Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:30, 8 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted June 15, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. The Beatles Top‑importance This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Misplaced Pages. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Misplaced Pages. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findnotice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Richard Goldstein's review

Earlier I removed a questionable statement in the reception section which claims Goldstein changed his negative opinion of Sgt. Pepper but was reverted. The passage in question is:

However, a few days after this review he changed his opinion, saying that the album was "better than 80 per cent of the music around today". He also called it an "in-between experience" and a baroque work.

The source for this is a 2010 blog titled "Richard Goldstein Rethinks His 'Sgt. Pepper's' Slam, Sort Of" which contains an excerpt from a July 20, 1967 article in the Village Voice. In the article defending his New York Times review—published one month, not a few days later—Goldstein wrote "I find the album better than 80 per cent of the music around today" but qualified that with "it is the other 20 per cent (including the best of the Beatles' past performances) which worries me as a critic." He goes on to say "I still feel that if I had to write that review tonight, instead of this defense, it would sound a lot like its predecessor." The reference to Sgt. Pepper as "baroque" comes from this passage: "When the slicks and tricks of production on this album no longer seem unusual, and the compositions are stripped to their musical and lyrical essentials, "Sergeant Pepper" will be Beatles baroque—an elaboration without improvement..." In this article Goldstein clearly reiterated his misgivings about the album and was not indicating any change of opinion. He further repeated his opinion of Sgt. Pepper as "fraudulent" in his review of Magical Mystery Tour (Goldstein, Richard. "Are They Waning?" New York Times December 31, 1967: 62). Piriczki (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. And the "anti-pepper, pro-revolver" people will give you a prize for it. 177.19.103.160 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Review in reaction to the Goldstein review

• Phillips, Tom (22 June 1967). "'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'—Fraudulent, or Most Creative Album Ever?". Village Voice. Without attempting a point-by-point refutation of Goldstein, I must say that I think the Beatles have scored a genuine breakthrough with "Sgt. Pepper." {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Album "concept" explanation from same article:

unlike all past long-playing records that I know of, this one has a metaphorical structure, very much like a work of fiction Cuts two through 11 are widely disparate in mood and sound, but the significant thing is that the characters who appear form a gallery of Lonely Hearts, leading lives that range from quiet to raucous desperation. Among them are a solipsistic acid-head, an aging-only child running away from home, a troupe of circus exhibitionists, a silly man worrying about his old age, and a nutty kid in love with a meter maid. "A Day in the Life," is a kind of epilogue. Here the whole substance of the work is turned inside out, and what has been an insane world taken as normal is now the normal world viewed as insane.

I suppose that qualifies as one listener's interpretation than anything authoritative. I've not found a Misplaced Pages article on a Tom Phillips who was "writer on the Broadcast Desk of the Times." / edg ☺ ☭ 20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mellotron?

So, where's the Mellotron on this album? I think Mr Thompson of the excellent Planet Mellotron page successfully busted this myth, referring to Mr Emerick himself. http://www.planetmellotron.com/revbeatles.htm --217.232.45.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's on the single that was sadly torn from it in advance. Huw Powell (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The/the ... again.

I would like to gage the current consensus here for The/the usage. "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

Also, this raises the question, should we have a wikiproject-wide consensus established on this issue, or should consensus be established page by page, as the issue is pressed? Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please indicate below whether you support adherring to the wikipedia MoS by implementing a consensus here, that prefers "the", versus "The", except of course when the band name begins a sentence. Please add a rationale, and/or suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• A third option is to !vote for adherring to the current consensus at the Beatles talk page, here at this article. Which currently is: "Consensus per this discussion is to keep the mid-sentence use of "The/the Beatles" minimal."

Options

1. Support adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t")
2. Oppose adherring to the current MoS guidelines (upper-case "T")
3. Maintain consistency with the current consensus at the Beatles.

