Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Paul McCartney. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Criticism

Does anyone else feel the criticism section is a bit disjointed and incoherent? Also I feel that some of the diction needs improvement. Alvie3 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be nice, and just say this: it could be a lot better! It doesn't tell the story. It starts with a comment by his daughter that's more about the difference between people who were alive when the Beatles were a band and those who weren't. than it is about criticism. (There was a joke in the '70s, maybe '80s, "What was the name of that band McCartney was in before Wings?" Not that funny, unless it's 3AM and your a musician and sitting around with other musicians listening to McCartney do something musically unbelievable at high-volume.) I think the story of how McCartney has been criticised deserves an A-plus effort. It's complex and interesting. In my opinion, part of the difficulty will be finding opposing views: there's a bit of a steamroller effect. Most critics toe the party line which in my mind all resolves back to the fact that McCartney wasn't Lennon. McCartney gets high praise for the period when (supposedly) Lennon was preventing his excesses, and his solo career was uneven, at best, because there was no Lennon to fix things. Ugh! I agree there's plenty of weak material in McCartney's solo career, but there's a lot of great material, too. This is a guy whose solo career had many #1 singles and albums, and the best-selling British single ever. I am not saying critics should bow to popularity, but there has got to be two sides to the story. I have a nugget that can't be in the article for lack of seeing anyone else say it: Writers like Lennon's word play and his angst over political issues and his baring of the soul. Not that Lennon wasn't criticized, but he was rarely, if ever, compared to McCartney, and no one ever said what Lennon really needed was McCartney to trim his excesses. (Never may be too strong; some critics have said that both needed each other: pick two albums released near each other in the early '70s, mix 6 of the tracks Paul's album, and 6 from John's, and you've got a great album. Unrealistic in practice, but the concept is strong: there'd be more inspired songs and less filler per album.) Writers criticized McCartney for what they deemed "effortless" melodies, but where's the words? Well, first, listen a little more closely. Paul wrote some great lyrics at least as late as Flowers in the Dirt. Second, those melodies are the equivalent of Lennon's lyrics: a natural strength (that still took effort) and put him in a league of his own. Great songwriters were impressed by McCartney, with one example being Paul Simon.

And don't get me started on people like Geoffrey Giuliano! In one book introduction he says of McCartney, "... the wide-eyed entertainer has pretty much stuck to ... proliferating a long-string of pretty, toe-tapping, largely incosequential ditties tailor-made for the undemanding international top ten." Ditties? If the top ten is so undemanding, let's see him write one! And what songs are "consequential"? Sorry, but "Imagine" didn't change the world. Most people who like it, even me, don't really agree with it except on very broad terms. Giuliano's made a living by taking quotes out of context and by stealing tapes. (Now I feel better!)

So, it needs work. I probably won't participate much because I have strong feelings about it and don't want to sway the result. Heavy criticism despite incredible (at one time) popularity may be the legacy of Paul's solo career and that's a shame. Lastly, "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Every Night", "That Would Be Something", "Hi, Hi, Hi", "C Moon", "Tomorrow", "Some People Never Know", "Dear Friend", Heck, I'm gonna go listen to music. John Cardinal 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly; Criticism is today understood as a negative attribute rather than a harsh but fair review of a body of work, thus a section so entitled will attract negative comments. Secondly; there is a wealth of material within the article and outside attesting to the genius of the man, mostly in the sales and popularity of his work. This is the only section which gives the opportunity to present another side. Lennon was often self critical in his work and in his public appearances, so much of the negative material is spread over a wider area of his article. An example if the offspring of both men; Lennons article comments over the strained relationship with his first son, and also Lennons choice to become a house husband to enjoy the relationship with his second. McCartneys article indicates what has become of his children, but very little about his relationship with any individual as a father. Both are equally valid, and stay within what can be cited. McCartneys career has been more dictated by what he did well (to and beyond the realms of genius) than the struggles that Lennon had, so the negative criticisms must be laid as a seperate entity against what is otherwise a brilliant career.

IMO, of course. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "criticism" originally meant the "assessment by a critic" in which the critic was an informed observer who might find good, bad, or mediocre aspects of the work in question: the result of the assessment. Like you, I think the word has evolved to have a negative connotation where people assume that criticism is bad despite critics occasionally giving rave reviews which pulls the other direction.

Regarding Lennon and his children, so far there is more juciy material to discuss mostly because he had a distant relationship with Julian. McCartney's relationship with his children seems OK or good based mostly (A) they grew up in the same house with him, (B) he seems involved in their adult lives, but overall there hasn't been much discussion. Regarding Lennon and his political activies and other behavior outside music (affair and marriage with Yoko, peace events, "lost weekend") he endured a lot of negative criticsm. I agree with your point that such criticism was a more pervasive part of Lennon's life, but I will also note that he set himself up for some of that criticism as a result of his choices.

My comments in general were about criticism of McCartney's pop music and to a lesser extent other artistic output (movie, classical piece, etc.) I wasn't thinking of other stuff like drug busts (I think he got off lightly there, odd given tabloid mentality we live in). With regard to McCartney's solo music, and to a lesser degree, his Beatle songs, I think he has been harshly judged. We may disagree there. Lennon's music has been pretty uniformly praised with notable exceptions such as Sometime in New York City and the avante-garde stuff. Two of his pop albums (Plastic Ono Band #22 and Imagine #76) are in the RS500 albums list, and "Imagine" is #3 in the RS500 songs list. McCartney has no albums in the RS500 albums list. "Maybe I'm Amazed" is #338 in the RS500 songs list.

I know McCartney has been praised for some of his Beatle songs. Still, there's a negative attitude about him and his work. It exists even here on Wikipedia. Look at McCartney's Beatle songs in Wikipedia and then look at Lennon's Beatle songs in Wikipedia. John's best songs are praised with little or no dissent. (See I Am the Walrus for example, chosen at random.) Paul's best songs include put-downs and innuendo. "Yesterday" includes this material:

A section about the possibility it was plagiarized or unduly influenced by other songs, and mentions three songs that supposedly were the basis of it. (How can it be three songs? Presumably, if it was plagiarized, two of the others involved plagiarism, too!) In one case, the article only included that a musicologist had noted the similarity between "Yesterday" and "Georgia on My Mind" and drawn a conclusion that McCartney was influenced by it. The article did not include a summary by the musicologist that "Yesterday" was a true and original work. That section was near the top of the article before I edited it and moved it down.

That same section includes a ridiculous allegation that came from news story that alleged that "Yesterday" was a cover of an obscure 19th century Neapolitan song. The major evidence described in the article was that the person played the song to some journalists and they thought it sounded the same. I could play "Imagine" in a particular manner and convince a lot of people it was based on "Singin' in the Rain or any other song you care to choose. More importantly, in order to plagiarize it or be unduly influenced, McCartney would have to hear the song somehow (he can't read sheet music) and there was no evidence presented that he saw the sheet music or heard the song. It's very unlikely he did; the song is pretty obscure. My guess: someone hunted around until they found a song that was similar. The song is out of copyright so no legal action will come of it, but she got her name in the papers...

Includes a strongly worded section that McCartney may have driven the other Beatles off the track ("recorded it "without bothering to include" the other Beatles).

Includes a swipe that he had only a small part to the string arrangement

Includes an anecdote that he annoyed Dick Lester during Help! by playing the unfinished song repeatedly.

Includes a theory that the song was not included on two previous albums partly because the other Beatles didn't like it, a theory that is unsupported by citations

Notes that he had "fallen in love with the song" (although this part also quickly adds that the other Beatles forbade its release as a single in the UK with a result that a cover single went Top-10 shortly after the Beatles' release of Help!.

Includes an anecdote where the mother of an ex-girlfriend says "Paul didn't have any feelings," and said Paul used the song out of "vengeance" by calling the woman and telling her to watch him perform the song on TV. Upon inspection of the cited source, 95% of the material was positive, and though the quote was accurate, the "watch me on tv" part was not in the source.

Includes Lennon's swipe at the song, "Beautiful—and I never wished I'd written it."

Don't get me wrong. With the exception of the "mother of an ex-girlfriend" thing, I think the negative or somewhat negative stuff in the "Yesterday" article should remain. It should be accurate to its sources, and it should be balanced by opposing points of view from other sources, but it should stay. My point is that there is a negative attitude about McCartney that isn't present for other artists, and Lennon is a good example.

In closing—and sorry for going on so long in both of my comments here—I think a criticism section (however named) should definitely be in the article. I think it should include both the negative criticisms of Paul (balanced by positive criticism as appropriate) but it should also discuss the combination of great popularity and significant negative criticism of his music. I think that combination is either unique to McCartney, but if not unique, the most extreme example within modern popular music. That's notable in my book. IMO, the current section doesn't cover any of the interesting stuff about the topic. John Cardinal 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can declare that there is at least one Project co-founder who will agree with almost (if not all) of what you wrote regarding a suspicion that Lennon gets far less strife regarding his recorded output than Macca. I am also shocked that "Band on the Run" doesn't get into that list you mentioned, possibly the most complete post Beatles record by any of them (IMO!!!). LessHeard vanU 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

i think this article really doesn't even need a criticism section, at least not as it is. if there's actual criticism, the section has merit, but the current criticism section offers no criticism beyond "we all stand together was a bad song." and the rest of it is just vague references of him being "soft edged" or "not so soft edged". bland.

"mad " vs. "daft"

I don't have "Wingspan" so I can't comment on the exact given quote. On the other hand, Lennon's quote on it was "daft", and McCartney has been quoted in Miles and (via Linda) in Playboy as "daft." Daft strikes me as more what Lennon would say, and so my suggestion is to use the Miles quote. The Playboy quote is second hand:

PAUL: "Even if it can't be said, we'll say it. It's the truth. So it was the very next morning that I was trying to say, 'Let's get back together, guys, and play the small clubs.' And that's when John said..."

LINDA: "His exact words were, 'I think you're daft.'" John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney verbatim quote: "John looked me straight in the eyes, and replied, I think your'e mad"! Mark Lewisohn, Wingspan (2002) p.9 Little, Brown and Company ISBN 0-316-86032-8 Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you that you are quoting "Wingspan" verbatim; there's no dispute on my part about that. What I am saying is that McCartney recounted the incident multiple times, and used daft elsewhere. I agree that if we use the Wingspan quote it should be "mad", but I suggest we use a quote from Miles, which is McCartney saying, in part: "'... so we should go back to little gigs.' at that point John looked at me and said, 'Well, I think yer daft!'" (Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now. p. 561. As I recall (but can't find rthe quote), Lennon also recounted the story and his version said "daft", but I can't find that quote right now so maybe I'm mad/daft! John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put that Lennon and his next door neighbour plus the binnie, said "I think your'e banana" for all I care - don't you lot ever stop arguing? I'm going to werk, before I go stark ravin bonkers! Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the quote from whichever tome you have been mostly using for that section, and note the difference from the other reference. That should cover it. Vera, if we can discuss it here and sort it then we can STOMP (with all due respect and politeness) on any future editor changing it to whichever of the books they had read. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wingspan Book is only a transcricption of the TV thingy, so it stands to reason, that if you watch it, you will Hear Macca SAY "MAD" and not READ him saying "DAFT". Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"TV Thingy"? Is that a technical term? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Oh aye, it's a very teknicle term used in and around (but not exclusive to) the Dingle. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was called 't'Telly' where I was dragged up, or "t'box in't corner", and also referred to as the thing "that'll make yer eyes go square". andreasegde 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a chronicle

I wish people would understand that we're writing an encyclopedia not a chronicle or a newspaper. Recent additions have paragraphs starting:

On March 21, 2007,
On April 2, 2007,
On June 5, 2007,

This is very dull prose and suggestive of an article thrown together by anons from news reports. Can we tidy these new additions so that they have historical perspective and fit into the existing narrative? We might want to lose altogether mention of the forthcoming album as it's not out yet. --kingboyk 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Who are the people Paul McCartney played with at Live 8? I mean the two guitarists, the pianist and the drummer? 77.162.32.197 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Go on, I give up. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it: see [1] 77.162.32.197 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism?

This article suffered from multiple and repeated deletion vandalism. I restored a bit that wasn't missed.

However, I think the Genre has been vandalized, but as I'm not a music expert, I'm unwilling to restore the Genre to an older version without some sort of concensus.

At one point the Genre was:

Genre = Rock
Pop
Rock and roll
Soft rock
Psychedelic rock

and it's now:

Genre = Pop-rock
Rock & roll
Classical music
Ambient music

I personally think the older one is correct. Sockettome 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think, for McCartney as a solo artist, the current one is closer to the mark. I do appreciate you bringing it here for discussion though, as we don't want another genre edit war :)

What do other folks think? --kingboyk 23:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the current one is closer for Macca as a solo performer. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Number one hits in the UK

Under record-breaker it says "McCartney has achieved 24 number-ones in the U.K.: solo (1), Wings (1), with Stevie Wonder (1), Ferry Aid (1), Band Aid (1), Band Aid 20 (1) and the Beatles (17)." The numbers add up to 23 not not 24. What's up? 75.177.84.51 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bass that should not be there

If you look at the photo of Sutcliffe and Harrison on the Stuart Sutcliffe page, you will see a left-handed Hofner bass by Sutcliffes's leg, on the left. How is that possible when Macca started playing bass after Sutcliffe left?? Something is amiss here, methinks...andreasegde 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

family

I added the occupations of the children - 7 words - because readers might want to know which of the children is which. If we're worried about space, then we can remove "and the reception included a vegetarian banquet." from the Heather Mills paragraph. Tvoz |talk 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dot Rhone

I have just realised that Dot Rhone is not in, which is terrible because she was his first girlfriend/shag and almost married her. egde 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? If people give that much of a shit they can look it up on some fansite. CynicofWiki 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CynicofWiki, please see WP:CIV. Thank you, Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tell that user this isn't about who Paul was screwing back in 1932. CynicofWiki 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care at all User:CynicofWiki, then why are you here, Mr. "Cynical about Wikipedia"? It sounds like you are out to make trouble, which is not as nice as a cup of tea and a nice slice of cake - wouldn't you agree? If you wish to argue I must warn you that I believe in the power of the cucumber sandwich, and I occasionally play football in the nude. andreasegde 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Dot Rhone is very relevant. It's a biography, for fuck's sake--Crestville 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, young Crestville, don't pull the conker of aforesaid cynic, as he might climb out of his pram and actually gather enough energy to create a user account (although I strongly doubt it). andreasegde 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I had a user account and used to contribute to Wikipedia. Then I realized Wikipedia was nothing but bullshit where agendas play out. CynicofWiki 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And you came back to see if you were right? Nice. Tvoz |talk 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

he is right. 100% right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

influence

The "Beatles" section seems to chronicle the Beatles' rise and fall and whatnot, but there's very little relating to Paul's role in the Beatles, and his associated place in music history. I mean the guy was pretty much the driving force behind Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, but there's literally no mention; I think he deserves some credit there. The Beatles chronology belongs in the Beatles article. Look at the Ringo Starr article for a good role model. It's much more condensed, much more relevant to the topic. 24.11.154.189 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Macca is his nickname right?

I've heard him referred to as Macca before though it is not mentioned in the article. Shouldn't it be mentioned? I assume it is a abbreviation of sorts for the last name McCartney, right? --Cab88 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a "fan" thing--and a belated fan thing at that. No reference I've come across gives me the impression that any friend, associate, or relative of McCartney's ever called him "Macca". I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the article. TheScotch 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Liverpool (now most of the country) who's a Mc or Mac gets called Macca, it's not unique to Paul McCartney. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Anthology 2 version of You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, John calls him "Macca", so it's not only a fan thing. 147.188.248.153 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wideprairie.jpg

Image:Wideprairie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over name?

