Talk:Brian Epstein/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GA on hold

  • Image:Cellarful.gif is missing a fair use rationale, so is Image:Be3.jpg, rationale for Image:057120130X.01. AA240 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg is very weak.
  • Please put the publisher outside the title so - [1] turns to[2]
  1. ^ beatlemoney.com: Epstein’s contracts Retrieved: 11 March 2007
  2. ^ Epstein’s contracts beatlemoney.com. Retrieved: 11 March 2007

just so it's easier to see who the publisher is.

  • Reference 30 is unreliable - geocities is a personal website
  • and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement
  • The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference
  • please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article
  • make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organize (A) (British: organise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), curb (A) (British: kerb), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • *Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): wouldn't, didn't, didn't, didn't. didn't -> did not
  • Is it 'The Beatles' or 'the Beatles' - i see both, stick with one

Rest looks good to me, possible FA. M3tal H3ad 03:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference"(my bolding)? Citations and references are needed when claims may be open to dispute. I should think that the Beatles as an international phenomena is well established. LessHeard vanU 11:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this says the most successful period of The Beatles career was with Brian, which means there were other periods, which weren't as successful - where can i find a reference for this? M3tal H3ad 12:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a different kettle of fish, and probably does need to be cited. The group began to fall apart after Mr Epstein's death (although I'm not sure they were any less successful), indeed I have a Lennon quote memorised: "After Brian died, we collapsed. I knew we were in trouble then. I thought, 'We've f*cking had it.'" From the Rolling Stone interview was it? Or Playboy? --kingboyk 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) PS Sorry if I bit your head off :)
I have to disagree with kingboyk here: The band as an national and international success happened during Epsteins tenure as manager, those with only a passing knowledge of the band would not be familiar with their pre-Epstein career. The visibility of Epstein as a mover and shaker in 60's pop society is obvious, since a management deal with him was second only to having a Lennon/McCartney composition in terms of credibility. Whatever it was that the Beatles embodied as 60's icons only happened whilst Epstein was their manager. It was only in the period after Epstein's death that there was criticism over their musical directions, business dealings, public personae, etc. The perception of the Beatles as the foremost musical act of the era is during Epstein's management, and as such (I suggest) does not require referencing/citing. LessHeard vanU 21:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You said what the reference should. Although my concerns are minor they have not been addressed so I'm failing this. M3tal H3ad 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference - Citations rarely go in the lead, and not for a statement as safe as that. Everybody knows The Beatles had extraordinarily massive success, including even those people who think they are crap.
  • please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article - Since when has that been needed for GA?
  • and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement - Not so much POV as needing a source.

Other suggestions seem OK, but the first 2 above?! Bah! --kingboyk 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business dealings

The opening of this paragraph was NOT a fair reflection of prevailing opinion about Epstein. And certainly not on the very webpage that was cited as the reference for it! The conventional wisdom on Epstein has always been primarily that he was honest. There has definitely been some criticism (long after his death) about some of the deals he made. Though the prevailing opinion has always been that any mistakes were because of naivite. And as Denis O'Dell (and also Ray Coleman and George Martin make clear) there is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Lennon made one remark about Epstein that contradicted volumes of positive remarks about Epstein that he made. (At certain times - Lennon also attacked George Martin, Derek Taylor, McCartney and Harrison - and many others. These views - expressed mainly in the immediate aftermath of the Beatles; break-up - are not held to be the definitive views by Lennon on any of the objects of his temporary wrath.) It certainly is not accurate to imply that approx. 50% of people regard Epstein as having been honest and 50% think him dishonest. Far and away the opinion of those closest to him (Alistair Taylor, Derek Taylor, Peter Brown, George Martin) or those who have researched his life (Ray Coleman, Martin Lewis, Debbie Geller) is that he was a scrupulously honest man who was utterly devoted to the Beatles (probably to his own detriment in terms of emotional and physical health. To suggest otherwise is a grave disservice and unfactual. Davidpatrick 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that (and to your next comment too). --kingboyk 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraphs

Various points...

This contained a lot of minor detail that does not belong in the opening paras. The fact of where he was during the recording of Sgt. Pepper is valid and factual - but doesn't belong in an overview. The fact of his death does.

The most salient part of Epstein's success in getting George Martin to sign the Beatles was not that Martin hadn't seen them play live. (That was NOT an essential component of a decision to sign a recording artist in 1962.) If anything needs to be said - it was that Epstein succeeded after the group had been turned down by every other major record label.

