Talk:The Beatles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Beatles article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Former featured article The Beatles is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article The Beatles has been listed as one of the Arts good articles 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 reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004.


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 article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Housekeeping Information

Contents

Archives
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
  • Source "Achievements" section, intergrate into article or write in pros, not bullet points.
  • Ultimate goal: Get back to FA status
Priority 1 (top) 
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Beatles as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Astur-Leonese, Hebrew or Portuguese language Wikipedias.


[edit] former/ current members

since the beatles have disbanded, shouldn't all of them be listed under "Former Members"?LukeTheSpook (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, "current members" is the group at the time they broke up. "Former members" includes those no longer in the group at the time they broke up. Ward3001 (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unacceptable. All six are former members. Tom Green (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If we put all of them under "former members" this would be confusing to the reader. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that the band are no longer active, they have no current members. Tom Green (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the infobox says "Members" not "Current members" so what's the problem? Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having the core (George, John, Paul, Ringo) listed as "current members" and listing former Beatles (Sutcliffe,Best) as "former members" makes most sense to me. Noting them all as "former members" would be confusing to a novice, regardless of the fact of the groups 1970 dissolution.GBrady (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed before at [1] and [2] in which it was determined that the group's lineup at the time of its formal breakup is acceptable. As Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best had left the group before it became world famous, they were acceptable as "former members". Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "Members" as they disbanded? "Current" is not true. Easy, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really easy. Someone will come along and argue that Best and Sutcliffe were members (or for that matter everyone in the group as far back as The Quarrymen), then we're back to square one. I think the current way is the only way to logically distinguish Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr from the others. Ward3001 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School Bus Vs Regular servive bus

I removed the word "school". This would imply to most American readers a Bus just for students. In fact they met on the top of a regular double decker bus.Lemonflag (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Is there a link for a double-decker bus? Ah-hah... I have just found out that there is. (They stink of diesel and rubber, and make you feel sick, BTW. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Beatles GA article

A Day in the Life - i got this article up to GA yesterday, you might want to add it to the beatles project. Yours Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 08:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks, Realist2.--andreasegde (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, let me know if you need any other input on a beatles related article. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about the reasons for the breakup?

What about the reasons for the breakup?

Shj95 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What about it???? Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The reasons are several and date back to the death of their manager Brian Epstein in 1967. The group began to unravel at this point. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Steelbeard. You can't sum it up in 1 point. There was displeasure on the part of George with his material not being used as often as John and Paul's, group irritation at Yoko's presence for sessions, the lack of Epstein's stabilizing presence ,and probably just a desire to stretch their own individual wings.GBrady (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy, and I don't know why it isn't mentioned, but the fact is that McCartney did not sign the management contract with Klein, Spector put a female choir on McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" (without telling/consulting McCartney at all) and Klein sending Macca a telegram saying the "changes were needed" (when all musical decisions were previously taken by the band as a whole, and if one single member disagreed, it was not done) totally pissed Macca off. He was being ousted as the musical manager/co-ordinator of the band. After the filming of Let It Be, they still worked together, but the film music (and the changes later made to it) were "All too much for Macca to take"...--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Front picture

Why isn't there a front picture? --The monkeyhate (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles-singles-iwanttoholdyourhand-1.jpg

The image Image:Beatles-singles-iwanttoholdyourhand-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg

Is there a reason why Image:Beatlessullivantogether.jpg isn't the front picture? It has a fair use for this article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Lennon/McCartney"

Should it be added to "see also"? Vordabois (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album sold

The Beatles has sold 170 million of album copies according to the RIAA. Here. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formation

I suggest that the "formation" section should be shortened significantally, with some of the reasons in the 2nd paragraph paraphrased instead of quoted (such as Lennon's). Also, I suggest that the third paragraph be nearly eliminated, with two to three sentences summarizing that the band went through a number of drummers, and that they toured Northern Scotland as a back-up band for singer Johnny Gentle, as well as the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

  1. Support as the suggestor (?)
  2. No. This is not a paper encyclopeda, and it should mention everything possible, which would stop the idea that Lennon was an orphan, and Ringo was the first drummer. (I'm very passionate about history being the truth, so please forgive me. :) I'm sure the families of the drummers in question would hate the idea of their relative's participation in The Beatles being reduced to, "the fact that the lack of a drummer caused a problem". If one were to go down that path, then Pete Best would not be mentioned.

As a Beatle fan (or a fan of The Beatles) I never knew this stuff, and the reason I first came to Wikipedia was to clear-up these missing bits of information. Lennon had/has 3 half-sisters, and two half-brothers, and McCartney has one brother and one half-sister. Harrison has a sister who lived/lives in America, and was the first Beatle to visit the USA. Is that not important? Everything should be here, and then this will be the most comprehensive page about The Beatles that you can find anywhere. Put it all in, and let the Wikipedia servers deal with it. This should be the fountain of all knowledge about The Beatles, and so it should be.--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also just realised that Larry Parnes is not mentioned at all. This is a travesty, as it was a major stumbling-block for The Silver Beetles.--andreasegde (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This isn't because I give a damn about the Wikipedia servers (let them handle this). It's because I want to get this into FA, and Ruhrfisch, the Peer Reviewer of the archived PR for this article, said that the "Formation" section was too long. "Do we really need to have every single name, and every thought that crossed their mind?" is just about what he said in the PR. That's why I am doing this. Also, looking at Pink Floyd, there is considerably less about the band's formation. Keep that in mind; remember that I did this to get this Vital Article to FA, not because I felt like it. :-) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:WEIGHT when voting. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I Support shortening of excess information. It is completely unnecessary to list every single fact about the Beatles on here, especially information about specific members, since they all have their own pages. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never want to go near an FA again, so good luck. The FA boardroom finds lots of things to complain about, including your tie, Mr Epstein. :) Whatever Mr Wales said in WP:WEIGHT can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, by thousands of different editors, which was his point, IMO...

I also believe that every single thought The Fabs had should not be included, but living, breathing (and sweating, as drummers do) human beings should be. What's the point of copying other paper encyclopedias? Is that why we are here? If that is the case, all one has to do is look at one of the respected ones, and then just paraphrase everything in it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think it should be pointed out that in real life Mr Andreasegde has "hung about with musicians" - i.e. he is/was a drummer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article is 84,493 bytes, and William Shakespeare is 84,030 bytes, and that is an FA. Maybe it's just the writing that needs improving, and not the content. --andreasegde (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay. It'll be kept...and a new consensus will be made if this point is brought up by a PRer or an FA reviewer (in which case said reviewer(s) can participate in discussion). I just wanted to have due weight where needed. Remember, an FA is not too short AND not too long, but alas... Thank you for making your point, Andreasegde. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: "an FA is not too short AND not too long", which means here that it is good, but not good enough. I seriously believe that FAs are looked upon by the powers that be as only being good enough if they are about a serious subject by the snobs up above. It would be interesting to know how many Pop/Rock etc., articles are FAs, and how many articles there are about scientists, philosophers, etc. It's an elitist thing, and Pop music is not considered to be worthy by the boys in the (metaphorical) suits. Some articles slip through to FA of course, but only if they have the weight of a project behind them. (I speak from experience, because I have heard the phrase "not notable enough" too many times).

For this article to gain an FA it would have to be chopped to pieces, and would then later be deleted to a B-class for not having enough information.--andreasegde (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks. However, this consensus can be considered closed. A second consensus can be found below. Please feel free to vote there. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You think a credible consensus can be achieved in less than a week? What about those who due to work commitments, can only edit at weekends? And two editors doth not a consensus make. --Rodhullandemu 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I figured that since I started a consensus, I could end it. Oh well, I struck out my comment. Feel free to vote here. It's not a great idea anyway after some consideration, but if you support the vote, feel free to say so. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion #2

My next suggestion is that everything regarding the name should be moved to a new section called something to the extent of "Names". For an example, see AC/DC, a featured article. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

  1. Support as supporter. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Where?

Why does the opening paragraph speak about this English pop group's influence as it related to somewhere called the United States, and not for example Germany? I can predict all the lame justifications that will be put forward to explain this, however the real reason is simply the usual American centric bias which Wikipedia specifically cautions against in it's guidelines.