Why do we need to put "known as Paul McCartney" after "Sir James Paul McCartney? It should be obvious, as the title of the article is "Paul McCartney". If he was better known as "Sir James Paul McCartney", that would be the title of the article. Why the confusion? --DearPrudence 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where else would you place the important fact that his legal name is (now) "Sir James...", better known as Macca? Squeeze it in between the Solo & Wings sections. Mention it just after the fact he was knighted in 1997 (it seems a few ip editors have recently been unable to get that far into the article, from their edits)? Nope, best thing is to place it right at the beginning and then the article can concentrate on Paul McCartney. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vera's placement and LHvU's analysis on this - I mean, it seems kind of unnecessary to us, but think of the reader who's never heard of him. There are some. I'm sure of it. [hi all...still here] Tvoz |talk 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Tvoz!! Glad to hear it Queen! xxx Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Keepin' my eye on you boys. Tvoz |talk 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines actually state it is not necessary to point out they are known by their middle name (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names, where it gives Brian Jones as an example). See also Gordon Brown. --UpDown 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good but wait 'til "Sir Paul McCartney" is added to the info box - there's no such person-he's "Sir James Paul McCartney" Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you are being a bit pickey. There is nothing wrong with using someone's middle name after "Sir", its common practise if they are known by their middle name. Strictly speaking Gordon Brown is "The Rt Hon James Gordon Brown MP", but he is always, even in official documents like the Court Circular etc, refered to as "The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP". --UpDown 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being picky in the least. Macca can not be refered to as "Sir Paul" He was Knighted "Sir James Paul McCartney". Futhermore, you can't compare Rt Hon with Knight Bachelor. Cheers,Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It just seems unnecessary; why would the article be named Paul McCartney if he was better known by another name? --DearPrudence 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article - we try to be as technically precise as possible. Vera's rendering is correct and eliminates any possible confusion about the correct way his name and title should be used. Wiki style guidelines are just that - guidelines - and we interpret them and adapt them for each specific article. I'm not surprised that the guidelines say it's not necessary to point out that they're known by their middle name, but in this case, if Vera is right about how the "Sir" is properly used, then it seems prudent (forgive me for that) to do it the way he suggested. "Not necessary" does not mean "not allowed", of course, and I don't see any strong argument against including it. (By the way - for every Brian Jones example there's a Warren Beatty example - so there is no hard and fast rule here. I'm reverting to Vera's text which may seem unnecessary, but one hopes will reduce inaccuracy. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But - I'm inclined to remove the infobox "also known as Paul, Macca" line, because that seems like overkill to me. ANyone else? Tvoz |talk 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, as I pointed out in a previous post, "Macca" is not unique to Paul McCartney. Everyone in Liverpool (and now most of the country) who's a Mc or a Mac gets called Macca Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert back to my version. You are being picky, and also assuming people are very thick. The article is named "Paul McCartney" and he is called that throughout and in Infobox, you do not need to say "known as Paul McCartney". Regardless, I am backed by the MofS, which over-rules your POV. If you still disagree try and change the MofS before changing this.--UpDown 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And Warren Beatty is different, as his stage surname is different spelt from his real surname, so a "known as" is necessary to point this out. --UpDown 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

UpDown appears to have the MoS on his/her side. Also, to my mind, if we insist that we need to spell out to our readers that the guy is known as Paul McCartney - despite that being the title of the article - we're also insisting that our readers are thick :) My 2c is to remove the "also known as" but only refer to him as McCartney or Paul McCartney after the first sentence. --kingboyk 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? they are thick! They either come in and describe him as "Sir Paul", elevate him to KBE, or remove his Knighthood because they say "he's only an MBE." Is that thick or is that thick? And I don't believe you Steve! This is how The Beatles project was ripped to pieces!!! Well, I've had enough of your silly little compendium. I'm off lad, I've got a real job to do, I'm proud to do it, even for the thickies. Say bye bye Sooty: "Bye bye Sooty."^{[citation needed]} Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a big deal, but let's remember that MOS is just as subject to interpretation as everything else, if a situation is such that tweaking is needed. So UpDown, please dial it down - MoS wouldn't have to be changed to accommodate this very minor point in this article, in fact, because MoS doesn't actually say anything about this. The Brian Jones reference is talking about the need to include his full name in the first sentence and it is discussing the naming of articles, and the correct use of titles isn't addressed at all. I don't know if it's proper to call the guy Sir Paul or not, but if it's not, then there's no way anyone reading this article would know that. And since we're here to give more information, not to consider whether our potential readers are thick, it seems to me that this change helps more than it hurts. But so be it. Tvoz |talk 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Where else would you place the important fact that his legal name is (now) "Sir James...", ...":

McCartney's legal name is not Sir James Paul McCartney. Sir is a form of address; it is not part of a name. TheScotch 06:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is his name; that is how he is now referred to in the Public Records office, the same as I am referred to as Mister Mark James Slater and Andrew Albert Christian Edward Windsor is The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (or His Grace The Lord High Commissioner when in Scotland). Legally, we are per the Public Records office name, which is my legal documents always include titles and awards where applicable. LessHeard vanU 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a form of address is a reference; that doesn't make it a name. "Mister" is not part of your name. Even though he's been knighted, McCartney has as much right to call himself "mister" as you do. Arthur Conan Doyle was knighted, and he was a medical doctor (although he eventually gave up his practice). That makes him alternatively Mr. Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. Arthur Conan Doyle, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Neither Mr., Dr., nor Sir is (or ever was) part of his name. TheScotch 06:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then perhaps you would care to explain why Tony Benn had so much trouble getting rid of his "title." Lion King 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain who this person is and why I should care. I don't know how hard it is to renounce a knighthood (and as an American I don't suppose I'll ever know), but a name, in contradistinction to a title, isn't all that hard to dispose of legally--at least in the United States it isn't. TheScotch (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me whether he was called James or Paul by his family and friends prior to Beatledom or did he just decide himself to go by his middle name when the Beatles started to take off (or perhaps some time earlier)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He was called Paul by his family and friends to aviod confusion with his father who was also named James. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead Hoax

I've seen a couple references today that are simply posts or comments on things saying Paul McCartney 1941-2007 RIP. Sure its not true, just figured i'd point it out in case someone tries to put it in the article --Pollard666 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dance Record

I vaguely recall a report that McCartney released some kind of dance record under the name "Big M" at some point. Can't find anything in the article or online about it, anyone else heard of it? Exxolon 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The only Big Ms I know of are a truck stop and a grocery store! However, Paul did dance records under the names Fireman and Twin Freaks.Sposato (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards

This is on John Lennon's page too so I'm going to mention this again; since when has Paul McCartney won an Academy Award?

The Beatles won collectively for the score to the Let It Be film. Probably that one the article is talking about. He was nominated twice as an individual as I recall. Exxolon 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Is Dead rumors

Should they possibly have a mention in the article? Mr Richardson 14:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On youtube there is a video from a radio station featuring John Lennon. the main question was about the Paul is Dead rumor, even John says it was just a joke and some people people took it was to far! gameplaya 4:53 September 23, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.92 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

well he would say that wouldn't he?

Grease - vandalism?

In view of the amount of vandalism, I am very wary about any new Paul Mccartney 'fact' that I have not seen before. I would be surprised if he owned the rights to Grease because I have never seen that mentioned before, and IIRC this was a big Robert Stigwood venture. Does anyone know if there is any truth in this part of the article? DavidFarmbrough 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, if you go to the official MPL Communications website, and if you watch the intro, "Grease" comes up. So he really does own the rights to the Broadway version of it. 74.69.234.115 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Radio host?

What about Paul's recent venture into being a radio show host, thus effectively ripping off Dylan (the next big leisure thing after pot that Paul's obviously learned from Bob)? --Tlatosmd 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if Dylan would repay the favor and take singing or personal hygiene lessons from Paul... John Cardinal 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, McCartney hosted a radio series long before Bob Dylan. His syndicated "Oobu Jubu" radio show ran on the Westwood One network in the early 90's and featured Paul playing his favorite records, spinning a few solo rarities from the vaults and had a weekly cooking segment hosted by Linda. Ringo was the first Beatle to host a radio show. "Ringo's Yellow Submarine" aired in the early 1980's. Ghostysshow 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold-digger

Should there be a photo of Mills in here? Say no if you want to... :) --andreasegde 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's a topless one!! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Vera... (sound of top-shelf magazine being flicked through :) --andreasegde 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

if it was topless you'd have a photo of nothing, since she herself is bottomless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles

If you like contributing to articles about The Beatles, you should add your name to this list... :) --andreasegde 22:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John Paul George Ringo we knew them as the fab four. Paul was there leader

But i consider John to be the most creative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.70.232 (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave Davies wrote all the beatles songs

References

I have noticed that sentences and paragraphs are creeping in that are not referenced. They will deleted if no references are supplied. We had to do this about a year ago, and it took awhile. Please find references from books, web pages or newspapers/magazines. --andreasegde 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Books are being put in the Notes section when they should be in References. The page numbers from the books should be in Notes. --andreasegde 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Instuments

Is it just me, or are all these instruments that Macca allegedly plays gettin out of hand a teeny bit? Someone needs to put in the musical saw, the bike pump, whoopie cushion and the squeeky water glass! Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Shevell

I fixed this subsection to remove the idiotic tabloid detail that had been included there, and to add the straight facts as well as fix the references, but I seriously question whether this should be in the article at all. It is tabloid rumor, unconfirmed by either party or anyone else, and even if true strikes me as an example of recentism - I don't think we want to include every woman he is seen with and gives a kiss to, do we? I would take it out and wait until there's better evidence of a relationship. I think this is silly. Tvoz |talk 07:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, 100% Vera, Chuck & Dave 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it out - it can always go back in. Tvoz |talk 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know his opening line to women was, "Will you marry me?" I mean, talk about taking the biscuit, the sod... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's a little bit better than: "Take that silly wig off"! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay seriously WTF? Paul Mccarteny IS a billionare. Why the hell is this not mentioned in the article??

For one this is NOT old news. Here, let me say that again. This is NOT old news. This has been notable info for a while yet Wikipedia absolutely refuses to add this info in. Hell, I'm on my nintendo wii reading a news article about him, and he says his wealth is 1.6 billion. This is from AP. Please add this long overdue info in, or I'll do it myself. Glencoe999 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, genius - why the attitude? Did it ever occur to you that the news article you read translated his wealth from British pounds into US dollars? You do know that there are different currencies in the world, and this is an article about a British subject so we express the figure in pounds? Just in case you are confused, I direct your attention to the section called "Business" and let me interpret it for you: we have a sourced estimate from a year ago of his wealth as 760 million pounds (that's the funny looking L with the horizontal line in it in front of the 760) - that roughly equals 1.5 billion US dollars (that would be an S with two vertical lines going through it). So next time, try asking a question like a civil human being instead of a two year old. Okay? Seriously? WTF? Thank you and happy thanksgiving. Tvoz |talk 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheer brilliance, Tvoz. I doff my cap to you. --andreasegde (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta. Tvoz |talk 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a point here and I think his wealth should be mentioned. Also I wondered how many years he and Linda smoked pot. Always seemed ironic to me that they would want such pure food yet inhale toxins into their lungs. And I wonder if the pot smoking had any thing to do with her cancer. Showerrug 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Has your concern about their pot smoking gotten in the way of your reading comprehension? I'll make it easy for you and anyone else who thinks that his wealth should be mentioned: CLICK HERE. As pointed out immediately above your question. As for the pot toxins - well, they probably were too high to think it through. But about the cancer - you might be interested in this news story that broke a week or two ago about marijuana and breast cancer. It may surprise you. Cheerio Tvoz |talk 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I think his whole wealth thing should be closer to the top. And that anti cancer chemical is not administered by smoking. I really how much pot Linda smoked and I really do think that filling your lungs with toxins has a bad effect on a person. Does Paul still support smoking pot? Showerrug 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think filling your lungs with toxins can be unhealthy too, but I question if we're going to find a verifiable source for how much they smoked, if they stopped, and what Paul thinks about it now - let alone something that links it to breast cancer in a negative way. We have to be careful to avoid original research, meaning including our own theories, no matter how plausible they may seem to us. If you find this discussed in reliable sources, certainly post it here so we can determine if it is notable for inclusion. As for the placement of his wealth in the article, ok - I suppose we might add a sentence to the intro - does anyone else think so? Tvoz |talk 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth me little NY Doll, I think Macca's money is fine where it is (in the bank - beat yer to it!) to mention it in the lead would drag him down to the level of this MUPPET. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything is explained in the "Recreational drug use" section. Can the dissenters please read it?
His money will never be fully known, because he likes to keep it private (wouldn't you?) BTW, it is referenced in the "Business" section, which is all we know.
I apologise to Tvoz, because she has already answered these questions.--andreasegde (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology wholly unnecessary. And VC&D - I think his money would be best in the bank too - mine. Just a tiny percentage will do. He is a billionaire, after all. Tvoz |talk 06:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not in the bank! He's too wily for that. Banks pay less that cost-of-living index, which means if you put anything in a normal account it will slowly devalue until your dosh has withered away (plus bank charges for breathing) the [word of your choice]. He's got it in song catalogues and Linda's veggie burgers. (I wonder what else?) --andreasegde (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)