Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles Mid‑importance This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Image:The White Album.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 03:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since other songs had this section, I´m gonna add it, according to Lewishon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 00:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202101752/http://www.mojocovercds.com/cd/306 to http://www.mojocovercds.com/cd/306

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JG66. I saw you recently removed ([1] [2]) Joe Goodden's book as a source due to it being self-published. I'm not clear on whether this is true, as Pepper & Pearl (run by AllMusic) is not included on the list of self-published sources, nor does it describe itself on its website as a self-publishing service, though I agree it is not a well established publisher. With that said, I think that even if we take it to be a self-published source, it still meets Wikipedia's criteria for its use, as laid out at WP:USESPS. Erin Torkelson Weber, who, as far as I am aware, is the only qualified historian to have written about Beatles historiography, wrote a glowing review on her blog, where she reviews books published too late to have made it into her 2016 book, The Beatles and the Historians. If you'll indulge me, here are some choice quotations regarding the source's validty:

Joe Goodden's Riding So High: The Beatles and Drugs (2017), proves itself to be an essential new work in Beatles historiography. This is due to two major elements: the first involves the book's subject matter regarding how drug use impacted the Beatles story. ... The second involves the necessary level of objectivity displayed within the book. ... Crucially, Riding So High includes citations within the text, allowing readers to see the sources used and, in many cases, date the era and, therefore, the agenda of an interview or statement. Citing sources also allows the reader to investigate the credibility and accuracy of an interview or source. Second, on issues where contradictory accounts and interpretations exist the author provides both sides of the debate and allows the reader to decide. ... Ultimately, Riding So High provides an objective, well-documented look at how drug use infused and impacted numerous aspects of Beatles history. While not, by definition, a reference work, it would seemingly prove essential for any author wanting to know not only what drug a particular Beatle was using at a particular moment in time, but also what the commonly accepted side effects were and, in some cases, what specific impacts certain chemicals had on certain events. For this author, the importance of Goodden's work also extends into historical methods analysis: now that a documented synthesis on Beatles’ drug use is available, the element of drug use also can be incorporated into source analysis when determining the accuracy and credibility of various interviews and statements. In this way, Beatles historiography can build on itself, improving in methodology and interpretation in order to gain a more accurate understanding of the band’s story.

I think with the above in mind, we can use Goodden in good conscience, since Torkelson Weber is well trained in source analysis through her work as a historian. Tkbrett (✉) 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>Tkbrett, I'm not going to read all that, just to consider whether a self-published book on the Beatles should be considered for inclusion, and especially when its purpose here would be to support commentary on an issue that's clearly been attached to the song by a mix of failing memories, journalists looking to play up a possible drug angle, and journalists and biographers misconstruing Lennon's 1980 remarks as being about the whole song (when I believe they were about only the song title). I say "clearly" because Lennon wrote the song sometime before the Beatles gathered to work on the Esher demos in late May; he and Ono first became a couple on 19 May and, in fact, I believe that Lennon recorded his demos alone at Kenwood (before the get-together at Kinfuans) but took his tapes along, where the others contributed, and the songs were then added to Harrison's master reels. Also, Lennon said he got into heroin because of the nasty treatment he and Ono received from the other Beatles and the band's friends ... So, put all that together, and the song's written before, say, the shock, band-policy-defying appearance of Ono in the studio alongside Lennon at the first White Album session, which is 30 May (and possibly before he and Ono first got together on 19 May); and the lyrics are full of Maharish-isms learnt in Rishikesh; and the song certainly precedes his stated introduction to heroin and the cause for that (the other Beatles/friends hadn't had a chance to "reject" Yoko yet, because she hadn't annoyed them yet).

I've been trying to access the 1980 Playboy interview and read Lennon's comments about the track, without success, at google and Amazon. (Does he really say the song is about him and Ono, or is he only talking about the title? His comment "That was just a sort of nice line that I made into a song. It was about me and Yoko" could easily be read as referring only to the title – depending perhaps on the question that was put to him. Seems to me that the writer of the Rolling Stone "100 Greatest Beatles Songs" entry has taken it as Lennon referring to the whole song, though.)

There were up to 1000 books on the Beatles by the year 2000 (I read that in a review of the Anthology book – in the Guardian, Independent or Observer); so if this self-published title doesn't make it, so what? Sorry if I'm sounding impatient and dismissive, but it doesn't seem to be of any benefit to the subject. JG66 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]