Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Ultraviolet scissor flame

Ultraviolet scissor flame seems to be intent on chopping and hacking anything in his path, without any thought or care about the article. He started the Paul McCartney (solo) page, but did not add The Beatles template or more than one category. It has made a confused mess of the main page, as the 2000s are also on the solo page, but separated from the 1980s and 90s on this page by Classical music.

This user only attacks McCartney's articles and not the other Beatle-related articles, which is probably because of McCartney's Bond connection. (The user is deeply interested in all things Bond, BTW.) Plus: reverting the deletion of a McCartney impersonator photo (which obviously doesn't belong here) means only one thing: this user should be regarded as a vandal, and should be constantly reverted before he (as staed on his own page) does more damage to this GA-rated article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. You're banning Ultra from this topic for...not being sufficiently interested in non-Bond articles? Ultra should have been more careful, but this looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. If you really feel that Ultra's edits should be "constantly reverted", deal with it properly - but it doesn't look warranted to me, asking him to have a chat and reach a consensus first would be better. Bazzargh (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has constantly hacked away at this article for months (resulting in one member of this Beatles' project leaving because of those actions, after we had all given a great deal of time to it) and has made no effort at all to standardise the article he created (Paul McCartney (solo)) which is a jumble, and will have to be rearranged, as will this article. The user is not interested in a 'chat', he just wants to cut this McCartney article to pieces, and doesn't care how. The mere fact of putting a (previously deleted) McCartney impersonator photo back in the "Business" section again shows his lack of caring. IMO, it was meant as an attack against McCartney personally. --andreasegde (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultraviolet scissor flame has just done it AGAIN, by adding more to the "Paul is Dead" section, but insisting this article is too long. The user obviously doesn't read this talk page, because the user is a vandal, (wants to believe that McCartney is dead) and doesn't give a faeces.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, WP:NPA. If you think there is a problem, use due process. Gather diffs and get an opinion on WP:RFCC, WP:WQA or WP:ANI - insults help neither the article nor your case. Bazzargh (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin. It's an admin's job.--andreasegde (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Imho, he should be reported to admins (perhaps to those involved in Wikiproject Beatles, because they might be a bit more interested) or further discussed on Wikiproject Beatles. --Betty kerner (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you Betty kerner, but Ultraviolet scissor flame is very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal...--andreasegde (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S., Ultraviolet scissor flame is not a member of The Beatles' project, and has not contributed in any way to other articles about The Beatles. It seems he has an axe to grind because McCartney contributed to a Bond movie soundtrack (which the vandal user is very heavily interested in).--andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker Phadkay. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [1] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [2] 81.130.223.198 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Scissor Flame is at it again. He put in a rather grisly photo [3], and then put in a photo of Bricks of cocaine [4] which I believe is some kind of joke about McCartney’s past use of the drug. It was put right above the LSD blotting paper, making the text go around it. He also put the Indra club photo directly under McCartney’s guitar, which cluttered the page.

This edit by the user: ref name="MPL"/> it reunited McCartney with George Martin, who both produced the song and arranged the orchestral break. before their second 1973 album [5] shows that the editor does not know the first thing about editing, or did it deliberately. He also put in "fact needed" on the Creative outlets section, which shows he knows what an article needs, but not always it seems...

