Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions Talk:Paul McCartney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Paul McCartney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Paul McCartney is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: 12 November 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul McCartney article.


B
This article has
been rated as
B-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:
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!:
To-do list for Paul McCartney: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] Sections and general tasks

  • Finish adding in facts and citations, then 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 is solid as a rock.
  • Work on the lead on this talk page: we need 3 or 4 substantial paragraphs summarising the article (see WP:LEAD)
  • Check that the lead contains nothing not in the body (Talk:Paul_McCartney#Redundancy_check)
  • Expand companion article(s): MPL Communications - [1] and [2] may be worth a look for suitable info.
  • Red links to turn blue: Bag o'Nails ([3] - possible info), My Brave Face, Oobu Joobu, Be-Bop-A-Lula
  • Tidy up companion article(s): Paul McCartney discography
  • Songwriting and musicianship: We have the background info, but do we need more from later years and more commentary on styles, influences etc.?
  • Sections:
    • 1960s: Currently jumps from the formation of The Beatles to 1966 without explanation. This is gradually being filled in by Andreas. We need to fill in those missing years with particular emphasis on McCartney's role and experiences during that exciting time. We also need to capture some of the excitement: Macca was on top of the world, a member of the biggest band in the world. Add a paragraph on Paul is dead.
    • Solo: If we decide to keep this arrangement, we need a paragraph of introduction to the "solo" section, which is basically McCartney II to date, with subsections for each decade.
    • 1970s: Post-Beatles relationship with Lennon: Needs some more details of McCartney's relationship with Lennon - or lack thereof - in the early 1970s and more details of their reported making up. What happened to the text on the Ram/Imagine episode? I thought I'd put some in?
    • Paul_McCartney#1980s: Possibly a bit slim? What was the "theme" of the decade? Success as a pop star I suppose, and collaborations, I suppose? Frog Chorus?
    • 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: Needs an intro.
    • Paul_McCartney#Achievements_and_critical_reception: Needs an intro.
    • Paul_McCartney#Discography: Perhaps needs a paragraph of prose? Needs formatting.
  • Fair use rationales for pictures
  • Images needed/wanted: The picture of Lennon holding a pig. 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).
  • Audio samples
  • Peer review (probably at WP:WPBIO), optionally GAC, and then FAC.
  • Buy Andreasdge a beer when this article reaches FA.

[edit] Specific issues - citations, troublesome sentences, etc.

  • "In 1974, Wings achieved hits with the singles "Jet"[citation needed], "Band on the Run"[citation needed] and "Junior's Farm"."[citation needed] - Place chart positions and source for each "hit" into footnotes.
  • Paul is dead, needs to be mentioned in 1960s section even if only one sentence
  • expand this to-do section with the HTML comments in the article

[edit] The lead (edit here)

Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, was born on June 18, 1942, in Liverpool, England. He is a Grammy Award-winner for his work as a songwriter, and plays bass guitar, piano, guitar and drums. McCartney was a member of the The Beatles, "the greatest and most influential act of the rock era",[1] and Wings, is a solo artist, and has taken part in many other musical projects. McCartney is the most successful popular-music composer and recording artist ever,[2] with 60 gold discs and sales of 100 million singles.[3]

In The Beatles, McCartney was one-half of the songwriting team credited as Lennon-McCartney, along with fellow band member John Lennon. Beatles songs attributed solely to McCartney include "Can't Buy Me Love", "Hello Goodbye", "Hey Jude", "Let It Be", and "The Long and Winding Road."[4][5] McCartney's song "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, with more than 2,000 versions recorded,[6][7] and it has been played more than 7,000,000 times on American TV and radio.[8]

Following the announcement of his departure from The Beatles on 10 April 1970,[9] McCartney started his solo career. In 1971 he formed the band Wings with his wife Linda; the band went on to achieve 30 top ten singles in the United Kingdom and the United States. McCartney was the only ex-Beatle to resume touring,[citation needed] George and Ringo toured; Ringo still tours! and has continued to do so.

McCartney also works in the field of classical music (with works such as Liverpool Oratorio) More about where he premiered, who was there etc...

ambient/electronic music (under the pseudonym, The Fireman).[10]

When he was 40 years old he took up painting, having previously believed that art was only reserved for people that had been classically trained. He later wrote two children's books, and has been involved in the production, and writing, of animated films.

McCartney and his fellow Beatles were awarded Membership of the Order of the British Empire on October 16, 1965, and McCartney was knighted on 11 March 1997 for his services to music. He dedicated his knighthood to his fellow ex-Beatles, John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, as well as to all the people of Liverpool.[11]

McCartney is listed in The Guinness Book Of Records as the most successful musician in popular music history [citation needed]. His MPL company owns the copyrights to more than three thousand songs, including all of the songs written by Buddy Holly, and also owns the publishing rights to musical scores such as Guys and Dolls, A Chorus Line, and Grease.[12] Aside from his musical work, McCartney is also a painter[13] (although until recently he kept his artwork private) and is an activist for animal rights,[14] vegetarianism, music education (LIPA), and against landmines.[15][16] He is one of Britain's wealthiest men.
It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is specifically for the picture of Lennon holding a pig from Imagine, to offset against the sleeve of Ram.
It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is specifically 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 specifically 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 specifically for a free image of Heather Mills McCartney.
Peer review Paul McCartney has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Wikipedia CD Selection Paul McCartney is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Linda

As I am not sexist, I have to disagree about not including Linda McCartney in Wings at the start of the 70s. Macca started Wings with her, and he had married her before then. The first Solo/and later, Wings was just her and Him, in Cavendish Avenue, so why is she ignored? So what if she was a shit keyboard player? She was in the duo/band. (Yoko reference again...)

I understand that his marriages can be included somewhere else, but we should put her in. I'm sure Macca would agree. Lennon would definitely have agreed (= Yoko).

P.S. I have put his early songwriting before The Beatles, because it belongs there. --andreasegde 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All web sources need the date they were last accessed, so if the link becomes dead it can possibly be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. LuciferMorgan 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, LuciferMorgan. I have often seen that, but I never fully understood why it was there. I will go through the citations and put them in. Thanks again. --andreasegde 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Wayback Machine is on www.archive.org BTW, so if any links become dead please go there. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Linda has to be covered as a full member of Wings in the Wings section, and a brief mention of her involvement in Wings should be in the Linda section too. We don't judge her value as a member of the band, we just report it. (Although we can certainly report what critics have to say if anything juicy is found). --kingboyk 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hits? Proof?

A quote from the 1980's section;

"In 1981, McCartney disbanded Wings, and set about recording his next album with Beatles producer George Martin. The first result, 1982's Tug of War, was a major success. "Ebony and Ivory", recorded with soul legend Stevie Wonder, was a hit, and the album also included his eulogy to Lennon, "Here Today"."

To say an album was "a major success" isn't good enough, as it needs factual info to support - such info for "Tug of War" would be its Billboard chart position, its UK chart position, and critiques from music reviewers/historians (or McCartney/Beatles biographers). The same thing applies to the single "Ebony and Ivory" - you'll need factual info, such as chart positions, reviews, etc. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. I've nothing that goes beyond the Wings Period at present. See what I can get hold of though. Thanks Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
AMG will have info on Billboard positions, so you could inline cite them from there. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well received? Proof?

Another quote, this time from "Classical music";

"In 1991, McCartney made his first complete foray into classical music, collaborating with Carl Davis to compose the quasi-autobiographical Liverpool Oratorio. This was received well in general, although many commented that the music lacked the complexity normally associated with the genre".