• Comment. Editor GabeMc has contributed 371 edits (#2 in the list of contributors), to Pink Floyd, which contains "The Tea Set, The Pink Floyd Sound, The Pink Floyd". The aforementioned editor has also contributed 2,391 edits (#1 contributor) to Roger Waters (an FA article), which contains The O2 Arena (London), The Bleeding Heart Band, and The Perse School. All of them are mid-sentence. One should not throw stones when one lives in a glass house.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that using lower-case was not an option in a wikilink. I'll go fix them. ~ GabeMc 12:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought you would do. Ridiculous.--andreasegde (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The MoS states this as well: "For bands, capitalized "The" is optional in wikilinks and may be preferred when listing: A number of groups increasingly showed blues influences, among them The Rolling Stones, The Animals and The Yardbirds."--andreasegde (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. As read above: the Beatles talk page is actually called Talk:The Beatles‎. Notice the difference?--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - 90% or more of the sources used to cite Beatles articles on wikipedia use "the", I think we should as well. It reads more fluidly, and is proper grammar. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons I gave here Richerman (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but if "both are acceptable", then how are editors to agree? A consensus needs to be adopted at each page where there is contention in this regard. In other words, how can this article ever make FA, if its usage is inconsistent, and the subject of frequent edit wars? What do you suggest as a solution to this age-old question? ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be consistent now so it can stay as it is and any future edits should be changed, if necessary to fit with that. It's a simple matter of keeping each article internally consistent. Richerman (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, but consensus can indeed change over time, as it should, sometimes anyway. Many of the editors who established this usage are not even editing here anymore, so who are we honoring? Also if consensus does change here, is there any reason why this article cannot enforce the current MoS guidelines, and revert to small case "the"s? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Would you advocate for the current consensus at the Beatles? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're in the middle of an FAC for McCartney and you bring this up? Friggin' unbelievable.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with the current McCartney FAC. This has to do with the current consensus here at this page. ~ GabeMc 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this has been discussed to death over the years and doesn't need to be discussed any more. The band name is a registered trademark; they are a British band, and in the UK, it is much less common to use a lower case 'The' than in the US, so WP:ENGVAR should be respected; in the billions of bits that have been expended in discussing this issue over the years, the net result has been that "The Beatles" is indeed acceptable in running prose in spite of the contradictory way the issue is addressed by the MoS. The only time the lower case 'T' would be unequivocally acceptable is within a direct quote, or in the title of a work within a citation, which is how American spellings within British articles are handled. The articles are reasonably stable for once, and any further edits should reflect new or improved content.

BTW, aren't you going to a ridiculous extreme in linking to the band article as "the Beatles"? Do you truly not understand the nature of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Radiopathy, I do understand actually, and I agree with Richerman, both uses are generally acceptable. Caps at the start of wikilinks are now optional, maybe you weren't aware of that. Also, consensus can change Radio, and sometimes, it does. Of the 42 printed books I used to source the McCartney article, only 3 or 4 use upper-case, so when 90% or more of the sources used to cite an article are in complete agreement, then perhaps a mistake was made here at wikipedia in this regard. At any rate, as Richerman said, as long as usage in the article is consistent, and in-line with current consensus, then either is acceptable. Although I predict an analysis of the top-ten highest quality Beatles secondary sources would prove nearly 100% small-case. We also have the third option, as currently implemented at the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And what is the point of all of this? Radiopathy •talk• 01:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To gage the current consensus on this issue here, at this article. What is the point of your fighting it? Do you have any other argument than, "that's the way it's always been"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"What is the point of your fighting it?" The use of the word "fighting" is extremely provocative, and definitely not necessary.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess resist would have been better, but really now, come on. You are getting silly. Is this an OCD for you or something, or is it just a power struggle to get your way? ~ GabeMc 12:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Radiopathy. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support because I happen to like the MoS and have a strong aversion to !voter intimidation. Evanh2008 11:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To "like the MoS" is a very weak argument.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support adherring to the current MoS guidelines (lower-case "t"). The Beatles are no different than any other group in the application of this guideline. Also, the claim that the upper case "T" is a British English variation needs a source to back it up. A quick search of the British newspapers The Times and The Guardian indicates use of the lower case "t". Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how about these?

• Examples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio:

The Office, The Apprentice, The Wire, The Archers, and The Likely Lads.

