Talk:The Beatles (album)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notability of accolade of being featured in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die

@Sagaciousphil: I added that this album is featured in 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, which is a notable achievement. You reverted the edit, on the grounds of questionable notability.[[1]] The accolade of appearing in a book with its own Wikipedia article would seem to be notable enough for inclusion. In addition, the writer of the album's article is also notable - it's Jim Harrington, the pop music critic for the Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times. Please don't call it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for the past two years I've been steadily adding the accolade of appearing in the book to the albums, and am over half done now. It would be a shame to have one missing.Timtempleton (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree and feel it amounts to trivia but obviously that is subjective. Ritchie, I think you did the work taking this to GA, what do you think? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should stay, it is mentioned in a number of other album articles [2], not least Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, one of the best album articles on Wikipedia IMHO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've self reverted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Having just waded through the Noel Coward INFOBOX debate, after having inadvertently walked into the wood chipper of the Ian Fleming INFOBOX debate, it's nice when things are resolved quickly and easily.Timtempleton (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, simple one. Just an observation that Ob-La-Di should be linked to the Wikipedia page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob-La-Di,_Ob-La-Da — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraedrill (talk • contribs) 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Embossed jacket of original release...

The cover is actually blind-embossed, to use the industry lingo. A lot of packaging is embossed, but under ink to give a slight 3-D effect (especially book covers, for some reason) but far fewer are blind-embossed. The stark white cover really sets up the blind-embossing on the White Album.

I tried to add the word blind in the couple of spots where the embossing is mentioned, but I was locked out. I hope someone in your in-crowd will do it. — 73.30.24.162 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. We need a reliable source before it can be added to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

'Blind embossed' is mentioned in this book: Britain Since 1945: Aspects of Identity, p.94, by Peter Leese (2006) ISBN: 9781403948052 Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added the citation and a description, linking "blind embossing" to Paper_embossing#Blind_emboss. I have also removed the semi-protection as it's stale (and then noticed it would have expired anyway in about 20 minutes). Incidentally, to edit a semi-protected article, you just need an account that's 4 days old and has more than 10 edits, it's not exactly the Freemasons ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Beatles (album). 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://web.archive.org/web/20150421200743/http://www18.ocn.ne.jp/~hbr/JPP1.htm to http://www18.ocn.ne.jp/~hbr/JPP1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles%2C32560/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialcharts.com/all-the-number-one-albums-list/_/1969/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

With regard to the edit summary of "All my edits are justifiable. Please raise objection on the Talk page, and I will respond" for this edit, it's not up to the reverting editor to justify why information ahs been taken out, but the inserting editor to justify why it should be kept in.

It's also not necessary for statements in the lede to be either referenced or queried, because they're a summary of the article itself - and in this case the reception section does seem to corroborate the claim that it "has since been viewed by some critics as one of the greatest albums of all time".

I'll make a point of saying that I see nothing inherently wrong with your edits, apart from the {{who?}} that is, but nor do I see them as a necessary improvement - hence I see no reason for change. However you're welcome to discuss here and try to persuade me (and JG66). Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, thanks for starting the discussion. Arrivisto, apologies for the tone in my comment – unnecessary, I know (just preoccupied with events in London). What I was referring to was, say, "Continuing tensions continued" (Continuing … continued), also the deference given to George Martin as if his opinion is/was paramount. And then "subsequently the band seem to have acknowledged" that the album should have been a single disc – well no, two of the surviving three did at the time of the Anthology. Also, as Chaheel Riens says, the citation was unnecessary, and it looked especially out of place when the source was "Ian MacDonald 'Revolution in the Head'" – the entire book, apparently. I agree this lead needs some expansion, though, as does the main body. JG66 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The White Album UNPLUGGED?

So what is the White Album Unplugged, which is up on YouTube as "Beatles White Album Unplugged Full Album"? What is it, in comparison to the released album, and when were these "unplugged" recordings made? As I see no mention of them anywhere, one must presume they were never officially released by the Beatles or Apple Records, correct?Starhistory22 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Genre addition

I think "experimental" should certainly be added to the genre section. Songs like Rev 9 and Wild Honey Pie, and much of the tongue-in-cheek material (Bungalow Bill, Piggies, Honey Pie, Good Night) was wildly experimental for the time and completely out there. I do not think "rock" and "pop" adequately covers the breadth of this record.

Zabboo: Yes, and the ending to Long, Long, Long, elements of Helter Skelter, the way a lot of the tracks are segued together or linked by random dialogue … But who says the album is "experimental music"? We need a source. (Oh, and if you want to be sure of receiving a reply here, you might want to sign your posts. Just an idea.) JG66 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Only one of the 30 songs on the album is described as experimental in the body of the article. To summarize the entire album as experimental in the infobox makes no sense at all. Piriczki (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Revision to The Beatles AKA The White Album 19 April 2018

Hi Ritchie

The revision I made was rejected as un-reliable - revision 837212783.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_(album)&oldid=prev&diff=837213660)

(1) The Usenet guide not reliable? It certainly is!

(2) The other citation #36 references The Beatles Recording Sessions (1988) by Mark Lewisohn page 150. I have that book, same edition, and indeed this is correct regarding the fold-down of "Revolution 9". However, while it also mentions that "Revolution 1" was mixed for stereo, there is no other entry at any point for a mono mix being made. Only that a stereo mix was attempted and completed.

(3) Why was a mono mix not attempted? Possibly because as Geoff Emerick explained in his book on index page 243 (Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles. New York, NY: Penguin. p. 387. ISBN 1-59240-179-1), "There were two quirks that characterized that mix. One was an accidental bad edit in the last chorus, which Lennon insisted I leave in; it added an extra beat, and he always loved weird time signatures, so it was deemed a creative accident and it became part of the song".

So, to mix the song again in mono, and recreate the above was possibly deemed superfluous. Far more practical, and quicker, to fold it back into mono from the stereo mix.

(4) "Revolution 1" (mono version of the LP) is indeed a fold-down from the stereo and not a unique mono mix. There is no record of a mono mix being attempted for this particular song, apart from an "un-numbered rough mono mix" on 4 June 1968 at which point it was still a work in progress.

Recording was completed on 21 June 1968 and it was mixed into stereo on the same date, along with "Revolution 9". Further and final remixing for both were carried out on 25 June 1968 and tape copying was made for both. Although Mark Lewisohn doesn't mention it, this was almost certainly when the fold-downs were made.

If you still decide to dismiss my revision, that's fine, no hard feelings!

Regards Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1959 (talk • contribs)

@Keith1959: I'll need to check my book sources, but I think what was there (cited to Lewisohn) was correct against consensus, but I can't keep up with the changes here, so I might have it all backwards. @JG66:, you've done more work on this article recently than I have, can you check? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Keith1959 and Ritchie333. It was definitely correct before – as in: the revert has restored what Lewisohn says on p. 150. Perhaps there's something implicit regarding the mono version of Rev 1 on pages 138–39 of his book (the pages covering late June mixes and remixes for Revolutions 1 and 9), I don't know.

Keith, you might want to try John C. Winn's That Magic Feeling and Walter Everett's The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver Through the Anthology if you can get a decent preview online. Both authors are pretty thorough and I've often found that Winn's book, having been published in 2009, helps shed some light on points that seem unclear, or plain wrong, in the likes of Lewisohn and MacDonald.

I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the Usenet guide mentioned above, by Joe Brennan, is deemed a reliable source. I've only ever retained it as a source once, in "Strawberry Fields Forever", where the fine details of the recording – who plays what, when certain parts were recorded, which track contains which parts – are impossibly complex, and the many reliable sources are all over the place, each identifying sounds that others ignore or attribute to a different instrument. When giving that article a bit of an overhaul recently, I reasoned that Brennan at least a) makes some sense of the mess, and b) is recognised by one of the unquestionably reliable sources (Robert Rodriguez) for his work in investigating the track. Having said that, I'd understand if another editor came along there and insisted that Brennan/Usenet was non-RS (I just wouldn't thank them for removing it ...) Overall, I'd say we shouldn't mention Revolution 1 as one of the two exceptions until we have something stronger than an assumption – that's just original research. I get the point, though, and as laid out above, it does seem probable that no mono mix was attempted. JG66 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Ritchie333 and @JG66 (talk) This link from Steve Hoffman's Forum mentions that opinion is divided, even though the majority consider it a fold-down. But, not 100% conclusive. I'd bet it was but no definitive reference.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/beatles-revolution-1-mono.383235/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.177.157 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Part 1 and Part 2

I think we need to distinguish between part 1 and part 2 of the album.68.195.141.2 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What does that even mean? How are there parts 1 & 2? The original vinyl has four sides. The CD is usually on 2 discs but they're not labeled Part 1 and Part 2, as if the second record was a sequel. freshacconci (✉) 00:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The album has no designated "part 1" or "part 2". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

listing the bonus tracks

I think that the list of bonus tracks is too long. I didn't know that "collapsed" as been depreciated. What about {{hidden begin |title = |titlestyle = background:#ccccff; }} ? (See Template:Hidden) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think it looks terrible having the contents of the four bonus CDs uncollapsed. Not just that but it gives these minor recordings too much presence – they end up dwarfing the double album's contents yet the whole article is about the 30-song double album. JG66 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The 50th Anniversary Box Set

I propose we extract the paragraph with prose on the anniversary edition, from the Release → Reissues section, and move it over to the sub-heading inside the Track listing → bonus tracks section. Just as it's done in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band → 50th anniversary editions.

Also, should we add the additional information on which of the tracks of the extra material has been previously published on Anthology 3? And there are several of the exact takes. I have done one attempt to exemplify just that, here, specifically, though one person was so smart to just get rid of my work. Well, I tried to add the extra information, not making too many columns in the tracklisting table, at the same time. In my opinion, unlike Discogs listings, there's room for such additional insights in the very Wikipedia article. What do you think? — Kochas (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that should be done, and I think that the ones that were previously released should be noted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced and seemed like speculation. As far as I know, there's nothing to indicate whether these are the same takes or mixes from Anthology. The runtime of this new "Not Guilty", for example, is a minute longer than the Anthology track, so it definitely was not "previously on Anthology 3". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Order of band members under Personnel

Freshacconci, do you not think it might be an idea to go with the order that IP user recently imposed? (I think it's a case of "re-imposed", actually – as far as I can remember, we previously had it as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr for a long while.) That way, it matches the Personnel order in every Beatles album and song article that I've come across, anyway. The exception is in song articles, when the lead singer always appears first. JG66 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Chris Thomas

Every week, it seems somebody deems it vitally important to add Chris Thomas to the infobox. The article covers his role, but officially only George Martin gets the producer credit. (After all, who really thinks "Revolution #9" was all his work?) So consensus is we leave it at Martin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Question: why is Chris Thomas listed as "Producer" in the Personnel section, but not in the infobox up top? And where is the consensus you mentioned? (Not pushing for a particular approach — I'm sincerely asking.)

To be completely fair, no one is "officially" credited as "Producer" on the original album credits, not even George Martin, who's sole mention is the first acknowledgment in their list of "Thanks to", which also includes Chris Thomas (listed second), as well as the engineers, photographers, and other in the immediate support team during the making of the album.

Mark Lewison relates a detailed account of Martin's walking out on the sessions upon Thomas' arrival, effectively leaving the album's completion in the latter's hands. Roughly one-third to one-half of the songs were recorded under his supervision.

Indeed, the article on the album at https://www.beatlesbible.com/albums/the-beatles-white-album/ lists Martin and Thomas, along with Lennon and McCartney, all as producers.

Again, not lobbying for one approach or another; merely seeking to shed light on the subject. Cheers! Key of Now (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Evolution of album title

A Doll's House wasn't the first working title for the album. Before it was called that, Paul came up with the title Umbrella to account for its wide variety of different styles and genres that it incoporates, as according to Mark Osteen (ed.), The Beatles through a Glass Onion: Reconsidering the White Album, University of Michigan Press, 2019, page 1 (of the introduction). I remember reading a few times before that George remarked in passing that the title of Umbrella was already around while they were still in Rishikesh, though it seems he considered that title more of a (lame?) joke, and Osteen also emphasizes that Umbrella already had been adopted as a working title for the album "before the LP [...] had been recorded".

And I think somewhere in-between, the band even considered naming the album "Mother Nature's Sons" or "Children of Nature", hence the discarded cover drawing of all four Beatles sitting in the grass that later turned up in The Beatles Illustrated Lyrics credited to "Patrick, Portal Gallery, London" (aka John Byrne) and as the cover to 1980's The Beatles Ballads. After all, the "organic", "unplugged", down-to-earth nature (also referred to as supposedly "lo-fi" by Giles Martin in his promotion of the new 2018 stereo mix) of the White Album after the flights of psychedelic fancy is widely known, so that "The Beatles as Nature Intended", the slogan later used for promotion of the Let it Be album, would've been even more appropriate for the White Album, all of which gels well with the discarded Byrne cover and a temporary working title of either "Mother Nature's Sons" or "Children of Nature". --2003:EF:13DB:3B62:A9AE:5B61:2530:3F3D (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on syntax

There is a clear consensus for:

• A: In May 1967, the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released to commercial and critical success. It sold 250,000 copies in its first week and topped the UK charts for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968.

Cunard (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the article's "Background" section, which wording is preferable?

• A: In May 1967, the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released to commercial and critical success. It sold 250,000 copies in its first week and topped the UK charts for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968.
• B: By 1968, the Beatles had achieved commercial and critical success. The group's mid-1967 release, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, was number one in the UK for 27 weeks, through to the start of February 1968, having sold 250,000 copies in the first week after release.

ilil (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• A Less wordy and straight to the point. ilil (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• A because mentioned above, and the Beatles had already achieved comercial and critical success before 1968. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• A with B being too wordy. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• A because it does not jump back and forth in time and it is also more factual and less opinion-based (they certainly had plenty of success before 1968). --Nicholas0 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• What's the source for "A"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Everett and OCC, as already cited in the article. Numerous can be easily provided for the first claim (see the Pepper article). ilil (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• You may want to lose the American comma after the year, what ever you choose. Cassianto^Talk 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the "Lady Madonna" single scrubbed from the article?

Any explanation at all? ilil (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not on the album nor recorded at the sessions for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Can we remove the details about Pepper and MMT then? After all, they weren't the White Album, so we shouldn't mention them on this article. ilil (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the single (and the two other songs recorded in February 1968) should be mentioned simply because it's the normal, encyclopedic thing to note what a band worked on in the interim between major projects like an LP record (this is why we mention Pepper and the MMT film). The songs are associated with the White Album, as in, they appear on the 50th anniversary edition, and were recorded so that the band would be free from recording obligations during their India trip (according to what I read from Lewisohn). It makes no difference whether the songs were recorded during the album's sessions — that's not the point. ilil (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The current prose reached agreement after the GA review and elsewhere; you’re best off discussing with JG66 Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What does the article's GA classification have to do with anything? ilil (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OAS (part of the "Ownership of articles" policy) : "All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the [GA-assessed] article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended, and the editors participating in the review may be able to offer advice and work with you on improving the article further." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that adding two sentences to an 8500-word article constitutes "significant change". ilil (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(addendum) If you still wish to argue that the songs shouldn't be mentioned because they weren't part of the album sessions, that's just another point favoring the information's inclusion. People who aren't familiar with the subject would (rightfully) assume that the songs are related to the White Album unless there's a statement in the article that explicitly states something like they weren't "part of the White Album project". ilil (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of the single wasn't "scrubbed from the article"; you tried to add the point and it was reverted. And while I've become used to logic and common sense being in short supply whenever you attempt to edit a Beatles article, your statement here that "If you still wish to argue that the songs shouldn't be mentioned because they weren't part of the album sessions, that's just another point favoring the information's inclusion" is just baffling ...

It's not a case of plugging a perceived hole in the band's CV, as you imply. If that were the case, the "All You Need Is Love" and "Hello Goodbye" non-album singles would appear to be missing also. Your claim that "Lady Madonna" is "the non-album single that everyone associates with the White Album" is utter rubbish. The songs were included on the 50th anniversary box set, but that is the first time that they've been associated with the White Album. From countless sources I've read, particularly when working on the relevant song articles, the March 1968 single represents a line in the sand – the situation couldn't be more different between those February sessions and starting work on the album in late May. That doesn't mean "Lady Madonna" has no place at all in this article: as a deliberate back-to-basics recording, it could easily be mentioned when discussing the album's musical styles or its relative lack of studio artifice; it could just as well be mentioned for the first time in text discussing the 50th anniversary box set. But it's not a single "associated" with the White Album (apart from the full, six?-CD edition issued in November 2018) and nor is it an important part of the album's pre-story.

The Background section needs to establish some key points about the Beatles' position and activities before they made the album. Their standing after Sgt. Pepper, the impact of which was still very much felt in early '68, and the perceived goof of Magical Mystery Tour are two obvious points. For a while, I've thought we could probably improve this section. Unlike you, though, I have some respect for the fact that an article has achieved GA or FA and has been well maintained since then. So I'll outline my suggestions here on the talk page (sometime soon). Because, if I just charge in like the proverbial bull in a china shop, especially by seeking to add some questionable detail or apply a flawed interpretation of WP:TERSE or whatever, I'd fully expect to get other editors' backs up and be made to feel very unwelcome. JG66 (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't realize it, but you've further bolstered my argument — if March 1968 "represents a line in the sand", shouldn't we note this so-called line? If the LM single signalled a new "back-to-basics" approach that the band developed on the White Album, why isn't it relevant to the "pre-story"? When the White Album was anticipated by the Hey Jude single in August, had everyone forgotten that the last Beatles release occurred in March, and that a major feature-length Beatles film premiered in July? Why, when it comes to the-White-Album-story-as-according-to-JG66, does Beatles history start at May 1967 and drop out between January and February 1968? Why do you think Hello Goodbye, a song universally associated with MMT, is contextually comparable to LM, a song the band worked on in much closer thematic and chronological proximity to the White Album sessions?

What if, instead, the paragraph ended something like this:

[...] fan reaction was nevertheless positive. In early 1968, the group commenced sessions for a new single in order to free their schedules for the coming months. From these sessions, "Lady Madonna" was issued with the B-side "The Inner Light" in March. (possible footnote: The two other songs they recorded in early 1968, "Hey Bulldog" and "Across the Universe", were submitted for consideration in the upcoming Yellow Submarine film.) The band signalled a return to simpler rock 'n' roll traditions with the former, a development that extended to much of the writing for their next LP project, along with the song's lesser reliance on studio artifice.

Or is that enough to destroy the article's pace? ilil (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no comment to make on any particular specific suggestion of text at this time [headache], but agree with 2 general premises from above: 1) Lady Madonna should probably get at least a mention in a Background section for reasons already stated; 2) The song is on the 50th anniversary release, and readers may very well wonder why, given that the song is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. --kingboyk (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Reissues section

Does anyone think the paragraph beginning "Tape versions of the album did not feature a white cover or the numbering system" is sufficiently notable for inclusion? None of it is sourced to a third-party RS that actually comments on the issue; instead, it's self-sourced, and "we" seem to be saying the points are significant. (Not only that, but the text is sitting in the Reissues section when in fact it concerns the original release.)

It was quite normal for cassettes and 8-track cartridges to have a different sequencing, as I understand it, and the White Album certainly wasn't the only Beatles album affected. I don't see a reason to include this information unless some decent sources tell us it is significant. JG66 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is George Martin a reliable source?

I recently added some information citing an interview with George Martin as the source. This interview was recorded in 1993 and is currently available on YouTube. It is from the archive of Reelin’ In The Years Productions. My edit was reverted with the explanation "not a reliable source". If George Martin is not a reliable source, who is?--Jburlinson (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, for Wikipedia's purposes, George Martin is a primary source, so per WP:PSTS, there are no end of more reliable sources than him (ie, third-party secondary sources). And especially by 1968 – in fact in that year of all years – he was on the outer with them, eg, he describes himself as more of an executive producer on the White Album. So I wouldn't say he was that well informed, compared to previous years. JG66 (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting comment. How about then the multiple instances of quotations by the Beatles themselves in this article? Wouldn't they also be primary sources? One might say, of course, that these quotes are all extracted from print materials while Martin's comments were captured on video; but that's just a difference in the mode of transmission. The sources are all "primary". And an executive producer is not just a bystander.--Jburlinson (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Move page to The Beatles (White album)

Do you think it would be appropriate to move this page from The Beatles (album) to The Beatles (White album)? All the self-titled releases by Weezer are done in this style (E.G. Weezer (The Blue album)) and I was simply wondering if something similar is appropriate for here. Moline1 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moline1: Weezer has multiple self-titled albums, so the color is used as an additional disambiguator. Since The Beatles only have one self-titled album, the color isn't needed in the title. GoingBatty (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: That makes complete sense. Was not even thinking about that when I made this discussion. With this cleared up, I consider this "closed". Moline1 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Musical Styles

"Happiness Is A Warm Gun" really flies in the face of this sentence in the second paragraph: "The Beatles also broke with the band's tradition at the time of incorporating several musical styles in one song by keeping each piece of music consistently faithful to a select genre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coliiiiin (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I also would dispute the presence of any such "tradition". (As a side note, what seems to be a lot rarer on this LP are bridges, or "middle eights". But that's more a shift in genre from pop to folk & rock.) Huw Powell (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your source of information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)