Talk:The Beatles/Archive 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] "Achievements" section.
This used to be a great article. The whole intro to this article is lame. The importance of the Beatles is completely lost in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.15.169 (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor acting on the basis of the "Citations needed" tag removed huge chunks of this section without negotiation. We need a drive to source these, otherwise they must go. I know we all have other things to do, so I suggest a month (on the basis that some of the tags were less than a month old) would be reasonable. I'll do what I can myself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have all already had long enough. Remember it was me all those months ago last year that removed it all only to have my edits removed, a tag put up, and a promise that it would be improved. Well it never got better. Enough time has passed. Realist2 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are meant to seek consensus, not submit to ultimata like "You have all already had long enough". This is not WP:AGF. Enough disruption, please, let's just get on with it without bickering. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In three month there have been 3 sources provided and all of them were in the first week as ppl were scared i would remove the table. It hasnt been touched in 11 weeks. not good enough. I will monitor this situation, i was promised a lot so long as i dropped the issue and nothing materialised. Realist2 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- (ec) "You have all already had long enough." Seriously? That's the way you're going? Who are you to refer to others that way? Wikipedia is a community; there is no "you all," there is only an "us." Have you attempted to source anything, or have you just slapped tags on the article and then deleted the work of others after an arbitrary amountof time had passed. faithless (speak) 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no artibury time, its been months will no progress, and WE as a community already agreed earlier that if it wasnt improved it needed to be removed. Realist2 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you link to this agreement, not that it's binding in any event? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Here , this was brought up ages ago and something needs to be done or it never will. Realist2 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like how you wrote "do i look like have have time to find the citations for all those "facts"?!". Errr, apparantly you do.--58.179.238.140 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have to say your attitude does not strike me as being constructive. You may well be right on broad policy issues, but that is no excuse for issuing deadlines. I see no consensus being reached in the linked discussion, merely a general commitment to improvement. If that hasn't worked, you have no excuse to take it on your own head to delete large parts of the section, however poorly sourced. In any event it is customary to copy stuff like that to the Talk page so it can be worked on when time permits for editors who are, let's remember, volunteers. I suggest you read another important policy, WP:POINT before this goes much further, because it seems that already your approach has set consensus against your position and a more conciliatory stance might be beneficial. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dont throw jargan or links at me it doesnt phase me, snobbery like that was the reason i pulled out of the debate last time. We need to remove in info and send it to a place where it can be worked on. Someone really needs a sand box to link use all to where we can work on this. None the less I feel that unless it is removed even temparily from the article ppl will not be thretened or motivated enough to improve it. Realist2 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not jargon, it's policy, which ALL of us are supposed to abide by, and it's not snobbery; all editors are equal (but some, of course, are more equal than others). And this content can't be worked on if it has been deleted; moving it elsewhere is likely to also move it out of other editor's attention, so that will not help. However, I note your "we can work on this"; perhaps you could show an example by sourcing some of the material? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Everytime i visit this page i come accross this attitude that "I" should source something. No, the person who put the info there in the first place should have sourced it. I removed it all, i was reverted and a tag was put up , 3 months and nothing has been done and simply wont. It needs to be taken off the main article and worked on, you say that it should be kept on the main page for ppl to see it, HELLO , thats clearly NOT working, it needs to be pulled off the page, its the only way people will improve it, leaving it there will solve nothing as already seen. Realist2 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- ppl will not be thretened or motivated enough to improve it - I think that about says it all. You desperately need to modify your attitude. You came in here guns blazing with absolutely no reason to. Haven't you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? faithless (speak) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Dude ive waited 3 months so dont give me "all guns blazing", would waiting a year be long enough for you, ive stuck to policy, its unsourced, it hasnt and WONT be worked on , so needs to be removed or sent somewhere for editing. Realist2 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dude? LOL! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A bit of advice: Realist2 is an ardent Michael Jackson fan, and Michael Mouse's own page has 6 "citation needed" tags on it (why have they not been fixed, you may ask?) Taking into account the animosity between Macca and Mr Mouse over the years, it is not outside the realms of possibility that a certain editor has taken into his head to cause some chaos on this page. One can never point the finger directly, of course, but my advice is to simply revert, and to ignore protestations and muck-raking. Don't feed the thingys, whatever they are called, because it only takes time away from those wonderful moments sitting in the garden shed, contemplating how can one pay the next bill. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
PATHETIC. What ever happened to the good faith part of wikipedia. Wow because i edit michael jackson articles i must have some hatred towards articles of other popular artists, how very sad. Get a life. Realist2 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. "You have all already had long enough". That's really assuming good faith, isn't it? I suggest you start to live by your precepts before you accuse others of breaching them. AGF works both ways and dictating to other editors how articles should be managed isn't cooperative. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
|
|} I think this is appropriate. Kodster (Talk) 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think if you check this, you may be enlightened.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've dealt with this editor about this issue (you'll need to check the archived discussions for the full story). I've had the same feelings about his motives as andreasegde. Likewise, he loves to throw around policy and reminding people of editing with good faith in mind, which somehow does not seem to apply to him. The bottom line, I feel, is that consensus has been reached: the material is important, and although it needs sourcing, it should not be removed. One editor favours deletion, the rest appear to favour leaving it as is and slowly working on it until it's finished. freshacconcispeaktome 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- And, if you check the link to the discussion provided by the editor, you will see an example of his bad faith editing style: in the discussion above, he states "WE as a community already agreed earlier that if it wasnt improved it needed to be removed."(sic) Actually, no agreement was reached as he seems to remember it (or perhaps he was hoping no one would actually go back and read the discussion). The agreement was that we would keep working on it. Only Realist2 favoured removing the section outright. Again, this editor is making bad faith demands on other editors and blatantly ignoring consensus. freshacconcispeaktome 14:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've dealt with this editor about this issue (you'll need to check the archived discussions for the full story). I've had the same feelings about his motives as andreasegde. Likewise, he loves to throw around policy and reminding people of editing with good faith in mind, which somehow does not seem to apply to him. The bottom line, I feel, is that consensus has been reached: the material is important, and although it needs sourcing, it should not be removed. One editor favours deletion, the rest appear to favour leaving it as is and slowly working on it until it's finished. freshacconcispeaktome 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think if you check this, you may be enlightened.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nice one.--andreasegde (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
Yes ok guys just keep "slowely" (basically not at all) working at it. Lol. Realist2 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some of us have other things to do. Real life, for example. Admin duties, for example. Bringing other articles to WP:GA & WP:FA status, for example. The pace comes from within and will not be forced from outside. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion of what was done wrong. Enough of the negativity: What should have happened is 1) perhaps we should have worked more on citations and 2) upon returning after some absence and seeing that we had not done so, a polite "what's up?" on this page would probably have been more productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody.
The Beatles are the best act ever.
http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
<Who was the greatest chart act of all time? Unlike the question about chart songs this question can be answered for songs and albums. By comparing acts within the same year the effect of the differing number of entries can be cancelled out. The answer for songs is, marginally, Elvis Presley (and Bing Crosby comes 10th), for albums the answer is clearly The Beatles. The overall greatest chart act of all times is The Beatles.>
If you ask at 1 or 200 people who working in the industry of music, all these people will say:
"The Beatles are the best act ever"
Why?
For two basic reasons.
1/Durant his career <1962-1970>, this group has exploded much more worldwide records that anyone in the history of the twentieth century.
How much?
I don't know exactly, but 30 years after their separation, December 31, 1999, this group had much more worldwide records than anybody else.
Look at this document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts
All these worldwide records were valid on December 31, 1999. 30 years after the separation of the Beatles!!! And this precise date, nobody could compete with the Beatles. Another thing: All these worldwide records are still valid today: March 23,2008.
2/The second reason is simple: The Beatles managed to break advantage of worldwide records than anyone else despite an incredibly short career discography: 8 years! 1962-1970.
Anecdote: The Beatles are the greatest posthumous success all the time ever: After a career, The Beatles is the only group or artist who obtained worldwide record with a simply <best of>.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1169528.stm
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2008/01/080130.aspx
--Roujan (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Another information for you:
<The Largest Police Protection for celebrity ever>
The Beatles in Tokyo in 1966 = The Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roujan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/beatles1.html (page 3)
<In the event, the "operation Beatles" which the Metropolitan Police mounted was of almost the same order of magnitude as the arrangements for the Tokyo Olympic Games in 1964. No fewer than thirty- five thousand policemen were mobilised or alerted, at a cost of an estimated thirty thousand pounds>
Or http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060702x2.html
An achievement never equaled by anybody, in Japan and anywhere in the world.
Concerning the Beatles in Japan, there were 209,000 requests for tickets. (Two hundred nine thousand) You can find this information on Mojo Magazine: <The Beatles - 10 years that shook the world> (French version, page 207)
And that was in 1966!!!(how is it possible?) I am not sure , but it's possible that this is the record of the twentieth century for the city of Tokyo. (As soon as I have an answer, I give you with the proof)
Do you want more worldwide records belonging to the Beatles, and still valid today in 2008?
(Excuse me for my English. I am Spanish and I live in France. But I am sure you will understand me.) --Roujan (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Roujan, err what exactly is your point? A lot of people are fans of the beatles, but there is still no way to class a band as "greatest act ever" since that is purely an opinion. Not to mention even if they could be classed as "greatest act", the title would only stand within their own genre of music. For exaple I am a hiphop producer and while I appreciate and listen to all styles of music, The Beatles would never even enter my top 100 favourite bands. So you see, while you may feel that they are the greatest act ever, I do not, therefore they will only ever hold the individual records that they have achieved.--58.179.238.140 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
For a lot of people, Pelé (football) wasn't a extraordinary footballer player because they said during his career the Football was primitive. We can say exactly the same thing about Jimi Hendrix. But this section talk about The Beatles, and Achievements. So we don't care Pele and Jimi Hendrix. So we don't care your opinion.
But the facts are the facts.
Officially, the fact are:
The Beatles: a career only 8 years -1962-1970- And during this 8 years, this group has exploded much more worldwide records than anyone during the The Twentieth Century. How much? I don't know, but this group has exploded so much worldwide records, that of the end of the twentieth century, 30 years after their separation, December 31, 1999, this group held much more worldwide records than anyone!!!
On the next link, all this worldwide record were still valid on December 31, 1999.(for the Twentieth Century).
And all this worldwide records are still valid today, april 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts
DO YOU DISPUTE THIS 2 INFORMATIONS??
YES OR NO?
(not your opinion about The Beatles, it's not important for Wikipedia) --Roujan (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Roujan, I think we have a communication problem here. Regardless of whether your claims about their records sales and chart positions are true, the problem is with the words "greatest" or "best". The meaning of those words is just too vague to meet any sort of standard for verifiability and neutral point of view. Do they have the greatest voices? Do they have the greatest instrumentation? Are they the greatest songwriters? Were they the greatest at starting their concerts on time? Did they have the greatest sound engineers? The list could go on almost endlessly. The words "greatest" or "best" are simply too non-specific to describe just about anyone or anything. You can add information about chart position and records sale achievements if the information is properly cited with a reliable source, but you cannot use the words "greatest" or "best". If you can't understand that, I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have any support for using those words on this talk page (even among Beatles fans like myself), and without a consensus you cannot add the phrase "greatest act" or "best act" to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ward3001.
You are right. The personal views are not important. But have you read my post?
I personally wrote: <The Beatles are the best act ever> because I posted a link, and on this link you can see : <The Beatles are the best act ever>.
It's not a opinion, it just a statistic.
Pele scored more than 1000 goals. It's a statistic. So, nobody can dispute this information because it's the truth.
It's the same thing for the Beatles. Just one example:(Among hundreds) The Beatles between 1963-1970: 29 Number 1 singles in continental Europe and between 1964-1970: 20 singles No. 1 in the USA.
Europe Continentale - 29:8= 3,62 singles number one per year(1963-1970).
This is the best medium for the twentieth century in Continental Europe.
USA- 20:7= 2,85 singles number one per year(1964-1970).
This is the best medium for the twentieth century in the USA.
But it's not only the best medium of the twentieth century.
It's also the best gross figures.
And it's exactly this information who is absolutely unbelievable because nobody has obtained 29 number one singles in continental Europe and 20 number one singles in the USA ... and the careers of the Beatles = only 8 years! 1962-1970.
Only 8 YEARS!!!
You understand why the recording industry consider that The Beatles are the best act ever. That's statistics. That's why I wrote: <The Beatles are the best act ever> But it's not my opinion. Only mathematics. I have never written: The Beatles are the greatest, the most beautiful, and they had the most beautiful ears.
Do you want evidence concerning this link and my sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts
<All these worldwide records were valid on December 31, 1999. 30 years after the separation of the Beatles!!! And this precise date, nobody could compete with the Beatles. Another thing: All these worldwide records are still valid today: March 23,2008.> --Roujan (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Roujan... "Best" is a subjective viewpoint that can never be proven by statistics. Pele may have scored more goals than anyone else, but he may still not be considered the "best" by many people. Similarly, the "best act" in my opinion might not be The Beatles but some other band. I think you are confusing "best" with "highest gross sales in the US" or similar more accurately described, objective statistics. How such statistics are written in the article is important, they must accurately describe the situation from an objective point of view; "best" does not help there. Stephenb (Talk) 11:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you write:
"I think you are confusing "best" with "highest gross sales in the US" or similar more accurately described, objective statistics."
Why did you write: <highest gross sales in the US>???
On this document, it's not <hightest gross sales in the US>, but statistics charts on Continental Europe, Britain, and Usa.
So, it's <The Beatles's statistics> Not <The Beatles are the best> And this section call: <Achievements>
I think you are off topic. --Roujan (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi Roujan. I wrote "highest gross sales in the US" as an example of a more objective statement, not as a quote from the article, and followed it by "or similar more accurately described, objective statistics". "Best" is not an example of an "accurately described, objective statistic". Stephenb (Talk) 11:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stephenb.
For me, every word in a sentence is important. That's why I talked about: <highest gross sales in the US>. I think i'm a correct and serious man. I have nothing written on the main page, because I am polite. This is not my page. But it's for this reason that I have come in section <achievement> I give you information, that's all. After, you do what you want with that information. And I give links, or evidence if you asks me. That's all. --90.42.67.75 (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Roujan, here is the bottom line since you don't seem to understand what others are trying to communicate to you. You can argue use of the words "greatest" and "best" from now until the end of time. But you cannot use those words in the article the way you wish unless there is a consensus. And there will never be a consensus to do so. So if you want to continue wasting your time making the argument, that's your choice. But you'll never be able to add (and keep) those words in the article. Sorry if this post is too straightforward for you, but you don't seem to be able to understand the softer explanations. Ward3001 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ward3001.
Please, stop writing the words <greatest> or <best>. Read me and try to understand what I write. OK? Look at this document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_record_sales,_worldwide_charts
This document is an information. On this document, there is no written: <The Beatles are the best>. (It's you, Ward3001, who used the word <best>)
On this document, you can see: <The Beatles Record Sales> It's all. But all these records were valid until December 31, 1999, therefore the twentieth century. And all these records are still valid today as in 2008. And the Beatles no longer exist since 1970! You understand? Not <best> or <greatest> like You wrote. It's all.
The truth is it banned on Britain's Wikipedia concerning Beatles section <achievements>???
PS: Humour. The Doors sang <People are strange>. With my group, we are going to sing: <British people are strange, so strange>.
Good night, my friend.
Hello, Roujan. You seem to be suffering from denial. Your very second sentance typed on this page was in fact "The Beatles are the best act ever.". Your use of "best" in this sentence is undeniable and if you continue to do so, please, scroll up and take a bit more memory as to what you actually type. In the mean time, record sales have nothing to do with how good a band is. Sure, thats strange, right? But lots of people dont like bands that are famous and do very well. Thus, how good they are is a matter of complete opinion. As said before, the correct term for what you're trying to describe is "The most successful." Soulhorn (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
