Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 6

message: I don't have "Wingspan" so I can't comment on the exact given quote. On the other hand, Lennon's quote on it was "daft", and McCartney has been quoted in Miles and (via Linda) in Playboy as "daft." Daft strikes me as more what Lennon would say, and so my suggestion is to use the Miles quote. The Playboy quote is second hand:
:PAUL: "Even if it can't be said, we'll say it. It's the truth. So it was the very next morning that I was trying to say, 'Let's get back together, guys, and play the small clubs.' And that's when John said..."
:LINDA: "His exact words were, 'I think you're daft.'" John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul McCartney verbatim quote: "John looked me straight in the eyes, and replied, I think your'e mad"! Mark Lewisohn, Wingspan (2002) p.9 Little, Brown and Company  Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you that you are quoting "Wingspan" verbatim; there's no dispute on my part about that. What I am saying is that McCartney recounted the incident multiple times, and used daft elsewhere. I agree that if we use the Wingspan quote it should be "mad", but I suggest we use a quote from Miles, which is McCartney saying, in part: "'... so we should go back to little gigs.' at that point John looked at me and said, 'Well, I think yer daft!'" ( As I recall (but can't find rthe quote), Lennon also recounted the story and his version said "daft", but I can't find that quote right now so maybe I'm mad/daft! John Cardinal 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can put that Lennon and his next door neighbour plus the binnie, said "I think your'e banana" for all I care - don't you lot ever stop arguing? I'm going to werk, before I go stark ravin bonkers! Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the quote from whichever tome you have been mostly using for that section, and note the difference from the other reference. That should cover it. Vera, if we can discuss it here and sort it then we can STOMP (with all due respect and politeness) on any future editor changing it to whichever of the books they had read. LessHeard vanU 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wingspan Book is only a transcricption of the TV thingy, so it stands to reason, that if you watch it, you will Hear Macca SAY "MAD" and not READ him saying "DAFT". Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "TV Thingy"? Is that a technical term? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Oh aye, it's a very teknicle term used in and around (but not exclusive to) the Dingle. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was called 't'Telly' where I was dragged up, or "t'box in't corner", and also referred to as the thing "that'll make yer eyes go square". andreasegde 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "mad " vs. "daft"

message: I wish people would understand that we're writing an encyclopedia not a chronicle or a newspaper. Recent additions have paragraphs starting:
* On March 21, 2007,
* On April 2, 2007,
* On June 5, 2007,
This is very dull prose and suggestive of an article thrown together by anons from news reports. Can we tidy these new additions so that they have historical perspective and fit into the existing narrative? We might want to lose altogether mention of the forthcoming album as it's not out yet. --kingboyk 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a chronicle

message: Who are the people Paul McCartney played with at Live 8? I mean the two guitarists, the pianist and the drummer? 77.162.32.197 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on, I give up. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it: see  77.162.32.197 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Under record-breaker it says "McCartney has achieved 24 number-ones in the U.K.: solo (1), Wings (1), with Stevie Wonder (1), Ferry Aid (1), Band Aid (1), Band Aid 20 (1) and the Beatles (17)."
The numbers add up to 23 not not 24. What's up? 75.177.84.51 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number one hits in the UK

message: If you look at the photo of Sutcliffe and Harrison on the Stuart Sutcliffe page, you will see a left-handed Hofner bass by Sutcliffes's leg, on the left. How is that possible when Macca started playing bass after Sutcliffe left?? Something is amiss here, methinks...andreasegde 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bass that should not be there

message: I added the occupations of the children - 7 words - because readers might want to know which of the children is which. If we're worried about space, then we can remove "and the reception included a vegetarian banquet." from the Heather Mills paragraph. Tvoz |talk 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: family

message: I have just realised that Dot Rhone is not in, which is terrible because she was his first girlfriend/shag and almost married her. egde 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? If people give that much of a shit they can look it up on some fansite. CynicofWiki 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CynicofWiki, please see WP:CIV. Thank you, Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you tell that user this isn't about who Paul was screwing back in 1932. CynicofWiki 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't care at all User:CynicofWiki, then why are you here, Mr. "Cynical about Wikipedia"? It sounds like you are out to make trouble, which is not as nice as a cup of tea and a nice slice of cake - wouldn't you agree? If you wish to argue I must warn you that I believe in the power of the cucumber sandwich, and I occasionally play football in the nude. andreasegde 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, now, young Crestville, don't pull the conker of aforesaid cynic, as he might climb out of his pram and actually gather enough energy to create a user account (although I strongly doubt it). andreasegde 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I had a user account and used to contribute to Wikipedia. Then I realized Wikipedia was nothing but bullshit where agendas play out. CynicofWiki 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you came back to see if you were right? Nice. Tvoz |talk 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  he is right. 100% right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dot Rhone

message: The "Beatles" section seems to chronicle the Beatles' rise and fall and whatnot, but there's very little relating to Paul's role in the Beatles, and his associated place in music history. I mean the guy was pretty much the driving force behind Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, but there's literally no mention; I think he deserves some credit there. The Beatles chronology belongs in the Beatles article.
Look at the Ringo Starr article for a good role model. It's much more condensed, much more relevant to the topic. 24.11.154.189 04:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: influence

message: I've heard him referred to as Macca before though it is not mentioned in the article. Shouldn't it be mentioned? I assume it is a abbreviation of sorts for the last name McCartney, right?
--Cab88 13:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that this is a "fan" thing--and a belated fan thing at that. No reference I've come across gives me the impression that any friend, associate, or relative of McCartney's ever called him "Macca". I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the article. TheScotch 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone in Liverpool (now most of the country) who's a Mc or Mac gets called Macca, it's not unique to Paul McCartney. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Anthology 2 version of You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, John calls him "Macca", so it's not only a fan thing. 147.188.248.153 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca is his nickname right?

message: :Image:Wideprairie.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 04:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wideprairie.jpg

message: Why do we need to put "known as Paul McCartney" after "Sir James Paul McCartney? It should be obvious, as the title of the article is "Paul McCartney". If he was better known as "Sir James Paul McCartney", that would be the title of the article. Why the confusion? --DearPrudence 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where else would you place the important fact that his legal name is (now) "Sir James...", better known as Macca? Squeeze it in between the Solo & Wings sections. Mention it just after the fact he was knighted in 1997 (it seems a few ip editors have recently been unable to get that far into the article, from their edits)? Nope, best thing is to place it right at the beginning and then the article can concentrate on Paul McCartney. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Vera's placement and LHvU's analysis on this - I mean, it seems kind of unnecessary to us, but think of the reader who's never heard of him. There are some. I'm sure of it. [hi all...still here] Tvoz |talk 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya Tvoz!! Glad to hear it Queen! xxx Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keepin' my eye on you boys. Tvoz |talk 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki guidelines actually state it is not necessary to point out they are known by their middle name (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names, where it gives Brian Jones as an example). See also Gordon Brown. --UpDown 11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good but wait 'til "Sir Paul McCartney" is added to the info box - there's no such person-he's "Sir James Paul McCartney" Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, you are being a bit pickey. There is nothing wrong with using someone's middle name after "Sir", its common practise if they are known by their middle name. Strictly speaking Gordon Brown is "The Rt Hon James Gordon Brown MP", but he is always, even in official documents like the Court Circular etc, refered to as "The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP". --UpDown 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'm being picky in the least. Macca can not be refered to as "Sir Paul" He was Knighted "Sir James Paul McCartney". Futhermore, you can't compare Rt Hon with Knight Bachelor. Cheers,Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It just seems unnecessary; why would the article be named Paul McCartney if he was better known by another name? --DearPrudence 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an encyclopedia article - we try to be as technically precise as possible. Vera's rendering is correct and eliminates any possible confusion about the correct way his name and title should be used. Wiki style guidelines are just that - guidelines - and we interpret them and adapt them for each specific article. I'm not surprised that the guidelines say it's not necessary to point out that they're known by their middle name, but in this case, if Vera is right about how the "Sir" is properly used, then it seems prudent (forgive me for that) to do it the way he suggested. "Not necessary" does not mean "not allowed", of course, and I don't see any strong argument against including it. (By the way - for every Brian Jones example there's a Warren Beatty example - so there is no hard and fast rule here. I'm reverting to Vera's text which may seem unnecessary, but one hopes will reduce inaccuracy. Tvoz |talk 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But - I'm inclined to remove the infobox "also known as Paul, Macca" line, because that seems like overkill to me. ANyone else? Tvoz |talk 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, as I pointed out in a previous post, "Macca" is not unique to Paul McCartney. Everyone in Liverpool (and now most of the country) who's a Mc or a Mac gets called Macca Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to revert back to my version. You are being picky, and also assuming people are very thick. The article is named "Paul McCartney" and he is called that throughout and in Infobox, you do not need to say "known as Paul McCartney". Regardless, I am backed by the MofS, which over-rules your POV. If you still disagree try and change the MofS before changing this.--UpDown 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Warren Beatty is different, as his stage surname is different spelt from his real surname, so a "known as" is necessary to point this out. --UpDown 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UpDown appears to have the MoS on his/her side. Also, to my mind, if we insist that we need to spell out to our readers that the guy is known as Paul McCartney - despite that being the title of the article - we're also insisting that our readers are thick :) My 2c is to remove the "also known as" but only refer to him as McCartney or Paul McCartney after the first sentence. --kingboyk 11:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is a big deal, but let's remember that MOS is just as subject to interpretation as everything else, if a situation is such that tweaking is needed. So UpDown, please dial it down - MoS wouldn't have to be changed to accommodate this very minor point in this article, in fact, because MoS doesn't actually say anything about this. The Brian Jones reference is talking about the need to include his full name in the first sentence and it is discussing the naming of articles, and the correct use of titles isn't addressed at all. I don't know if it's proper to call the guy Sir Paul or not, but if it's not, then there's no way anyone reading this article would know that. And since we're here to give more information, not to consider whether our potential readers are thick, it seems to me that this change helps more than it hurts. But so be it. Tvoz |talk 14:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is his name; that is how he is now referred to in the Public Records office, the same as I am referred to as Mister Mark James Slater and Andrew Albert Christian Edward Windsor is The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (or His Grace The Lord High Commissioner when in Scotland). Legally, we are per the Public Records office name, which is my legal documents always include titles and awards where applicable. LessHeard vanU 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? Then perhaps you would care to explain why Tony Benn had so much trouble getting rid of his "title." Lion King 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: He was called Paul by his family and friends to aviod confusion with his father who was also named James. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over name?

message: I've seen a couple references today that are simply posts or comments on things saying Paul McCartney 1941-2007 RIP. Sure its not true, just figured i'd point it out in case someone tries to put it in the article
--Pollard666 07:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Hoax

message: I vaguely recall a report that McCartney released some kind of dance record under the name "Big M" at some point. Can't find anything in the article or online about it, anyone else heard of it? Exxolon 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only Big Ms I know of are a truck stop and a grocery store! However, Paul did dance records under the names Fireman and Twin Freaks.Sposato (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dance Record

message: This is on John Lennon's page too so I'm going to mention this again; since when has Paul McCartney won an Academy Award?
* The Beatles won collectively for the score to the Let It Be film. Probably that one the article is talking about. He was nominated twice as an individual as I recall. Exxolon 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: In view of the amount of vandalism, I am very wary about any new Paul Mccartney 'fact' that I have not seen before. I would be surprised if he owned the rights to Grease because I have never seen that mentioned before, and IIRC this was a big Robert Stigwood venture. Does anyone know if there is any truth in this part of the article? DavidFarmbrough 10:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you go to the official MPL Communications website, and if you watch the intro, "Grease" comes up. So he really does own the rights to the Broadway version of it. 74.69.234.115 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grease - vandalism?

message: What about Paul's recent venture into being a radio show host, thus effectively ripping off Dylan (the next big leisure thing after pot that Paul's obviously learned from Bob)? --Tlatosmd 05:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if Dylan would repay the favor and take singing or personal hygiene lessons from Paul... John Cardinal 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio host?

message: Should there be a photo of Mills in here? Say no if you want to... :) --andreasegde 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if it's a topless one!! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Vera... (sound of top-shelf magazine being flicked through :) --andreasegde 11:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if it was topless you'd have a photo of nothing, since she herself is bottomless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold-digger

message: I have noticed that sentences and paragraphs are creeping in that are not referenced. They will deleted if no references are supplied. We had to do this about a year ago, and it took awhile. Please find references from books, web pages or newspapers/magazines. --andreasegde 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Is it just me, or are all these instruments that Macca allegedly plays gettin out of hand a teeny bit? Someone needs to put in the musical saw, the bike pump, whoopie cushion and the squeeky water glass! Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instuments

message: I fixed this subsection to remove the idiotic tabloid detail that had been included there, and to add the straight facts as well as fix the references, but I seriously question whether this should be in the article at all. It is tabloid rumor, unconfirmed by either party or anyone else, and even if true strikes me as an example of recentism - I don't think we want to include every woman he is seen with and gives a kiss to, do we? I would take it out and wait until there's better evidence of a relationship. I think this is silly. Tvoz |talk 07:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, 100% Vera, Chuck & Dave 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking it out - it can always go back in. Tvoz |talk 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know his opening line to women was, "Will you marry me?" I mean, talk about taking the biscuit, the sod... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's a little bit better than: "Take that silly wig off"! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nancy Shevell

message: For one this is NOT old news. Here, let me say that again. This is NOT old news. This has been notable info for a while yet Wikipedia absolutely refuses to add this info in. Hell, I'm on my nintendo wii reading a news article about him, and he says his wealth is 1.6 billion. This is from AP. Please add this long overdue info in, or I'll do it myself. Glencoe999 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, genius - why the attitude? Did it ever occur to you that the news article you read translated his wealth from British pounds into US dollars? You do know that there are different currencies in the world, and this is an article about a British subject so we express the figure in pounds? Just in case you are confused, I direct your attention to the section called "Business" and let me interpret it for you: we have a sourced estimate from a year ago of his wealth as 760 million pounds (that's the funny looking L with the horizontal line in it in front of the 760) - that roughly equals 1.5 billion US dollars (that would be an S with two vertical lines going through it). So next time, try asking a question like a civil human being instead of a two year old. Okay? Seriously? WTF? Thank you and happy thanksgiving. Tvoz |talk 07:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheer brilliance, Tvoz. I doff my cap to you. --andreasegde (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta. Tvoz |talk 06:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Has your concern about their pot smoking gotten in the way of your reading comprehension? I'll make it easy for you and anyone else who thinks that his wealth should be mentioned: CLICK HERE. As pointed out immediately above your question. As for the pot toxins - well, they probably were too high to think it through. But about the cancer - you might be interested in this news story that broke a week or two ago about marijuana and breast cancer. It may surprise you. Cheerio Tvoz |talk 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think filling your lungs with toxins can be unhealthy too, but I question if we're going to find a verifiable source for how much they smoked, if they stopped, and what Paul thinks about it now - let alone something that links it to breast cancer in a negative way. We have to be careful to avoid original research, meaning including our own theories, no matter how plausible they may seem to us. If you find this discussed in reliable sources, certainly post it here so we can determine if it is notable for inclusion. As for the placement of his wealth in the article, ok - I suppose we might add a sentence to the intro - does anyone else think so? Tvoz |talk 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth me little NY Doll, I think Macca's money is fine where it is (in the bank - beat yer to it!) to mention it in the lead would drag him down to the level of this MUPPET. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Apology wholly unnecessary. And VC&D - I think his money would be best in the bank too - mine. Just a tiny percentage will do. He is a billionaire, after all. Tvoz |talk 06:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the bank! He's too wily for that. Banks pay less that cost-of-living index, which means if you put anything in a normal account it will slowly devalue until your dosh has withered away (plus bank charges for breathing) the [word of your choice]. He's got it in song catalogues and Linda's veggie burgers. (I wonder what else?) --andreasegde (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay seriously WTF? Paul Mccarteny *IS* a billionare. Why the hell is this not mentioned in the article??