This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Cardinal (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 21 February 2010 (→Harrison's cancers: see article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:08, 21 February 2010 by John Cardinal (talk | contribs) (→Harrison's cancers: see article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Harrison article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | George Harrison has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 Archives |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Problem edits
Dmerkurev1 (talk · contribs) (also editing as 76.168.6.32 (talk · contribs)) has repeatedly added a nonsequiter "#1 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" in the middle of the second sentence of the lead. I have tried to get this editor to seek assistance writing because the edit makes no sense, disrupts the sentence, is not confirmed by the sources, and likely does not belong in the article at all. But he refuses to discuss. If someone could please remove this, as I am at the 3RR limit. And if someone can get Dmerkurev1 to cooperate by discussing on the talk page what he is trying to say, it might avoid problems in the future. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- yes, discussion here on the talk page is definitely the way to do this, not edit warring. if Dmerkurev1 wants to try to clarify here on the talk page what he/she is trying to say maybe someone can be of some help. until he/she explains what he/she's trying to say, all i can guess is that he/she wants the article to mention that the Beatles were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (not as "#1", though!). that seems more pertinent to the article on The Beatles (where it's already mentioned), but if it belongs anywhere in the Harrison article it should go in the "Honours" section, not the lead. and obviously it would need to be adequately worded. Sssoul (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Knife Attack
I was thinking about improving the section of the article discussing George Harrison's knife attack. Previously it has been difficult for the general public to obtain detailed information about this unfortunate experience, mostly owing to Mr. Harrison's increased seclusion immediately afterward. However, in a somewhat recently published diary written by Harrison's friend Eric Idle (of Monty Python fame), to whom George confided many things, the knife attack is told in full detail. The two men were apparently quite close, and Mr. Idle and his wife were invited to visit Harrison and his wife shortly after the attack. At this meeting Harrison related the complete story, with all the horrible, dramatic details, which Idle subsequently documented and published (in his blog, and then later in his book "The Greedy Bastard Diary: A Comic Tour of America", pp 277-278, Eric Idle, Harper Entertainment, 2005, ISBN 0-06-075864-3). It occurred to me that probably most people have not heard the details of this story because they have not read Idle's book, which is no longer in print, and which is probably the best documented evidence of this event, an event that was obviously an important moment in the life of this Beatle (perhaps equal in importance as the cause of John Lennon's death, for example). For all these reasons, I was considering putting the pertenant details of the knife attack as documented in the book here, in this Misplaced Pages article. What does everyone else think? prhartcom (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I am also suggesting the following four edits. Doing these edits will: a) reorder a few facts and details on the page, presenting them in a somewhat more chronological order, and b) provide a place to insert the new section: "Knife Attack". What does everyone else think? The suggested edits are:
1. Remove the paragraph: "In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack" from the section: "Later life: 1988-2001". This is done because parts of this paragraph will be incorporated into the new section: "Knife Attack" (see below).
2. Split the section "Personal Life and Death" into two sections; the first: "Personal Life" and the second: "Death". The first section would end just before the current paragraph: "Harrison developed throat cancer" and the second would begin with this paragraph. This is done because a new section: "Knife Attack" will appear between these two sections.
3. The new section: "Knife Attack" is ~280 words. It is properly cited. It is inserted between section: "Personal Life" and the section: "Death".
Optional: 4. Remove the sub-section title: "Friendship with Eric Clapton" and incorporate this paragraph into the secion above it: "Personal Life". This is done because there is no need to call out this particular personal life detail (i.e. we do not call out the paragraph documenting the friendship with Eric Idle). prhartcom (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- all of the above sounds reasonable, but it's hard to feel very convinced without seeing the proposed new paragraph/section - the topic of the attack needs a light touch, i think; for me it's important to bear in mind that there are no doubt reasons the details have not been made very public. so it would be helpful if you could show us the new section here on the talk page before making the changes to the article.
