Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Resolving conflicts on facts

What is the preferred way to resolve conflicts on facts relating to the Beatles? eg if one or more books written by biographers (whose knowledge of events is only second-hand and third-hand) print a date in good faith and then subsequently first-hand sources - the people in question - emerge and publish information that contradicts the date offered by the author(s) - and makes clear that the prior biographies were erroneous - how should we deal with it? Do we say that such and such source say "this date" but the protagonists have published a version that asserts "that date". Or if the protagonists are credible and properly published do we defer to them as having the best perspective? This is not academic. Biographers often make errors. The first editions of the authorized Hunter Davies biography of the Beatles (published in 1968) had many errors that were eventually corrected in subsequent editions. If Wikipedia had existed in 1968 - we'd have had a conflict between a cited book - that contained mistakes - and provable fact. Which could then be changed only on publication of the correction. Would we have pitted the two versions against each other in a "on one hand this and another hand that" approach? What would have been the tipping point at which the erroneous facts would have been removed? The problem especially arises if there are errors in books that don't have second editions - and those books are cited in a Wikipedia article. Do we stick with the error - because it is a citable source? Do we defer to the protagonists - if the protagonists have published differing info? Or do we include both assertions? Davidpatrick (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, if there are opposing assertions from sources that are both high-quality, we reflect both of them. A historical protagonist's sourced declaration of fact has no more or less presumptive reliability than a mainstream historian's sourced declaration of fact. My rule of thumb is that if the ratio in high-quality sources is 3:1 or greater concerning a disputed matter of fact, than only the predominant view need be reflected in the primary text of the article; depending on the significance of the opposing view, it may be appropriate to provide it in a note. DocKino (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But then we have the problem that many - not all - book, articles etc compound upon each other and get repeated by eminent biographers who trust the research or assertions of the earlier work. So sometimes the number of sources is deceptive because - just like the internet itself where errors compound by the mirroring effect - errors can spread by copying Case in point - the 1968 Davies bio cited John & Paul's first meeting to be in June 1956, Multiple books repeated this error Presumably drawing from Davies book - that was in most respects very credible. Which therefore had to use your term "presumptive reliability". It was deemed to be gospel fact until one brave soul asserted that it was actually July 1957. The ratio rule of thumb would have precluded us including what had been published - and was factual - until other books had belatedly caught up. Perhaps a few years later. But if say a multiplicity of protagonists concur that there has been an error - and publish their assertion collectively - how do we quantify the reliability of that? By the number of protagonists (eg three people) concurring? Or by the number of primary places where the correction is printed? In essence waiting for the world of publishing and biographers to catch up with the protagonists. There is a reason for this query! I thought I should start this debate in the abstract..! Davidpatrick (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A rule of thumb is just that; the bottom line is, our role is to present what the sources say, and we are guided by WP:V and WP:RS. Where the sources don't agree, WP:NPOV gives certain principles that should be brought to bear concerning representing the differing views in suitable proportion. If the case you have in mind isn't addressed by one of those three, it would be good to bring it up on the talk page of whichever policy or guideline you think should cover it, so that the documentation can be improved. PL290 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The things are ever so complicated and i have to say all stories surronded this band, I saw James Paul McCartney a real leader as memeber who kept on the group together,he plays a lot music instruments, was a good student at primary school, he composes easily,i know he depressed after the dissolution, John Winston Lennon was a leader as an author at especially the beginning, i know he liked poetry and did the school of arts,i know he wanted to leave the group after meeting Yoko Ono, George Harisson was a reserved person but i see him very keen, he was the younger, i know he couldn't put more than a song in an album, john tell him how to write a song in a same mood...Paul didn't want to help him one day they were disputing when they recorded Let it Be,he introduced the indu music, one day he said they could run a danger by meeting people like kennedy ...Ringo started in 1962, i know he stayed in bed during two years , he worked at a factory of wood, eight days a week was his elocution, paul john and george helped him a little... he wrote with george uctopus garden.he wanted to be actor. Brian Epstein was their manager and george Martin their arranger productor. I saw a film when they begun in Hambourg, they were really different, i saw Lennon and McCartney always fussing and fighting each other about the drummer, McCArtney was on horse lennon was mixing with feelings, they were with pleasant wommen.... there was Breaks durring Let it be session.... Later yoko forbidden julian for some mock up... I think lennon later was tired for commitments...his solo songs had a very sensed I think McCartney didn't want to be involved as a singer, he is not like that ..but he was right in a certain point of view. He said in Beatles he was free how to write songs.i apreessied flaming pie and drivin rain....he did hearted work in a classiacal album, but it's not the pain to be accidented with a taxi when he say i appressiate your own song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.103.149.93 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DiamondKnight19, 5 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The sentence "They have been inducted into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of John Lennon." should read, "They were inducted into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, 8 years after the death of John Lennon." DiamondKnight19 (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Also changed "8" to "eight". GoingBatty (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in lead?

The addition of The Beatles' inclusion in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been reverted. Would it fit better in the third paragraph of the lead with their other accolades? GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If it were to be mentioned in the lead, the third paragraph would indeed be the place. But in my opinion it's hardly necessary. The existing accolades selected for the lead make the band's success and fame abundantly clear. Adding further examples would not, in my opinion, provide the reader with a better introduction to the topic, but on the contrary would clutter the narrative, rendering the lead more list-like. PL290 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Rock" or "Rock n' Roll"

Do The Beatles play Rock n' Roll or just Rock. Do they also play Prog Rock? Superastig (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rock was chosen as it encompass all they have played ...See List of rock genres.Moxy (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki crap

Read this article, good grief. It's a Wiki-politically-correct summary of the most artistically influential popular group in musical history. Vapid and bizarre. The style doesn't conform to ANY social convention. It's a bunch of pro and con lackwits mouthing off. No, Wikipedia, you aren't the wave of the future. You're the wave of ignorance supported by emotion. Give yourselfth a big pat on the back. God, what morons. 76.126.217.195 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw? I'm not a new Wiki editor. I have 10,000s of edits. I am just utterly, utterly fed up with the foolish Wiki policies allowing any lackwit to express their oh-so-valuable personal opinions on important subjects. Kids? You all who want to make a difference? Then be creative. The Beatles did. Do it. 76.126.217.195 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

who are you? i think its the false website to troll.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

1970s

Please remove the 1970s grupos category of the article, because the beatles are not of that time, his was separated in 1970.--JamesMarshallHendrix (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it's certainly stretching it to call them a 70s band. Removed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.132.151.65, 15 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The info box at the side of the page lists Pete Bast as dead instead of Stuart Sutcliffe 81.132.151.65 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the information. Bevo74 (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mold/Mould?

Is the general rule be that the 'mold' spelling should be used because it is a directly from a quote rather than, 'mould' even though 'mould' is the correct British spelling? Bevo74 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per MOS:QUOTE, preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation, which in this case is mold. Piriczki (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes are adjusted to the prevalent spellings in each country. Remember that the Harry Potter books sold in the US bear American spellings to give an example. Once again, British articles always bear British spellings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily when quoting someone directly - if the book has the author writing "mold" then that is the spelling we use; in this case the subject is the quoted writer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the original spelling per MOS:QUOTE and added a hidden {{sic}} template to let people and bots know it is deliberate. McLerristarr | Mclay1 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN

The style of this article follows Oxford spelling, which is a widely recognized and completely proper form of British English spelling. There have been a couple of attempts recently to change the style of the article on the baseless grounds that Oxford spelling is not proper BE spelling. Per WP:RETAIN and the general principle of stability, those edits have been reverted. DocKino (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that Oxford English uses "-ize" instead of "-ise" but that is not why the changes are being made. The page was originally in standard British English. The "-ize" words are remnants of American edits that were never corrected. Per WP:ENGVAR we use the original variation of English the page was written in, which was British English with "-ise" endings. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the case. Far from being "remnants of American edits that were never corrected", in fact a deliberate decision was made, around the time the article was up for FA, to use the perfectly acceptable "ize" form in the interests of WP:COMMONALITY.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The general point there is well-taken: Oxford spelling has been the prevalent style of the article since at least the community FAC process that took place over a year ago. There is no justification for changing a style that is well-established, consistent, and proper in an article that has passed through our most rigorous form of community vetting. The description of the Beatles as a "rock band" in the article's opening clause is similarly well-established and was similarly the language used when the article achieved FA status, belying the claim in edit summary that the substitution of "group" for "band" constitutes a legitimate "restoration". It appears what we are dealing with here has little to do with the maintenance and improvement of a high-quality article, and everything to do with the pursuit of a personal agenda. DocKino (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the template at the top of this page should be adapted to indicate that the article is written in OED spelling, rather than saying, as at present, that it is written in British English. I think most people would take British English to mean the spelling that is used in all the British newspapers and magazines (perhaps with the exception of the TLS). I'm not surprised that someone sees the instruction that the article is written in "British English" and then makes an edit to change revolutionize to revolutionise, believing that they are being helpful. Bluewave (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Done. DocKino (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONALITY cannot be used as an excuse to change to Oxford English. British English and Oxford spelling are different variations of English and therefore Oxford English is not commonality between British and American. The fact that someone made a bad decision ages ago but it wasn't fixed does not mean we don't have to change it now. Per WP:ENGVAR the language cannot be changed from British English. Every other Beatles pages uses British English. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are evidently ignorant of the fact that Oxford spelling is British English. You are evidently insistent on remaining oblivious to the fact that this is a Featured Article, that it achieved that status over a year ago with Oxford spelling, and that it is you who wants to change the article's stable and proper style for no compelling reason while riding roughshod over our consensus-based process. It is not going to be changed the way you want to change it--by acting like a bully, disrespecting our policies and basic principles such as stability. Go chew on a rubber bone till you've exorcised some of your rage, then come back here, apologize for your insupportable behavior, and start dealing with your fellow editors--and this Featured Article--like a gentleman. DocKino (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As you really do seem to be ignorant that -ize is good, proper, traditional British English, let me further edify you. Yet another leading British dictionary, Chambers, not only makes clear that -ize is proper British English, it gives it pride of place over -ise in its comparative definition. Your arrogant approach to this matter would be exhausting in any event, but it is made absurd by your lack of the most basic knowledge about the issue.

It seems you are very bloody well convinced that your personal interpretation of policy and the history of this article trumps any opposing view, trumps the style with which the article went through Featured Article vetting and achieved Featured Article status, trumps the style it has properly and stably displayed for an extended period. Well then. With your titanic conviction, if you can defend you position cogently and logically, you should have no problem at all assembling a consensus in support of the (WP:RETAIN-violating) change you so passionately desire. We await the demonstration of your rhetorical talents. DocKino (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem "evidently ignorant" of several facts.

1. Oxford English is not standard British English. It is a different variation on English.
2. WP:COMMONALITY does not suggest using Oxford spelling in British articles. That would be ridiculous.
3. WP:COMMONALITY applies to all pages. Are you suggesting that we change all pages to Oxford spelling?
4. WP:COMMONALITY is about finding words or spellings that all varieties of English use. Standard British spelling does not use "-ize" endings and Australian and New Zealand English never use "-ize" endings. This is not a commonality issue.
5. Per WP:ENGVAR this page should use either British English or Oxford spelling, which it does. But which one of those it uses is determined by which was used first. The original author of the page used standard British English. Therefore, nobody is allowed to change.

If all the students of a particular school got together and built a ridiculous consensus about the content of the article about their school, does that mean we all have to adhere to that consensus? The consensus was wrong. Changing to Oxford spelling is not commonality as most British people would consider "-ize" endings wrong. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you satisfied that you have successfully drawn, quartered, decapitated, burned, drowned, and blown your strawman to smithereens? Fabulous. You must be s-o-o-o proud of yourself.

Hey! Did you notice that I have not mentioned COMMONALITY one single time in this thread?

Hey! We know you feel very strongly about English varieties, but are you actually fluent in English? It seems not. Because if you were, you would surely have read and understood the relevant passage of ENGVAR by now:

When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.

You began your single-handed effort to replace the consistent and proper -ize style of this article with -ise on November 14, 2010, after this article had long, long since evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs: -ize.

Hey! Do you realize that ENGVAR is a guideline, that CONSENSUS is a policy, and that you continue to violate both? (Do you even understand the difference between a guideline and a policy?)

Hey! Do you realize that no matter how loudly you scream and cry and stamp your feet, it's not going to help you get your way?

You have made clear that it is pointless to engage with you further concerning this matter. The substantive points have been made. The status quo is perfectly in accord with the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and guidelines. Unless and until you build a consensus to alter it, any further attempts you make to change it will simply be reverted. DocKino (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DocKino: You may be right, (in fact I think you are) but your tone isn't at all helpful. Both sides need to dial it down a notch or three, to be sure, but you've went too far. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, it's only Wikipedia, mate. No need to go crazy... McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Formation and early years (1957–1962)

The quality of the writing has deteriorated for the FORMATION AND EARLY YEARS SECTION since 2008 in The Beatles Wikpedia article. The sentences are no longer flowing and complete but are instead banal, boring and pedestrian and curiously are almost constructed as though they were hurriedly jotted down in a classroom by a disinterested student in short form.

For example the current awkward opening sentence "Aged sixteen, singer and guitarist John Lennon formed the skiffle group The Quarrymen with some Liverpool schoolfriends in March 1957", was once in 2008 a more fluent "In March 1957, while attending Quarry Bank Grammar School in Liverpool, John Lennon formed a skiffle group called The Quarrymen".

The current rather lifeless

"Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney joined as a guitarist after he and Lennon met that July. When McCartney in turn invited George Harrison to watch the group the following February, the fourteen-year-old joined as lead guitarist"

was in 2008 a more lively and interesting

"Lennon met guitarist Paul McCartney in St. Peter's Church, on 6 July 1957; Lennon added him to the group a few days later.[7] On 6 February 1958 the 14-year-old guitarist George Harrison was invited to watch the group, which was then playing under a variety of names, at Wilson Hall, Garston, Liverpool.[8] McCartney had become acquainted with Harrison on the morning bus ride to the Liverpool Institute, as they both lived in Speke. Despite Lennon's initial reluctance due to Harrison's young age, Harrison joined the Quarrymen as lead guitarist at McCartney's insistence after a rehearsal in March 1958.[9][10] Lennon and McCartney both played rhythm guitar during that period and, after original Quarrymen drummer Colin Hanton left the band in 1959 following an argument with other band members, had a high turnover of drummers. Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe joined on bass in January 1960."

My main point is that when I first encountered the Beatles Wikipedia article a few years ago I was very impressed with the succinctness and clarity of the prose, the accuracy of the informaton and the lively way The Beatles story had been laid out. So how can this now be fixed other than copying and pasting the older Wikipedia version? I tried editing it myself but my entry was quickly expunged. Can we begin with improving the quality of The Formation and Early years. How do we do this? The history of The Beatles should be interesting? The Beatles story IS a fascinating subject. It should not read like a lifeless biography pulled down from a dusty library shelf.--Kentjohnston (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While any improvements to euphony and flow are most welcome, I must disagree with your general point. While the sorts of details you apparently miss are interesting and colorful, I don't believe they belong in an overview article that must cover and analyze the Beatles' entire career. In the first couple examples you provide, for instance, according to the quotes you have chosen, the older version told us that Lennon formed the Quarrymen while attending "Quarry Bank Grammar School"; the present version tells us that he was "sixteen"--the latter is simply much, much important information for a core encyclopedia article such as this. Similarly you favor an older version that tells us Lennon and McCartney met at St. Peter's Church on a specific day over the present version that tells us McCartney was then fifteen (and still makes clear the month). Again, the present version seems much superior in encyclopedic value.

I am not saying the details you find evocative and involving are trivial. But Wikipedia now enjoys focused, very well developed articles such as The Quarrymen--which has Good Article status--that are more appropriate venues for such information. We do have length constrictions here, and there is now much more well sourced, in-depth analysis of the Beatles' music in this article than there was two-and-a-half years ago. Some things have to go from here, and they're things like Quarry Bank Grammar and St. Peter's.

And again, please let me be clear that just because we may disagree on substance, I am not defending every jit and jot here on style. I must point out that this article in something very close to its current form passed through the Featured Article vetting process not so long ago, which calls for "prose [that] is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"--so you need to understand that the most rigorous community process we have for judging prose came to a different conclusion than yours. However, the FA star by no means means (yes, intentional) that an article is perfect. I'm quite ready to work with you to improve the expression of anything that falls into the "banal, boring and pedestrian" category. DocKino (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.30.164.81, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "The Beatles were" to "The Beatles was" (in the very first sentence).

85.30.164.81 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The Beatles were multiple people, so referring to them as multiple people is correct, at least in British English. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The Beatles are a famous group, but the Beatles who went to Paris on holiday were Lennon and McCartney, and not The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes!Tvoz/talk 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to my comment? Although, that is actually a good argument, I'll grant you that. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the above is an old comment, but I have to say: It is exactly the same in American English when we are talking about a plural noun. No native American (as opposed to Native American) English speakers would ever say "The Beatles was a band" unless they wanted to sound illiterate. As I have said before (too many times), a savvy American would, however, say "Radiohead is a great band, but The Beatles were better." Tvoz/talk 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kshetty49, 29 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The reference to sexual advances by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is unfounded. It must have been initiated by people with their own agenda, or someone who is anti-Hinduism. I am not connected with Maharishi foundation or any of his disciples in any way, but, based on my knowledge of yogis of his caliber, the sexual allegations are not credible. Often such allegations are made by non-Hindus. Please see reference to NY Times article below.