• Bands: of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven, it's OK. The Who,The Drifters, The Band, The Libertines, The The, The Cure, The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, The Dandy Warhols, The Jam, The Knack, The La's, The Undertones, The Shadows, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Dakotas (band), The Verve and The Beach Boys
• Newspapers: The Independent, The Observer, The Lancet, The Sun, The Scotsman, The Stage, The Spectator, The Sunday Times (UK) The Tablet, The Daily Telegraph, circulation equals The Sunday Telegraph, The Independent on Sunday, The Wire magazine, The Fortean Times, The Oldie, The London Evening Standard, and The Jewish News.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How do the reliable sources on those bands write their names in running prose? Ninety-percent or more of the Beatles sources use "the", and grammar itself dictates we use "the", or at least our MoS does. ~ GabeMc 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How are reliable sources like The Independent and The Observer linked in Misplaced Pages articles?--andreasegde (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maintain consistency with the current consensus at the Beatles and work on more substantial improvement to Beatles-related articles than this Misplaced Pages:Lamest_edit_wars#The_Beatles topic. GoingBatty (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, improving the article is the point, but until a clear consensus is established in this regard I have no interest in going back and forth over this issue. We need an established consensus here so that this issue is not ongoing, and disruptive to article improvement. Also, as far as maintaining the current consensus at the Beatles, I have to respectfully disagree. The consensus there is to avoid the issue, not to decide either way, a non-solution really, IMO. ~ GabeMc 23:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This torturous "issue" has been ongoing for years, as you well know. A compromise was reached, but the whole messy business is being dragged back out of the the Black Lagoon of Lame.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the mysterious/suspicious ip 99.251.125.65 dragged it up six days ago. Soon after they started the thread: Forcing capitalisation of Trademarks is nonsense. Indeed it is. ~ GabeMc 11:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that improving the article is the point, and I can understand why you want this issue to be resolved before proceeding. I'm concerned that we're not going to come to a consensus on "The" or "the", and I don't want to have a separate discussion of this same issue on each of the hundreds of Beatles-related articles. Therefore I'm suggesting that we consider that the consensus to avoid the issue on The Beatles be our own "Beatles MOS" and be used on every other Beatles-related article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Radiopathy's reasoning. The band is mainly known as "The Beatles", and not as the "Beatles". --Diego Grez (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not 100% accurate Diego. Of the 40-50 highest-quality reliable sources, maybe 4 or 5 use "The". Lewisohn, Spitz, Gould, Miles, Epstein's book, George Martin's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Emerick's book, and Derek Taylor's book all use "the". ~ GabeMc 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "the/The" is not universally used is enough to declare this a no-brainer.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Gabe's rebuttal of Mr. Grez. Mythpage88 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:MOSCAP and my belief that it looks better. --John (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose against my instincts, which are schooled in American typography. To form my answer, I did some "original research" and read a handful of LP spines. Keep in mind that these "credit" the "authors" of the work contained therein. It is "The Beatles", "The Who", and "The Rolling Stones", although usually in allcaps or all lower case. More importantly, it is not "The Queen" or "The Yes" or "The Led Zeppelin", although it certainly could have been. The "The" is part of the name of the band, in my opinion, and should be capitalized. "The The" is a special case, of course. Thanks GabeMc for inviting me to this interesting discussion. Huw Powell (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How do the high-quality WP:RSs write it in running prose? Pick a source or two out and check. Almost all of the highest-quality sources write "the Beatles" when mid-sentence. ~ GabeMc 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But they do not determine our style. They determine theirs. Huw Powell (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's my point, our current MoS tells us to use the small-case "t", so why aren't we following our MoS. ~ GabeMc 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." ~ GabeMc 02:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- "The Beatles" is the real name of the so-called "White Album." It should not be confused with the group's name. Anyway, John Lennon explained this in an interview that appeared in Mersey Beat (1961): 'Many people ask what are Beatles? Why Beatles? Ugh, Beatles, how did the name arrive? So we will tell you. It came in a vision--a man appeared in a flaming pie and said unto them "From this day on you are Beatles with an A." "Thank you, Mister Man," they said, thanking him.' -- Beatles with an A, not "The Beatles" with an A.Jburlinson (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support agrees with MoS and reads more fluently. --Muhandes (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's not worth fighting over. Just follow the MoS. We've got lots better things to argue about. Lfstevens (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The Beatles. The Who. The Rolling Stones. Law of threes, if you'd like. kencf0618 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - MoS, common sense. Jusdafax 06:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose To me, "The Beatles" and "the Beatles" have meant different things. Being a Beatle has its own quality distinct from being a member of the band as a unit. It is common to refer to Paul McCartney as a "former Beatle," but you would never call Denny Laine a "former Moody Blue." The Beatles was/were a band; the Beatles were its members. The spelling should reflect that. --Jprg1966  06:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as Misplaced Pages works better when we follow general consensus and guidelines. It makes sense to find a compromise which keeps within guidelines and works to minimise potential offence, so I am in favour of all Beatles related articles following the consensus to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. SilkTork 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like a maintain !vote to me SilkTork. ~ GabeMc 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. See Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Eagles (band) for a case where there's not officially a "the" at all in the title, but one is more than commonly added because of the rules of the language. Doc talk 08:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Beatles own publicity material of the 1960s referred to "the Beatles". The band name was a contraction of the then widespread "<Named singer> and the <Band name> - for example, "Buddy Holly and the Crickets" - rarely written as "Buddy Holly and The Crickets". Apepper (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Radiopathy.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support: "The" or "the" is not always a grammatically essentially part of the group's name. For instance, it would be grammatically silly to write that "the second "The Beatles" single was ..." Instead, we would write that "the second Beatles single was ..." The MoS on this issue is sensible. Afterwriting (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose--"The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. The consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence like I just did. Let's keep it that way. If the band's name has to be mentioned, it should consistently be as The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If we are really re-creating a trademark everytime we write the Beatles, then wouldn't we have to pay the Beatles every time someone wrote the Beatles on wikipedia? Non fair-use rationale I guess. Also, dosen't the actual tradmark contain a dropped-T that we couldn't recreate here anyway? File:Beatles logo.svg ~ GabeMc 12:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what Steelbeard1 wrote? "The consensus is to avoid using the band's name in mid-sentence". It was agreed not to keep repeating the group's name. In the Paul McCartney article, it seems that someone is deliberately ignoring that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The consensus of which you speak was established at the Beatles not at Paul McCartney. Consensus does not bleed over into all related pages. It's time to move on now. ~ GabeMc 12:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class The Beatles articles
• Top-importance The Beatles articles
• C-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• C-Class George Martin articles
• WikiProject The Beatles articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment