, there is already an article for that, see Collaborations between ex-Beatles. As I said, if you have any specific suggestions for content additions please do share, but please do provide sourcing. — GabeMc (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Honorofics?

Below is an edit to the George Martin talk-page. Although I didn't find a College-of-Arms page for Paul McCartney, I would assume that if "Kt." is included in George Martin's initials because he's a Knight Bachelor, then Paul McCartney, who is also a Knight Bachelor, would also bear the initials "Kt." So why is it absent from this Wikipedia-page? For more info read on:

QUOTE (from George Martin talk-page): On this page http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Martin.htm the intials "Kt." preced the initials "C.B.E.". Why is "Kt." absent from George Martin's Wikipedia page? As a Knight Bachelor (a Knight who is not a Knight in an Order of Chivalry (or is it "Order of Knighthood"), Martin is referred to as "Sir". His being a C.B.E. (rank of Commander, in the Order of the British Empire) would not result in his being referred to as "Sir" because "Commander" is not a high enough rank in the Order of the British Empire to be a Knight. Hence without the "Kt." and only the "C.B.E." there the "Sir" is a bit of a head-scratcher, no? I am making the parallel edit to Paul McCartney's talk-page where the only difference is that McCartney, as a MEMBER of the British Empire, is even lower-ranked than Martin and likewise would not be a "Sir" if he were not also a Knight Bachelor affiliated with no Order. UNQUOTE 23:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.67.2 (talk)

As I was responsible for adding the honorifics to both Sir George's and Sir Paul's infoboxes, I suppose I should look into this. According to this page, "[T]he correct form of address for a Knight Bachelor is e.g. 'Sir John Smith'" and "In formal documents the post-nominal 'Kt.' is often adopted by Knights Bachelor who are also peers, baronets or knights of the various statutory orders". It appears that the afore-linked College of Arms site may be in error.
As far as I can tell, this means that unless a Knight Bachelor is also a KBE, "Kt" doesn't belong as a post-nominal. I could be wrong, and someone please correct me if so; I am by no means an expert on the British system of honors. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
"Kt" is almost never used as a postnom except in the most formal usage. For a Knight Bachelor, the pretitle "Sir" usually appears alone. The College of Arms is not actually in error, since in recording his arms it is using the most formal version of Martin's name, but it would not be usual usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Most covers in history of recorded music

I know Gershwin's Summertime was not conceived as a chart song, but it is generally recognised as popular music. It is well documented that this has been covered far more than what you quote for Yesterday: 33.000+ at the last count. This figure was quoted on a researched programme on BBC4 in 2011, and http://www.summertime-connection.nl/ refers.

Bullivants (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the distinction between the two is that "Summertime" has been performed the most, while "Yesterday" is the most covered, as in distinct bands recording new versions. — GabeMc (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence in Cover version states "In popular music, a cover version or cover song, or simply cover, is a new performance or recording of a contemporary or previously recorded, commercially released song or popular song." GoingBatty (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine that we would be required to think of every individual performance as a "new" cover version of a song. If so, there's probably no way to determine the actual number of performances, anyway. (As a side note, I would expect that "You Are My Sunshine" would be rather high-ranked on any list like that as well.) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Evanh 100%, how about "Ava Maria", or "Amazing Grace", which could possibly be sung thousands of times every sunday across the world. The US national anthem is sung at every sporting event, are they each "new" covers? (162 baseball games + 82 basketball games, + 20 football games= 264 per year, so by this logic, every ten years the US national anthem is "covered" at least 2,640 times per decade, more than "Yesterday's" claim of 2,200-2,500 for 47 years). Also, this is only counting pro games, not every HS or college game that also includes TSSB to open games. — GabeMc (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention "Happy Birthday". Multitudinous examples aside, I think the key facts here are those given by the sources (verifiability, not truth, etc.) I could be wrong, but http://www.summertime-connection.nl doesn't look like an RS. BBC says that Yesterday is "the most popular song", and Guinness says that "[t]he most recorded song is 'Yesterday'". Unless reliable sources (i.e., at least as reliable as the BBC and Guinness) are brought forth that state otherwise, the factoid should remain in the article. If reliable sources are brought forward, then it could probably be axed without affecting the quality of the article too much, or alternatively we could retain a mention that BBC and Guinness cite it as the most-covered song, with perhaps a note clarifying the uncertainty. As of now, though, this entire conversation isn't going anywhere. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more like 162 baseball games/team * 30 teams / 2 teams/game = 2,430 baseball games/year? GoingBatty (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point Batty, I was merely giving a rough estimate per team, but very true, league-wide, US pro-baseball alone would eclipse "Yesterday" yearly if each performance of "TSSB" is to be deemed a distinct "cover". — GabeMc (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wings' break-up

In the section Paul McCartney#1970–1981: Wings, there are several questionable statements regarding the break-up of Wings. The various reasons given for the break-up are basically the reasons why Laine quit, not necessarily why the group dissolved. McCartney had his own reasons for not continuing the group, none of which are mentioned.

If you think there is a Macca reason that should be included please do suggest it, I would be happy to include it, but please do provide a WP:RS. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I will add appropriate, accurate and reliably sourced content whenever I wish. Your approval is not requested or necessary. Piriczki (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, you do not need anyone's permission to add content, certainly not mine, I wasn't implying you did. I was merely offering to add material you find pertinent, assuming you expected me to do the work. — GabeMc (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the "financial failure" of Back to the Egg. What exactly does this mean? Back to the Egg went platinum shortly after its release just as the previous five albums had. Where is there any evidence of financial failure?
Benitez calls BTTE a "commercial disappointment" (p.96), I've edited the article text to hold closer to this assertion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Who is Vincent Benitez and what is his definition of "commercial disappointment"? Back to the Egg may not have met the expectations of Columbia Records after shelling out millions to sign McCartney but that was their problem. Piriczki (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Benitez is an author and professor of music, sometimes called a musicologist, you can find his book in the article's sources. As far as his definition of "commercial disappointment", IDK, I've never talked to the man. If you could provide a source or two that refutes this claim, we could balance out the statement. So once again, I'd love for you to offer an actual WP:RS versus refuting claims by WP:RSs with no sources supporting your refutation. On BTTE and commercial reception, read McGee 128-130. "When asked if BTTE was a concept album, Paul joked that it was a "bomb-cept" ... Despite the "failure" of BTTE ..."That wasn't one of our better albums" Paul confessed ... In Sounes, 2010, page 365; "the failure of BTTE. — GabeMc (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
FTR, I hear you on BTTEs "commercial disappointment", but keep in mind, Wings had sold over 100 million albums to date, with just 7 titles, or about 13 million per album, so the fact that BTTE sold over one million puts it's relative "failure" into some perspective IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
For example, if Michael Jordan had been averaging 39 points per game during an NBA playoff series, then he followed with a 3 point game in the series finale, most would consider that a bit disappointing. — GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
More on BTTE: from Allmusic: "Part of the problem is the weak sound of the record and Wings' faceless performances, but the true problem is the songs, which have no spark whatsoever. On the basis of Back to the Egg, it's no wonder that McCartney returned to solo recordings after its relative failure." From the Rolling Stone review from 1979: "Back to the Egg is just about the sorriest grab bag of dreck in recent memory ... Back to the Egg doesn't contain one cut that's the least bit fleshed out or brought to any logical conclusion ... Titles are abundant (fourteen in all), but the content is largely regurgitant ... The instrumentation on Back to the Egg is so scrambled that any serious criticism would be ridiculous ... the record sounds like a rude mixture of subbasement tapes and prose torn at random from the Yellow Pages, interspersed for no discernible reason ... This album is nothing more than a slipshod demo by an aimless band. If it had arrived unsolicited in the offices of Columbia, it would have been returned in the next mail with a terse "No thank you" ... I can think of few other prominent rock musicians who'd have signed their names to this kind of drivel. McCartney's gross indulgence is matched only by his shameless indolence, and Back to the Egg represents the public disintegration of a consistently disappointing talent ... Paul McCartney ... has been plagiarizing his own material for years now, and he's finally run out of recycled ideas." So, to call it an artistic failure is not a stretch, to call it a commercial failure is a relative notion, as I said above, a million copies is nothing to be ashamed of, unless you had been averaging ten times that in previous years. — GabeMc (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
According to Blaney, 2007, p.132: "Back to the Egg spent only eight weeks in the British charts, the shortest chart run of any Wings album." — GabeMc (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The section then says the cancelled tour caused "massive financial losses for the band." It was McCartney that had to pay the promoter for the cancellations and shoulder the financial losses. Wings were employees of McCartney and did not share any liability, they only missed out on the extra income they would have received from the tour.
Benitez says the cancelled tour/s "meant huge financial losses for everyone" (Ibid) Do you have WP:RS for "It was McCartney that had to pay the promoter for the cancellations and shoulder the financial losses"? — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, who is Vincent Benitez and how is he qualified in financial matters? Regarding the cancelled tour, McCartney himself said "I had to pay the promoter and everything, which was an absolutely ridiculous waste." (Gambaccini, Paul. "Paul McCartney's one-man band" Rolling Stone June 26, 1980: 20)
You are missing the point here I think. The article does not claim, nor do I, that Laine et al "paid the promoters". The article currently says: "cancelling of the tour and massive financial losses for the band", i.e. loss of wages, since the band was not paid for a tour they never performed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I've copyedited this graph for clarity and I think it is now clear that the band suffered a loss of wages, versus the language which you seemed to think implied they had to "foot the bill". Hope this remediates some of your concerns a bit. — GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Wings disbanded in April 1981" Actually, in April 1981 Denny Laine announced he was leaving Wings, citing McCartney's reluctance to tour in the wake of John Lennon's murder. McCartney's spokesman denied that Paul was not touring for that reason and that "Paul is doing other things, that's all." The spokesman went on to say that Laine's departure did not neccessarily mean the end of Wings, saying "Wings are Paul and Linda McCartney and whoever they wish to record with."
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. The article is in full agreement as far as I can tell. As far as "that Laine's departure did not neccessarily mean the end of Wings", well, there was never again a band called Wings with McCartney in it, post-Laine's departure in 1981, so what's the point here? — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "formal announcement came in May" This is just flat out wrong. There was no announcement in May, formal or otherwise. Yes, many assumed that this was the end of Wings, and that turned out to be the case, but there was no such announcement.
According to Doggett 2009, pp. 276, "a formal announcement was made in May 1981". Do you have a source that claims no formal announcement was made? — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
So Peter Doggett says there was a formal announcement? What was it? Quote the announcement here please, with a reliable source of course. A reliable source that there wasn't an annoucement? There is no such thing as a reliable source that verifies that something didn't happen. The burden is to verify exactly what was said and by whom, otherwise it can and should be deleted. Piriczki (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll delete the Doggett claim of a May formal announcement. — GabeMc (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Piriczki (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012

The section "Creative outlets" contains the following section:

He later became involved in the renovation and publicising of the Indica Gallery in Mason's Yard, London — where Lennon first met Yoko Ono.[177] The Indica Gallery brought McCartney into contact with Miles, whose underground newspaper, the International Times, McCartney helped to start.[178] Miles would become de facto manager of Apple's short-lived Zapple Records label,[179] and he wrote McCartney's official biography, Many Years From Now (1997).[180]

This paragraph contains the first mention of "Miles" without any explanation of who he is. I had to do research outside of the Wikipedia site to find out who this was, when there is a Wiki page on him. "Barry Miles" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Barry_Miles. The paragraph needs to be amended to reference this Wiki entry with an internal link and add something similar to the phrase, "...brought McCartney into contact with English author Barry Miles, whose underground newspaper, the International Times..."

Thank you. TexasRedChili (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed your indentation; that's done with a ':'. Dru of Id (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done - I changed "Miles" to "Barry Miles", but didn't add "English author", since the rest of the paragraph explains he's an author. GoingBatty (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about 2001–present section

Regarding the first paragraph of the 2001–present section, did Paul form the band before September 11, or was the band put together for the Concert for NYC? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your question and your extremely helpful edits GoingBatty. The band that played at the "CFNY" included just two members who also appear on "Driving Rain" recorded by July of that year (released in November), and Macca's current touring band. So no, the band that played at the "CFNY" is not the exact same line-up that he formed for the 2002 world tour, which he remains with today. I've edited the chronology so that's more clear. Thanks for the input! I'll work on your comments below later tonight. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Your chronology (and your edit) makes sense - guess I need to watch The Love We Make more closely next time. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I think it's a great film BTW, The Love We Make, IMO, very well done indeed and well worth rewatching. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, should this section contain:
  • one line about the remastered Beatles albums and Rock Band being released on 09-09-09, to complement the picture of Paul & Ringo promoting Rock Band?
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk)
  • a mention of the Beatles albums finally being released on iTunes
Done. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • a mention of the recent release of Paul's remastered solo albums?
Well, the Macca remastered albums are still trickling out, and they havn't all been remastered and/or made available as such as of yet. So I think that's a bit premature to get into. Also, IMO, that is perhaps detail more suited for the dedicated topical articles on those albums, added as the remastered versions are made available commercially. Thanks again GoingBatty for your efforts and input, as always, you've been most helpful. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
No, no, thank you! ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Beatles or The Beatles