- meanwhile i've always considered the "personal life and death" header awkward (i understand why "and death" was added, but it sounds unfortunately like it means "personal death", as opposed to what?) and i agree that separating his friendship with Clapton into its own subsection seems odd. so those aspects of your suggestion make sense to me. Sssoul (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your encouragement Sssoul. Here is the paragraph. I have included every detail as related by George to his friend, but I have actually toned it down and used non-dramatic verbs and adjectives, etc. Here it is, and I appreciate your thoughts.prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home. At 3:30 AM on 30 December, an intruder broke a window of George and Olivia Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames. The intruder, Michael Abram, began loudly calling to Harrison to come downstairs, waking the couple. George left their bedroom to investigate as the intruder continued to call for George. Having telephoned the police, Olivia left their bedroom with a fireplace poker to find her husband on their upstairs hallway floor and the intruder repeatedly stabbing him with a seven-inch kitchen knife. She struck the intruder on the head a total of fifteen times with the poker until he finally turned on her and knocked her over. Olivia lost the poker, recovered, and retreated to the bedroom where the man followed her. Although stabbed, George was able to get up and go to his wife’s aid. Facing the intruder, Olivia picked up a large Tiffany lamp and began to hit the man over the head again. The man took the cord of the lamp and turned on Olivia in an attempt to strangle her with it. She fled downstairs in search of their larger, heavier fireplace poker. The man then raised the Tiffany lamp and hit George over the head with it. George, fatiguing at this point, could only put up his feet in an attempt to stop several more blows. The attacker then left the bedroom and staggered downstairs to find Olivia, but finally collapsed on their balcony, remaining there until the police arrived. The attack had lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Abram would later receive twenty-two stitches in his head. George suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds, and head injuries.
- 35-year-old Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention. Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.
- thanks for using the talk page for this - i appreciate that you've toned it down but in my opinion it's way too much detail for encyclopedia purposes (even for a talk page, actually). Sssoul (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome; and I respect you very much; I am greatly appreciative of your comments. I wonder what others thoughts are, if we were to wait for them to also respond? You say "even for a talk page" after you asked me to include this here in the talk page, which I find odd. But I hear all too clearly what you say and I do agree; perhaps we can tone it down even more. It was certainly a tragedy in this great man's life and is hard to face these details head-on. But surely we the public have already waited a respectful amount of time and now we do have a right to know these details? Read John Lennon's article and you will see similar horrible details in the section discussing the end of his life; which I am grateful to have. Or do you mean too much detail for any article in any encyclopedia? Surely not, don't articles require detail? Anyway, as you can tell I appreciate you Sssoul and wonder if you would like to have a go editing my new paragraph yourself and post it here; I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prhartcom (talk • contribs) 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Another way of putting it: This unfortunate event happened. It is the truth. (Unless either man is lying and I don't believe either has a reason to do so, and that just leaves me and I certainly am not lying.) Unfortunately, this event is made up of many smaller events and it takes a few words to tell this correctly. These smaller events (the details) are what we are saying have a good chance of being lost to the world. But the important thing is to not hide the truth. The truth must be documented. Not much more can be removed from this paragraph without snipping away at factual truth. Please everyone, I respect your opinion; please respond with your thoughts, and then I can add this to the main article.prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for being open to other people's views. yes, i suggested you post it on the talk page first, so that people could form an opinion, and now that i see it my opinion is that it's too much detail. just because it was horrendous doesn't mean this one incident should be recounted here in more detail than anything else in the man's life; we don't need to report every blow or what type of lamp it was.
- i too hope other editors will give their views on this. when i have more time (later this week i hope) i can try editing it a bit - thanks for the invitation. Sssoul (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point about the lamp, ha, good catch. I want to do the right thing here. Yes, let us ensure together this story is in balance with the rest of the story of this man's life. I look forward to your edit, and to the comments of anyone else who wishes to chime in. Thanks to all.prhartcom (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) sorry it took me a while to find the time for this, but below is my proposal for an edit. i propose putting the incident in its proper place in the "personal life" chronology, not making a separate section of it. i hope Prhartcom will see my points: going into any more detail in this article risks "glorifying" the attack, which no one here wants to do; we also don't want an encyclopedia article to seem lurid. providing the reference to Idle's book will direct interested readers to where they can locate more details if they require them. anyway, here's my proposal:
- In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home. At 3:30 AM on 30 December 1999 Michael Abram broke a window of the Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames and began loudly calling to Harrison to come downstairs. Harrison left the bedroom to investigate while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police. Abram stabbed Harrison multiple times with a seven-inch kitchen knife, puncturing a lung before Olivia incapacitated him with a fireplace poker. Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention. Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.
i hope other editors will let Prhartcom and me know what you think. Sssoul (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me.--Designquest10 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comparing the existing paragraph with the new proposed shows a difference of sixteen words, an improvement of approximately a sentence and a half. Hardly worth it. But suggesting it remain buried in another section goes too far and is highly suspect. I urge us all to realize this Knife Attack was quite an important event in George Harrison's life and is a part of history. I'm sorry it's lurid; I wish it wasn't. I propose the following; please do tell me what you think: 1) Go ahead and publish this smaller edit into the article, but in its own section. 2) Create a new article about this event, which will contain the missing detail.prhartcom (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- ... his friendship with Clapton was an important aspect of his life and it doesn't require its own section, right? the same applies here, in my opinion. and expanding the paragraph - by however many words are required for a concise and encyclopedic account of the incident - isn't "burying" it; if the incident weren't of any importance it wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all.
