Talk:The Beatles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article.


Good article GA
This article has
been rated as
GA-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

Top
This article has
been rated as
Top importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles:

    • Has been allowed to expand and lose its focus. Needs reorganisation and inline citations. Recently lost FA status. --kingboyk 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
To-do list for The Beatles: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Condense, clean and refactor the "Musical evolution" section. Remove uncited fancrufty statements.
  • Write one or two paragraphs summarizing the article The Beatles' influence on popular culture
  • Ultimate goal: Get back to FA status

[edit] Returning this to FA status

Put your FA work suggestions into a section here. Put specific work into the general todo list above.

[edit] Kingboyk

  • Every word counts. The Beatles are one of the, if not the, most written about musical acts in history. We can't cover everything here and must focus on the core themes. (Actually the article isn't too badly focussed already, but we'll have additions to make, merges to consider, and will have to remove a certain amount of cruft).
  • Every assertion, everything which could be opinion or disputed, must be cited.
  • There are lots of articles already on core Beatle topics which overlap with this one. We should look at merging some of them here, summarising others in sections, and possibly forking material out of this article.
  • Create: The Beatles tours

--kingboyk 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Good articles The Beatles has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection The Beatles is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
Main Page trophy The Beatles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004.
Archive
Archives

Contents
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-19. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

[edit] Citation Needed

Why are all those "citation needed" tags there? It completely breaks the flow of the text, making it an unenjoyable read. Can't we just remove them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by K2ked (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 November 2006.

The odd thing is that the citation tags have been appended to the most mundane, common-knowledge claims, such as album release dates. Is this a case of someone trying to make a point, or just an overzealous newbie?--190.37.176.12 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of the Beatles-related articles are being downgraded in status because they lack proper citations for their information. Now it seems folks have overcompensated. I think we'll settle on a reasonable middle ground eventually. Raymond Arritt 18:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond Aritt

  There other external links that have worse than the site i found. There isnt a link

on wikipedia about beatles photos. And these external links below dosn;t get deleted. It looks more spam too me. Explain to me why you guys are not deleting the other external links like the one below? It seems not right. The link below which I just went to has all these google ads and not very good. So, why would delete a link to beatles photos site?

The Internet Beatles Album

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, it. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kp1791az"

[edit] Eight-Track Recorder

I seem to recall there being a discussion/dispute over whether EMI bought an eight-track recorder but forgot to buy the power plug for it. There was also discussion over the source of that. I can't find any reference to it now, and the article only mentions it in passing, but I did find this video where Ringo comments on it: [1]. It's around the 4:45 mark. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't hear it on this computer, but that video appears to be from a June 1992 episode of The South Bank Show called "The Making of Sgt. Pepper: [2] --Nick RTalk 13:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The volume on the clip is very low -- turn it up. I don't put too much stock in Ringo's story 24 years after the fact. The accepted version is that EMI engineers were running the machine through tests, and the Beatles "liberated" it prematurely. Raymond Arritt 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In "The Complete Beatles Recording" by Mark Lewison, one of the Beatle engineers explained that EMI had an 8 track recorder but it had to be checked out and made suitable for use by EMI by the chief engineer, part of this was adding a varispeed control to the recorder so that the pitch could be modified; a technique pioneered by the Beatles, when the Beatles heard there was an 8 track recorder in the building the persuaded the engineer to "liberate" it.

I can't give the full details as I don't have the book to hand - I'm in Cyprus and the book is in England!! -Andrew Apepper 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags?

What the hell is with all these millions of fact tages throughout the article, and particularly in one or two sections of it? Vandalism? It sure looks like it!

Firstly, it makes the article look completely trashy. It makes certain paragraphs longer, having, what looks to be on average, about 2 fact tags PER SENTENCE!! If there's more than one thing that is felt missing from a sentence, a single fact tag can be inserted after that sentence, and an explaination given HERE - on the talk page.

Also, asking for citations regarding, for example, a statement saying that George Martin was an influence on the Beatles music - COME ON people! Let's not go frigging overboard here!

Sort it out. If its not sorted pretty soon, I'll do it myself. If all the citation request tags are re-added after I've cleaned it up, I guess I'll use it as a guide for all future articles I edit.

I can see it now:

The Beatles{fact} (1960-1970){fact}, were an English{fact} musical{fact} group{fact} from Liverpool,{fact} and are usually regarded as the most critically acclaimed,{fact} commercially successful{fact} popular music artists in history.[1][2] They continue to be held in the highest esteem{fact} for their artistic achievements,{fact} their huge commercial success,{fact} their groundbreaking role{fact} in the history of popular music, and their contributions to popular culture.{fact}

You see my point? I'll be watching. --Mal 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all other editors agree with you there Mal,[citation needed] but some might.[citation needed] Inline citations will be needed to get the article back to FA,[citation needed] so how about replacing those {{fact}} tags with citations?! If you're not willing to do it, they should stay until the rest of us get round to working on this one (probably after Paul McCartney has become FA.) --kingboyk 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. Well, as I said, I don't think there need to be half the tags there are - especially for that one particular section. By all means, if I get the chance, I will look for citations to help improve the article. But I will be removing stoopid™ ones. Incidentally, I didn't want to put actual citation tags here on the talk page in case it messed things up for the 'Pedia by including this talk page in the category list. --Mal 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Mal. The reason that particular section has them in abundance is that it's a new section I made by merging some existing material which was disproportionate in length. --kingboyk 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive Criticism

EDITED BY E P from first posting 9:52 PM EST 14 Nov 2006

THANK-YOU Mal!

Please read this simple outline I found as a link on Wikipedia. :-)

http://beatles.ncf.ca/timeline.html

1. It should superimpose over the Wikipedia page "Beatles" 2. I hope all known Beatle related links of Beatle related persons, places and things will one day be on this "Beatles" page. 3. I will try to help when I learn how. 4. This should snap the page into shape.

Sincerely; E P

EP great input there, though I (and others) would probably suggest you try to help by fixing it also (if you have any spare time).
Another couple of things I'd note. Some of the information you include here is in fact included, either in the individual articles (see John Lennon, Penny Lane (song) etc) or in individual articles (see Paul is dead .. I'm not sure I've got the links right, but let's see if they go red or blue!). Also, the problem is that this is an encyclopedia. This being the case, we are slightly limited in the presentation of information - limited mostly to facts rather than conjecture.
All that being said, I might go ahead and use some of your pointers to help improve the article. I've spoken my piece too but, as yet, I've only added to the article in a very minor way as far as I remember. I've trusted in the main contributors because I know they are huge fans of the group and/or individuals involved, and they have a fanastic wealth of knowledge - even the ones who, like myself, missed out on that particular decade through accident of birth!
I'm 36 years old, and I've been a major fan of the Beatles since I was about nine years old. My first cassette tape album was Help (album). I used to listen to all the singles and albums my mum had in her collection (though, as it turned out, her brother had swapped his Beatles records for her Elvis ones!). --Mal 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This page needs in-line citations, and page numbers from books to go with the citations, otherwise it will never reach FA again.

The Wikipedia standard has been raised for FA articles. Sorry, but that's how it is. --andreasegde 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

those standards are over the top then.

"The film's soundtrack, which features one of The Beatles' few instrumental tracks ("Flying"), was released in the United Kingdom as a double EP, and in the United States as a full LP.[citation needed]" "Some of their albums featured contributions by other former Beatles; Starr's Ringo (1973) was the only one to include compositions and performances by all four, albeit on separate songs.[citation needed]"

really, just look at the bloody album. thats your reference!

"Lennon and McCartney renewed their interest in rootsy forms towards the close of The Beatles' career — for example, "Yer Blues" and "Birthday" in 1968, and "Don't Let Me Down" in 1969.[citation needed]"

just listen to the music, dammit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.47.231.31 (talk • contribs).

[edit] NPOV

I just read the first section of this article and it definitely sounds like a fan wrote it. It needs cleanup. It overglorifies the band. 207.67.145.222 05:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it does sound very biased. I think this article needs a serious overhaul and remove all point of views from it. Cdscottie 1 December, 2006

[edit] Magical Mystery Tour

I just did it again. I'm giving blame on 69.124.142.231 , but the MMT album, again, was NOT an official album until the CD era. I made the appropriate corrections putting that album in the CD section giving the CD release date with a footnote giving the American album's release date. Steelbeard1 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the film description at the bottom of the article, its said that the film was slightly better received when shown on BBC2 in colour - in 1967 Britain practically no-one owned a colour TV (probably only The Beatles themselves and the Queen!) I don't remember it being particularly well received - on either channel. This may have been because the BBC had shown excerpts from MMT as "music videos" to go alongside the single from MMT (I think it was Baby You're a Rich Man) so we'd seen the "good bits" from the film.

