Talk:The Beatles' breakup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



  This Beatles-related page 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.



Contents

[edit] Merge

I do not think it should be merged because it is a separate issue--Wompa99 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The main article covers it adequately. There's certainly plenty of space in either the main Beatles article or the History of the Beatles article to fit in your viewpoint on the breakup. So far this article weighs in at just a few sentences. I don't see it getting substantially larger unless you go into highly detailed description. FunnyYetTasty 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just took a look at the History of the Beatles page and there's really no need for this page. The article completely covers the breakup theories, at excruciating length. I've added the merge statement again. I think your idea is worth incorporating into the history page, but if this page were to stand on its own, I would recommend its deletion. FunnyYetTasty 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is what the Beatles WikiProject is for. We've already got a problem on our hands sorting out the History article and the History section of the main article, without new forks coming up. We're not adverse to merging/deleting articles, either. However, we need to know about these things so in future if such an issue arises please let us know :) I'll start a thread on the project's talk page. --kingboyk 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd think this could be merged too, or be a subarticle of History... that article needs a lot of work, and that is where I think folks should consider spending their time. ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What broke up the Beatles?

I can accept the final act by Paul, the "broke up" the Beatles. But what ought to be included is what led up to this decision by Paul. Any facts available? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USPatriot (talkcontribs) 14:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes read the court affadavit from 1971. Paul McCartney's deposition/affadavit was quite detailed. It is also discussed in Barry Miles biography on Paul McCartney as well as the Playboy magazine interview in 1984. (Rkapla02 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Redirect Removed, Article Added

I think the breakup of the Beatles is complicated and interesting enough to warrant an article dedicated to it, so I've added one. What you see now was typed painstakingly in one go, and I'd appreciate it if everyone could edit it in a way that improves the article. Some of the claims I've made will require citation, but I am not that familiar with wiki-markup, and I don't really know how to do it. Basically, anyone who can improve the article, please do. Notahippie76 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: I also made some redirects that made the article easier to reach. Notahippie76 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Given the extensive library of books and articles published on matters germane to the break up I have made contributions. I will commence working on the bibliography.Rkapla02 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I don't get it. Despite being a rather huge Beatles fan, I can't see an encyclopedia article being dedicated strictly to the dissolution of a rock group - any rock group. And the end section is pure opinion, not fact. Just my two cents. -ZincOrbie 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit : The last section can be removed. With regard to arbitrarily removing it as a separate listing requires a consensus among all the primary authors and editors on the Beatles' subject matter/articles in Wikipedia. Need I remind you that McCartney's announcement made headlines across the western hemisphere and has been the subject of extensive Beatles' scholars analysis? You enter the slippery slope arguement e.g. well we do not need any subsections. Have all the biographies, history, musicology, records, films under just one article section. I believe your two cents may be put to better use elsewhere because you don't get it. Rkapla02 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

  • Geez, sorry. I didn't realize some people are so sensitive about their obsessions. Enjoy yourself.-ZincOrbie 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A [learned?] "huge Beatle fan" should have enough insight along with FunnyYetTasty's terse and misguided statements that the main article does not go into 'excruciating detail' re: break up. The text describing the break up was not adequately addressed in the major topic review. In addition I have included references that more directcly characterize the time period and utilize original interviews (sources). For those participating in the talk/authorship or editorial section, we should all be sensitive and obsessed with this material. We should all find gratification and enjoyment in contributing meaningful and thoughtful content. If this were not the case the project would not been so productive. Even Robert Spitz made a major mistake in chronologically writing about the break up. John Lennon did not announce in an Apple Board meeting in December 1968 that he was leaving the group. He references Ray Coleman's pseudo-biography on John Lennon for this information. Unfortunately, if you read that chapter carefully (and the book for that matter) his authorship is not strictly chronological. However, it is clear from the Doug Sulpy et al publication that the possibility of the break up was openly discussed in the Twickenham film sessions. A text without a context is a pretext.Rkapla02 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category tags

The current category tags cause "Breakup Of The Beatles" to be listed among bands that are in the Rock'n'Roll hall of fame, and other lists. This just looks sloppy. Recommend that the category tags be cleaned up to avoid this? I.M. 5:23 February 22, 2007

[edit] "Overview"

"The breakup of The Beatles was one of the most widely scrutinised and publicised events in the media for the past three decades" - that's a little much, don't you think?

1 ) Who Are You? Sign your posts with four tildes please (shift and hash key, x 4). 2) No, I don't think so, because even though they were "only a band" it's all true. Britmax (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)