As I have said before, IMO this user is slowly working to create chaos in this article, but pretends to be concerned about it. Watch out for any of his edits on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough of this. Will someone PLEASE tell this user (Ultraviolet scissor flame) to stop? He has had his bit of fun, but he needs to be told that this can not go on. Just look at what he is doing now... I truly believe that he has a personal bias against McCartney, and pretends to be a "newbie", but as anyone can see, he is not. This message will posted on various pages. --andreasegde (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the flames may die out for awhile, but the flames may come back and try to burn things. One should be aware...--andreasegde (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Andreasegde, I see now what you mean... "Drag, isn't it?" But I also hope that it won't last. By the way, this "subject" put an image of Indra club into the article - I'm wondering if we need it there since it's already in The Beatles article. I wish there was a pic of younger Paul instead. In the article there are mostly images of places, buildings and of not-so-young Paul (that don't really give a full idea about his appearance) Maybe a fair use pic, say, a screenshot from A Hard Day's Night or Help! would suit? I have some (I'm editing the article about Paul in the other Wikipedia and used them there, example), but I hesitate uploading media here since it's often deleted... =/ Cheers!--Betty kerner (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he's "Пол Маккартні"! :) Yes, Betty kerner I agree about the deleting problems, but as he's still alive the powers that be don't like fair-use photos of him, even though he looked different when he was younger.--andreasegde (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everton

I know there are Everton fans in the world, and I know some of them might not like this comment, but it seems to me that being an Everton fan is not really a big part of Paul's lifestyle. Yet the fact of his fanhood (and I do not dispute it as fact) is very prominent in the "Lifestyle" section. I removed it, thinking some overeager Everton fan had put it in without reading wp:notability, and for my trouble I got a really nasty note in my talkpage from User:Andreasegde. He/she put it back in the article, but I have to admit that it still strikes me as out of place. Does anyone else here have an opinion? maxsch (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your style of editing is disruptive, weird and violative of policies/rules of Wiki, you need to take a break. Please respect User:Andreasegde, since unlike myself who is a jobless, infamous Filipino dwarf judge who only learned computer on April 2006, that user needs a lot of kindness. You had continuously edited my edits and I took pains to correct your mess. We are devoting precious times here. For me, I use Wikipedia Psalm 109/73 midnights to convince you to study more the policies of Wikipedia. You apologized to my adopting parent, but you be a penitent. Please be guided accordingly. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the removal of this trivial piece of information from the article. I think Paul's fanhood of Everton is hardly notable, unless he was the #1 ticket holder or something of similar notability. Five Years 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go; users who have absolutely no conception of what football means to people in the UK (which is where McCartney still lives). I could have put in the comment by Linda McCartney to a journalist saying that McCartney is an Everton fan, but these days (as she said) "it's all Liverpool, Liverpool" (Liverpool football club). Why would she say that about her husband if it wasn't notable?

This is the link: McCartney told Citytalk's Phil and Kim Breakfast Show: "It is always lovely for me to go back to Liverpool and play for the home crowd. [A football term] I am looking forward to that, it should be cool, even though I am an Everton fan officially - when it comes to the crunch, my Dad was born in Everton." This links people with the place they were born with the club they suppoprt. Maybe McCartney being born in Everton, Liverpool, is not notable enough? Put the scissors away, and start doing something worthwhile, like actually writing articles.--andreasegde (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down your language. I took a question I had about content in the article, and I put it here on the talkpage. There is nothing wrong with that kind of behaviour. No one is questioning the importance of football in British society. I am only questioning its importance in Paul's life/lifestyle. If the consensus opinion is that it is an important part of his lifestyle, I will not protest. But don't question my right to ask the question. maxsch (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Max and I have sorted this problem. Now off back to the terraces to cheer on whichever flavour of the month has won the most games.--andreasegde (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there buddy. Let's not jump to the conclusion that everyone agrees with you. I thought what we resolved was the personal attacks. I have not withdrawn my vote of not-notable, and I have been supported in that by User:Five Years. No one but you has claimed notability and your claim is actually more like "Football is important to many persons in the UK" which does not demonstrate that it is notable in Paul's lifestyle. Personally, I'd still like to hear other editors' opinions. maxsch (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, err, buddy, so we have not solved the problem. If you want to waste your time discussing whether one single sentence in an article this size is not notable for days on end, you have more time to waste than some people have brain cells. I'll tell you what; I'll find the quote by Linda McCartney about Macca also following L.F.C. If there are any more there will a whole new section on McCartney and football - which will be nice... :) --andreasegde (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

