Talk:Cultural impact of the Beatles

message: I'm wikifying a few references in this article, but does Schuman in the "Composition and Recording" section refer to Robert Schumann or William Schuman? --Lora 00:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schumann or Schuman? 

message: I think this should be moved to "The Beatels' Influence on Popular Culture." "The Beatles' Influence" sounds terribly incomplete.
Lockeownzj00 20:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this should be moved. 

message: should there be any information about The Beatles' influence on the murders of Charles Manson in this article?
Yes there should. Charles Manson was heavily influenced by the Beatles and John Lennon. In the version of Revolution found on disc 2 of the white album, the lyrics are "[...]don't you know the you can count me out...in!". Charles Manson saw the included 'in' as a hidden message. Honestly, i'm not so sure of all the details, but i'll try to find them.
This should be in The Beatles Trivia. It deals with the effect of The Beatles on other people, but who were not directly linked to them. andreasegde 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Manson 

message: I have doubts about Ringo's role in the popularization of matched grip drumming.  Certainly he was a highly visible matched grip drummer, but I don't think it's true that he was the first or the most influential.  It was more of a combined effect with the visibility of several such drummers of the time.
I would also challenge the claim that Ludwig Drums became the standard rock instrument.  Ringo originally played Premier, an English brand.  Slingerland was another Chicago area manufacturer that competed heavily and successfully with Ludwig.  Charlie Watts of the Rolling Stones played Gretsch drums.  Though very popular in the 60's and early 70's, Ludwig is only one of numerous drums used by rock musicians today. - MA
:I got the info about Ringo's stick grip and drum brand from here  -Surachit 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ringo's Stick Grip

message: There is so much more that could be written about the influence of The Beatles that is not included here, but I feel I should be cautious in editing. One thing I would like to add is that The Beatles popularized the 4-man rock band, a format they borrowed from Buddy Holly and The Crickets. The main difference in The Beatles' band and Buddy Holly's band, is that Buddy Holly's bassist played a stand-up bass. While Decca records may have told The Beatles that "Guitar Rock was Pass.", The Beatles re-invented guitar rock at a time when Rock and Roll had been tamed by the likes of bands and performers such as The Four Tops, Frankie Avaolon, and Chubby Checker. For all intents and purposes Rock and Roll had sort of died by the early 1960's due to several factors including but not limited to Jerry Lee Lewis marriage to his thirteen year old cousin, Chuck Berry's violation of the Mann Act, Elvis' induction into the Army, and Buddy Holly's untimely death in 1959. With it's primary performers out of the way, the music industry clamored to tame Rock and Roll to pacify conservative parents and religious leaders. The music that was being called 'Rock and Roll' after 1959 was softer, lacked guitars, and was full of pretty boys tailored especially for Rock and Rolls new image. This is one reason why Capitol Records in the United States continually turned down Parlophone's attempts to get The Beatles music released in The U.S., but eventually could not deny the "mania" that The Beatles were generating in Europe.
I could write an whole other article, from an optismistic point of view, but fear POV would contaminate it. I feel the current article is slanted and is written from a pessimistic POV and does not include 1/16 of The Beatles' actual contribution. How could an article be written about The Beatles and mention nowhere the influence of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album that literally changed music, fashion, culture, and the recording industry forever.
If someone who is more skilled than I would be interested in a colaboration at writing a more favorable article, please let me know.
Mirlin 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem entirely skilled enough to improve the article by yourself. Citing sources for your claims would certainly be a bonus. Algae 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, that sounds like it came straight out of "The Compleat Beatles" (the best documentary on the band, as far as I'm concerned.)--190.37.176.12 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article underestimates the influence of The Beatles 

message: In the last section, Beatallica is mentioned, but DJ Danger Mouse's more popular and more controversial mashup of Jay-Z and The Beatles is not. If Beatallica is relevant, surely the Grey Album is as well. 64.252.70.137 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Grey Album? 

message: Here it is:
The Beatles have had a very profound effect on music today. In the studio, the Beatles used many unique techniques and instruments for their recordings. They invented many effects used in music and have changed music forever. In 1964, the world heard the first use of intentional feedback from an electric guitar in a song. Before the Beatles, feedback was thought to be a nuisance. Since the release of “I Feel Fine,” countless other bands have used feedback in their songs. Although the Beatles were the first ones, Jimi Hendrix mastered the use of guitar feedback.
When the Rubber Soul album was released in 1965, the George Harrison played the sitar on “Norwegian Wood.” The Beatles would use the sitar in other songs in the future. “Rain” (1966) was a song that featured slowed down instruments and vocals, but also contained their first use of backwards vocals.
With the release of Revolver in 1966, the songs were getting more and more unique. Paul McCartney’s “Eleanor Rigby” contained a string octet, which was very unusual for a “rock” song. “I’m Only Sleeping” contains backwards guitars. “Yellow Submarine” contained the use of sound effects. George Martin was very good at this sort of thing because of projects he had worked on before the Beatles. “Tomorrow Never Knows” is a very unique song of this album. It featured five tape loops that replayed sound effects. It also featured the first use of what George Martin coined “flanging.”
The most significant effect the Beatles had on music was the release of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967). This album featured vari-speed vocals, sound effects, instruments, and studio effects never before used in rock music. These effects are still used today by bands and recording studios.
:Use what you will, I just stumbled on it. Makemi 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Stumbled on it where exactly? --kingboyk 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New/The Same Article created

message: This article - like many at Wiki unfortunately - suffers from a typical (and typically annoying) bent on the part of uneducated and unread US enthusiasts.
It needs to be pointed out until more people get it: the US perspective is not that of the entire planet. You in the US continually make the clumsy assumption that what you know of the planet is either 1) sufficient as no one else really counts anyway; or 2) an opinion held by everyone everywhere - without checking your sources and doing proper research.
(This comment was not signed by the user)
Uhhh, Fred (It is Fred, isn´t it?) That sounds a bit "over the top" to me. Take a deep breath and write it again... please.... andreasegde 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bent 

message: I took out the Miles Davis reference, because Miles was purely influential for a jazz audience.
If we talk about influence, then we have to cover the broad spectrum of influence, and not just aural. andreasegde 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miles 

message: "The Beatles influence" should be written from a global perspective, and not concentrate on a local effect. Otherwise this page would be massive, and too long, because it would deal with The Beatles influence on the "Vera, Chuck & Dave Band" in Alabama (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)
Nearly all of the article seems to be about what The Beatles did, and not their influence on the world. Why?
I have added  quite a few times, because it definitely needs them. References, anyone? andreasegde 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: Horribly sloppy and extremely amateurish. Somebody should probably just delete it and start over from scratch.
:Agreed, absolutely. The Beatles influence on popular culture is immense, but this article is just a series of random lists with an entire section devoted to the band Oasis. Start again, please.PJtP (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a complete mess

message: As it looks like The Beatles trivia is going to have its genitalia removed, a lot of the articles on it could be moved here. They reflect the influence of The Fabs on popular culture. Better look at it quick though, because the clock is ticking... andreasegde 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move trivia to here?

message: I have merged a lot of stuff from Trivia to here, as it fits better. --andreasegde 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a lot of references need to be included, but it´s hard to track down bands that actually admit to copying The Beatles. --andreasegde 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think "Scientific" belongs here as it's not "popular culture". --kingboyk 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does show how their influence is now in outer space :) I took it out of trivia because it wasn´t really trivia that was really connected with The Beatles, but their influence on the blokes that look at stars all night. --andreasegde 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, but those blokes like to think of themselves as higher brow than "popular culture", I'm sure :) --kingboyk 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Ok, I´ll do it, but it means that "trivia" has a higher profile than "influence". --andreasegde 09:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Conundrum, huh? Don't know the answer, sorry :) --kingboyk 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This means that I am now working on something that has a lower profile than Trivia. I can see it now... "andreasegde made a magnificent start in Wikipedia, and it all went downhill from there."  I´m the unofficial admin for the Bargain bin --andreasegde 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "andreasegde made a mediocre start in Wikipedia, and it all went downhill from there"? :) I see your point, that the net result is science being trivia and popular culture having its own article... maybe this article should be renamed to accept scientists too? I'd suggest asking for advice on the Project talk page. --kingboyk 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was joking about the "downhill" thing. I often make fun of myself... --andreasegde 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The gorillaz connection to The Beatles is merely superficial and I do not think they really belong in the article, especially with no citations made. The0208 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorillaz? 

message: They did a remake of Look What You've Done and it was a Top 40 hit.. In fact I just heard it on the radio this morning.. I think it should be included in the covers section.
:Put it in - whoever you are.... :) --andreasegde 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jet 

message: I heard that John and George wanted to go back and rerecord Sgt Peppers the way that Hendrix played it, but I have no sources. cool little bit of trivia though. Zzz345zzZ 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimi and Sgt Peppers 

message: What about the band Zoot? I just listened to them and they sound Beatlesque. 67.188.172.165 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zoot

message: Do we want this article to defaultsort to "P" for popular or "I" for influence? I just changed Beatles' Influence on Music Recording from defaultsorting to "T" for "The" to "I" for influence. We should be consistent, but what is the consensus on what word in the title to use for the default? KConWiki 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defaultsort to where?

message: The article says:
"In the Walt Disney film The Jungle Book, the 4 vultures that Mowgli befriends look very much like the Beatles. They were supposed to be the voices of the vultures (whose names are Flaps, Dizzy, Buzzie, and Ziggy), but could not for some reason. They do have cockney accents though, and they can sing."
Did the Beatles speak cockney? Helpsloose 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Beatles did not speak with Cockney accents, but then, neither did the vultures in the film. I've corrected the article. Shsilver 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jungle Book 

message: :Image:Meet.the.beatles.back.cover.closeup.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Meet.the.beatles.back.cover.closeup.jpg

message: There's a TV show missing, and it's Pinky and the Brain. There's a whole episode includes Beatles references, melodies, and even the beatles themselves, featured as "The Feebles", when they stay and the "Mousarishi" and meeting "Yoyo Nono".
The episode's name is All you need is Narf. Don't you think it should be included here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.134.70 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinky and the brain

message: I've added a mention of the Pinky & Perky show's appearances of the Beakles - a crow puppet version of the Beatles which, ISTR, mimed to Beatle records - that was peak time viewing in the 1960s! Apepper (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinky & Perky - the Beakles 

message: The image :Image:Homers Barbershop Quartet.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Homers Barbershop Quartet.PNG

message: This article is in a sorry state. There are way too many unsourced statements; if they were removed there wouldn't be much content left. If I go through the article and remove the unsourced stuff, who'll complain? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Sorry State 

message: The part about "redefining the idea of an album" was discussed on the actual page for the Beatles. Yet the idea that the white album inspired all single colored albums is a testament to how biased how you people are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.102.234 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-evaluation of the album section 

message: References in lyrics is different than a cover song and his hardly noteworthy
Kgarr (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream Theater in cover song section 

message: In an episode of the american sketch show "Robot Chicken" a parody of the "Yellow Submarine " film is used. Is it worth including? ThanksI AM TEH WALRUS (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television Trivia 

message: Why isn't Klaatu mentioned under the Beatlesque sub-heading?  People thought they were the Beatles at one point.  that's something to mention.--Canadian Reject (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klaatu 

message: I merged the two seperate segments on Oasis into one. As I suspected, there's such a vast amount of content it could proably do with its own article. As it is, I've left it a little messy, but more detailed and tidier than it was before I'd  gone near it. (Chill (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oasis 

message: This could be a helpful source:
* Shaw, Karl. "They Don't Love You, Yeah Yeah Yeah ." The Wall Street Journal. October 4, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Should the following be included?  It seems as notable as many other entries in the 'Film' list, but might be trivial (?) I provided one source, but many others could be had. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldfinger 

message: Is this OK for a source? Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oasis "bigger than the Beatles" and subsequent reaction from McCartney 

message: I believe the first step in rewriting this article is to relegate all the trivia to a new article akin to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley or Frank Zappa in popular culture and giving Cultural impact of the Beatles the purpose of informing the band's:  ...as stated in the lede.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article: Cultural depictions of the Beatles / The Beatles in popular culture

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cultural impact of the Beatles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/flipmay66.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Has anybody got access to the book For Better or Worse: The American Influence in the World (1981), by Allen F. Davis? I'm concerned about a statement attributed to Davis, in an end note in the 3rd para under "Contemporary rivals", which reads: "By the time the Beatles arrived in the US, the Beach Boys (along with the Four Seasons) had already established themselves as major chart successes on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve." I've found several statements in that section, all regarding the Beach Boys, where an editor has clearly misrepresented what the author says, so I'm highly sceptical about this one. But aside from that, as I've read in countless books and online, there had never been anything comparable with the Beatles' success (even Elvis, apparently) before Beatlemania hit the US in January/February 1964. I've got an old book by Castleman & Podrazik (All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography 1961–1975) that lists every Billboard and Melody Maker chart entry for the Beatles. The pages covering the Billboard singles and LPs are extraordinary – the longevity of the charts runs for the albums, particularly later on. When it comes to singles, our statement that "On 4 April 1964, the Beatles occupied the top five US chart positions, as well as 11 other positions in the Top 100" only touches on the situation. From 25 January until 13 June, the Beatles were never out of the top 3 on the Hot 100 (eight of their songs made the top 3 in that time) and the band often held the top two positions simultaneously. So, even if the statement about the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons does appear in the Davis book, can we realistically say that their commercial success was "on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve"?
In fact, talking about anyone being a genuine commercial threat or equal to the Beatles during the '60s seems fanciful. Particularly worldwide, which is how far their "cultural impact" reached, after all. Here's a list of Australian number 1 singles from that decade, for instance: . JG66 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the passage from the book in question reads: "America already had two comparable groups established in the charts, the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons." which doesn't exactly support the statement in the article. Also, the statement in the article simply doesn't match the historical record. By the time the Beatles arrived in the US (February 1964), the Beach Boys had had 11 songs make the Billboard Hot 100 chart over the course of 24 months, including 4 top 10 hits. In their first 12 months on the Hot 100 in 1964, the Beatles had 30 songs in the Hot 100, including 11 top 10 hits and 6 No. 1's. The Beach Boys first No. 1 didn't occur until July 1964, by which time the Beatles already had 4 No. 1's. Piriczki (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source appears to suggest that they were "comparable groups" in the sense that they were four- (or five-) piece predominantly vocal groups whose records regularly reached the higher reaches of the pop charts.  But, I think it is highly unlikely that the source (which I haven't read in full) would imply that the commercial success of the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons reached the same level as the Beatles - it clearly didn't.    The simple solution might be to remove the editor's words "... on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve".   The source would then seem to support the text that remains.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm confused.  You seem to be agreeing that those two groups' success was not "on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve."  Best simply to leave those words out.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not confused, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's ironic because I only added that embellishment to keep a certain editor from doing exactly what he's done here (suggest that I've taken credit away from the Beatles). I was thinking that the unaltered text would be misread as "The Beach Boys and the Four Seasons were as successful as the Beatles". Damned if I do, damned if I don't.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth can that have been helpful? Nothing was obvious to the reader apart from the comment being misleading and redundant. And at no stage have I said that it's an issue of you taking credit away from the Beatles. That's what you do at Beach Boys articles, certainly, but here, as at other Beatles articles and at music genre articles, it's a case of you forever trumping up the Beach Boys. You're bloody shameless. JG66 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I could probably add a whole paragraph for exposition on the Stones with only one or two Beatles references scattered throughout and you wouldn't care. Yet adding six words about the Beach Boys being compared to the Beatles gets me the electric chair. Even if it puts them in a negative light -- I could write "Brian Wilson has and never will come close to the sheer ingeniousness of Revolver and Abbey Road" and I'll still get accused of "trumping" him up. Haha. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I would care if it weren't relevant to the Cultural impact of the Beatles. 2) You'd get accused of adding irrelevant crap, for sure. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

text: "dumb editing decisions" are most surely your domain. Your typically inaccurate representation of what sources say confirm it. You select sources that say what you want to be said about the Beach Boys (add creative embellishment, then stir), here and all over Wikipedia. As so many sources state – here's another one – the Beach Boys' ability to match the Beatles was for a very short time. JG66 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source verification needed 

message: In my view, this article focuses unduly on their impact in the United States.  Before they were even known in the US, they had a cultural impact in Britain - a four-piece band who both wrote and performed both their own songs, and (in the early days) their versions of (previously almost unheard in Britain) American R&B songs was unprecedented in British pop music, as was their impact on national UK culture in the "Beatlemania" era.  It's covered to some extent in the Beatlemania article itself, but this article underplays it - especially in the lead section.     Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I was relieved to see you highlight their impact on British national culture at the time – I've long had the feeling the article was being hijacked to focus not just on the US, but on purely musical points. I've been introducing a wider international coverage for a while (to include Australia, NZ, Japan, Philippines, communist states), along with more on societal/cultural issues. I'm just getting down to expanding text on their UK breakthrough. JG66 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I think the changes made to the article over the last few months have greatly improved it.  I'm not an expert in this area (if any!) so I don't intend contributing myself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural impact in Britain 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: resists the question even being asked, so I'll ask it here: who was this Daily Mail writer? Anyone? Even known? Is this just a passing incident that was, in the context of the source, merely decorative? I ask because the phrasing makes it look like passing trivia, and my very first thought was: "well, who then?" - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth does it matter? It's the publication speaking, and all that the publication stood for at the time. It's quite normal to see "Rolling Stones album reviewer" in Wikipedia articles, even if the writer is known. "The phrasing makes it look like passing trivia" ... I mean, what rubbish. JG66 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being bizarrely aggressive about this, and might want to consider calming down. WP:OWN after all. If this is about "cultural impact", that means the source needs to be shown impactful. What the impact of this thing that looks like passing trivia was is a reasonable question. If you're personally unable to answer it, that's okay and you don't need to strike out when it's asked - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm being bizarrely aggressive, it's got nothing to do with owning this or any other article, and everything to with how bizarrely pedantic you are – here, there and everywhere. The quote is mentioned in the John Harris source (not sure about Badman) in precisely the context that's relevant to this article, at least in terms of the Beatles' cultural impact in the UK. So there's no question about it being so-called passing trivia. JG66 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you to refrain from personal attacks - WP:NPA is policy, after all. If you don't know the answer, you don't have to lash out in embarrassment. Please consider editing more calmly - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right. Please consider refraining from being so pedantic and zeroing in on any and all mentions of the Daily Mail on Wikipedia. That's what this is really about; that's why you're here. I do know the answer, certainly the reporter's job title, because this quote has gained such traction in secondary sources. I just don't feel like engaging with you, because I don't believe you're able to view a mere mention of the primary source clearly, and you repeatedly used a tag in this article for what are clearly the wrong reasons. There's no embarrassment whatsoever; I just think you're a bit of a David Gerard, for the reasons explained. JG66 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: tch, personal attacks again - please address the issue, not the editor. You're going well out of your way to try to stop a question about the article content being addressed at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh shut up. I have addressed the issue (and the issue that's behind the point even coming up for discussion here). a) "It's the publication speaking ... It's quite normal to see Rolling Stones album reviewer'"; b) "The quote is mentioned in the John Harris source ... in precisely the context that's relevant to this article ... So there's no question about it being so-called passing trivia." JG66 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're literally making a pitch here for deliberate ignorance. And by the way, you're an experienced enough editor to know that WP:CIVIL is also a policy, so please at least try to discuss better than you're managing so far today - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodbye. There's no talking to you. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was that Daily Mail writer? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion