# Talk:She's a Woman

Some sources, namely Ian MacDonald and beatlesebooks (which appears to rely too heavily on Geoff Emerick's memoirs and both that book and website contain many factual errors and dubious claims), state that Paul plays the lead guitar solo while in the article, it says that George plays the lead guitar solo, as does John Winn's book "Way Beyond Compare".
I very much doubt that Paul would've done his occasional guitar work at this stage, since he didn't begin to do so in earnest until the sessions for "Help!". I've listened to the song and the guitar solo is very much reminiscent of George's early 1960's style, because it resembles his guitar tone on "Act Naturally".
61.69.217.3 (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tkbrett doesn't think a Singles Chart Top 20 hit not a notable hit?...even when it was a UK Top 20 hit on the Official Singles Chart (https://www.officialcharts.com), it was featured on BBC One's chart rundown programme Top of the Pops, it was recorded by a band who have had Top 20 hits in the UK and the USA and was Shabba Ranks first Top 40 hit in the UK (and it was never a hit in the UK for the Beatles) If you look at the information from other articles then you see that Joe Brown's version of With a Little Help from My Friends only got to number 32 (with 4 weeks on the chart), whilst Kick Axe's version only got to number 79...and not in the American Billboard Hot 100 charts but in the Canandian charts. A few articles mention acts who appeared on Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father, but only Wet Wet Wet and Billy Bragg got to number one (and that was because it was a double-A side for Childline. And if you go to the OCC site entry for Sting you will see that Demolition Man only got to number 21 (another record that was in the charts for 4 weeks) and is not now listed as an EP, therefore making Sting's version of A Day in the Life even less noteworthy than Scritti and Shabba's version of She's a Woman.

The following is documentary evidence to prove a point...

At WP:COVERSONG it says that only covers that "have gained attention in their own right" should be added. Specifically, they should have been "discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right". It continues, "Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy". The criteria outlined at WP:NSONGS states that the song appearing on a national chart "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable". So far, nothing has been shown to indicate notability beyond being included in an album track listing and that it appeared on a chart.
I'd recommend reviewing the rules as WP:COVERSONG and WP:NSONGS, as well as WP:EDITWAR, before attempting to add it back. Tkbrett (✉) 16:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Therefore you are wrong, as She's A Woman doesn't appear on an official Scritti Polliti album, as there was an 11 year wait between Provision and Anomie & Bonhomie - and it was a single that came out of the blue, it was not expected, I mean Green Gartside and Shabba Ranks together. With hindsight after  Anomie & Bonhomie and Boom Boom Bap you could put say it was expected but in 1991, eight years before Tinseltown to the Boogiedown, I don't think so. Anyway I see you are not challenging for example...the fact that Phish recorded A Day in the Life 65 times (especially when a citation is needed in that respect)...and Phish might mean something to you, wherever you are in North America (somewhere in Ontario, Canada I guess?) but doesn't mean that much to people in the UK (apart from an ice-cream flavour) as unlike Phixx they've had no chart action here what so ever, not even in the national album chart - so that fact obviously has to go, as reading WP:COVERSONG that's not noteworthy that's irrelevant...that argument is the same kind of argument.
Again, by WP:COVERSONG and WP:NSONGS, we need something beyond the fact that an artist covered it and it appeared on a chart. Besides those two things, the cover does not seem to have generated any additional discussion in reliable sources, whether books or articles. Tkbrett (✉) 17:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Well obviously its from 1991, so a lot of the articles about the single are in magazines that have been pulped or on pages uploaded to blogs/wordpress.com sites that you cannot use in wiki as a reference but there is something in David Roberts' Guinness Rockopedia and Martin C. Strong's The Great Rock Discography (which would only deal with important acts anyway) as that's where the information on the main article has come from in the first place. If you do a google search you get the video on YouTube and a load of shopping sites which cannot be used as references in wiki (though Lost on You by Lewis Capaldi - not one of his big hits, a record which got to number 50 in Scotland does use YouTube as a reference).
It's not enough to assume that discussion regarding the cover has taken place, you need to provide reliable sources that indicate that. To reiterate, the fact that an artist covered a song and it charted is not enough to warrant its inclusion on a song page. If it were notable, there would be discussion of the song in something other than reference books, but based on the above searches there is nothing to indicate that this discussion has happened. Tkbrett (✉) 18:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
So why haven't you gone round changing all the other cover version information on other pages where there is nothing more than a link to the charts?
from the wiki article about Beggin' (i.e. the Four Seasons/Måneskin song)...

See the only reference for the Timebox version here is the Guinness box of hit singles and if you do a google search the first results are...
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ_QW3m_YO8
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KoLESlooTw
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54On0uLtdJc
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IPjU5Gjy0
5. https://recordstoreday.co.uk/releases/rsd-2021-drop-1/timebox/
6. https://www.discogs.com/Timebox-Beggin/release/421582
7. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x77283
8. https://secondhandsongs.com/performance/3505/versions
9. https://www.whosampled.com/Timebox/Beggin%27/
10. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beggin-Sound-Londons-Club-Scene/dp/B0018RWDM2
11. https://www.popsike.com/php/quicksearch.php?searchtext=timebox%20beggin&sortord=dprice
12. https://soundsoftheuniverse.com/product/beggin-bw-girl-dont-make-me-wait
13. https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/66275055
14. https://open.spotify.com/album/0ilWDlDiRRVdnTQfy9q5iH
15. https://soulbrother.com/shop/beggin-girl-dont-make-me-wait/
16. https://genius.com/Timebox-beggin-lyrics
17. https://www.spindizzyrecords.com/product/timebox-beggin-girl-dont-make-me-wait-7-vinyl-rsd2021-jun12/
I would say, like the results She's A Woman by Green and Shabba (which were referenced in more books linked to wiki than the links for Timebox in Beggin's article), these links would not be allowed by the 'jobsworth' powers that be (if only That's Life was still going) as most are shopping sites or ones on the blacklist (and anyway isn't it  starting to become more like Original Research at this point if you are researching the facts online?) So why haven't you deleted this section from the Beggin' article...you need to, because if you don't that would make you a bit of a hypocrite. You can't just have one rule here for a few lines of text and ignore all the other articles that don't conform to your standards. And if you haven't amended Beggin' because you are a massive Beatles fan then look below...

So Candy Flip get an infobox and a glowing review because Billboard have all their back issues online and therefore can be cross-referenced. Let me tell you mate, that in the UK Candy Flip were seen as a bit of a joke, a novely cash-in, a bit rubbish, total bobbins. So because this Radio X review "The 90s spawned this genuinely terrible cover version" exists and is not a shopping site, I think that means I can edit that section to say something like (but not in the actual words) "these Americans don't know what they are talking about...as in the United Kingdom, Candy Flip were seen to be a bit shite" (and that is not my opinion because I am one of the few people in the United Kingdom to still own a copy of Madstock... The Continuing Adventures Of Bubblecar Fish...but mostly for "Redhills Road"). I think that a 'trenchtown jolly-up' of The Beatles’ She’s A Woman (as referred to in Record Collector Magazine) is a more positive review in one line than some of the things said about Candy Flip in their day.
If you look further on the large "Strawberry Fields Forever" covers section you see that lots of acts have just been added because they are cross referenced with AllMusic (well here's some links for you), whilst Eric Stefani's cover has been allowed because someone has linked it to the CD liner notes of his album Let's Go Ride Horses, an album not even mentioned on his own page (see below) and on a random, I would guess non-major record label called EMS Productions in 2001...a name now taken by Elliot, an online Doctor Who fan.


### further discussions (also in regards "She's A Woman" as well as Freshacconci and PolitiFactUSA's comments about I Am The Walrus)
...in regards to "She's A Woman" I do believe I have provided links/references (e.g. Official Charts Company, Record Collector etc) that are reliable sources and are from a neutral point of view, with no original research. The fact that "She's A Woman" was a Top 20 hit in the UK and not for the Beatles, is a fact...and I cannot see why it wouldn't be a fact (look if Candy Flip's rubbish version of Strawberry Fields Forever is allowed in that article then surely Scritti should be mentioned under She's A Woman, Suggs under I'm Only Sleeping and Oasis' cover of I am The Walrus too. Oasis should be mentioned in the I Am The Walrus article too, because they are mentioned under I'm Only Sleeping and thats only because someone found a YouTube clip of Stereophonics with Oasis over at Glide Magazine. However, when it comes to Beatles tunes Oasis are probably better known for their version of I am The Walrus seeing that Oasis are one of the most important bands in the last 30 years (in the United Kingdom anyway)...much more than Candy Flip ever were, who might just get a mention in some quarters of the press these days thanks to Robbie's Rudebox)...could be infobox worthy)
Please note: you can read about Record Collector here on wiki, you can read about the Official Charts Company here on wiki, you can read about AllMusic here on wiki, you can read about The Guinness Book of British Hit Singles here on wiki but Glide Magazine (which began as a simple website with no expectations and little fanfare but has evolved into a comprehensive, award winning online collective that continues to evolve)...not important enough to have its own article, a website I have never heard of before today, something that's probably local and just one step up from a blog, but because its not wordpress seen as a go-to place for knowledge.

Nothing above addresses the issues I've raised; namely, that there has been no significant discussion of this cover outside of the fact (1) it happened and (2) it charted. That is what this discussion is about. I am quite flummoxed by the divergences into the artistic merits of Candy Flip and Oasis.
One of your statements stuck out to me: "... isn't it starting to become more like Original Research at this point if you are researching the facts online?" Quite the opposite. Searching for reliable sources online and citing them to write an article is one of many ways that editors expand articles. WP:OR has more regarding this. Tkbrett (✉) 21:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

but that is a bit different to
1) Putting on BBC Four on a Friday night
2) Watching Top of the Pops Anthea Turner with at 8.30pm
3) Watching "Bow Down Mister", "Let There Be Love", "This Is Your Life"*, "It's Too Late"*, "Where the Streets Have No Name (I Can't Take My Eyes Off You)", "Wear Your Love Like Heaven"*, "She's A Woman" etc
4) Thinking I remember all those records on TOTP, oh look its Boy George wasn't he calling himself Angela Dust at that time? Oh look it's Definition of Sound, doesn't that record have a Jonathan King sample, Oh look Scritti Politti, isn't Green doing a Beatles cover which was produced by Heaven 17?
5) Thinking...wait a minute isn't there an online encyclopedia that has become like the 'font of all knowledge', the first point of call when you google something...a website that should give me all the answers I need.
6) Think oh yes Wikipedia! The largest and most-read reference work in history, one which is consistently one of the 15 most popular websites as ranked by Alexa.
7) Going to wiki to find the information required.
8) realising the information is not there so Wikipedia must be a bit shit and useless and totally overrated...i.e. its not as good as all the reference books and magazines you used to get in the in the 1990s
9) noticing there is some info about the questions pondered on other sites regardless if they are blogs
10) thinking that other people watching TOTP (eg people commenting on DigitalSpy) might ponder the same things
11) thinking "wait a minute, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit if they see a bit of information is missing (for example chart hits that have just been on the telly)
12) update Wikipedia with the missing information (and remember it was only a few lines not glowing piece of praise and came with many links both online and in books)
but it is not just about She's A Woman...it's about all the Beatles articles contained on Wikipedia that include missing chart hits or have information that would fail your test of notability. Its supposed to be an encyclopedia (and obviously one that has become so omnipresent that its the first point of reference on the net) not hagiography of the Beatles...(I suppose all those books you have about the Beatles in your collection will do that for you).
Anyway this discussion was posted on the talk pages of "Within You Without You" ‎"With a Little Help from My Friends" ‎and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" as well ‎(though it should include "I Am The Walrus" etc) but JG66 said that discussions "should be centralised not spread across several pages" even if the issue raised concerns all Beatles song articles where there is missing chart hits or unsourced information (I see there are loads but you are not bother with amending them as its easy for you just the hit the undo button isn't it when it doesn't suit you)
By the way you remember that part about Candy Flip? Well if you are correct and that is notable (and infobox worthy) because there has been significant discussion online (or at least the articles from the 1990s have been uploaded to the internet as those publications are still in business) then you will have no problems in changing the bit about Candy Flip to the following...

Please note: these articles marked with an asterisk are about various singles which you need to look at as it proves my point (but you probably won't because it likely that you are an obsessive Beatles fan who is not into 90s music, so cannot be bothered) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk • contribs) 
The arguments from this Salford-based IP editor are exceedingly difficult to follow, as they wander all over the map, using the scattergun approach. But this one source from OCC is enough to merit inclusion of the Scritti Politti version featuring Shabba Ranks. WP:SONGCOVER says the cover version should be "important enough to have gained attention in their own right" which is satisfied perfectly by the version appearing on a major national chart. The cover version must be mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:SONGCOVER states that the rendition should be included if it has been discussed in a reliable source, or "the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS". WP:NSONG states that the cover should have been discussed by multiple published works, and that a song may be notable if it "[h]as been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". It adds the corollary that "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable". The only article posted above to discuss the song is a review in Record Collector of the compilation album Absolute calling it "a trenchtown jolly-up" cover. Quoting again from WP:SONGCOVER WP:NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". Again, this goes back to my main point that this cover fails to meet the notability requirement because there are no reliable sources discussing it outside of the fact that it happened and that it charted. Tkbrett (✉) 15:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: Tkbrett's last quote is from NSONGS; using album reviews or "self-interested parties" that discuss the song is not prohibited under SONGCOVER, thus making it easier to meet than establishing formal WP notability. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Tkbrett, you are setting the bar higher than SONGCOVER. If a song charts, it is noteworthy in its own right. The chart attainment shows its popularity and thus its importance. The guideline was put in place to prevent trivial mentions of forgettable song covers, but anything that charts is not trivial. The whole point is that a cover version should be well-known to be listed. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not convinced that WP:SONGCOVER indicates that a cover charting is enough to warrant its inclusion in article, but Ojorojo's comment made me realize that the discussion in least one reliable source (Record Collector) does. I have added it back to the article. Thanks Ojorojo and Binksternet for your constructive comments. Tkbrett (✉) 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no reference supporting this these statements other than that of the articles author. Without a reliable reference this section should be dropped as it is merely the authors opinion and that is anathema for a Wiki article.. 
"The lyrics include the first reference to drugs in a Beatles song, with the line "turn(s) me on" referring to marijuana. McCartney's prominent bass was to that point the loudest heard on a Beatles recording, anticipating his high profile bass lines in later songs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.89.21 (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason these sentences do not appear with citations is because they are in the lead section. The manual of style's guide on leads explain that, because a lead section is a summary of the main body of the text, you do not need to include redundant citations there. If you scroll down into the body of the article, you'll find that these statements actually are in-fact backed up by several reliable sources. Other editors have previously been confused by the drug line, which prompted me to quote the reliable sources verbatim within the citation. Tkbrett (✉) 10:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
"High-profile" has a hyphen, admit that much, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett, thank you for that insight. I feel the same about your recent restoration of a massive dump of wholly extra words. As someone who prefers Blue Oyster Cult, I can see no reason to put up a fight. But if you'd like to elaborate on the value of your readded noise, that'd be cool. If not, please try to use rationale in edit summaries, not nebulous complaints and useless expressions of faith. Not just when undoing my work, but anybody's. Of course, feel free to go the third route, too, and keep doing whatever you want! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

How could Paul McCartney "began composing the lyrics and melody to "She's a Woman" on 8 October 1964" if they played the song in full on Hollywood Bowl? That recording was made August 30, 1964. 46.146.172.202 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Hollywood Bowl show was 1965. Tkbrett (✉) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)