The New York Times reported in 2008 that Harrison and McCartney reconsidered the accusations. McCartney said that the rumors of sexual impropriety were raised by Alexis Mardas who "had agendas of his own, and may have fabricated (or at least exaggerated) the story".[81] In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[89] Harrison commented, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[90] Farrow's autobiography is ambiguous about the incident: she describes "panicking" and fleeing after the Maharishi put his arms around her in a dark cave, immediately after a private meditation session.[91] Deepak Chopra, who met and became a "disciple of the Maharishi's" in the 1990s before later splitting, said in 2008 that the Maharishi had a "falling out with the rock stars when he discovered them using drugs".[80][92][93] In their obituaries of the Maharishi, Rolling Stone and Bloomberg news service stated that the rumour of impropriety was "unfounded" and never proven.[4][94][95] Yoko Ono said in 2008 that if Lennon were alive he probably would have reconciled with the Maharishi.[94]"

Please consider editing the Wikipedia content on the Beatles. Not to do so would be a great disservice to a holy teacher like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Thank you. Krish

Kshetty49 (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the information you copied and pasted has lots of references. Could you please share your source so we could copy some of the references? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although it is not our agenda to paint people in any particular light, the text could be amended if you were to provide actual sources rather than just your opinion and some copied text (which looks like it's from a wiki). However, the allegations of sexual advances, whether true or not, are an important part of why The Beatles left India and references to that fact will not be completely removed. Please refrain from making comments about the integrity of allegations made by people not of your religion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Given the two statements above, I'm going to refrain from performing this edit until references are clearly stated. When they are present, feel free to readd the edit request banner and someone will come along to help. elektrikSHOOS 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the copypaste is from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Interaction with The Beatles. The New York Times article is by Allan Kozinn from 2008, and has an editors' note from 2010. Looks like that's enough to consider making a change, so I've readded the request banner. GoingBatty (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting ...Heres a we can use for them making up from "Mikal Gilmore" who has been a writer for Rolling Stone magazine for more than 20 years. Moxy (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

NFIO template

I removed this template. The justification for adding it was that 10 non-free images was too much for a single article and that the sound files are not all discussed within the article. This is a Featured Article, certainly a priority article, and a pretty long one at that. 10 images is not too many and all the sound files are discussed within the context of the article. Adding the template rather than discussing it here first is a problem for a high-traffic article. Thoughts? freshacconci talktalk 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When sound samples are included in an article, the specific music present in the sample needs to be discussed in the prose. For example: "The completion of this song on 20 August 1969 marked the last time all four Beatles were together in the same studio" is no reason to include the "I Want You" sample. Not knowing how the song sounds doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and nor would "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" per WP:NFCC #8. The same applies to the samples of "Strawberry Fields" and "Hold Your Hand". Further, do we need two samples from The White Album, or two to illustrate Indian influences on the Beatles sound? Minimum use, people.

I also do not see the purpose served by File:Beatlesyellowsubmarinetrailer.jpg, an image added to the article after its FAC. It doesn't even have a fair-use rationale specific for this article. I'm not somebody who is particulary strict about fair-use, but since this is one of our most popular and important featured articles, it needs to be held to a high standard with respect to our policies and guidelines, including WP:NFCC.—indopug (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Segregation

I have not seen any article on this subject. Maybe it would be nice to put a sentence or two on the main page.

When the Fabs said that they wouldn`t play in front of segregated audiences, they gave pop music a new-found social conscience. By Bill DeMain for MOJO http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-1319.html --Roujan (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of Grammy Awards

The Beatles have won twelve Grammy Awards. I understand that only seven were awarded during the existence of the band, but nevertheless in the third paragraph it may be significant to mention the other five awards. After all, Grammy awards should not be something to be made light of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.94.123 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the source on GRAMMY.com, which only has seven awards lists. Which awards are missing from the official Grammy Award web site, and what's the source? GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you counting Grammy Awards that George Martin won for his work with The Beatles? GoingBatty (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On the page entitled List of awards and nominations received by The Beatles, it says "The Grammy Awards are awarded annually by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences in the United States. The Beatles received 12 awards (along with 1 honorary award) out of 25 nominations." I am simply mentioning that Wikipedia is contradicting itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right - there's a contradiction. Should Grammy Awards given to George Martin (and others) for their work with The Beatles count as "Awards received by The Beatles"? (Surely if there can be debate over "the" vs. "The", there can be someone with good arguments for or against, right?) GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although George Martin and others received the awards, some of the awards that the Beatles received after their break-up, are designed to also honor the artist involved. For example the Grammy Award for the Best Video, Short Form is presented to "performers, directors, and producers." Thus, the Beatles deserve to be credited for that Award. The page should be changed to mention that The Beatles' music resulted in the winning of twelve Grammy Awards, and 1 honorary award. Most of the information I used to create that statement was from other Wikipedia articles. If you can, please make changes that you deem appropriate or let's hope that an administrator recognizes this predicament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your logic and wording sounds reasonable. Now all we need is a source. We don't need an administrator to make the edit - the article is only semi-protected. GoingBatty (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm new to Wikipedia and did not quite understand the protected articles concept. Well, I will look into finding a legitimate source. Maybe the edit is not necessary. I believe that only 7 of the awards were designed to be honored to the Beatles and coincidentally only 7 awards for the Beatles music was awarded in their existence. This may have led to my confusion and therefore the edit may not be required. However, Wikipedia is still contradicting itself, and one or both of the articles must be edited so that more detail is provided about the specifics of The Beatles' awards, and who they were presented too. Like I said, I will do research, and make a more adequate judgment of the need for the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. [[1]]

The Beatles' Grammy Awards

1. 1964, Best New Artist--The Beatles
2. 1964, Best Performance By A Vocal Group --The Beatles (George Martin, producer) , "A Hard Day's Night"
3. 1966, Best Contemporary Pop Vocal Performance, Male--Paul McCartney, "Eleanor Rigby"
4. 1966, Best Album Cover/Package-- The Beatles (Klaus Voorman, graphic artist), "Revolver"
5. 1966, Song Of The Year-- The Beatles (John Lennon, Paul McCartney, composers), "Michelle"
6. 1967, Album Of The Year-- The Beatles (George Martin, producer), "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
7. 1967, Best Contemporary (R&R) Album-- The Beatles (George Martin, producer), "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
8. 1967, Best Album Cover-- The Beatles (Peter Blake, John Haworth, art directors), "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
9. 1967, Best Engineered (Non-Classical) Recording--The Beatles (Geoff Emerick, engineer) , "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
10. 1969, Best Engineered (Non-Classical) Recording--The Beatles (Geoff Emerick, engineer), "Abbey Road"
11. 1970, Best Original Score Written For A Motion Picture Or TV Special--The Beatles, "Let It Be"

1. 1975, Hall Of Fame--The Beatles

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy Hall of Fame (The Recording Academy Hall of Fame Awards consists of early recordings considered of lasting, qualitative or historical significance. )

1. 1993, The Beatles, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (album)
2. 1995, The Beatles, "Abbey Road"
3. 1997, The Beatles, "Yesterday"
4. 1998, The Beatles, "I Want To Hold Your Hand"
5. 1999, The Beatles, "Revolver,"; The Beatles, "Strawberry Fields Forever," John Lennon, "Imagine" (song).
6. 2000, The Beatles, "Rubber Soul,"; The Beatles, "A Hard Day's Night" (album); The Beatles, "The Beatles (White Album)."
7. 2001, The Beatles, "Hey Jude,"; The Beatles, "Meet the Beatles" (album) (also Joe Cocker's cover of "With a Little Help From My Friends")
8. 2002, The Beatles, "Eleanor Rigby"
9. 2004, The Beatles, "Let It Be"
10. 2008, The Beatles, "Help!" (the single)

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Trustee Award

1972 -- The Beatles

Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame

1. 1988 -- The Beatles

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Presidents' Award

1. 2004 -- The Beatles

The Beatles' Academy Awards

1. 1970, Best Original Song Score -- "Let It Be" (also nominated: "Scrooge," "The Baby Maker," "A Boy Named Charlie Brown," "Darling Lili")

I only counted for the band (The Beatles)...but not the grand total (The Beatles + solo career) (Note: The Beatles won a lot of other awards outside USA) (Note: I have not counted how Paul McCartney won awards, but it must be a incredible number)

--Roujan (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what about their wins for "Free as a Bird." Even though they had broken up, and John Lennon was deceased, shouldn't those awards be mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.39.143 (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1966 : Japan and Philippines

About Philippines : When people talk about Philippines, they repeat the same thing : it was a disaster for The Beatles. Yes, it was a huge disaster for them. And on the main page we can read the reasons.(The Beatles declined an invitation). But if it was a political disaster, it was a triumph with the public. http://991.com/Buy/TopItems/LennonGlasses/Stiffed.aspx

< On July 4, The Beatles held two soldout concerts at the Rizal Memorial Football Stadium with a combined attendance of 80,000; the evening concert registered 50,000 paying audience, being rivaled only in size by the concert The Beatles gave at Shea Stadium in New York on August 15, 1965 >

It's just my opinion, but i think that this information should not be hidden because it reflects the incredible success of The Beatles in the Philippines.

About Japan  : Strangely I have not seen anything on the main page. Yet it seems that there are things to say.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/beatles-live-budokan-0 In this memo from the British national archives, a U.K. ambassador reports on the Beatles' wild 1966 trip to Japan. (page 3)

< In the event, the 'Operation Beatles' which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. No fewer than thirty-five thousand policemen were mobilised or alerted, at a cost of an estimated thirty thousand pounds.>

Another link : http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html --Roujan (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Beatles Music

Here is a very interesting link about the music of The Beatles: Not on the hair of The Beatles, not on Lsd, not on Yoko Ono, not on Brian Epstein, not on George Martin, not on the dead of Paul McCartney in 1966. NO, a link on the Beatles Music. The Beatles were first and foremost musicians and composers. And like composers, they were unique. Very unique. And that is exactly what we can discover on this fantastic, fabulous link. [[2]]

<In 1989 the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack started to analyze the songs of the Beatles. He published his first results on internet. In 1991 — after he had finished the work on 28 songs — he bravely decided to do the whole lot of them. About ten years later, in 2000 he completed the analysis of the official Beatles' canon, consisting of 187 songs and 25 covers. Here we have ordered this massive work in five categories. And, for your convenience, we've added an alphabetical, a canonical and a chronological index as well as a short introduction.>

Obviously, every phrase, every word is interesting, but here are some excerpts. And I think that these extracts should be incorporated into the main article, because-and I repeat that this relates to the music of the Beatles and especially some of the most important features of their music.

On the Chapter <dossiers> clic on <Beatles' studies> and after clic on <Words and chords> and you will obtain this page: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml

It's an article by Ger J. Tilleken. (Born In 1949 Studied Sociology At Leiden University, And Is Now Working At Groningen University In The Netherlands)

Extract : <As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>

And this is one reason why Nick Stone wrote this. (on this link http://www.learningmusician.com/features/0207/AlanPollack/ ) (Nick Stone was born in Wiesbaden, Germany and raised in various American army bases and suburbs. He is currently an independent scholar and musician living in the San Francisco Bay Area)

Extract : < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.>

Well, if you read carefully these articles, you will find lots of great information. Probably because all these guys who wrote these articles are musicians but also they are very serious.

--Roujan (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pollack's "Notes On" entries are definitely a useful resource, and many Wikipedia articles about specific songs already have external links to them. (A few of them cite them as references: for example, A Hard Day's Night (song)#Opening_chord describes his conclusions about The Chord.) He also has his own Wikipedia article: Alan W. Pollack. However, although he makes the occasional generalised assertion about the band's overall output, for the most part he discusses only one song at a time, so it seems to me that links to Notes On are more appropriate on Wikipedia articles about individual songs than on this main article. --Nick R^Talk 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi -Nick R

I understand what you say and I agree. But here's the problem: On the main page I read the chapter < Musical style and evolution >. It's perfect but this article does not mention the basis of their music: Their chords and their chord sequences. The Beatles were very special about these two criteria. I think in a serious article on the Beatles music, we can't ignore these characteristics. I can't imagine it. Nothing justifies this. It's my opinion. Why write an article on the Beatles music and don't write that < The band itself had a love-hate relationship with previously established harmonic rules and conventions of composing, and Pollack's work highlights the specific harmonic and melodic idiosyncrasies that make their work unique and groundbreaking.> and < As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves.>

Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page? --Roujan (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DocKino

I understand that you control Beatles page. You choose what you like and reject what you do not like. Did you see my question above: <Is it impossible to add these two important sentences on the main page?>

These two important sentences talk about Beatles' music. Do you think that we should not talk about music when we talk about The Beatles? Do you think that Wikipedia must conceal the unique characteristics of Beatles' music?

Because you control Beatles page, i have no choice. I must request

1- Do you accept these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music?

2- Do you refuse these two important sentences which talk about Beatles' music? --Roujan (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Opening sentence

An editor rightly requested discussion for opening sentence prior to any alterations, so changed the sentence from The Beatles.. "are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music"... to .... "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music". In my opinion, the former sentence should remain. To state The Beatles are "one of" is inaccurate, generic, nor reflective of their status.., Pink Floyd are "one of"..., The Beatles meanwhile are "often recognized" and routinely top polls as the most acclaimed act in popular music,[3] [4] and commercially are certified #1 by the RIAA,[5] and Billboard.[6] To have "one of".. is akin to altering the Jimi Hendrix article from .."He is widely considered to be the greatest electric guitarist in musical history".. to "he is one of the greatest electric guitarists". Therefore, i support the original sentence that The Beatles..."are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music". Aussie Ryan 1987 (talk) 21:36, 04 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of this point - to me "one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed", when talking about The Beatles, is somewhat misleading and inaccurate. So I'd be happy to see this rewritten, if proper sourcing exists to make the comparative point, or changed to reflect what sources say but in what I think would be a more accurate reflection of fact. But "one of the" has been in the article for a very, very long time, and has certainly been discussed before - in fact, take a look at the very first 2004 Talk:The Beatles/Archive 1 which has discussion of this and - omg - the great "The/the" debate as well. (Also see the archive index - archives 12,14,22, and likely others not apparent from the section titles.) I don't recall this being the subject of rancor in the way the The/the lameness has been, so perhaps editors would be open to talk about it again, but I'm not sure of that. So although I'd be open to a change here, indeed Doc's edit was reverting to what has been the standard, and therefore it shouldn't have been changed without consensus. Tvoz/talk 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For a long time, I too wanted to see that sentence changed to reflect the Beatles common standing as the most successful musical act of all time. I was happy to see it changed and remain unaltered for so long. An editor has reverted the change back to the "one of" sentence and I support keeping it as it is now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly do you quantify "the most...critically acclaimed act in popular music"? And "are often recognized" borders on weasel-wording. We simply cannot state outright that they are the most critically acclaimed band. As far as most commercially successful we would need some hard stats to back that up with no uncertainty. As to the latter, I'm sure they are, but we need to have the facts straight before we make any bold claims. freshacconci talktalk 04:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello freshacconci: You wrote: <As far as most commercially successful we would need some hard stats to back that up with no uncertainty.> Yes indeed, perhaps it's impossible to determine the most commercially successful. But if you want to do it, you can designate The Beatles. There are many elements. Just 1 example: Their professional career debuted in 1962 and finished in 1970. Only 8 years. And who is the biggest sale of the twentieth century? I'm sure you know it. --Roujan (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure do. It's Elvis Presley.

Well, maybe. Maybe Elvis has sold more than the Beatles, maybe it's the other way around. But one for thing for sure: it is simply not possible to conclusively state who is the "most commercially successful act in popular music." According to Time magazine in 2002, Elvis "sold more records (1 billion worldwide) than any other artist in history"--a figure with which the Associated Press concurred. That was before the release of the chart-topping ELV1S, before his three number-one UK singles in 2005, etc. (For those who want to delve deeper, I recommend these articles.) The simplest response to Ryan's observations about the RIAA amd Billboard is (a) that both deal only with U.S. record sales (and, in the case of Billboard, airplay), simpy ignoring the rest of this great wide world; (b) the RIAA certifications overlook massive amounts of sales that fall short of its gold/platinum/multi-platinum benchmarks--hundreds more Presley than Beatles records have been released, so the RIAA certification undercount of his sales is much, much greater than the comparable undercount of Beatles sales; and (c) the Billboard ranking assesses only its Hot 100 chart--that specific integrated chart was created after Presley's most successful period as a singles artist: it does not account for 11 of his number one hits. So...do not be certain at all that the Beatles are the most commercially successful act in history.

As for "most critically acclaimed act in popular music"...yeah, probably. But, again, let me put this way: I bet more complimentary words have been written about the Beatles' music than about the music of any other pop act...by far. But how could we ever prove that? How could I ever get paid on my bet? As Freshacconci says, how exactly do you quantify this? You can't. I suppose we could come up with several quotes from high-quality sources that effectively describe the Beatles as the most critically acclaimed act ever, which leaves us with the two choices spelled out at the beginning of the thread (I'm going to put "history of" in both, since I think it's necessary when talking about dead or retired artists):

• "The Beatles are one of the most critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music."
• "The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music."

I favor the former for two reasons: (1) I think it reads better, more smoothly, and (2) it requires no direct citation, being fully evidenced by the primary text of the article (the existing reference is superfluous, but probably helpful in practical terms), while the latter would require a string of three or four citations directly supporting that more specific claim. Anyone who wants to push for that rephrasing, it's your responsibility to come up with those cites and bring them here for us to look at. Ryan did his part with the two polls--both from commercial U.S. entertainment outlets. I'd like to see more international support for the claim, and more scholarly support, as well. DocKino (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello DocKino

The sentence is <the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music>

critically : Elvis Presley cannot compete against The Beatles. The Beatles wrote their songs (not Elvis Presley). The Beatles created musical innovations and studio innovations (Not Elvis Presley). Beatles songs are among the most covered songs in the world. (and i can't exclude they are the most covered in the world).

commercially: I don't understand why you talk about sales of one billion for Elvis. You can find the same figure for The Beatles since 1985. About the <World Music Awards 2008> on November 9, 2008 in Monte-Carlo Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry

Another thing. I saw you talk about Billboard and RIAA. Wait a minute, please. In USA, during his career of 22 years (1956-1977) Elvis Presley obtained 17 singles number 1 and 9 albums number 1. In USA, during their career of 7 years (1964-1970) The Beatles obtained 20 singles number 1 and 14 albums number 1. (And The Beatles weren't an American band!)

To write < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music > is not a lie. It's a fact. If you analyse their influence, their innovations and their success you understand why The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music. Like you can read on <allmusic> : < Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did > http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-p3644

And finally finish with humor: On the morning of December 21st 1970, Elvis Presley showed up announced at the gates of the White House in Washington, D.C. He carried a letter, handwritten on American Airlines stationary, addressed to President Richard Nixon...

But In August 1964, The Beatles returned to the US for a second visit, this time remaining for a month-long tour. A request was received from the White House press office, which asked for The Beatles to be photographed with the new President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, laying a wreath on the grave of John F. Kennedy. The request was politely declined by The Beatles as it was not the group's policy to accept "official" invitations. (lol) --Roujan (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, brother...

• You say, "Critically: Elvis Presley cannot compete against The Beatles." I never said or even implied that he could. The problem is how best to express the Beatles' critical standing in the lead sentence.

• You say, "I don't understand why you talk about sales of one billion for Elvis." I talk about that because multiple high-quality sources provided that figure nine years ago. I have done my best to explain that it is simply not possible to conclusively state who is the "most commercially successful act in popular music." Nothing in your response--and no diamond medallion from the "World Music Awards"--makes a convincing case otherwise.