'Parochial View' 28th May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason that I can think of is that this is the English Wikipedia. Certainly, there should still be some information for other countries. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I answered that concern by stating in intro that the band was "world renowned." Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. The lead clearly states, and I quote, "This commercial success was repeated in many other countries; their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion records worldwide." The reason the United States is used is because it is emphasizing the fact that it is the number-one selling band in the U.S., not worldwide. Besides, this is an English Wikipedia, so countries like Germany or other non-primarily English-speaking countries aren't necessary. The fact is, the lead states its worldwide impact, and thus "world renowned" should be removed.


LOL @ 'other countries'. It is a good thing that I appreciate sarcasm. I am just worried that some people may think you are being serious.

'Parochial View' 1st June 2008.


Also, it should not be in the first sentence anyway. The first sentence of an article gives a definition. It should say that the Beatles are a pop/rock band from Liverpool. Anything else should be clarified later. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

--Wikidunn (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I agree, the opening sentence shouldn't be so US-centric, they were more than just an 'American invasion band', or whatever that is. Surely British pop invasion of the '60s is something that only applies to American pop culture, and as this band had a far reaching effect in many countries, this is a very narrow minded opening sentence. Its impact on the American invasion should be linked to the relevant article and not even mentioned in the opening paragraph; which should be purely to describe the band in more general terms, and not label them a US specific term.

[edit] "IS" or "ARE"?

In England, the word "band" is followed by "are". Thus, it would be "band are recognized". The reasoning to that would be that there are several members in a band. Since this a British band, it should use "are", not "is". Besides, it uses "are" everywhere else, and we have to be consistent. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. "Are" is British English so we should go with that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[out] All true, but "the band" is not necessary: I edited it to be grammatically correct in both British and American English, which I hope will keep everyone happy. (And let's remember that it is always "The Beatles are", to American ears as well as British, despite what some might think.... except when talking about the white album, in which case we'd again do a work-around so as to not sound illiterate to anyone.) Tvoz/talk 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1960–1970: The Beatles

Okay, this heading name has to change. According to Manual of Style, heading names should generally not contain the name of the article. (Exceptions do exist, like if this was about the album officially called "The Beatles", then it's okay). So, any suggestions? I changed it to "fame", but Steelbeard1 changed it back, saying that the real fame began in 1963. I think an appropriate title is "1960–1970: Rise to fame". Please comment. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Both "Fame" and "Rise to fame" have inaccuracies, because the decade includes pre-fame and fame years. I think Steelbeard1 is being too picky. "Fame" is best because most of the decade they were enormously famous. Ward3001 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reminder The Manual of Style is a guideline, not an official policy, and it clearly says that it is suggested that it be followed unless circumstances are such that it should not be: "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." (And that actually pretty much also goes for official policies.) In this case, the header clearly identifies this stage of development of the band, and it makes perfect sense to ignore that guideline and leave the heading as we have it, even though it includes the article title. The integrity of the article is far more important, in my opinion, than the sometimes arbitrary comments made by FA reviewers. Tvoz/talk 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, FA reviewer? Not me...been here three months and two days now, and from what I hear, FAC is sheer hell. I just wanted to make some suggestions that I thought were appropriate to the article. I see your point of view (LOL, not that kind). I guess "The Beatles" works. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Right - I didn't think you were - I misread the above and other comments too quickly and thought you were reflecting what someone else had suggested in a peer review or in preparation for a FAC review. But I stand by my last sentence regarding integrity and the (sometimes oppressive) FA process. Tvoz/talk 03:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

It say that they were pop,and rock, not pop, rock, and metal? Since Helter Skelter was the first ever metal song.--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of hundreds of songs, one won't affect it too much. We don't say they were folk because of "Blackbird" or Baroque because of "Yesterday". Consensus has been achieved (at length) for "pop & rock". --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Parsons

I'm having trouble with the end of this sentence: "The band's final live performance was on the rooftop of the Apple building at 3 Savile Row, London, on January 30, 1969, the next-to-last day of the difficult sessions for what eventually became the Let It Be album, along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons." What does "along with assistant engineer Alan Parsons" refer to? That he was there? Was he the engineer for the sessions? I'd be happy to rewrite the sentence but I don't know what was meant -it doesn't make sense to me this way. Translation please? Tvoz/talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fan of Alan Parsons. Putting Parsons in the same sentence as The Fabs sounds good to a fan... He should be in a sound engineers list.--andreasegde (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RIAA

"According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States.[4]"

OK, ive noticed this on the Janet Jackson and Britney Spears article too. I cant help but feel we are putting words in the RIAAS mouth. The RIAA is only counting albums, its only saying the beatles are the best selling album group. They do not include single sales and probably wouldnt appreciate us suggesting they do. Like I said, everyone seems to be doing it, probably without realizing what the RIAA are actually saying.

Im not disputing the sales of the beatles in america but what the article claims isnt supported by the RIAA who are only talking about albums. Its as if everyone has forgotten about singles and downloads. Thoughts. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw the new edit. Good compromise. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perennial problem here. Initially there were only charts for sheet music, when families got round pianos of an evening; then it was 78's (which I am old enough to remember), then singles, beginning as far as the UK is concerned, in 1952, then albums & EP's, then cassettes, then CDs, then downloads. The statisticians have been long tearing their hair out over how this can be represented in terms of volume calculations. Much kudos, however, to dealing with this thorny problem. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope its ok, im going to have to try and get the same consensus on the other articles that do it. I think its best to only say what the source is counting, we shouldnt expand upon it ourselves. That said if there is a RIAA source that adds singles and albums together we should use it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Achievements

I don't know about this section. It reads like a trivia section (oh no!). It still has to be changed to prose, but we need to work it out so that it's not just a collection of random facts. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows my HIStory with this issue. lol!. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, do explain. :) (really, idk) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well lets just say that ive quite vocally expressed my opinion (a number of times) on the condition of the "Achievements" section of this article. Lets just leave it at that lol. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's what that was about. I knew about that already, but I didn't know it was about this section. Anyway, let's not do anything we might regret. :) Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, completely slipped my mind. 2 days ago I managed to convince the Elvis people to intergate their achievements list seen here. It was done within hours. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well someone appears to have deleted the whole thing without any discussion here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Unhelpful. It's customary to copy the section here for discussion instead of wholesale deletion. --Rodhullandemu 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I restored one item that was sourced. Others can be added when sources are found. Ward3001 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice any band FA; a list of statistical achievements and records essential constitutes trivia. Even if referenced, its inclusion is unnecessary. Besides, a selective mining of statistics into one section could be construed as a POV fork too. indopug (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's take a look at FAs on bands. Powderfinger has an "Awards and accolades" section. Let's consider combining some of the information into a section entitled "Awards, accolades, and achievements" (alliteration not intended), or something similar. What's one person's trivia is another person's treasure.
I don't agree with the phrase "selective mining of statistics". I agree that Achievements needs better sourcing, but I think if items are inserted that are too POV or too trivial, they can be discussed for consensus here. Let's be realistic. The Beatles' achievements were and are profound. And if other articles for bands don't have achievements listed, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included in The Beatles' article. The Beatles had lots of "firsts" in their career, and it may very well be that they can be the "first" quality Wikipedia article on a band that has a legitimate Achievements section. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Any important achievements worth noting should be worked into the body of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. That assumes they're trivia and few in number. I think it depends on how lengthy a list of well-sourced achievements is. If awards, accolades, etc. can have a separate section in some articles, there's no iron-clad rule that achievements must be worked into the article. Ward3001 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of them should be included, if not in a separate section then in the main prose...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Ward3001) Actually, very often awards are broken off into a separate article. See: List of U2 awards. You can do the same too: List of The Beatles sales records. I believe "lists of isolated facts" constitutes trivia, so I don't see how the section in question isn't trivia. indopug (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If the list of achievements reaches a size to merit a separate article, that can be done. My point is that the items don't necessarily have to be intergrated into the rest of the article, just as awards aren't always integrated into the rest of an article. And once again I disagree with your phraseology. It is not a list of "isolated facts". They all have a commonality: they are achievements. The facts are no more isolated than a list of "awards and accolades" to use Featured Article Powderfinger as just one example. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good example to use, since the Beatles have so many achievement, far surpassing those of Powderfinger. This article is already pretty sizable, and other more important items are not covered in the prose yet (such as the band's musical style). Go ahead a create a list of Beatles awards (they've won enough it should fill up pretty quickly). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that The Beatles far surpass Powderfinger. I only used Powderfinger because it's an FA and indopug offererd that as the gold standard. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the section again, two of the facts are uncited and the other two could go in the lead. There's no need for the section to exist. It's ugly and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree that it's ugly. And the list will grow. Let's see if consensus develops about separate section vs. integrate into article. Ward3001 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is quite ugly, and does not fulfill the expectation that good Wikipedia articles have brilliant prose. Those items will work excellently in the prose, but there's no need for a bulleted list of four items, two of which are uncited. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I continue to disagree that it's ugly, so let's just agree to disagree. And now three of the four are sourced. I don't mean this to be condescending, but let me repeat myself. The list will grow. A few hours ago the section was completely deleted. Now it has four items. And as stated below, changes are not going to be completed overnight. I don't see such a rush to move things out of the section. Let's see what happens. Ward3001 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't given a convincing reason as to why it shouldn't be integrated into the prose when not only would it read better, but some of these are essential items that are not included in the main body of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but how can it be properly integrated when it's a work-in-progress? I've made a suggestion below. I'll make another: Move the whole section out of the article into here, or a subpage, let people work on it for a week or so, and then re-merge into the article when there is consensus to do so. Also, stop indenting beyond what readers can sensibly tolerate. My screen is only that wide, and the only reason I've further indented is logic; but sometimes, logic has to be frustrated by the needs of practicality. --Rodhullandemu 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

