Talk:Paul McCartney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

	Paul McCartney has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 1, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article (musicians)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul McCartney article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.		This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.	Top This article has been rated as Top importance on the importance scale.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. Document exceptions on the talk page of the article and here. It is Project policy that (with possible exceptions depending on context) all article references to the band's name should be in title case ("The Beatles" and not "the Beatles") If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. To Merge: To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Songs covered by The Beatles: Hippy Hippy Shake. The Big Three. Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Macca single: My Brave Face. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Mal Evans, Flying (song), Astrid Kirchherr, Jimmy Nicol, Cynthia Powell, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. We need a better open-licenced photo for the project, to replace the Abbey Road crossing. If you provide a photo, please remove the ReqPhoto tag from the article's talk page and remove the article from this list. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

	To-do list for Paul McCartney:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
[edit] Sections and general tasks Copyedit for flow, quality of prose, wikilinks (preferably with the help of a good editor who hasn't worked on the article); do an AWB cleanup (wikify dates, rm redundant repeated wikilinks); act on/remove any remaining HTML comments. At the end, some refs might be convertible to "passim". Also, if possible, it would be great to go through some other books e.g. on The Beatles or alternative texts on McCartney and "double cite" as appropriate, or note any discrepancies. Then the article will be as solid as a rock. Red links to turn blue: My Brave Face Songwriting and musicianship: We have the background info, but do we need more from later years and more commentary on styles, influences etc.? Sections: What happened to the text on the Ram/Imagine episode? I thought I'd put some in? Paul_McCartney#1990s: Stub section. "Theme" of decade? Declining sales? 2000s: "Theme" of decade? Critical rejuvanation on the back of successful tours? Paul_McCartney#Lifestyle: Intro possibly a bit longer Paul_McCartney#Discography: Perhaps needs a paragraph of prose? Needs formatting. Images needed/wanted: Free or appropriate fair use images of Jane Asher, Linda McCartney, Heather Mills McCartney. (The image of George Harrison might have to be replaced too). Wings and solo samples needed. How about an equipment section, including photos and documents regarding his use of the Hofner, Rickenbacker & (later on) Wal 5-string basses? Also, what model is the Gibson Firebird on the cover of Ram. Current and favorite equipment. ABOVE LIST NEEDS TO BE CHECKED AND COMPLETED ITEMS REMOVED [edit] Specific issues - citations, troublesome sentences, etc. Divorce: If estimates range from £50m, we need a citation for that estimate. We can't guess. expand this to-do section with the HTML comments in the article

It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is for a free image of Jane Asher.

It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is for a free image of Linda McCartney.

It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is for a free image of Heather Mills McCartney.

Paul McCartney is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Archives
October 2006 November 2006 December 2006

Contents 1 Sections and general tasks 2 Specific issues - citations, troublesome sentences, etc. 3 Something 4 MBE 5 Do They Know Its Christmas? 6 Copyedit 7 Copyedit II 8 Grateful Dead 9 Protected 10 I Can't Believe It's Not Paul McCartney! 11 Short question 12 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 13 Citations 14 Paul is an ugly duckling 15 Critique edit 16 Auto peer review thingy 17 Postage Stamp Size Photographs 18 Category:Stamp designers 19 Vandalism - what was originally there? 20 McCartney vs Lennon songwriting credits 21 FAC 22 Criticism 23 "mad " vs. "daft"

[edit] Something

It says that for the Concert For George that Paul played Something on ukulele unaccompanied, this however is incorrect. He began the song unacompanied and was joined by the rest of the musicians part way through.

If that's true, then fix it, don't just say so here. (I remember the uke but don;t remember the rest too clearly so I'll leave it to someone who can confirm this.) Tvoz 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul played the song unaccompanied on his 2002-3 World Tour. At the Concert For George he was joined by the band after opening the song solo. Keithmall 12:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Check it out on youtube (if it's still there) andreasegde 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought Macca played acoustic guitar on "Something" and that it was Joe Brown who played the Uke and sang, "I'll See You In My Dreams" at the end of the concert - if you look at Brown's article, there's a piccy of him from the concert playing a Uke. Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul definitely played a uklele for "something". He told the story before about how George loved to play uklele and then one night at a dinner party, Paul said "look what I can play on a uklele" and he played "Something" and George was very impressed. Uklele.--Crestville 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your'e right Joe, I confused the songs, I thought Macca played the Uke on Something else, what did he play guitar on? Cheers! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it, he puts the Uke down, and picks up a guitar and Clapton returns the song to the correct tempo and finishes it off, I Knew I had a picture of him playing guitar on that song in my mind! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MBE

It stands for "Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire", and is what Sir Paul is wihin an Order of Chivalry. It's not a thing, and it can't be "awarded", any more than soldiers can be "awarded a Corporal" when they're promoted. He is an MBE, he doesn't have one. So stop changing it. Proteus (Talk) 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course he has one, it's a Medal that is awarded [1], an award that places him into an order of Chivalry, and please do not issue orders. Thank you. Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I saw The Queen last night, and have spent time in England, I don't claim to be an expert on chivalry, especially of the "most excellent" kind. (And I always thought it was merely "Member of the Order of the British Empire" - but am not surprised at the superlative.) But I do recall that Lennon returned his MBE, which would surely mean the medal which he had been awarded. (Meanwhile, I see that reference to this has disappeared on John Lennon although I am certain it was there at some point, so I am going to investigate that.) So I'd have to say that Vera, Chuck and even Dave have it right. Tvoz 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He returned the medal (as a gesture of protest). He continued to be a Member of the Order (which is why he still has "MBE" after his name in our article, because he was still an MBE when he died). Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The medal is merely an indication of what he is. What you're saying is akin to saying (continuing my example) that people can be "awarded a Corporal" because new Corporals are given chevrons to denote their rank. I suggest you actually go and read something about the honours system (and the Order of the British Empire in particular) before spouting any more ignorant and misinformed rubbish. (NB: Using the BBC as a source on chivalry is going to get you precisely nowhere. That article merely shows they can't follow their own style guide, which says: "People do not get a CBE, OBE or MBE (Commander, Officer and Member of the Order of the British Empire). They are appointed. They can be made a peer or knight, or receive a peerage or knighthood. Medals such as the George Medal are conferred.") Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Proteus, you may wish to i) see my comment on your talk page, and ii) moderate your language. You may indeed be right, and we will soon know because we have an instant expert in the matter of the George Medal within these very pages, but your attitude is not that expected of a Wikipedian. If you persist, I shall have to waggle my eyebrows at you!LessHeard vanU 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I (still) have no idea what you're talking about. Having a GM no more makes him an expert on the honours system than owning a car makes me a mechanical engineer. Proteus (Talk) 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cars are commonplace - think aeroplanes. To acquire a PPL one has to have an understanding of the mechanics of the craft (you can fly a 'plane without knowing any of this, but landing it is trickier). I'm not saying a recipient of a GM needs to ingest Burkes Peerage or works of etiquette or whatever, but they usually get a little insight how the Honours system works. I also believe that what you are unable to understand is that someone is trying to talk nicely to you whilst disagreeing - it is what an old fart like me thinks of a manners.LessHeard vanU 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree- it's amusing to see someone have a discussion on chivalry and honors, and say things like "before spouting any more ignorant and misinformed rubbish" - not exactly in keeping with WP:CIVIL. But then I'm sure if you were directing that in part to me, you are amused right back, seeing as how uncivilized we Americans are. Tvoz 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't directed at you. Proteus (Talk) 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then to whom pray, was it directed? Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You. Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And you sir, have the nerve to speak of chivalry? Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fucked if I know/care if it was awarded or not, but I've been away a while and I fancy a scrap. Fact of the matter is there are ways of doing things on wikipedia. If you can't convince us it was not awarded then don't change it. Proteus, with all due repect you have clearly failed to put foreward a convincing argument because no-one agrees with you. As such, you now have two options: 1) go away and gather more convincing evidence with which to put forward your point so as to increase the chances of reaching a consensus in your favour 2) leave it alone and continue to contribute in a more constructive manner. Here are some options which are not open to you: 1) the pig headed changing of articles, ignoring the judgement of several other valued contributers; 2) petty name calling; 3) disagreeing with a fireman; 4) rape. Vera, Chuck and indeed Dave are all valued contributers to The Beatles' pages, calling him an idiot is more likely to turn the tide against you than to win over your peers ("he called my friend an idiot - I like him!"); and, depending on whether you live in Liverpool and just how diligent Vera is, may see you perish in a household fire. God bless now, and let that be an end to it.--Crestville 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) P.s. Some yanks are cool.

I've cited the BBC style guide saying exactly what I'm saying (the document itself if you want it), which I notice no one's addressed at all. And if you edit articles based on which editors you like rather than what's actually correct might I suggest it's you who aren't quite familiar with the "ways of doing things on Wikipedia", and propose that you go and find somewhere on the internet that doesn't care quite so much about accuracy? Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think Vera's in London, but still. Tvoz 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't go on what WE think, but ever think no one's bothered to read your stuff because you're cynical, cold and pig headed? As it happens I agree with you on the word point but find your attitude so disagreeable I felt the need to defend Vera Chuck and Dave. Think about that. Sorry Tvoz, I never wrote the page on Vera. My bad.--Crestville 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So you reverted me because you don't like me? Given what's happened here I don't particularly like Vera, but I'm not about to open his contributions page and rollback everything he's edited for the past week... Proteus (Talk) 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted you because you were taking a contentious issue into your own hands without reaching a convincing consensus. Even if I do agree with you it's at least 2 vs 3. BTW, Vera has been nothing short of civil with you. Do you not at all get the impression from contributers more reasonable that I that you and your attitude are the problem?--Crestville 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. I'm leaving this now. Sort it out yourselves, however you like. I need a break. And I sincerely apologise for being rude to you all. I'm not really like this, I promise. Proteus (Talk) 23:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring any possible hint of sarcasm, cheers. We'll take your argument into account and reach a conlusion on whether that word should be "appointed" or "awarded" (FA!FA!FA!). I'm sure you're lovely and we'd love to have you back, just cheer up mate! God bless.--Crestville 00:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Proteus is correct. - Kittybrewster 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what I think too, but after al that are you really just going to change it without any proof or dicussion?--Crestville 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The discussion has occurred. - Kittybrewster 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kittybrewster is correct. If, as Proteus said, the authorative reference says that an MBE is bestowed, or awarded, or chucked with great violence at the recipient then that is what should be said in the article. Consensus doesn't come into it. Agreeing what the authorative reference is may be a matter of debate, and I suggest cool heads should (in a few days, perhaps) have a look see and edit - with a note/comment here.LessHeard vanU 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Proteus cited BBC. Nobody has cited anything contradicting them. Let's go with that. - Kittybrewster 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, why should we just "go" with something that they don't use? [2] Merry Christmas, Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Because their style guide asserts this is correct and any failure to follow it is clearly an error. Besides which they do use it - example as does The Times - example - Kittybrewster 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten Orders, One Appointment: [3]Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this example is an excellent instance of a failure to understand the honours system. An OBE is not an MBE and the use of the word Order in this page is not a denial of the fact that people are appointed to membership (at whatever level) of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (or whatever). - Kittybrewster 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now the CABINET OFFICE Fails to understand the Honours System? This I'm afraid, just beggers belief! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you have misunderstood the page. Having said which, Cherie Booth who should know better, makes frequent major errors herself. - Kittybrewster 16:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well as usual proteus was quite correct if a touch blunt for his own good. The Knight bachelor is not an order of knighthood so is carefully just listed as an appointment and as Kitty says this in no way alters the fact that the others are appointed to their respective orders. Seems rather than just be correct based on good citation provided the article has been edited to fudge around the issue. Alci12 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are awarded or honoured by the monarch with an MBE medal. If it is an honour which also enrols you into an Order (as in this instance) then you become a member of that Order. You may, of course, return your medal in protest but it is a meaningless stunt because the only person who can overturn your honour and remove you from the Order concerned is the monarch. All knights are "dubbed" or created, not 'appointed'. They must all kneel to be knighted, regardless of Order. There is a Register of Knights Bachelors and some have Letters Patents. Lastly, some Orders have knights. The authority on knights is William A Shaw (1906). David Lauder 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are appointed to whichever 'order' as may given in whatever degree; the insignia and paraphenalia are given as a consequence of that appointment not the other way around. Alci12 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[To David Lauder's point - edit conflict here]Ok, Macca didn't return his, so we can argue about that over on Lennon. Seems to me the text under "Awards" says what David Lauder says it should say: that he was honored by the monarch with a medal that connotes his being named a Member of the Order, yes? So I tried approaching the up-top summary slightly differently and put amended text in there just because it's easier to evaluate in situ. If it works for any or all, terrific. If not, well, we'll keep trying. Tvoz 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. Unfortunately David Lauder is wrong. Alci12 is right. - Kittybrewster 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry about that. What is your authoritative source, please. David Lauder 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. In your own words elsewhere "You are awarded the medal though; appointed to the order. Thats what I meant to say. Sorry I wasn't all that clear." - Kittybrewster 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is obviously a specialist area, one which a few fans of the writer of Yesterday, Jet and The Frog Chorus could expected to be knowledgeable upon. I'm certain that the members of the Project would be happy if edits were made by those with that expertise, as long as we were told the whys and wherefores.LessHeard vanU 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it is common to speak of someone 'being awarded an MBE' and to refer to the insignia as 'an MBE', this is merely a convenient shorthand (3 syllables instead of 16), and as previous editors have noted, not strictly correct. One is appointed a Member of the (Most Excellent) Order of the British Empire, and subsequently invested with the insignia (which is technically a badge not a medal) prescribed by the statutes of the Order. At first reading the relevant sentence in the article at the moment seems to imply it's the other way around: On 16 October 1965, McCartney was honoured (along with the other three Beatles) by Queen Elizabeth II with MBE silver medals which connote their being named Members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