• You say, "To write < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music > is not a lie." No one said it was a "lie." The question is, Is it a truth well told? Please think through that sentence. To support it, it is insufficient to cite multiple expressions of acclaim (like, for instance, your Allmusic ref that they were the "best at what they did"); we need to cite multiple high-quality assertions (i.e., instances of "recognition") that they are the most critically acclaimed act in the history of pop music. In other words, if Rock Pundit X says that in his opinion, "The Beatles are the greatest band in history," that is not support for the claim. Only if Rock Pundit X says, "The Beatles are the most critically celebrated band in history," is that a useful cite. Happy hunting! DocKino (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DocKino

It's an endless discussion. But i have an idea. Why can't we mix the two sentences? Look : < The Beatles are one of the most critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music and they are among the few artists who are often (or sometimes) recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music.> It seems correct, no? --Roujan (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct, but it's not good writing. What we have right now is both correct and much better prose: "The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music." DocKino (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your sentence is that it's not objective. It does not reflect the full reality. Your sentence conceals an indisputable fact: < The Beatles are often recognized as the most critically acclaimed act in the history of popular music >. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Wanting to conceal this fact is not an objective act. --Roujan (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I put references to support that the Beatles are the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html

http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1948-09art.htm

For international sales the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) ranks The Beatles in the number 1, Michael Jackson number 2 y Elvis number 3.

http://verdesmares.globo.com/v3/canais/noticias.asp?codigo=137250&modulo=808

Please consider de above information. Is no enough ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, is no enough. The Rolling Stone ref is redundant; the Digital Dream Door and Acclaimed Music refs are low-quality--they don't come close to meeting our WP:Verifiability standards. The fourth ref is useful--it gives the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) figures on which that World Music Award was based (figures derived from their own particular certification methods and far, far below that magical billion figure in both cases). Thank you. But let me reiterate: Some good sources assert that the Beatles are the top-selling music act in history. Other good sources assert that Elvis Presley is the top-selling music act in history. It is not for us to choose one or the other. In Elvis Presley, we state, "He is the best-selling solo artist in the history of popular music", a claim over which there is much less dispute among authoritative sources. If it was thought desirable, we could possibly restructure the lead section here to state, "The Beatles are the best-selling group in the history of popular music." DocKino (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

About the criticism, there is another addition to rolling stone (high quality) that does not refer to the Beatles as number 1? About sales, if RIAA (only for USA, the largest market in record) and IFPI report that The Beatles are number 1, who would have to declare? Remember, sales of The Beatles are certified, others are only estimates.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If some sources say the Beatles are more successful and some say Elvis is, then "are often recognised" is correct. Perhaps we could re-word it saying they are the most successful band ever? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The beatles are the most successful is said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, who says to Elvis? The beatles are the most critically acclaimed is said by Rolling Stone(if you do not want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), who says to Elvis? Sales for the Beatles are certified, not only his record company said.

Fgonmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all the Beatles' sales are certified. Certifications did not exist in Britain in the 60s. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But in the U.S. yes, the RIAA and IFPI international level. If in Britain there were no certificates in the 60's, this affects the Beatles and Elvis.

I ask again

The beatles are The Most Successful Is Said by Guinness, Billboard, RIAA and IFPI, Who says to Elvis? Even IFPI ranks Elvis third, after Michael Jackson.

I put the link to best selling artist of wikipedia

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

The beatles are The Most Critically Acclaimed Is Said by Rolling Stone (If You Do Not Want to Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door), Who says to Elvis? Even Rolling Stone ranks Elvis third, after Bob Dylan.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For the third and last time: No one here has said that Elvis is more critically acclaimed than the Beatles. Understand? Please, please understand and move on from that.

The problem here is that the Rolling Stone poll does not establish that the Beatles are the "most critically acclaimed" act in pop music history. It establishes that they won that particular poll. We need scholars, critic, historians describing them as the most critically acclaimed act in history to support that assertion.

And back to the issue of commercial success, again for the last time. I have already indicated to you that among those describing Presley as the best-selling act in history are Time and the Associated Press. You know who else? Your beloved RIAA: Presley has 172 gold/platinum/multi-platinum album certifications; the Beatles a mere 114. And when it comes to singles, I mean, WOW: Presley has 91 certifications; the Beatles a piddly 34. In all serious, the point I'm getting at is that it depends on which statistics you choose to look at, which sources you choose to value more.

I can see how badly you want to "prove" that the Beatles are the most commercially successful act ever, but it's not going to happen. You know, commercial success involves not only record sales, but concert appearances, of which Presley had far, far more as a major star than the Beatles did. And what about his dozens of musical films versus the Beatles' handful? Look, if we want to describe the Beatles as the best-selling band in history, we can do that. Or, if we want to say that they have the highest certified sales of any act in history, we could do that. I don't think it's necessary or helpful to disrupt the straightforward, efficient opening sentence of the article to make either assertion, which could be comfortably be added to the lead section's third paragraph. DocKino (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Beatles are ranked # 1 in 100 Greatest Artists and have 11 of the 500 Greatest Album, with 4 in top 10, including the # 1 Sgt Pepper's , that's not being the most acclaimed? These classifications are made by critics, is not a popularity poll.

You expect someone to make a mathematical calculation to prove?

I am posting the link to 500 Greatest Album of Rolling Stone and a link to The Virgin All-time Album Top 1000 List by Colin Larkin. I also put in who is a Colin Larkin:

Colin Larkin was the editor and founder of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, described by Jools Holland as 'without question the most useful reference work on popular music' and by The Times as 'the standard against which all others must be judged’.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-the-white-album-the-beatles-19691231

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/virgin_1000_v3.htm

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Colin_Larkin_%28writer%29#cite_note-2

If after that, not want to change, OK.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DocKino.

Our initial discussion it was about this sentence:

< are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music >

And not like you wrote:

< the most commercially successful act ever >

Excuse me, but you forgot to write the word : critically

By deleting the word critically, you change the whole meaning of the initial sentence, the first sentence: our discussion.

So, your arguments are inadmissible. You must use the initial sentence with the words commercially successful but also critically

But about commercially successful and critically, we can do the comparison between Elvis Presley and The Beatles. let's go

1 - commercially successful

You wrote : < I can see how badly you want to "prove" that the Beatles are the most commercially successful act ever, but it's not going to happen. You know, commercial success involves not only record sales, but concert appearances, of which Presley had far, far more as a major star than the Beatles did. And what about his dozens of musical films versus the Beatles' handful? >

Yes and indeed, there are many different criteria to evaluate commercial success. For example and like you refer to concert appearances, i'm not sure at 100%, but on this particular criterion The Rolling Stones are perhaps the most commercially successful act ever.

On this particular criterion, Elvis or The Beatles can't compete against The Rolling Stones. Elvis or The Beatles broke tons of record about concert appearances, but it's the same thing for The Rolling Stones. In reality, you can also write that there is tons of acts who were most commercially successful than Elvis or The Beatles on this particular criterion.

So, on this particular criterion, you can't write that Elvis or The Beatles are often recognised the most commercially successful act ever.

But because you must use many different criteria to evaluate commercial success, you must also use the sales and the charts. And on these two criteria, The Beatles were superior to Elvis Presley. Believe or not, during their career, (only 8 years :1962-1970) The Beatles broke more record sales and more records charts than Elvis Presley during his career (21 years : 1956-1977). It's a fact. In reality, in the history of popular music of the twentieth century, and about the sales and charts, The Beatles were the most successful act ever. It's a fact. And it's one of reasons why this band is often recognised the most commercially successful act ever. (but there are other reasons)

I think you don't know the unique success of The Beatles. The Beatles broke so much and so deeply records sales and record charts, that at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up - The Beatles was in possession at more of Record sales than anyone. You can see an overview of this document (not exhaustive)List_of_The_Beatles%27_record_sales

Be careful!!! this document does not represent all records sales or records charts that The Beatles broke during their career. NO...NO...NO. It represents only the records sales and records charts which was still valid at the end of the twentieth century - 30 years after their break-up!

Can you name another act with so many records sales or records charts at the end of the twentieth century. Obviously, NO. This is absolute proof, indisputable, because it's mathematical that about sales and charts, The Beatles are the most successful act ever

Beatles 1 - Elvis 0

But if i use another criterion, like for example musical films, it's possible that Elvis Presley is the most successful act ever. Who else, Suppose

Beatles 1 - Elvis 1

For instant, and for the most successful act ever : 1 - 1

Note : Interesting that The Beatles score a point with their music. Elvis Presley with cinema.

2 - critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response)

And it's one of reasons that in term of music, The Beatles are constamment way ahead Elvis Presley. Musicians, Scholars, Historians, Critics prefer The Beatles than Elvis Presley because with The Beatles, we can talk about music: Their < outrageous chords > like said Bob Dylan, their incredible chords progression, their innovations. Elvis Presley was essentially a singer...then...

Beatles 1 - Elvis 0

Like you see about critically (the word that you forgot to write in your response), The Beatles are way ahead Elvis Presley.

Finally by adding critically and commercially successful we obtain

Beatles 2 - Elvis 1

And it's for this reason that The Beatles are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music. --Roujan (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So we will change the opening sentence? "One of The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed Acts in the history of popular music" to "are Often Recognized as The Most Commercially Successful and Critically Acclaimed act in popular music"

I can not find any valid argument for not changing

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we will not change the opening sentence--certainly not on the basis of what's been put forward here so far. If you sincerely "can not find any valid argument for not changing," it can only be because you are not fluent in English. You have not provided the necessary sourcing for the "critically acclaimed" aspect of your desires, and you have failed to prove your point or establish a consensus in support of the "commercially successful" aspect of your desires. DocKino (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From your point of view, together with the Beatles, who else is among the most critically acclaimed. If you agree that the Beatles are, where you base. What references do you have? I have already put the reference of The Virgin All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin, Is not valid for you?. If both Rolling Stones and All-time Top 1000 Album by Colin Larkin stated Sgt Pepper's and Revolver respectively are the biggest albums, in addition to Abbey Road and White Album are in the Top 10, That does not mean they are the most critically acclaimed? Another reference states that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed?

If you have references to declare that the Beatles are not the most critically acclaimed, put them. Or, if you have references at least to declare that the Beatles are, along with other artists, most critically acclaimed, put them. I have already put Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album), The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000), Acclaimed Music and Digital Dream Door (The last two rejected by you). You have not put anything. And we're not discussing my fluency in English.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fgonmar

About the "critically acclaimed" you mention <Rolling Stone (100 Greatest Artists and 500 Greatest Album)>, <The Virgin All-Time (Album Top 1000)>, <Acclaimed Music> and <Digital Dream Door>, but you forgot the <Rock and Roll Hall of Fame> http://rockhall.com/inductees/the-beatles/bio/

<Though popular music has changed considerably in the decades since the Beatles’ demise, their music continues to reach and inspire new generations of listeners. Half a century after their humble origins in Liverpool, the Beatles remain the most enduring phenomenon in the history of popular music. --Roujan (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Recognition for the Beatles is almost unanimously by critics.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here I put other references that prove that the Beatles are the most critically acclaimed

http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1998/vh1artists.htm

http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/

Greetings

Fgonmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.223.137.50 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

More repetitive, pointless blather. We've added "They are the best-selling band in the history of popular music" to the lead section. That's all that's called for. DocKino (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"VH1 does not know about music? There is not repetitive, is another organization. Then in who you trust? Alone in Rolling Stone? Rolling Stone says the Beatles are the greatest artists of all time. Definitely you have anything against the Beatles or you hurts your favorite artist is below the Beatles, you do not believe in anyone and just write what you personally believe.

Fgonmar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Definitely you have anything against the Beatles." Right, buddy. That's why I've made 523 edits to the article and helped PL290 bring it to Featured Article status and maintain it there. Sorry, no. What I have a problem with is poor writing, sloppy thinking, and puffery. DocKino (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   My poor writing is not related to what we are discussing here, and is not your problem.

   Fgonmar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgonmar (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 

Sentence fragment?

Can someone please tell me if the first sentence in the article is not a complete sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.253 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right. The first sentence of the article is not a grammatical sentence. "The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, are often recognized as the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed act in popular music." It seems to be made up of parts of 2 different versions. Does anyone know what it is supposed to be please (rather than me guessing). Bluewave (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It was missing the word "who" ("who are often recognized..."), I went ahead and fixed it. The opening sentence now matches the 05:01 8 February 2011 version. CuriousEric 04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

BeatlesBible.com

The query has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:External_links#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com

Greetings, Within the Beatles material on Wiki I count 137 backlinks to one website: http://BeatlesBible.com. After reviewing Wiki policies regarding external linking, it appears that these backlinks violate one or more of 3 Wiki guidelines: #4 links intended to promote a website, #5 links intended primarily to sell products or services, and #11 links to most fansites. For discussion purposes, I've enclosed a listing of the Wiki backlinks pointing to BeatlesBible.com below: 139 backlinks from 13 different .org domains. aeternumls.org 1 alabamapublicrecordsearch.org 1 bg.wiki.x.io 1 dattolos.org 1 en.wiki.x.io 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 en.wikiquote.org 1 es.wiki.x.io 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fr.wiki.x.io 1 2 gilbertojr.ocorpo.org 1 id.wiki.x.io 1 it.wiki.x.io 1 ru.wiki.x.io 1 tr.wiki.x.io 1 Note: These include the English, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, and Turkish versions of Wikipedia. While I do like the BeatlesBible.com fan site I like several others as well, none of which are linked to from Wiki apparently in accordance with Wiki policies. Fiatlux5762 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 (talk • contribs) Links to The Beatles Bible are references not spam. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I didn't say the links are spam, I said the links violate at least 3 Wikipedia policies. Change the policies or delete the links. If the press picks up that you've got 137 backlinks to a site that violate your own policies *someone* who is favoring the BeatlesBible website is going to have a lot of explaining to do to God. Seriously, I know some people believe that anything associated with the word Bible is automatically THE authority but these links gotta go or 3 policies gotta be changed. Period. Fiatlux5762 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 (talk • contribs) Question - how many time do we use this site as a ref..can we not change them for a more scholarly references.Moxy (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Please take this conversation elsewhere, as this is not the proper venue for it. For someone who is so vehemently concerned about the enforcement of Wikipedia policies, Fiatlux, it's very...surprising that you have shown no respect for this Talk page, which is dedicated to discussions of how to maintain and improve the article on The Beatles. In which there is not one single link to BeatlesBible.com. DocKino (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Discussion moved to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#137_Links_to_BeatlesBible.com as per DocKino request. Fiatlux5762 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiatlux5762 (talk • contribs)

Book links

Hi guys this is to inform all that i will be linking all the book (that are now digitized) in the refs and further reading section today. I have recently done this to John Lennon by request and now have been asked to do this page as well. I normally dont do requests - but this article and Johns page are both in the top 100 most viewed pages, so i guess i will take the time to make it all nice. Moxy (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - --I added the book bellow that all may find very interesting same as link but in book form .Moxy (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• "The Beatles: The FBI Files", Federal Bureau of Investigation, Filibust, 2007, ISBN 1599862565

Song catalogue section

This section, as written, omits enough detail and offers such an over-simplified description of the subject that it borders on being inaccurate or misleading. Just to recap the history of Northern Songs, the company was formed in February 1963 by Dick James, with James and his partner owning 50%, Lennon and McCartney 20% each and Brian Epstein 10%. At that time Lennon and McCartney signed 10-year publishing contracts with the company. In November 1963, George Harrison signed a 5-year contract with Northern. In 1965 the company went public with Lennon and McCartney each retaining 15% of the shares and James and Silver 37.5%. In March 1969, James and Silver sold their shares to ATV without telling the Beatles. ATV and the Beatles then made competing bids to gain a controlling interest in the company but in May a consortium of shareholders agreed to accept ATV's offer. In October 1969 the Beatles sold their remaining shares in Northern Songs to ATV. This might be too much detail for the article but I think it points out how the article contains a somewhat conflicting account and fails to adequately describe the company and its history. Piriczki (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent detail and suggests some modification of the current description might be in order. Please cite your sources for us here: book and page. DocKino (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are several book and newspaper sources:

• Weiner, Allen. The Beatles: The Ultimate Recording Guide p. 11, 16, 40
• Norman, Philip. Shout: The Beatles in Their Generation p. 421-424
• Miles, Barry. The Beatles: A Diary p. 289-296
• "Two of Beatles Rock London with an Issue in Their Music Firm" Wall Street Journal February 18, 1965
• "British Broadcaster Bids for the Rights to Tunes of Beatles" Wall Street Journal March 31, 1969
• "Beatles to Battle Firm for Northern Songs Ltd." Wall Street Journal April 21, 1969
• "Beatles' Bid for Firm Fails; Battle Results in 'Mexican Standoff'" Wall Street Journal May 20, 1969
• "Beatles Will Sell Interest in Publishing Company" New York Times October 16, 1969

Piriczki (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Terrific. Thank you. DocKino (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

rmv "progressive" from lede

• Why has this been protected since effing August? A bit overprotective, don't you think?
• The Beatles were not the embodiment of the US left wing. Please change to "The group came to be perceived as the embodiment the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s." .. with it protected in this way, I can't even properly {{fact}} tag that statement, which is a poor second choice over swiftly editing out the fluff... GlitchCraft (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. MIGHTY compelling. Why don't you get back to us on that when you "effing" learn how to write a grammatical English sentence? Thanks ever so much, LeechCruft. DocKino (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Do you always talk to editors in this insulting manner, or are you only brave enough to do so to those with low edit counts? I stand by progressive, even if I can't add the tag.... oops, now I can edit it. I rmv'd "progressive"; looked up the Gould cite as adequate for the remainder of the text. Thanks for your help. GlitchCraft (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Non musical influences

There should be a mention of Edward Lear and the Goon Show under influences. Although not musical, what we remember from the Beatles are the lyrics, so it does seem right. 92.7.184.138 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cites, please. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

"The" and plural words.

It is grammatically correct that a plural word such as "Beatles" normally requires "The" before it (especially at the beginning of a sentence) or "the" when used mid-sentence. Therefore leaving "the" out altogether is usually grammatically incorrect. Exceptions would be in sentences such as "The last two Beatles' albums ..." There is no grammatical excuse for leaving "The" out before "Beatles" at the start of a sentence. A sentence beginning "Beatles released two albums ..." sounds odd because it is odd and also incorrect. Afterwriting (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes no-one is suggesting that, from what I understand. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Recent edits

An editor apparently decided to single-handedly make wholesale changes in the article without the slightest bit of discussion. Many of these changes blatantly lower the article's quality, improperly eliminating the subjects' first names on initial mention in the primary text, for instance, and introducing many improper style changes and inconsistencies. I have reverted all these changes pending proper discussion here in Talk. DocKino (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that there hasn't been "the slightest bit" of discussion; the entire "Triangular diplomacy" section above shows that Andreasedge sought the opinions of other editors for the substituting of "the group", "they", "them" etc for "The Beatles" and it appears to have been mostly supported so far.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pawnkingthree. Wholesale reversion of (mostly if not wholly) sensible edits is extremely bad practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also agree does not look good at all mass revert.Moxy (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My wholesale reversion on March 24 was ill-advised, and I'd like to apologize as well for the tone with which I launched this particular discussion thread last week. I developed an over-itchy trigger finger dealing with a couple of editors a while back who made sweeping changes to the article based on external agendas and without discussion or consensus building. Those parties have been completely uninvolved recently, and I shouldn't have let that history blind me to the nature of recent developments and the good faith of those involved. DocKino (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I tuned out on the interminable "The"/"the" debate well before Andreasegde's "Triangular diplomacy". Having now read through it, I concur it yielded a consensus to replace most of the mid-sentence occurrences of the band's full name--though I would say that there was clearly no consensus established to remove all such instances. The consensus appears to have been to allow, as a first step, Andreasegde to make the relevant edits as he saw fit and then for other contributors to examine the results and, as usual, improve on them as called for. That's what I've done. For the most part, the results were satisfactory, with two caveats:

(1) It is good and standard practice to have the subject's name near the opening (i.e., first or second sentence) of each significant portion of the article--in this case, that mostly means historical sub-sections. This provides an anchor for the many pronoun references that will follow and greatly eases reading, especially for those who may decide to start reading the article at some midpoint. I restored the band's full name where it naturally appeared mid-sentence in five such cases.

(2) In a few cases, I did feel that the elimination of the band's name resulted in strained or stilted phrasing--a problem anticipated by several commentators in the "Triangular diplomacy" thread, including some who stated their general support for the pronoun-substitution concept. Again, I encountered just a few such cases--three, to be exact. I'll describe each:

• "Instead, Best was replaced by Ringo Starr. Starr, who left Rory Storm and the Hurricanes to join them..." Very awkward here to use "them" in place of "The Beatles" when a different band name immediately precedes the reference and The Beatles have yet to be named in the paragraph.
• "Almost as soon as they returned home, they faced a fierce backlash from US religious and social conservatives (as well as the Ku Klux Klan) over a comment Lennon had made in a March interview with British reporter Maureen Cleave. Lennon had offered his opinion that Christianity was dying and that they were 'more popular than Jesus now'". The contrast with a named subject--Jesus--seems to call for the band's name here, especially as, again, The Beatles have yet to be named in the paragraph and many new names have been introduced since the last appearance of the band's name.
• "Although during the US tour that followed, none of its songs were performed." Poor, passive construction. In improving it to an active construction, it seems most natural to use the band's name, as it appears nowhere else in the paragraph nor in the long paragraph that follows. [I have edited the passage to include a useful quote that, as a side effect, obviates the need to add the band's name to the nonquoted text here.]

All eight [now seven] cases in which I reintroduced the full name mid-sentence may be efficiently viewed via this edit.

I'll note, finally, that Andreasegde's own spate of edits left three instances of "The Beatles" mid-sentence, in the "Musical style and evolution," "Awards and recognition," and "Song catalogue" sections--further evidence that there was no consensus to purge the article of all such uses of the name, which would be insensible overkill. In the end, good writing and ease of reading are far more important than our stylistic wranglings. DocKino (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the band's full name in one more case near the opening of a sub-section, where the attempt to use the adjectival form without the article was too strained. In addition, the following long paragraph, dense with quotations, also requires the band's name in two instances, both because of the contrast with a named subject--Dylan--and the fact that many other collectives are described in the paragraph--"fanbases", "core audience", "college kids", etc. The pronoun that was substituted in each case ("their") rendered the paragraph unnecessarily confusing and very awkward ("the band's" would be no better--Dylan, of course, played with that "five-piece group" and the contrast with his name would sound stilted).

• At the end of the August tour they were introduced to Bob Dylan in New York at the instigation of journalist Al Aronowitz. Visiting the band in their hotel suite, Dylan introduced them to cannabis. Music historian Jonathan Gould points out the musical and cultural significance of this meeting, before which the musicians' respective fanbases were "perceived as inhabiting two separate subcultural worlds": Dylan's core audience of "college kids with artistic or intellectual leanings, a dawning political and social idealism, and a mildly bohemian style" contrasted with The Beatles' core audience of "veritable 'teenyboppers'—kids in high school or grade school whose lives were totally wrapped up in the commercialized popular culture of television, radio, pop records, fan magazines, and teen fashion. They were seen as idolaters, not idealists." Within six months of the meeting, "Lennon would be making records on which he openly imitated Dylan's nasal drone, brittle strum, and introspective vocal persona." Within a year, Dylan would "proceed, with the help of a five-piece group and a Fender Stratocaster electric guitar, to shake the monkey of folk authenticity permanently off his back"; "the distinction between the folk and rock audiences would have nearly evaporated"; and The Beatles' audience would be "showing signs of growing up".

Even with these three additional restorations, we are now down to a total of 13 mid-sentence uses of the band's full name in non-quoted text. The total before the "triangular diplomacy" edits was 69. In other words, over 80% of such instances have been eliminated. I believe that as a result of bringing multiple perspectives to bear on the material, the objective sought in that discussion has been achieved without degradation of the article's quality. DocKino (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Roll up, roll up, for the Doc's edits...

• "Harrison, who subsequently divested, and Starr"... And what comes after the verb...?
• "and Brian Epstein 10%". Didn't know he'd changed his name.
• "without informing the band members. The Beatles then bid". Two bands, huh?
• "their remaining stake in Northern Songs to ATV on". Playing poker, or sticks in the ground?
• "wall of the fan's screams". Just one single fan?
• "'Live Beatles' and 'Studio Beatles'". No comment, except from Yoko.
• "to join The Beatles, had already performed with them". Oh, good. I thought he might have joined the Merseybeat movement.
• "and that The Beatles "more popular than Jesus now". Yoko again, I presume.
• "Revolver, released in August 1966 a week before The Beatles' final tour," So who recorded Revolver?
• "beat style subtly propelled The Beatles," Into outer space?

I think it's great that an article about The Beatles playing music by The Beatles and detailing Beatles' albums recorded by The Beatles is also called The Beatles. Good, no?--andreasegde (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Andreasegde, are you OK? I have corrected my misplacement of the apostrophe in "fan's screams" (thanks for pointing out that excruciatingly minor error) and restored the missing "were" in the Jesus passage (thanks for pointing out that truly excruciating error). That aside, your remarkable..."commentary"...reveals that you possess an extraordinary taste for sarcasm but complete disregard for improving this article and no cognizance of ordinary English locution. There is nothing to do but shrug, sigh, and stand guard.

Oh, just one question, buddy. Purely curious: When the great PL290 finally brought this article to FA status--a process in which I was happy and proud to play a supporting role--where the heck were you? DocKino (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find that if you look at this, [7], you will be enlightened. You should also look at this, [8], or this [9].--andreasegde (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Heal thyself, Doc, before calling kettles black, Buddy. --Patthedog (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

With every improvement to the article, I feel healthier and healthier. Thanks for your "sincere" concern and "productive" input. By the way, Mr. Kettle, have anything to contribute concerning the article's improvement? DocKino (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kettle? How dare you! That really makes me boil.--Patthedog (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

At last! Humour is the backbone of a really god belly laugh. Thanks, Pat. :))

Andreasegde, please lower the tone adjustment. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's called doing the right thing, Prhartcom, and making sure that we keep the faith for all the articles. It's not just about one pet project that gets an FA rating, it's about putting one's name on the list of project participants, [10] and then working together towards a united goal. This is a project, and not a freelancing crusade for an FA gold star for personal gain. The word community springs to mind.--andreasegde (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly who was on a "freelancing crusade for an FA gold star for personal gain"? Let's see your evidence for that personal accusation. Or are you just setting up a strawman that you can knock down...for personal gain? Meanwhile, still nothing from you that seriously addresses how to make the article the best it can be. DocKino (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For somebody to say "I'll explain after I have finished" is evidence aplenty that they believe they are beyond reproach. You did not contribute anything to the 'Triangular diplomacy II' discussion, even after being invited, which is further proof that consensus does not interest you. BTW, your comment, "Meanwhile, still nothing from you" is laughable, as it is obviously designed to elicit a negative response.--andreasegde (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove picture

Could this image be removed?: The Beatles and Lill-Babs 1963.jpg

There are two issues. I have dozens of books on the Beatles, and I don't offhand recall reading about Lill-Babs. Perhaps this has been discussed; well and good. However the picture itself is professionally unacceptable. An image enhancement, probably using "edge sharpening" or "unsharp mask", were used to brighten the photo. It's a common practice, but when it is overdone (as here), and shown on a recent, bright LCD monitor, it's jarring and pixelated. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

BS

• "As Jonathan Gould points out, however, it was not 'even remotely the first pop record to make prominent use of strings ... it was rather that the more traditional sound of strings allowed for a fresh appreciation of their talent as composers by listeners who were otherwise allergic to the din of drums and electric guitars'."
• Is this encyclopaedic, or just the POV (BS) of someone who has written a book?--andreasegde (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Factually it's true. There were lots of songs with prominent strings before then, such as "Stand By Me" and "Save the Last Dance For Me" -- both of which the Beatles knew well. The bit about allowing for a fresh appreciation, etc. is the author's evaluation (a reasonable one). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the style more than the content.--andreasegde (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, you should have said so. The style strikes me as a bit "off" (i.e., not quite belaboring the point, but getting there). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was laughing at it, because it really says, "older people liked it, even though they often complained that modern music is rubbish". :)) --andreasegde (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section title dispute

Gunmetal Angel has sought to alter the long-standing title "After the break-up" to "Post-break-up," while making the odd suggestion that there is something less than "proper" about the former. Aside from the awkwardness, even ugliness, of the double-hyphenated "post-break-up," it's a less fitting phrase. I encourage editors to take a look at the results of a Google Books search on the phrase "after the break-up": three of the first five books are actually about The Beatles. That's more than sufficient high-quality support for the existing phrase. DocKino (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As both phrases are synonymous and equally acceptable for use in English, I don't see why sources are at all relevant. However, I agree that the double hyphenated phrase looks odd. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A simple Google search for "Post-break-up" finds that it is often written as "Post-breakup".--andreasegde (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not hyphenating words ending in "up" is an American thing. "Break-up", "clean-up" etc. are hyphenated in British English. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cragg?--andreasegde (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, these things are never universal, are they? He does use follow-up, although followup looks very strange. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A second shop?

Why have I never heard of this?

"Three days after their relationship began, John Lennon and Yoko Ono appeared in public for the first time, for the lunchtime launch party and press conference for Apple Tailoring (Civil and Theatrical), the second boutique from Apple Corps. It took place at Club Dell'Aretusa, at 107 King's Road, Chelsea, London."--andreasegde (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding discography templates

So, I would like to place these templates on the bottoms of the following pages:

The Beatles The Beatles discography

Some users seem to object. I put time and effort into these and I would appreciate it being rewarded. I think it's pretty obvious why these are an improvement. It improves navigation.Hoops gza (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hoops - I suggest that you change the album links within the {{Please Please Me}} template so they don't appear to be redlinks. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed the font. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I can tell, only the following artists have articles for every song in their catalogue:

• The Beatles
• Pink Floyd
• Led Zeppelin

And then the following artists have articles for every song on SOME of their albums:

• U2
• The Beach Boys
• The Rolling Stones

Please add to this if there are other artists in this group.Hoops gza (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant to this article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To what are you referring?Hoops gza (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

the or The?

One of several sources from the UK Intellectural Property Office which state that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd is at [11] Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've been reverted for following what is on this page, which is it then? The statement at the top of this page or [[[12]]] Bevo74 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would guess this is Y it was reverted as per most recent talk and other previous talks on the subject that seem to have decied on the "The" format. That said you are free to bring up the matter again.Moxy (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely 'The'. PL290 is trying to sneak 'the' through the back door, but after literally months of discussing, arguing, and shouting about this, the decision was made. End of.--andreasegde (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As Yogi Berra would say - this is deja vu all over again. And I agree, we're not going there again. Tvoz/talk 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] But Andreasegde's statement "It's definitely 'The'" is at odds to the statement at the top of this page: "Consensus has been reached to use 'the Beatles' instead of 'The Beatles' in running prose" — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That statement at the top of the page used to be the other way round, ie "Consensus has been reached to use 'The Beatles' instead of 'the Beatles.'" It was altered by PL290 after a discussion involving only me and him (see here). Notice that he never said that he did it, either on the talk page or in the edit summary. Was that discussion enough to overturn what had previously been agreed upon? I think not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I returned the text above to the way it had been, and where it should stay unless and until there is true consensus for the lower case "the". Consensus can change, but not this way. Tvoz/talk 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that. Bevo74 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank whichever God you prefer for that.--andreasegde (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[13] The Beatles' trademark document, which says, "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " Therefore, the use of 'The' must be used as it is part of a trademark. Definitely the end of.--andreasegde (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on this religious battle - perhaps even leaning towards the 'T' - but if the "legal" name is what we "must" use, then its John, Paul, George and Richard. Its not that black and white. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The MOS seems clear enough: it should be 'the'. If the consensus is that, for some reason, the MOS does not apply to this subject, then please can we have that reason recorded in the statement at the top of the page; otherwise, the MOS should prevail. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The MoS is a guide. Talks are underway to have it changed, which is what Wikipedia is all about.--andreasegde (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the legal reason on the top of this talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The trademark argument is spurious: WP is not involved in trade.—Wrapped in Grey (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You should look at the Trademark page. It's very clearly stated.--andreasegde (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I shall look at the MOS which states specifically how to deal with band names, almost all of which will be trademarked. By all means, have the MOS changed but until then, and with no clear consensus here, you are jumping the gun. —Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember the ABN AMRO debacle? That article's talk page is still much longer than the article itself due to the MoS dispute. ABN AMRO in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is not only a registered trade mark, it is also the LEGAL NAME of the financial institution. The MoS (censored) insisted on "ABN Amro" as the article's name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

oh hey, didn't realize that discussion regarding this was happening here as well. I would like to invite all interested parties to take this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(music), as per this WP:Consensus RfC decision which comes to the conclusion: Conflict between guidelines are best resolved through discussion, and the guidelines updated as appropriate.. It seems most of us are unclear as to current consensus of preferred capitalization, and our ultimate goal should be to codify eventual consensus into a clear guidelines, whatever the result may be. Thank you, riffic (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. It was difficult bouncing around three pages. The page for discussion is here: [14]--andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this is becoming a leetle bit silly :). Most Beatles editors are perfectly happy to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on this point. This was shown about four months ago when there was clear acquiescence with this edit in the discussion specifically addressing the question. It was then demonstrated again—a month later—in this edit by User:Rodhullandemu, an admin with keen oversight of Beatles articles, who stated, "Consensus is for lower-case "the", per Talk page" in his edit summary. This page has over a thousand watchers: these and other related edits were accepted without demur. I am a bit busy in real life at the moment, so can't watch this discussion too closely, but having taken this article to Featured status I would prefer to see it comply with the MoS. I hope others will begin to voice their (previously silent) support—after all, complying with Wikepeda guidelines is something editors are generally expected to attempt to do. PL290 (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this article/band is a special case. The statement at the top of the page should be removed and the MoS should be followed. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MoS is not policy, WP:CONSENSUS is. There is a consensus (very strongly among those who maintain the MoS page, especially) that MoS should be followed, except where there are exceptions - which is accepts. The Beatles related articles is one of those exceptions, where the case in respect of the band has been argued repeatedly and consensus has followed that the t/The is preferred. A consensus at a guideline does not over-ride the consensus within an article or group of articles, where the specifics have been previously evaluated. I personally think the case made for use of the lower case "t" is sound, but in performing my responsibilities as a sysop I will act to ensure that the subject specific consensus is upheld. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement at the top of this page makes no reference to a discussion at which consensus was reached and (like the arguments presented in recent discussions) is not justified (as advised by the MoS that exceptions should be) in terms of the article sources. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So where are we with consensus? The Mos/music, and MoS discussions seem to have both decided on "the" in running text. This discussion seems more or less balanced (I throw in that the trademark MoS says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" - since that seems to have been a red herring). So what now? Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

It appears to be stalemated. There is no doubt that the consensus at MoS is for the use of the lowercase t, but MoS is still yet a guideline - on these pages the historical consensus is for the capitalised T, per the very many discussions, and while there is some very good case made for the change it has not yet achieved consensus on these pages. Therefore, the status quo remains for the existing consensus for the letter to remain capitalised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has been able to identify the arguments by which the old consensus deemed this subject to be an exception to the MoS; hence, counter-arguments cannot be made and we are ruled over by the old consensus for evermore. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the old consensus to have lapsed. Maybe there was no particluar reason for it (other than for internal consistency) but it was made at a time before the MoS was clear on this issue. The reason given at the top of the page (which was added after the fact) does not justify it: as seen on the "1" album booklet, "Beatles" is trade-marked. Lower-case "the" is used by sources and even on the front page of the Beatles' own web-site. Time to do the right thing, folks. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely the original argument was not about style but about the name of the band, as a verifiable fact from reliable sources. Irrespective of what the style guide says, verifiable fact takes precedence over style. For example The Times newspaper always has a capitalised 'The' because that is the official name of the newspaper: style doesn't come into it. The last time this was discussed, with respect to The Beatles, albeit a long time ago, the consensus was that reliable sources favoured the capitalisation of "The". I don't know whether that previous debate was flawed in some way, or whether there are better sources available now, but I think there is more to it than an issue of style. Personally I'd favour sticking with the status quo, which at least has a consensus, rather than either making a change on the dubious grounds of style or indeed reopening the whole debate which is not really that important anyway. Bluewave (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But this issue is entirely about style; no one is going to argue that the name of the band is "the Beatles". MoS style says using "the" in running prose; so does MoS (music) and whilst not explicitly excluding it, MoS (music) does not even mention the possibility of exception (on a per band basis). No one is going to argue against a sound reason for the exception, but what is the reason? For example, if there is a table that categorises the list, on the Beatles Project page, of reference books as favoring one style or the other, where is that table? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has not changed at all. Occasionally, a newbie who does not know better would try to muddy up the waters. But that person would soon be taught a lesson. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The waters are muddy because no one can see the evidence. If it exists, let's put the evidence on the table and see if it stands up today as it did then. If it does, great; place a link to this discussion in the statement at the top of the page, and we're done. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The evidence has been posted as a linked citation twice at the top of this page and the top of this discussion. Again, it's [15] Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice that both "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES" are trademarked, and that the mark includes stylized text, i.e., all caps. Strictly following the trademark would require using the BEATLES or THE BEATLES in the article (which I'm not suggesting). Besides, MoS:TM states "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'" and MoS:MUSIC says "the word 'the' should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose." Piriczki (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK Intellectural Property office lists eBay as "EBAY" at [16] so ALL CAPS argument does not hold water. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also listed as "ebay" [17], not that it has anything to do with this article. I was referring to the stylized text, not the mark text. Piriczki (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above citation shows eBay's logo which is rendered in all lower case letters as well as the word mark rendered as "ebay" in all lower case letters. Again, the prevailing rendering on Wikipedia is "eBay" despite it not being rendered like that in government trade mark databases. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is it written in Wikipedia policy that our article text is governed by The UK Intellectural Property office? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about a British subject. That's why we use British spellings. Citations can come from global sources, but because this is a British article, the UK Intellectural Property office is the primary source for trade marks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For spelling, MOS:TIES is our guide. For trademarks, MOS:TM is our guide and as Piriczki pointed out above, it advises “follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'”; in other words, WP style overrides trademark style. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But they are still guidelines in which consensus is the overriding factor. Remember the ABN AMRO debacle? The talk page is still longer than the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus per se does not override guidelines. A given reason may override guidelines, and the consensus may be that a proffered reason is good enough to do so. What is/was the proffered reason in this case? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that capitalisation is important to trademarks. If "The Beatles" is trademarked, than no one else can use that name, no matter how they capitalise it. Whether or not to capitalise "the" is irrelevant to "The Beatles" being a trademark. If Apple Corps do not capitalise "the Beatles" then they clearly don't care about the trademark style. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right that no one else can use that name which is why the tribute band called "1964... The Tribute" has to avoid any mention of The Beatles, Beatle or Beatles because of legal troubles with Apple Corps. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the source given in the first comment in this thread shows the trademark status of the Beatles' logos, not their name. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the trade marks, if you bother to read the source, applies to both the marks and the texts of the marks. So the trade marks are for both the words and the logos. Also, read the copyright notice on the bottom of The Beatles' Rock Band video game page at [18]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, I did read the source or I wouldn't know what it was about. I assumed that the text underneath the logos was just clarifying what the logos read. If it was saying that that text was trademarked, why did they twice list the same text twice? McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We've established above that MOS:TM trumps logos/trademarks. WP:COMMONSENSE could trump MOS:TM but only if there is a good reason as to why the MoS does not apply (apparently only) for this band. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, these are guidelines and prevailing consensus, as noted by the three or so links to previous lengthy discussions on this very topic on the top of this section, is that the band be referred to as "The Beatles" which, as the above link to The Beatles' Rockband page clearly states, is a trademark of Apple Corps. Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So,

• The MOS, chosen to reflect best practice and to promote consistency within WP, is clear.
• MOS:MUSIC, ditto, is clear.
• MOS:TM is clear.
• Per WP:CCC, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales.
• No objection has been raised that is not invalidated by one or more of the above guidelines and policy.

Proposal For the reasons immediately above, this band's name should not be considered an exception to MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is just about style. It is about what is the verifiable name of the band. I don't know the answer to that question but I'm sure it can be answered. A style guide won't tell us the answer though. Bluewave (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS music covers both of these aspects. The proposal is that this band should not be an exception to either aspect. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia style guide can't possibly tell us whether the capitalised 'T' is formally part of a particular band's name, can it? Or, if it does, it would need to provide the necessary citations to verify this. Some proper names have the definite article as part of the name and capitalise the first letter; some don't. For example, The Times newspaper and The Hague (the city in the Netherlands) do so. No amount of style guides can change that. So the question should be whether The Beatles are in this same category as The Times and The Hague. Bluewave (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the MOS makes it clear that there can be exceptions to the general rule for capitalization, MOS music makes it clear that band names are not one of them (MOS music also notes that the definite article should not be omitted when, as in this case, it is officially part of the band's name). The Beatles’ own web-site exhibits the general capitalization rule (“the Beatles”) on its front page. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The example given in the official Beatles web site at [19] is inconsistent: >>Fans can also get a special digital "Beatles Box Set" featuring the "Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964" concert film, a worldwide iTunes exclusive which captures the Beatles' very first US concert. Visit The Beatles iTunes homepage here: http://www.itunes.com/thebeatles<< So it looks as if someone at Apple did not proofread the text. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This just means that they probably don't care either way, or that their MOS is different to our MOS. Even if they did care, it wouldn't matter; MOS:TM makes it clear that we do not follow trademark capitalization idiosyncrasies; MOS:MUSIC makes it clear how we handle the definite article in band names. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The MOS promotes clarity through consistency. “After the Rolling Stones joined The Beatles in the charts, the door was open for acts such as the Animals and the Who” is clearly inconsistent and for no reason. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how your example is not clear. Surely it clearly shows us the correct names for two bands. It's just like saying "after I visit to the City of London, I went on to The Hague and Los Angeles". Or, indeed, "after reading The Times, I also read the Telegraph and the Daily Mail". Bluewave (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It shows the names of four bands: "The Rolling Stones", "The Beatles", "The Animals", and "The Who". Three of them are formatted for running text per MOS:MUSIC (the specific section of the MOS that addresses this subject matter); one is not. The result is inconsistency, inconsistency which will cause the reader to wonder why it is inconsistent. Confusing the reader is rarely considered beneficial in writing. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely they are different because those bands use different capitalisation as part of their names. I am sure readers are not plunged into confusion quite so easily as you suggest. How about "as well as the Rolling Stones and The Beatles, there have been bands such as The Hollies, INXS and Tír na nÓg". If the capitalisation is part of a band's name, we should use it correctly, just like we do with The Times, The Hague and Los Angeles. This is not just about style. Bluewave (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal most certainly is about style: it as exclusively about adhering to MOS:MUSIC, which is a style guide. MOS:MUSIC tells us specifically and clearly how to format in running text, the name of bands whose name begins with the definite article. This includes all four band names in the previous example; INXS and Tír na nÓg do not begin with the definite article and so are out-of-scope of this proposal. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To further clarify, MOS:MUSIC trumps the general MOS (though in this case, it is not overriding it in any way, merely confirming that band names follow the general rule). If you want to change MOS:MUSIC, please go ahead and do so. I don't care what style is chosen, only that having chosen a style, we follow it. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If I accepted your assertion that this was just a matter of style, I might, as you suggest, seek to change MOS:MUSIC (or, indeed, I might simply go along with whatever it says). However I'm sure it is clear from my contributions to this discussion that I don't accept that this is just an issue of style, so changing the style guide would be a bit pointless. Bluewave (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, MOS:MUSIC can be trumped (but not by MOS). Which policy or guideline do think is being flouted by writing “... the Rolling Stones and the Beatles ...”? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Whichever ever one says that to change an existing consensus, you need to establish a new consensus. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be WP:CONSENSUS, the same policy that advises that “"according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales” for rejecting a new proposal. So it seems that the rationale for the proposal (i.e. the bullet points above) is still sound. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that paragraph goes on to say "...editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed". I respectfully suggest that you need to "determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed". Bluewave (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the point of the proposal. If no one can present a valid argument against the bullet points above, it can be concluded that consensus has changed. So far, no one has; let's wait just a little longer before concluding though. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one except Steelbeard and me. Bluewave (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no exceptions—any one may present a valid argument. Remember that the trademark argument was invalidated by MOS:TM, and the “we already have a consensus” argument was invalidated by WP:CCC. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that both Steelbeard's and my arguments are invalid, but that does not make it so. I'll leave Steelbeard to say whether he accepts your dismissal of his argument or not. For my part, I have evidently failed to make clear my argument against your proposal, so let me state it one more time:

• There is an existing consensus that the band's name is "The Beatles". Consensus can of course change, but only by establishing a new consensus.
• The previous consensus, as I understand it, was based on researching reliable sources and was not arrived at simply based on people's style preferences. The argument was that the band's name is actually "The Beatles" and that an encyclopaedic article needs to recognise that.
• The argument put forward for a change to the status quo is entirely based on considerations of style. However, nowhere in the style guide does it say that style takes priority over reliably sourced fact.
• In other cases where bands have unusual capitalisation, Wikipedia uses the same capitalisation as given in reliable sources and does not try change it for reasons of style (INXS and Tír na nÓg (band) are examples).
• More specifically, in the case of other bands that capitalise the definite article (as determined from reliable sources), Wikipedia follows the practice of these sources (The Hollies and The The are two examples that I found without looking very hard). This does not seem very different from other proper names that include a capitalised definite article (The Times newspaper and The Hague being examples.
• People should not find the unusual capitalisation to be confusing. In fact it provides them with valuable information that this particular band' name uses distinctive capitalisation.
• If anyone wants to establish a new consensus, I believe they need to go back to reliable sources and establish that there is no firm basis for saying that the band's name is "The Beatles". Perhaps the previous consensus was mistaken on this point or perhaps reliable sources have changed.
• Going back and rebuilding the cases for and against, based on reliable sources, is a lot of work for very little, if any, benefit, so I would vote for sticking with the current consensus. Bluewave (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

One-to-one comments on each of the above 8 bullet points:

1. The proposal does question that the name of the band is "The Beatles". It recognises that the name of the band is "The Beatles", and thus the applicability of ‘MOS:MUSIC Names (definite article)’ to that name.
2. The current MOS does recognise the band's name: it notes the difference between names such as "The Velvet Underground" (with the definite article) and Black Sabbath (without it) and instructs on how to handle this difference.
3. MOS:MUSIC gives no hint of the possibility of exception to its chosen style preference. A very oddly named band (just "The" for example) might warrant exception according to WP:COMMONSENSE, however "The Beatles" is not at all odd; it follows a standard naming pattern used by countless other bands.
4. These bands are clearly not subject to the "Names (definite article)" section of MOS:MUSIC (which is all this proposal is concerned with).
5. The proposal is that there is no good reason for this band to be an exception to the MOS; it does not propose that there can never be an exception to the MOS (i.e. arguments on whether other bands should or shouldn't be exceptions are out-of-scope of the proposal).
6. "The Beatles" does not exhibit unusual capitalisation; it exhibits the same capitalisation pattern as countless other bands.
7. No one is suggesting that the band's name is not "The Beatles". MOS:MUSIC music tells us to “determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name” (in this case, yes), and if so, “it must be included” (no one is suggesting that it shouldn't).
8. The old consensus evaluated the (implied) style-guides of RSs. Seeing as our own MOSs didn't cover this particular usage aspect at the time, this made some sort of sense; now that we have a MOS that clearly covers this, it no longer makes sense to look at other style-guides (unless we think that the MOSs need to be changed).

In summary, the old consensus was justified by lack of guideline at that time; the current proposal is justified by the current policies and guidelines. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, Wrapped in Grey has made a proposal; I have said why I disagree with it; Wrapped in Grey has has disagreed with my disagreement. I don't think we are going to reach a consensus between us. What are other people's views? Bluewave (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that there is no consensus so the status quo should prevail. The band is called "The Beatles." Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

the or The? (re-stated proposal)

It seems that there is some confusion as to what is being proposed, with some editors believing the statement “the band’s name is The Beatles” to be a counter-argument to the proposal (in fact, the statement is a premise of the proposal), so I’ll try to re-present the argument more clearly.

Premises:

1. The band’s name is The Beatles.
2. The band’s name is not subject to any unusual capitalisation rules. (Were it otherwise, there would be WP:RSs commenting on the fact).
3. The band’s name is used in Wikipedia music articles.
4. MOS:MUSIC is “the Manual of Style, a style guide, for Wikipedia music articles”.
5. MOS:MUSIC#Names (definite article) instructs that, for band names starting with the definite article, “Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized” (and provides for exception, only on a usage basis, not a band basis).

Conclusion:

• When the name The Beatles is used in Wikipedia music articles, the word the should not be capitalized mid sentence (excepting the specific constructs detailed in MOS:MUSIC).

Proposal:

• Follow the MOS (per the above conclusion).

Notes:

1. The benefit in accepting the proposal is, per the MOS, more “consistent usage and formatting”, throughout music articles and Wikipedia as a whole.
2. Per WP:CCC, “editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits”, not “on what influenced a past consensus”.

Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK then, let me also restate the case against the proposal....

• There is an existing consensus that the band's name is "The Beatles" and that is how it is stated in reliable sources, even mid-sentence. Consensus can of course change, but only by establishing a new consensus.
• The previous consensus, as I understand it, was based on researching reliable sources and was not arrived at simply based on people's style preferences. The argument was that the band's name is actually "The Beatles" (including the capitalisation) and that an encyclopaedic article needs to recognise that.
• The argument put forward for a change to the status quo is entirely based on considerations of style. However, nowhere in the style guide does it say that style takes priority over reliably sourced fact.
• In other cases where bands have unusual capitalisation, Wikipedia uses the same capitalisation as given in reliable sources and does not try change it for reasons of style (INXS and Tír na nÓg (band) are examples).
• More specifically, in the case of other bands that capitalise the definite article (as determined from reliable sources), Wikipedia follows the practice of these sources (The Hollies and The The are two examples that I found without looking very hard). This does not seem very different from other proper names that include a capitalised definite article (The Times newspaper and The Hague being examples.
• People should not find the unusual capitalisation to be confusing. In fact it provides them with valuable information that this particular band' name uses distinctive capitalisation.
• If anyone wants to establish a new consensus, I believe they need to go back to reliable sources and establish that there is no firm basis for saying that the band's name is "The Beatles". Perhaps the previous consensus was mistaken on this point or perhaps reliable sources have changed.
• Going back and rebuilding the cases for and against, based on reliable sources, is a lot of work for very little, if any, benefit, so I would vote for sticking with the current consensus. Bluewave (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:CCC, “editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits”. Presenting an alternative set of premises does not constitute an argument against the proposal (it might represent a proposal to change the current guidelines but that of course would be an argument for elsewhere). If you want to argue against the proposal then you need to show either that one of the numbered premises is false, or that incorrect logic has been applied in combining the premises to form the conclusion. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Prolonging the discussion between the two of us is only going to confirm what we already know: that Wrapped in Grey and Bluewave do not agree with each other. We've had a view from Steelbeard, but let's get some views from others. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguing to not change something because of a previous consensus is not productive. The entire point of this discussion is to see what the current consensus is. Do not speak for everyone else by telling us what the consensus is. Reliable sources sometimes capitalise "the" in "The Beatles" mid-sentence and sometimes do not. Sources are reliable for different things. Rolling Stone may be reliable for information about music but it is not reliable for grammar. The Times is always capitalised mid-sentence because it is a title. The titles of books, films etc. are always capitalised. Bands do not have titles. "The Beatles" is the name of a group in the same way that "The Netherlands" is the name of a country. We should not capitalise definite articles mid-sentence unless part of a title. The "the" in "The Beatles" should not be capitalised mid-sentence in the same way as it is not in "The Netherlands". McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough, and it should be nipped in the bud right now. They were not called Beatles, just as certain newspapers are not called Times, Independent, or Guardian.--andreasegde (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said they were, and I also said that The Times etc. are titles and should be treated differently to other names. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that titles are italicized and names are not. (This correct grammar is used above.) In the English language we write The Times and we write the Thames. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

• Support Contemporary writing describes them as the Beatles. The Beatles' press officer referred to the Beatles on record sleeves. So it seems clear that the Beatles didn't object to being the. Apepper (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposal per my argument above. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because The Beatles is the band's official legal name as well as a registered trade mark. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment As discussed above, MOS:TM is clear that we do not pander to trade mark oddities. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal Comment--Have you forgotten about the ABN AMRO debacle? Once again, the article's talk page is still much longer than the article itself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment MOS:TM states the rule "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names." Since "THE BEATLES" is what is trademarked, using "The Beatles" is not pandering to trademark oddities, it is actually following MOS:TM. CuriousEric^Talk 05:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no reason to change the previous consensus. This tedious issue has been discussed endless times. Can we please just drop it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The old consensus has been superseded by changes to the MoS which take a wider view; so yes, let's drop it. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. McLerristarr's logic is sound. —Prhartcom (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I like the Beatles. I am a Beatles fan. (Please re-read those two sentences carefully. Grammar is what is important.) —Prhartcom (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps subtlety is not working, so here goes: I do not like The Beatles. I am not a The Beatles fan. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When used as a noun, the name is "The Beatles." When used as an adjective, "Beatles" or "Beatle" is fine. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. They were called The Beatles (which is a trademarked name, as proven by a legitimate and very legal document). They were not called Beatles. Try asking for copies of "Times, Guardian, and Independent". --andreasegde (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment The proposal is to follow the MoS; the MoS does not suggest to omit the definite article. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal Comment--Once again, MoS is ONLY a guideline. Consensus trumps MoS. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal Comment Please do not speak for everyone else by telling us what the consensus is. The entire point of this discussion is to see what the current consensus is. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal Comment to the Rebuttal Comment that came before this Rebuttal Comment. 'Nuff said.--andreasegde (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thank you for the detailed explanation, alignment with the manual of style is always preferred. riffic (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• It is presumably clear from the discussion that I oppose, but I'll restate here for the avoidance of doubt. My reasons are set out above. Bluewave (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Again? Do we really need to open up this contentious matter again? This has been debated many times, and the arguments in favor of the capitalized "The" - well summarized by Bluewave above - continue to be compelling. MoS is a guideline, Wrapped, not a commandment. And making an issue of this in the face of long standing, hard fought consensus, is a waste of time and energy, and will only serve to fracture the collegial atmosphere that allows us to create a top-notch set of articles about this group. And by the way, we go out of our way to call it The New York Times, not New York Times the New York Times (which has been a redirect since 2002), because that is the paper's name. Just as "The Beatles" is the group's name. Enough - can we please move on? Tvoz/talk 08:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply – Will people please stop making silly comments about referring to names without the "the". No one is suggesting they are called "Beatles" but when we write about the Netherlands or the England football team or anything else containing "the" which isn't a title, we follow normal English grammar. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah sorry- actually I wasn't making that "silly" point - I accidentally left off the lower case "the". I meant to say: "And by the way, we go out of our way to call it The New York Times, not the New York Times (which has been a redirect since 2002), because that is the paper's name." My point was not about omitting the "the", it was about the need to capitalize the "The". Sorry for that confusion. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, that's OK then but my comment still applies to all the other editors who actually are making comments about missing out the "the". McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support use of "the Beatles" in running prose as per the Wikipedia guidelines which are the result of wider consensus than this talkpage, and per verified reliable sources. One of the main arguments I have noted for using "The Beatles" are that such usage is long standing - research shows that "the Beatles" has been used in earliest versions 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and 2006 - by 2007 there is equal mixed use of "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" - [20], then by 2008, usage of "The Beatles" is the majority - [21]. In 2009, lower case usage is back as the majority - [22], though revert wars are evident. Interestingly, when the article was voted in as a Featured Article in November 2009 there was an equal mix of lower and upper case - [23]. I don't see long standing consensus for using uppercase. For most of the article's history, and the earliest use, has been lowercase. There appears to have been a gradual and inconsistent creep of the use of "The Beatles", and this creep has been challenged on the talkpages. The change toward The Beatles has not been without protest! Another main argument has been the trade mark usage, but this has shown to be an inaccurate and inappropriate argument. The final main argument is that some sources do use "The Beatles". This is true, though it appears that the bulk of reliable sources use "the Beatles". While usage of upper or lowercase is not that important, and sources have used both, and like our article sometimes used both simultaneously, so there is no absolute "correct" usage, that there is an issue about it means that it would be better if it were resolved, and as our particular Manual of Style says use lower case, we should be following our own guidelines. That is why we have them - if there is a local dispute, we consult the wider consensus of the guidelines. I think I've waffled a bit in writing this as I have been distracted in Real Life - if I'm not clear, please let me know, and I'll rewrite. SilkTork *^YES! 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeHotcop2 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote; you must provide a reason to generate discussion or you opinion will be ignored. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the group is The Beatles. Conversely, the name of a well-known disco group was Village People, not The Village People, but you'd need the "the" to describe them without sounding insane or Japanese. Hope this helps. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that comment Mclay? If you mean that in your opinion it is ineffective to use a single word to express one's position on a topic that has been discussed to death for years here, that's a reasonable observation (although I might disagree), but if you're suggesting that Hotcop's position would be ignored by anyone wanting to judge what the spirit of this group is on the matter, then I take serious exception. I am not aware of any rules like that for this kind of temperature-taking on an issue - it's not an RfA, for example, or even an AfD. Some of us have been around this block numerous times, and after a while you get tired of making the same argument over and over to the latest flurry of indignation about a repeated, fairly-reached, long-standing consensus. Hotcop is a very long time editor of articles about The Beatles - he's most certainly not a "drive-by" dropping in a "vote" - and my guess would be that he, like many of us, thought this was settled long ago. He can speak for himself, to be sure, but I am not comfortable with a suggestion that a one- word response would be ignored. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAVOTE#Straw poll guidelines #8. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with that guideline. It does not threaten as does "you must provide a reason to generate discussion or you opinion will be ignored". It advises " votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored." There's a difference. Tvoz/talk 08:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is the writers of that guideline were being diplomatic, whereas as I'm telling it like it is. Just adding a load of Supports or Opposes to the discussion is not helpful. I made that comment in the hope that the writer of the comment would then say something, which they did. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. (1) This is not really a question of correct spelling, but a question of house style. It does not matter what the official name or mode of address of The Beatles or of Her Majesty The Queen or of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. If it's common to call them the Beatles, Elizabeth II or Pennsylvania, then we may decide to do so both in the title of an article on the subject and elsewhere. (2) Our house style says that in this situation we do not capitalise the definite article. That's not unusual at all as you can see by doing Google Books searches on sentence fragments such as "the Beatles went". When the definite article does not start a sentence, it is spelled with a small letter in about half the books found. I tested the same for the Guardian website (the website of The Guardian for anyone confused by the capitalisation) and found that on the first two pages of hits the definite article was consistently spelled with a small letter. So our house style appears to agree with theirs, which rules out the theoretical possibility that there should be an exception for UK-related articles. (3) Titles losing their special status is a sign of importance and success, because it only happens when they are appear often. If we use in-sentence capitalisation of articles for some groups but not for others, then we must use it for the less important groups. It's beyond absurd to do it only for the Beatles and no other groups, because it indicates that the Beatles are one of the least important groups. Which they are not. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point about Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, given that the most common usage is The Queen - capitalised T - in the English speaking countries, is that the band Queen do not have any type of t/The prefacing their name. How does the MOS address this? Well, by referring to them in article space as Queen or "the band Queen" - which indicates that there are exceptions. It is not consistent, nor is it good grammar, but it is permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Common usage is not "The Queen", it's "the Queen". Writing "The Queen" in the middle of a sentence is wrong by anyone's standards. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "the Beatles" is way more informal than "The Beatles", that was their official name, not only "Beatles". Diego Grez (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Comment The proposal is not about formaility;it's about consistency. At the moment, we have to write "... the Rolling Stones and the Kinks, while The Beatles ..." — madness. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes... you're right. Support for consistency. Diego Grez (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  Question - How would this logic apply to The Who? — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - As an editor, I would rather have a consistent "house style" (i.e. MOS) than to have different rules for different bands. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:MOS. Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per WP:Consensus. Earlier I saw someone strongly suggest another editor not tell them what the consensus is, because this latest poll is being used to determine it... At that point, I realised that there is a grave misunderstanding of what WP:Consensus is and how it is applied; WP:Consensus is the weighing of opinions of interpretation of policy and guidelines, and determining which is closest to the spirit intended. Once WP:Consensus has been established it can only be changed when policy or guidelines are changed, or the interpretations upon them. Crucially, WP:Consensus is not a vote or a shouting match or a slow edit war. You do not get to run a few polls, and when you get the result you like declare the result is "consensus" - that is how it may work IRL, but not on Wikipedia.
  The existing WP:Consensus (I trust no-one objects to these capitals in running text...) is that the band should be referred to as The Beatles whenever the entity is noted anywhere in the article. This poll may not, per WP:Consensus, seek to replace the existing WP:Consensus, but to determine whether the existing WP:Consensus still holds - and it has to be shown that it does not, demonstrably. The case presented is that the relevant WP:MOS guideline sufficiently deprecates the existing WP:Consensus. It cannot, as Guidelines do not trump Policy. What has been agreed on the WP:MOS guideline page may not supersede policy on any page on Wikipedia unless it has consensus on the policy page or local consensus on any page effected by that policy.
  As an editor, although preferring to capitalise the T, I was convinced by the arguments for the lower case. As an admin, I am concerned at the continuing efforts by editors of whom most are more involved in effecting a standardisation to a guideline rather than contributing to the article which they desire to comply with said guideline. It is a very fine guideline, and a boon to the project, but it cannot be imposed without a WP:Consensus involving those people who edit the article to which it is proposed to be applied. When it is shown that the existing WP:Consensus is in error, that the Policies it relies on have been deprecated or changed or the interpretations upon it are flawed or obsolete, then there may be a discussion on what the WP:Consensus should be. Until then, go away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this page has a local consensus that contradicts the project-wide consensus of what to do with such titles for no good reason. It's perfectly OK for a local consensus to override a global consensus if the local situation is special in a way that can justify this. However, a local consensus cannot, in the long run, override a global consensus in the absence of such special factors. E.g. the editors of an article may decide to use Wikipedia's server logs as a source for novel claims in an article if all the "reliable" secondary sources get things totally wrong and make untrue accusations against a living person. (This actually happened on Sam Blacketer controversy.) But editors may not decide to write an article without using the letter e because that's a cool thing to do in the lipogram article. (This also happened.) Note that in the latter case there is even a marginally special situation, while there is nothing special about a capitalised definite article in a trademark.

As long as there is a tension between local and global consensus on this matter, you will have these discussions. Don't complain about the discussions if you contribute to the problem. If you want to voice your opinion here, as a normally responsible editor and respected admin, support the change. If for some reason you are unable to do that, work for a change of the general rules that you are in conflict with, don't just vote for ignoring them. And if you can't change the global consensus, accept it. Hans Adler 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: And, seriously now, you have been an admin for ages and you dare oppose a proposal to get an article in line with both the general MOS and the subject-specific MOS, which has very detailed guidance for precisely the situation that arises at the article – based only on the rationale that the proposal is against "consensus"? Hans Adler 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In what way does WP:CONSENSUS oppose this proposal? This is a discussion to see what the current consensus is. WP:CONSENSUS does not say that once consensus has been reached, it is unchangeable and no discussions are allowed to take place so "go away". McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We write articles for our readers, not for ourselves. So it scarcely matters in that regard, since the only complaints, if any, are coming from within. That's a particularly introspective, if not selfish, viewpoint. So the MOS has changed? So what? It's a guideline, descriptive and not prescriptive. As long as I've been here, this debate has resurfaced again and again an again, to the extent that it is recorded in WP:LAME. This does us no credit whatsoever, because if I were an external commentator looking at this spat in the context of other stuff that is flagged for attention in Wikipedia, my immediate reaction would be "WTF? Let it be". If this really fails as an article, fix it; but FFS, do not fix that which isn't broken for the sake of trivial detail. Have our readers complained? I do not think so. So leave it and get on with the work that really does need doing. WP:LAME is just waiting to expose the irrationality that exhibits here. It works, so don't fix it. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal Comment Rarely could I disagree with you, Rodhullandemu; you are one of the most respected administrators on Wikipedia, certainly one of the most respected in the Beatles space. I particularly enjoyed your point about WP:LAME. But regarding your last sentence...perhaps it doesn't work. Perhaps our readers wish we would fix it. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you whole-heartedly if those casual readers made a point of the difference here; but the facts that remains is that they haven't. This makes me think that they are happy with things the way they are. Let's be clear here; this is perhaps one of the most scrutinised articles we have, and if readers are unhappy with the way it's written, either they don't understand our processes for changing things, or they do not wish to intervene. And that, I think, is the bottom line. Perfection is extremely subjective, but adequacy seems to be generally acceptable. Meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Rodhullandemu 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are satisfied with mere adequacy? Unless a casual reader goes out of their way to make a complaint on the talk page, then an article is fine? McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote safety-critical real-time software, "adequacy" was the highest accolade achievable, measured against meeting requirements. Anything else was just fluff. I'm not suggesting that no article cannot be improved, but that in order to survive and fulfil its informative purpose, "adequate" is a useful measure for an article. This article achieves that, in my view, and minor details are beyond argument. In particular, arguments of form over content are unusually unhelpful, because the reader has the same experience of being informed, whatever the detail, and in my experience, this is not a contentious issue for them. Why is that so hard to understand? Rodhullandemu 02:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea you were a The Beatles fan! Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That was a lot of words to say you oppose the proposal. Do you also have a reason? The proposal is to bring the article in line with the relevant guidelines and should not even be necessary because the edits bringing it in line with the relevant guidelines should be uncontroversial. What's your rationale for not following the guidelines? Are they wrong? Is consistency across the project evil? You are not saying, so we have to guess. Hans Adler 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are advisory: descriptive rather than prescriptive. In this special case, historical consensus seems to be different, and it would take some persuading to overrride such consensus. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the "It has always been that way although nobody really seems to remember why and I certainly don't, but I oppose change because I don't want things to change" argument, combined with the ever popular "that's only a guideline" argument. Together they don't make a valid argument. Not a single valid argument against the proposal has been offered. One half of the opponents is either too stupid or pretends to be too stupid to understand that according to the relevant guidelines the Beatles' official name doesn't matter much more than that of the "Commonwealth of" Pennsylvania. The other half simply makes unverifiable claims about a supposed consensus that apparently trumps guidelines a priori. Persuading to override a consensus can only happen in an atmosphere in which both sides take part in a discussion in good faith. That is not the case here. One side is pointing out that this article violates all applicable guidelines for no good reason at all. The other side is simply sitting on the status quo, content with the fact that they can veto any change through their large number. It's an abuse of the fact that editors are reluctant to take a trifle such as this to a project-wide RfC. Hans Adler 08:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I dislike the attitude of thinking a problem is too minor to address. A problem is a problem. You may not think it is but some of us clearly do. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem is an opportunity, but to ignore history, and the collective wisdom of previous editors who have debated this issue long and hard, with much metaphorical bloodshed, is to ride roughshod over the prevailing consensus. In other words, you need an extremely strong case. And it's only a problem because you have chosen to make it so rather than to balance the history. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is no "real" reason for the change besides some "style" guideline that has changed that does not override any consensus here. As mentioned above by SilkTork yes the style has not always been consistent - but has been stable since its last FA review in 2009 and can only imagine this is when and were the "Style" was discussed. I can imagine how frustrating it must be for the long time editors of the page to have to deal with this all the time and now by way of guideline dogma....Moxy (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that guidelines override consensus. We are trying to get a new consensus. Would those who oppose please co-operate in the discussion and not just oppose because "that's the way it's always been" or "no reason to change"? Please provide actual reasons. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if i was not clear ...just got sidetracked by the time i was done reading all to this point and forgot the point. I think "The Beatles" is the way to go - just looks right and is what i have seen used most of the time.Moxy (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• The words and music of John Lennon By Ben Urish, Kenneth G. Bielen 2007
• The songwriting secrets of the Beatles By Dominic Pedler 2003
• With the Beatles: the historic photographs of Dezo Hoffmann By Dezo Hoffmann, Pearce Marchbank 1982
• The Beatles: A Diary By Barry Miles 2002
• Why Don't We Do It in the Road?: The Beatles Phenomenon By John Astley 2006
• The rough guide to the Beatles By Chris Ingham 2003
• The Music of George Harrison: While My Guitar Gently Weeps By Simon Leng 2003
• Beatles-Discography.com: Day-By-Day Song-By-Song Record-By-Record By Craig Cross 2004
• The Beatles - after the break-up: in their own words By David Bennahum 1991
• The Beatles Diary: The Beatles years By Barry Miles, Keith Badma 2001
• The Beatles Off the Record: The Dream Is Over By Keith Badman 2002
• The Beatles By Jeremy Roberts 2002

Comment @Moxy: The contention is not that the local consensus (based on the style guides of certain Beatles books) was wrong at the time; it is that it is at odds with the later and wider consensus. @LessHeard: “Earlier I saw someone strongly suggest another editor not tell them what the consensus is, because this latest poll is being used to determine it”. Neither did the editor use the word poll (he used discussion) nor is the discussion being treated as one. “Once WP:Consensus has been established it can only be changed when policy or guidelines are changed”. The local consensus was made in 2008; the MOS:MUSIC consensus was made in 2010. The Beatles wikiproject is a child of the Music wikiproject. WP:CONSENSUS: participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.— Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - the reasons for support outweigh the reasons to oppose.

Reasons for "the" (support):

1. Several books use "the Beatles". Mark Lewisohn is described as the world's leading authority on the Beatles. Google books shows snipets from his book "The Beatles Recording Sessions" here. Hunter Davies wrote the book "The Beatles", Google books also shows his use of "the Beatles" midsentence here.
2. Several major publications use "the Beatles": The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times.

Reasons for "The" (oppose):

1. WP:TM states "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names.", requiring "The Beatles" should always be used.
2. www.thebeatles.com uses both "The" and "the" (here and here) so either should be acceptable.
3. Too much time spent debating this issue, and further editing required to undo the efforts of past consensus.
4. "It works, so don't fix it." stated above by Rodhullandemu.

CuriousEric^Talk 06:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong preference for not arguing this again, (as it's a waste of time to argue it) with a lesser preference for the status quo ante. (as it's a waste of time to change it) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Lar, about the extreme waste of time that this is. Tvoz/talk 08:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - If we look for a broad consensus in the Beatles sources we find that Gould uses lower case, Spitz uses lower case, Harry uses lower case, Lewisohn uses lower case, so does Davies. Miles uses lower case in Paul's bio, but upper in The Beatles Diary. George Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, and Brian Epstein all used lower case in their books. Carlin uses lower case in A Life. In Lennon Remembers, Wenner uses lower case even when quoting John. In John, Cynthia uses lower case, as does Norman, Seaman and Goldman in their Lennon bios. Patty Boyd uses lower case in her book. Interestingly, if you look through the liner notes from the 2009 remasters, you will find examples of both upper and lower case, sometimes changing from page to page (Abbey Road and The Beatles, aka The White Album), and though upper case seems to be preferred in general, Derek Taylor used lower for at least one of his original album liner notes (Beatles For Sale). I support the change to lower case not without some reservations, but because the bulk of reliable sources use "the Beatles", the MoS says we should not capitalise definite articles mid-sentence unless part of a title, and for the sake of consistency across the project. — GabeMc (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody fancy a pie and a pint? --andreasegde (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment With luck we can keep going on and on about this longer than the Beatles' (sic) recording career. We can find it all the way back in Archive 1 of the talk page way back on 25 June 2004,[24] a little over 6 years and 7 months ago. If we count their recording career from the time JPG+R first were all together in a professional recording studio until the last time, that's 4 Sept 1962 to 20 Aug 1969. So remember fab friends, 6 years, 11 months and 16 days is what we're pulling for! Oh, and as for the vote thingy: the Beatles called themselves "the Beatles" and that's good enough for me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then since it sounds like you support the proposal, and since you have not voted yet, could you please change your word "Comment" above to "Support"? —Prhartcom (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rodhullandemu and CuriousEric. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I personally don't see the point in wasting server space over something this small and pointless. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Guerillero, CuriousEric supports the change to lower case. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rodhullandemu and CuriousEric. I'm really not sure how or why this is perceived to be such a significant problem that takes up so much of the discussion page. The band's legal name is The Beatles, not Beatles. Obviously, in such instances where grammar is a question the "The" can be eliminated or the sentence can be rearranged. This does not mean we have to change every "The Beatles" to "Beatles". After all, I could tell you I read something "in that New Yorker article" because it's being used as an adjective, but if you ask me to repeat what the name of the magazine was I say "The New Yorker", because that's its proper name. That's what Wikipedia, a website dedicated to facts and accuracy, should be showing. Krobertj (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, did you read the discussion at all? Nowhere has anyone suggested removing the "the" from their name. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, and FYI Krobertj, CuriousEric supports the change to lower case. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Contemporary articles - including those by the band's own press officer - refer to them as "the Beatles". Band naming has changed since the sixties; generally 50s/60s bands had pluralised names (eg Freddy and the Dreamers, the Rolling Stones, the Ink Spots). The "the" wasn't part of the name; band members would refer to themselves as "Beatles" not as "one of The Beatles". Apepper (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it sounds like you support, not oppose, the proposal to use the lower case "the". Could you please clarify? —Prhartcom (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that (it used to say Oppose). —Prhartcom (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. What is all this about the Manual of Style? Read the thing:

Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose. Specific cases where "the" should be capitalized mid-sentence are: when quoted, e.g. ... and according to BBC journalist Julie Glassman, “they can boast almost as many tribute bands as The Beatles”. Read 'em and weep, because that is exactly what is written in the MoS.. --andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the guidlines when quoted. In the case shown, the editor is quoting someone else who used the upper case definite article. [25] It is not applicable to our discussion. This is. —Prhartcom (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What, like "Correct (title): J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings."? Is that not applicable? Your argument doesn't hold water on any level.--andreasegde (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was pointing out you cannot use that particular example from the MoS in your argument, as it was not applicable to our discussion (we are not discussing the capitalisation of the definite article when quoting other people, as your example is doing). Now you have moved on to some other example in the MoS, and I can only assume you're hoping I won't notice. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Meow. The Beatles are a famous group, but the Beatles who went to Paris on holiday were Lennon and McCartney, and not The Beatles. --andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. No question that the band's full name is "The Beatles", and we can use that in formal contexts. But similarly, common usage refers to them as just "Beatles"much more often than not. To put in an outside perspective: In Germany, they are universally knows as "die Beatles", not "die The Beatles" (which would be grammatically fine, but which I have never seen). For common usage in English see e.g. Allmusic, Rolling Stone Magazine, The Times (ironically? ;-), the Guardian, NYT. Also, see WP:LAME. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - If we look to the Beatles' official logo, we see that all the letters in "the" are the same size, and only the "B" in "Beatles" is capitalized. — GabeMc (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me that all the letters in the Beatles logo are capitalized, and the "B" and "T" in "BEATLES" are larger than the rest of the letters. (Don't know how your comment pertains to the "the" versus "The" debate.) GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The difference between a 'T' and a 't' is very evident, as are H/h, and E/e. Oompah, Oompah. --andreasegde (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is this, the "t" in "the" is not larger then the "h" or the "e", so while they all appear to be a capitalized font, there is no debating that the "B" is larger than the "e" it preceeds. If the "t" in "the" were capitalized, then it would appear larger then the "h" it preceeds, it does not. — GabeMc (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the examples of The New York Times and The New Yorker are correct but the reasoning is incorrect and doesn't necessarily apply to the name of group. The definite article "The" is included because it is part of a title of a book, magazine, newspaper or other literary or artistic work, not because it is a proper noun. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Use of "The" mid-sentence Piriczki (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:MOS. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact is that if the article wanted to be correct according to how English is generally written, then sometimes "the Beatles" would be used and sometimes "The Beatles" would be used, depending on what is being referred to. So I'm saying everybody's wrong really. I know this isn't a realistic outcome, but in sentences where "the Beatles" is referring to a group of people who happen to be in the band "The Beatles" then it should be lowercased. When sentences refer to the band "The Beatles" as an entity then "the" should be capitalized because The Beatles is the proper name of the band, and the first word of a proper name, even if a definite article, should always be capitalized. example: "I walked into the restaurant and the Beatles were all there eating." In that sentence It's reffering to the four members of The Beatles. Second example: "I walked into the restaurant and the four members of The Beatles were all there eating." The difference between the first sentence and the second is that the "the" in the first sentence is similar to the FIRST the in the second sentence. In the first sentence the "the" is just a definite article, and should not be capitalized. More examples. Ringo says "I'm the Beatle who drums." vs. Ringo saying "I'm the drummer for The Beatles". Again in one sentence "the" is just a definite article and in the second "The" is taking place as part of the proper name of the band. This is the MOST correct usage, not one single answer. However if that's just too hard or confusing then I would say use The Beatles every time because the band as an entity is being referred to more often than the group of band members as individuals. 24.111.116.220 (talk) Matt S. —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

Sources

• A quotation from Fifty Years Adrift by Derek Taylor using "the Beatles". McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• On the Beatles' official website, their usage is inconsistent; however, usually it is written as "The Beatles" but there are numerous typographical errors so websites usually aren't the best place to look. Edited written works are far more reliable. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

These are some sources currently used to verify the article that use a lower case "the":

• Alcantara, Paul; Hall, Sally J. (24 September 2005). "Ivor Arbiter: Captain of the Music Industry and Designer of the Beatles' 'Drop-T' Logo" The Independent
• Ashplant, T.G.; Smyth, Gerry (2001). Explorations in Cultural History. London: Pluto. ISBN 978-0745315126.
• Aswad, Jem (16 November 2010). "Beatles End Digital Boycott, Catalog Now on iTunes" Rolling Stone (New York).
• Austerlitz, Saul (2007). Money for Nothing: A History of the Music Video, from The Beatles to The White Stripes Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-7119-7520-5.
• Barnett, Emma (3 November 2009). "Beatles Back Catalogue Still on Sale via BlueBeat Despite EMI Investigation" The Daily Telegraph (London)
• "George Harrison Dies" BBC News Online. 30 November 2001.
• Blecha, Peter (2004). Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs San Francisco: Backbeat Books. ISBN 9780879307929
• Brown, Peter; Gaines, Steven (2002). The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles New York: New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-20735-7
• Campbell, Michael (2008). Popular Music in America East Windsor, CT: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0495505303
• Cateforis, Theo (2007). The Rock History Reader New York and Abingdon, OX: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415975018.

— GabeMc (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads
• The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Verve and The Beach Boys
• The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet, The Daily Telegraph, circulation equals The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, The Wire magazine, The Fortean Times, The Oldie, The London Evening Standard, and The Jewish News.
• The Pension Service, The Highway Code, The Photographers' Gallery, The Women's Library, The Fat Duck, The National Gallery, The Herald, The o2, The Place, The Lighthouse and The Children's Society --andreasegde (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but those are all bands, TV shows, or groups of people who are not the Beatles. I repeat, George Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, and Brian Epstein all used lower case in their books, as did Spitz, Harry, Lewisohn and Davies. Derek Taylor used lower case in his first liner notes after becoming the band's press agent. Surely the band agreed with his usage at the time. It seems that sources closest to the band prefered lower case. — GabeMc (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Or some nameless copy editor put in his or her preferred rendering in those books and liner notes. There's actually no indication of what the authors wanted or what the band agreed with or cared about or if they even saw the books or liner notes ahead of time or at all, so this is a silly argument. Tvoz/talk 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that George Harrison wrote his autobiography using upper case, then a copy-editor changed it to lower case, and he never knew or cared, or put any thought into the choice? How do you know this? — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a human hair here; I know this because it came from mine own head. However, I lack a microtome with which to split it. And that's probably where this debate is right now. Not important, and let's move on to something that matters, please. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

On page 14 of In His Own Write is a brief comment from McCartney, in which Paul mentions "the Beatles" and uses the lower case, or at least the copy-editor of John's book used a lower case. — GabeMc (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how anybody could pronounce a lower case definite article.--andreasegde (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that Paul did not write the page with his own hand? At any rate, John's copy-editor thought lower case was appropriate. — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he "did"? This could go on forever, but it's the big kid's bat & ball, and his dad's bigger than both our dads.--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also, "the Beatles." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/57495/the-Beatles> uses "the Beatles". Paul August ☎ 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

There is no numerical consensus for using either The Beatles or the Beatles. An independent admin could evaluate the discussion and reach a closing decision either way, or close as no consensus. It might be worth looking at proposals for dealing with the situation, as it appears there is not even consensus as which consensus is more binding, that decided locally, or that decided on guidelines. My understanding based on previous discussions and specific policy is that guidelines take precedence over WikiProjects and small groups of editors working on an article or group of articles. Policy would dictate that in a dispute such as this, that the wider community view is the one taken - which would mean that "the Beatles" would be the preferred usage. Though there is also the understanding that guidelines reflect actual community usage, and the argument has been used here that there is a consensus to use "The Beatles" in this article. However, there appears to be no such consensus at present, and such a consensus has not been long standing, as this article has mostly through its history used "the Beatles". It is possible that usage of "the Beatles" / "The Beatles" will continue to be debated and fought over, with perhaps only the most determined (rather than the most appropriate) usage prevailing. Anyway - possible outcomes:

1. That the article is brought in line with the wider community consensus as there is no local consensus as per specific policy. The usage is changed to "the Beatles" and a talkpage header message created which says that the article uses "the Beatles" as per MoS and Music guidelines.
2. The current situation remains (the status quo), and the article continues using "The Beatles" with a talkpage header message saying that while no consensus has been reached, in order to prevent disruption the usage has been allowed to continue, and any changes to such usage are discouraged as they may result in disruption.
3. That nothing is imposed on editors who are free to use either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" according to their personal preference, and such usage is not reverted or argued over.
4. That this debate is continued.
5. That this debate is ignored and nothing further is done.

Anything is possible. My preference is for #1. SilkTork *^YES! 11:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would like this to be another debate.--andreasegde (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want another one either. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My preference is for also for #1. — GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop this, or you'll get sent to bed without any supper, and we'll take your modem away. Ever tried a hair shirt? Lots of fun on dark winter evenings.--andreasegde (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So this doesn't roll on for ever, can I take it that we have a consensus for #1, close this discussion, and move forward with the actions outlined. SilkTork *^YES! 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus for number 1. The only thing we may have consensus for is giving up the discussion....so you might get away with it... Bluewave (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for giving up the discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right: it will probably go on forever. Bluewave (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I vote for #1. I also vote to end the discussion. GlitchCraft (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely if the article currently uses The, and there is no consensus to change it, then it stays. Is that not how consensus works?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed. Let It Be.--Patthedog (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree & Patthedog, so then by your logic an error would remain as long as there is not a consensus to correct it. In actuality WP:MOS is clear about definite articles mid-sentence, and there is a consensus at WP:MOS to not capitalize them. Why would a lack of consensus at an article trump consensus at WP:MOS? — GabeMc (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - George Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, and Brian Epstein all used lower case in their books, as did Spitz, Harry, Lewisohn, Miles, Lennon, Boyd and Davies. Seems like a wider consensus among professional writers and copy-editors has been reached. — GabeMc (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As a note for — GabeMc, you should look at your favourite pages, because these: "first referred to as The Pink Floyd Sound", "album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn", "with The Dark Side of the Moon", "opening of The Roundhouse", "in The Financial Times and The Sunday Times", "for the film The Committee", "at the same time that The Beatles", "in history, The Wall", "with The Royal Fusiliers", "attended The Perse School", "the group became known as The Abdabs, or The (Screaming) Abdabs", "and The Division Bell", "solo album, The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking", and "originally titled The Bike Song", seem to show that you like it that way. Wow, you took Roger Waters to FA with those, huh? --andreasegde (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite the lack of consensus, I see that SilkTork has now globally changed The Beatles to the Beatles in the article. Bluewave (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's "the Beatles", lowercase. Please see ref WP:LAME. Let's go ahead and create a new category, WP:EXTRALAMEWITHWHIPCREAMONTOP. I vote lowercase "the". I vote this is execrably lame. I vote archive this thread. GlitchCraft (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have sympathy for anyone who said this is lame....unless, in the same breath, they are expressing a strong advocacy for one side of the argument. Telling people to put out the fire whilst, yourself, chucking another log on the blaze doesn't really work. Bluewave (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been debated many times, so you lower casers are WP:LAME. I am truly shocked that Silk Tork, who has been here long enough and should know better, actually did what he did. It has been reverted.--andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's interesting Andreasegde, because the "lower casers", as you call them, include George Harrison (in his autobiography), and Paul McCartney (answering a fan's question on his official website (See; From Evans The Sweep) and in his official biography by Miles. If you look at John Lennon's official website, you will see they use the lower case. On page 14 of Lennon's book In His Own Write a lower case "t" is used on a page authored by Paul. Are you really arguing that Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, Brian Epstein, Bob Spitz, Bill Harry, Mark Lewisohn, Barry Miles, Julia Lennon, and Paty Boyd all incorrectly used a lower case "t" when writing "the Beatles" mid-sentence? — GabeMc (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I was waiting for you to turn up again. Who took Roger Waters to FA, with "The Pink Floyd Sound" written in the text? You friggin' did. Answer that one... :))--andreasegde (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's a good catch, and as I check Mason's book (page 30), I see that he uses a lower case "t". Thanks, I'll fix it. — GabeMc (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean you didn't spot it before you took it to FA? Tut, tut, tut. You'd better fix "The Perse School", and "The Royal Fusiliers" as well. Maybe you could do the Wall and the Dark Side of the Moon while you're at it.--andreasegde (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I fixed the Perse School and the Royal Fusiliers, thanks for your help. As far as The Wall and The Dark Side of the Moon, these are album titles that do not follow the same rules. — GabeMc (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting is inappropriate and against policy

Wikipedia guidelines have been and are being followed. The issue has been discussed, and the options outlined. Sometimes the outcome is not to the liking of individuals. This is an aspect of being part of a collaborative project. We have procedures in place for when somebody is unhappy with a decision, and reverting is not one of them. It is inappropriate to force one's opinion. We prefer to follow consensus, to use discussion, and to refer to guidelines. That has been done in this case. There is no local consensus for either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", therefore we use the wider consensus of the guidelines which is for "the Beatles". Referring to wider consensus is, as detailed above, the policy on Wikipedia. See WP:CONLIMITED.

Discussion on this matter can go round in circles, and nobody is really willing to carry on the debate. If anyone really things that my actions are inappropriate, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While it is exhausting to keep talking, that is at least less disruptive than reverting. See Wikipedia:Reverting. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are very, very wrong on this, and, but even though you said that you wouldn't like this to go further, you have only poured a whole gallon of petrol on the fire. I will revert, but then you can block me..--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of blocking anyone; nor of protecting the article; nor of engaging in a revert war. I have taken part in the discussion after being asked to. I noted that there was no local consensus so outlined the possible actions. There appeared to me to be consensus for option #1, and that consensus was supported by our guidelines, our policies, our ethos, and the majority of reliable sources. I was reverted. I restored the edits and explained my actions, and pointed out that the appropriate course of action would be to raise the issue at ANI. I have been reverted again. I will not take it further. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Beatles. I would like to simply back away from this issue. It is a trivial issue not worthy of our attention. However, I do feel that if we have guidelines and policies, that these should be followed rather than forcing individual (or small group) opinions. We have guidelines and policies in order to prevent incidents like this. SilkTork *^YES! 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You started this by deciding that you would ignore all the conversations above, and saying "There appeared to me to be consensus", which is not good enough at all, as you should know. You have opened another can of worms, and this can only get worse, as if it it hasn't already. There will always be editors in the future (let's not forget the future) that will say it should be 'the' or 'The', which means this argument will go on after we are all very dead. As a last word, if the articles ever are changed to 'the' Beatles, then the whole project should be renamed "Beatles".--andreasegde (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how SilkTork can possibly claim there was a consensus. In the discussion, when SilkTork stated "can I take it that we have a consensus for #1...", I replied "No, we don't have consensus for number 1. The only thing we may have consensus for is giving up the discussion...." and someone else added "I don't see any consensus for giving up the discussion...." This looks pretty clear to me. Bluewave (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Well we can find out, I have opened an ArbCom Request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This: "You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee" has just been added to my own page. Thanks a lot, Silk Tork.--andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too! Well, I've never heard of ArbCom before, so this will be interesting! And I'm not sure why this is about disruption, when it appears to me to be a content dispute. Bluewave (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh God please tell me you folks are not actually gonna go to arbcom over "The" versus "the"... well, if you do, don't call my name out when you're listing involved parties. I personally hereby publicly wash my hands of this Über-lameness. Unwatching, while wincing... GlitchCraft (talk)

Howabout THE BEATLES, as it's roughly shown on the front of Starr's drums. PS: And Lennon thought it was tough enough explaining the spelling of Beatles with an a. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay: Are Ringo's drums a reliable source? Do they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the Arbitration request is not going well. WP:LAME seems to be the consensus there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Steelbeard, you're right, but....

• Yes it's lame. But this applies equally to both sides.
• No it doesn't look like ArbCom can be bothered with it.
• Neither side of the argument is so compelling that it is unquestionably right. If that were the case, it wouldn't have dragged on for years.
• This is not just some handful of disruptive people making life difficult for everyone else. Over the years, a lot of different people have got involved on one side or the other, many of them editors of good-standing.
• But LessHeard vanU is right that the long-term effect of this dispute is disruptive.
• There is no real compromise position. We either have to agree to use 'the Beatles' or 'The Beatles'.
• We need a resolution that has some long-term stability. Even if the current protagonists agree to stop arguing and settle for one option or the other, it won't be long before someone else comes along and starts it all up again.

Suggestions, anyone? Bluewave (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We can run a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It can be just in regard of whether the letter t should be capitalised in Beatles related articles, or - my preference - whether the consensus found at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline should take precedence over the local consensus held by the various editors of the articles (this is noting that both parties are able to produce examples of reliable sources using the t capitalised and uncapitalised). Whether this dispute is disruptive, and whether any result from the RfC should be imposed upon all parties, might also be included in the RfC. So, I propose a 3 part RfC which will hopefully bring this issue to a conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want I can try to start an Arbcom case, asking them to sanction you for continuing to claim that the local consensus is for capitalisation when actually there is no more than a status quo and a lack of consensus to change it to bring it in line with an applicable guideline. Hans Adler 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• The answer has always been there:
• It is correct that the Beatles who went to Paris on holiday were Lennon and McCartney.
• The album, Beatles for Sale, is a joke about the Beatles who are to be sold; not as a complete group, but individually.
• The group that recorded for EMI were contractually known as The Beatles; meaning all four.
• Members of The Beatles released solo recordings while still a group, and the Beatle that first did so was Harrison with Wonderwall Music, which was before the other Beatles.

--andreasegde (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) (First solo Beatle recording corrected by Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) )

Triangular diplomacy

• I have just been through the whole article, and have changed many instances of "The Beatles" to "them", "they", "their", "the group", or just deleted the "Big T" as it wasn't needed. As the article is called The Beatles, there is no need to have the dreaded "Big T" throughout. "The Beatles" is still mentioned when it starts a sentence, or is quoted as such. Go on, hit me with a wet fish.--andreasegde (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I applaud the diplomatic effort...but does this real solve the problem. For instance, would we need a warning to future editors "Please avoid ever mentioning the band's name, mid sentence"! Bluewave (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a halfway house, but they don't need to be mentioned that often, as the article is called The Beatles. It's an idea from the Julia Lennon article, because it also mentions Alfred Lennon, and John. (It was impossible to keep using 'Lennon' all the time). Let's face it, there will always be a dispute about this, so a little rewriting keeps the Big Bad T from the door.