- it would be great if you would retract your accusation about "highly suspect" motives - my motivation is to keep the article well written, well balanced and encyclopedic. i assume that's your motivation as well.
- let's wait a couple of days in hopes some of the other editors who frequent this page will express their views about how to proceed, okay? thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My view is that the relationship with Eric Clapton is very notable - the knife attack less so. The Clapton relationship had an impact not just on Harrison's personal life, but also on his creative - from the time of The Beatles through his solo career. The knife attack occured later in his life, and though it had an impact, it was of lesser overall significance. Various means of judging this are - Google hits: "george harrison" + "Eric clapton" = 761,000 hits; "george harrison" + "knife attack" = 622 hits. The friendship is mentioned in several books; somewhat fewer mention the knife attack. The friendship with Idle while not quite as notable as the friendship with Eric Clapton is certainly more notable than the knife attack. I suggest that the Friendship with Eric Clapton section be restored, and that the existing knife attack details remain as they are. Further details would be excessive and out of balance with the article. The paragraph, though, could be usefully moved from the current section to the personal details section. SilkTork * 09:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a separate section for the knife attack; it should just be covered in the relevant section of his bio career. I think the description of it should be a bit longer that the Sssoul version but not as detailed as the Prhartcom version. I don't think there should be a separate section for the Clapton friendship either, but instead it should be covered in the relevant sections of his bio career and personal life. I think in general the sectioning in this article has often gone back and forth across the chronology too much and makes it hard for the reader to understand the flow of Harrison's life. That's why I think the attack belongs in a chrono bio section, not personal life. But every change to the sectioning I ever made here got reverted by SilkTork, so what I think hasn't had much effect on the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- My thanks to everyone: Sssoul, Wasted Time R, and SilkTork. I was hoping you last two would weigh in and I appreciate you doing so. I respect all of you since you edit Misplaced Pages more than me. Sorry about the motives comment. I think we can come to a consensus now and then I can finally add this event to the article. Tell me what you think:
- 1) We keep the Knife Attack inside another section as everyone has suggested, as giving it its own section gives this event more importance than it deserves. As Sssoul has suggested, that section should be Personal Life, and in the appropriate chronological location there, and which section is just before the section Death (the section where the event is mentioned currently seems to be about the man's career; if this event were to be located there it does not drive home that this event took place shortly before the man's death). Note: I always wanted a separate section because I could not find mention of this event in the article when I first went looking for it.
- 2) We keep the Knife Attack well under the original 280 words, as more detail would be out of balance with the rest of the article, but as Wasted Time R has suggested it should be a few more words than the last edit which adds only 16. Note: I always wanted more detail because the sole source of this detail was already out of print. My Final Proposal: We use the edit proposed by Sssoul, actually removing a few words about the "lung" and "downstairs", and inserting the following: "The attack lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Abram would later receive twenty-two stitches in his head. George suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds, and head injuries. "
- 3) We leave the Eric Clapton relationship inside another section as Wasted Time R and I have suggested and as Sssoul has agreed. It does seem to deserve its own section but doing so seems to disrupt the chronological flow. This topic may need to be re-examined in the near future, as this whole article may need slightly better chronological flow, but I believe we are improving that now. Ta. prhartcom (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for weighing in on this, SilkTork and Wasted Time R. and thanks for proposing a further compromise, Prhartcom. it sounds like we're on a good track, but: i feel that the number of stitches Abram got is not relevant to this article, and even sounds like the reader is supposed to feel sorry for him or something, so i'd be very grateful to leave that bit out. and wikipedia style calls for us to avoid first-name-only references outside of direct quotes, so the last sentence proposed would need to read "Harrison suffered a punctured lung, seven stab wounds and head injuries." Sssoul (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. And good to know about the first-name-only references; thanks for that. prhartcom (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The new cited reference includes the books.google.com link to the Idle book, unfortunately however the relevant pages are not part of the Google preview. prhartcom (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) thanks for making the change - i edited that one sentence a little to avoid repetition of the phrase "multiple times". in fact since the number of stab wounds is specified in a subsequent sentence, we might reduce redundancy even further by doing something like this:
- In late 1999 Harrison survived a knife attack by an intruder in his home. At 3:30 AM on 30 December 1999 Michael Abram broke into the Harrisons' Friar Park home in Henley-on-Thames and began loudly calling to Harrison. Harrison left the bedroom to investigate while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police. Abram attacked Harrison with a seven-inch kitchen knife, inflicting seven stab wounds, puncturing a lung and causing head injuries before Olivia incapacitated the assailant by striking him repeatedly with a fireplace poker. The attack lasted approximately fifteen minutes. 35-year-old Abram, who believed he was possessed by Harrison and was on a "mission from God" to kill him, was later acquitted of attempted murder on grounds of insanity, but was detained for treatment in a secure hospital. He was released in 2002 after 19 months detention. Traumatized by the invasion and attack, Harrison rarely appeared in public afterwards.
does that work all right? again, my aim is to smooth out the redundancy, not to reduce the word count. Sssoul (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that first redundancy, I like it; then I was sorry to see that the discussion is not over yet when I realized I like your new edit too. Give me some time to consider it and I will more than likely make that change.
- BTW, I must say I am really happy with including the "fifteen minutes" sentence; that really does take the place of all that detail I had originally; the reader can only imagine what must have happened during that extended amount of time (try imagining an attack on yourself lasting that long!) prhartcom (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- thanks Prhartcom. the only other points i'd work on are minor finetuning:
- technically i reckon we should say "before Olivia Harrison incapacitated the assailant" to avoid referring to her by first name only (in "while his wife, Olivia, phoned the police" it's justified, but the second time it's less clear that we have any reason for lapsing into informality/familiarity. (that one's my fault, sorry!)
- the other odd bit has i guess been in the article for a long time: "Traumatized by the invasion and attack" - but "invasion" isn't really an appropriate word for a break-in, and "intrusion" doesn't work either. "Traumatized by the attack"? "Traumatized by the incident"? Sssoul (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK sure, perhaps we can change the second Olivia to "Mrs. Harrison"; I was wondering about that also, and I rather like the word "invasion" but we can change it to "break-in" if you believe it is better. You can take over completely from here on without discussion if you like, as I know you take the best care of this article. (This discussion is probably approaching the length of the entire article.) I am double-checking the existing and other sources regarding the attack and am finding a few minor quibbles; if I find any facts that need to be corrected I may also make the correction without discussion unless they are major changes. prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- thanks Prhartcom. the only other points i'd work on are minor finetuning:
- it's always a bit tricky when writing about two people with the same surname, but "Mrs Harrison" wouldn't fit wikipedia's style - it would need to be "Olivia Harrison". i'll keep trying to think of a more graceful way to do it, but in the meantime i'll make that change and the "break-in" one. Sssoul (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Section break for "chronological flow" discussion
Just a note that "chronological flow" can be very helpful, but is not necessarily the way that encyclopedia articles are always constructed - certainly not throughout the article. This guide is useful. Bear in mind that people are looking for information - they are not settling down to read a biography, they are looking for an overview (the Lead) and then specific details which can be found in the relevant sections (such as Personal life and Live performances). SilkTork * 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in that guide that pertains to whether BLPs should be organized chronologically or by subject area. Nor do I think your assertion that users "are not settling down to read a biography" is necessarily accurate. People live their lives in time sequence, with something happening in area A at time T quite possibly affecting something happening in area B at time T + 1 (for example, how did the home attack change Harrison's music career or business activities? how did the breakup of this first marriage affect his songwriting? etc) Real biographies are almost always written in chrono order, for just this reason. I see our BLPs as short biographies that can take the same approach. With a good table of contents and some obvious reference sections (discography, filmography, election histories for politicians, etc), the reader can jump around or look up information that they are specifically interested in as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the points you raise, Wasted Time R. At one point I sat down and read this whole article. This is a well-written article which probably needs a better table of contents; that is to say it probably needs more sections and sub-sections--and then they should each be arranged chronologically. But I am not the expert at writing biographies. I just checked the WP:MOSBIO and WP:BIOG and neither speak on this. prhartcom (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
His guitars
didn't he play on a Gibson SG on the beatles' rain and hey bulldog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.104.117 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- this fine site has details about that SG - i don't think it's the aim of this wikipedia bio to mention every guitar George used, but if you feel like adding a sentence about the SG (to the "Guitar work" section, not to the infobox!) maybe that site could serve as a reference. that site certainly deserves to be listed among the references and/or "further reading". Sssoul (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- update: i've just undone an addition of the SG to the "notable instruments" section of the infobox. the "notable instruments" section of the infobox is not meant to list every guitar in his arsenal. the SG may be worth mentioning in the "guitar work" section of the article, but it is not particularly notable and (as noted above) should not be in the infobox. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
instruments
harrison also could play the drums, henche him recording also drum tracks for back in the USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.251.157 (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Lewisohn in the Sessions book claims that Paul, George and John all may have contributed to the drum track on this song....(?). Radiopathy •talk• 06:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I always thought it was just Paul (sounds like it) but this is interesting because see the careful detail on this in the sadly unsourced second paragraph of Back_in_the_ussr#Problems_in_the_band. I wonder where this comes from. At any rate, if this is about whether to include drums among Harrison's skills, I would think the answer is no. Even if he did have a go once or twice, that wouldn't make it notable under instruments played. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's doubtful that George played drums on any Beatles song - or at any other time. Radiopathy •talk• 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Harrison's cancers
George's lung cancer was not the result of his throat cancer spreading. His death certificate says he died of metastatic lung cancer, meaning that the primary tumour was in the lung, and that that tumour metasticised to other parts of the body. The throat cancer had probably been cured. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The above comment has no supporting references or documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy92834 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- That info is in the article and supported with citations. See the "Death" section. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Guitars
What about George's Duo Jet? He used it quite a lot durnig the early 60s and was still using it when The Beatles broke America. Should be included. Radiopathy •talk• 19:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- it is mentioned - see the "Guitar work" section of the article. (if you mean it should be in the "notable instruments" section of the info box, the creators of that field often point out that it's "not meant to be a gear list" - it's for really *really* outstanding instruments.) Sssoul (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I was referring to the infobox; George is seen in many pictures of early Beatlemania playing the Duo Jet; i feel that it's at least as notable as the Let it Be Tele. Radiopathy •talk• 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- my own strongest feeling about the field is that it should be kept as brief as possible. to me the Duo Jet is less "iconic" than the three listed - but Harrison is one of the musicians whose every guitar is notable just by virtue of his having played it, which can make it difficult to decide where to draw the "notability" line. i hope some other editors will chime in with their views. Sssoul (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
the April 92 concert
we've had B and R, so it's time for some D: i've edited down the account of George's last full concert to what's supported by the source cited, and hope any further changes to that bit can be discussed here - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought there was way too much uncited detail in the previous entry and your edit is much better. One problem: the source does not support that it was Harrison's last full concert. I've left that in, but it should be marked as unsourced or removed. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Closest friendships
Is it all right if we add back "and Eric Idle" to the sentence "He was close friends with Eric Clapton" in the lead? From Idle's biography it appears he was Harrison's dearest friend in the latter decades of Harrison's life, while Clapton was clearly just as dear a friend in the decades prior. Those two men were probably the sum total of his closest friends, and apparently consecutively so. prhartcom (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- ... i guess i don't see why it's important enough to be in the lead - did the friendship with Idle have some impact on Harrison's creative output or ...? and is it a biography of Idle or his autobiography that this perception is from? Sssoul (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is Idle's Autobiography I refer to, which I mention in the Knife Attack discussion above. I don't think the friendship between the two men had an impact on Harrison's creativity at this point in his life nor should one have anything to do with the other. The article documents the friendship appropriately and I am simply suggesting it is of equal importance to Harrison's earlier close friendship with Clapton. Thanks for your consideration. prhartcom (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- thanks for clarifying. i think it's fine to mention the friendship in the article, but also think it's appropriate that it isn't in the lead. it might belong in the lead of Idle's article, if his autobiography indicates that the friendship was a major factor in his life, but that doesn't necessarily mean the impact was mutual, you know? i hope other editors will add their views. Sssoul (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right. Idle may be lying. prhartcom (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- ... i didn't say he is or may be lying. yes autobiographies have a natural tendency to be subjective, but i have no reason to think Idle's autobiography presents anything other than his genuine perceptions. it just isn't clear to me why his friendship with Harrison belongs in this article's lead. are there other books that mention it as a particularly important factor in Harrison's life? it would be great if some other editors would add their views on this - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure the "He was a close friend of..." sentence even belongs in the Lead myself, but FWIW, Bill Harry's George Harrison Encyclopedia has an entry for Idle, which starts with the words "...who became one of George's close friends. He was invited to induct George into the Hollywood Bowl Hall of Fame on 28 June 2002". PL290 (talk)
the associated acts field
we've discussed this before, but it's been archived; we might as well establish what the current consensus is. the documentation for Template:Infobox musical artist says:
- Associated_acts: This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career. This field can include, for example, any of the following:
- For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
- Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
- Groups which have spun off from this group
- A group from which this group has spun off
- The following uses of this field should be avoided:
- Association of groups with members' solo careers
- Groups with only one member in common
- Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
- One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
- Groups that are merely similar
the way i read that, the groups Harrison was a member of belong in this field, but neither Clapton nor Lynne fit. i am cognizant that Clapton and Harrison collaborated on various tracks over the decades, but did they release any joint albums, or appear as a duo or tour together? to me, that's what would make them "associated acts". as for Lynne, outside of the Traveling Wilburys, Lynne's main work with Harrison was as a producer, and that's explicitly mentioned as not what this field is meant for.
but it's often the case that these "generic instructions" can be difficult to apply to the highly exceptional careers of artists like Harrison and Clapton. it would be good to hear what other editors think about who should be regarded as George's "associated acts". Sssoul (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- My interpretation is the same: acts who collaborate in a work only credited to the main artist are not acting as acts but as session musicians so are not relevant for this purpose. PL290 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
those professional names in the infobox
can we put the names in the "alias" field of the infobox in some kind of sensible order, please and thank you? chronological order would be nice, starting with Carl Harrison ... but then as i was trying to confirm the chronology of some of the others, i realized that several of them are not mentioned at all in the article. the infobox isn't actually supposed to include stuff that isn't in the article, is it? it would be good to fix that; and meanwhile maybe we can put those names in order. Carl Harrison was the earliest; L'Angelo Misterioso was 1970; Hari Georgeson was first used in 1973 i guess? Sssoul (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- ... someone who edits here must know the history of those aliases - at least i sure hope someone does! i've rearranged the three mentioned above; could we make sure the rest are in chronological order, please and thank you, and see if we can work them into the appropriate sections of the article? Sssoul (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Birth date may be 24 February
Bill Harry seems to have changed his mind between 2000 and 2003. In his Beatles Encyclopedia, on p. 492, he says 25 February, which the article cites along with Harrison's birth certificate. However, in his 2003 George Harrison Encyclopedia, on p. 52, Harry says 24 February, adding, "For most of his life he believed that he'd been born on 25 February." It sounds as though the wrong date was entered on the birth certificate and it should be 24 February, and this came to light later. Without further elaboration I'm loth to change anything but I'll watch out for more info on this - anyone else have anything about it? PL290 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- It should not be changed. Birth certificates can be wrong, but people—especially the person concerned—are far less reliable. Harrison evidently admitted that his "correction" to the 24th was a joke, though I've never seen it. In any case, there's no good reason to disbelieve the contemporary documentation. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cream template
Should we really have the template for Cream at the bottom even though George Harrison wasn't even in the group? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- it's there because of the track "Badge". i agree that it doesn't belong there. Sssoul (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed it. 174.0.46.168 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Birth name in infobox
A recent edit removed George Harrison's birth name from the infobox. The reasoning was that it's unneeded since it matches the article title. At first this made sense, to simplify the infobox. But after further thought, it could be interpreted that if the birth name is not listed it is unknown. I haven't found a guideline one way or the other. What do other editors think? CuriousEric (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- i concur that it's unnecessary when the birth name is the same as the article's title. Sssoul (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Music good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class The Beatles articles
- Top-importance The Beatles articles
- GA-Class George Harrison articles
- GA-Class Apple Corps and Apple Records articles
- WikiProject The Beatles articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Top-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class guitarist articles
- WikiProject Guitarists articles
- GA-Class Rock music articles
- High-importance Rock music articles
- WikiProject Rock music articles
- GA-Class Hinduism articles
- Low-importance Hinduism articles
- GA-Class Krishnaism articles
- Low-importance Krishnaism articles
- GA-Class Merseyside articles
- Top-importance Merseyside articles
- WikiProject Merseyside articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English