McCartney and Football

How interesting; 10 references about McCartney and Everton (his family taking him to matches) Liverpool FC (plus wearing a Liverpool Rosette on a Beatles' photo) being seen at three FA cup finals (two played by Everton) singing on the Ferry Cross the Mersey single (released in aid of those affected by the Hillsborough Disaster, where Liverpool had played) trying to listen to the 1977 Liverpool v Man United FA Cup final on the radio while on his boat in the Caribbean, Paul McCartney's Pipes of Peace video which re-enacted the football game between the Germans and the Allies in WWI, and even Lennon's Walls and Bridges cover, as well as Matt Busby - ex-Liverpool player - getting a namecheck on Dig It, The Beatles wearing a huge red-and-white scarf in a skiing scene of Help! (film), Albert Stubbins (Liverpool player) on the cover of Sgt. Pepper, the list goes on. "They think it's all over - it is now"... (You will not know what means.)--andreasegde (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have found the web reference for Linda's comment, plus loads of other references. Linda: "We spent last night listening to Liverpool football team on the radio, wanting them to win so badly. Paul supports Liverpool. He was Everton for a while because of his family - but it's all Liverpool now."

I not only found that on a web page, it is also on Wikiquote. Now who wants to admit they've shot themselves in the foot?--andreasegde (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Is there any actual evidence that McCartney was of Irish origin? Short of reliable sources, we will need to trim a category from this article. --John (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes [6] and if I'm not mistaken, I believe it was from County Monaghan. Ringo is the only member to have no "Irish Blood" Pat Pending (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First things first: Is the Irish connection referenced? Yes it is, on the Jim and Mary McCartney page (his parents).

"The McCartneys have Irish roots, as Jim's great-grandfather, James McCartney—an upholsterer—was born in Ireland, but it is unknown if Jim's grandfather, James McCartney II, was born in England or Ireland.[1]" (From Barry Miles' book).

"Mary's father was born in Tullynamalrow, County Monaghan, Ireland, in 1880, as Owen Mohin, but permanently changed his name to Mohan when he was at school to avoid confusion with many other pupils called Mohin".

Please take the time to follow the links and all will be revealed.--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde. Pat Pending (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

re Honorary Degrees

I have removed the following text from the article (section 2000's); "In May 2008, Yale University granted him an honorary Doctorate of Music degree. " since I do not think that Yale honorary degrees are inherently notable, that McCartney is endowed with honorific titles by many institutions (sometimes without Macca's knowledge and/or approval), and also WP is not a news service - so we have to take a long term view of such awards. I think an honorary degree from Liverpool University might be commented as it is his hometown, for instance. This is the second time I have removed this edit, so I throw it open for other opinions as to whether it qualifies for inclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would vote either way on it, but as you said, "sometimes without Macca's knowledge and/or approval", makes me think that the institution quoted needs Macca more than he needs them. To support this line of reasoning, I should say that if I gave Macca an award, would I also be mentioned?.. :)) Nah, I think not...--andreasegde (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I only added it because I thought it was worth noting, McCartney was indeed there to accept the honor this morning, and I actually saw him leaving the British Art Museum at Yale last night, along with former prime minister Tony Blair, who was present to give the commencement speech. So I thought that given the renown of Yale University and the fact that two such notable personalities were indeed present, it seemed worth mention. --Msukovich (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a photograph? While my opinion stands regarding the number of awards - some more prestigious than others - an image including Blair at the presentation would be a good indication of Macca's continuing cultural icon status. This may be a suitable substitute for the text? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not found an image of the two together, but the reference I gave at the Yale Daily News had a photo of McCartney, and this article from WTNH, the local ABC affiliate in New Haven, CT, has pictures of both McCartney receiving his degree and Blair giving his address. Maybe this could be incorporated somehow. Also I'd just like to add that I certainly understand your position on Sir Paul's awards, I think it's fair to assume that Yale is one of the most influential educational institutes in the world and receiving a recognition from them (honorary or otherwise) is surely worth more than one from Joe Schmo's Generic Music School, and at any rate is nothing to take for granted. Anyway please see if the photos I mentioned are worth incorporating. Cheers!--Msukovich (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I reentered a similar sentence, not realizing this discussion existed. Regardless, I think the article needs a deep trimming or else a Yale degree counts as 'notable'. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-founded The Beatles

Did Paul co-found the Beatles? No, as the Beatles was the final name of the Quarrymen, which he joined at Lennon's invitation. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since the Quarrymen were John Lennon (and Pete Shotton)'s group, based around the Quarrybank School - and it was dissolved to form a new band around Lennon and McCartney, which included Harrison and Sutcliffe. McCartney and Lennon started writing songs for this new band, which also included covers performed by McCartney which had not been part of the Quarrymen repertoire. Instead of just Lennon, with Shotton's support, making decisions for the band as per the Quarrymen, all full members of the band were involved. Whatever their name and membership outside of McCartney, Lennon and Harrison, it was a distinctly different band from the Quarrymen. Therefore the Beatles was the last performing name of a band that was founded by McCartney, Lennon and Harrison. However, both of the above is original research - but a review of every Beatles/McCartney biography has Macca as a founding member; and references is everything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Every source I am familiar with has McCartney being invited to join Lennon's band--The Quarrymen. If you have one on the dissolution of the Quarrymen and formation of the Beatles which specifically discludes them being the one and same, then cite and be done with it.MartinSFSA (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Less Heard is perfectly correct. "The Beefeaters" changed their name to The Byrds, "Chicago Transit Authourity" to Chicago, "The Golliwogs" became Creedence Clearwater Revival, "The Rhondells" became The Cyrcle - all with no changes in personel. "The Quarrymen" did not change their name to The Beatles, they were a completely different band, founded by Lennon and McCartney. Pat Pending (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, at least you've got an argument. I don't think the departure of Pete Shotton makes or breaks the statement, but according to the family tree in the Quarrymen article they were Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Ken Brown. MartinSFSA (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which became "Johnny and The Moondogs" - end of The Quarrymen. Pat Pending (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Pat Pending (oh, those wacky racers!) nails it - The Quarrymen is Lennon's band, which McCartney joins but that group is disbanded and Lennon and McCartney form a new band around their shared vision (which is not the same as the Lennon/Shotton Quarrymen). This is the band that finally becomes the Beatles - not the earlier skiffle derived band. However, and this is my real point, every good source proceeds either from the basis that Macca was a founder of the Beatles or does not mention it; nobody says that Macca joined the band that became The Beatles. You can find references aplenty that comments he joined the Quarrymen, but nobody else makes that leap that says the Beatles are a linear development of that band. That leap is evidence of Wikipedia:Original Research, which is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're hiding behind the rules there; I haven't said that (while it is implied in my argument), so feel free to cite something which explicitly has the Beatles being formed and not being amorphously Lennon generated. Or not. MartinSFSA (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not hiding behind the rules; I am applying them (that is what I do on WP, now I have largely stopped editing Beatles related article, since I am an administrator). Speaking of rules, there is one that comments that the argument has to be made and consensus changed when altering text that has enjoyed the previous consensus - it is called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You have WP:BOLDly removed the co-founder text, it has been WP:REVERTed, and we are now discussing it. It is for you to prove your contention, with reliable sources, etc., or else the status quo is that Macca is a co-founder. Mind you, I think I may have a pop at "proving" my case in any event... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not applying but implying the rules--and implied laws are impossible to obey. I've gone back to where I created this new section and I'm not finding said revert. I haven't altered the article--you'd be thinking of someone else? Now you mention it, I do have a source--The Complete Beatles--which is explicit in the Querrymen/Moondogs/Silver/Beatles evolution. Full marks, however, by trying to prove something with a negative criteria! MartinSFSA (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the BOLD removal of the co-founder claim, and this is the REVERT, and here we are discussing it. Now I realise that you are not the account that made that edit (although you may wish to comment on any relationship, if any, there is - it doesn't matter unless both accounts start editing this or the article page, as alternate accounts are allowed, and the block on TheScotch has been lifted) but you have adopted that accounts edit in your discussion so it makes no difference. Finally, here is a copy of the article from one year ago, with the comment regarding being the co-founder included. This is an established consensus, which you now have to prove is by providing an authority which says he was not a founder. The onus is one you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree the wording isn't great, Macca is not so famous for being a founder as being a member but I want this point cleared up first.