Was the official name of the group "Beatles" or "The Beatles"? Were both names used or was the name changed throughout history? The name usage has been switched back abd forth in many places in this article. When "The Beatles" starts any sentence the difference is negligible but there are usages that violate the implied definition usage in other parts. In the Muscial Career section we introduce this problem with "The name of the group was changed to the Beatles in mid August 1960, and drummer..." If "the" is part of the group's name then it should be capitalised and if it isn't part of the group's name it doesn't belong in the sentence. i.e. "changed to The Beatles in..." or "changed to Beatles in..." 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are 1,671st person to ask this question! (No free X-Box for you, though.) Basically, it comes down to the fact that the Manual of Style specifically says that we are to use "the Beatles" (little "t"), but a whole bunch of people like using the big "T", for some reason. "The"/"the" is part of the band's name, of course (despite the fact that the jacket of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" just uses "Beatles"), but because it's a definite article, it shouldn't be capitalised mid-sentence, according to both the MoS and long-established standards of English grammar. The same is true for titles of various works, such as Lord of the Flies or A Fire Upon the Deep. For band names, according to the MoS, the definite article is always to remain uncapitalised, unless it starts a sentence. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Well said Evan, I agree 100%. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Are we sure the MoS is relevant here? If the name is "The Beatles" are we not changing the name incorrectly by no caps on the article? I figured this may have been addressed before, somewhere. (keep the Xbox) hmmm... "the The Beatles..." 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
* Comment ~ On page 352 of the Beatles Anthology, you can see it written in Paul's hand using "the" (1970). Here is a letter dated 1969 signed by Lennon, Harrison, and Starr that uses "the". This is a lame waste of time, in fact this issue you bering up now, during an FAC, made the wikipedia list of lamest edit wars. So please, for all our sake, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. 95%+ of the sources used in the article, and members of the band themselves used "the", its ridiculous to force the minority opinion to defy MoS. Books that use "the" Epstein's book, Derek Taylor's book, Emerick's book, Martin's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Sources: Lewisohn, Harry, Gould, Spitz, Miles, Davies, Brown, Norman, etectera. These sources are closest to the band and the most reliable/high-quality, why would we ignore them to please a few entrenched editors? The MoS, specifically states: "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." How more clear can you get than that? ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Response - McCartney's handwriting is not a reliable source, nor are any of the authors you mention, who probably out of ignorance spelled it with a lower case 'T', not understanding that the phrase 'The Beatles' is a registered trademark and should always be faithfully presented. It is also true that the consensus for several years has been to use the upper case 'T', even in running text, in spite of what the MoS recommends. As we say in these parts, "Drop the stick". Radiopathy •talk• 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The MoS does not support your contention that trademarks "should always be faithfully presented" (see WP:MOSTM). I'm fine with people establishing consensus that contravenes the MoS, as it is not policy, but I must admit that I've not actually seen the discussions wherein consensus is claimed to have been achieved. The majority of the people I've discussed it with seem to be on the MoS's side, so keep in mind that consensus can change. In fact, when consensus is violating the MoS for no good reason, I think it should change. I would prefer we discuss it again, or at least hold a straw poll, if only to ward off edit warring. Realize also that in all the years that we've been supposedly operating under lowercase consensus, no one has once thought to change the bit of the MoS that specifically uses the Beatles as an example of how to handle band names in continuous prose. Either consensus needs to change, or the MoS does, because right now style guidelines and the personal preferences of some editors are causing Wikipedia to be divided against itself. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, are you actually making the case that Lewisohn, et al. are not reliable sources, or was that a mistype on your part? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant they, including McCartney, are not reliable sources vis-a-vis the spelling of the name of the band. And as for consensus, if you'll search the discussion archives for The Beatles article, you'll find several discussions pointing to consensus on this issue; I'm really tired and busy right now. 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy this. Radiopathy •talk• 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

this is not about the name of the group, which is the beatles, including a 'the', and sounds the same whether one is using all lower case as i am now or switches on the CAPS LOCK, WHEREUPON THEY ARE STILL THE BEATLES, SOUNDING THE SAME THOUGH LOOKING DIFFERENT. This is about the conventions of written English and normal rules of capitalisation, that's all. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem there is no question on this issue after so much WP discussion, previously, regarding this naming of the band. Template:The Beatles and Portal:The Beatles/Intro are templates that establish standards for the band name to be used in WP with a capital "The". Yes, WP:MoS definitely contains some self-contradicting statements regarding spelling issues. Regardless of this separate issue, a standard has been established for this band name and it needs to be followed here and every article mentioning "The Beatles". 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

99.251.125.65, so, you came here, during an FAC, to restart one of the lamest edit wars in wikipedia history? The Beatles templates do not dictate which usage we use here at Paul McCartney. If you want to try to assert that ridiculous consensus then you would have to build a consensus here, at the talk page for McCartney. Discussion at other talk pages are instructive, but not prescriptive. Also, FTR, the current consensus at the Beatles is not even to use "The" not "the" anymore, it is to avoid mid-sentence usage in general. check if you don't believe me, (oh, I see you've started it there now also). So there isn't even a consensus there to demand "The" over "the". Anyway, like I said. If you wanna restart that lame arguement that is your right, enjoy. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, FTR, of the 40+ sources I used to cite the article, only about 3 or 4 use "The", that in and of itself is reason enough, per WP:COMMONNAME. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not be presumptious. I am trying to improve the grammar in these articles as a basic prerequisite for reader confidence in WP. Please do not use WP:Battleground behaviour to resolve this issue. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


  • There appears to be a good reason for this naming confusion, and can be seen with a little grammar logic. Two problems exist.
1) Capitalisation of "the' and "The" and,
2) Beatles as a plural or singular noun requiring a matching verb.
It would appear proper grammar logic indicates the two problems are related. When referring to the plural of persons as four individual "Beatles" the non-capitalised "the" would be appropriate usage in English grammar. e.g. "Each of the Beatles had different opinions".
When referring to the singular group the proper trademark name of the group should be used including a capital on the article. e.g. "Ed Sullivan hosted two episodes featuring The Beatles".
The Beatles confused these issues by the use of no article word on several albums also, but that is another argument for somewhere else and probably history, here.

99.251.125.65 (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We have been operating under upper case consensus, not lower case as Evanh2008 mistakenly asserts above. GabeMc's assertion that, " The Beatles templates do not dictate which usage we use here at Paul McCartney" is patently false: The Beatles do not become a different band at a different article, nor does the guideline to use the upper case 'T' change when The Beatles are mentioned in another article. Cease and desist. Radiopathy •talk• 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not about consensus, or sources, or trademarks, or singular and plural, it is about correct upper and lower case. It is quite simply incorrect to capitalise ‘the’ in running prose without good reason, i.e. as the first word of a title. So, for example, it is correct to say that the Beatles made an album called The Beatles, also known as the white album, or indeed The White Album, its unofficial title. These are the facts, as any decent style guide will make clear. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Radiopathy, you seem to have a misconception about what the current consensus at the Beatles actually is, which is this: "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal", not to avoid usage of "the Beatles", as you are stating here. You are wrong in this regard, and as far as I can tell there is not consensus at the Beatles to use an upper, not lower case "t". Please correct me if I am wrong about this. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I've just carried out a google search of usage in the main British newspapers and there really is no standard on this. The Times and the The Guardian tend to use lower case mid sentence, The Telegraph uses both upper and lower in different articles, as do The Independent, The Mail and The Mirror. I think this shows that in British English, unlike American English, either form is acceptable. This article is written in British English and as long as the usage is consistent throughout the article it really isn't important. Richerman (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The usage throughout the article is *not* consistent. That is part of the point argued. There has been much discussion on this, in the archives, and due to multiple ideas and multiple cultures with multiple grammar standards, everybody chickened out with a consensus, (agreed to or not) for WP and it needs to be followed. I don't believe this article follows all of the standard. BTW: This consensus disagrees with parts of the WP:MoS also but then the main body of MoS disagrees with itself in parts also. Difficult one. Standards probably need to be improved so they fit properly and at least do not disagree with itself in the same standard policy. In view of the factors, mentioned above, I doubt this will ever be perfect. In the end I feel the name on the incorporation document should be followed, not the trademark = nickname (could be graphic to), when referring to "the band" if anybody knows what that is. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the usage in the article is most certainly consistent. Please give me an example of where it isn't. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The only inconsistency is in that wikilink at the end. Rothorpe (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
99.251.125.65, it is improper to suggest the usage is not consistent throuought the article without offering any specific examples. This could be construed as FAC sabotage by some, so please, be careful, and back-up your statements with examples. If the top link was changed, it was not by me, or by consensus. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the list concerned, so now consistency is complete. Rothorpe (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As of

We currently use this 12 or 13 times. It looks clunky, in my opinion. It is a little more useful now that most of the instances are templated, but I think it could indicate an underlying problem that there are too many trivial factoids mentioned in the article, with all of them being "as of 2012".

We currently have:

  • he has sold over 15.5 million RIAA-certified units in the US.
I would prefer to retain this info in-line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • he worked with Jackson on McCartney's most recent US number one, "Say Say Say".
I would prefer to retain this info in-line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • his latest UK number one was the title track of his LP release that year, "Pipes of Peace"
I would prefer to retain this info in-line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The Pipes of Peace LP, a UK top five and a US top twenty, is McCartney's most recently recorded RIAA certified platinum studio album
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • the song is McCartney's most recent US top-ten single
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • McCartney's most recent UK number-one album
I would prefer to retain this info in-line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • highest charting UK top-twenty hit song
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • His most recent top-ten album
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • supported by a UK top-twenty hit single, his most recent
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • his most recent top-five album
Moved to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • McCartney remains one of the world's top draws
This should be retained IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • he has sold 15.5 million RIAA certified units in the United States (again)
This is mentioned once in the lead, so it must be restated in the article body, and as I said above, I would greatly prefer to retain this datum. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • He remains with Hear
I'm not sure how to resolve this one while still maintaining the clarity of which label Macca is currently with. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is too many "as of"s.

I would remove some of these altogether as being fancruft, and remove all the "as of"s, replacing them with a single note that all stats are valid as of a particular date. These are not things that are likely to change quickly anyway, so why would we need to specify the year so many times? --John (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, great points. As I stated at the FAC, most if not all of these were inserted to please User:Wasted Time R, or to resolve their FAC comments. See this discussion with Wasted for details. I will go through and eliminate as many of these examples as I can. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I would keep at least his current sales ("RIAA-certified units") and his most recent number ones. The rest can go. The last time he had a number one is more important than, say, his last top twenty. For those claims where we do state that something or other is the "most recent", I'd keep the "as of" notes, especially since there would be so much fewer of them. szyslak (t) 23:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I will move anything not a number-one to a note, per John's FAC suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I support the footnote solution 100%. szyslak (t) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Question: No.5, #5, or number-five? Which is the best way to denote the numeral in the note? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The hash symbol (#) is an MOS no-no, at least in article text. They suggest either "number 5" or "No. 5" I tend to prefer the whole word, since I'm averse to using abbreviations in writing. szyslak (t) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, "25 weeks" or "twenty-five weeks" ... on the chart? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think "25 weeks" is good, unless it begins a sentence. szyslak (t) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks the clarification Szyslak, and to John for the fine suggestion (notes). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the article top to bottom and moved as much excess chart data as possible into notes, retaining only number-ones, album sales, and his last RIAA platinum LP. If there are more examples that need to be moved to notes please let me know. Thanks again for all the great help! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

copyedit

Hi, per request I'm giving this piece a pass. It's a little difficult to do, given the incredible level of edit activity on the piece, so I'll see how it goes. I'll leave comments here as I proceed. Lfstevens (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • This article seems to be quite long, even for such an important figure. If the material is available in other articles, I suggest removing some of the detail. (E.g., I removed the name of the piano dealer who supplied the family upright.) I'll note some of the other good candidates as I proceed.
Agreed, I thought of that also (removing the piano purchase details). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • After checking the listed main article, I changed the section on Mary to indicate that she worked at Walton. Another editor changed it back, saying that she had not. I don't know the facts, but i do know that the two pieces are now inconsistent.
Mary qualified to work as a nurse, passing her state registry requirements there, but she never worked there based on my knowledge, and the sources I used to cite the article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC) I've double checked the main article and the sourcing for the passage in question. It failed verification. Spitz says nothing of the sort and really, that whole graph is not sourced properly. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article The Beatles gives "Silver Beatles" rather than the "Silver Beetles" in this one. I left it unchanged.
They were both, first, Silver Beetles, then Silver Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The same article claims that various Beatles were deported from Germany rather than "received breaks" as in this article. I left it unchanged.
They had breaks during their residency and three were subsequently deported. The deportation detail is not needed here, as you say this article is long enough. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One reason for the excessive length is that there are a number of details that are not about Paul per se, but about the Beatles, etc., that are well-covered in other articles. I will list candidates:
  • "On 31 October 1956, when he was fourteen, his mother died of an embolism after a mastectomy to stop the spread of breast cancer, which had been diagnosed several years prior."
On 31 October 1956, when he was fourteen, his mother died of an embolism.
Okay, good idea, I've trimmed that text string as you suggested. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "followed in 1960 by Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe on bass, followed in 1960 by Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe on bass. By May 1960 the band had tried several names, including Beatals, Johnny and the Moondogs and the Silver Beetles, touring Scotland under the latter name as a supporting act for fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle
Good point. I've now trimmed this down. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Drummer Pete Best was recruited before a five-engagement residency in Hamburg, Germany."
Question - Can I properly summarise the band in that period without mentioning the band members by name? What specifically should be trimmed from this text string? 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Pete and Stuart were both marginal figures in Paul's life. I'd drop them.
While I agree that they were marginal figures, I am afraid if I do not mention Pete, then a reader may wonder who played drums in Hamburg, or "was Ringo in Hamburg with them?" Also, I can't really explain how Macca ended up on bass guitar without explaining that they had a bassist who quit, forcing Macca to reluctantly take-up bass. It's also notable that he wasn't originally interested in bass, don't you think? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1960, the Beatles were informally represented by Allan Williams. His first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg.[24] During their extended stays there over the next two years, they performed as the resident group at the Indra, and later the Kaiserkeller, both owned by Bruno Koschmider. Periodically, the band received breaks from playing in Hamburg, and returned to Liverpool, performing regularly at the Cavern Club."
Good suggestion. I've trimmed this out almost entirely. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Epstein negotiated a record contract for the group with Parlophone that May, and Ringo Starr replaced Best in August."
This seems like perfectly good summary to me. When they were signed and when Ringo joined are two of the most notable events in that year, if not that period. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The writing is fine, it's just that record company details belong elsewhere. Mentioning Ringo is of course fine.
Okay, I agree, and I've deleted the record company details. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • " In 1963, the band released two studio albums: Please Please Me and With the Beatles. Two more albums followed in 1964: A Hard Day's Night and Beatles for Sale"
The section mentions every Beatles album, as does the Wings section. Are you suggesting I only mention some albums and not others? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a bio, not a discography. I'd mention the things that showed major changes to Paul or by Paul on the band.
I agree, great suggestion. I trimmed it out. Thanks for all the fantastic advice, like I said, you should hang around FAC more, if you don't already. There are many content editors that could use your objective advice, it is most helpful. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Beatles produced a short promotional film for the song, and another for its B-side, "Rain". The films, described by Harrison as "the forerunner of videos", aired on The Ed Sullivan Show and Top of the Pops in June 1966."
The film is relevant to Macca because the first one made was for "PW", which Paul wrote. A contender for "the first true music video" according to some sources. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It didn't seem really relevant to PM.
Do you still feel that way now? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "After touring almost non-stop for nearly four years and offering more than 1,400 live performances internationally, the group gave their final commercial concert at the end of their 1966 US tour."
Trimmed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)::
  • " A collage designed by pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth, it featured the Beatles in costume as the imaginary band alluded to in the album'stitle track, standing with a host of celebrities.[59] The Beatles' heavy moustaches reflected the growing influence of hippie style trends on the band, while their clothing "spoofed the vogue in Britain for military fashions", wrote Gould.[60] Scholar David Scott Kastan described Sgt. Pepper as "the most important and influential rock-and-roll album ever recorded".
The cover is notable to Macca because he sketched the original and he came up with the imaginary band concept. If Macca sketched the most notable cover of the 1960s, and invented the "concept", then this is certianly one of his greatest artistic achievements of that era. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Not questioning the album's importance. But the cover, other than mentioning that PM sketched it first, seems like a detail.
Okay. I see your point. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I agree and I've trimmed that detail out. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Beatles released twenty-two UK singles and twelve LPs, of which seventeen singles and eleven LPs reached number one on various charts.[1] The band topped the US Billboard Hot 100 twenty times, and recorded fourteen number-one albums:
Not sure what the issue is here. The Beatles' chart history, and number ones are summarised about as succintly as they could be. I summarize Wings' accomplishments, why not the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd take basically everything about the charts, except for a summary across his entire catalog, Beatles, Wings, etc. The details are available elsewhere.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said at the start of this FAC. The only reason I spent several hours adding the charts detail was because of the direct request of FAC reviewer User:Wasted Time R. I think its fairly minimized now, or reduced to notes, but I'll go through again and delete as much as I can. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Another repeat offender is the details on chart performance, which belong in the subordinate articles, not the bio.
Now moved to notes: ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Tour details also can be demoted. A tour is a tour, unless it helps realize the man.
This was added at the direct request/insistence of FAC commentor User:Wasted Time R (please see FAC commetns bu said user). Are you suggesting that all the tour info need not be included, or that only the most notable tours should be mentioned? Was this poor advice or an improper FAC request by Wasted Time R? Also, what exactly do you mean by "demoted". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll check the request, but it's my opinion. List the not-that-notable tour data under the bands. This article is still too long.
  • The critics comments are included in present tense. Since they were made in the past, I think past tense is more appropriate.
Fixed, but I will keep an eye out for any that I missed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Details on which model of instrument played on various tracks is not of general interest and should be demoted.
In terms of "which model of instrument played on various tracks". I only mention the Hofner and Rick in general. Same with the Texan and D-28. The only specific track where I detail which instrument he played is for "Taxman", because it proves a nice segue to the Macca quote. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Also, as a guitarist myself, I know I would certainly expect some brief details on his gear. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The first reference to his later wife is in the activism section. It should come earlier and mention the event.
If by later wife you mean Linda, she is first mentioned in the Beatles section (1969), in context of their marriage and first child together. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Not Linda, the land-mine one.
Heather Mills. Good catch. Fixed, I also added Shevell and Beatrice to the chronology, whcih would seem to follow logically, from your suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I picked this up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests
You're welcome. So glad you have arrived. Thanks for the great suggestions, nice work, the help is much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

More

  • Was the L/M relationship strained throughout or only at the band's end? It reads as thought it was throughout.
I would say throughout. But they were good friends also. The beginning of the significant L/M relationship strain is right about late 1965/early 1966, though I suppose it started earlier. What is verifiable is that by mid 1966 they were collaborating much less, and hardly at all after 1967. They only played together twice in the decade between 1970 and Lennon's murder. I hope that answers your question. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The George and Ringo sections are too much about collaborations, rather than relationships. Demote the former and enhance the latter. Any godchildren?
Well, that's another one that I agreed with at the start of this FAC. I added the Starr collaboration graph to resolve FAC reviwer User:Cryptic C62, who twice opposed based on the article not containing that material, among other reasons. I'm not sure what to do with this one because there is really not much besides that. Also, the article mentions the two times Lennon and Macca jammed, and his overdubs on the Harrison tribute to Lennon, so to leave Starr out would seem to cause an issue. I could be wrong, I've been pulled in many different directions during this FAC. The sources do not go there, so as far as I can tell, beyond a few brief musical collaboratons. That's about it with Starr. No godchildren that I know of. Please advise. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be sections for Martin and Esptein? (Anyone else?)
Didn't you just say the article was too long? My reasoning to not include Epstein or Martin is that beyond professional interactions, they have no significant personal relationship to speak of with Macca. For the same reason why you, above mentioned the material in the Starr section as being "too much about collaborations". Macca has few close friends really. He seems to just be into his wife and children, and he sometimes hangs with roadies at a pub, and he jams with musicians, that's about it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
" Macca has few close friends really. " is the key point. If you can source it, I'd lead with it in that section. Based on your comments, E and M don't fit there.
  • The recognition section is quite repetitive and oddly lists notable covers for HJ but not for Y? I'd not list any here.
I trimmed a bit, and I would certainly be open to specifc suggestions for deletion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd demote the Business section entirely. You might mention that PM owns rights to only two of his songs.
  • Where are the awards? I can't believe he doesn't have many more. Grammies?
Where are the awards you ask? I'll add that McCartney won two grammies with Wings, and two solo. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the large # of refs against a small # of source, you might want to consider having a single sfn for each major source and using {{rp}} to handle page #s. It would shorten things a bit more.
That sounds helpful, and I'm always open to improved methods, but as I'm not a code person, you would have to explain further, perhaps on my talk page. If it could simplify my sourcing method, then I'm interested in learning more. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The first ref to a given source uses a named ref with an included harvnb. The others use the named ref with an adjacent rp. It would look like: <ref name=somename/>{{rp|123}} Try it out.

I think I'm done. I'll check here tomorrow for any questions/issues. Cheers!

Excellent comments. Thanks again for all your hard work! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Since you are going nuts with these edits cleaning up this huge article. In the second paragraph there is mention of "Laine". The forllowing sentence starts with "He" and who is being referred to is not completely clear. Perhaps rearrange the paragraph or replace he with a proper name as a segue back in. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

The numbers are formatted like this, "ISBN-13: 978-0-307-35338-2." but Amazon and others format them so: "ISBN-13: 978-0307353382" --andreasegde (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: this article has them formatted correctly, but Amazon does not. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
So Amazon is incorrect, but Wikipedia is? Waterstones list them as "9780393315714", WHSmith; "9780711974593", and Blackwell's as"9780393315714". Am I missing something?--andreasegde (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This wiki page suggests this:
  • Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new books.
  • Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books.

--andreasegde (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This perennial argument belongs at Wikipedia talk:ISBN. The relevant standard is at isbn-international.org. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing author in reference

There's a problem with reference 94 (no author given). I left a hidden comment. Graham Colm (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I've now fixed the ref. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What No. are you calling?

Are we using 'No.' or 'number' in relation to chart positions of songs (i. e. 'number one single', 'No. 3 in the charts' etc.)? Either is acceptable per the MoS, but right now there are instances of both.

I personally favour 'No.'. Radiopathy •talk• 01:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On advice from other editors I am spelling out "number". I'll ask Lfstevens to weigh-in here before setting this in stone. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I favour 'No.'; it takes up less space & is universally comprehensible. Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd go with number, although my personal preference is #. I don't like abbreviations that end with a . Too confusing for English learners.. Lfstevens (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with '#'--andreasegde (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I like # too, but MOS:NUMBERSIGN doesn't. Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I was always informed text prose should never contain numeric digits or symbols. They should always be written out in full text. However, it looks too verbose when used repeatedly. The octothorpe symbol should not be used for a text doc. "No." with a numeric digits is my vote but "number" and written text probably should be used, formally. These tunes and stats would be more compact all in a chart form and it would reduce the length of the article. Perhaps a pulldown? For an example see here Steppenwolf discography 99.251.125.65 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul and Linda

Excluding quoted statements and the infobox/lede, "Paul" is mentioned 19 times, and "Linda" 13 times. For example: "McCartney is a one-man album, with Paul providing compositions, instrumentation and vocals. In 1971, Paul collaborated with Linda...". Linda Eastman is linked 3 times.--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Paul is mentioned five times in the first paragraph of the lead, and six times in the first paragraph of the Wings section. Please, think about what you appear to be trying to do, and don't be silly, your reputation is on the line. This is starting to get really weird, and I am pretty sure you know what I mean, and I'm pretty sure it will be easy for the right eyes to see. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact there isn't one sentence in the entire lead that does not mention him. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
When a person's full name has been mentioned in an article, he/she is to be mentioned by the use of their surname thereafter.--andreasegde (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
As I know you follow the MoS closely, please read this for clarification.--andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that at several points in the text we're dealing with multiple people with the surname (four in the "Childhood" section -- Paul's parents and their two sons), sometimes two or three in the same sentence. Then in the 1970s we're dealing with Linda repeatedly in the text. Per the MoS, all these people now have to be referred to as "McCartney". The MoS is not policy, of course, and I sincerely hope you're not just bringing this up to make a point. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to ignore the MoS. Clarity is one of them. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There are easy ways to get around the problem by referring to Linda as his "wife" or "the McCartneys". I made a few edits that avoided the problem, but they were reverted. Using "Paul" so often sounds like fancruft.--andreasegde (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean the one that was promoted to GA? There was only one "Paul" in that.--andreasegde (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. So, just to check, you would be cool with me revising the text of the first paragraph of the "Wings" section to read the following way:

Apart from some vocal contributions from McCartney, McCartney is a one-man album, with McCartney providing compositions, instrumentation and vocals.

In 1971, he collaborated with McCartney and drummer Denny Seiwell on a second album, Ram.

In September 1971, the McCartneys had a second child, named in honour of McCartney's grandmothers, who were both named Stella.

Because, if you want MoS compliance, you have to want that as well. You can't call for us to implement the letter of the MoS and not want us to compromise on clarity. At several points throughout the text, we have to break the MoS in order to not devolve into nonsense. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It's about the writing. "Apart from some vocal contributions from his wife, McCartney composed every song and played all the instruments on his first solo album, McCartney."--andreasegde (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Andreas here. --John (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"In September 1971, the McCartneys had a second child; named in honour of McCartney's grandmothers, who were both named Stella." The semi-colon clears up that one--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's fine by me, but that's not actually what's being done right now. The bit about the trumpet is the part that most stands out as being barely comprehensible as it now stands, so if you have any suggestions for repairing that, I'm open to it. But you can't implement the MoS on a piecemeal basis. If someone wants to rewrite the article for MoS compliance (and that's an admirable goal), then it needs to be done, but we can't hack away at it marginally across a period of weeks and months. Right now, the simplest way to have clear prose without a major rewrite is to use "Paul", "Linda", and "Jim" in various places throughout the article. I don't deny that those sentences can, and should, be rewritten to avoid such usage, but if we're going to use first names in some parts of the article (as we do as of the latest revision and the revision that was promoted to Featured Article status yesterday), then we might as well use them elsewhere wherever it happens to be best for the prose. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I cleaned that, but it was reverted. This is today's version: "McCartney's father was a trumpet player and pianist who led Jim Mac's Jazz Band in the 1920s, and later bought an upright piano to encourage his sons to be musical. He gave McCartney a nickel-plated trumpet for his fourteenth birthday, but when rock and roll became popular on Radio Luxembourg, it was traded for a £15 Framus Zenith (model 17) acoustic guitar, as McCartney soon realised that it would be difficult to sing while playing a trumpet." (Jim bought the piano from Brian Epstein's parents' shop, BTW).--andreasegde (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe my reply got jumbled a little during an edit conflict. For the record, I do not consider your supposed solution to the "grandmothers" sentence or the "trumpet" sentence to be acceptable. It's infuriatingly confusing and adversely affects the article. There is absolutely no indication which "McCartney" we're referring to, so you're only destroying the hard work of many FA contributors by insisting on this nonsense. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might say that. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.--andreasegde (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Thanks for keeping an eye on Macca. I was hoping I would not be the only one fighting off andreas' attempts to degrade the high-quality prose that numerous editors worked so hard to acheive. (GabeMc)"
I believe this comment explains the situation at the present time, no? I took this article to GA, and I have worked on it for many years, thank you very much.--andreasegde (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of something? I'm finding it hard to tell one way or the other. This has nothing to do with you, me, or Gabe. Your prose is nonsensical and unintelligible. Can you explain to me how either the "trumpet" clause or the bit about Stella is clearer in your proposed revision? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you read? You and GabeMc are conspiring to block my edits. I have contributed an awful lot to this article, and you know that.--andreasegde (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Conspiring? That's a laugh, especially since I haven't "blocked" a single one of your edits! Unfortunately, I cannot control what others think about my editing habits, or who agrees with me, and I am not into purging my talk page of comments that may make some uncomfortable. I'm here for the good of the article, not to combat you or anyone else. I am well aware of your contribution and, as I recall, we've met before (on friendlier terms). I have nothing against you, and would be proud to work with you to make this article better once you're willing to move forward. You and Gabe seriously need to cut the drama and try to make this as impersonal as possible. This is getting ridiculous. When you're ready to discuss content and not contributors, let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel wikistalked by Andreas, do you Evan? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify once more, the views and opinions expressed by User:GabeMc do not necessarily reflect those held by User:Evanh2008. I'm prepared to assume good faith until either the cows come home or hell freezes over, whichever comes first. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is a good example IMO. "In September 1971, the McCartneys had a second child, named in honour of Linda's grandmothers, who were both named Stella". Andreas, are you arguing that we should not use Linda's name here, rather Mrs. McCartney presumably, or McCartney's wife? She was a person unto herself, not just Macca's wife. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another reference problem

