This Beatles-related page is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles
Other :Project: Add ((WikiProject The Beatles)) to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
I know Shout! has a very anti-Paul bias, but I have no idea about his recent individual biographies of John, Paul, and George. blueskiesdry…(cloudy contribs…) 16:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In her book on Beatles historiography, Erin Torkelson Weber identifies Shout! as "a flawed work of history for three reasons: inadequate historical distance, lack of documentation, and deliberate authorial bias". She adds that, "These weaknesses continued to erode its overall value and credibility as more research was done, sources became available, and impartial analysis was applied" (p. 117).
Norman's biography of McCartney came out in 2016, too late to have been discussed in Weber's book, but she writes a blog to keep up those which have since come out. In her review, she describes Norman's bio as "the best of the small but sub-par selection of biographies available on the still-living McCartney". That was seven years ago, so things may have changed in the pecking order — such as the publication of volume one of The McCartney Legacy by Adrian Sinclair and Allan Kozinn — but Norman's biography of McCartney would obviously still prove a valuable secondary source.
Norman's historical distance is improved, though not ideal — most historians recommend that at least fifty years has passed since the subject is deceased, whereas McCartney is still active. Norman's bias has seemingly evaporated, which is the biggest improvement. Where Norman remains weak is his lack of citations and bibliography. Weber writes: "This decision perpetuates one of the greatest weaknesses involving the entirety of Norman’s Beatles work; failure to distinguish between evidence and authorial interpretation. Sweeping generalizations are made and readers are informed multiple times what specific historic figures were thinking/feeling at any given moment, but whether these accounts are supported by evidence or wholly the result of personal, authorial speculation is not clear." Tkbrett (✉) 16:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The recent George bio does have some refs in the back, however it mostly seems to be from his previous work from what I remember. blueskiesdry…(cloudy contribs…) 16:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best George bio – like the best Paul bio – is likely still to come. Beatles scholarship is in many ways still in its infancy. Tkbrett (✉) 20:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently the ones used in all the George solo GAs were good enough, though.
George and Ringo are really neglected in Beatles books. I almost want like a Ringo version of the Lennonology books, Ringology, perhaps? blueskiesdry…(cloudy contribs…) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 was always reliable when it came to Beatles sources, especially George stuff. Hopefully he comes back to WP soon. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 22:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hasn't been active for nearly a year, sadly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Ken McNab? I’ve been reading his ‘63 book recently and it seems pretty solid so far. blueskiesdry…(cloudy contribs…) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope this is not an insensitive thing to bring up, but should we maybe mention that Ono and Lennon named and registered their dead sons in 1968 and 1969? Her article refer to one miscarriage in 1968 but technically speaking this child would have been stillborn (or according to this book by Tim Riley the boy actually lived for a little while, not sure where he's getting that info from tho). John's article mentions three miscarriages but the boy miscarried or stillborn in 1969 seems to have been registered and named as well. ★Trekker (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the page be put under this project, given that some of the singles are Beatles-related? Blueskiesdry (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even then this WikiProject as a whole is practically dead so it wouldn't matter much anyways. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 18:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s dead should we add a semi-inactive/inactive template? Blueskiesdry (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gladly use this page if anyone else is still interested.★Trekker (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there’s still a lot to be done. A couple years ago we tried to get all the albums to GA/FA but it fizzled out due to lack of motivation. Blueskiesdry (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. I'm not so familiar with album articles but I do like to do work on biographies.★Trekker (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]