Talk:George Harrison/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Inconsistency in "1958-70: The Beatles" section

Article states:

In March 1958 Harrison auditioned for the Quarrymen at Rory Storm's Morgue Skiffle Club, playing Arthur "Guitar Boogie" Smith's "Guitar Boogie Shuffle", but Lennon felt that Harrison, having just turned 15, was too young to join the band.[24] During a second meeting, arranged by McCartney, he performed the lead guitar part for the instrumental "Raunchy" on the upper deck of a Liverpool bus.[25] Soon afterwards he began socialising with the group, filling in on guitar as needed,[26] and by the time he turned 15 they had accepted him as a member.


Which is true? was he 15 when he was too young to join the band, or had he not turned 15 yet? How can he have been accepted as a member ""by the time he turned 15"" yet ""having just turned 15"" he was too young to join the quarrymen?

Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.167.59 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Mini-dispute

Can someone explain to me what this dispute is about? The changes being dispute don't seem to produce any visible difference in the finished output, but I'm curious about why either a br tag or a new line would be preferable. Sundayclose and M.starnberg, can you comment? I'd also like to add a friendly reminder that you shouldn't be reverting each other (especially using semi-automated tools like Twinkle) without providing a reason, unless it's obvious vandalism. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SW. Point taken about reverting. The edit does, in fact, change the size of some of the text from the default. This is more obvious on other Beatles articles. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Along with what S has just stated the removal of the "| honorific_suffix =" field does effect the way info is gathered in other areas. A category could named "Category:Articles using honorific suffixes" could be created to gather which articles use the field. Thus M's edits would keep this article out of the cat. The field were added to the infobox for a reason and if M does not want them there they should file a RFC at the talkpage for the "Template:Infobox musical artist". MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
My apologies I got the actions of the two editors mixed up. S if you want the font size to be larger (though I can't see a reason for that per WP:OTHERSTUFF) you need to make a request at the "Template:Infobox musical artist" MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. Template code is a bit of a mystery to me sometimes but it makes sense now. It would seem that M's edits are beneficial, but I wish they would participate in the conversation as well. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think creating the category MarnetteD refers to would be helpful. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Songs for a Tailor

The current version of the article states: 'Harrison played rhythm guitar on the track, using the pseudonym "L'Angelo Misterioso" for contractual reasons.[251] He used the same pseudonym when he recorded a guitar part for "Never Tell Your Mother She's Out of Tune", a song from Jack Bruce's 1969 solo album, Songs for a Tailor.' The thing is, my copy of Songs for a Tailor - which is the original Polydor LP - doesn't credit anyone with guitar on "Never Tell Your Mother She's Out of Tune", and indeed there is no discernible guitar on the track. I've talked to several people about this, and no one seems to have any idea where the notion that George Harrison played guitar on the album came from. Is there anyone here who has a copy of That Magic Feeling and can confirm exactly what it says about this? Alternately, does anyone have a copy of Songs for a Tailor which credits "L'Angelo Misterioso" on any track?--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

He's listed on the Atco (U.S.) version of the album. This type of minutiae hardly seems worth mentioning in the article compared to other more notable collaborations though. Piriczki (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
So does the Atco version use a different recording of the song? Or is it just a credits error?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't gotten the response I would have liked on this issue (though the info that "L'Angelo Misterioso" is credited on the Atco release is certainly useful), so I'm going to try being WP:BOLD and removing the statement from the article in hopes that that will encourage further discussion. The sticking point for me is still that neither I nor anyone else I've spoken to can hear any guitar on the track. The guitar might have been buried in the mix, but given that the original Polydor release backs up what my ears are telling me suggests the possibility that Atco made a mistake, and That Magic Feeling simply referenced the Atco credits without investigating further. The whole situation is a bit puzzling and I'd like to know definitively whether or not Harrison played on the track.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have the German Polydor pressing of that album and no one is credited on that track for guitar. I can't hear any guitar either, but I don't claim to be an audiophile expert who can definitively state there is or isn't guitar on a track. I say we defer to common sense and remove the statement. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: BTW here is the text from That Magic Feeling: "The song in question, 'Never Tell Your Mother She's Out of Tune', was a fairly simple slice of British soul. George's accompaniment, largely buried in the mix, was to vamp a series of low-register chords on his guitar, played through a 'fuzz' distortion pedal. His 'Badge' pseudonym, L'Angelo Misterioso, was reused on the LP's sleeve credits." --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been planning to revisit this Collaborations section, because there's one or two musical projects that aren't mentioned and I think they should be. As far as his guest appearance on the Bruce track goes, I've got many, many other sources who support this. I agree it's probably not a detail that's needed in the article, at least not in the main text. Might be worth including in an end note, along with mention that the "Misterioso" moniker was used again as Harrison's credit on Delaney & Bonnie's On Tour – but it's hardly vital. JG66 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I totally forgot to check back on this. Thanks so much for providing the text from That Magic Feeling, Spike! I guess Harrison is buried in the mix after all, though I rather wonder why. Maybe it's just me, but producer Felix Pappalardi's work seems distinguished by every instrument being clearly audible. The point about it not being important enough information for the main text is probably valid, but I'm not just concerned about this article; my main concern is actually whether Harrison should be credited at the article for Songs for a Tailor, and it looks like he should. I did try bringing this up at the talk page for that article, but got no response.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Resting place

I'd like to know I could add the info "Resting Place" at the Infobox. Brazilian Man (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No. He was cremated, which is not a "resting place". You were told this at John Lennon as well. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be working fine at John Lennon's page but, that page uses Template:Infobox person which allows cremations using the "resting place" parameter. Template:Infobox musical artist does not have the resting place parameter. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct about the difference between infoboxes. It would be pointless to add resting place if there is no parameter; it wouldn't appear on the page. BTW, just for clarity, Lennon's resting place is stated "Ashes scattered at Central Park New York". That is far better than simply "cremated" because "cremated" is not a place. It doesn't matter to me which infobox we use for Harrison, but if someone wants to change it please don't do so unless you know how infobox parameters work; otherwise we end up with a huge mess. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
So should it be "was cremated at Hollywood Forever Cemetery"; or "ashes scattered in the Ganges and Yamuna River near Varanasi, India; or both? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
My pick would be "Aashes scattered in the Ganges and Yamuna rivers". Mlpearc (open channel) 17:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think this is a silly thing to put in an infobox. Infoboxes should be quite concise and only a snapshot of the most important facts about the subject. Resting place is quite unimportant. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Spike Wilbury Are you saying all articles with the resting place parameter set should be unset ? All resting places are unimportant ? or just Harrison's. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mlpearc, I would treat it on a case-by-case basis but I admit to having a difficult time imagining when a resting place is so important as to be in the top handful of facts you need to know about the subject. Maybe someone like Elvis where their resting place is a tourist attraction? I'm not an anti-infobox person by any means but I think they often get quite ridiculous in the details they include. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Spike Wilbury: I see and understand your reasoning but, this seems like a all or nothing issue (INHO). Thanx for your response :) Mlpearc (open channel) 21:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Generally I would agree with you, but don't you think this says a lot about Harrison's beliefs (assuming these were his wishes)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It does, but I just don't think it makes the cut. We have birth, death, he's a guitarist, he was in the Beatles, boom, key facts. The fact that he was cremated just seems gratuitous for the infobox, especially since we (rightly) don't have his religion in there or anything else like that. I'll certainly respect consensus on the matter, but I don't agree with it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think where he had his ashes scattered is notable because of the tremendous influence India had on both his music and his personal life and beliefs. That's more notable than an infobox that lists a cemetery. Sundayclose (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

instruments, yet again

@Mlpearc: I don't know if you feel you're somehow above the requirements of BRT, but you're meant to be starting this discussion. (You could also look for the bloody past discussion, too, d'you think?) While other instruments have fallen by the wayside – quite rightly in the case of bass, imo – sitar has always been accepted as one of Harrison's primary instruments since early 2013, when the FAC was underway: here. There's a section in the article, Sitar and Indian music. If more is needed there to justify the importance, I'll happily add it. JG66 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you're the one making a change, you have WP:BURDEN. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
How do you figure that out? Sitar has long been there, you changed it; I reverted; you edit-warred. JG66 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mlpearc:? JG66 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: I removed it as a secondary instrument, you re-added it as a primary, it is your burden to show that it's considered a primary instrument with consensus for inclusion. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Harrison is highly identified with the sitar, perhaps more than any other western musician, due to his role in popularizing it in rock. I'd say that warrants its inclusion. This is aside from the fact that there was already longstanding consensus on including sitar. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 18:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

small addition to INTRO regarding Harrison's legacy regarding high quality of his small Beatles' output..

wanted sentence in intro's first paragraph to read..(got reverted)

"Although the majority of the Beatles' songs were written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, most Beatles albums from 1965 onwards contained at least two Harrison songs, and several of these are often ranked among the Beatles' finest compositions."

and cited Rolling Stone Magazine's top 100 Beatles' songs special issue with two Harrison compositions in the top ten (which is typical of Beatles' ranking lists etc).....small number/high quality...important and well known aspect of Harrison's Beatles' legacy, worth noting in an encyclopedia...McCartney quote in article proper on Harrison's later songs being as good if not better than Lennon and McCartney's etc....that Harrison wrote little for the Beatles but what he did write was of high quality is a very widespread and popular notion about him and would be useful to someone who is newly learning about the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please give us an exact quote (not your own opinion) from the Rolling Stone article to support your claim of "often ranked among the Beatles' finest compositions". Sundayclose (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

suppose it's the 'often' you're objecting to...this could be solved by wording it "...and several of these have been ranked among the Beatles' finest." even though the 'often' part is in fact true though I suppose unprovable...I could find a 10000 lists and someone could argue that in that that wouldn't constitute 'often' in this context...etc etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No. You're missing the point. The RS article does not support the claim of "ranked among the Beatles' finest." No, it's not necessarily "unprovable". You don't need 10,000 lists. You need one, good, reliable source to support the statement that Harrison's songs are "ranked among the Beatles' finest." That happens thousands of times a day on Wikipedia. Don't misinterpret. I am not disputing that some of Harrison's songs are excellent. But my opinion and your opinion don't matter here. What matters is verifiability. Do the research; find a source; don't just write your own opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To the IP user: yes, it's a widely held view that some of Harrison's later Beatles compositions were among the band's best, certainly a match for Lennon's and McCartney's. (It's also widely held that some of the Harrison songs that didn't make it onto a Beatles album were far better than some of the Lennon–McCartney tracks that did.) But I really don't think any such statement is needed in this article's Lead section, even if you do find a source to fully support the claim. We say that George Harrison "achieved international fame as the lead guitarist of the Beatles" and mention some of his significant compositions as a Beatle – I think that's sufficient. It's perhaps more useful to add something at the end of The Beatles#Musical style and development, because Ian MacDonald's assessment of Harrison doesn't extend to his songwriting (where so many others would be more generous in this regard). Something from the first couple of sentences here might be welcome under that section at The Beatles – but not in the Lead at George Harrison. JG66 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

imo a brief nod in the intro to the widely held view that Harrison wrote little for the Beatles but what he did write was of very high quality would be useful to someone who is newly learning about the subject...as this popular impression or notion of him is a huge part of his Beatles legacy...more important to the newcomer in the intro than the fact that 'something' was covered a bunch of times imo...I can understand having to technically drop the word 'often' in my original sentence construction, however.... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be unkind, IP 68, but you seem to be refusing to get the point. Have you actually read WP:V and WP:RS that have been linked for you several times here and on user talk pages? Dropping the word "often" still leaves us with ""ranked among the Beatles' finest", which is your personal opinion and not supported by the Rolling Stone article that you cited. I appreciate your efforts at trying to highlight what a superb songwriter Harrison was, but as you have been told repeatedly you have to have more than your opinion. JG66 gave you quite a gift: a link to an article that is very complimentary of Harrison's songwriting, just not worded the way you want it. You have some choices here. You can try to use that article without misrepresenting it's content; you can look for a reliable source that clearly backs up your wording of "ranked among the Beatles' finest"; or you can move on to other matters on Wikipedia. I say this with every good intention to try to save you a lot of wasted effort and disappointment, but if you think you will get consensus simply by repeating your opinion over and over, it's not going to happen. I also agree with JG66 that any similar addition to the article should go somewhere besides the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

ummm no...the article is in fact the VERY PLACE where the songs are being ranked among the Beatles finest...it is itself an article ranking two of Harrison's songs in the the top ten!!!!! the 'often' would be dropped as this is just one ranking......you're confused...68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You're looking at 10 songs and drawing your own conclusion? That's original research and synthesis which is not allowable. One could look at that same Rolling Stone list and come to a completely different conclusion. For instance, only 3 of Harrison's 22 songs are in the top 75th percentile of all original Beatles songs, only 6 of 22 (27%) are above the 50th percentile, and the majority of his songs (16 of 22) rank below the 50th percentile. That would not indicate a "high quality of his small Beatles' output" relative to the Beatles' entire output. One could also come to the conclusion, based on his top 3 songs "Something" (1969), "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (1968) and "Here Comes the Sun" (1969), that Harrison's songs were not on a par with Lennon and McCartney's until 1968–69, which has long been the prevailing thought on the subject. Piriczki (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

including extended plays and singles approx 250 songs that the Beatles wrote were released during their active tenure...Harrison sole writer of approx 25 of these...nearly all of them make this particular list, meaning every Harrison song is above average for a Beatles song, according to this list....anyway think the clause: "...and several of these have been ranked among the Beatles' finest compositions." is helpful context to a person who is completely unfamiliar with the subject and sort of falls under general introductory knowledge...but nonetheless included a link to probably the most prominent ranking list (for better or worse since it's RS)...currently the article tries to IMPLY that Harrison's few songs are thought to be of high quality by citing the how many times 'something' was covered nonsense...why not just come out and say the general knowledge statement (and even provide a reasonable citation) in order to be helpful to people using an encyclopedia.....?????? (also, the clause doesn't state that several of Harrison's songs are IN FACT among the best..which would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia..but suggests that they are generally THOUGHT TO BE....which is appropriate for an encyclopedia... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

During their active recording career (1962–70), the Beatles released about 175 original compositions, 22 of which were written by Harrison. Only 8 of those 22 songs appear on Rolling Stone's list of the "100 Greatest Beatles Songs." That puts "Within You Without You" (#96), "Long Long Long" (#98) and the 16 other Harrisongs that didn't make the top 100 in the bottom half of all original Beatles songs. Where do you come up with "nearly all of them make this particular list, meaning every Harrison song is above average for a Beatles song"? Piriczki (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
IP68, once again, you are providing your interpretation of the article, which, as Piriczki pointed out, is original research and synthesis. These are Wikipedia policies. Is there something those policies that you don't understand; if so please point them out and we'll try to clarify the policies. If you understand the policies but disagree with them, this is not the place to discuss policy. Discuss on the policy talk pages. The only way you can violate a policy when you add content to an article is to get consensus. At this point, you are the only person in favor of the changes to the article, which is not a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the list an entirety lol...assumed your count of 22 was a count from that list,...doesn't matter the point is that he wrote a handful of songs that are widely viewed to be of the same quality as THE VERY BEST of Lennon/McCartney...this is significant encyclopedic info on the subject..and since the well-known list I cite has 2 in the top 10 and 3 in the top 30 of all Beatles' songs, the clause "...and several of these have been ranked among the Beatles' finest compositions." is A STATEMENT OF FACT and has NOTHING to do with interpretation or opinion....break it down for you: several of these(3...fact!!) have been ranked (RS ranked them...fact!!!)...finest compositions (2 in top 10, 3 in top 30...fact!!!)....so nothing against policy, my friends.....whether it's valuable to put in or not is, indeed, a matter of opinion... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouting with capital letters doesn't make your argument any better, just as repeating it over and over doesn't make it any better. Yes, against policy. A statement of fact is: "In a Rolling Stone article Elvis Costello [who wrote the article] expressed his opinion that two of Harrison's compositions are among the top 20 Beatles songs." That is a fact. Anything beyond that is your interpretation of the article (one of many possible interpretations). And that, in fact, is against policy. Again, what is it about WP:NOR and WP:SYN that you don't seem to understand even though it is perfectly clear to everyone else here? Sundayclose (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"...several of these (fact relative to the citation) have been ranked (fact relative to the citation) among the Beatles' finest compositions (fact relative to the citation)." where you getting stuck???? it's not even arguable....there's like zero ambiguity.. one can argue it's not needed/doesn't improve intro any, however (I've explained why think it is a modest improvement)... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

so suppose theory for inclusion could be slightly altered: that he wrote a few songs that have been ranked with the best of Lennon/McCartney (in this case by RS which is, like it or not, the most prominent publication in rock music..making it the best citation for the general notion)...still quite helpful encyclopedic info to the complete newcomer on the subject imo (indeed an opinion...)...what is NOT an opinion is the truth that the clause I'm suggesting contains 3 propositions, all of which are matters of fact: "...several of these (fact relative to the citation) have been ranked (fact relative to the citation) among the Beatles' finest compositions (fact relative to the citation)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

and probably clause would better read 'a few of these' instead of 'several..' "..a few of these have been ranked among the Beatles' finest compositions." 68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

adding reworded clause

reworded a clause I want to add in first paragraph: "Although the majority of the Beatles' songs were written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, most Beatles albums from 1965 onwards contained at least two Harrison compositions, some of which have been ranked among the Beatles' finest. with cite to well-known Rolling Stone top 100 Beatles list with two ranked in top ten and one more ranked in top 30 of all Beatles songs... the clause I originally tried wasn't as tight to the source as this one and discussion went down a long rabbit hole that I was being opinionated...whereas this clause contains three propositions about the source that are simple facts (ie 'some' (three) 'have been ranked' (RS ranked them) 'among the finest Beatles songs' (2 in top 10 and 1 more in top 30)... think would be modestly helpful and interesting to someone coming to an encyclopedia who knows little to nothing about subject..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@68.48.241.158: Only if reliable sources specifically state "some of which have been ranked among the Beatles' finest.". Mlpearc (open channel) 16:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

Yes, you've said that already. And the response hasn't changed: all that source shows is that one list rates three of his songs among the top 30 Beatles tracks – you're just couching the statement behind the passive voice. The fact is, you're half right: because Mojo and many other publications have placed Harrison's compositions just as high in their best-Beatles-songs lists, but you keep hammering on with the same damn source.
Seeing as the songwriting section does discuss his rise as a composer, as does a section at Break-up of the Beatles, I definitely think something similar is needed under "Musical style and development" at the Beatles, as I'd suggested above. I'll raise it at Talk:The Beatles and then probably revisit the lead section here. For instance, perhaps we can condense the current sentences ("Although the majority of the Beatles' songs were written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney ... His songs for the group included 'Taxman', 'Within You Without You' …") and include something along the lines of what you're suggesting, but in keeping with what's said in the Songwriting section … But you know, could you please stop banging on with that Rolling Stone source and ignoring what others say in reply. JG66 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

the popular notion that he wrote some songs for the beatles that are right up there with best of Lennon/McCartney is of encyclopedic merit and note, particularly to the complete newcomer..my short clause efficiently gets this across while at the same time being a completely factual statement...think passive voice better as if state "are ranked" suggests there's like one, official ranking or something....and nobody was objecting to my source, but the way I was originally representing it...the source is arbitrary..but think I've fixed it to make it a purely factual statement about that source while still getting notion across... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

idk maybe theory is that only technically allowed to state "rs ranked two of his songs in their beatles top ten"...wouldn't fit or read well in the intro though..and would make statement about RS instead of about the general notion I'm getting at....68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It's narrower than just Rolling Stone. It's Elvis Costello writing in Rolling Stone. Stating that Elvis Costello ranked two compositions in top 10 does little, if anything, to present Harrison's songwriting in a positive light. Anon68, it's time to forget about the RS article and either work on the suggestion discussed by JG66 or move on to other matters. You've beaten this thing to death. Wikipedia gives some flexibility to newcomers, but the problems with your proposals have been pointed out repeatedly by several editors. When that kind of arguing goes on an on, it's known as tendentioius editing around here, and others' quickly get fed up with it and stop assuming good faith. Then if it doesn't stop other editors take the matter to WP:ANI, which can result in sanctions by an administrator. Sundayclose (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

no, Costello wrote the introduction, the editors picked the list...jay-z wrote the intro for their 500 greatest songs list, for example (btw the lists are cited ALL over Wikipedia in musician's articles etc, probably thousands and thousands of times.....you could go erase them all) anyway, not that it matters as list is fairly arbitrary, as I've explained..ugh hoping sundayclose would let others weigh-in..as because keeps dwelling on the particular list I cite, as opposed to the notion I'm alluding to, sunday continues to be confused..prefer if sunday said the clause and notion it alludes to is not needed/doesn't benefit the article...as opposed to saying it's somehow against the rules....68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

for example, stating in intro that "rs ranked two of his songs in their beatles top ten"...would be technically allowable and not against the rules...but would be removed due to style and not fitting....the content of my clause is the EXACT SAME as that quote imo so allowable but also fits stylistically imo...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with "ranked among" as a qualitative measure is that it is purely subjective, no matter what or how many sources are cited. And why say "several" or "some" when we're talking about three specific songs: "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun"? Songs which are already mentioned in the next sentence. Another issue is that you're trying to tack this onto a sentence that is already problematic. Why, in an article about George Harrison, is Lennon and McCartney's songwriting mentioned in the third sentence? And why does Harrison's songwriting have to be compared to theirs at all? Piriczki (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

see your point, it's not ideal the way written...and perhaps my clause is an attempt to build on something that's already poorly structured..but if continued to be structured this way, think clause slightly helpful...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

'something' second most covered nonsense deletion...

Consensus among commenting editors is that the phrase should stay as-is. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (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.

okay, then, I propose deleting the statement that 'something' is second most covered beatles' song, as if that's a fact...from this article and the 'something' article...appears completely unverifiable, no source that I can find that suggests this is anything other than pure speculation (or that it's even verifiable)...the 'yesterday' article doesn't even claim to be most covered beatles song, just claims to have been covered a ton of times....'something' article only cite for nonsense assertion is some Time magazine article that's behind a pay wall...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, for now. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Anon68, you must be bloody kidding – "completely unverifiable, no source that I can find that suggests this is anything other than pure speculation (or that it's even verifiable)"? The point about "Something" being the most-covered Beatles song after "Yesterday" even appears in that same Rolling Stone source you've been so wed to, FFS! I'd say one would struggle to find a source that discusses the song without making the same 150+ covers/2nd to "Yesterday" point. Would you please stop wasting others' time and removing perfectly good content from FAs. JG66 (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I find more claims online that Eleanor Rigby is second most covered Beatles songs...not that it matters...as obviously it's unverifiable...why does Wikipedia wantto be in the business of perpetuating claims masquerading as facts??? it's claimed 'yesterday' is most covered song ever...well common sense tells you that it wouldn't even be close to 'amazing grace' let alone 'the star-spangled banner.'.....just leave the claim out...unless specifically say it's a claim...68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

We write to reflect reliable secondary sources. Saying the source "claims that" is unnecessary weasel wording and poor writing. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant; if you can produce reliable sources that would replace "Something" with "Eleanor Rigby", we'll consider the change. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

which is more intellectually honest if you're in the encyclopedia business: 'Yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time. Or: The Guinness Book World Record has claimed 'Yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time... particularly since the first statement isn't even close to ACTUALLY being true...and since it's inherently pure conjecture masquerading as a fact, and totally unverifiable..this applies to 'something' too..it's clearly distracting, puffery, no? and how is it helpful? just leave it out..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources ? "Yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time" Not one source has been provided to back this up, why ? Mlpearc (open channel) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

exactly, it would be dumb to flatly say as if it's a fact that 'yesterday' is the most covered song all-time...it's totally unverifiable (and almost certainly not true, besides...) it's the kind of vague statement that's not even capable of being a fact..just like it's dumb to flatly say as if it's a fact that 'something' is the second most covered Beatles' song..."it's been claimed by, it's been thought" would make it reasonable but why get into the business at all? just leave it out.. the 'yesterday' entry reads, "Yesterday" is one of the most recorded songs in the history of popular music; its entry in Guinness World Records states that, by January 1986, 1,600 cover versions had been made." and leaves it at that...which is intellectually honest....it could instead read: "'yesterday' is the most covered song of all-time." and then cite that goofy world record book (as this is the claim of the entry in that book, but this would be intellectually dishonest...but this is how it is presented about 'something'...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

this site tries to compile a list based on acceptable/mainstream enough covers(which is the problem--criteria so subject makes statement meaningless),...as you can see they have 'Eleanor Rigby' WAY out ahead of 'Something'.. http://secondhandsongs.com/artist/41/originals#nav-entity 68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That site does not meet the criteria set out in WP:RS for a number of reasons. In their own FAQ they admit their statistics are not reliable. Again, your opinion on what is "true" is irrelevant. Produce reliable sources and please stop filling this Talk page with borderline incomprehensible rants. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

lol that's exactly MY point, if you read my post above yours...you're agreeing with me but think you're disagreeing...the statement is inherently incapable of being a fact, so it shouldn't be presented as such...stating, "'something' has been recorded numerous times by other artists and has even been cited as the second most covered Beatles song." would be okay.....stating, "'something' is the second most covered Beatles song." would be intellectually dishonest...why does Wikipedia want to be in the intellectually dishonest business? because RS is in this case doesn't mean Wikipedia has to perpetuate it....68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No one who has posted here is "intellectually dishonest" and your continual use of the term is offensive. 68 your fandom of Harrison is fine but this is an encyclopedia. Everyone has pointed out the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that prevent the info that you want to add to the article. This has been going on for days and the problems remain. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can let people know how you feel about GH's music. I suggest you move on to those and stop casting aspersions on the editors who have posted here. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't called anyone intellectually dishonest...I've been advocating that one kind of assertion is intellectually dishonest while another kind of assertion is not within the confines of an encyclopedia...in order to try to make the encyclopedia better...but thank you for the false accusation...and my suggested edit in this case would seem to be the reverse of 'fandom,' no? as it's reducing so called 'puffery.' 68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

and I don't want to add anything in this case, but take something out...it's difficult to deal with your input when literally everything you say is erroneous lol...68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is going to be added or removed based on your screeds, so please go find something else to do. You're currently on the wrong side of WP:TALKNO, specifically using this talk page as a forum and soapbox. If you keep it up, I will request that you be blocked from editing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

stop personally attacking me or i'll report you...everything I've added here has been about substantive editorial changes to the article..never once have I spent anytime on my personal opinions of the subject (forum)...soapbox? I've responded to continuous misrepresentations of my proposal..."borderline incomprehensible rants"..that's you attacking me...68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@68.48.241.158: That is not a personal attack, it's sound advice and I also suggest you take it, but you wont and you'll get yourself blocked. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@68.48.241.158: I think you should go ahead and "report" all of us because most of us are ready for you to be boomeranged. Here is the place to do it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

^^the record shows that all personal attacks have been from others, not me...you people think that advocating that one kind of assertion in an encyclopedia is intellectually dishonest (and therefore makes the encyclopedia less good) while another kind of assertion is not..is out of bounds?? LOL!!! YOU keep derailing this into the personal..either weigh in on the substance or don't weigh in at all with personal attacks please..or nominate for me being blocked and thereby learn that YOU are the one out of line..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

and to the substance, stating: "'something' is the second most covered Beatles song of all-time"....perpetuates a conjecture masquerading as a fact...so why do it? leave it out...it adds nothing anyway..unless want to bother to allude to the fact that it's conjecture..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Can someone please close this thread, it has become a forum and POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

unless someone wants to weigh in substantively..if I improved the accuracy of the article by changing the wording to something along the lines of, "RS magazine has stated 'something' is the second most covered Beatles' song." would there be an objection? under what theory? (not that I really want to change it that way...would rather just leave the nonsense out all together....)68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

To all editors involved here: The issue is resolved as there is a reliable source about "second most recorded." This is my last comment here, and I suggest that the rest of us just completely ignore any future rants; eventually an uninvolved editor will close this section if there are no additional comments. If that doesn't stop this nonsense, several of us need to make a report at WP:ANI for tendentious editing and violation of WP:FORUM. Case closed. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

what's the nonsense? I proposed a change in Talk...people responded...I responded to their responses...people accused me of doing something wrong for some reason...I pointed out that I'm doing nothing wrong...I haven't changed the article without consensus...there seem to be people out of line toward me, not the other way around..talk articles are supposed to be open a week, no? if people respond to it...I can respond back...stop responding if you don't want me to respond back...you're winning in the consensus anyway...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

explains with cite why shouldn't be presented as a fact: http://rulefortytwo.com/secret-rock-knowledge/chapter-4/what-song-has-been-covered-the-most/ 68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2016 (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.

George Fest CD/DVD

I've started an article for this upcoming release after removing a recent addition here in our Harrison article. Seeing that my removal resulted in some further reverts, and then a discussion beginning at Sundayclose's talk page, I thought it best to bring the issue here. Over the last year or more, I have added mention of the 2014 George Fest tribute to individual song articles and to the article on the Apple Years box set. But @GuitarWeeper: as with the 2003 Songs from the Material World multi-artist tribute, it's not something I personally think belongs here. Dhani Harrison was involved in staging George Fest and no doubt it's through him that the release has come about; what do others think – does this mean we should include a mention here in the artist's biographical page? JG66 (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this conversation started. Not sure if you were aware but this concert will also be broadcasted on MTV. Dhani Harrison produced this entire event in honor of his dad. It's his tribute to his father a decade after Concert of George with his generation of musicians. This is in the same spirit of Concert for George. Just confused why one would be mentioned and not the later? This is not a 3rd party tribute but one constructed by the Harrison's. Thanks! --GuitarWeeper (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The George Fest concert had (and the upcoming release has) official, Harrison family involvement – agreed. But the thing that makes Concert for George so special is the degree to which it serves as an apt summary of Harrison's legacy. Most of the performers were musicians with whom he collaborated on and off over decades (Clapton, Starr, Lynne, Keltner, Preston, Cooper, Horn, Scott); then, aside from Olivia and Dhani's presence, there's an obvious family-friends aspect with the Shankars, the Browns (Joe and daughter Sam), and the Roylances (of Genesis Publications renown) represented by Brian as co-producer of the Concert for George film. Most of Monty Python are there; and with the addition of Neil Innes, Harrison's beloved Rutles also have a presence. Aside from the Pythons, HandMade is represented by Ray Cooper ("George in the office") and by the fact that the film's director was David Leland, who directed the HandMade comedy Checking Out. Indian music, rockabilly, gospel, on stage – all presented under the auspices of Harrison's Material World Charitable Foundation …
So, I don't think the two events stand up to much comparison when it comes to George Harrison's legacy. I'm not trying to belittle Dhani's production for a minute. I just can't see that it warrants inclusion under Legacy yet (as mentioned in an edit summary, that could change). But that's just my take – maybe others disagree …? JG66 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


I'm sorry but it does not make sense how you can say a film that was organized, overseen, produced and released (via the Harrison owned H.O.T. Records) by George's only child, in honor of his dad does not grant merit? Dhani clearly put this all together in his father's memory. Don't you feel weird trying to omit this from his fathers legacy? Plus, this was a family affair. Ravi Shankar's daughter, Norah Jones performs on a quarter of the tracks as well as Gingger Shankar. This is the first time Dhani and Norah have shared the stage together. All proceeds go to the Material World Charitable Foundation as well --GuitarWeeper (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Harrison. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Should mention son Dhani in Infobox

George Harrison's son Dhani Harrison, also a notable musician, should be noted in the Infobox here. --73.114.26.46 (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes definitely. Will do so unless someone else gets there first ... JG66 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
And his marriages too! This is standard and both wives were notable; see article paragraph 4. --73.114.27.217 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Death?

The archives here are extensive, so please pardon me if this has been asked, but the article states that Harrison died at the home of a friend. He died in a home owned by Paul McCartney. Isn't that worth making explicitly clear? 97.89.162.121 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The source we have here is a link to an images of Harrison's death certificate at The Smoking Gun, which is considered highly reliable. The introductory text there says
"As for where Harrison actually died, that's a mystery. According to most press reports and obituaries, the ex-Beatle passed away in the L.A. home of a friend (who, in some reports, was identified as security consultant Gavin de Becker). In the new issue of Us Weekly, the magazine reports that Harrison died in a rented villa on Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Studio City. The death certificate, though, lists "place of death" as a residence at 1971 Coldwater Canyon in Beverly Hills, 90210."
TSG looked into it further and found that address doesn't exist. Do you have a reliable source stating that he died at McCartney's home? CityOfSilver 15:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

With the recent (two or three weeks ago) anniversary of Harrison's birth, I read an article in one of the big UK newspapers (The Guardian? The Times?) and it stated the place of death as though it were a fact. If I can find the article again, I'll post it here for you. 97.89.162.121 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The "1971 Coldwater Canyon" is Coldwater Canyon Avenue in Studio City, but that's actually Mulholland Drive, because there's no 1971. A false address was provided for the death certificate by Gavin de Becker, but a later inquiry found the actual address to be a property owned by Paul McCartney, 9536 Heather Road in Beverly Hills. The death certificate has since been amended, but is not public domain; however, at least two modern biographies (if such things are acceptable as references) give reference to the actual address: "Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation" by Philip Norman (ISBN: 9780743235655), and "George Harrison: Behind The Locked Door" by Graeme Thomson (ISBN: 9780857128584). I will leave it to someone else to decide upon the best way of citing this in the article... Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's a valid point to make. Regarding which source to use, biographies are fine (unless there's something in the guidelines that I'm not aware of?). I'd say we should avoid Thomson's book at all costs – the way he blatantly ripped off Wikipedia articles when covering the 1970s period, in both the structure of his text and the sources he cited, is astounding. I'll check other books, such as Gary Tillery's 2011 Harrison biography.
Aside from correcting/qualifying mention of where he's thought to have died, I think it might be an idea to revisit or update a couple of points relating to Harrison's legacy. I know in the past I was against including anything about George Fest, which Dhani Harrison helped organise. In hindsight, Dhani should definitely be discussed in his role as producer and custodian of George Harrison's Apple and Dark Horse catalogues, which could lead into a mention of the George Fest tribute perhaps. Olivia, too, for her work in continuing and expanding his humanitarian projects, overseeing reissues of his Dark Horse collaborations with Ravi Shankar, and most recently compiling the updated I, Me, Mine. JG66 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindu mythology?

I don't see how this phrase is, in itself, necessarily "offensive". And this might be the correct article to link to in the lede. But the article needs to support it. To my mind the article content currently seems to support Hinduism more? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the phrasing of "to embrace Hindu mythology" is a bit awkward-sounding, how does one "embrace" a mythology other than to simply read a lot, compared to embracing a religion or set of beliefs, which implies letting it influence one's way of life? I don't think it's an "offensive" statement, but "embraced Hinduism" or "embraced Hindu beliefs" simply reads better. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the book but presumably the reference supports Hindu mythology? Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe so. Someone with a copy of Schaffer (1980) should be able to tell us. Evenso, the Introductory section is meant to summarise the entire article, and if that book makes a subtly different point, even if it's a valid one, it shouldn't really be cited there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Guitars again (sorry!)

I'm not sure how people have come to a consensus on what models should be included in the infobox, but I do think the "Musicianship > Guitars" section should at least mention the Ramírez classical guitar from And I Love Her and Til There Was You, as it appears in the A Hard Days Night film. Also, I'm surprised there's no mention of his Zemaitis 6-string and 12-string guitars (or the others), as he sported them throughout much of the Dark Horse years, as well as playing them in videos.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The threshold is whether reliable sources write about the guitars as being particularly notable as Harrison used them. Most professional guitarists of his caliber own dozens of guitars and we need to exercise care not to become a gear catalog. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I suggest trimming "guitarist, singer, songwriter, and music and film producer" to only the role(s) that he is known for. WP:BLPLEAD states: "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." And, WP:LEADSENTENCE states: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." See Winston Churchill for how to properly structure the lead paragraph, emphasize what the person is known for, and not make the lead sentence unwieldy. LK (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to eliminate "music and film producer" from the lede sentence since he isn't primarily remembered as a producer. This would leave "guitarist, singer and songwriter." Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo, thanks for starting the discussion, I'm afraid I've not had time to take part until now. I think your most recent change is somewhat premature. Not only that but I don't agree that music and film producer should be removed from the infobox – they're both career activities with which Harrison is strongly identified. Removing mention from the opening sentence is one thing, but Harrison's work as an Apple Records and then Dark Horse music producer and also as a film producer with his HandMade Films company was just as important and notable an "occupation" during his post-Beatles decades as his career as a solo artist. He was never interested in (or comfortable with) the idea of being a solo artist as such, and made a point of collaborating with others throughout that time. In fact, he made very few solo albums, relative to his peers, and the often long gaps between releases can be explained by his commitment to projects by/with the likes of Ravi Shankar, Badfinger, Ringo Starr, Billy Preston, Splinter, Traveling Wilburys, Monty Python (together and as individuals), film director David Leland, and Derek Taylor. I agree the comparison with the Winston Churchill article is valid in terms of the opening sentence. But the subsequent sentences probably require a rethink now as a result of removing "music and film producer", and it's certainly not a case of omitting these two roles from the infobox to match the description at the very start of the lead. JG66 (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
First, MOS:OPENPARA does not put a limit on the items in the lede. Next, I agree with JG66 that "music and film producer" merit mention in the lede. JG66 has covered music well. In regard to film producer I would add that MP a/t Holy Grail would not have been made without Harrison. The same holds true for other productions by Handmade Films including Brazil. His time as a producer is a part of Mat Snow's book (among others) about his life and work after The Beatles. Both careers are covered in the article. Yes this lede may have several items - there are other articles with more and those with less. IMO listing these does not damage this article. It should also be noted that past threads lead to a consensus to have these in the article and I see no reason to reduce them. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we all can agree that we should follow MOS guidelines about what lead sentences and the lead in biographies should look like. Let's review WP:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:BLPLEAD. I'll excerpt the relevant parts here: LK (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

From MOS:BLPLEAD:
"The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. ... avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."
And,
"In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead, b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)."
From WP:LEADSENTENCE:
"Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

As with all things the MOS is meant as a guideline to interpret as it makes sense for each article. Let's let the discussion play out and see if you gain consensus for removing these things from the lead. As it stands, you do not have consensus. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
IMO the first sentence is not overloaded. As to item "b" I already mentioned that they are significantly covered in the body of the article. Finally, WP:IAR also exists for a reason. MarnetteD|Talk 05:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
So "is a English guitarist, singer, songwriter, and music and film producer " is not overloaded? You can say that with a straight face? I don't think the community as a whole will agree with you on this. LK (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I could support Strawberry4Ever suggestion. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
"is a guitarist, singer and songwriter" would be a significant improvement. LK (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that as well. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not! JG66 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nor am I. MarnetteD|Talk 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Well change it back then :) --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe this is a WP:Local consensus, and not a global one. I'm going to call for an RfC.
Haven't developed a strong opinion on this yet but I have a few observations. The average reader may not be a Harrison fan, Beatles fan, or even a music fan. Still, I think most readers would be aware that he was one of the Beatles and probably would be somewhat aware of his work as a solo artist. "Guitarist, singer, and songwriter" seems to cover his roles in that area fairly well. The term "musician" would cover guitarist, and maybe singer and even songwriter but it may be too broad and I think being specific is more informative as to what is meant by "musician" as it relates to this particular person. Some readers though may be learning for the first time that he was also a record producer and a film producer. Those activities might require a few words of explanation. Also, putting all of these activities in a list in the lead sentence seems to put them all on the same level of importance which I don't think is the case. Could we follow the lead sentence with something like "In addition, Harrison was also a record producer as well as a film producer." Both of these activities occurred during a finite time period during his career whereas the others basically covered his entire adult lifetime. I also purposely separated the two types of producers just because "record and film producer" sounded like it was almost the same field when Harrison's role in these areas were quite different. Piriczki (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Producer of what? Broadway shows? Piriczki (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Paul's reaction to George's death

I think this article could benefit by making note of how Paul has contrasted the deaths of John and George by saying how glad he and Ringo were that they had the time to say goodbye to George and have a last good time with him during his final weeks, helping both sides to let go and accept things, in comparison to how John's death due to murder was so sudden. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Its better suited to Paul's anf Ringo's article. After those are developed out, then something can be said here. This article is about George, not Paul or Ringo's reaction to George. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC

(non-admin closure) Tryptofish's version C was slightly more favored than any other option discussed.- MrX 21:06, 1 August 2017 (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.

There is a disagreement about the lead sentence of this BLP. Should the lead sentence state:
A: "George Harrison,[nb 1] MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English guitarist, singer, songwriter, and music and film producer who ...", or
B: "George Harrison,[nb 1] MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English guitarist, singer, and songwriter who ...", or
C: Something else (please specify).
The relevant policy is WP:BLPLEAD and WP:LEADSENTENCE. LK (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • B As I said earlier, I prefer the shorter version, focusing on just things that Harrison was most known for. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A It covers his career as well it should. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ? (Summoned by bot) I like B because it is short and sweet and Harrison is not as notable for his films as he is for the first 3. However I like A because I think lead sentences should be full in describing their subject. How about a C:
    George Harrison,[nb 1] MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English musician and film producer who ...",?
    I think the fact he is known to Beatles people saves us from having to call him a guitarist, right? Plenty of musicians sing and write their own songs/scores so that covers singer and songwriter as well. This way we get the briefness of B with the inclusive explanations of A. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • B: I prefer B because his career as a producer is far less important or notable than the guitarist, singer and songwriter aspects of his career and life. And we can't fit everything that everyone did in their lead sentence. Just to start with, he was also a husband and a father and a film actor. Rlendog (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find any instances of an article starting with "BLPsubject was an Xnationality husband". d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with Tryptofish's suggestion for C as well. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • B: Option A is an overloaded sentence for such a minor part of what he did. Cjhard (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A It's not an overloaded sentence. Many articles list a lot more occupations in the lead. While his music career is his most notable work, that doesn't mean that his producing career is not notable. He has produced over 2 dozen films. That alone is enough to establish notability. At the very least, it should be included in the infobox if not the lead. JDDJS (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C Piriczki's version B - Is what he's most known for. A's concerns are best suited for the body of the article, not the lead. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A, per JDDJS's rationale. There are other things that Harrison did and is notable for – e.g. film acting, humanitarianism – just as there are further roles within the more complete description (A) – e.g. record label owner, film company owner. None of those appear in the opening sentence, and quite right too, but "guitarist, singer, songwriter, and music and film producer" covers his wide-ranging career well and accurately. Also, with film production, although he produced some films for Apple in the early 1970s, HandMade became his sole professional focus for several years – he was barely a "guitarist, singer, songwriter" throughout that time – and he was very successful in that activity. JG66 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C. I came here from the RfC notice, and have tried to see if I can offer a compromise between A and B. I suggest: "English guitarist, singer, songwriter, and producer". That way, "producer" stays in, but without the descriptors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A - Music and film producing was a very notable part of his career. In WP:CATEGORY, Harrison has 47 pages in Albums produced by George Harrison, compared to 27 pages for Lennon, 46 pages for McCartney and 24 pages for Ringo. Harrison was the co-founder of HandMade Films which produced the Monty Python film Life of Brian and Harrison also produced or executive produced numerous notable British films, including: Time Bandits, The Missionary, A Private Function, Mona Lisa, Withnail and I, The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne which Maggie Smith won the British Academy Award for Best Actress. News articles about Harrison's film producing: New York Times, The Guardian, Houston Press, Chicago Tribune. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C - I support Tryptofish's alternative: "English guitarist, singer, songwriter, and producer". We include all his titles but also satisfy the "it doesn't fit in the lead" argument. Meatsgains (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C - "George Harrison, MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English guitarist, singer, and songwriter who ... In addition, Harrison was a record producer as well as film producer." Piriczki (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C - Tryptofish's alternative. I was waffling between A and B but this is actually a better suggestion than both of them. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C (Piriczki) - Doesn't take away any information, but focuses the lead sentence on what it should be focused on. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • C - I also go with Tryptofish's suggestion. BTW, he's not a living person, so I'm not clear why BLP policies would apply. Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Dlabtot WP:BDP is the policy, and it says that dead people don't count, but I have often seen anyone in the 115 year bracket be counted as a BLP for clarity. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • B The less notable items in "A" detract from the sentence. Tryptofish's idea is also a fine compromise. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • B While someone with the fame and funds to explore other careers is nice to know, the Lede is an overview of the article - a microcosm of the article. Seeing as most of the article will probably be focusing on his musical bits, and less on the movie stuff, I think its probably more fitting to leave out the latter. Of course, if there is a ton of stuff in the article's body about his film contributions, then (and only then) would it be prudent to include more infor about those activities in the Lede. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Strange argument - since "most of the article will probably be focusing on his musical bits" it is all the more important the lead is comprehensive. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • C Either Trypt or Piriczki's. Or the other. He was actually pretty important as a film producer, for the British industry anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • C Go with Tryptofish.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion header made to look open and inviting but really to discuss the 3 Cs above.

So far there are 3 C proposals:

  • Trypt's "George Harrison,[nb 1] MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English guitarist, singer, songwriter, and producer"
  • Piriczki's "George Harrison, MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English guitarist, singer, and songwriter who ... In addition, Harrison was a record producer as well as film producer."
  • L3X1's: George Harrison,[nb 1] MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001) was an English musician and film producer who ..."

Mine is pretty brief, perhaps to brief to be properly discriptive. If no one wants that I am leaning toward Pirczki's suggestion. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Trypt's is best, afaics. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd go with Piriczki's over Trypt's, simply because, taken out of context, producer could mean anything (As in, "Heinz is a producer [of tomato ketchup]!), and as the proceeding words all refer to music, one might automatically assume specifically music producer. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:53, 28 July 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Harrison. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Harrison. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Voice change

Out of curiosity, does anybody know why George's singing voice changed? If so, could someone please insert the reason into the article? Note that I mean his singing, not speaking, voice and I know that in The Beatles' early years, George's singing voice was loud whenever he sang lead vocals (e.g. Chains, Roll Over Beethoven, If I Needed Someone, Taxman, I Need You, Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby), but in the later years and his solo career, his singing voice somehow changed and became higher and softer (e.g. Something, For You Blue, Blue Jay Way, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, I Me Mine, Here Comes the Sun, You, All Things Must Pass, My Sweet Lord, What is Life?).61.69.217.3 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I was reading something about his White Album songs that said the "change" started at that time, with Gently Weeps or Long, Long, Long. I think it's an exaggeration to say there's a before and after – to my ears, his vocals on What Is Life, Awaiting on You All, Living in the Material World and many others all have the same timbre as Someone or Taxman. In the same way, imo, any writer who identifies a White Album track as marking the start of this change would appear to be overlooking Harrison's singing on earlier songs, such as Within You Without You and The Inner Light. I might add the point about his singing being more consistently higher and softer from 1968 onwards, though, if I come across the source again, because (from memory) the writer does say that. JG66 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

minus Removed from article. WWGB (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes – and could be more

If anyone objects to the changes I've just been making, please do speak up, I'm happy to discuss. I try to leave detailed comments with each edit, but still, I know how frustrating it can be to watch someone roll up their sleeves and start reworking a Featured Article … I've been attempting to fix some changes that were made here by other editors in two big hits, in about December 2015 and late 2017. I'd only half paid attention to them at the time.

There could well be some more to do, although I have a feeling they might have been in the article back in 2013 (when it made FA). For instance, I notice there are mentions of Harrison working with Starr in the Solo career, Later career and/or Later life sections, whereas other examples of the two working together appear under Musicianship#Collaborations, along with mention of (some of) Harrison's many other collaborations, production projects and guest appearances.

Also, Musicianship#Songwriting focuses solely on his Beatles songs, and #Guitar work similarly gets so lost in the Beatles that there's just a paragraph and a half given to Harrison's slide playing. There's a couple of sentences on his bass contributions, at the end of #Guitar work, yet nothing at all on the many occasions he played a keyboard instrument (e.g. Mellotron, Moog, harmonium, clavinet, ARP synth). I think we could cut some of the commentary/opinion from the sections covering his solo career, anyway, and that way ensure there's at least a paragraph or two on keyboards, as well as something more representative of the importance of his post-Beatles songwriting and guitar playing.

Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes look good so far. I've been watching but haven't had much feedback to offer. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Good to hear – thanks.
I wish it wasn't so, but the more I look at the article, the more problems I'm seeing. In some cases, it's the surprising level of detail given to one issue when another, more notable issue, imo, is relatively overlooked. In other cases, I think the problem's in the location of the information. The most obvious example of the first is the omission of anything about his post-Beatles songwriting, as mentioned. (There's nothing, say, on Harrison's blending of the Hindu bhajan style with American gospel in "My Sweet Lord" and "Give Me Love", his increasing confidence in writing in a number of styles (folk, country, gospel, soul), his adoption/adaptation of religious themes and texts in many of his lyrics, etc.)
I'll continue to tread carefully, and I welcome a degree of scrutiny. Admittedly, I've never bothered to nominate anything for FA – and, in fact, it was this and the same (main) writer's FAC for Paul McCartney, in 2012, that put me off the whole process. (Their approach seemed to be more about perceived Wikipedia "status", accolade chasing, and cronyism, than doing the subject justice, and I think the two articles, and the editor's Sgt. Pepper FA also, reflect that weakness.) On the other hand, I know the subject well. JG66 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The process of nominating something at FAC is really nothing like it was back in those days. The biggest problem these days is a lack of reviewers (acknowledging that your experience may be a principal reason why we have a lack of reviewers). Another issue is that articles are generally reviewed by people without any particular knowledge of the subject. So, they are looking for things like good writing and verifiability to reliable sources, but they wouldn't know if an important piece of narrative is missing or a key source is neglected. I think we should proceed with whatever is necessary to improve this—just because it has the bronze star doesn't mean it's the best it can be. --Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I appreciate the point that most reviewers might be scrutinising a nomination for its writing standard and sourcing (and that input's very welcome). JG66 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Image formatting

John, hi. Your recent changes, removing the size parameters for several of the images, have made them look huge. (Comically so.) I don't know if you're seeing something different on your screen. I've understood that the inclusion of those "upright=…" fields are quite acceptable, and they're used all over the encyclopaedia. Why can't we use them here? JG66 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi JG66. Normally, and especially on Featured Articles, we'd expect the image to be at default for its format. The convention is not to hardcode images at all, and to use the "upright" parameter sparingly to emphasise particular images or where readability is a constraint. Images look different on different devices, and the less you do to constrain the formatting, the better it is for the majority of readers. As a logged-in user you can adjust your image preferences in your settings. Less is more. --John (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
John: Sure, and I'd say my settings deliver images just fine, across the encyclopaedia. It's just that the Wonderwall Music and Bangla Desh images look gigantic right now – the first especially: it nudges right into the next subheading, taking three lines of text with it. And if you compare the size with that of any of the pics above, it looks even more incongruous. I'd say the Shankar one, under "Sitar and Indian music", also looks too big, in comparison with the images in the sections that follow. I mean, I take your point about convention here, but do those three pics look okay to you?
I admit, with Wonderwall, part of the problem is that I've set the image left, because I prefer to see something a bit more visually interesting than having all images set down the right-hand side. Does anyone else out there see what I'm seeing – those overly large Wonderwall, Bangla Desh and Shankar images? JG66 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

George's songwriting

A few comments that I take exception to in the article is that George had trouble getting The Beatles to record his songs and that he was restricted in his songwriting contributions on their records as if John and Paul were preventing him from contributing any original material - a common misconception - but the facts are these:

  • George contributed at least two songs per album - exceptions include Revolver, where he had three, The White Album, where he had four, and Sgt. Pepper, With the Beatles and Magical Mystery Tour, where he had one song on both albums - original, not the covers that he sang including Roll Over Beethoven, Devil in Her Heart and You Really Got a Hold on Me.
  • The other Beatles were present on nearly all of his songs, John included.
  • John and Paul would never have included any of George's compositions on nearly every album if they weren't good enough to be released, and again, it was decided that all four would contribute lead vocals to their albums, including Ringo.

I don't agree with how it's worded. 110.175.229.57 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request on 19 November 2018

Should semi-protect to prevent because it is an important page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanaisbae (talk • contribs)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. That said, please review Wikipedia's protection policy first - pages are not protected simply because their subjects are important. Articles must have seen repeated, ongoing vandalism from multiple users before protection will be seriously considered. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

More than one figure

Harrison is variously said to have been stabbed 5, 10 and 40 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Failed assassination attempt survivors

WWGB, can I ask why you think including Harrison in this category is excessive? The knife attack at his home on 30 December 1999 was a huge media story through New Year 2000, and it's received no end of commentary as an extreme example of Beatlemania/fan obsession, particularly as he shunned celebrity for most of his life. (In fact, I've long planned to write an article on the attack.) It's generally felt by Harrison's family and friends that it resulted in his cancer returning, which ultimately did claim his life two years later. I appreciate the biographical article is hardly short of categories as it is, but I'd think this particular one is applicable. Perhaps I'm missing something? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Assassination is defined as the killing of a prominent person for "political, religious or monetary reasons". Abrams had mental illness and none of these reasons were evident. So, it was not a failed assassination. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, there was a religious motivation, but I take your point. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

Actorize, I think the 1991 image is far preferable to the 1974 White House shot. I appreciate the latter has been here for years, but, well ... it's a terrible picture of George Harrison. This was echoed by at least one other editor at Talk:John Lennon when we were discussing the main image at the Lennon article. And as Beatleswillneverdie wrote when changing the Harrison image, the 1974 pic does appear (uncropped) later in this article anyway.

I'd like to see the article showing the '91 pic. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? JG66 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

JG66 I'd greatly appreciate it, I've hated that image of Harrison ever since I started editing WP. It's a shame to me that WP only has like 2 photos of Harrison because there are many great photos of him out there, and it sucks that we aren't authorized to use any. But based solely on what's available, I'd much prefer the '91 image than the '74 image. – zmbro (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

JG66 Yeah, I think that is fine changing the picture. I only reverted the picture because it was the original picture and that the other times that the picture was changed, it was reverted back to the original. Although I think there are better photos that the '91 one that can be used. And now that I realized, since the article does show the same picture but uncropped, I think it should be changed as many other articles do not have that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actorize (talk • contribs)

I’ll change the image back to the ‘91 one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatleswillneverdie (talk • contribs)

Great, thanks for that. JG66 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see it's been changed - it's a terrible picture and this 91 one is so much better. Humbledaisy (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Lucy"

There's quite a story about the "Lucy" guitar involving its theft, recovery, and the telling of the story on Brad Meltzer's program Lost History.

Would it be appropriate to incorporate that story/event here?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Cremation place - check recommended

Harrison who died 29 November 2001 is stated here to have been cremated at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. However, on looking up the article on the cemetery I found that a citation linked New York Times story about the reopening of the crematory, dated 1 December 2002 - a year later - states that, due to a time lapse before dereliction was remedied, no one was cremated here after Mama Cass (1974) until a Thursday preceding the latter date. However I have been unable to check the citation to the Los Angeles Times report about his funeral because the address has been moved. Something for someone, perhaps in the US, to check.Cloptonson (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This source from The Daily Telegraph says: "He was cremated in a cardboard coffin in accordance with the faith but his ashes were not scattered in the Ganges as reports at the time suggested they would be." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, although it does not identify the cremation place.Cloptonson (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate

Please consider changing George Harrison's birthday to Feb 24 as per https://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/29/a-few-things-you-might-not-know-about-george-harrison/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.158.30.230 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We need a more reliable source. And, a potential error of ten minutes in a birthdate is not going to change the course of history. Graham Beards (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It gets quite a bit of coverage in Harrison and Beatles biographies, actually. Somewhere in Bill Harry's The George Harrison Encyclopedia I think there's mention of how and when Harrison discovered about the mistake on his birth certificate. This is what Harry gives in his Chronology in that book, anyway (p. 52):
1943
24 February. George is born at home at 11.42 pm. For most of his life he believed that he'd been born on 25 February.
JG66 (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Legal birth cert confirms 25 February [1]. Nothing else matters. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Who says? I mean, why does nothing else matter – is that just your opinion? JG66 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Will add a few more sources as and when I find them. This is how it's covered in Barry Miles's The Beatles Diary, p. 6:
February 24 (not the 25th, as George himself believed for many years)
George Harrison was born at 11.42pm to Louise Harrison, née French ...
From Gary Tillery's Working Class Mystic, p. 157: "On February 24, George Harrison is born at 11:42 p.m. at 12 Arnold Grove, Wavertree, Liverpool."
JG66 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Err, no, the law says. "Family records" (and Barry Miles) mean SFA unless the government changes his legally-recorded date of birth. Even his US death cert carried the same date of birth [2]. This issue is covered several times in the archives. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, thank you ever so very very much; I hope that wasn't too taxing. But "the law" does make mistakes ... It makes sense to at least include mention of the true birthdate in a footnote, particularly as the issue of Harold as a middle name is given that sort of treatment, yet it's nowhere near as widely covered a point as the 24 vs 25 Feb one. JG66 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I could have sworn there used to be a footnote to that effect at some point in this article's history but I could be wrong. Might be worth adding as this crops up from time to time. Harrison announced it in the mid '90s I think but never did anything official to change it so it's never really caught on. P-K3 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, it was 1992. "I only learned recently after all these years that the date and time of my own birth have always been off by one calendar day and about a half hour on the clock."[3] P-K3 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you're right, I remember seeing a footnote about this years back. Not that I'm a fan of his books, but Bill Harry's George Harrison Encyclopedia (p. 390) might be a better source (for an FA). Harry mentions Harrison saying he recently discovered that 24 Feb was the correct date in his December 1992 Billboard interview with Timothy White. Doesn't reproduce the above quote, unfortunately; but it could well be in the 2020 book by Ashley Kahn, George Harrison on George Harrison: Interviews and Encounters. I'm pretty sure the latter includes the transcript from the '92 interview – will look it up soon. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That infobox picture

As several people have pointed out in the past on here, the infobox picture of George is not the most flattering picture of him. I think we should use the picture of George from 1963, it is a much better photo of him. While the other former Beatles don't use infobox pictures as early in the Beatles' career, we don't have any high quality pictures of George from his solo career. I looked through all the George photos we currently have on Wikimedia and found this to be the most suitable one for an infobox.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been among those complaining about the 1974 image, but I don't think the the 1963 shot is any better. I think it's worse, actually. JG66 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I respect your opinion. Which shot do you think should be used instead? --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's been an ongoing thing for years – and why I (and others, I think) got excited about a 1991 live pic we had here for a while. Problem was, that turned out to have been added as a free image but it wasn't free. I think the 1974 picture is the best one available. There are no end of great photos of George Harrison out there – online, in books, in Pattie Boyd exhibitions – but none of them are free images. JG66 (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand. Guess we'll just have to let it be. --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

UK English

@JG66: I think you have reverted UK English in my last edit, I make the space like the other. Please look at it again.--Riquix (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC) OK sorry unauthorised reverted was right, but the space is it not like the other ones.--Riquix (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

TM and the Maharishi

It says in para 2: “ Having initiated the band's embracing of Transcendental Meditation in 1967, …. [Harrison] …” But reading the excellent ‘Background and introduction to the Maharishi’ section of The Beatles in Bangor article, that may very well not be true. It was- according to Boyd - Boyd herself who ‘discovered’ TM, and told Harrison about it. Then there are two versions of how the Beatles were introduced to the Maharishi (at the Park Lane Hilton). Neither are directly in accordance with the statement in this article’s lede. Boscaswell talk 09:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It was Harrison, whether through his wife or not, who introduced the Beatles – his bandmates – to TM. I mean, someone else suggested TM to Boyd, who then told her husband about it because they were both searching, so to speak. It's not as if Boyd told, say, Lennon and Starr about it first, she just enthused about her experiences to Harrison. I don't see the problem here. If we were talking about the Beatles and the London avant-garde scene, we would say of Paul McCartney: "Having initiated the band's interest in the London avant-garde scene in 1966 ..." But strictly speaking, it was Barry Miles and Peter Asher who introduced the Beatles to A-G, because they introduced it to McCartney. JG66 (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Drug use —> Hinduism …

In the Hinduism subsection of the Personal life section we have: “ Harrison's use of psychedelic drugs encouraged his path to meditation and Hinduism.” followed by a long quote from Harrison which implies in a rather confused way that drug use lead to his intense spirituality and that was that. The section goes on to *not* mention something which features in The Beatles in Bangor’s Background section, which is that Harrison stopped using LSD after visiting Haight Ashbury and seeing druggy down and outs, to avoid people saying that the Beatles were a bad influence. Other Beatles followed. So Harrison deliberately stopped his LSD use at around the time they met the Maharishi, well probably just before they met him in London and then Bangor, and way before they all went to India. The quote from Harrison is informative but can also be read as suggesting that drugs and spiritual expansion went hand in hand for Harrison. That may have been so at the inception of his pursuance of Hinduism, but later, definitely not. Boscaswell talk 10:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that part of the narrative could be more cohesive. Do you have a suggested text change? --Laser brain (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


Suggested text to resolve Hinduism section RE drugs. This puts the mid-60s drug use in context as a "catalyst for early pursuance" and provides a contrasting second quote for balance. I also suggest that we get rid of the Cliff Richard paragraph at the end. It's only tangentially relevant, cites Ian Inglis in-text out of nowhere, and begs the question what religion Cliff Richard was before his "conversion".

Harrison's experiences with LSD in the mid-1960s served as a catalyst for his early pursuance of Hinduism. In a 1977 interview, George recalled:

For me, it was like a flash. The first time I had acid, it just opened up something in my head that was inside of me, and I realized a lot of things. I didn't learn them because I already knew them, but that happened to be the key that opened the door to reveal them. From the moment I had that, I wanted to have it all the time – these thoughts about the yogis and the Himalayas, and Ravi's music.[1]

However, Harrison stopped using LSD after a disenchanting experience in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, recounting in Anthology:

That was the turning point for me – that’s when I went right off the whole drug cult and stopped taking the dreaded lysergic acid. I had some in a little bottle – it was liquid. I put it under a microscope, and it looked like bits of old rope. I thought that I couldn’t put that into my brain any more.[2]

Date and place of death

The existing source for date of death is this: [3] The document is this one. But as the location given, 1971 Coldwater Canyon, is claimed by Norman 2017, p. 733. not to exist, this seems to be potentially confusing. It's also a primary source. So maybe a better source for date of death could be found? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC) p.s. the story behind the fake address, used by Gavin de Becker, is given here. Surely that was a criminal offence?

References

  1. ^ Glazer 1977, p. 41.
  2. ^ Anthology 2000.
  3. ^ Harry 2003, p. 119: Harrison's date of death; "George Harrison's Death Certificate". The Smoking Gun. Archived from the original on 28 June 2012. Retrieved 22 June 2012.
The place of death was amended in 2002: https://findadeath.com/wp-content/uploads/directory/g/George_Harrison/dc2.jpg WWGB (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks. So, in fact, it was 9536, Heather Road. But I guess that's also a primary source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Footnote does not support the statement it footnotes

Footnote 207 (in the Footnoting of the version of this article accessed by me 11/30/2021 7:46pm US Eastern Time) is placed to support the statement that George Harrison died at a property owned by Paul McCartney. But the footnote, when followed, leads to a statement that George Harrison died somewhere else in Southern California. I don't know what the truth is, only that Footnote 207 disagrees with the statement it is invoked to support.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

1974 Dark Horse Tour doesn't have Billy Preston linked

Can someone with greater power than me make sure that the unofficial "5th Beatle" Billy f***ng Preston gets the link he deserves on his name after the reference to the 1974 Dark Horse Tour? Thanks!

Here's the link to his page even: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Preston Kholdheart (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not linked there because he's been mentioned a few times already before the paragraph on the '74 tour. As a rule, only the first appearance of a name or term receives a link. JG66 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
JG66 is correct. The guideline is at WP:OVERLINK. MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Middle name

The fact that his ODNB entry- https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-76565- simply gives "George Harrison" (no "Harold") might be worth including in the article's first note, directly after his name is given, since a citation is requested in that note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.217.17 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to mention George’s treatment at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Mn

Geri get was also treated at Mayo Clinic 97.88.228.236 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Favourite guitar The Fender Stratocaster

From 1957 untill his death the Fender Stratocaster was George Harrisons favourite guitar. When he saw Buddy Holly play the Fender Stratocaster he immidiately fell in love with it. He spent hours in the classroom painting Fender Stratocasters in the classroom instead of doing schoolwork. He was to buy a Fender Stratocaster as his first guitar But there was not one Stratocaster in the whole area of Liverpool in the fiftiees. So he ended up buying a Chech Stratocaster copy called Futurama. Later he got the opportunity to buy a Stratocaster i Hamburg But the guitarist in Rory Storm and the Hurricanes woke up earlier and bought it. This scarred George for life. In December 1964 he finally got his Fender Stratocaster and it was his main electric guitar in the Beatles from the LP help untill the Beatles ended. It was also his main guitar his whole solo career. 213.89.143.63 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth Name

George Harold Harrison named after his father Harold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Something5555 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Something5555 - There is no "Harold" on his birth certificate, so whether he was called it is heavily disputed. Moreover, your claim that he was "named after his father Harold" is totally unsourced, and, therefore, totally unacceptable - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukulele

I cannot site sources, but it's been said that the ukulele was George Harrison's favorite instrument. Notwithstanding a lack of sources, at the very least ukulele should be listed under Instruments in the Infobox section. Even better would be an article section about his relationship with the ukulele. AlvinMGO (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. That would be a secondary instrument, no body is saying he didn't play it, it's just not what he's known for. Please review Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instruments, this will explain the guideline. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Error: “initiated” embracing of TM

In lede para. 2: "Having initiated the band's embracing of Transcendental Meditation in 1967…" Wasn’t it Patti Boyd who inspired George to look into it? Then the others were led into it by George. So "initiated" is incorrect. He was the first Beatle to do so, yes. But it doesn’t say that. Boscaswell talk 03:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cliff Richard

Hey, JG66, sorry to take down your Inglis quote about Cliff Richard before. I can see you've done your due diligence and your latest edit is much cleaner. I've left it up as is for now. Perhaps, however, I can explain my logic and un-baffle you. The reason I took the Cliff passage down before is that it's unclear which religion Richard practiced prior to 1966; the word "conversion" strongly implies he was not raised Christian to begin with. Perhaps "devotion" would be clearer?

There are, after all, lots of Christians in England, most of whom were born into it. Ozzy Osbourne is a practicing Anglican who prays before every show, but we don't make note of that in George Harrison's article. Tommy James, Barry McGuire, etc.--it would be a pretty long list if we included every Christian singer who got famous in the 60s. What makes Cliff Richard's Christianity especially relevant to George's Hinduism? Were they friends or something? I ask out of sincere curiosity. Richard is not well known this side of the pond. Strangebrownbag (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Cliff Richard is not relevant, I have removed the comparison. WWGB (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation #45

Citation #45 ("How the Spanish Flu wasn't Spanish at all") does not appear to have any relevance to George Harrison. Apologies if this is not the proper place to point this out. Jwkennedy651 (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

The cause of death should be added to the infobox (lung cancer, in this case). Gluepix (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Template:Infobox person Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability - FlightTime (open channel) 01:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

George’s Brother Harry

I’m having trouble trying to decide if he is alive or not. On one hand, the website “FindAGrave”, claimed that he died in February of 1999. However, he and his brother Peter were interviewed and featured in the 2011 documentary called “Living In The Material World”, which was about George Mashpotatofries29 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Without a very reliable source Wikipedia cannot report that someone is dead, per WP:BLP. Without that, it's best to leave it out. It's not terribly important anyway. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Mental illness

Michael Abrams, who attacked Harrison at Friar Park in 1999, has been described as "suffering from paranoid schizophrenia" in the article for more than five years.[4] Recently, two editors have described Abrams as "a 34-year-old paranoid schizophrenic", asserting the previous expression was "too wordy". Society has progressed beyond the point where we label an individual solely in terms of a mental illness. Abrams was not merely a "paranoid schizophrenic" but a person affected by that condition. I have attempted to restore the longstanding expression per WP:QUO but I have been reverted. I seek the input of other editors. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference in the meaning of "suffering from paranoid schizophrenia" and "paranoid schizophrenic". The only difference is the number of words and quality of sentence structure. A schizophrenic has schizophrenia. A hemophiliac has hemophilia. We don't have to say "suffering from hemophilia" because the meaning is exactly the same. We're not "labeling" the hemophiliac; we're simply saying it in a different way. An "alcoholic" has alcoholism. If you've ever attended an AA meeting, you have heard many alcoholics say "I'm an alcoholic", not "I suffer from alcoholism". Using "schizophrenic" to describe someone with schizophrenia is quite common, both in general usage and terminology used by professionals. In my work I've heard dozens of well-functioning schizophrenics say "I'm schizophrenic". They not "labeling" themselves; they're using the common terminology. They know they are schizophrenic, and they're not offended by the word "schizophrenic". You're splitting hairs over wording at the expense of quality of writing style. But thank you for seeking consensus instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think a circumlocutory label is any less of a label. All using a circumlocution does is advance the euphemism treadmill. A person affected by paranoid schizophrenia is exactly a paranoid schizophrenic. —Kodiologist (t) 12:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Index

We need an index 2601:80:C781:7050:FD25:A5D:583D:85B3 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

An index of what? WWGB (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Smoking - Cause of death

Harrison himself admitted his heavy smoking caused his cancer and his death. This should be more prominent. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-87109/Ex-Beatle-blamed-smoking-cancer.html 2605:59C8:1882:1410:9164:E85F:95F:1850 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:DAILYMAIL, the Daily Mail is not a WP:Reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Harrison/Archive_6&oldid=1216685359"