Now there is a problem with reference 67 (Lewisohn|2010|pp=276–304). Graham Colm (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed (by another editor). Thanks for the watchful eye! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Other questions

In the infobox, should the list of record labels be pared down to only include his solo career? GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I pared the infobox labels down to anything his written or co-written songs were issued on from 1962–2012, regardless of band. Seems proper, but I would of course entertain an alternate logic. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Good job paring it down. It looks a lot bigger in edit mode, but looks OK now when viewed normally. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the Creative outlets > Film section mentions the Grateful Dead documentary, should it also mention The Real Buddy Holly Story? GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any creative or production efforts by Macca on the film, so other than his just owning the songs, his involvement is minimal at best, other than cashing a check. It does inspire me to add a bit about Buddy Holly Week, for which Macca is a significant contributor, in the Early Influences section. Good comment, thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the DVD, it's "produced and hosted" by Paul. Although the DVD gets a mention at Buddy Holly#Film and musical depictions, it doesn't have its own article. So if the amount of work Paul did on Holly is significantly less than the months he spent on his 9 minute Dead film, I'm not passionate about adding this. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll look more into this and see what I can find. I know Macca hosted a screening for the movie, during his third "Buddy Holl Week" but from what I can tell on IMDb, MPL was not involved in producing the film. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
If you go to amazon.com and look at the back cover, I believe it says "(c) MPL Communications & BBC TV". I'll get the video again from the library to confirm. GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In 2006 he started a process to register "Paul McCartney" as a trademark. Any news on that since? GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No updates that I am aware of, do you think we should just delete the datum? ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'll delete it. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles states: "MacDonald describes... ..."Back in the U.S.S.R". as "the last of [the Beatles'] up-tempo rockers."" This is not true as the songs Get Back and One After 909 came later and are the very definition of uptempo rockers in the style of USSR. Macdonald also says that She's a Woman is "hard rock!" As this guy clearly has no idea what he is talking about, I think you should remove his comments. Thank you. 76.103.116.3 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MacDonald is a WP:RS used thoughout the Beatles project. If you have suggestions for content from other RSs, feel free to share. If you think MacDonald is not a RS, you can take it up at WP:RSN ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
How unfortunate. The statements are inaccurate, it is not a question of opinion. Are you the author? If you can't see the problem, then you are unqualified to be writing this article. It makes you look foolish and compromises Wikipedia as you blindly follow protocol. I'm not being harsh, just truthful. Nevertheless you will continue this idiocy. 76.103.116.3 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I copyedited the section for accuracy a while back, thanks for the fine suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things

So, I went through the article early today and got some copyediting done (not as much as I wanted to, but I hope it helped), and wanted to mention the following issues I noticed that I wasn't sure exactly how to address and/or that I felt uncomfortable addressing directly without some kind of discussion about it first:

  • "He reversed the tapes, sped them up and slowed them down to create the effects he wanted, some of which were later used on Beatles recordings, such as 'Tomorrow Never Knows'" - This passage looks alright on the surface, but I wonder if it might not be misleading. The phrase "Beatles recordings, such as" implies that "Tomorrow Never Knows" is one example of several, while I am under the impression that it's actually the only Beatles recording that incorporates McCartney's loops. Perhaps change it to "... some of which were later used on the Beatles song 'Tomorrow Never Knows'"?
Thanks again for all your efforts at the article Evan. Great suggestion. I think this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
McCartney also used tape loops on The Fool on the Hill see here and here. Richerman (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Richerman but neither of those above sources are WP:RSs. However, I checked a few sources and I found that Everett, 1999, p.139, mentions it. I'll look over a few other sources later and add the info today. Thanks for the suggestion! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm aware of that but I knew I'd read it somewhere and those sources do point to the more reliable sources. A google search of 'McCartney's tape loops' does bring up some interesting results though. It seems he was the first to use them (before Lennon) and he has recently been using them for a new project. I think there is a bit more to be said about the subject in that section. Richerman (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I had to trim much of it due to FAC comments, but I think a little more detail could most certainly be added. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Lennon comments, 'We collapsed. I knew that we were in trouble then. I didn't really have any misconceptions about our ability to do anything other than play music, and I was scared. I thought, we've had it now.'" I do not actually own the book cited (The Beatles Anthology), so perhaps someone else could look into this, but I distinctly remember the quote having been "we've fuckin' had it now" (emphasis mine). I could be wrong.
No, you are correct that the original source contains the f-word. The Beatles Anthology edited the comment. While I wouldn't normally advocate for cleaning up language, since the Anthology already did it, I believe it is fine to quote them as they re-produced the text. I could be wrong on this. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Also, upon further reflection, though Piriczki's suggestion that the original source of the Lennon quote be used would generally be best practice, in this case, the Anthology book's entire content is quoted material from other sources. So if Piriczki is correct that the Lennon quote should be sourced to one of the Playboy interview books or magazines, then the same would be true for everything in the book, thus by reductio ad absurdium the Beatles Anthology book should not be used on wikipedia as a source, by the logic of Piriczki's comments below in that regard. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • On the subject of Eleanor Rigby, we have these two statements fairly close to each other: "which included a string octet" and "the song included only McCartney's lead vocal and the double-quartet arranged by producer George Martin". Is there a technical difference between a string octet and a double-quartet? If so, then one is obviously wrong and needs to be corrected. If not, we should use just one for consistency's sake.
Another fine suggestion Evan, I believe this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In September 1971, the McCartney family added a second child, Stella, named in honour of Linda's grandmothers." Should that be "in honour of Linda's grandmother", or did Linda in fact have two grandmothers named Stella?
Piriczki is correct to state that both of Linda's grandmothers were named Stella. I've copyeditied the sentence so this is less confusing. Feel free to tweak it if it's not as clear, or grammatically correct as I intended. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "[T]he US top-ten hit single "No More Lonely Nights", which featured Gilmour on lead guitar, and was McCartney's second most recent US top-ten." This is a hard one to work out. Per WP:RECENT, we should avoid listing as current any facts that are likely to change in the near future, but we also have an awkward situation of tense here. "Was McCartney's second most recent" sounds a little awkward and like it might be implying that it is no longer his second most recent US top-ten. Any thoughts or suggestions on how to make that sound a little less clumsy? Maybe cut out everything after "Gilmour on lead guitar"?
This "most recent" language came from Wasted Time R's FAC comments, that specifically suggested the article needs to make this clear. I hear you on WP:RECENT, so if you can think of a way to honor the spirit of Wasted's suggestion without breaking WP:RECENT, I would love to hear it. Otherwise, perhaps Wasted is wrong and trying to honor the FAC suggestion has compromised a wikipedia guideline. Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Per this discussion with Wasted, at this point I think we can IAR in this regard, at least until it proves to be an issue with others. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "McCartney collaborated with Eric Stewart on Press to Play (1986), who co-wrote more than half the songs on the LP". This sentence is odd also, as the grammatical state that it's in might lead you to believe that the 1986 album Press to Play "co-wrote more than half the songs on the LP", rather than Eric Stewart. I'd fix this myself but can't think of a much better way to word it. Anyone want to try to tackle it? Or maybe I'm the only one who was thrown off by it.
Good point here, I believe I have now resolved this issue by clarifying that Stewart wrote the songs, versus Press to Play. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If I'm completely missing the point on some of these, let me know! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestions Evan, very helpful indeed! ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Lennon quote, Anthology edited the profanity. The original source, the 1970 Rolling Stone interview, should be referenced instead. That aside, I'm not sure why Lennon's response to Epstein's death is included in a Paul McCartney article. Wouldn't McCartney's response be more appropriate? If the quote was meant to illustrate McCartney's leadership role after Epstein's death, I don't think it's particularly illuminating. Perhaps McCartney's quote from Let It Be about being very negative since Epstein died and needing discipline would be more appropriate.
At the end of that paragraph, it says Magical Mystery Tour "set a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol LP." With the qualifier "initial", this is a bit of a hollow claim. The success of the previous LP, Sgt. Pepper, likely would have created high anticipation and demand, plus it was Christmas. By June 1970, Magical Mystery Tour was the seventh best selling American LP. What is this fact meant to illustrate anyway, or is it just a random fact inserted into the article?
Yes, both of Linda's grandmothers were named Stella. Piriczki (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Piriczki, I've included the Lennon quote because I feel it succintly gives context to the atmosphere after Epstein died. I would be happy to include a Macca quote instead that accomplished this as well. When you suggest we use Macca's Let It Be quote, are you referring to the movie? I do not own a copy of the film other than an old VHS (no player). Is there an equally suitable quote contained in one of the 35+ sources currently used to source the article? If you could point me in the right direction, I would be happy to swap the quote out, though as I said above, Lennon's is particularly illuminating IMO. In regard to the MMT initial sales claim, it is from Harry, so are you suggesting he is in error? Per: your description of "hollow claim", I fleshed out a few details. Per your comment: "What is this fact meant to illustrate anyway, or is it just a random fact inserted into the article?" I added the datum to illustrate that the soundtrack fared much better than the movie, which the article currently claims, I think it has notability value for that reason. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I found the Macca quote of which you speak in Brown & Gaines, and I have added it to the article, but after the Lennon quote, since John is speaking to immediately after Epstein died (1967), and Paul is speaking about "since", which at the time (1968 or '69) was several months, to a couple years post-mortem. Also the Macca quote needs to be in the context of Let it Be, so that's where I've placed it. Let me know what you think. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic work, Gabe! It all looks great now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Evan, for the compliment and the great eye/effort catching these issues! Nice copyedits also BTW. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Me again! Just noticed this: what "download chart" would we be talking about under "Recognition and achievements", in the paragraph just before the "Business" section? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice catch, the source, Blaney, just says, "the download chart". I'll try to dig up which one it was. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I got it. This site says it was the "Official UK Download Chart", presumably referring to the UK Official Download Chart. Does that link look reliable enough to you? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The source says exactly what we need it to say, but no, I wouln't cite them, I could be wrong, but it's better to err on the side of caution. It's really not anything contentious, so I say you could go ahead and add the info, so the statement isn't so general, but I wouldn't include the cite. We can do better, surely the BBC, the Guardian or the Independant wrote an article on it. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there has to be an RS out there somewhere that isn't so vague about it. A quick check at the BBC revealed a brief write-up about the performance itself, but nothing about the release and charting of the single. I added the name of the chart to the article, but I'll be on the look-out for something that could verify it definitively. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Co-written with Lennon"

The sentence that contains this phrase twice needs sorting out, the punctuation isn't clear, but I don't know which of the 4 songs were and which weren't. Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your copyediting contribs Rothorpe. I assume you are referring to this text string:

McCartney's contributions to their early hits include "I Saw Her Standing There" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963); co-written with Lennon, "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964) and "We Can Work It Out" (1965); co-written with Lennon.[29]</ref>

All four of the songs mentioned in the graph were co-written with Lennon. I've copyedited the above text string to the below one, in hopes of clarifying this:

McCartney's contributions to their early hits include "I Saw Her Standing There", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), and "We Can Work It Out" (1965); all of which were co-written with Lennon.[29]

Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so it got in there twice by accident, right, that's clear. I'll just change the semicolon to a comma (hint: when in doubt, put a comma). Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that in my first read-through the other day, but completely forgot to mention it. It looks good now, but does "We Can Work It Out" definitely need to be in there? I'm just not sure December 1965 really qualifies as "early" Beatles. "Paperback Writer" was only a few months later and topped the Billboard for twice as long. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point Evan, I agree and I've removed "We Can Work It Out" from the list. I think it was only there to show that Macca contributed to a Beatles hit in 1965, but since "Yesterday" is mentioned below, it's not needed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Roberts 2005, p. 54.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney/Archive_10&oldid=1243852207"