Talk:Fifth Beatle

message: The name Enis Crabtree was added to the Fifth Beatle page under the subtitle "Other Individuals" on July 15, 2010 at 00:37 (there were two updates with the same time-stamp).  A Google search using "Enis Crabtree" + Beatles" brought up many pages with sentences similar to the Fifth Beatle Wikipedia page, and the few pages I reviewed had no source references.  Likewise, the Wikipedia article has no reference.  Who is Crabtree?  Should the name be deleted from the Fifth Beatle article?  I offer my apology if these are impertinent questions: my familiarity with the Beatles is not extensive.  
Noah Spamoli (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Enis Crabtree" was first added in  this IP edit from May 2010.  Sine the most of the other edits from this IP address were vandalism that was reverted, I've removed this as well.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Crabtree?

message: Didn't Eric Clapton play on "While my guitar gently weeps"? or another track?  if so was he not also credited for this? Dainamo 08 October 2004
:He did, but I think a single appearance with the Beatles is generally seen as insufficient for being credited as a "Fifth Beatle". Preston appeared on an entire album, and was considered being asked to join the band. If you can find any legitimate reference to Clapton ever being consider the fifth Beatle for this single track, then I guess he could be added to the list, but I don't think it's ever really been the case.  -R. fiend 15:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He's surely got more claim than some of the weak cases listed there now. If it had been up to George, I imagine he'd have been asked to join the band ;)173.65.219.223 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Clapton?

message: You can say Sutcliffe or Best if you want to be literal, I suppose. Aspinall and Evans were mainly roadies and assistants and I don't think that's enough for the claim. Many people say Martin, but, although he did almost all of them, anyone could have produced those tracks. Then we have Epstein. He came in right when the Fab Four were starting out, and fixed them up, introduced Ringo to the band, stayed with them as their manager until he died and, well, really did all of the work. I can't think of anyone else, worthy or not , so I would have to give the title to Brian Epstein.
That's right, Brian Epstein.
--WizardOfTheCDrive 02:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't separate them into 'legitimate' and 'spurious'. Apart from the fact that those two adjectives are not binary opposites, it would be subjective as to which applied to which candidate. As this is an encyclopaedia, it is better to use an objective criterion, such as 'these are all people who have been referred to as the Fifth Beatle'. Users can then decide on legitimacy or otherwise of claims. User: DavidFarmbrough 12:25 (BST) 11 APR 2005
I never said George Best had anything to do with the Beatles. I said he was called the fifth Beatle. It was quite a simple statement to understand. This was especially common in the tabloids. SRP 19:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In support of Epstein 

message: "The January 1969 recordings for the album were embarassing "? This is POV I think - if someone like Paul said they were embarrassing, then we should say this in the article. I find it hard to believe that an objective assesment would say the tapes are embarrasing in view of their content.
DavidFarmbrough
I agree completely; although I'm nearly certain Paul or one of them did in fact use the word 'embarrassing' in referring to the tapes, that doesn't actually matter here, since it would still be POV.  However, the fact that the tapes were not up to the usual Beatles standards b/c of the tensions surrounding the recording is indisputible, and NPOV (I think), so I changed it to such. Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embarrassing? 

message: John and Paul were the first two members of the Beatles to play in a group together (the Quarry Men), which George then joined, followed by Stu. Pete then joined the four-piece, which had by now changed its name to the Beatles, so he was the fifth Beatle and Ringo the sixth.--Paolo Meccano 11:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Pete Best was not the first drummer the Beatles used, and the Beatles at one point had a piano player. TheScotch 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically, It's Pete... 

message: IMHO, at least -- after all, George contributed more actual original musical content than any one EXCEPT John, Paul, George or Ringo. In fact, you could probably argue that George wrote more Beatles music than Ringo or George, too (but that would be a stretch). And as for the claim above that "... anyone could have produced those tracks," I think this probably a statement by someone relatively unfamiliar with the recording process and it's history, as well as the role of a producer / composer like Martin in that process. The claim is patently false; Martin's influence and innovation on the recording process itself is well-documented, and anyone else would NOT have created the same sound. But hey, let's don't argue; the Beatles' music is wonderful no matter what I or anyone else has to say about it, no? Eaglizard 10:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree with what George Martin said about Epstien. No matter how talented they were, the beatles wouldn't have got as far as they did without Epstien. Lets not forget he was the one who believed in them from day one. Every manager they had before didn't care about making them into stars, all they wanted was a few bob for local gigs here and there and a couple of quid for Hamberg, it was Epstien who, along with the band, set the plan for world wide fame. 74.65.39.59 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... But really, it's George (Martin, not Best). 

message: Mr. Martin not only produced the Beatles, but in a large way, his classical training helped to turn a basement or cavern band into a sophisticated orchestra. This is evident when listening to their practice sessions in the Anthology album. For example, he performed the Harpsichord middle for "In My Life". Before Martin, 5th and 6th would be Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe in any order. This means that we are really trying to decide on the 6th Beatle. One day it would be Billy Preston and the next day Eric Clapton or possibly another colleague. Rkm3612 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Martin 

message: Is this some arcane in-joke intended to weed out the diehard Fabs nuts? Can anyone elucidate?Widmerpool 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search of "Joseph Tulip" + Beatles reveals nothing; Joseph Tulip on his own comes up with different people, including a British athlete. I'm not British, so I don't if he's famous (if he is, I guess that's the "joke"). Freshacconci 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Tulip?

message: I have upgraded this article to B-class. It needs more references. --andreasegde 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B class

message: In what way is "During Sutcliffe's tenure, the band was actually a five-piece band, giving Sutcliffe legitimate claim to being the "fifth" Beatle. He was not replaced when he quit the band; Paul McCartney changed from lead guitar to bass" an argument? Fact: The Beatles had five members when Sutcliffe was in the band. Fact: Sutcliffe was not replaced when he left the band. What is the argument? Kingturtle (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument lies with "giving Sutcliffe legitimate claim to being the 'fifth' Beatle" in the context of this article. Sutcliffe was a member of the 5-piece Beatles, but how was he the "fifth" member? Were they numbered? Why wasn't he the fourth or third? In the context of the article, the fifth Beatle concept is an "honourary" title given to someone, usually by the media. So there's no real legitimacy involved. It's all a media construct. My guess is that objection with the inclusion of this material as POV lies with establishing Sutcliffe as the "fifth" Beatle as a fact, when such a thing couldn't ever be established as such. I do understand what you mean: five Beatles become four, so the one who left becomes the fifth after-the-fact, but in the case of the article, there would need to be some sources that name him definitively as the specifically fifth Beatle. freshacconcispeaktome 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of sources, the Stuart Sutcliffe Estate calls him the Fifth Beatle and the BBC calls him that too. Kingturtle (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant no harm, and also did NOT mean to imply, by my edit, that Sutcliffe had a better claim than anyone else.  However, the actual text of this section is rather sparse; very little is mentioned about his musical place in the band... There's some information on his relationship with his girlfriend and his life as a painter, but little on his performance in the band.  I have added a modified version of the information without the contentious POV part.  We should have something in here about the Beetles during his tenure AND on the nature of his leaving the band, without making any contention that his claim to the "fifth beatle" title is any better than anyone elses.  It isn't.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stu Sutcliffe 

message: An editor using a series of IP addresses continues to revert my changes to this article.  I removed some links to websites that contained lyrics, music, and other copyright violations.  These links are not allowed at Wikipedia for legal reasons, and such policy is explained at the page on Wikipedia's external link policy.  In addition, I made several edits cleaning up the grammar and text of the article.  These are being sumarily reverted without discussion or comment.  It would appear that several IP addresses are doing this, implying to me that it is a dynamic IP address.  I will leave requests at the relevent talk page; if you are making these reversions, please discuss it here before continuing to undo my edits.  Thank you.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the lyrics nor the MP3 you CONTINUE TO DELETE OVER AND OVER AGAIN are copyright violations.  Nor are the SNL transcripts. You should KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT before deleting other people's contributions to Wikipedia. I also dispute that you "cleaned up" or "improved" anything in the section, but that's a subjective question. 24.2.82.243 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  Because the lyrics page you link has NO attribution, so it is unclear WHO is authorizing the use of those lyrics on that page.  With no way to verify its content, we have to default to assuming that the lyrics are not being used in a legal way.  Also, if you read Wikipedia's policy on external links, you would see that External links, such as you keep readding, are, and I quote, "External links should typically not be in the body of an article."  such as you keep readding them.  The article is not benefited by these links in any way.  Since we are at an impass on this, I am requesting that other editors get involved by posting this at WP:RFC.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yo, Jayron32. Visit http://www.danbern.com/lyrics.html and click on the OFFICIAL DAN BERN LYRICS ARCHIVE link. 65.100.236.254 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am awaiting further comment from uninvolved editors on this issue.  Let us wait until someone who is a better human being than I am to make a decision on how to handle this.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know what lyrics we're talking about here, but no lyrics to a song not in the public domain can legally be printed in full without express permission from the copyright owner. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lyrics in question are from the OFFICIAL DAN BERN LYRICS ARCHIVE. They are on the internet with the express permission of the copyright owner, Dan Bern. The MP3 in question resides in the DAN BERN DIGITAL ARCHIVE -- again, with the express permission of Dan Bern. (Even if that were not the case with the MP3, however, it's a live recording and is not copyrighted.) The point is that Jayron32 ASSUMED they were copyright violations and deleted them over and over again. One should HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION before deleting other people's contributions to Wikipedia.  Don't base your decisions on assumptions. 24.2.82.243 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't have to do with copyrights. This is a question of whether or not it's acceptable by Wikipedia standards to put external links in the middle of articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting Jayron32: "I removed some links to websites that contained lyrics, music, and other copyright violations. These links are not allowed at Wikipedia for legal reasons." 24.2.82.243 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I see some bad faith editing on the part of 24.2.82.243: reverts without discussion or edit summaries, with no attempt to explain his/her actions (until now, and even then, with a great deal of uncivility). In short he/she is expecting from other editors what he or she was not willing to do. External links belong in external links. It's pretty simple really. The section in question needs some work, but the edit warring on the anon. IP's part was not helpful. The link to the lyrics should be at the most moved to the external links section, but I'm not convinced it's necessary at all as it seems more promotional and really has nothing to do with the article--it's not an article on Dan Bern. freshacconcispeaktome 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reversions of the article

message: Hey. The external links in the Dan Bern sentence aren't appropriate. I'm not sure why the ref tags were removed from the Muhammad Ali part, but they should be in there. As for the two SNL links... admittedly, I'm torn on them. They don't really belong inline, but perhaps listing them under the External links would be okay. Or maybe referencing them. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what lyrics we're talking about here, but no lyrics to a song not in the public domain can legally be printed in full without express permission from the copyright owner. TheScotch (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lyrics in question are from the OFFICIAL DAN BERN LYRICS ARCHIVE. They are on the internet with the express permission of the copyright owner, Dan Bern. The MP3 in question resides in the DAN BERN DIGITAL ARCHIVE -- again, with the express permission of Dan Bern. (Even if that were not the case with the MP3, however, it's a live recording and is not copyrighted.) The point is that Jayron32 ASSUMED they were copyright violations and deleted them over and over again. One should HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION before deleting other people's contributions to Wikipedia.  Don't base your decisions on assumptions. 24.2.82.243 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't have to do with copyrights. This is a question of whether or not it's acceptable by Wikipedia standards to put external links in the middle of articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting Jayron32: "I removed some links to websites that contained lyrics, music, and other copyright violations. These links are not allowed at Wikipedia for legal reasons." 24.2.82.243 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I see some bad faith editing on the part of 24.2.82.243: reverts without discussion or edit summaries, with no attempt to explain his/her actions (until now, and even then, with a great deal of uncivility). In short he/she is expecting from other editors what he or she was not willing to do. External links belong in external links. It's pretty simple really. The section in question needs some work, but the edit warring on the anon. IP's part was not helpful. The link to the lyrics should be at the most moved to the external links section, but I'm not convinced it's necessary at all as it seems more promotional and really has nothing to do with the article--it's not an article on Dan Bern. freshacconcispeaktome 18:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: This article needs additional input on the in popular culture section, specifically on which version of the section better complies with the Manual of Style and relevent Wikipedia guidelines and policies, expecially on the external link policy.  Please see these two versions: this one and the other one and please help reach consensus as to how this is to be handled.  Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In wikipedia artcles "X in popular culture" is usually a euphemism for trivia, and wikipedia officially discourages trivia sections (rightly so). In this case, though, we have nothing but "popular culture" to contend with, and if a "fifth Beatle" is not a trivial matter, I can't possibly imagine what is. This means there is even less justification here for such a section than there would be in a more significant article. I say do away with the section altogether. TheScotch (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the section is overbloated, but it is intended as a section where third-party source reference the concept of the Fifth Beatle (rather than people who fit the title).  Looking over it again, it may be better to retitle it "Fictional Fifth Beatles" or some such; most seem to fit this bill... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's re-title it. The entire article is "in popular culture". TheScotch (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment started

message: The article still has some problems, even given the recent clean-up.  Among these:
*The article still has too many links.  We should probably restrict the more spurious claims and trivial mentions, and return the article to be about those people (real or fictional) who have a verifiable claim to being the fifth beatle (either they called themselves the Fifth Beatle, or someone else did).  Not everyone ever associated with the band has had that said about them, and before we include a person in the article, we need to show that the claim has been made by them or about them in reliable sources.
*The article is too listy.  If someone is worth mentioning as a Fifth Beatle, we should probably have more than a sentance or two to say about their involvement in the band.  Conversely, if we can't say that much, we probably shouldn't include it.
Any ideas on these fixes?  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points for future improvement 

message: I don´t care who the fifth bealtes is. I just want give correct information about Mal Evans, who played Hammond organ on early takes of "You wont´see me", and get credited on the sleeve album, but he´s not presente on the version released. The anvil on "Maxwell silver hammer" is played by Ringo. In "A day in the life" he counts the bars, set the alarm clock and played in the final piano chord. He sang backgrund vocals on some songs, like "Yellow submarine", in wich he also played bass drum, He played trumpet (amateur) in "Helter skelter" along with Lennon on saxophone just to create some nosies. He played tambourine or other percussion instruments. He even claimed he wrote "Sgt. Pepper..." with Paul.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for all this? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW: Evans can be seen 'playing' the anvil during a run through of MSH in Let It Be (movie). Not particularly well as far as his timing goes. THX1136 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mal Evans 

message: The image :Image:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg 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. --00:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:MurraytheK Beatles.jpg

message: This article is too loose. There is too much latitude in what defines a Fifth Beatle. Bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia, and if something cannot be referenced, then it must be removed. I am willing to help track down citations, but we really need to get this article tightened up. Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  tightening this article up 

message: The book that accompanied the Magical Mystery Tour LP has five main sections, each showing a cartoon of one of the Beatles in one corner, plus a fifth page showing someone else. I always thought that it was George Martin in the fifth picture, but I never found out for sure. Whoever this person was could be viewed as a more or less official "Fifth Beatle" and should be mentioned in the article (at least I didn't see anything about it in my quick scan). Shocking Blue (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magical Mystery Tour Connection 

message: In a 1964 episode of Jackie Gleason and his American Scene Magazine, Harvey Stone performed a novelty song as the fifth Beatle, "I'm the Beatle They Left Behind."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.0.38 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this to the article.  GoingBatty (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Beatle: Harvey Stone 

message: I am still relatively new to this so the relevance of this is something I quesion, hence posting it here.  I know that in the media, the "Fifth Beatle" has been mentioned over the years such as the "Simpsons" episode where Paul McCartney guest stars and Apu claims to have been the fifth beatle.  
Any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.159.25 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking whether it should be included or whether it should not be included? It's been on there for several years. Klopek007 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They were likely asking why Apu was not mentioned in the article. That’s the same reason I check the article page and this talk page. Synetech (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in pop culture 

message: Please stay with me on this. The changes I am making are for the betterment of this article. It will take a while to find all the citations we need. But it is time to bite the bullet and get this article up to Wikipedia standards.
I respect the hard work and dedication editors have made to this article. However, this article has gone far too long without references. Opinions have gotten in the way of creating an article that represents the sources available. Obviously, what constitutes a Fifth Beatle is up for debate. But it is not our place here to have this debate among ourselves. It is our place to research who the common candidates are, what notable people are making these claims, and what criteria has been used by these notable people. Otherwise, the article becomes a fan page. The article is full of justifications written by Wikipedia editors. Instead, it should be written around the justifications written by historians and pop culture experts. 
So, to start with I am going to add citation requests where appropriate. and I am going to remove the names of people who in no way come close to being the conversation of who the Fifth Beatle is. 
To give you an idea of what names have been most associated in published books with the term Fifth Beatle, I've done searches on each person's name and the words "Fifth Beatle." This does not show exactly how many times each person has been called the Fifth Beatle in the literature, but it is a good start at ranking people. 
* George Martin, 759
* Murray the K, 558
* Brian Epstein, 461
* Stu Sutcliffe, 358
* Pete Best, 355
* Billy Preston, 241
* Neil Aspinall, 219
* Eric Clapton, 189
* Derek Taylor, 171
* George Best, 167
* Tony Sheridan, 128
* Jeff Lynne, 128
* Pete Shotton, 117
* Andy White, 116
* Jimmie Nicol, 115
* Little Richard, 67
* Colin Hanton, 9
* Len Garry, 7
* Ed Rudy, 7
* Rod Davis, 6
* Eric Griffiths, 5
* Brian Matthew, 3
* William Stuart Campbell, 2
* Bob Rogers, 1
* Roby Yonge, 1
* John Melendez, 0
* Tatsuya Ishida, 0
I also did straight Google searches to see what the Internet community has opined on this subject.
* Stu Sutcliffe, 102,000 google hits
* Billy Preston, 83,000
* Eric Clapton, 82,200
* Pete Best, 79,800 google hits
* George Martin, 48,600
* Little Richard, 45,700
* Neil Aspinall, 37,600
* Tony Sheridan, 32,300
* Jeff Lynne, 28,300
* Brian Epstein, 26,700
* Andy White, 23,400
* Murray the K, 20,400
* George Best, 19,200
* Jimmie Nicol, 19,000
* Derek Taylor, 15,300
* Pete Shotton 10,500
* Rod Davis, 879
* Colin Hanton 687
* Ed Rudy, 628
* Bob Rogers, 586
* Eric Griffiths, 474
* Len Garry, 468
* Brian Matthew, 435
* Tatsuya Ishida, 249
* John Melendez, 185
* William Stuart Campbell, 9
Those in the lower echelons of these lists really have no business being in this article. They only complicate the article. So I am removing the names that have less that 50 book occurrences or less than 1000 Internet occurrences.  This shouldn't be up to debate. It is clear that these names fail to compare with the other names.
Please work with me to find citations of notable, reliable sources to support the claims that each person in the article can be called the fifth Beatle. Leave personal opinions aside, and work with the citations we can find. Please work with me to gradually rephrase the article so that it reflects the claims made by historians and pop culture experts rather than reflecting Wikipedia editors' attempts to justify.
thanks! Kingturtle = (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  time to whittle this down 

message: The lead references Harrison's supposed comments at the Beatles' Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction.  Just watched his comments on YouTube and didn't hear him mention it.  Was the video edited, or is the article referring to an interview or some other time, or is it something that should be removed from the article?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNRHOF? 

message: Billy Preston contributed a large amount on the album "Let It Be". When the single was initially released, it was The Beatles and Billy Preston from what I've been told. Something to look into.--71.215.213.170 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Bruce Spizer's The Beatles on Apple Records book in front of me, and don't see Preston's name on the "Let It Be" single.  Maybe you're thinking of "Get Back"?  GoingBatty (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Preston 

message: In, I think, 1977, National Lampoon had an issue dedicated to making fun of The Beatles.  One was a surprise poster, a cartoon of Charles Manson wearing the lapel less Beatle suit while committing an act of slaughter based on the Sharon Tate/Jay Sebring murders.  I don't know if this is worth adding to the list of "Fifth Beatle" candidates.  There was also a fake interview where Paul McCartney claimed that Manson was the only person who really understood the lyrics to "Helter Skelter". Jtyroler (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't Manson himself claim to be "the fifth Beatle"?  I seem to remember reading this somewhere.  (But even if it's true, it probably doesn't belong in this article, unless others repeated this claim.)  Manson certainly claimed a lot of weird things about the Beatles:  see  for details. That's probably why National Lampoon ran that feature. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Lampoon's Beatles Issue 

message: surprised there is no mention of Harry Nilsson as a "fifth beatle" considering there are 200k google hits, and even british newspapers referred to him that way:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8650518/Imagine...-Harry-Nilsson-the-Missing-Beatle-BBC-Four-review.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.164.111 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the article you provided stated that comparing Nilsson to the Beatles "is almost as desperate as Nilsson’s drinking."  Maybe you could provide other references?  GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harry Nilsson]] 

message: It is IMHO poor writing to start every entry with 'has been called/referred to (as) the fifth Beatle'. We know that, that's what the page is about. I've not edited it myself as there's bound to be someone with an objection but I find this redundancy quite grating.Adagio67 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, though I suspect it's used here as a vehicle for the citation, which is pretty necessary. Still, I think there is a better way of going about it. -R. fiend (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary repetition (“X has been called the Fifth Beatle” as first line of each section) 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03szxdh
A good potted history of this subject in a very amusing comedy format with some amusing parody songs. At the very least it will be interesting to people looking at this talk pageAdagio67 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mitch Benn is the 37<sup>th</sup> Beatle" 

message: I agree with a comment from 6 years ago, so I assume this won't be corrected. I was a huge Beatlemaniac at the time of their active publicity, and have read a lot about them. Still I am no expert. It was "common knowledge" at the time, so there must be citations, that the only person the Beatles truly saw as a "fifth" Beatle was Neil Aspinall. Someone who is an expert needs to fix this article - maybe Geoff Lloyd of Absolute Radio in the UK? If he doesn't know the answer, he would know who does. I understand all the arguments made for others to be called the fifth Beatle. I have reasons to object to almost all of them, but that is not my intent. I think this article is inaccurate, misleading, and mostly a fantasy of someone who wanted to list everyone who was ever integrally connected to them. Certainly anyone who simply "played on their albums" only, or people associated with them before the final lineup, or after they quit recording together, DJs who self promoted, managers, girlfriends etc. should be axed without further discussion, in my opinion. Neil Aspinall was called the Fifth Beatle, probably as a loving, brotherly, respectful jest, by "The Beatles" around 1964. I don't know the context, but beyond that, he was the one who carted their gear, drove to gigs, acted as an integral part of their daily life, all those years, stood between them and the press, was entrusted with their lives, music, business, became CEO of Apple Corps and beloved by the Beatles throughout their existence... he stands out as the only choice to me. But somebody out there, I hope, will ask someone who really knows. It would be appropriate to include a handful of others in a brief footnote to acknowledge there are reasons for other opinions. I guess at 65 I am still impassioned about Beatle legacy. (Irishstones (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There can be only one fifth Beatle article so diffuse it is meaningless 

message: Substituted at 15:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Really? So they're not just on this page for the hell of it? Seriously, the above formulation (and others like it) seems rather stupid in this article. Most of them seem to link to sources showing particular people call them that, so why not make that explicit in the prose? As is it reads rather clunkily to start each section (well, many of the sections) with nearly identical words that seem to state what should be obvious. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "has been called the Fifth Beatle" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fifth Beatle. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120716084246/http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/man_united/article331570.ece to http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/man_united/article331570.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is supposed to include people who have been called "the Fifth Beatle" either by themselves or by reliable sources, not random associates of the band some random user thinks should be called the Fifth Beatle. I already removed Joe Flannery, who was (supposedly) called "the Secret Beatle". Where and by whom has Pete Shotton been called the Fifth Beatle? Jah77 (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you also restored Flannery. "Secret Beatle" is not the same as "Fifth Beatle"; if any epithet that includes the word "Beatle" counts, the list of people will get out of hand again. Plus the sourcing is rather poor - one newspaper obituary that claims he was called a "Secret Beatle" without actually specifying who called him that. (I'd certainly never heard of him before.) Quite tenuous, I'd say, especially given that Flannery hasn't even been considered notable enough to have his own article. Jah77 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The story that Klaus played bass with The Beatles after Stuart left is almost certainly apocryphal. Klaus said in an interview (https://www.beatlesstory.com/blog/2018/09/04/interview-klaus-voormann-it-started-in-hamburg/) that before he was asked to join The Eyes in 1964 he'd never played bass. Tony Keen2 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klaus Voormann 

message: I just discovered this article.  It seems to me that Frank may be a candidate.  Is there a reason he doesn't count?  I see that a quick search returns a decent number of hits, but admittedly I'm yet to find one that actually describes him as the fifth Beatle or a candidate for the title.  Maybe some will come up in the aftermath of his passing.... — Smjg (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frank Ifield]]