According to Philip Norman's Shout, the idea for the coach tour was based on a holiday Paul and George had taken together to the West Country (that's Devon and Cornwall in the UK, not California!) by coach and trying to recreate that. Anyone who has sat through someone's holiday pics for half an hour could tell you that was a weak idea. Apepper 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop vs Power Pop

if you read the articles about pop and power pop it seems the Beatles fall more in the power pop genre then pop. I want to change the listing in genre listing. does anyone disagree? test STHayden [ Talk ] 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Errr...everyone? yandman 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Everyone and his dog would disagree.... :) --andreasegde 03:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If I were someone who didn't know the Beatles (sorry, don't hit me-- I'm speaking theoretically) I would probably rather read that they were Pop. Power Pop is not very familiar to some. Besides, Pop is Pop is Pop. TommyBoy76 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, not much Power in their Pop if you ask me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics Links

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Beatles Album

I included it and call the people who are regulars in this page to expand it and make the article better. Berserkerz Crit 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. A compilation, even if it's new, doesn't merit inclusion as a chapter: there have been dozens of these. We only include the "studio albums" and films, as well as the important singles. "Love" is already mentioned in the relevant article: The_Beatles_discography. yandman 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I digress. I see even the Love album has its own comprehensive page already. I just saw it in Yahoo News and thought it might be good to add it. =) Berserkerz Crit 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Love" isn't just a compilation. It's George Martin (and his son) remixing Beatles songs, and via "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" it includes what is probably the last time George Martin will ever compose new orchestration for a Beatles song. I think this is almost as significant as the Anthology. Sir Lemming 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The last time George Martin will ever compose new orchestration for a Beatles song? Thank God for That! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammys

How many grammys did they win? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.131.124 (talk • contribs) 22:35, November 22, 2006 (UTC).

Actually, there is a very comprehensive page on the Grammy awards that they have won over the years, updated to 2006. http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/grammy.htm Hmm, good info there. Could be used a few different ways for Wiki Beatles I suppose. Exhaustively covers the Beatles Grammy wins and nominations, strictly an American award, of course. Does anyone have good info on the British music awards they have won? InnerRevolution7 07:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audition, first recording and the "tie" joke

While adding a reference for Harrison's joke about George Martin's tie, I noticed something. Hunter Davies' biography (1981 edition) states that he made the joke on the date of their "Love Me Do"/"P.S. I Love You" recording (11 September 1962); the Wikipedia article currently suggests that he said it on the 6 June audition. I don't have time to properly fix this mistake right now, but I'm just bringing it to everyone's attention! --Nick RTalk 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh... having just checked Revolution In The Head, that book implies that the way the article currently describes it is correct. What do other books say? --Nick RTalk 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mark Lewisohn’s The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions has it being cracked at the 6 June audition, (with Pete Best). George Martin describes the remark as the “ice breaker” that then lead into a riotous twenty minutes of wise cracking within the group, leaving him, and Ron Richards (his assistant) wiping away tears of laughter. It was their sense of humour initially, Martin has said, that attracted him to them, and not their music. --Patthedog 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, so the current article's correct then? From what I hear, Hunter Davies' biography is infamously incorrect about a few things, such as the date of John and Paul's first meeting. Have mistakes like that been corrected in more recent editions of the book? --Nick RTalk 15:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hunter Davies also declared that Paul McCartney was, in fact, right handed. Surprisingly, this is still a contentious issue. That one is still in the re-print as far as I know. George definitely cracked the tie joke at the audition though. --Patthedog 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, It's Philip Normans' Shout that has McCartney as right handed. --Patthedog 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uneditable text?

At the end of the 'Breakup' section, this rather opinionated text appears: "Overall, the beatles are the MOST overated band in the history of the world and should not even be capitalized because of it." Yet, if I try to edit the section to remove it, it does not appear as editable text (in fact, it does not appear at all). This is not the only time I have seen text of this 'invisible' nature appear in articles - I wonder if there is some way to hack a wiki article? 80.143.232.71 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Hmmmm, well, it appears that RickR may have removed the text just as I was trying to remove it.....80.143.232.71 22:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George & John/George & Paul

Is While My Guitar Gently Weeps the one instance where only George and Paul had harmony vocals? Is Words of Love the one instance where only George and John had harmony vocals?--Secret Agent Man 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I don't have the reference books to hand, but All My Loving was jointly sung by Paul and George; my theory is that the superfast triplets played by John made singing the harmony too difficult. Apepper 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence edit war

Regarding the first sentence of the article, there seems to be quite an edit war going on. Could we please settle whether the sentence should be "The Beatles were THE most critically acclaimed band in history" or "ONE OF THE most critically acclaimed bands in history"?