For an authoritative source I suggest The London Gazette, in which the official announcements of British honours are made. The relevant issue for Paul McCartney's (appointment as) MBE is 12 June 1965, p18. On p10, at the start of the section, it says

The Queen has been graciously pleased, on the occasion of the Celebration of Her Majesty's Birthday, to give orders for the following promotions in, and appointments to, the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire

This would seem to settle the question of appointment vs award. I note in passing that the Cabinet Office also correctly distinguishes between award and appointment, see towards the bottom of this page

Notes on Awards for Gallantry in the Order of the British Empire: Appointments to, or promotions in, the Order of the British Empire and awards of the British Empire Medal, ...

Secondly, McCartney's appointment to the Order was dated 12 June 1965. If the article is correct he was invested with the insignia on 16 October 1965. (A little digging reveals that that date was incorrect, it should be the 26th. The caption of a photograph of the fans outside the palace in The Times, Wednesday, Oct 27, 1965; pg. 22 reads Enthusiasts v. reinforcements outside Buckingham Palace when the Beatles received their M.B.E. insignia yesterday.) The sequence of these two events would seem to address the issue of whether the membership leads to insignia or vice versa. I would suggest the sentence be reworded as something like

On 12 June 1965 McCartney and the three other Beatles were appointed Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), and subsequently received their insignia from the Queen at an investiture at Buckingham Palace in October that year.

This would possibly be a good place to mention the controversy which surrounded the Beatles' appointment. I've just noticed the reference to the MBE in the lead, for which I would suggest something like

McCartney was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) on 12 June 1965 by Queen Elizabeth II. He was knighted on 11 March 1997.

--Dr pda 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah - hold on! Bloomin' eck and by crikey, what's all this about? Alright, sod it, I'll put me two pennorth in:

He was awarded the medal, and became a member of the order. Does anyone disagree with that? (Ouch!) andreasegde 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Er....? (raises hand) Dr pda is quoting The London Gazette then, if it says that they were appointed to the order, appointed is what he was - and it is a badge, not a medal, that signifies the membership (about the poshest membership badge available)!LessHeard vanU 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr pda got it spot on and suggested very good ways of expressing it. There are posher badges around (see British_honours_system#Current_orders_of_chivalry ) but Sir Paul has done OK. - Kittybrewster 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: Guide to the Honours Who wants to disagree with the BBC? Also in Dictionary.com:Awarded - Appointed

“British honours are awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or service”

1. "People are nominated.." 2. “A number of these orders for chivalry are made…” 3. “peerages regularly created by the Sovereign”. 4. “A life peer becomes a baron…” 5. “The orders are now awarded mainly to civilians and service personnel for public service or other distinctions…” 6. “Today this honour is still awarded in recognition of services to the royal family…” 7. “This is awarded for distinguished service to the police force…” 8. “This honour is given to firemen…”

Can we now agree on “awarded”?andreasegde 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Honours are indeed awarded, but the honour which is awarded may be the appointment to a rank in an Order of Chivalry. Let me try and explain more fully:

• This whole issue is a minor point in the context of an article about Paul McCartney, but in order to have the best possible article we should use the correct terminology, whatever that may be.
• It is very common to find references to people being awarded an MBE. It is slightly less common to find references to people being appointed as Members of the Order of the British Empire, or appointed as MBE.
• One can find examples of both usages in reputable sources. For example the BBC, as noted immediately above (and elsewhere), uses the award terminology, but the style guide for BBC journalists (on p56 of this 92 page PDF), quoted near the beginning of this discussion, says "People do not get a CBE, OBE or MBE (Commander, Officer and Member of the Order of the British Empire). They are appointed. (The BBC apparently disagrees with the BBC!). In The Times one can also find examples of both usages (even in the articles talking about the Beatles receiving the honour).
• The fact that in the case of the MBE the honour is associated with receiving a (single) physical badge makes the former terminology natural, by analogy with receiving a medal (which is incontrovertibly awarded). However when one considers the higher grades of the order this analogy/terminology becomes less sure. Take for example the top grade, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE). When (if!) one receives such an honour, one is entitled not only to a badge, but also a gold collar, a jewelled star, a riband (sash), a mantle and possibly a hat. What then is the "GBE" which is awarded?
• The way in which people are honoured has changed over time. Today it is more common to receive a prize, a medal, a certificate etc, which is often accompanied by a physical object. In the past (and still today for some of the older honours) it involved becoming a member of a select group (Until 1725 there were only the Order of the Garter, with 24 members and the Order of the Thistle with 16, in addition to knighthoods and peerages). As a member of such a group one was required to follow certain rules and wear certain clothing/insignia. As time went on it became desirable to honour greater numbers of people, so new orders were created, and more levels were added to existing orders. Today people are still honoured by being appointed to one of the several ranks or grades within an Order of Chivalry, such as the Order of the British Empire (which is no longer quite so select a group), but the wearing of insignia is now generally restricted to the most formal occasions.
• The holders of a medal have nothing in common, except the piece of metal on a ribbon (and of course the personal qualities which led to their being awarded it). The members of an Order of Chivalry share membership in a corporate body, their membership of which is symbolised by various insignia.
• The use of an abbreviation such as MBE lends itself to saying awarded an MBE, but this does not work so well if one uses the full name: awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire. Indeed it is more natural to speak of being made a Member, or being appointed a Member, etc. Since an abbreviation is only a shorthand for the full name, whatever terminology is used with the abbreviation should be logically consistent with the use of the full name.
• Finally, the place one might expect to find a definitive example of usage is the official announcement of the honours in The London Gazette. As noted above, this refers to appointments to and promotions in the Order.

For the above reasons I believe that appointed should be used instead of awarded in the context of the MBE in this article. (I hope the above, rather long-winded answer explains my reasoning a bit better.) Dr pda 19:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research! Sometimes brevity gets in the way of clarity - so the length of your notes are more than justified. Davidpatrick 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The definitive reference is The London Gazette which, as an instrument of the State, uses the appropriate terminology.LessHeard vanU 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am most impressed with the trouble Dr pda has gone to in explaining his reasoning which is in accordance with that of all the experts in this field. I suspect we have concensus. - Kittybrewster 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... concenusus. Now that's what I call a nice word. More power to its elbow, as the saying goes. andreasegde 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

if Paul Mccartney is onle a member of the order of the british empire, why is he permitted to be known as SIR Paul Mccartney? This is too low a rank to be known as SIR.

Because he is a Knight Bachelor Lt. Gonville {volley fire at 100 yards) Bromhead VC

I got an MBE for Christmas. Cost a bloody fortune. Do I win £5? Actually, fuck your measley £5 - I can afford to buy honours! The Rt. Hon. Lord Hodgson of Crestville MBE, BA, DPP, KGB, TCP, BBC, DDT, ABC, POV, OTT, BSE, Polonium 2-10 and Bar

LOL! Vera Duckworth Chas & Dave

[edit] Do They Know Its Christmas?

Paul McCartney did not contribute backing vocals to Do They Know Its Christmas by Band Aid. He did make a short spoken word contribution to the B Side

Keithmall 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't appear according to the Wiki entry for the song, but it does say that Bowie does (he doesn't). Is it possible that the original writer meant (or misunderstood) that Macca appears on the "back" of the single (the b-side of the old style vinyl format) speaking? In truth, Macca does appear on the record, but not the recording.LessHeard vanU 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That was my screwup -- I didn't double-check sources. Sorry. Raymond Arritt 23:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, Big Man (as in "...it takes a big man to admit he was wrong.")LessHeard vanU 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no reference anywhere to the title song from the movie Spies Like Us. Sorry if this is in the wrong spot. Madman762

He played Bass on the 2004 version.--Crestville 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article has improved tremendously. With a bit of copyediting it will really sparkle. Something to watch out for is impairment of readability by over-long sentences, which is a very common problem with Wikipedia in general. What apparently happens is that someone looks at the material and decides to add a fact, then someone else adds their own qualification, and another expansion of the topic gets included so that eventually the sentence drifts around and contains various nuances, and by the time the reader gets to the end of the sentence he can't quite figure out what the main point is supposed to be -- which is clearly something that we want to avoid, so if there's any way you can help out it would be a really good idea to simplify sentences like that, assuming you have the time and are confident in your writing skills. Raymond Arritt 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Raymond Arritt. andreasegde 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I am very confident in my writing skills, and my sentences are often convoluted, with many qualifacations (and qualifications of qualifications), and of great length. I realise that communication sometimes requires brevity and simplicity, but the transfer of information sometimes requires a whole concept or idea to be laid out in one go. We do not want an article that runs in the format of

Paul McCartney is a famous person. He wrote songs and played in The Beatles. The Beatles were a famous band. They are the most famous band in the world. Then The Beatles broke up. Paul McCartney became a famous solo singer. He then formed another band. It was called Wings. They became famous.... ad nauseam

It is an encyclopedia for adults as well - lets write it in an adult manner. Clarity over brevity (as was commented on another topic above)LessHeard vanU 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points,LessHeard vanU. (Am I sounding too compliant here? Ouch!) All I can say is that if anyone does not think this is FA, then please say so, and make the changes. I give a challenge to all of us: If it's not good enough, then let's improve it. If it is good enough, then would someone please nominate it for an FA. Dear friends, let's stop humming and aahing and get on with it. (Sorry for my strident tone, but I want to move on and get my greasy fingers on other Beatles' articles...) andreasegde 20:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond isn't completely wrong but I agree with LessHeard. I see there's a copyedit posted -will take a look. But you know, Andreasegde is right- no point in talking about it. I am in an unusually agreeable mood today, apparently. It won't last. Happy new year, all. Tvoz | talk 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I believe this is called "shit or get off the pot". (And from a girl, no less. Oh those Yanks.) Tvoz | talk 20:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called that, and a very pertinent comment it is... :) andreasegde 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit II

I have just read through a few paragraphs, and it does look a bit 'sticky' sometimes, (that's the only word I could think of.) I think we should nominate it (but not me, 'cos I'm a back-room boy) and see what the 'big boys/girls upstairs' think. (Sound of fingers tapping/drumming on desktop...) andreasegde 18:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think User:LuciferMorgan would be a good choice to nom - he has been useful in sharpening up the article and seems to know his FA's. Only prob is that I haven't seen him around recently. I do think that the usual crew are too close to the article to objectively see the wood from the trees, even when we can feel it isn't quite right. I would like a third party copyedit and then slap it down in the FA intray. If, however, we can't get it reviewed perhaps we should bite the bullet?LessHeard vanU 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ps. I got some second hand cliches for Christmas... Could you tell?

I vote for dragging Kingboyk and LuciferMorgan back (by the hairs of their armpits) to do some sterling work. This project is gaining ground by the hour, and we need to kick ass (thanks to Tvoz for that one... :) andreasegde 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) BTW, I love you all.

I have a deep, and disturbing feeling that I'm going to do it. (I have never done it before, so please be gentle with me... :) andreasegde 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just tried to nominate it, but either my brain cells are depleting by the thousands, or I am too disgustingly stupid to know how it works (don't answer that one...) Can anyone help? andreasegde 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(When you have found out how to do the nomination) I would suggest that you leave the article alone a day or so before nominating it. I remember The Beatles FA review commenting on the heavy editing that was ongoing; it has to seem that the article is pretty much complete at presentation or it may fail as a work in progress. Obviously a popular article is always going to be tinkered with, but it should look as if the usual contributors are happy with the situation.LessHeard vanU 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thoughts as always, LessHeard vanU, but it doesn't seem as if that many people are seriously tinkering with it at the moment, and I am slightly worried that this turkey may be the one that Santa Claus forgot to deliver. I want to start work on the Lennon article, but (as is my wont) I don't want to leave this one in the GA wilderness. andreasegde 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have Tony look over the prose, and he'll give an idea of where you need to go. LuciferMorgan 20:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grateful Dead

Bugger - I have just read (and remembered) that Macca made a film about the 'Dead'. Does this man never stop? He's got his bus pass hasn't he? andreasegde 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I put it in. andreasegde 04:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This page should be protected. andreasegde 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Compared to other pages I've worked on there's not nearly enough vandalism to justify semiprotection, much less full protection. Though of course there's nothing that says you can't make the request. Raymond Arritt 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you're right, Raymond. I jumped the gun, but I did read that it should be left alone for a day or two before being nominated for FA. andreasegde 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Can't Believe It's Not Paul McCartney!

Anyone know what this project was about? Rogerthat ^Talk 08:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a joke from an old English advertisement for a company about margarine and butter. People tasted the 'marge' and said, "I can't believe it's not butter!" That's all I know... andreasegde 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So when is this article going to get nominated for FA? LuciferMorgan 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short question

Does the sentence "McCartney later took his A-level exams, but only passed one subject, which was English,[226] or Art.[227]" mean "McCartney later took his A-level exams, but only passed one subject. Sources disagree as to whether it was English,[226] or Art.[227]" or does it mean that McCartney is currently capable of choosing which subject he failed in? Geuiwogbil 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It means that nobody asked him, or that he has forgotten. Bob Spitz ('The Beatles') disagrees with Barry Miles (Many Years From Now - written with McCartney). I would agree with Miles' version, but... who knows? andreasegde 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunter Davies, who is not especially reliable with facts but whose report was much closer to the time, says Art. Raymond Arritt 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention this conflict among the sources? I can't make heads or tails of that sentence as is. This clarification is quite interesting, but it should be in the article somehow, even if only a footnote. Thanks for your explanations, and good luck in the FA! Geuiwogbil 05:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the citations to the end of the sentence. andreasegde 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I have been chopping out the ones that were not needed, and condensing others. andreasegde 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul is an ugly duckling

This is the 'ugly duckling' of articles. Quotes I have read: It's too long, it's not long enough, it does not correspond to Wikipedia style (no-one knows who wrote these style rules) it should be forked/merged, drugs were not so important to The Beatles that they should have such a long section (oh, really?) "swathes" of information have been left out, more should be put back in.... need I go on?

I see no way to reconcile these differing 'points of view', and can only predict that McCartney will never, ever reach FA. Such is life... andreasegde 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Or... you could put in for GA every time you have addressed one of the matters raised. When it fails on that point, quote them back at themselves. Let them get sick of it! LessHeard vanU 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean FA? Sounds tricky - I like it! andreasegde 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But the size problem will always be there. They want nice little articles that will look good in a silver frame on the victorian mantelpiece, right next to a Britannica article. I wonder what would happen if one copied an article from Britannica (paraphrasing it, course) and then sent it for FA? Ho-hum.andreasegde 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes me sick! This is the best article on Macca that I've read, speshly on the net, and as for Britannica's, laugh? I nearly handed 'round me ciggies! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique edit

I thought the following made some good points, but needs wikifying (a lot)

McCartney's songwriting has benefited from friendly competition, Lennon in the 60's, Rolling Stones in the 60's, and Lennon again in the 70's. McCartney's critical success with songwriter Elvis Costello in the late 1980's has not transcended to his latter works, "It's as if Costello's McCartney songs were written not for the actual Paul McCartney but for an idea of Paul McCartney. Trippy? Perhaps. But Costello's generous perspective made McCartney something he hasn't been for decades -- interesting." [4]

Is the unquoted section taken from anywhere because if it hasn't then it is opinion and cannot be used. If it is from another source then it needs citing. If it is from the same source as the quoted section, it needs to be made clear. If only the quote section can be used, then it needs context adding which is not original research or opinion. LessHeard vanU 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I took that out before because it makes me want to throw up. Kick it in the goolies and snip it. Absolute puerile POV from a Costello fan. andreasegde 08:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto peer review thingy

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 ounces, use 7 ounces, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 ounces.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, couldn't, wouldn't, can't, wasn't, didn't, didn't, didn't, wouldn't, doesn't, Didn't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postage Stamp Size Photographs

Andreasegde,

Your anal compulsion to reduce photo sizes is bizarre. I was wondering where you studied photography. I will remove my photo of Paul and Linda from the Wings section because I am tired of your infantile antics of making my photograph a postage stamp.

You win. But may I suggest that you get a life?

markestabrook Markestabrook 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He wouldn't do it without good reason.--Crestville 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest something to you, Markestabrook? Sorry, but your post is filled with childish comments. "anal compulsion"? Yes, I do have a compulsion to defecate (which is normal) but I wonder what you mean, exactly. "Bizarre"? Explain, please. "I will remove my photo of Paul and Linda from the Wings section" says a lot. It seems to be your photo, but are you promoting yourself? "infantile antics"? This makes me think you wrote your post when you were angry. You may have forgotten, but Wikipedia is about prose, and not only photography, although photographs are very welcome. I do not like to win at anything; I prefer teamwork, which is when we all win. The one thing I seriously object to is your suggestion that I "get a life". I have probably had more life than you have had hot dinners. Be nice, and let's work together. andreasegde 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be the copyright holder. I hate postage stamp size pictures on Wikipedia too. Jooler 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the photo, and you will see it in all its glory. Try writing something and adding in-line citations, which is what Wikipedia really needs. andreasegde 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make it big enough in the first place? Jooler 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just checked out Markestabrook on the web, and he is an extremely talented photographer. I love photographs, which is why I always visit the Photographers' gallery when I am in London. To take out a photo because it is not big enough to suit one's own personal viewpoint is not democratic, or helpful. I have put it back, because it deserves to be in the article. Check out, markestabrook.comandreasegde 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To Jooler: If you have large photos, it distracts from the text. Photos should accompany the text, and not overshadow it. "Wikipeda is not a magazine", as the FA zealots have often written. (They are completely, and utterly right, of course.......  :)) andreasegde 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about an increase of 50px here. Hardly a massive difference or enough to distract from the text. Jooler 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall start a new paragraph, because it makes my eyes water to keep flicking to the right... You are very right, Jooler, but where does it stop? 150px, 200px, 250px, 300px, 350px, and on and on. Reviewers look at 'References' first (in-line) and then at the 'flow' of the article. They don't like BIG pictures that get in the way of their review. If an article looks like a magazine it is very pleasing to read, but this thing we all work on is not that. Anyone can click on the photos and see them wonderfully displayed, so why should they be so big in the article? I prefer clicking on the photos to see them in all their glory, BTW. andreasegde 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall now do a test by making ALL THE PHOTOS in the wonderful Macca article 350px large. Call me a vandal, but it might make someone happy. :)) andreasegde 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just done it, and it makes my eyes water. andreasegde 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:POINT Jooler 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And I think someone on this page needs WP:CIV PDQ Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, please don't. If you had had the words at the top directed at you, you would be (not surprisingly) very annoyed, as I was. Editor Markestabrook made absolutely no previous comments on these talk pages about photo sizes before directing his tirade at me personally. If he had done that small thing, this conversation would never have taken place. Anybody that knows me on these pages can (hopefully) verify that I am helpful and a team-worker. The ethos of many Beatles' editors is based upon working together and having some fun along the way. I hate arguing with people, so I hope this conversation can move onto other (and more important) subjects. I wish you well. andreasegde 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Stamp designers

If other editors are unaware, Paul McCarntey is among the top three articles with the most categories at this moment. Efforts should be made to trim the categories to a reasonable level so that people can read the category list without being overwhelmed.

I have started with removing Category:Stamp designers. I saw nothing in the article about McCarney designing stamps, so I removed the category. If I am incorrect and if the category is really needed, then feel free to insert the category back into the article. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are totally right. Carry on. andreasegde 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But wasn't there a campaign to 'stamp out' The Beatles (back during the "bigger than Jesus" episode, IIRC)? Raymond Arritt 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you are making me giggle, which makes me feel like a bloke with a girl's name. (As Crestville would have it... :) andreasegde 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism - what was originally there?

Great article, but in the 1980s section the text states:

"In 1988 McCartney. released Снова в СССР, which was a collection of old Rock and roll hits - written by others - that McCartney had admired over the years. It was originally released in 1988, in the USSR, he is the most awesome singer this planet will ever seeElvis Costello (Declan Macmanus) and Juan Carlos Garcia Manzano Gandara."

I, not being an expert on the subject, have no idea what the orginal text before vandalism said; was it "featuring" or perhaps something else? I'd be much obliged if somebody who wrote the original text could come forward. Once again, well done to all concerned who've made contributions to this article. --Liamshaw 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are an expert, because you saw a stupid POV. Well done. Get rid of it, and join the project. andreasegde 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I did it, but you can do it in future. You have our full support. andreasegde 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCartney vs Lennon songwriting credits

I don't know much about it, but wasn't McCartney criticized for changing the order of Lennon/McCartney penned songs on some releases after Lennon's death? This would be suitable to include.

It is noted in the Lennon/McCartney article. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ps. Please sign your posts.

[edit] FAC

Hi guys, especially Andrew, sorry I've not been around to help. Article is looking great (at a glance, didn't have time to read it all hehe). Are you gonna try your luck at FAC? --kingboyk 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He did. It failed. Synopsis in recent newsletter. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - sorry to hear about that. I guess there should be a FA failed template affixed then...? --kingboyk 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) It's OK, I now see that the super duper new hi tech GA template covers it. I dunno, be away for a weeks and get left behind! --kingboyk 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Does anyone else feel the criticism section is a bit disjointed and incoherent? Also I feel that some of the diction needs improvement. Alvie3 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be nice, and just say this: it could be a lot better! It doesn't tell the story. It starts with a comment by his daughter that's more about the difference between people who were alive when the Beatles were a band and those who weren't. than it is about criticism. (There was a joke in the '70s, maybe '80s, "What was the name of that band McCartney was in before Wings?" Not that funny, unless it's 3AM and your a musician and sitting around with other musicians listening to McCartney do something musically unbelievable at high-volume.) I think the story of how McCartney has been criticised deserves an A-plus effort. It's complex and interesting. In my opinion, part of the difficulty will be finding opposing views: there's a bit of a steamroller effect. Most critics toe the party line which in my mind all resolves back to the fact that McCartney wasn't Lennon. McCartney gets high praise for the period when (supposedly) Lennon was preventing his excesses, and his solo career was uneven, at best, because there was no Lennon to fix things. Ugh! I agree there's plenty of weak material in McCartney's solo career, but there's a lot of great material, too. This is a guy whose solo career had many #1 singles and albums, and the best-selling British single ever. I am not saying critics should bow to popularity, but there has got to be two sides to the story. I have a nugget that can't be in the article for lack of seeing anyone else say it: Writers like Lennon's word play and his angst over political issues and his baring of the soul. Not that Lennon wasn't criticized, but he was rarely, if ever, compared to McCartney, and no one ever said what Lennon really needed was McCartney to trim his excesses. (Never may be too strong; some critics have said that both needed each other: pick two albums released near each other in the early '70s, mix 6 of the tracks Paul's album, and 6 from John's, and you've got a great album. Unrealistic in practice, but the concept is strong: there'd be more inspired songs and less filler per album.) Writers criticized McCartney for what they deemed "effortless" melodies, but where's the words? Well, first, listen a little more closely. Paul wrote some great lyrics at least as late as Flowers in the Dirt. Second, those melodies are the equivalent of Lennon's lyrics: a natural strength (that still took effort) and put him in a league of his own. Great songwriters were impressed by McCartney, with one example being Paul Simon.

And don't get me started on people like Geoffrey Giuliano! In one book introduction he says of McCartney, "... the wide-eyed entertainer has pretty much stuck to ... proliferating a long-string of pretty, toe-tapping, largely incosequential ditties tailor-made for the undemanding international top ten." Ditties? If the top ten is so undemanding, let's see him write one! And what songs are "consequential"? Sorry, but "Imagine" didn't change the world. Most people who like it, even me, don't really agree with it except on very broad terms. Giuliano's made a living by taking quotes out of context and by stealing tapes. (Now I feel better!)

So, it needs work. I probably won't participate much because I have strong feelings about it and don't want to sway the result. Heavy criticism despite incredible (at one time) popularity may be the legacy of Paul's solo career and that's a shame. Lastly, "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Every Night", "That Would Be Something", "Hi, Hi, Hi", "C Moon", "Tomorrow", "Some People Never Know", "Dear Friend", Heck, I'm gonna go listen to music. John Cardinal 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly; Criticism is today understood as a negative attribute rather than a harsh but fair review of a body of work, thus a section so entitled will attract negative comments. Secondly; there is a wealth of material within the article and outside attesting to the genius of the man, mostly in the sales and popularity of his work. This is the only section which gives the opportunity to present another side. Lennon was often self critical in his work and in his public appearances, so much of the negative material is spread over a wider area of his article. An example if the offspring of both men; Lennons article comments over the strained relationship with his first son, and also Lennons choice to become a house husband to enjoy the relationship with his second. McCartneys article indicates what has become of his children, but very little about his relationship with any individual as a father. Both are equally valid, and stay within what can be cited. McCartneys career has been more dictated by what he did well (to and beyond the realms of genius) than the struggles that Lennon had, so the negative criticisms must be laid as a seperate entity against what is otherwise a brilliant career.

IMO, of course. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "criticism" originally meant the "assessment by a critic" in which the critic was an informed observer who might find good, bad, or mediocre aspects of the work in question: the result of the assessment. Like you, I think the word has evolved to have a negative connotation where people assume that criticism is bad despite critics occasionally giving rave reviews which pulls the other direction.

Regarding Lennon and his children, so far there is more juciy material to discuss mostly because he had a distant relationship with Julian. McCartney's relationship with his children seems OK or good based mostly (A) they grew up in the same house with him, (B) he seems involved in their adult lives, but overall there hasn't been much discussion. Regarding Lennon and his political activies and other behavior outside music (affair and marriage with Yoko, peace events, "lost weekend") he endured a lot of negative criticsm. I agree with your point that such criticism was a more pervasive part of Lennon's life, but I will also note that he set himself up for some of that criticism as a result of his choices.

My comments in general were about criticism of McCartney's pop music and to a lesser extent other artistic output (movie, classical piece, etc.) I wasn't thinking of other stuff like drug busts (I think he got off lightly there, odd given tabloid mentality we live in). With regard to McCartney's solo music, and to a lesser degree, his Beatle songs, I think he has been harshly judged. We may disagree there. Lennon's music has been pretty uniformly praised with notable exceptions such as Sometime in New York City and the avante-garde stuff. Two of his pop albums (Plastic Ono Band #22 and Imagine #76) are in the RS500 albums list, and "Imagine" is #3 in the RS500 songs list. McCartney has no albums in the RS500 albums list. "Maybe I'm Amazed" is #338 in the RS500 songs list.

I know McCartney has been praised for some of his Beatle songs. Still, there's a negative attitude about him and his work. It exists even here on Wikipedia. Look at McCartney's Beatle songs in Wikipedia and then look at Lennon's Beatle songs in Wikipedia. John's best songs are praised with little or no dissent. (See I Am the Walrus for example, chosen at random.) Paul's best songs include put-downs and innuendo. "Yesterday" includes this material:

• A section about the possibility it was plagiarized or unduly influenced by other songs, and mentions three songs that supposedly were the basis of it. (How can it be three songs? Presumably, if it was plagiarized, two of the others involved plagiarism, too!) In one case, the article only included that a musicologist had noted the similarity between "Yesterday" and "Georgia on My Mind" and drawn a conclusion that McCartney was influenced by it. The article did not include a summary by the musicologist that "Yesterday" was a true and original work. That section was near the top of the article before I edited it and moved it down.

• That same section includes a ridiculous allegation that came from news story that alleged that "Yesterday" was a cover of an obscure 19th century Neapolitan song. The major evidence described in the article was that the person played the song to some journalists and they thought it sounded the same. I could play "Imagine" in a particular manner and convince a lot of people it was based on "Singin' in the Rain or any other song you care to choose. More importantly, in order to plagiarize it or be unduly influenced, McCartney would have to hear the song somehow (he can't read sheet music) and there was no evidence presented that he saw the sheet music or heard the song. It's very unlikely he did; the song is pretty obscure. My guess: someone hunted around until they found a song that was similar. The song is out of copyright so no legal action will come of it, but she got her name in the papers...

• Includes a strongly worded section that McCartney may have driven the other Beatles off the track ("recorded it "without bothering to include" the other Beatles).

• Includes a swipe that he had only a small part to the string arrangement

• Includes an anecdote that he annoyed Dick Lester during Help! by playing the unfinished song repeatedly.

• Includes a theory that the song was not included on two previous albums partly because the other Beatles didn't like it, a theory that is unsupported by citations

• Notes that he had "fallen in love with the song" (although this part also quickly adds that the other Beatles forbade its release as a single in the UK with a result that a cover single went Top-10 shortly after the Beatles' release of Help!.

• Includes an anecdote where the mother of an ex-girlfriend says "Paul didn't have any feelings," and said Paul used the song out of "vengeance" by calling the woman and telling her to watch him perform the song on TV. Upon inspection of the cited source, 95% of the material was positive, and though the quote was accurate, the "watch me on tv" part was not in the source.

• Includes Lennon's swipe at the song, "Beautiful—and I never wished I'd written it."

Don't get me wrong. With the exception of the "mother of an ex-girlfriend" thing, I think the negative or somewhat negative stuff in the "Yesterday" article should remain. It should be accurate to its sources, and it should be balanced by opposing points of view from other sources, but it should stay. My point is that there is a negative attitude about McCartney that isn't present for other artists, and Lennon is a good example.

In closing—and sorry for going on so long in both of my comments here—I think a criticism section (however named) should definitely be in the article. I think it should include both the negative criticisms of Paul (balanced by positive criticism as appropriate) but it should also discuss the combination of great popularity and significant negative criticism of his music. I think that combination is either unique to McCartney, but if not unique, the most extreme example within modern popular music. That's notable in my book. IMO, the current section doesn't cover any of the interesting stuff about the topic. John Cardinal 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can declare that there is at least one Project co-founder who will agree with almost (if not all) of what you wrote regarding a suspicion that Lennon gets far less strife regarding his recorded output than Macca. I am also shocked that "Band on the Run" doesn't get into that list you mentioned, possibly the most complete post Beatles record by any of them (IMO!!!). LessHeard vanU 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "mad " vs. "daft"

I don't have "Wingspan" so I can't comment on the exact given quote. On the other hand, Lennon's quote on it was "daft", and McCartney has been quoted in Miles and (via Linda) in Playboy as "daft." Daft strikes me as more what Lennon would say, and so my suggestion is to use the Miles quote. The Playboy quote is second hand:

PAUL: "Even if it can't be said, we'll say it. It's the truth. So it was the very next morning that I was trying to say, 'Let's get back together, guys, and play the small clubs.' And that's when John said..."

LINDA: "His exact words were, 'I think you're daft.'" John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCartney verbatim quote: "John looked me straight in the eyes, and replied, I think your'e mad"! Mark Lewisohn, Wingspan (2002) p.9 Little, Brown and Company ISBN 0-316-86032-8 Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you that you are quoting "Wingspan" verbatim; there's no dispute on my part about that. What I am saying is that McCartney recounted the incident multiple times, and used daft elsewhere. I agree that if we use the Wingspan quote it should be "mad", but I suggest we use a quote from Miles, which is McCartney saying, in part: "'... so we should go back to little gigs.' at that point John looked at me and said, 'Well, I think yer daft!'" (Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, 561.  As I recall (but can't find rthe quote), Lennon also recounted the story and his version said "daft", but I can't find that quote right now so maybe I'm mad/daft! John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put that Lennon and his next door neighbour plus the binnie, said "I think your'e banana" for all I care - don't you lot ever stop arguing? I'm going to werk, before I go stark ravin bonkers! Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the quote from whichever tome you have been mostly using for that section, and note the difference from the other reference. That should cover it. Vera, if we can discuss it here and sort it then we can STOMP (with all due respect and politeness) on any future editor changing it to whichever of the books they had read. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wingspan Book is only a transcricption of the TV thingy, so it stands to reason, that if you watch it, you will Hear Macca SAY "MAD" and not READ him saying "DAFT". Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"TV Thingy"? Is that a technical term? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Oh aye, it's a very teknicle term used in and around (but not exclusive to) the Dingle. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It was called 't'Telly' where I was dragged up, or "t'box in't corner", and also referred to as the thing "that'll make yer eyes go square". andreasegde 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)