Talk:Please Please Me (song)

Single cover

Where did the cover picture originate from? The original UK Parlophone release didn't have a picture cover. Is it the early 80s reissue? 217.155.20.163 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the image description, US Vee-Jay single cover. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. It's a 1964 American picture sleeve. If someone has the original 1963 red-label Parlophone 45 label with the centre push-out intact, that would be the best thing to use in the infobox. If so, don't delete the picture sleeve, because it can be used elsewhere in the article. Cheemo 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beattles.jpg

Image:Beattles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the rationale. Disputing this image in this article is ridiculous. Editorial: The fair-use police are hopelessly out of control and make Wikipedia worse, not better. John Cardinal 03:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the formal fair use rationale box. Feel free to add to it. Steelbeard1 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I thought that would be necessary but I also figured that expanding the rationale would be enough to get rid of the disputed tag and thus save the image from imminent deletion. The combination should should really put this issue to bed, but we'll see I guess. John Cardinal 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:01 Pleasepleaseme.jpg

Image:01 Pleasepleaseme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Beatles Bible Website.

The author of this site uses most of the published stuff that we (Wikipedia editors) all use, or could get access to. Rather than use third party citations, which is what happens when citing this website, we should actually get as close to a verifiable source as possible, (ie page numbers etc) and use that instead. --Patthedog (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

¿Anthology 1 is Wrong?

It's wrong that the single reached No. 1 even when anthology says that it did it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.183.33.94 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1982 re-release

Why isn't this mentioned? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"first real oral sex pop song"

What does the following, uncited passage actually mean? Until this is clearer and sourced, it should stay out

"Please Please Me" is cited as the "first real oral sex pop song" in Tim Riley's 1999 book about The Beatles' discography. He credits two Beatles-era writers for the first such observation, Robert Christgau and John Piccarella. Riley also notes the lyric's (call and responses) "c'mon, c'mon," and points out the song "closes the side [of the album] ignoring the conventional practice of putting the hit up front, and fleshing out the album with weaker material.""

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Note #90 (on page 256) of John McMillian's book "Beatles vs. Stones" references the Christgau and Picarella 1981 Village Voice article that makes this point. The VV article is not available online, but the note is available as a link. Through the years, there were several rumors about this song's sexual meaning, but very few of them are actually documented or verified. It's in the same category as "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" being a drug reference.

UUbuntu (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The Beatles. Please, Please Me single image. NOT '1963 issue' as stated.

Hi Guys

The image shown is not a 1963 issue copy of Please, Please Me as stated.

The 'diamond' sleeve is a correct 1st issue. However, the image of the vinyl label shows this is likely to be a 1982 press from the reissue blue and gold box set.

This 1982 press came with a picture sleeve.

Rockchef (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect info

I have come across some incorrect information and it seriously needs to be removed from the article: Geoff Emerick claimed in his book that he witnessed Mal Evans set up Ringo's drum kit on the 11th of September 1962 to record Please Please Me, but this is impossible, because a) Mal wasn't working with The Beatles then and b) Geoff wasn't even present, let alone working, at the day's session, and furthermore, The Beatles didn't even meet Mal until early 1963 when he was working as a telephone engineer in Liverpool.

Another factual error is Andy White saying that he drummed on the single version of the song, but that is not true, because the version that he drummed on, as heard on Anthology 1, has much faster fills compared to Ringo's unique staggered style, and the final version, which appeared both on the original UK 45 and LP, was recorded in November 1962 and with Ringo rightly on the drums.

Geoff's book was full of factual errors and patently fabricated stories, which even extended to sessions that he actually didn't work on, so that book shouldn't be used as a source for the article.

124.171.36.190 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, not one person's opinions. Emerick is a reliable source for The Beatles, and you have provided no source whatsoever. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not my opinion, but rather, I am trying to state facts and just because Geoff wrote a book, it doesn't make it 100% infallible or accurate. I have some other sources courtesy of Robert Rodriguez and Geoff himself admitted in a 1979 interview that he was unable to remember lots of details regarding his Beatles sessions while Ken Scott stated that Geoff clearly had little recollection and much of the book's content was fabricated stories.

The second source you cite is self-published and not a reliable source. The link to the third source is a dead link; also note that Angelfire hosts many blogs, which are not reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References