Talk:Brian Epstein/Archive 1

message: A reader emailed the following comment to us.  Please review it and make the appropriate changes to the article.
I've talked with Bill Harry of MERSEY BEAT Magazine, and he has the true version of how Brian Epstein first heard of the Beatles. It wasn't the standard accepted version that you stated: "When several customers began asking for a single they made with Tony Sheridan in Germany, he couldn't find it through any of his record label contacts, and decided to ask the band themselves for details."
That version is Bullshit. Brian first saw the Beatles plastered all over Bill Harry's Mersey Beat Magazine. Bill was pushing his friend John Lennon's band with lots of coverage, and had made a personal appeal and gotten Brian to agree to selling the magazine in Epstein's music store. It was through Bill Harry's personal escort and contacts that Brian first met them. Brian concocted the "record label he couldn't find" story about how he first heard of them, I believe because he was infatuated, and wanted an excuse for visiting and meeting them, especially John, with whom most people believe he had at least an initial romantic interest.
Please contact Bill Harry, editor of Mersey Beat magazine (now online) for the true story details of how Brian got introduced to the Beatles.
Kelly Martin 11:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Harry

message: I don't think the personal statements of Bill Harry can be used here; that would make this a violation of No original research, wouldn't it? To wit,
: Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
Kelly, I understand your desire to include this information (see: Talk: Creem), and I don't actually question it's validity, but let's face it, it's not peer-reviewed, accepted history (based on yours and Harry's statements alone). After all, Bill could be lying. Not that he is, but please read up on the Wikipedia concept of 'original research' cited above if you're not clear on this. It simply needs additional coroborration(sp?) to be encyclopedic. Does someone have an actual cite from the book Deadworm222 mentioned?
Eaglizard 08:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate y'all looking into this.  I don't have an interest in the article itself; I just read and respond to Wikipedia's email. :) Kelly Martin 11:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I added a couple of sentences about Bill Harry's assertions because I do think the typical story has the feel of "self-promotional apocrypha"... not to say our Eppy was a liar, but it wouldn't be the first time an English gentleman allowed a touching (if mythical) story to stand.Eaglizard 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal interviews are original research 

message: User: Wyss removed some semi-vandal's insertion of "and a homosexual", with the comment "(WP not a tabloid, sexual orientation is not known to be relevant to music management)". My initial reaction was "good edit, obvious vandal", but then I thought, on the other hand... I know gayness is not particularly relevant in most cases, but here it does relate to the oft-repeated speculation about him and Johnny in Spain... It should at least be mentioned, otherwise the words known to have been infatuated with almost seem to come out of nowhere. But that story has been passed around so many times that I have no idea where a cite for it could be found. Perhaps the whole thing about Brian & John & Spain should be deleted? I mean, I know it's just obvious that Brian was gay, and who wouldn't be infatuated with Lennon '63, but does obviousness equate to verifiable? Probably not... Eaglizard 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, what the article means at that point is that Epstein didn't act on his feelings toward Lennon. They had a strong and stormy emotional relationship, but Epstein made no plays for Lennon of note, aside from possibly during their Spanish vacation. As far as his acting on his feelings in general... Epstein endured more than one incident where an encounter would threaten public exposure, and there certainly was enough "evidence" of his gay life. Zephyrad 22:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: I think this article would benefit from a section higlighting referenced facts & opinions about Epstein's strengths and failings. Many authors have commented on his business naivety and him striking poor initial deals and then not renegotiating: The publishing with Dick James, US merchandising rights, Movie deals, etc. Design 05:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, as long as it's balanced. The impression I've always got from reading about Brian is that he was a wonderful manager of people and a vital' cog in the Beatles machine, but hopelessly naive and perhaps even too honourable when doing the big deals. On the one hand, he probably (if the books I've read are correct) cost them millions of dollars in lost earnings (especially the merchandising fiasco), on the other hand they might never have even got to London if it weren't for him! We can also see what happened when Mr Epstein had departed... Apple Corps, Allen Klein, break up. --kingboyk 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strengths and weaknesses as a manager

message: Deciding that "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles" is a very poor decision.  I'm almost tempted to let the WP:Beatles people take up the issue because I think they'll find that no one in the non-Wikipedia world agrees with their decision, but I really can't be bothered.  Wikipedians make poor decisions all the time, and I have to pick my battles.  Moncrief 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you come over to Talk:The_Beatles#The_Beatles_or_the_Beatles.3F and discuss it? --kingboyk 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Beatles" vs. "the Beatles"

message: There was a pharmacist in the house after all! It was Carbitral. I was thinking no wonder he died, Carbitol is a solvent. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbitol

message: I removed the following paragraph:
:Had he lived Epstein probably would have prevented or limited the poor business decisions made by The Beatles themselves in 1968-69, such as their disasterously mismanaged Apple Corps and the bitter internal arguments over who to hire as a business manager in 1969.  These conflicts contributed to the group's breakup and the lasting ill-feeling that precluded further collaboration.
I don't believe that this sort of conjecture has any place on wikipedia. It's probably a valid sentiment shared by many people, but if so, it should be sourced. It should be rewritten as a refrence to the opinion of someone relevant (like a biographer or someone close to the Beatles/Epstein in that period), preferably several people. risk 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Had he lived..." 

message: This article, while good, has the tone of a biography, not an encyclopedia. There are numerous unverifiable statements, especially with regards to his influence on the Beatles, and what might have happened if he didn't die. All judgements needs to be attributed to notable sources. I'm going to add tags. Could someone go through and add the sources (or chop the problem statements)? Ashmoo 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone/verifiability

message: I have adopted this article within the WP Beatles project. Liverpool Scouse 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article adoption

message: Added infobox (non-performing personnel - managers aren't specifically listed (admittedly there aren't that many famous managers) but I'm pretty sure they apply, as producers etc apply.  Needs an image though. Liverpool Scouse 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Can we add the names of Brian's parents? --kingboyk 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! --kingboyk 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage 

message: I suggest that the persons who are writing this article should buy any Beatles book. The article is very well-written, but "It was reported", and "claimed", are not good enough. Buy a book, put in-line citations in, and nobody will complain. --andreasegde 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: People, there are a lot of citations needed on this page, so I suggest that someone buy some books, and starts putting in some in-line citations. I am tempted to start work on this page, but I am being put off by the arguments written above. Do you want this page to be GA? Please reply... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to stop arguments

message: I have expanded his early life, and have added in-line citations. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 13:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life

message: Bill Harry was right, as Bob Spitz wrote. 'Nuff said... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: We need citations with page numbers, as reviewers then know that an article has been seriously worked on, otherwise they think we are cheating by quoting any book we think will do. The books then have to be put in "References", with an ISBN number added. This is imperative, and not negotiable. (Just look at the GA reviews) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations with page numbers and ISBN numbers

message: ...by the same person?! "A bit of an excess, don't you think?" Zephyrad 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are inferring by that comment, but I can tell you that my girlfriend is working 3 nights as a nurse. Is it so bad that I spend my time here bringing articles to GA, or is it something else? Check out Paul McCartney, Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Neil Aspinall, Mal Evans, and Mimi Smith, which are all now GA. Am I being castigated for doing exactly what we are here for? andreasegde 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I see it now - the clouds are gathering. Is it because I'm asking for in-line citations? Whatever you think, this article has to be a GA. Anything less would be an insult. I would like a reply, if you would be so kind. andreasegde 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen. --kingboyk 11:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 75 edits today...

message: There are enough citations in Early Life and Managing The Beatles now, but Managing could be longer. Evolution seems to be rambling and lacks citations, and maybe needs to be renamed. andreasegde 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we accept Epstein's ghost-written book as being honest? We probably can, as concerning quotes from other people. I'll look for it. (I had it - years ago - but finding books in Austria is a bugger... Oh, the waste of throwing books out years ago that we thought of as no longer being readable or useable... :) andreasegde 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had my doubts until reading it and one other book.  The following things became apparent.  It contains many more of Epstein's actual words than one would think.  Derek Taylor's limited edition autobiography "Fifty Years Afrift" (1984) includes reproductions of extracts from the TRANSCRIPTS of the audio-recorded interview he conducted with Epstein in April 1964.  Based on a comparison of these words with the equivalent section in the finished "Cellarful" it appears that - certainly in those sections - Taylor simply used Epstein's actual words - with some tidying up for grammar and syntax.  ie - Taylor did not create the words out of his own head based just on a series of facts.  This makes the book more authentically Epstein's voice than one would expect.  Secondly - the book contains several episodes that are not flattering of Epstein.  The interviews were conducted - and the book written - in a more innocent era where "spin control" was not automatically considered.  While Epstein - like most people - undoubtedly presented his story in a favorable light - he included a few unflattering details of his relationship with the Beatles - including some tensions between himself and the individuals - that would probably have been excised from such a book in later more self-conscious times.  So the book is really helpful.  And the 1998 edition is even better.  Alas my copy is in storage. Good luck finding it!  Perhaps ebay?  Davidpatrick 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the audio tapes still exist? That's something I'd love to hear! --kingboyk 15:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And now for something completely different

message: Is it really worth it to put in that the Epstein's family home has been turned into a Bed & breakfast hotel, called Epstein's? I hope not. andreasegde 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be ok in a Trivia section.  Davidpatrick 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, don't mention that 'T' word - the "boys in blue" don't like it. (Check out the Beatles trivia arguments... Ouch!) andreasegde 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that really is *rivia and doesn't need to be mentioned, but if it does have to be in the article best put it into the prose somewhere as the man says :) --kingboyk 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B&B

message: I know we should mention "Epstein" instead of "he", but when do we make the difference between when he was just Brian to his family, and when he became "Brian Epstein/Epstein"? (The Beatles called him 'Eppy' BTW, which only confuses the situation.) andreasegde 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he is always Epstein.  A direct quote in which he is called "Brian" by someone is an obvious exception.  And the Beatles' nickname for him should be referenced somewhere - even en passant.   Davidpatrick 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am thinking about "Brian Epstein's mother was called Malka", and "After his parents had moved him from one boarding school to another, Brian spent two years at"... It seems strange to call him Epstein, when he was only 14, or so. (I did the same thing with Mimi Smith = John/Lennon) I don't care really, but the GA reviewers love to hate this sort of thing. If we sort this out now, it will mean less work later on (although they always find something to complain about...) Ho-hum... andreasegde 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made a pass at resolving this.  Even when the person is a kid - using the first name always makes it sound too fanzine I think.  Davidpatrick 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, Epstein he will be. andreasegde 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "John Lennon pointed to Epstein's death as the beginning of the end of the group. "When Brian died I knew that was it. I knew we'd had it..." Bugger... andreasegde 01:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "when the same sentence or possibly paragraph is talking about other Epsteins"... That would count as a special reason. :-) Zephyrad 15:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brian, or Epstein?

message: This is interesting for me, but probably very boring for anyone else. I would pronounce his name as Ep-sch-tein/Ep-schtyn (the same word for Ep-stone in Austrian/German) but the Fabs pronounced it as Ep-steen. andreasegde 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, in the US it's usually EPP-steen. Tvoz | talk 04:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALthough "Stein" is always STINE and Leonard was Burn-stine. Tvoz | talk 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The good thing about this is that it doesn't matter one tiny little jot, because we don't have to pronounce it. andreasegde 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until you do the audio version, of course ;) --kingboyk 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust you to slip one in past the post on me blind side. :)) andreasegde 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is interesting (not)

message: Look at these sentences:
"While by present-day standards this was a poor deal, these were standard terms in 1962 for a new artist with no leverage. Especially an artist that had already been rejected by every major competitor."[citation needed]
This was slipped into a paragraph that had a citation, but has no citation by itself, making it look as if the citation covered it as well. This is just not on... 
"Epstein arranged for the Beatles to enter into a publishing agreement with Dick James Music (DJM) and set up a company called Northern Songs, which was also standard for the time: songwriters received the statutory minimum of 50% of the gross monies received, with the publisher retaining the other 50%." [citation needed]
If there is no citation added to these statements they will have to be deleted. This is not my personal opinion, it is simply why we are here. We can not put facts/POV in—even if they are true—without citing where they came from. I don't want to fall out about this, but I will rigidly stick to what is expected from us... 
I also expect the new paragraphs in Business dealings to be left in, because they are cited and convey information that is factual. andreasegde 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Let's address the last point.  There is a need to weigh what is factual with what is relevant. Classic case: The stated  surprise expressed by Isherwood about the management commission.
1)  Was Isherwood genuinely surpised?  Possibly.  Assume he was.
2) Did he express this surprise to Barry Miles?  Probably.  Miles is an honest writer.  Assume he did.
3) So is the FACT that Isherwood said this to Miles true?  Almost certainly.  So THAT is a fact.
Now...
4) Was Isherwood erroneous in being surprised? If he was a CPA with a lot of entertainment industry experience (of which they were very few in 1964) he would have known that they were two entirely different roles in the business. Agents who secured engagements for a 10% commission.  And personal managers (sometimes called "managers" or "talent managers") who performed a far broader role and customarily received remuneratin ranging from 15% to 30% (usual range) all the way up to 50% (Elvis' manager).  Let's say he didn't know this.  So his surprise is legitimate.  it's just that it was ill-informed.
So now we come to the decision to include or exclude such a nugget in the article.
At best this is misleading trivia.  It almost certainly is true that the person thought that and that he imparted his view to Miles.  Who included it among TENS OF THOUSANDS of other facts in his book.  
The question isn't is it factual that it was a view that was uttered and that it was uttered it can be cited.
The question is it relevant to include the mis-perception of one individual merely because it was included in one book which can cited as evidence of it being a "fact"?  (A fact that it was uttered.  NOT a fact that it was true about Epstein.)
The likelihood is that an uninformed reader (not knowing the difference between managers and agents) might tend to draw a conclusion that Epstein was doing something outrageously wrong by being paid a commission that a CPA thought was unusually high.  That leaves an impression that is defamatory of Epstein.
It is ludicrous that this erroneous misperception by one individual would then have to be countered by cited examples simply to prove that this individual was mistaken in his belief.
That would be self-defeating madness.
I have put some simple refutation in on a temporary basis.  But I think it should be deleted.  The views of one individual - erroneous or otherwise - is just not MATERIAL to this article.  And since it also leaves a defamatory impression - it should not be in the article.  Davidpatrick 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree; that sentence really bugged me. Why is it there, especially since BE wasn't doing anything particularly surprising? It's just one (uninformed) guy's opinion, at best.Eaglizard 05:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it usual for a manager to get 25% of gross, before expenses, and with costs like the manager's office, etc., borne by the artist? Sounds unreasonable to me, but of course, that doesn't matter. Was that the usual practice at the time? John Cardinal 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commission

message: There is a strong danger that the article is including too much unnecessary detail on Epstein's personal/sexual life.
The fact that he was gay at a time when homosexuality was illegal in England - and generally a taboo in social circles - is legitimate. It also had some impact on the way he lived his life.  So these facts must be included.  Many of his friends and associates commented on this in recent years.  With a few people going into great detail.  Again this is factual.  So there are plenty of on-the-record statements that can be cited.  
But how MUCH detail is NECESSARY in a biographical article.  At what point does it cross over from being information essential in a biographical article to being a titillating litany of sexual preferences and activities?  Are there similarly detailed accounts in the articles of other notable individuals?  Is there a different amount of detail included?  If so why?  Is it because he was homosexual?  Is there the same amount of detail included about heterosexual people who were promiscuous in their personal lives?  Is it because the activities were illegal?
I am NOT advocating any type of whitewash.  I AM advocating that we look at other articles about notable individuals and ensure that the AMOUNT of detail included is proportionate and appropriate.  Simply because something has been stated in a book and a reference to that book can be included does not in itself make something relevant.  Davidpatrick 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Brian's sexuality should not overdue the details, but deciding when that threshold is reached is difficult. With regards to comparisons to other people, every case is different. From all the accounts I have read, his sexuality played a major part in his life, and unfortunately, his death. To the extent there is a disagreement about what to leave in/leave out, editors should discuss it here. John Cardinal 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per my comments above, I too felt there was way too much material about specific sexual details -- in fact, it almost like felt the article had been hacked over by a homophobe trying make gays look bad, but that's just a personal opinion. In any case, I will repeat that the paragraph referencing the probably-apocryphal Epstein/Lennon handjob is, imo, entirely excessive, and should be cut completely. At best, it is a trivial detail about Lennon more than it is about Epstein. The reference to 'rough trade' is also over the top, to me; it's purely speculation by some biographer (afaik). But after getting annoyed with Zephyred's undoing of my efforts w/o apparent consideration (again, imo) I decided not to work on this article any more. Clearly, other editors have (finally!) taken it under their wings to give Brian the high-quality article he deserves.Eaglizard 05:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of sex life

message: Facts—mentioned above a few times—are very slippery things. I think it's better to discuss evidence, supported by reliable sources, and in some cases, conclusions drawn from that evidence. A lot of the content in Beatle-related articles are accounts by observers made after the event, and subject to enormous complications of truth. I am not talking about people being dishonest, I'm talking about 2 honest witnesses watching the same event and sincerely believing they saw something different. Thinking of evidence as facts is error-prone, but luckily, not really necessary. When treated as evidence, you record the source, capture what it says, and leave most of the conclusions to the reader. John Cardinal 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that friends is what Wikipedia is meant to be all about. Very nicely put Mr Cardinal. --kingboyk 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts v. evidence