  1. The 2nd sentence is weasly, as you can't say "This was received well in general". To say it was generally well received you'll need 3 cites I'd say to back up the "generally bit" - it may be an idea to quote some comments here to back up the comments.
  1. The 2nd part of the sentence saying "the music lacked the complexity" etc. will need roughly 3 cites if one feels "many" commented upon this.

Make sure the comments you find are from reliable sources, and the more well known the sources the better. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your're right, LuciferMorgan, it's POV. I'll remove it when I get back. --andreasegde 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I did it. (I just couldn't stop myself...) Good work spotting it. --andreasegde 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page is on a roll...

This is the first time that I have felt genuinely excited about working on a page, because it is a shining example of co-operation. Are we gonna get an FA? If it goes on like this, it's a foregone conclusion. (Now - where's that other regal bloke....? :) --andreasegde 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have the Anthology CDs, I will work on that. There are lots of bits of information on there that are not repeated anywhere else. --andreasegde 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yesterday

I'm really not sure about its position, and if it should be so long. Any comments? --andreasegde 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the position is wrong. It should also be cleaned up as there are some useless points. --jackdrew 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just cut it out. (It's mentioned elsewhere). --andreasegde 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason why that song should be mentioned in any great detail here. We should save the detail for the song's article. So, yes, agree once again :) --kingboyk 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For possible inclusion...

Read this article [4] - I think it's info could be useful in the subsection dealing with McCartney's business affairs. LuciferMorgan 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I will put it in. I'm frustrated at the moment, because I don't have the time... but I will have. --andreasegde 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPL

There's an empty subsection for MPL - is this related McCartney topic going to be discussed in the article or not? This should be decided and then worked upon, lest it be removed altogether. LuciferMorgan 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the stuff you got about his trademark should go in...--andreasegde 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I just spotted it on my AOL homepage, so clicked on the article. We just need to generally research the topic - ie. when it was set up etc. LuciferMorgan
I put it in. It's from 'The Guardian', which is a reliable paper. --andreasegde 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have a small summary section on MPL and McCartney's ownership of a large publishing catalogue, maybe one or two paragraphs maximum. The detail should be in the MPL article. --kingboyk 11:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfection

I wouldn't worry about it not flowing so freely at the moment, because we're only collecting information. We can polish it later. Let's do the basics first. --andreasegde 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That was my intent too, and it's how I work on big articles like this (see Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty, both are a mess like this, all 3 will be FA some day!). I think we fill it up with all the referenced info we can find, and then we trim out the excessive detail, beef up the related articles, and polish the prose. In other words, we lay the foundations first and do the decorating last :) --kingboyk 11:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see you back. I noticed a few external citations in the article yesterday, so I 'in-lined' them. I now have to go through all the in-line citations and put dates in in, as I didn't do it before. (Bugger...) --andreasegde 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice site

It's a singles chart database: Every hit.com I linked it a few times, because if you link the page you found, it doesn't work. You have to type in the title every time, but it's better to choose the year of release, and then click search. --andreasegde 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, couldn't we have choosen someone with a shorter career? lol :) --andreasegde 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Could be another 30 or 40 years of it still to come yet! --kingboyk 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film

I took out the film section, and put 'Broad Street' in the 1980s, but I think I've shot myself in the foot, because there are lots of little references here and there that relate Him to film. It's a puzzler... Put them all together, or leave them? Hmmm... --andreasegde 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't feel that film is a particularly important medium to McCartney; it was more important to Ringo and George. Let's leave it, we can always rearrange later. --kingboyk 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I think the business section is really nice now - it contains enough info to set the scene, with an invitation to click through to other articles to read more. Apple Corps and Northern Songs are decent enough articles, but if you find any more info on MPL Communications that article could really use beefing up.

Songwriting and musicianship: I think this needs to be expanded or merged in somewhere. It seems a bit out of place.

The main section I want to talk about is After The Beatles. I don't really like the section name and it also seems a bit overlong. Any ideas about what we can do with it? Do we want it standalone or do we want to merge it into the chronology? If standalone, can we think of a better name for the section? --kingboyk 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the name either (and I put it in!...doh!) I think it's good to leave it as a standalone, but who wants to have a title like, "The deaths of John and George, and another argument with Yoko"? (lol). I have no idea, either.
Glad you like the business section. I will look at the others you mentioned. --andreasegde 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Some stuff about his playing drums,guitar, the kitchen sink, etc. etc. could easily go in the musicianship bit. Working with Martin on the string scores... Piano in Cavendish Avenue - solos on Beatles recordings - harmonium - moog synth.... errr... --andreasegde 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bag o'Nails

I've wikilinked this in several articles. It gets enough mentions, I think, to be worthy of an article and is notable at the place where Paul and Linda first met. --kingboyk 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a link next to it to show where it was, and lots of people played there. It is worthy of an article, but it's hard to find much out. (I tried...)--andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Asher

  • It has a brief mention of Jane Asher and then it's all Linda. It looks like a snub for Jane.
  • I am quite sure I put in all the citations two weeks or so ago. Where did they all go?
  • If we have to put in page numbers with in-line citations the references list will be longer than the article. (Now 121 and counting...)I'll do it, if it's defintitely a 'must-do', but... --andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should trim the stuff about meeting Linda, because it's fan-level detail. Funnily enough, I wrote that in a HTML comment as you were presumably writing this message :) Of course, the story we're telling is of a snub to Jane. Macca meets Linda, gets engaged to Jane, and then marries Linda... That said, if we can find more info on Paul's relationship with Jane (which I'm sure we will) we'll mention it. She was his companion during the Beatle years which makes her pretty important I reckon.
  • I haven't zapped any except for one which didn't contain the info it was citing. I have however added extra fact tags so we can cite everything (including stuff I know to be true).
  • Page numbers are good, but I wouldn't expect you to go back and find page numbers for the stuff you've already referenced. I'd settle for what we have but add page numbers from now on. Others might be more lenient or more strict, I dunno. What's your take on this, Lucifer Morgan? --kingboyk 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead (intro)

Main article: WP:LEAD

To avoid edit conflicts, I'm gonna put the lead here so we can tweak it. The lead should be a summary of Macca's career and should contain nothing which isn't in the body. It'll also be the basis of the text used when this article gets onto the front page :) --kingboyk 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What a bloody great idea.--andreasegde 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Because this is such a long article, I think we should be looking at at least 3 or 4 substantial paragraphs of lead. --kingboyk 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the "Redundancy check" below. There's a contradiction here... Facts mentioned in the lead, strike them out when we've checked they're in the body too What up, bro?--andreasegde 11:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When we have a stable lead, I'll build a list in that talk section of the facts in the lead. We check they're mentioned in the body and strike em off the list. --kingboyk 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead (edit here)

Moved into Todo list so it doesn't get archived. --kingboyk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy check

Facts mentioned in the lead, strike them out when we've checked they're in the body too:

  • Landmine campaigns - need to be mentioned and the citations reused in the Activism section.

[edit] Danger, Will Robinson...

Who has put all that stuff in the George section? It's POV, anti-Macca, not cited at all, and makes me blood boil... It's not one of us, I'm sure. I'm gonna cut it, but someone have a look at it first. --andreasegde 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

I've added a load of jobs to the todo list near the top of the page. If you see anything else that needs doing please add it there, and we can use the todo list as our management centre for getting this article to FA. --kingboyk 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations and citations for critical opinion

I've found that most of the Macca and Beatles albums already have weblinks to reviews (AMG, Rolling Stone etc) and these make for really rich pickings. A little critical commentary from professionals is always a good thing, so get following those external links folks! (Be careful with reference reuse, as I've already referenced a few of the reviews). --kingboyk 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS I reckon we're gonna hit 200 references easily. I remember when The KLF got to 23, and we thought that was a lot... it now has ~100. Macca is way more celebrated than them and the sources are just overflowing! :)

I agree. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in the "to do" I found an online critical review of the 1984 McCartney film by Roger Ebert, a notable film critic who works for the Chicago-Sun Times. This is worth using briefly in this article, and used in more detail in the film's own page. Please use this review! Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We'll use it, an Ebert review can't be refused! Thanks man. --kingboyk 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I have to say that I love this page, and all its occupants... (I am slightly drunk...) --andreasegde 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor George

I think the "Lennon & McCartney, post-Beatles" has good information now (before polishing) but where is George? Are there vandals at work? The whole section about the death of George has gone. --andreasegde 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No I zapped it. It just seemed to be amateurish and OTT, and we're gonna have to do a lot of trimming anyway because of the article size. I mean, this is an article on Paul not George. George died, Paul was a bit upset, Paul played at tribute concert, that's about it isn't it? I think we can mention that in the chronology. The relationship with John is a bit different as it's very well documented and they were a duo, Lennon/McCartney. If you don't agree you can reach into the history and bring the section back. That's wiki! :) --kingboyk 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The tribute concert information can be added in that specific article I feel. Like I said, there's gonna be a lot of content forking with Macca. (PS - I hope the two MPL links are worth something!) LuciferMorgan 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll mention it here, just not in the sort of detail it had before. George was the man AFAIC, but that doesn't mean I want Macca's article crufted up with stuff about him just for the sake of it :) I'm sure those links will be helpful, the others certainly were - keep em coming! --kingboyk 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm speechless.... (No I'm not...) Paul knew George well before John. They were both schoolfriends, and Paul held George's hand, shortly before he died. Macca said (TV interview) that George was like "his baby brother". No mention of George's death? Now I'm speechless... --andreasegde 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course we'll mention it but I don't think it needs a big section. This is an article on Paul.
Another alternative is to make a personal relationships section, and put in some more details about Macca's friendships with George and others (if he has any other friends?!). Then we don't have to dwell on death. George hardly gets mentioned until he dies... That would solve the Lennon section problem too perhaps.
Have a think about it, as I will overnight. Bring the section back if need be. Goodnight. --kingboyk 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The should-be-obvious question is: if Lennon, Harrison and Ono get sections, why doesn't Ringo get one? I'm not jesting :) --kingboyk 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Because Ringo is not dead. (Yoko got into a fight with Paul about John...) --andreasegde 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Jane Asher isn't dead either, nor Heather McCartney. We have a debate on our hands I think. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(I've started a new line... sorry) I don't really understand what the problem is. I talked about George's death being omitted (I put it back). I would love to have a debate, but about what? Yours, Mr. Confused, --andreasegde 01:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andreasegde's edited version

I like it. Exactly the kind of summary I was looking for. The question now is "do we move it to 2000s, and add mention of Lennon's death to 1980s?". I think yes. What do you think? --kingboyk 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited George's section back to what it was (with a few cuts.)
I think the mention (as sad as it was/is) of John's death, and then George's, should be together. They were The Beatles, and they lived together (literally) for many years. Anyway:
  • We should be thinking about how much information we have, and how much we need. (LuciferMorgan's 'citations needed' are a good case in point, which should be addressed.)
  • There is a strong possibility that we could set a new standard for FA articles if/when we finish this one. We have a lot to do. --andreasegde 00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Heather and Paul lived together for a few years too, and she's alive. So what about Ringo? LuciferMorgan 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Last night I had an idea about how to possibly integrate this info into the article more logically. I'll give it a go momentarily and report back. --kingboyk 10:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I've started. Will be back in a few minutes to tweak and review, and then you folks can let rip. --kingboyk 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and References

I'll see if I can take care of the "Notes" and "References" section. I've been busy of late so haven't been able to review this article much. Sorry everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've noticed a major problem with the books that have been inline cited. You're supposed to inline cite specific page numbers, so where are they? When I did minor work on Iron Maiden I cited specific page numbers, all using the same book. This is how you're supposed to do it with books, not like this article has done. Just citing the book is too general. Whoever has this published material will have to trace all the page numbers should they want this article as an FA - Otherwise we can all wave bye bye to FA. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about that for now, I think Andreas is gonna take care of it (and has already started citing page numbers). If you could fix up the references from the other media that would be great - formatting as we discussed, and checking that each source is acceptable. --kingboyk 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Once Andreas takes care of the page numbers, I can work on the book media - it'll look much better also when I can go to work on it (when the page numbers are thrown in). LuciferMorgan 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone send me the accepted style of formatting page numbers, books etc? Name, title, :? commas, date (date) etc. etc,.. and so on. I'll copy it over to winword, so I won't get it wrong. Uhh, I do so love pedantry. :) --andreasegde 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Where does Note 26 go? There's no weblink, no book info, no nothing. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That happens when text gets shifted about and what was the first use of the reference isn't any more. If the text looks like it's in the right place now, just find the full reference and move it to the first usage. If the text is likely to be moved again don't worry about it for now. --kingboyk 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page number formatting

Miles, Barry, “Many Years From Now”, p. 3. Is this OK? If not, just change it and I'll get to work. --andreasegde 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I think it should be just:
Miles, p3.
unless we might be using more books or articles by Miles (entirely possible since he compiled the "In Their Own Words" books if my memory serves....) Pass... Mr Morgan? --kingboyk 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm on much thought I give my thumbs up to this style. I was going to suggest using the date of publication, but that's worthless since books become reprinted. Only thing I want changed is a full stop replacing the comma after the surname. Other than that I'm happy. LuciferMorgan 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Miles. p3. - Righty-o, I'm on it. --andreasegde 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought - I'll leave the first Barry Miles ref in, but will erase the others as I go. --andreasegde 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: If three references about different subjects are on the same page, do I seperate them, or just repeat them as all being on page 4? "Mary worked", "Michael born", "Grandparents" etc... ?? (Uhh, pedantry, doesn't it make you go all weak inside?)andreasegde 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're in the same book and on the same page, reuse the reference, using ref name=.
If you're using one page to provide the detail for a whole paragraph you might be able to get away with passim (meaning something like "used liberally") provided there's nothing controversial in the text: Miles, p7, passim
For a range of page numbers use "pp": Miles, pp7-9.
--kingboyk 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In short, he means you repeat them as all being on page 4. LuciferMorgan 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVDs

Is there any mention of the Paul McCartney DVDs anywhere? There is a very detailed audio discography, but AFAIK nothing on the DVDs, which include important releases such as: Paul McCartney: Live at the Cavern Club, Standing Stone (containing the concert and a "making of" documentary), Live in Red Square and the forthcoming The Space Within Us. - Zakko 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, although there's so many Beatles-related articles it's hard to keep track - especially if they're not tagged with the {{WPBeatles}} banner or in correct categories.
I think DVD and video info belongs in the Paul McCartney discography, an article which is poorly laid out and in need of some TLC in my opinion. Perhaps we can get Steelbeard to fix it up? :) --kingboyk 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say albums and singles should have separate discography pages, especially given how long Macca's been around. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope someone will create at least a brief summary of a few of the major DVDs - this is quite an important omission. Personally I'm not sure which ones should be mentioned, but the Live at the Cavern and Live in Red Square DVDs may be particularly significant. - Zakko 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, McCartney is a major artist so they should all be listed somewhere (probably not in this article though). We're tied up enough already with this so perhaps you could be bold and take care of it yourself? I'd personally put them into the discography, or you could start a new article. --kingboyk 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my available time is probably going to be quite limited in the coming weeks, but I will make a start on the DVDs section, and hopefully someone will take it further. -Zakko 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Can we just clear up a chronological issue - when exactly did Wings end? Do we have any citeable source for the exact date? Piecing the bits together from our articles I get this chronology:

  • Back to the Egg, last Wings album, released June 1979
  • Was the last Wings single "Getting Closer" (Aug 79), "Wonderful Christmastime" (Nov 79), or something else?
  • Dec 1979 - Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, last Wings show.
  • Jan 1980, McCartney busted as he enters Japan to begin a Wings tour. Tour cancelled.
  • McCartney II released in May 1980 whilst Wings are in limbo (any refs/citations for Wings being in limbo?)
  • So, what happened after this, if anything? We're saying Wings split in '81, which may well be true, but we don't explain the missing months. --kingboyk 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Have you got other books Andreas, e.g. Philip Norman, Peter Brown, Mark Lewisohn? We oughtn't rely too much on just one author or we'll be writing "Barry Miles condensed McCartney bio". Of course I don't mean to stop you working through the books one at a time as you are already, in a nice and thorough fashion, I just wondered how extensive your library is :) --kingboyk 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got Spitz, Barry Miles (photos fell out a long time ago), Philip Norman (which has totally fallen to bits) Fenton Bresler (only Lennon), Hunter Davies, all the Anthology DVDs, and have access to a few more (such as The Unknown Paul McCartney) due to a Beatles fanatic that I know. (He’s a nice bloke really…) I will try and intersperse the others in, but there are only four or five that are really good, or so I believe. Maybe we could put a list of the good ones together for the talk page or Beatles category page? I would like to buy some more, if there are new ones about…. --andreasegde 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
All my books are packed away, and I'm out of touch as to newer books, but I have (from memory): P Norman, pretty good; I have Love Me Do (one of the real oldies); the offial Paul bio (I think that's Miles?); Lewisohn's Recording Sessions and Chronicles (the first of which is essential); Revolution in the Head (very good for song analysis); George's I Me Mine; stacks of Lennon books... anyrode, your library is pretty damned good and will be plenty. I might be able to get Peter Brown from the local library (read it years ago, pretty good) and of course there's plenty on the web now too. --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lewisohn is currently working on an enormous three volume biography of The Beatles that will conclude in 2016." (Wiki page on Lewisohn)I can't wait that long!! --andreasegde 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks great though! --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Miles' book only deals with Macca and The Beatles, but it does look at them from Macca's perspective, which is why I started using that one. I think there are about 25-30 references in it. After The Beatles is harder to get. Anyway - what do you mean "it looks great"? Have you got the first volume? Bugger...--andreasegde 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but I read the interview with Lewisohn and it looks like it will be an exciting work! --kingboyk 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation scheme

Page numbers aren't really a problem. I just have to look at the Index (on Asher for example) and it would take 15 mins. or so. As I'm beginning to perversely enjoy these in-line citations, I might like it :) So, what is your opinion, LuciferMorgan? --andreasegde 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My take is that all inline cited articles that have an identifiable author should begin with the authors name; eg. if it was me;

Morgan, Anthony. insert link, etc. etc. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - Does anyone want me to go over these inline cites? Check the inline cites to Iron Maiden for a rough idea of how I would do them. LuciferMorgan 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We do need a standardised scheme and if somebody could clean them up to match the scheme that would be cool. I like this approach:

==References==

  1. Lewisohn, p12
  2. Some author surname, firstname, "Name of newspaper article", The Times (London), p10 (link)

Although for #2 I'm quite happy with this as an alternative:

2. Some author surname, firstname, "Name of newspaper article", The Times (London), p10

Thoughts? --kingboyk 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My proposed scheme is this (same as the Iron Maiden scheme, so please check for a better idea of what I'm on about!);
Surname, forename. "Article/Chapter Name", Publication Date, Name of Publication/Website (and then "Reported by" if on a secondary site; date last accessed.
Up to you lot what you choose, but this is the one I prefer. LuciferMorgan 15:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not very different from mine (as used in The KLF). What about URLs? Hmm... kinda inline. Well, I prefer my scheme cos that allows wikilinking the publication (blue link publ.==more likely to be reliable?) but frankly I'm really not too bothered as long as we get consistency. So, if you're gonna do the cleaning you go with your scheme! (If I have to do it, I'll go with mine, but I hope you're volunteering ;)). --kingboyk 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'm volunteering. One thing... you can wikilink with my style too if you wish. Soon as you and Andreas give the thumbs up to my style (I'll add wikilinks to the publications for you), I'll begin. LuciferMorgan 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Macca-style thumbs aloft from me, Mr Morgan! --kingboyk 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't need my permission at all, LuciferMorgan. You go right ahead and we'll all follow your lead. --andreasegde 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ungrateful (but probably do!), but I don't much like the first example of the new reference formatting scheme. First, I think newspaper article titles should not be italicised. Second, I'd prefer it if either the title or a "(link)" at the end be externally hyperlinked rather than the source name, so that the source name can be internally wikilinked (BBC Online in this case, which is distinct from BBC News). Finally, the dates need to be wikified so that they display correctly internationally (3 November 2006). --kingboyk 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, feel free to debate upon a reference formatting scheme that is suitable and revert my edits. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I just changed them to your suggested citation style. Does this make you happier about the citations now? LuciferMorgan 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes thanks mate, but I wikilinked the article date too on one of them. I wonder if I've been doing my date links the wrong way round, or doesn't it matter? I've been doing 3 November but I see from your edits that that's a redirect to November 3. Hmm.
Do you think we need citations in the lead? I'm generally of the opinion that, since everything in the lead must be in the body, the lead doesn't need to be cited (as indeed is the case with The KLF I think). --kingboyk 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --andreasegde 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So these citations, what's the new style we have agreed on? How do we do the dates in particular? LuciferMorgan 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My best bet is that the correct format is as you were doing it but without a comma, so for today: [[November 4]] [[2006]] November 4, 2006. If you could get to work with the refs using that date scheme that would be cool. If it later transpires we need to change the date format I'll use AWB or regular expressions in a text editor or something to fix it... basically, as long as they're standardised they can be cleaned up automatically later. Does that sound OK? --kingboyk 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) PS I'll look into this more, but my tests suggest the scheme I've just used is the one that gets auto-formatted, in which case I might have to clean up The KLF articles too!
Ok will do. So the article published date will be month/date, and so will the last accessed date. I'm a 35 minute car drive from Cardiff if anybody is curious. Maybe 'Lucifer' sounded American. LuciferMorgan 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm not worried about the last accessed date being wiki formatted though. The choice is yours on that one. --kingboyk 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date-formatting experiment

Can you guys (especially those with non-UK Windows settings) tell me how the above dates display in your browser? In Firefox/Windows XP/UK settings I get:

  • November 3, 2006
  • 3 November 2006

Head scratching time... --kingboyk 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All I know is the US does month, date, then year.
UK does date, month, year. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and try work out what, 11/12/06 is. 12 November 2006? (US) or 11 December 2006? (UK) Owl-stretching time.... --andreasegde 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to work out is which of any of these styles get auto-formatted by user preferences (as they're supposed to). Note how the first one gets a comma inserted in my browser, even though the wiki code doesn't include a comma. --kingboyk 12:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Once it's worked out, get back to me so I can begin the cite work. LuciferMorgan 12:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, we have communication breakdown here man :) You're American aren't you? Therefore you probably have different regional settings to me. Can you tell me how the two dates above are displayed in your browser? --kingboyk 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm from Wales actually in the UK. LuciferMorgan 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Why did I think you are American?! Hmm... You may be only just down the road from me then. --kingboyk 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a 35 minute car drive from Cardiff if anybody is curious. Maybe 'Lucifer' sounded American. Yes, I think it might have been that coupled with your "love" of Marilyn Manson. Anyway I am indeed not too far from you (Gloucestershire). --kingboyk 15:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological

I have just put some semblance into the order. I could accept the deaths of Lennon and Harrison being together somewhere further down, but you can't have The Beatles intro before The Quarrymen. --andreasegde 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have to do it that way. Each section needs an intro, as far as I know. Isn't that right Mr Morgan? --kingboyk 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, each section does need an intro - it's a major mistake many people make when trying to get things to FA. An intro in a section summarises a section. Ie. "Paul McCartney has been featured in several greatest songs lists" for example, and then you'd elaborate with hard, factual evidence. LuciferMorgan 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

The song "Michelle" had a Grammy, but does this count? I know he wrote it, but is it for inclusion here since its a Beatles song? LuciferMorgan 12:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

At the 17th Grammy Awards, the song (not album) "Band on the Run" won Best Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group. These awards were held on March 1, 1975. [5] - this link can be used to cite the info. LuciferMorgan 12:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice site. It's now in my favourites list. --andreasegde 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's good for getting Grammy info - we could use it in other Beatles related articles. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early years/Beatles sections

If possible please try to avoid resectioning those, I'll be back a little later to finish trying to sort them out. --kingboyk 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't be sectioning anything - I'm the cites man, so hope the links in the "To do" list will help. LuciferMorgan 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I think it might make things easier (given that we have a working-version of the lead on the talk page) and neater if we didn't have citations in the lead?

Since everything in the lead must be in the body, we can cite it there.

What do you think? --kingboyk 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If what's in the lead must be in the body, then I agree with you. LuciferMorgan 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it has to. The lead should be a summary of the body, meaning it has to be a duplication. --kingboyk 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok chill out! LuciferMorgan 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That, coincidentally enough, is the other article I'm supposed to be working on for FAC! ;) --kingboyk 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we should nominate the article for GAC first (once we're done). LuciferMorgan 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Could do, but I'd be inclined to go for a peer review at WP:WPBIO and straight to WP:FAC, since GAC could take weeks and is merely approval from one editor... Anyrode, you can return to editing now I've taken {{inuse}} off :) --kingboyk 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This could get FA status, but it'd need a copyedit. I know Tony would pounce on it at FAC if he felt criterion 1. a. wasn't fulfilled. We just need to wade through the "To do" list. LuciferMorgan 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hell yes, it's a long way off. There's huge chunks of basic biographical information missing, and a great deal of amateurish writing remaining. We'll chip away piece by piece, adding in the info and citing it, then polishing for brilliant prose, then PR and optionally GAC. Tony won't be setting his eyes on this for some time to come! :) --kingboyk 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my writing isn't that good - I hope my links in the "To do" section prove helpful. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I think between myself and Andreas we've got a reasonable structure now. Do we agree or disagree? --kingboyk 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I can't recall ever disagreeing? LuciferMorgan 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh...Music to my ears. --andreasegde 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a general query Mr Morgan. Actually, if you must know, the disagreements on structure have been between myself and Andreas, we've been quietly tinkering with it day by day but I'm happy with it now. In fact I think it's F-A-B! :) --kingboyk 13:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick quiz: What is the one physical feature that Jane, Linda and Heather all have? Look at the three photos. (No - don't say large mammary glands...) --andreasegde 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A certain hair colour? LuciferMorgan 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Nope. Think of the word "aquiline".--andreasegde 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD

I'm walking on thin ice here, lads. I have just put the anthology DVD in the references section. 1. Am I allowed? 2. Am I allowed to cite it? (I cited it once....) What's the verdict? --andreasegde 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Only sources cited more than once go in the references section (I'll leave you to take it out of the references section - of course in the cite include all the info). I'd like to stray away from referencing albums etc. incase people accuse of bias, but that's my opinion. What's yours Kinboyk? LuciferMorgan 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You can cite sleevenotes (see The KLF notes 98 and 99) but with extreme caution; they're perfectly adequate sources for tracklistings, songwriting credits etc.
We've discussed Anthology before, but I forget where. Basically, I think it's perfectly fine to quote original interviews on Anthology. Any archive material quoted would be far better referencing the original source, however a shoddy citation is better than no citation at all.
Personally I wouldn't put the Anthology DVDs into the references section but would have no qualms citing and quoting from it within the above parameters. --kingboyk 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I'll take it out of references. ----andreasegde 15:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we discussed it before, on Wikiproject Talk I think Kingboyk. LuciferMorgan 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Another thing which FAC is very hot on is fair use images. If it's not possible to justify "fair use" in the strictest terms, and write a fair use rationale for it, we can't use an image. Copyrighted portraits of third parties used decoratively won't be acceptable, I'm pretty sure about that. Regrettably, then, I've had to zap the photos of Linda, Jane and Heather Mills and have added {{reqimageother}} tags to the top of this page. --kingboyk 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true... they're more concerned about images than the writing quality! LuciferMorgan 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarrymen

I notice the Paul McCartney article now has more inline cites regarding the Quarrymen than the actual Quarrymen main article itself. If any info in the main article is uncited there but cited in the McCartney one, can someone duly add the cites maybe if they have the time? LuciferMorgan 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Recycling" citations

Can we all please endeavour (and this is a plea to myself as much as the rest of you) to recycle citations into other articles at the same time? e.g. LuciferM just mentioned the Quarrymen. If we cite a fact about the Quarrymen and the same fact is in that article, cite it there at the same time. That way we'll be improving multiple articles with minimal extra effort and making future work easier. --kingboyk 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but as I seem to be the main offender, I have to say that I was going to do that after this article was finished. It will be much easier to do it in one fell swoop later. I don't want to get confused about which page I'm on, and which reference I copied. (Believe me, I find it easy to get confused...) Also, anybody editing related articles can copy the references over themselves. --andreasegde 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair points Andreas. It may be better doing it afterwards. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair enough. --kingboyk 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a point to cheer us all up: references - 187 and counting. LuciferMorgan's '200 references' target is definitely going to achieved. ("And the crowd goes wild...") --andreasegde 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. I think we might hit 300 - I wonder what the record is?! --kingboyk 16:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol my target isn't 200 - that was a mere estimation of when the book cites are given their individual page numbers. Knowing our luck some editors may complain about the article's size. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's currently just over 100k. After removing HTML comments and trimming excessive detail, but with at the current time some detail and citations still missing, the final figure is gonna be around that mark I'd guess - maybe more. I think we'll have to just wait and see. No point worrying about it just yet. If the article is cruft free we might get away with it, or we might have to start some more child articles, but we won't know until we have something like the finished article (first draft thereof). --kingboyk 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Can't say I like the Refs section coming before Notes. Do they do it in books? Nope. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I thought refs should be first. Do we have example articles to look at? --kingboyk 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Wish I could think of one, but the way I've always did it is Notes first so people can then look at where the cites came from in the Refs section. LuciferMorgan 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce Settlement Figure

This is hard to fix as it ranges from source to source - [6] - this one from July for example estimated it at £10 million. [7] - Here's another saying she was paid off to keep quiet about their marriage. LuciferMorgan 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PS - Found a source for the prostitute bit. LuciferMorgan 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll get meself a glass of wine shortly, but I have those tabloid articles open in tabs and will add some references tommorow. Some tabloid links are exactly what we need to reflect this very tabloid divorce. I'll keep commentary minimal and let the reader decide. --kingboyk 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what the facts are before we comment on it. --andreasegde 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Wikipedia

Macca's article on the Norwegian wiki is Featured. Anyone here speak Norwegian? :) I notice that they have a similar structure to what we've come up with (sections for Wings, activism, classical music etc.) --kingboyk 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I looked at that two days ago. (FA articles, and all that...)--andreasegde 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I normally never do this, but I have to say that it's not anywhere near to the quality of our article, even though it's a Norwegian FA. (Sorry, to all of you Norwegian editors. :) --andreasegde 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's actually only GA. Having said that, it wouldn't reach GA on our Wikipedia (no offence). LuciferMorgan 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's FA but they use the image that we use for GA. Agreed, it wouldn't make FA here but different wikis have different standards. The English and German wikipedias are way ahead of most others, but the others will catch up! There's some wonderful folks over at the Norwegian Wikipedia (see no:Talk:The KLF) so lay off em alright! :) :) --kingboyk 11:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm merely assessing the articles lol. LuciferMorgan 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Which you are doing extremely well. --andreasegde 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarrymen section

Absolutely spiffing, first rate work Andreas! I'm "dead impressed", hardly found a thing to copyedit :) --kingboyk 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Spiffing" - what a nice word. I thank you kindly, Kingboyk. Any chance of a Quarrymen barnstar? Oh well, never mind... --andreasegde 20:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That reminds me, I was going to give Lucifer Morgan a "Rolling Stones barnstar" for his services in getting Beatles articles defeatured ;) hehehe --kingboyk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol what's a "Rolling Stones" barnstar? By the way, I'm such a petty guy I've even put two of the three Beatles GAs up for review too (stone me now!). LuciferMorgan 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
lol, I think we should be thankful that LuciferMorgan is with us on this page. It's not a case of "The enemy is inside the walls", but rather, "The enemy is inside the walls, and he's helping us build them back up". More power to...err... that thing between his forearm and upper arm... :) --andreasegde 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, although that does conjur up an image of the Trojan horse ;) But, seriously, LuciferM will get a real barnstar from me soon enough but not just yet as we need to keep him motivated :) --kingboyk 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks lol. Actually, I'm more of an enemy of GAs/FAs that fail to meet their criteria - I think this Wikiproject needs a true reflection of where it's at, and not some old FAs that don't meet today's criteria. I mean, if you compare the KLF song FAs to the Beatles song FAs, the difference in quality is immediate. What pleases me though is after awhile of nominating Beatles FAs with not a care in the world off the Project, now actually there's two people who're determined to get it going. LuciferMorgan 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles section

Before you do too much work on that section Andreas, can I just issue a reminder that because of article size constraints we only want a potted chronology - the very key events with particular emphasis on McCartney's experiences. --kingboyk 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Very right. I think that McCartney's personal experiences should be there, with short lines about the main things that happened. Err... which is exactly what Kingboyk said, but in reverse. --andreasegde 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length (said the the actress to the Bishop)

I have a disturbing feeling that the length of this article (as Kingboyk has pointed out) will be a problem, and will be commented on. How do we get around that? I am in the middle of The Beatles, but there is still a lot to put in (I am making it as concise as possible, by the way) so what can we do? This is a special case, as Macca has had such a long career, so should we collect all of it, and then fork it? Please ignore this if you think I'm rambling on... :) --andreasegde 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As in a thread above, we'll deal with that later I think. Let's get the key material and citations in place, give the resulting text a good copyedit, and see what we're left with. --kingboyk 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 200

Sound of fireworks, the crowd goes wild, it's a goal, they think it's all over - it is now, I'd like to thank the academy, mine's a pint, and yes, yes, yes... 200 in-line citations. Our cup overfloweth. --andreasegde 06:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was, but now it's gone back to 194. --andreasegde 11:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A new editor (to this article) did some cleaning, I think. Have you checked they didn't zap any references that should have been kept? --kingboyk 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. I looked at the history, and it said some were "not real references". You're better at that than me. --andreasegde 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's now 202. Come on 300, we're waiting for yer... --andreasegde 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatrice's birthdate

Take your pick between the rags. The Sun says [8] that Beatrice's birthday is 30 Oct. Hello! says 28 Oct.[9] --kingboyk 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce

And, on the theme of the divorce, whilst I think we have about the right amount of content now there's no need to skimp on references especially given the controversial nature of the material. Therefore if you find additional articles from different newspapers saying the same things feel free to add extra citations. Just queue 'em up, one ref after the other no spaces between. --kingboyk 12:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until the outcome. One editor once told me that "this is not a magazine", with which I agree. --andreasegde 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We can't not mention it, but I think we shouldn't add any more material certainly. I agree with the "this is not a magazine" sentiment absolutely, but even a journal or up to date print enyclopedia would have to at least mention the impending divorce. Kinda agreeing with you... Also, some info and citations will probably become redundant at some point and deleted (once the divorce is over and the amounts are finalised) but that doesn't prevent us being thorough with the interrim info :) --kingboyk 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[10] - This Sun article calls Mills a former porn model. LuciferMorgan 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, inserted, thanks. --kingboyk 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
On a purely personal (POV) note, I thought that Lady Mucca was trouble right from the start.--andreasegde 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm seems no wonder everyones fighting Macca's corner, and not hers. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way Andreas, I think Lady Macca was only one woman, and she's no longer with us (Linda R.I.P.). LuciferMorgan 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Lady MUCCA not Macca, as the rags have dubbed her... --andreasegde 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think Paul was vulnerable when they hooked up. LuciferMorgan 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It was the aquiline nose thing. He's a sucker for it. --andreasegde 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress report

As you all know, I am adding things to McCartney's Beatles' time, as well as other bits. Any comments? Too much detail - not concise enough? --andreasegde 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure really - my Beatles knowledge is minimal (best have Kingboyk tell you when he comes back). I'll see if I have time this weekend to sort out the cites. LuciferMorgan 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - How's the page numbers coming along? LuciferMorgan 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Very well, although I'm only up to the middle of The Beatles. I've put a lot of new stuff in, but the other page numbers aren't a problem. --andreasegde 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out my last 8 original "Years" references, (mostly in Asher's piece) but it won't be a problem to page-reference them.

BTW, I don't know who's doing it (and I don't want to know) but I wish some of the lines like "Not good enough! I want a citation from the original source..." could be toned down a bit. I love doing this, but I don't want to feel as if I have to do it... Try phrases like, "We need a good/original citation here"... --andreasegde 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take criticisms of text personally mate. You've done an unbelievable job. I'll try to beef up some of the refs and add any which need beefing up to the todo list, but please keep at it you're doing a sterling job. --kingboyk 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do love doing it, because it has taken preference over my addiction to "Civilisation II". We are doing something that is totally new on Wikipedia. "Lock and load", as they say. --andreasegde 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class Report

The Macca class has been slowly improving over the last term, and this is to be congratulated. Pupil LuciferMorgan has been especially diligent in his efforts to 'rein-in' the more unruly members of the class, and (as class Monitor) his work is highly appreciated (especially concerning the alphabetical order of the books in the school library). Pupil Kingboyk has made a steady (and sure) progress throughout the last term - as always - and his position as 'class leader' is, without doubt, highly regarded. Pupil Andreasegde has been industrious and hard-working, although his aggressive attitude about books and their relevance should be curbed. Vera, Chuck and Dave have all been absent during the last term (due to an unfortunate accident) but we all hope they will make a speedy recovery and return soon. (It must be noted that they have made worthy contributions during their illness.)

All-in-all a good term, and I wish all the pupils every success in the future. --Mr Hornby - The Macca School of Economics 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do I get a Roll of Honour or something? Haha! LuciferMorgan 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That can be arranged. I'll meet you outside the staff room after school. P.S. Bring money...--Mr Hornby - The Macca School of Economics
Unfortunately this pupil won't be doing much homework for a while. I'll still be keeping an eye on the article and chipping in when I can, but I have a personal project to work on. Email me if you want more info. This article will remain my focus on Wikipedia so I'll certainly be around just not as much as usual. --kingboyk 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles references

I'm stuck on this now. I have a choice to put only stuff in that relates directly to Macca, or slip in references about songs, films and albums, etc. I'm stuck... --andreasegde 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a section on the Indica gallery in the Art etc. section? --andreasegde 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's me done for today. I'm off for a pint wi' me bird. (233 citations, BTW. :) --andreasegde 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No - hold on - I'm back (doesn't this bloke ever give up?) Why have the pictures gone? If it's because of "fair use", I understand, but can't we get anymore? Right, that's definitely it - I'm off... --andreasegde 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I guess the most important works can be mentioned. I'll try to read what you've done later to get a better idea of where we're at (sorry, been away, trying to work on more important things but not progressing too well! :( )
Indica Gallery can be mentioned I think. We need to mention Paul is dead. References from other books would be cool.
Images: I explained this above. FAC is very strict on fair use. I've added "image request" tags to the top of this talk. I'm not a killjoy - I want us to have photos of each Macca's "ladies" but the images we had weren't eligible I think. --kingboyk 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Kingboyk's right - if this wasn't the case then the KLF discography would easily be a Featured List. Blame FAC reviewers. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical response

Even though it is tough to find newspaper articles that summarize a critical response about McCartney, these references might help in writing it :

This quote taken from a New York Times Upfront in 2004 :

   
Talk:Paul McCartney
 would Beatlemania sweep the U.S.? A Times review of a filmed Beatles performance on NBC in early January 1964 said that "it would not seem quite so likely that the accompanying fever known as Beatlemania will also be successfully exported." (As Chandler Bing might say, "Could that reviewer be any more wrong?")
   
Talk:Paul McCartney

Here kingboyk, I don't say remove the critical response section but it is gonna be tough to find material for it. Lincher 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... that 'drownedinsound' article is the most biased POV I have read in a long time. Do we really want to include stuff like that? It gets close to libel, in my humble opinion. --andreasegde 15:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, perhaps that will have to be a section for me to work on then. I'm pretty sure there are sources. Macca's a guy who until recently polarised the press isn't he? Anyrode, we can always ditch the idea if it doesn't work. --kingboyk 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to have a critique of Macca, but it will be difficult without straying into POVs. Are there any critiques of Gandhi or Jesus? lol :) --andreasegde 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, NPOV means reporting the rough with the smooth. Since there is a body of opinion that Macca, well, "sucks" (Frog Chorus anyone?) the NPOV thing to do is report that, offset with the (larger) body of opinion that he's a living legend. --kingboyk 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some interesting/revealing quotations in the Miles' book that I'm using at the moment, which hints at Macca's jealousy that Lennon gets all the credit for being the literate one, and Paul being only the "nice, cute Beatle". It's all read-between-the-lines stuff, but it shows his real anger/jealousy that people think he's all "pizza and fairytales" (Lennon). It might be good to angle the piece so that all the critiques are balanced with Macca's views. What say you all, my dear comrades-in-arms? --andreasegde 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. That could make for a really interesting section: for, against, and Macca's own views. I expect we could find some stuff from Lennon taking both positions too. --kingboyk 10:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at Lennon's Playboy article, when I've finished with Macca's drug consumption and his book-buying. --andreasegde 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 288 References

288 references so far. (Will this madness never end?...hehe :) --andreasegde 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's looking cool. One thing, the "last album to date" bit at the end of the 80's section I wanna take out - this fact may change should McCartney get another number one album. Also, I think this is way better than GA right now. I'm gonna nominate it right now, but everyone keep working on the article - if they don't like the fact it's unstable then stuff them. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, LuciferMorgan said "stuff them". We are a now an unstoppable team. This has made my day... :)--andreasegde 19:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Responding to the "last number one" bit: the point there is that it was a long time ago. The 80s were quite a successful decade for McCartney, the 90s less so. The 00s saw of course something of a comeback but on the back of a highly acclaimed (I think) world tour. I've no objection to changing how we reflect that (or reflect a different trajectory if I'm wrong) but I wouldn't want to lose all reference to it, as though he's been getting smash hits from the 60s to date (he hasn't). --kingboyk 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It is currently unreferenced, having a fact tag. Could we change it to last number one album of the 20th century then? LuciferMorgan 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote it and tagged it with {{fact}} (I tend to do that when I'm working on a referenced article and haven't got the definitive info to hand). Last of the 20th century is fine, but: I don't like statements that age either. However, is it a problem in this case? It was nearly 20 years ago. --kingboyk 09:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it was his last of the 20th century - McCartney will get another number one album, probably after he passes on. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, that occurred to me too. He'll probably get a posthumous number one single and/or album whether or not he ever gets to the top spot in his lifetime again. Nonetheless I don't have any problem with describing something that happened ~20 years ago as "last to date". Drummond and Cauty could get back together (1987 debut, 1997 FTM, 2007 ??) but I still describe FTM as their last collab to date. --kingboyk 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

This article is 75k of pure prose. It will probably be asked to be axed downed or split in order to achieve the GA/FA standards don't you think. Lincher 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, but Kingboyk and LuciferMorgan will definitely have. I'm probably to blame though, as I am throwing everything and the 'kitchen sink' in. --andreasegde 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you should probably go easier on the peripheral info about his life - let the readers buy a book :) That said, Lincher, even if Andreas reigns (sp.?) himself in a bit, with such a long career and so many interests this article is likely to trouble 100k whatever we do. We'll review the situation when we're done. We don't want any more forks if we can help it. That's about all I can say at the moment. I'll be coming in with my cutting knife and trimming it down when it's done, and we'll see what we have left. --kingboyk 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I even put his dog 'Martha' in... --andreasegde 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Martha My Dear. And wasn't Jet named after an animal too? And don't forget the Land Rover, Helen Wheels :) --kingboyk 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm up to "Making the albums", which is very long and details the writing of songs. I would prefer it if someone else tackled that (songs, albums etc..) because I don't know how much to put in. (Ouch! Sound of ruler on bare knuckles...) --andreasegde 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd say pretty much nothing, unless it's career defining (e.g. "scrambled eggs"->"Yesterday", which could get a one sentence mention in the 1960s section). Details about individual songs will have to go into the song articles (or album articles if the song doesn't have one). --kingboyk 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Final Fantasy VII is 96kb, and that's an FA. Additionally, if this doesn't pass GA / FA standards, it races past them and smashes straight through their winning post. Size is a poor reason for objection - this has ten times more refs than average FAs / GAs, keeps straight to NPOV ten times more than average FAs / GAs. It's superior in every aspect. LuciferMorgan 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Andreas has done a truly amazing job. But, we do need to keep an eye on size and remember this is a summary piece not a complete history. We've done really well on that aspect so far: The Beatles sections, for example. If we want to write a book we can always do that later ;) (and no GFDL please, I need the money, hehe). --kingboyk 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Anyway, the size is fine considering Macca's career - if we didn't summarise it'd be a 1000Kb! LuciferMorgan 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote #3

is currently blank because I altered the first use (footnote 2) to reference the BBC article (which was a news article and not written by the interviewer). Footnote 3 is citations using the same source (ref name="HardTalk") but which don't appear in the article.

Maybe they appear in the video? (I don't know, I don't have RealMedia). If they do, we'll need to cite the TV programme not the article. If not, we can find other citations. If you can fix it please do, otherwise - don't worry about it - I'll fix it up some time. --kingboyk 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (PS HARDtalk is a respected TV programme from BBC News so citing the actual programme should be fine.)

I can't work it out. Is it two citations together, or one? I'll be blowed if I know... --andreasegde 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Footnote 3 is other uses of footnote 2, but for facts which aren't mentioned in that web article. I fixed up footnote 2 and renamed it "HardTalk"; the other uses became footnote 3 because I couldn't verify them. If you have no idea then please replace them with {{fact}}. (I hope that's clear now cos it doesn't look too clear to me :)). --kingboyk 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macca is a... in his own words

I have started to add some bits to McCartney being tough, and they are all in his (and Linda's) own words. Give 'em enough rope.... --andreasegde 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Exactly. I will say no more... :)--andreasegde 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I will: I have put the "Yesterday" cover in, because it's from an FA site, so it must be kosher... --andreasegde 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indica Gallery

I'm gonna contradict myself a little now and suggest that I move the bulk of the (interesting) material about the Indica Gallery to the article specifically about it. Indica Gallery is currently a stub, and could do with beefing up; this article need not have such detail. I think that would be an excellent compromise: just give the Gallery a sentence or two as we do for LIPA.

Please let me know if you agree or not and if you do I'll do it later. --kingboyk 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The only thing I get nervous about is putting time in on something and then it gets zapped. It's going to a good home, so feel free. --andreasegde 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The stuff on 34 Montagu Square could also be farmed out to the Montagu Square page. (I forgot that Lennon and Ono had their nude photo taken there, and it isn't mentioned in the Macca book...) --andreasegde 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's deleted nothing is ever really zapped on wiki of course (and even deleted pages can generally be brought back).
Anyway, I digress. I'll do the Indica stuff now and take a look at the Montagu Square situation. Cheers Andreas (is Andreas your name? I'm not sure we ever resolved that? If it isn't your name perhaps you can reveal it in the next newsletter? :)) --kingboyk 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've done Indica but there's a few issues outstanding:
  • Did Macca have any involvement with the founding or funding of The International Times (something is nagging at me saying he did). If he did, that can get a sentence too (and a mention in International Times).
  • Did Miles remain a friend for life? I think in the Indica paragraph we can add a sentence about Miles and his writing of Macca's (authorised?) biography. Perhaps we even need an article on Miles' book?
  • I've done the best I can for now on fitting the info into Indica Gallery but you might want to tweak it. With a bit more info about the exhibitions held there (including, of course, Yoko's) that article could easily aspire to GA if you fancy working on it a bit more. --kingboyk 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Doh! It says there that he helped start it! :) If you could give me some more info about his connection to Miles (I read the book but have fading brain cells) I'll give the section a tweak. --kingboyk 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what, if anything, I can do with the Montagu Square text at the moment. --kingboyk 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I cited Macca's comment that he "helped" start the International Times in the article. He didn't say that he funded it, but he probably did.
  • Macca's relationship with Miles goes back a long way. Miles later managed Zapple. --andreasegde 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course he did! Told you I had a bad memory. And after that, friendship right through until the book was written? --kingboyk 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because I'm a pedantic sort of git, I'll do Miles after finishing this mammoth article. Will it ever end...? :) --andreasegde 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Miles talks/writes a lot in the foreword of the book, and said/wrote lots of stuff. I'll save it on my bookshelf until we're finished with 'Elephantusie-Maccus Biggus-Poppus'. --andreasegde 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I just discovered that the book already has an article: Many Years From Now. --kingboyk 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Both Miles' page and the book page will get added to, and tweaked. --andreasegde 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 297

No explanation needed :) --andreasegde 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my forking of the Indica Gallery section cost you a few ;) --kingboyk 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait until I get the Spitz book out and all the others. 300 or bust... :)) --andreasegde 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

302. I saw a page (the band Fluke) and somebody said 45 in-line references was "almost referencing it to death". Does that mean I'm dead? :) Hey, I've just read it again, and who's name did I see on the talk page? "Her....e..........s...sss Kingboyk!" :)) --andreasegde 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't know much about Fluke (only have 2 singles of theirs) but they were contemporaries of The KLF and part of the British electronic music scene. The guy writing that article has helped with feedback and positive comments on KLF articles and FACs so I returned the favour :) It's a pretty nice article. I think perhaps even better is The Orb which User:Wickethewok has been working on (81 citations). --kingboyk 12:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I took out the "Mostsuccessfulartistever" reference, because the original web/book reference had been deleted some time in the past. --andreasegde 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do

I know this should be in the 'to do' section but I thought I would point out a few glaring points.

  • Photos
  • A discography section (to take out all those confusing "was a hit" comments.)--andreasegde 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Where are you all?

We are nearly there. Let's finish the last lap. --andreasegde 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Phone and internet went down on Thursday. Came back up last night! One of the perils of living in the countryside :) --kingboyk 10:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm here - just tied right now. Long story. LuciferMorgan 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides anyway, you both seem to be getting on totally fine without me. It's not like I ever made a major contribution anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, now, we won't have talk like that. Your contributions are very worthy, Mr LuciferMorgan. We need your eagle-eyes, and your intelligent comments. Do not lose heart. --andreasegde 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It's mostly Andreasegde at the moment (still haven't deciphered the anagram!) as I'm working on some off-wiki stuff. I'm still keeping an eye though and will be here to help with the copyediting and the final push towards FAC. --kingboyk 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritualism

What about a section on Spiritualism? There's a whole chapter on the Maharishi. --andreasegde 16:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I put one in, because he does still meditate, and he did it in Japan when he was in the 'nick'.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/Talk%7EPaul_McCartney_0345.html"
THIS WEB:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia 2006:

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - be - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - closed_zh_tw - co - cr - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - haw - he - hi - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - ms - mt - mus - my - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - ru_sib - rw - sa - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - searchcom - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sq - sr - ss - st - su - sv - sw - ta - te - test - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tokipona - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu