Talk:Break-up of the Beatles

message: I made a change in this article which has been (mostly) reverted to a prior state and I accept that reasons given (non-RS and brevity) have validity.
HOWEVER I wish to open Talk for the substance of the changes I had made, namely:
It is NOT a fact that McCartney quit or announced his departure from The Beatles on 10 April 1970. 
Despite having passed via newspapers into 'biographer' history, McCartney does not give notice or announcement of quit in the press-interview that accompanied his solo album. I invite thorough inspection of this and of the Apple Corps statement of the same date. Neither give a quit notification nor announcement on that date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk xsx (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to an earlier version with some copy editing because that much detail, particularly quotes, doesn't belong in the lead section which is a summary of the article. Some of the content such as the response from Apple was confusing in ways inaccurate, one of the reasons why beatlesbible.com is not considered a reliable source for Beatles-related articles. If the question is did McCartney specifically use the words "quitting" or "leaving" in the questionaire, no he did not use those exact words, but I don't think it has been disputed by anyone then or now that that is what was being communicated in the press release. Piriczki (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact-check request: McCartney's 'quitting of The Beatles' 

message: "Coupled with his renewed drug use and a deterioration in his marriage and family life, Lennon's personal identity and artistic role within the Beatles was a source of discontent."
I think this is very poorly phrased and somewhat ambiguous; all comments on my replacement sentence are welcomed, because I may be mistaken over who was discontented (but I don't think so). Harfarhs (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous phrasing 

message: Like the Beatlemaina article, this topic has several unresolved footnote references. Many of them are the same as the Beatlemania article, in fact, tho a few are different:
* Doggett (2009). There Doggett 2003 and 2011; what's this?
* Womack (2009). No matching reference
* MacDonald. No year given, tho 2005 and 1997 are used elsewhere without definition. There's a definition for MacDonald (1998), but it's never used.
* MacDonald (2005). No matching reference
* MacDonald (1997). No matching reference
* Lewishon (1988). There's Lewishon references from 2002 and 2005, not 1988
* Lewishon (1992). Same as above.
* Gould (2007). No matching reference
* Sutherland (2010).  There's Sutherland 2003, but it's never referenced.
Is anyone able to sort these out so the article is properly and verifiably referenced? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes without matching references 

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: The title of this article should be amended to reflect the proper spelling of "breakup."
:According to the Cambridge Dictionary , the correct spelling is break-up. This article uses British English, not American. WWGB (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed title change 

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) 06:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :Their break-up was a cumulative process attributed to numerous factors. These include the strain of the Beatlemania phenomenon, the death of manager Brian Epstein in 1967, resentment towards McCartney from his bandmates for his perceived domineering role, Lennon's heroin use and his relationship with Yoko Ono, Harrison's prolific songwriting output, the floundering of Apple Corps and the Get Back project (later Let It Be, 1970), and managerial disputes.
The use of "perceived" here suggests that the other factors were real and McCartney's "domineering role" was only "perceived". It just sounds biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the topic being discussed in the section immediately above this one. Tkbrett (✉) 01:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceived domineering role 

message: Although McCartney effectively announced the end of the band on 10 April 1970, Lennon left the Beatles (though not made public at the time) on 20 September 1969, as is stated later on in the article and is widely documented. So please don't keep changing the introduction to say that John, Paul, George and Ringo were in the group until April 1970, as this is incorrect. Thanks Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the idea that the Beatles were finished as soon as Lennon said he wanted a divorce. Arguably the end date was when they all signed papers to dissolve the partnership and Lennon was the last to sign. Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,but the opening sentence specifically says these are the dates during which the Beatles consisted of John, Paul, George and Ringo. If you're talking about the Beatles as a legal entity, they were only officially dissolved in December 1974, but clearly had long since ceased to be active as a group by then. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Further thoughts on this - maybe the opening sentence doesn't need to be quite so specific. Instead it could just say something like: "The Beatles were an English rock band, active from 1960 until 1970". Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think you need to mention the members.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But, thinking about it more, this is complex. In the court case, John, George, and Ringo argued that they had had differences in the past but were willing and able to work with the band. Admittedly, the judge did not agree and appointed a receiver to the partnership. Then there was Apple Corp. This was a corporation, not a partnership. Paul was contractually obliged to continue to produce his albums through Apple and struggled to get out of it. George said no, "Hare Krishna" - which was rude. If the band was still insisting that Paul should still produce his albums through Apple and his mates were insisting that they were willing to work with the band, how logically can you say that the band dissolved in 1970???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles end date