I suppose the advice could be that "Overuse of "The Beatles" in the article is repetitive, and not required."

If this isn't acceptable, then one can only presume that there is something deeper and more vicious connected with the problem. As a die-hard "Big T" advocate, I have offered an olive branch, so now we'll see if the other side are willing to accept it.--andreasegde (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure avoiding the problem is the right solution. There is no local consensus, so we should be deferring to the wider consensus, which is clearly for lower case. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, Brian Epstein, Bob Spitz, Bill Harry, Mark Lewisohn and Barry Miles all used lower case. — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of which side of this trivial dispute one is on, this proposal is a step in the right direction. The underlying problem is this: At some point we all make up our minds how some detail of language, or in this case orthography, works. In most cases the way it works is relatively obvious and so we all get mental models of language that agree with each other. But in some cases usage is not uniform (i.e. some sources use "the Beatles" and others use "The Beatles") or aspects that normally agree don't (i.e. most books use "the Beatles", but the most official name is "The Beatles" and certain types of sources prefer that). In this situation most of us do not decide that it's a complicated problem that cannot be settled either way, but instead we more or less randomly (depending e.g. on which sources we are exposed to and how important we consider prescriptive sources such as LP covers or trademarks to be) decide that one of the variants is correct and the others are just in error. See confirmation bias for why our mental theory is stable even when we learn about new counterexamples.

So long as this article has mid-sentence "The Beatles" it will always be jarring to some readers. So long as this article has mid-sentence "the Beatles" it will always be jarring to some readers. It is not our job to teach to the readers that either spelling is correct. Even if we could agree which spelling is correct, the capitalisation or otherwise of the definite article is such a trivial aspect of the topic that it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article anyway, and certainly not with any weight. Therefore the right approach is to just avoid the issue to the extent possible.

This is the same idea as WP:COMMONALITY, a subsection of WP:ENGVAR. Hans Adler 08:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the issue I was trying to lay before the ArbCom - there is a local consensus for capitalising the T in mid sentence; the majority of contributors (the ones who place inline citations in the text, and those who otherwise write from sources) find capitalisation to be sufficiently supported through reference to RS and wish to continue to use that style. There are a minority of contributors, and a whole lot of editors who come from the WP:MoS editing environment, who disagree. That does not invalidate the local consensus for capitalising the T. Now, please note that I am one of the few (ex these days) contributors who support the lower case t - but I do know how consensus works and I am appalled by the efforts of a few individuals to impose a consensus for a Guideline over the consensus of the editors who are continuing to build the article. I would be trying to make a case for bringing the issue of conflicting consensus to a RfC, except I doubt that the general commentary would be any less blinded than the ArbCom were that the issue is the validity of attempting to impose a guideline over article writers. I wonder if it is worth while trying, anyhoo? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no local consensus. Apart from issues such as sock puppetry or canvassing, a local consensus is determined by who comments on a talk page. You can't discount editors merely because they have not contributed to the article. This is so deeply engrained into the way a wiki works that it is probably not made explicit anywhere, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the principle.

If it wasn't like that, we wouldn't need any guidelines at all, other than perhaps as inspiration when editors don't have an opinion. More importantly, if it wasn't like that, then what our articles on obscure fringe topics say would be entirely determined by those willing to spend a lot of time building these articles. There would be no need for noticeboards such as WP:FRINGE, because input from uninvolved editors could simply be ignored even when they all go to a fringe article's talk page and outnumber the fringers by far. Hans Adler 15:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is derived from agreement on the best application of policy; a local consensus may not disregard or violate policy. In this issue a majority of editors of Beatles related articles point to those WP:RS which show the band with a capitalised definitive article (noting that the most authorative references, and those most contemporary to the recording period of the group, use the capital letter), and point out that the MoS is a guideline which notes "preferred practices" and admits to there being exceptions. The majority of such contributors argue, on the basis of those RS noted, that this is one such exception. Lastly, the article was passed FA status (regardless that this was when standards were not so exact) using the capitalised T. Thus there is a standing consensus, both by application of policy and practice.

This is not invalidated by there being other editors who may point to both the consensus at WP:MoS for standardisation for the lower case t (which I accept, by the way) and to those RS - including many of the more recent publications - that use that style. What you have, in this instance, is a different interpretation of what consensus should be. That is fine. What is not is the attempted imposition of this different consensus over the existing one.

As I have said, I am prepared to formulate an RfC on whether, in this instance, the consensus at a guideline has precedence over one existing on an article (and we can throw open the question of whether having a different interpretation of consensus automatically deprecates the existing one, if you wish) or not. I would rather not, because I am sure both that many of the potential participants are really quite weary of the issue and that the RfC will likely turn into another dust up in respect of the content dispute. I suspect, however, that either an RfC or mediation may need to be considered.

In short, it is incorrect to state that the local consensus is non existant - it is being challenged, only. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your position is simply not tenable:

• You continue to give preferential treatment to the 'owners' of this article. Not good.
• The status quo, the FA state of the article, or any past consensus, does not factor into evaluating consensus but is something to be considered by the !voting editors. (Moreover, the status quo predates the guideline and in the last FA promotion this issue never came up as far as I can tell.)
• Once it is clear that all the recent books use one orthographic style, the fact that some reliable sources in the past used another style can still be used to argue that it is admissible in principle to use that style, but of course it cannot be used to argue that we must use that style in preference to the up-to-date one. Any reasonable admin who tries to determine consensus is obliged to dismiss such invalid arguments. You should be ashamed of yourself to present this as a valid argument.
• A guideline cannot be dismissed merely because it is only a guideline. Even policies can be broken for valid reasons. But even to break a guideline you need a valid reason, once it is clear that it applies and that it was created precisely for the kind of situation under discussion. That's what the statement about exceptions is about, obviously, and that's what WP:IAR is about. You are essentially arguing for abuse of IAR. (Maybe there is something wrong with the guideline. But the amazing weakness of the arguments for breaking it suggests that the guideline gets it exactly right. And anyway, the right thing to do when a guideline gets things wrong would be to change it, not to block its application in a simple and straightforward case.)
• An honest and reasonable admin charged with evaluating the discussions on this page has two options:
  1. Declaring that based on the fact that both sides have about the same size and one side uses only invalid arguments, the other side has consensus. It is impossible to block consensus with nothing but invalid arguments.
  2. Declaring that, although one side has much weaker arguments, they cannot be completely dismissed, and so, due to roughly equal numbers, it's a close case of no consensus. Hans Adler 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"An honest and reasonable admin..."? That would be one that supported your preference, I presume? I have pointed out where I feel both sides properly claim consensus for their interpretation. I have also attempted to show that some claims of who does and who does not have consensus may be mistaken. I am not, and have not claimed to be, declaring a decision in regard to the question of whether the t/T should be capitalised or not, but am giving my opinion (as someone who does a fair bit of dispute resolution, and has some experience of what consensus is). Same as you are, with the only difference being that I am assuming good faith that your efforts are to improve the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

— GabeMc has proven that he has no wish to make any kind of progress on this. This is after I pointed out to him the numerous Big Ts in an article he took to FA (which he then changed). I suspect his motives, and will wait for other editors that want to reach any kind of consensus.--andreasegde (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans on this (Hans on - I like it!). Andreasegde’s “olive branch” is the only way that might produce a cease-fire (and he should be commended for it). Obviously not perfect, but then it’s a compromise. Anyone who isn’t prepared to give it a go is just intent on argument. Let’s move it on now.--Patthedog (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumptions of bad faith are flying thick and fast around here. Very discouraging, especially given the utter triviality of the underlying dispute. Come on people, get a sense of proportion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal approach is to always use a person's or entity's proper name in the first reference to them in a paragraph and then to usually only use "he", "she", "it", "they" (etc) in subsequent references unless the name is required for clarity of who or what is being referred to. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Triangular diplomacy II

But does anyone actually agree that the proposal stated above is acceptable? Please say yes or no, in whichever fashion you prefer, but less is more. :)

• Support. By rewriting sentences, the use of the 'Big T' could be limited, as it should be in an article that is already called The Beatles. Overuse of the name is not needed.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and applaud Andreasegde's olive branch. I also agree with LessHeardvanU's assessment that there has long been a local consensus on this (extremely minor) matter, and the article's passing a rigorous FA with the capital T is but one indication of that long-standing consensus. Also, just because people do not repeatedly come onto this talk page and say yet again, for the umpteenth time, that they support the T consensus, does not mean that they have changed their minds. Tvoz/talk 20:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Seems a sensible solution. Any attempt to bring some sanity round here is very welcome.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Rewriting the article to minimize the issue is a wonderful creative idea. GoingBatty (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I agree on rewriting article to minimize the issue. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can’t see any other practical solution.--Patthedog (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the detailed reasons I gave above. TLDR version: This article is about music, not orthography. Hans Adler 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the simple reason that the bulk of the most reliable sources closest to the band used lower case, i.e. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, Derek Taylor, Brian Epstein, Bob Spitz, Bill Harry, Mark Lewisohn and Barry Miles. If all these sources are wrong then I am happy to be in their company. — GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The most practical solution open to us. Thanks, Andreasegde, for taking a lead on this. Bluewave (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per GabeMc (who forgot to mention Hunter Davies): avoiding the problem does not solve the problem, because new editors will come in. The uppercase version is attributable primarily to Apple Corps zeal about trademark and branding issues, which are not Wikipedia's concern. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• I've been asked to vote, though I am reluctant to get any more involved in this. I think it is appropriate to minimise the use of "the/The Beatles" in the article as a general guideline to good writing. However, it is not good writing to avoid the use of "the/The Beatles" in mid sentence when it is appropriate to do so. While I understand the thinking behind the approach, I cannot support it. The article can use The Beatles or the Beatles or a mix of both (as it did when it passed as a Featured Article), and all those would be acceptable usage, but twisting the language to avoid use of the Beatles is a fudgy solution. Because there's been talk of uninvolved editors coming here and imposing MoS guidelines, and so people know my involvement - I helped take George Harrison to GA listing, and am the main contributor to that article (which uses The Beatles because at the time I thought that was the standard usage), I did the GA review on The Beatles in Hamburg, which was mainly written by Andreasegde, and listed it with The Beatles used in mid-sentence. Like others, I either didn't give the capitalisation much thought, or assumed that The Beatles was correct. When I was asked to get involved with this capitalisation issue I looked closely at the issue, and noted that the majority of reliable sources and our own house style indicated that lower case use was the appropriate way to go. And that is what I still feel. At the very least, the quotes should be presented accurately, and where they are in lower case that's how they should be presented, and where the use is The Beatles, that's how it should be presented. As the quotes will be mixing the and The, and as sources themselves sometimes mix usage, I have no objection to that. My preference would be for lower case "the" (except where quotes use otherwise), but I don't mind upper case or a mix of both. My least favourite approach is trying to avoid the use of the definite article. SilkTork *^YES! 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - not what i prefer - but got to admit its more then reasonable and the read sounds better with less "Beatles" in it.Moxy (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, the Beatles aren't special enough to disregard our manual of style. If the manual of style needs fixing, then fix it, but don't contradict without good reason. Sorry, I suppose I'm not actually commenting on the proposal at all, but the underlying issue. I feel that the proposal is a good faith attempt at a compromise, and that is a net positive. However, I don't have confidence in the long term viability of the proposal's maintainability, as this article (and others) about the band evolves. Abstain riffic (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - an eminently sensible suggestion by Andreasegde. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should not strain language to avoid a trivial matter of style. Also, I agree with nearly everything SilkTork has said above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - While this and many other articles would benefit from a better use of pronouns, as a solution to the question of capitalization it is misguided. This method only hides the problem, and the lack of a solution, from view. It does not solve the problem. There will no doubt be instances where the use of "the Beatles" in mid-sentence will be appropriate or even unavoidable. I haven't read through the most recent version of the article but already I noticed an awkward sentence in the Song Catalogue section where it is unclear which antecedent the pronoun refers to. Piriczki (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is an excellent proposal to try and satisfy a majority of current and past disputants, but is unlikely to hold sway against the next pov inclined contributor. If adopted, at some time in the future there will be a three way dispute on whether the letter should be capitalised, lower case, or avoided where possible. I think we will then need a new synonym for lame. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ...and that was a tough decision, because I appreciate Andreasegde's olive branch. It sounds like a good idea, and it should be immediately implemented as much as possible, but only until it eventually becomes necessary to again mention the band's name instead of "them". As Silk Tork said, it is not good writing to avoid the use of "the/The Beatles" in mid sentence when it is appropriate to do so, and as Riffic said, this idea may not be maintainable. Those that voted "Support" may not have visualized actually writing that way. We all seem to agree that editors will forever be able to come up with good reasons for both "the" or "The" mid-sentence, and that this discussion is lame. Therefore, since the real world uses both "the Beatles" and "The Beatles", can we just agree to do that also? We really should agree to use both "the Beatles" in the middle of some of the article's sentences and use "The Beatles" in the middle of others. Forget about consistency. We would put a note on the discussion page saying that if there is one thing we have learned it is that consensus will never be reached on this matter and that the maintainable (and sane) decision is to avoid the issue and use both styles without worrying about it ever again. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Editors should look at this article, as there are now only three Big Ts in it during sentences, which are in quotations, and were printed that way in the book they came from.--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've changed my mind, and I've crossed out my vote above. I wrote it before reading Andreasegde's recent edits to the article. Now that I have read a fair bit of it, I must agree it seems to be working. It doesn't read awkwardly, it reads fine. And if we fix new edits as they appear it could be maintainable. Maybe this discussion is nearly resolved? —Prhartcom (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support & Comment - Back in the 1960s, for those of us who remember it (myself, and very most likely Andreasegde, Steelbeard1, Patthedog, and - if he were still editing with us today - John Cardinal; plus a few others I didn't name) the spellings of most group (yes, group, not band) names was typically shown as with a capital T, not lower-cased. About the time the Vietnam War ended in '75, society's acceptance of a lower-cased t began showing up in publications - newspapers and books written by authors in that era, etc. Most post-1975 books show a t, though when this began, and throughout its entire 1960s/early 1970s run, it was almost always shown as T, and not lower-cased. Okay, getting to the point - things change, people change, places change, and society changes with the change of time itself. Now, in this present era, the younger generation who was not there in the 1960s will read and reasearch this through books (of which are mostly published after 1975) and come to terms with that the Beatles, to them, is correct, for that's in their conscience - as it's how they see it. Now, realistically, the original way always had been The Beatles, accepted by society in the 1960s as it was, being intended to be. When the lower-cased spelling of the t began showing up around the mid-1970s, most people, like Lennon and McCartney, had no problem with this and even accepted it. So, this is the understanding the younger generation has. Now, very importantly, however, to keep things as should be when referring to this article's layout of which consisted of a major 1960s event (this article's very topic itself) in the 1960s, therefore indicating the proper right in usage of original text, albeit, The Beatles, this is then what's proper in passage to be used in recognition of what was used at the peak of [their] popularity and in general of the history of popular music. Also, after five years of working on this, Andreasegde, you truly know your history and thanks so much for all your great and wonderful hard work you've put into this! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Brian Epstein wrote his book in 1964, and he used the lower case "t". — GabeMc (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors, please: We are no longer discussing the merits of 'The' or 'the', we have heard these arguments already and we have proven beyond a doubt that there will never be consensus. Instead we are now discussing whether or not substituting "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" in the middle of a sentence with "the group", "they", and other pronouns will really work as a (not perfect, but pretty good) solution. —Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But there is a consensus among the most reliable sources, the vast majority agree, lower-case mid-sentence. — GabeMc (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You have made the same point three times in this section alone, GabeMc. Stop it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Unsure – I would support using pronouns if they are appropriate but to go out of our way to avoid using "The Beatles" for the sake of avoiding an argument over capitalisation seems to be taking it too far. I really don't care that much whether "the" is capitalised or not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; and as you can above see I also was unsure; that is quite understandable. Therefore, please look at the article now. The substitution mentioned above has already been done. Then you will know whether or not it "seems" to be taking it too far, you will know if it actually is or isn't. —Prhartcom (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support – Compromise or no compromise, repeating the group's name over and over seems unnecessary anyway. The article is about the Beatles so, in most sentences, it will be obvious who the sentence is about. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Especially since the NYT (note it is not "TNYT") does not capitalize the "the" in any case about Beatles, and this is rather a Guinness Book of World Records (not "The" despite its origins and original trademark) sort of debate at best. I trust this reaches consensus. Collect (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Andreasegde's sensible comments. A voice of reason. SimplyAKat (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Sadly, user DocKino does not feel it is necessary to contribute to this discussion. I think I'll put the kettle on. :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not nice to lie, Andreas. I have contributed extensively to the discussion here, as you well know: Talk:The_Beatles#Recent_edits. In that thread, I recognized and agreed with the consensus to reduce the number of occurrences of the band's full name, noted several cases in which the effort to do so had resulted in lowering the quality of the article in specific ways and at specific points, and explained precisely where and why I restored the full name in ten different instances. It is you who have completely failed to respond to any of those efforts to improve the article. If you ever rouse yourself to do so, I'll be happy to reply, again in detail.
• I also noted there that before the "triangular diplomacy" approach was undertaken, there were 69 instances of the band's full name being used mid-sentence in non-quoted text; as a result of your edits and mine, there are now 13 such instances, with no loss of clarity, expressive quality, or readability. I believe that result fully respects the consensus that has been arrived at here, which as many of those supporting the consensus have stated is to "minimize" the issue and "limit" the use of the "Big T," not erase every instance of the band's full name being used mid-sentence in non-quoted text (obvious overkill that has never been stated as the "proposal"). DocKino (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So that's a Support, is it?--andreasegde (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Discographer above, and per The The. Fully endorse Andreas' efforts of a solution. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Andreasegde proposes a good compromise to minimize unneeded use of "the/The Beatles", but as SilkTork mentions, it should not be done by twisting the language to avoid it. There are valid reasons for both sides of the capitalization argument, and also for allowing either case (www.beatles.com). I'm concerned that if we don't specifically require an uppercase (or lowercase) T mid-sentence, editors will change the case back and forth citing one reason or another. CuriousEric 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing the advice

• Comment: Any ideas as how to change the advice at the top of the page to something reflecting consensus, and common sense?--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose." since that is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)#Names (definite article) actually says. Piriczki (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Piriczki. — GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is not here to go over that again.--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the purpose of this section? — GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

End of.--andreasegde (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)