<deindent for readability
Well the original section has been copied here so that editors can research these points and add them into the article. These things do not happen overnight and I, for one, spent quite some time today trying to find a suitable copy of the Guinness Book of Records, to no avail, and as if I can afford it anyway. Once all that can be sourced has been, that might be a better time to assess how best to present the information. At least at present there is sourced information there, and the possibility that someone will come along and add more should not be overlooked. --Rodhullandemu 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that it's a work in progress. If the section does not grow, the items can be integrated. But if it does grow, there is no policy or guideline that forbids bulleted lists. There are lots of them in Wikipedia, some in very good articles. And there is an argument that such a list is stylistically better for readability. These are matters of opinion. Let's please wait and see if other opinions emerge, and see how much the list grows. Ward3001 (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

This indenting is getting to be too deep to be readable: please continue the discussion here. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it needs to be worked on at a sub page, THEN decide what to do with the pieces. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently doing some cleaup on the article. As part of it, I'm going to integrate the "Achievements" into the prose just to show how it should work. You can undo it when I'm done, just don't revert everything else I'm doing. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why not just wait for consensus to develop? It surely won't take long. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, there's a new page here. I propose that the debate move there and that the "old" Achievements section be moved there and dealt with on a case-by-case basis, if needs be. --Rodhullandemu 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ive commented, can we stop please and take the issue over there. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubitable Sources

Some of the sources used in the article are questionable, as reliablity goes. For example, Geocities is used, as well as a number of self-published sources. A lot of the info found in these sources will have to find a different source or will have to be removed. :( Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which ones, we should take a look, you would be supprised how often people agree on what is/isnt reliable. Luckily we have an Admin at hand..... ;-) --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, not Geocities, it is by definition, self-published, and the bits of it that aren't are probably copyright violations. By and large, sources used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums are preferred. Allmusic is good for bands and albums. The Beatles, being probably the most documented group on the planet, ever, should not suffer from poor sources. If in doubt, WP:RS/N is your friend. --Rodhullandemu 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the 3 visable Geocities links adding FACT. A quick scan of the web links shows a lot of fan sites www,Beatles... .com or even www,Fab4.... .com . — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's my list of the sources (article version used) going by number of footnote: 19, 41, 43, 48, 48, 51, 60, 67, 102. Feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We should...

make a subgenres section. π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that there are enough battlegrounds already? I've never seen anyone cite any reliable sources for changes of genre anyway, and in the case of the Beatles, given the diversity of styles they used, it would be futile to attempt such hair-splitting. In any case, that is a matter for the Infobox musical artist template, within the Music Wikiproject, and probably better argued there. --Rodhullandemu 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Reception

This article could do with some info on how the Beatles were received by critics. Just a thought, feel free to discuss. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, most band articles have them. Something as influential as the Beatles should...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy of deleted "Achievements" section for reference

Throughout their relatively short career, The Beatles set a number of achievements— most of which have yet to be broken.

[edit] Albums

* The Beatles have the fastest selling CD of all time with 1. It sold over 13 million copies in four weeks.[1]

[edit] Singles

  • The Beatles have had more number one singles than any other musical group (23 in Australia, 23 in The Netherlands, 22 in Canada, 21 in Norway, 20 in the U.S., and 18 in Sweden). Ironically, the Beatles could easily have had even more number ones, because they were often competing with their own singles. For example, the Beatles' "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were released as a "double A"-sided single, which caused sales and airplay to be divided between the two songs instead of being counted collectively. Even so, they reached number two with the singles. They even managed to hold separate releases by themselves off the top of the British chart in 1967 with "Hello Goodbye" at number 1 and the Magical Mystery Tour E.P at number 2.
  • In terms of charting positions, Lennon and McCartney are the most successful songwriters in history, with 32 number one singles in the U.S. for McCartney, and 26 for Lennon (23 of which were written together). Lennon was responsible for 29 Number One singles in the UK, and McCartney was responsible for 28 (25 of which were written together).
  • During the week of 4 April 1964, The Beatles held twelve positions on Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions, which has never been accomplished by any other artist. The songs were "Can't Buy Me Love" (Capitol Records), "Twist and Shout" (Tollie Records), "She Loves You" (Swan Records), "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (Capitol), and "Please Please Me" (Vee-Jay).[2] In addition, seven other singles occupied lower places on the chart: "I Saw Her Standing There" (Capitol), "You Can't Do That" (Capitol), "All My Loving" (Capitol of Canada), "Roll Over Beethoven" (Capitol of Canada), "From Me To You" (Vee-Jay), "Do You Want To Know A Secret" (Vee-Jay) and "Thank You Girl" (Vee-Jay).[2] Furthermore, two Beatles tribute records appeared on the chart: "We Love You Beatles" by The Carefrees (at #42), and "A Letter to the Beatles" by The Four Preps (#85).[2]
  • The next week, 11 April 1964, the Beatles held fourteen positions on the Billboard Hot 100. Before the Beatles, the highest number of concurrent singles by one artist on the Hot 100 was nine (by Elvis Presley, 19 December 1956).
  • The Beatles are the only artist to have 'back-to-back-to-back' number one singles on Billboard's Hot 100 in the modern chart era. Their "Can't Buy Me Love" single supplanted "She Loves You", which had in turn taken the #1 spot from "I Want to Hold Your Hand." Boyz II Men, Nelly and Outkast have directly succeeded themselves atop the chart, but The Beatles are the only artist to 'three-peak'. (In 2004, Usher came within a week of matching this feat, with three of his singles ("Yeah!" "Burn" and "Confessions") holding the top spot for 21 of 22 weeks; only a one-week interruption between "Burn"s 7th and 8th weeks atop the chart by American Idol singer Fantasia broke the streak. Billboard's current version of the "Hot 100" chart began in August 1958; before that, artists such as Elvis Presley, Glenn Miller, Jimmy Dorsey, and Bing Crosby had also had three consecutive #1 hits, but on earlier Billboard charts that preceded the "Hot 100".)
  • The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over three thousand recorded versions. It is also the most played song in the history of international radio.
  • The Beatles had the fastest selling single of all time with "I Want to Hold Your Hand". The song sold 250,000 units within three days in the U.S., one million in 2 weeks. (Additionally, it sold 10,000 copies per hour in New York City alone for the first 20 days.)
  • The largest number of advance orders for a single, at 2.1 million copies in the U.S. for "Can't Buy Me Love" (it sold 940,225 copies on its first day of release in the U.S. alone).
  • The Beatles appear five times in the top 100 best-selling singles in the UK. No other group appears more than twice.

[edit] Reliable sources

I would remind editers to look for reliable sources for the Beatles achievements section. Fan sites and "Snope" are not going to help get this article through a FA review and will likely result in it lossing it GA symbol if an editer were to have it reassessed. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Give us a policy or other Wikipedia guideline that snopes is not reliable. I have found snopes to be very reliable. Ward3001 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, i dont need to, ive put enough articles through GA and FA to know what gets thrown out as crap. Sources for FA set a standard, I had snopes removed like 7 times at the last Michael Jackson FA review. Its brutal, no other way to explain it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"i dont need to": I'm not quite ready to accept that. At least give us links (and more than a two or three) showing how snopes was identified as unreliable in GA/FA reviews. That shouldn't be a problem if it happened to you seven times. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure click "show" on the "issues resolved" by user "Ealdgyth" and go down his check list. I had to remove snopes. The question asked by the expert FA source checker was, "What makes these sources reliable". I had to change all of them and a ton more. But clearly you can see that snopes was removed. [3]. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Snopes looks like a tertiary source, much like ourselves; but they cite their sources, from what I've seen. If we can't cite them, go to their sources. --Rodhullandemu 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim should be easy to access elsewhere if its true. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, found another source. Thanks for the tips. Ward3001 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, im only trying to help Kodster get the article to FA where I can. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why this article is a mess, and what you can do to help

As someone who's worked on several FA and GA articles, I'm frankly disappointed at the quality of this article. Yeah, i know it's a former FA that worked its way back up to GA, but for a band of this stature and one that has been so exhaustively covered by sources, it should be much better. There are also some very basic problems with this article, such as:

  • Incorrect formatting of album titles and television progams.
  • Little to no discussion of the albums. I had to add references to Beatles for Sale and Help! to the prose. Sgt. Pepper, often considered one of the greatest albums of all time, only gets its release date mentioned.
  • Unnecessary full dates in the prose. Oftentimes only the month needs to be listed.
  • Unformatted and/or unreliable web references.
  • Undue weight given to the period between 1960 and 1964, although I get the impression this is due to editors working on the article gradually from the beginning of the band's career onwards.
  • Failure to address the casual reader. Not everyone knows who the Beatles are, or has more than a passing knowledge of them (quick, ask someone randomly to name the guy in the band who isn't John, Paul, or Ringo), and all Wiki articles are supposed to address the unfamiliar reader, acquainting them with the subject as the article progresses.
  • Prose redundancies. There really shouldn't be a need to mention something twice.
  • There's a section dedicated to the band's changing musical style, but nowhere to start from. What defines The Beatles' musical style?

Here's a few band FAs to use as models: The Smashing Pumpkins, Stereolab, Metallica, R.E.M., Radiohead. It will also be a big help to talk to editors who have worked on these articles for advice. Useful references fo those without access to libraries or without the money to buy books are the Time magazine and New York Times archives at time.com and nytimes.com, respectively. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with your points on the casual reader: the Beatles in fact are the one band that everyone HAS heard of, and can name all four of the members. But your other points I agree with, particularly on unreliable web references. In my opinion there's really no need to use web references at all, given the number of authoritative books published on the band.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Its nice to mix it up a little, as long as you use reliable web links such as newyorktimes or Time their just as reliable as books. Furthermore the reader can check claims easier with online sources, to ensure this article is reliable I would have to go and buy most of these books and double check it. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You'd be surprised who hasn't heard of The Beatles. Regardless of their popularity, we have to approach writing this article from a general standpoint, as is the guideline with all Wikipedia articles. It will ultimately result in a better-written article. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, ot's certainly not a good idea to make assumptions about what readers know and do not know. We are here now but in fifty and five hundred years time, Wikipedia will probably still be around in some form and we should be writing for those readers too. --Rodhullandemu 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Founded or evolved

There is a dispute on Talk:Paul McCartney about the origin of the band; whether they were founded as The Beatles or evolved from earlier bands. That entry has McCartney as a co-founder, and if they are an incarnation of an earlier band then this may not be the case. This entry explicitly has the band forming in 1960, which I do not think is defensible. No source known or cited has such an event, merely a name change, and it does seem to reflect a retroactive view.

I suggest qualifying the statement to reflect the true series of events. No one today talks of Abel Tasman discovering Van Diemen's Land but most sources will note this is what Tasmania was known as (without getting too pedantic). I propose altering all entries to give "then known as The Quarry Men" or similar.

Alternately if there is some evidence (document, event, ritual, naughty ritual, etc) of founding, or qualitative difference between The Beatles and The Silver Beetles then please cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To a large extent these arguments are semantic and have very little historical information to make clear distinctions. It's not like these working-class teenagers in The Quarrymen or The Silver Beetles hired lawyers to craft official documents of incorporation. Groups changed names and members like they changed shirts. Even if McCartney or Starr made official pronouncements today about the specifics, that may be worth mentioning but it's not definitive; Lennon and Harrison are dead and can't offer their opinions. If there is a moment when The Beatles were founded, it's when the members at the time decided to use the name The Beatles, and that doesn't mean they did not "evolve" from earlier groups. I don't think the discussion should be framed as "founded or evolved". It was both. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Ward3001.--andreasegde (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

The "Todo" list needs changing now, there isnt an "achievements" section anymore. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is kind of, but know it looks like they only have 3 achievements. Hmm. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the TODO list should continue to include the proper sourcing and rewriting of the section; this is important information and should be in the article. No need to abandon it. --Rodhullandemu 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The items listed in that section are all now integrated into the prose, so the section is now redundant. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and sorry if I misread your intentions yesterday; however #Copy of deleted "Achievements" section for reference still needs sourcing, and it's of such volume that it needs careful management to avoid duplication of effort. --Rodhullandemu 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The "Achievements" section really does read like Trivia. I think there should be a way to change the actual layout (not just changing it to prose) so that it reads more like a part of the article than a "here's some facts about the Beatles" section. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't agree, if that's the consensus I'll accept it. By the same token, however "Influence on popular culture" should either be integrated into other parts of the article or placed entirely in the extant separate article. And an "Awards" section should never be created. Ward3001 (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

I think it's best if we all work on and discuss Ruhrfisch's Peer Review of the article. It basically covers all the main points we have, but it's a bit more organized and makes it easier to work on things step-by-step (the way I like it). Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep checking on it, and correcting based on it, but I have transcluded it below. This shows us every comment made as it is made.
It's in here! 

...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at WesleyDodds points above. indopug (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has access to the book The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn, could you please look up in that book the page number referring to the Star Club? For ref 26 in the article, it uses the Cite Book Citation, which really should go in the "References" section. But to use the abbreviated citation like we do for the other books, we need the page number, so if anyone could do that, it would be really helpful. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sheridan recording p. 42, Star Club p. 69. I've updated but not sure we want the full cite in both. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a million! I fixed the refs: if you used a lot of books in one article, and you use most of them more than once, then you can put the full cite under "References" (not "Notes"), and use an abbreviated form like this: Lewisohn (1996), p.69 Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Musical Evolution

I don't think this is a good name for the section. Something to the extent of "Influences" would be better, because the section talks about what the Beatles did to influence music (that's what the "see also" points to), as opposed to how THEY evolved as a band. We probably DO need a section like that, talking about how they evolved as a primarily cover band to one of the most important bands of all time. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Influences on music (or similar)?...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 22:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A good example to follow for this sort of section is the "Musical style" section in Joy Division. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I find these one-sentence additions to the lead to be awkward, excessively detailed, and too redundant with the remainder of the article. But rather than start an edit war I'd like to hear some other opinions. Ward3001 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed an opinion; according to stats, this article gets 17000 hits a day; I would think our readers would be put off by that style of lead, so if anyone wants to revert, I wouldn't be unhappy, and the proposed changes could be worked on in userspace. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted these changes since they should be finalised offline before being added. We owe our readers some consideration as per readability, and they ain't gonna complain because some bits are missing from the lead. They will, however, wonder why the lead is a fragmented list of stuff. --Rodhullandemu 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I, even though I'm the one that added them, didn't like them: it was just a comment at the peer review. This article (with the way it's formatted) isn't appropriate for that lead criterion, IMO...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of 'Rain' in infobox caption

It is from that video:
John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr & George Harrison. Rain (music video). Parlophone/Capitol. Retrieved on 2008-06-11. Event occurs at 3:04.
although I'm not sure it belongs there, and the URL I linked to is a copyvio, so - if it is included - use a different one...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the photo session and the video are mentioned in the Anthology book somewhere, that would probably be a better reference.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably would be (if there's a picture), but I'm not sure it should be in this article...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's from the video shoot for both "Paperback Writer" and "Rain", since the videos basically run into each other. Look them up on YouTube if you're curious. But yeah, that's definitely where the image comes from. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox composite picture

Seeing how we have individual images of the four band members, WP:NFCC #1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose") requires that we use a composite picture for the infobox (See: Radiohead, Siouxsie & the Banshees). I would offer to do it myself (with MSPaint) but first I want to ask if there is anybody who knows PhotoShop? indopug (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)