I think it is relevant as you'd probably agree if positions were reversed (you wouldn't like the accusation). Mostly I find this highly amusing, as I believe he'd be greatly offended by this misidentification! My agenda is two fold: first and foremost it's because I believe this to be the case. Secondly, the other user has been antagonistic in method (and did deserve a block, albeit not for that edit) and I am genuinely working at consensus here. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, glad you agree with me. Because there is equally good evidence (none) that Lennon and McCartney co-founded three bands--Moondogs, Silver Beatles and Beatles. And more, as it's personnel dependent rather than name! Thus Macca co-founded no less than nine bands with Lennon between October '57 and 1960, more with casual personnel changes, and that's just from The Quarrymen entry. He then co-founded three Beatles, and that's with me willing to grant you that Alan White et al don't count. Once you open the door to reducibility it never ends.MartinSFSA (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No I don't agree with you, it's personel dependent to a certain extent, but to say that Macca did not co-found The Beatles just because Lennon had invited him to join The Quarrymen makes no real sense, in real terms. Pat Pending (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain your argument in real terms? There is a real start to this enterprise (Lennon's invitation) and a real end (McCartney's lawsuit) but between the two just a series of name and personnel changes. If there's any evidence of this co-founding which'd be citable, say something legal, then that'd be proof. As it is you're arguing appearances vs essences. Which is fine. MartinSFSA (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if I can explain this in more Beatle friendly terms...say you're the manager, and you book them into a club called the Cavern. The club manager remembers them as a loud irritating bunch of rockers who ruined a Jazz night. How do you prove they're not the same band? Alternately, say Pete Shotton isn't happy with his supermarket and wants a share of his band's earnings, 1960--1970 (this is a thought experiment where such mad lawsuits can occur). How do you prove it's not the same band? Or say McCartney's own lawsuit, Apple counters he's just been an employee since 1957 as he's not a co-founder. How would he prove it isn't just an incarnation of the Quarrymen? You don't have to meet any of these arguments.MartinSFSA (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Jaysus! And what if Pete Shotton says Lennon was a lying gobshite, and it was him that founded The Quarrymen? Then, every other eejit with a plywood guitar or a broomstick in Liverpool that played with them said, no, it wasn't Shotton, it was me? Then Yoko says, no it was my John, then the one in the middle says heh diddle diddle, and it turns into a ballroom blitz, ballroom blitz? Pat Pending (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, something like that--without proof it's just a series of assertions, some of them psychotic. Or indeed with identity theory you could be a different you every time you step through a door. If (say) we agreed the essence of Beatle was Ringo then there's be a definite date of inception. As it is it's just one of those commonly agreed upon things until it's questioned. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I've got the gist of it then:) But in Macca's case, it is a published verifible assertion, even if he didn't! Now don't start going on about trees not making any noise in the forest will you? Promise? Now it's been grand talking to you, but I'll be off for now - England are playing the USA, that'll be a right gas irrespective of the outcome! Good luck, Pat Pending (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

People, this should STOP here. User MartinSFSA is 'using' a very old, and tested technique of disinformation = debating. The user is very, very good at it, and we should congratulate the user on his comprehension of delivering confusion, whilst seeming to be concerned. It’s quicksand, and we all know that thrashing about serves no purpose.

MartinSFSA says:

• “Did Paul co-found the Beatles? No, as the Beatles was the final name of the Quarrymen, which he joined at Lennon's invitation”.

This is total proof that this user has been engaged in debates (university, probably). I could say in reply, “Did Lennon co-found The Quarrymen?” This gets us nowhere, but it’s good fun for MartinSFSA.

• “If you have one on the dissolution of the Quarrymen and formation of the Beatles which specifically discludes them being the one and same, then cite and be done with it”.

This could be proven easily, but the user wants to carry on the argument, ad nauseum…

• ‘“OK, at least you've got an argument”.

Does that sound like a debating society, or what? This user wants to argue. Oh, the arrogance… I think I should stop here, because it’s plainly obvious that this user just wants an argument. “Is it five minutes, or the full half-hour?” (Monty Python, for the uninitiated…) There are the obvious vandals, and there are new types of vandals, of which MartinSFSA is one. Stop him by ignoring him. (The user won’t like it, but who gives a flying frig?) --andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I confess all--I know how to argue! Rather than calling me a vandal, however, you should see me as a god-like entity in the sky with strings all coming down and wrapping my opponents in a web of rhetoric. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, “Co-found the Beatles” is grammatically incorrect. It should be “Co-founded The Beatles”. Anybody fancy a pint?--andreasegde (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A Pint? Sweet Mother, more like half a bottle of Bushmills! I, for one don't give a flying frig, and thank my fellow wacky racers for their advice and support! Good luck, Pat Pending (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to stop calling MartinSFSA a vandal, because of his sense of humour, which is very much needed on these pages ("wrapping my opponents in a web of rhetoric") :)) I hereby award the user with the title of, "Most honourable talked the hind legs off a donkey, and then persuaded it to walk."--andreasegde (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Roight. And no disrespect to the Vandals; they sacked Rome when that was still a pretty radical thing to do. Impressed you say I'm a university educated mass debater by my use of a single phrase (I am). I promise I am using my powers for good, not evil, and once again I am not associated with any naughty edits without consensus. The reason this matters is it's as good an example of historical cause as any; ignoring Paul's achievements, which are legion, if you say it's just semantics then history itself is irrelevant. I've argued this academically with Harrison's claim in I Me Mine that Lennon was wrong about them smoking a joint at Buckingham Palace; by extension, is Give Peace a Chance irrelevant or a lie?. And before anyone reacts I'm not judging John here rather the practice of history itself.

Anyway, three sources which give the Beatles as an incarnation of the Quarrymen (or vice versa): The Compleat Beatles, Before the Beatles and the Beatles Story Museum. Sorry about the paucity of the examples, my era of Beatle research is well and truly over. MartinSFSA (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As you're being nice about this, I will make one last post.

• Lennon started The Quarrymen. None of the other Beatles were original members.
• McCartney later joined The Quarrymen, but he was not an original member.
• Sutcliffe later joined The Quarrymen, but he was not an original member.
• Harrison's group before The Beatles was the Les Stewart Quartet. None of the other Beatles were members.
• Starr's group before The Beatles was Rory Storm. None of the other Beatles were members.
• Pete Best's group before The Beatles was The Blackjacks. None of the other Beatles were members.

If you are saying that The Beatles came from The Quarrymen, then one could also say that they were a combination of all of these groups. Julia Lennon and Alfred Lennon co-produced Lennon, but that leads one nowhere. That, as they say, is that.--andreasegde (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an innovative and validating use of identity theory where I was expecting a more conventional historical narrative with references. To continue in the same vein, it's as if you argue that instead of there being a "John" son of "Alfred" and "Julia", you were to include in his ingredients a family history *and* all the pieces of Napoleon he presumably drank in glasses of water! However it does lead somewhere, for if we say the Beatles weren't the Quarrymen but the Quarrymen/Les Stewart/Rory Storm/Blackjacks...Paul still doesn't end up co-founding anything. Feel free to keep cooking with theory but I suspect the easiest answer is where Pat was going, more a recipe for what makes a Beatle rather than a Quarryman...why the personnel and name and quality X all turn out the perfect dish. Hmmm, must be hungry...MartinSFSA (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very special sound........................ (can you hear it?) It's the sound of silence. Please buy a book, write something, or start an article and take it to GA, but do something that will make you feel good (believe me, it will really make you feel good...) As much as I respect your intelligence, this conversation is over, and out. :)--andreasegde (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At the end of this I am going to move the text be deleted. I don't think it is defensible without proof and there's been none put forward. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrated, the wording has established consensus (per the diff I provided showing it was in the text a year ago) and requires a change of consensus to alter it. The onus is on you to demonstrate it is incorrect and for the other editors to agree that it is incorrect. You have not done so. Therefore, any unilateral action by you - as indicated by your comments above - will be reverted as vandalism. Any revert war will be reported to WP:ANI, and your comments to talk:Andreasedge and on this page will be used as evidence of trolling with a request for a long term or indefinite block. Also, whether you are an alternate account of User:TheScotch might be raised, as might being a sockpuppet of User:SixString1965 (or whatever). If you are prepared to take it that far and not withdraw then I think it proves that you are the WP:TROLL I believe you to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly threatened to abide by the rules, seek consensus and move any proposed changes on the talk page. May I suggest you leave me and this proposed edit to other editors without such an involved history? Further, for your own peace of mind, I propose you compare my contributions vs these other users; if they demonstrate expertise in my fields then at least I'll have someone to talk to! Something you can do which would be on topic is to demonstrate this previous consensus; not an implied one with a year old version of the page but a relevant discussion showing proof the Beatles were founded rather than evolved from earlier bands. As it is there are two users who maintain the latter. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was advising you of the consequences of you taking the action you suggested. I also note that the other two correspondents appear to have withdrawn, after drawing a conclusion that you had not made a case for your assertion. Your proposed change to the text has not gained traction, and it is time to withdraw. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited or proposed doing so without consensus. I believe you are genuine in your belief, but your actions are not warranted. I have cited three sources proving my contention and all I have received from you is the riot act. Is there some reason you're behaving this way or is it just that the last time this was brought up it ended up going horribly wrong? MartinSFSA (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scotch and MartinSFSA summit

Re: "I also note that the other two correspondents appear to have withdrawn, after drawing a conclusion that you had not made a case for your assertion.":

I haven't read through the rest of the discussion, but just in case I happen to be one of the "two correspondents", let it be known that I stand by what I said before. I contend that there are quite obviously innumerable reputable sources that say the Beatles evolved directly from the Quarrymen, a group that originally did not include Paul McCartney. The assertion that McCartney "co-founded" the Beatles is extremely contentious and tenuous at best and a deliberate falsehood (that is, a lie) at worst.

Note that since simply omitting mention of "founding" is not the same as saying McCartney was not a co-founder, omitting mention is the obvious solution where the matter is hotly contested as it is here, and that's the solution any reasonable person with a cool head would advocate.

Rather than LessHeard VanU attempting to browbeat MartinSFSA, LessHeard VanU because of his history of abuse pertaining to this matter should recuse himself from the discussion and the editing. His failure to do so is disturbing. TheScotch (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No dude, the two are Pat Pending and andreasegde. He's already forgotten you! If you do read through you'll see they both argued McCartney was a founder, but without any proof. I've put up three cites. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He also keeps claiming there's consensus for the current text and linked to the article from one year ago to demonstrate this. I've read through the archived discussion and there never has been any such agreement; it simply wasn't questioned until you came along. But I agree strongly: every source I've consulted has the Beatles evolve from earlier bands, not be founded.MartinSFSA (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