I would think that "one of" would be less controversial and easier to cite references for. To support a big statement like "the most", you'd need to reference an awful lot of articles and books. --Nick RTalk 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "one of" doesn't mean anything, and is to be avoided per WP:WEASEL. Following WP:Avoid Undue Weight, I think "the" is not a huge risk. yandman 14:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiring Ringo Starr - Firing Pete Best

I think the article has the sequence backwards by suggesting that Epstein immediatly hired Ringo after the firing of Pete Best on Aug 16, 1962. Actually the Beatles hired Ringo before they fired Best. I will try to dig up the reference but I recall reading that Ringo was offered the position by Lennon & McCartney during a personal vist at about 10:00 AM on Wednesday August 15, 1962 - i.e., the day before Best was fired. Ringo accepted the position at that meeting contingent on him completing some scheduled gigs with his (now-former) band "Rory Storm and the Hurricanes." The termination of Best the following day remains contentious, in part, because the band delegated the task to their manager Brian Epstein. I'm new to the editing process, so I'll try to clean that portion up when I get my references straight. If anyone else want to take that task on, (as well as the correction on the Ringo Star article) be my guest. NFeldon 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for semi-protection

Someone is dead set on removing LP info on Past Masters, Volume One and Past Masters, Volume Two and inserting the LOVE compilation in Template:The Beatles. I'm requesting semi-protections for those pages. Steelbeard1 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A compromise was devised for the template. The LOVE show, not the album, was inserted and the discography link was kept. Steelbeard1 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former members/Members section

I think it's very stupid to call "fab four" as former members and displaying pete and stuart among the original fab four. Beatles are FOUR people. There're SIX person on the list; lokks like a funny problem over there. There must NOT be any confusion for wiki users who don't know about Beatles much. There's no FIFTH one. Paul, Ringo, George and John are "members", Stuart, Pete are "former members". If Beatles were not disbanded, then, yes, John & George'd be a former member. But fab four disbanded it themselves and they stay as "members"; NOT former members. Please someone fix this madness —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnEmerald (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Er...I don't understand this. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I rectified the issue by adding the years the individuals were Beatles and moved Ringo up the list. Steelbeard1 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah I see! Thank you Steelbeard1. Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I mean, it seems a little bit wrong to say original fab four are former members. Members are George,JOhn,Ringo,Paul and former members are Pete & Stuart. Pete & Stuart must not be in the same category with the fab four. Original fabfour line-up makes the worldwide known famous Beatles. Not Pete & Stuart. Please seperate them --JohnEmerald 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Fab Four is a media invention. Both Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best were members of The Beatles (they signed contracts as such), and Sutcliffe and Best were in the band at the same time as Lennon, McCartney and Harrison - making the group a five piece.LessHeard vanU 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How do we do it within the format constraints of the infobox? Should there be a separate infobox for defunct musical groups? Defunct groups don't have "current members" and are all "former members." Steelbeard1 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree Steelbeard1, they are all "former members" - The Beatles are no more, defunct, kaput, finito benito! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The naming convention of John, Paul, George, Ringo should be applied, then Best (as the last member to leave), Sutcliffe (left in Hamburg era) then Jimmy Nichol (or whatever his name) as he was only contracted as a temporary replacement.LessHeard vanU 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Let's see if that idea flies. BTW, the name of Ringo's fill-in in 1964 was Jimmy Nicol. Steelbeard1 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my repeated alteration of the article back to the Infobox guidelines. I don't really think we should deviate from those guidelines just for this one article, but if we do, it should also be mentioned and discussed at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. I'm not really sure how the best way to organise the list should be, but I will bring up one point about the dates: at the moment they all state that they joined 1960 or later. Should they be listed from the time they joined the Quarrymen? (1957 or later) or from the time they began using the name The Beatles? I think the former. --Nick RTalk 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article for The Quarrymen as there were many personnel changes in the lineup for The Quarrymen before other names like Johnny & the Moondog and The Silver Beetles were used. The Beatles lineup should start with 1960, the year the group adopted that name. Steelbeard1 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree, that date being 17 August 1960. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lovable black eyeliner and dyed black hair ??

I was rereading the brief paragraph on the Magical Mystery Tour film, and began to wonder about the following line:

"...instead of showcasing the lovable black eyeliner they had donned up until then, it portrayed them as sensitive superheroes replete with dyed black hair..."

Lovable black eyeliner? I thought this was perhaps a recent vandalism, but looking back into November, I found that it has been there quite a long while. Dyed black hair? In the few sentences alloted for summarizing Magical Mystery Tour and the changing times, is this really the best focus??

Whether or not they had actually donned eyeliner, which you would think you'd notice in photos if they had up until then, has anyone ever heard of eyeliner being referred to as lovable before...? It seems like a very unusual point.

I'd fix it, but I'm kind of new here and still a bit timid for now. I feel I'm possibly stepping on toes just bringing it up, but I'm really just trying to be clear about my reactions as I read it. Anyone for a small rewrite? InnerRevolution7 08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's odd too. I'm not sure how you would empirically prove that their eyeliner was 'lovable' (assuming they did wear eyeliner - I've never seen the movie). MGlosenger 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Icon

Do we really need a little England Flag on the article? I think it looks childish - anyone else agree? Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag icon appears throughout Wikipedia, why is it childish on this page?--Bilbo B 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This should explain things: WP:FLAGCRUFT Steelbeard1 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Beatles_b339.html"