The term "businessman" is not the key word to describe Epstein. That implies he was primarily a businessman. He was a minor store manager who became a very successful impresario. Davidpatrick 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The vast majority of informed opinion" does not have a citation.212.241.67.98 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disgusted

I came back here to see when this would be granted a GA. It has not, because nobody could be bothered to to fix the little problems that were raised by the reviewer. This is disgusting, and confirms my belief that The Beatles project is nothing more than a bunch of loud-mouthed pedantic control freaks who can not be bothered to carry out the simplest of tasks, but prefer to write reams and reams of self-important drivel about their own opinions. You should all hang your heads in shame. andreasegde 18:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

Sorry you seem to be upset. I can only speak for myself. I really am not that worried about the article receiving peer approval or brownie points. To me it is infinitely more important that the article be actually fair and factual than that it be given an award SAYING that in the opinion of some reviewer - it has met some subjective standard. Nice to have it - but way less important than just the knowledge of doing decent work. IMO the hard work that you and others (and myself as well) have put in has been good - but not perfect. There is still far too much reliance on one or two books. Just because they have been published and can be cited in our article - doesn't automatically mean that they are correct.

And the existence of one or two opinions about him or his life - that are discounted by the vast majority of published accounts doesn't mean that we then have this artificial "balance" inserted that (by way of example) "on the one hand some people believe he was honest - but others think he was a crook. So opinion is divide on the subject". That is artificial balance that means theoretically that any crackpot theory or assertion could be included - just as long as it is in a book and we cite the page number.

There is a lot of material that may be factually true (or not) but even if true - is needless detail and minutiae. And there is a preponderence of detail about his sexual preferences that is not present about those who are promiscuous heterosexuals. That is not to seek to airbrush his personal life - but to keep the amount of detail limited to what is necessary for a biographic article - not what is titillating gossipy detail.

This article needs a lot more work. And that work IMO is NOT about inserting dozens of assertions from mainly one or two books that are not even primarily about Epstein (primarily books by Spitz and Miles) adding the page references as in-format citations - and then taking the attititude that that is good enough. I think we need to read and draw from a wider variety of sources - especially: Ray Coleman's 1989 biography. Derek Taylor's two books "As Time Goes By" (circa 1971) and "Fifty Years Adrift" (circa 1984), Epstein's own "Cellarful of Noise" (1964) and the Martin Lewis companion narrative to the 1998 reissue of "Cellarful" - together with George Martin's introduction to that edition. Also check out Denis O'Dell's book "Apple To The Core". My book collection is in storage now - or I would do it. All of those people (with the exception of Lewis) knew Epstein well. (And Lewis - who is a protege of Derek Taylor - is an acknowledged Beatles historian who has produced multiple Beatles projects). Let's look at what THEY have to say. Do NOT depend primarily on Spitz - who is a well-intentioned writer but a professional biographer - he has written books on diverse subjects - not an expert on the Beatles. And never met Epstein. Just interviewed people (some of whom have "agendas") 45 years after the events. Barry Miles is a very respected writer - but he was writing an "authorized" biography of McCartney - so as with any authorized biography - they tend to have to please the person who is authorizing the content. And Miles only knew Epstein slightly. Nowhere near as much as the others mentioned above.

I'm up for more work on this. But let's focus on creating a worthy article rather than on "passing the audition". A worthy article is its own reward. And may even achieve recognition too. But the work is more important than the award... That's MY opinion. Davidpatrick 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are people's books always "in storage"? I have read that so many times that it's laughable. Are people constantly on the move? I doubt it. It just means that people have read them, but don't own them - so are unable to put page number citations in.
If you don't understand that getting an article rated as being good is worthy, then you do not understand the concept of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia states that an article is B class because it is not good enough. If you worked for a newspaper, you wouldn't last long in the job with your attitude.
Remember Watergate? That came from one source.
I have stopped working on this article, as I have no desire to tangle with someone who is "carrying a torch" for Epstein, and does not want anything negative said about him. I wish you well. andreasegde 19:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Even though I no longer contribute to this project, I will defend the the citations I provided. Spitz spent seven years researching/writing his book (fact) and that is not the sort of time a Pop biographer would think of giving. He did make one mistake that I spotted, but other books also have them - but that is no reason to discount his work. I suggest you read this... User Davidpatrick does not know how to put in-line citations in (fact) and I strongly suspect that he has not even read Spitz's book. I would even go so far as to say that I think he is a Trojan Horse, and has his own hidden agenda. andreasegde 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes strikes again

  • Content deleted by administrator User:23skidoo on the grounds that it constituted a personal attack on an editor and was not directly related to improving the article. The following response is being kept as it pertains to concerns voiced in other threads regarding the use of sources, which is a legitimate topic of discussion on this page. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I have no idea why the Brian article didn't get a GA. The grade it got is certainly not in my power to influence. As I have written above - I am not particularly interested in articles for their grades. Grades are well and good but they are not more important than having a good article. And a good article should have (among many other things) accurate facts that are capable of being verified from mutiple sources (not just one book that has become the flavor of the year); it should NOT include negative assertions made by only one source without other verification; and it should not place a disproportionate focus on sexual matters that are of a tabloid nature. Some of the things about Brian Epstein I have objected to in the article dwell on his sexuality and I find the amount of detail offensive and quite unnecessary. It is tabloid and sensationalistic. There is not a similar amount of detail about heterosexual people who have had promiscuous personal lives. His sexual preferences did not directly interefere with his work or cause his death. To dwell on the details is therefore unnecessary. And I will continue to press this point. Davidpatrick 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Further discussion deleted on the grounds of WP:ATTACK and violation of talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for editors who have books about Brian Epstein

User Andreasegde is concerned that we have more in-article cited references in the article. While I do not agree with all of his edits on the article - I agree with him that such references can help the article. The wider the range of books - and the more authorative they are - the better. I do not have access to my own books. Do other editors have any of the recommended books that could help improve this article? Davidpatrick 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion deleted on the grounds that it violated WP:ATTACK, possibly also WP:BLP as it made claims regarding the subject of a biographical article currently on Wikipedia, and also that it violated Wikipedia talk page policy. Talk pages should only be used for discussion on how to improve an article. There is no place for personal attacks, accusations, or speculation regarding Wikipedia editors. Due to Andreasgde's personal attack on Davidpatrick, which has now been deleted by me. I have blocked him for 24 hours. Please remember No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Other discussion threads above are subject to review and possible deletion on the grounds also that they may violate WP:ATTACK and talk page guidelines. 23skidoo 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding

To clear up any misunderstanding, I, (user andreasegde) am NOT concerned about this article needing more in-line citations. As Bob Spitz worked on his book for seven years, I think his reputation is safe from criticism. Barry Miles worked with McCartney for a long period (1991-1996, and has known him for years) and wrote a very balanced book. Cynthia Lennon made some mistakes, but she was right about important events, which have been included. I think that will suffice. andreasegde 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New source

An external link was added to the Apple Records article, containing a sample chapter from a book about Apple. It covers Epstein quite a bit, and might be useful for some additional critical opinion/quotations/citations.[1] --kingboyk 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent source. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Fame

I would have thought that as there is a movement to have Brian inducted into the Hall of Fame, it would help his case if this article was a GA article or an FA. More people respect FA articles than B-articles, because their worth has been proven. If this article remains a B-article, it only shows that not enough people are interested in the cause. andreasegde 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think Mr Epstein deserves a place in the Hall of Fame. I also think that a comprehensive, honest, balanced article on him would do nothing to prevent that. I'm not sure of your point though, it sounds a bit like politicking to me. --kingboyk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It is because I can not understand the reasoning behind the attitude that it doesn't matter whether Brian is a GA or not. It's like renovating a classic car and then saying that you will never actually drive it. I just don't get it. andreasegde 10:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well I agree with you then. Btw: You got your first support on Mimi's FAC :) Nice start! --kingboyk 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian

Brian's article has been put up again for review, and this time it will be monitored to ensure his elevation to GA status on Wikipedia. I respectfully request that no major edits be done during the review, as this is frowned upon by reviewers. I thank you. andreasegde 12:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Could Kingboyk or someone look at the photos to see if they will pass? I read that the last reviewer was not happy about them. I thank you. andreasegde 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added more photos, and have taken out the irrelevant ones. This is starting to look very good. andreasegde 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is looking very good now. I think this could be an FA, if it had a review by concerned editors.andreasegde 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Why is the header green? It makes poor Eppy look ill... andreasegde 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swearword

I have changed, "We've fuckin' had it!'" to "We've [expletive deleted] had it!'" per the concerns of an editor, even though I have seen the phrase quoted elsewhere without the aforementioned swearword. andreasegde 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the two sources I have for the quote (Wenner and Miles) and both have the expletive. If someone can find a similar but different quote that expresses Lennon's concern for the future of the band immediately after Epstein's death, let's substitute that instead. If some other source has the same quote without the expletive, let's change it and cite that source. If we cite Wenner or Miles, then I think the quote should be accurate. [Expletive deleted] is a little unwieldy, but it indicates clearly that words have been deleted and so it's fine with me as a substitute. John Cardinal 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I thank you. We pulled it off, as they say. BTW, which page number in Wenner's book was it? I would like to put a reference in. andreasegde 22:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I wasn't pulling things off, I was putting them back on! <g> In the edition I have, it's page 25:
<ref name="wenner1p25">{{cite book |first=Jann S |last=Wenner
 |title=Lennon Remembers |year=2000 |pages=25 |publisher=Verso 
 |location=London |isbn=1-85984-600-9}}</ref>
I had an 1970s-era copy that walked off on it's own 10 years ago. Probably worth a pretty-penny now. John Cardinal 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have put it in, and replaced the fuckin' word... :))andreasegde 12:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)