Let's consider, as well, what we might actually be trying to say here. If McCartney et al are "founding" members, who is not? As far as I can make out, one person only: Ringo. Is this then (that is, would this be then, if it were true, which I contend it isn't) a distinction really worth bothering about? Only, it seems to me, if we're intent on ganging up on Ringo, and I don't think we should be. The Ringo article can note (as it presumably already does) that Ringo replaced Pete Best, and that should be quite enough. TheScotch (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This had occurred. One of the arguments I've put forward is that the quality of Beatle-ness they're looking for is Ringo; the band called the Beatles only became the "real" Beatles with Ringo. Or that it's the name "Beatles", meaning the contention is that the Silver Beetles were not in fact the same band. Or the quality of Beatles is personnel plus name plus some undefined quality X. Without arguing semantics the easy answer, as you point out, is simply to remove all reference to founding of the Beatles.MartinSFSA (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "the band called The Beatles only became the "real" Beatles with Ringo"?? Oh, deary me - how absurd. That would mean that any formation before that should have been called "The unreal Beatles", or "The not complete Beatles", or "The Beatles without the big-nosed one". Don't make me laugh, which I am doing anyway... :))--andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes; if you take my point (or don't); saying the band was formed by the change of name is as sensible as claiming it was the inclusion of Ringo, or the advent of George Martin or Brian Epstein. Same people, same haircuts, same material, same instruments, same style, minus one "Silver" and with the substitution of an A for an E. Now there's three of us questioning this claim. It's building up, and I thank you for your aid in this discussion! MartinSFSA (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, very good; "I thank you for your aid", is nonsense, but a very good ploy. In truth, I have no idea what your point is, but you seem to be pretty worked-up about it. I would suggest buying a copy of the Ying-Tong song by Spike Milligan.

How about replying to editors who think that fair-use photos should be taken out of the John Lennon article and this article because it should look like a train timetable? Now that would really test your debating skills, and I would support you all the way. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in issues of knowledge and have no strong feelings on media. If you think this is all a ploy then so be it; all I can do is assure you I genuinely believe in that which I am arguing, and feel there is no defensible argument or proof to oppose it. As far as aesthetics go, my theory is that once you acknowledge something as art (implied by saying it would resemble a train timetable) then it's always going to be a matter of critique. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea what you are arguing for, or against. The article now says: "By May 1960, they had tried several new names, including The Silver Beetles; playing a tour of Scotland under that name with Johnny Gentle. They finally changed the name of the group to The Beatles for their performances in Hamburg, in August 1960."

I would like to understand (honestly) what your point is. The article now says nothing about founded, or co-founded. Would you like to add something? Please, do tell...--andreasegde (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Saw the edit, thanks, but it still says in the lead the McCartney co-founded the band, that the band was founded in 1960, and Best was a co-founder too. If that all comes down to the change of name then it's not much of an argument, and is insidious where it should be overt.

I became aware of the claim when I saw what The Scotch had been blocked for, and realized that I agreed with him. I was current with Beatle scholarship until about a decade ago, but I'm not familiar with this claim from that era--if such a claim's been put forward since then please cite! To me it looks like both a retroactive justification and an example of cult of personality--no one makes a claim Johnny and the Moondogs were founded, rather that it was just another name the same band played under. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, blow me down; now I get what you're on about. If it's only a case of deleting the word, then I'm all for it, but it might make the Lead too complicated to list every member when the name was changed, Best was added, or whatever. I'll have a look right now.--andreasegde (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, what about this..."He gained worldwide fame as a member of The Beatles, with John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best had previously played with the group, before Starr was asked to join."--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we reached something approaching consensus, very kind to put the effort in. I really don't object to Best/Starr/Sutcliffe 'cos my objection wasn't hierarchical, just on the subject of the band's forming. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand what you were saying, I totally agree, although it was fairly simple to fix. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Quarrymen. How interesting; Lennon started the group with Eric Griffiths, and then invited Pete Shotton to join (reference supplied, with all the trimmings...)--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"And now for something completely different"

Any ideas?--andreasegde (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)