Talk:Pattie Boyd/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Something" not really Pattie-inspired?

An anonymous user refuted the well-known (and well-reported) legend of Pattie Boyd inspiring "Something" and other Harrison-penned tunes, including a statement that Harrison himself denied this. However, an external link that he/she provided says nothing about this statement and appears to be a somewhat poorly-written personal website of a fan. I've removed this link from the article, but the issue is on the table. Was "Something" inspired by Pattie or not? I invite the anonymous contributor (or anyone else) to provide a reference that quotes Harrison's refutation, or to add any other solid references either to confirm or deny this legend. Meanwhile, I've edited the article text to present both the common belief and the suspicion that it's merely a legend. — Jeff Q 15:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

George told once at an interview, which was on the radio that the song "Something" was maybe about Pattie, but that's all he said then followed with just talking other things from the song, as he didn't wanted got any further with the subject of the song being about Pattie. George was always very private about his marriage to her.

Pattie told Hello! magazine in 2004 though, George told her the song was written for her.

George in his autobiography "I Me Mine" states that Something was written specifically in mind for Ray Charles to sing. In an interview with George and Eric in 1990 (which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJgineevJDA) George states that Something was not written for Patti although, he states that everybody thinks it was written by him for her - he actually goes on to say that he wrote the song "Isn't it a pity" about Patti. There are other citations which I will find and add. I would also add that the first line of the song is directly taken from James Taylor's song "Something in the way she moves" which was first released on his eponymous album released in 1968 by apple and also that there are bootleg versions of the song "Something" from the "Let It Be" sessions in January 1969 and the lyrics are far from complete - indeed he asks Lennon for help - who comes up with "attracts me like a Pomegranate". Last but by no means least, is the song really a love song - after all the lyrics do say "I don't want to leave her now, you know I believe and how" and to the refrain "You're asking me will my love grow" he responds "I don't know" - hardly words of love.

In the autobiography released by Boyd, I believe there is a statement that the song was written about god and faith, that sort of thing. I'll look that up in my copy and add a citation.--Bri2dope (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

I've read abuse stories about Clapton and Boyd. Drink induced beatings and sexual abuse. Not very inpiring, yet relevant. Anyone know more? Divad 11:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Harrison compositions

I've deleted the passage that claimed that 'Something' is Harrison's only written contribution to the Beatles as he also wrote 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' and 'Here Comes the Sun'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdevet (talk • contribs)

The passage actually said it was The Beatles' only hit (i.e. hit single) written by Harrison, which is true. It doesn't really matter that much, though. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction, "For You Blue" made #1 as a double A-side with Paul McCartney's "Long and Winding Road" in the USA. Though there is no doubt "Long and Winding Road" was the most popular of the two by a considerable margin, it still charted. 205.188.116.196 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-Pattie Clapton/Harrison relationship

"Clapton even organized, emceed, and performed at the Concert For George, the commemoration concert for George Harrison following his death."

This implies that Clapton showed up out of nowhere and hosted the Concert for George. More accurate would be, "While undoubtedly awkward at first, Clapton and Harrison remained close friends. They recorded, toured, and hung out together until Harrison died. Clapton was a natural choice to organize, emcee, and perform at the Concert For George, the commemoration concert for George Harrison following his death."

Antinice 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Antinice

External Links

Could you add: http://www.patriciaannboyd.piczo.com ? It's a fan website that includes all the pics of Pattie Modelling Career and with her relationships with George Harrison, Eric Clapton, Ron Weston and the other Beatles & Beatlegirls. It has also very recent pics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.32.117.89 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Does she still have the Clap?

Is she still married to Eric Clapton? I heard they were divorced.--Crestville 17:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In the What is Life article it says that both Boyd and Clapton divorced and married other people.

Boyd definately isn't married to anyone else, and I'm pretty sure neither is Clapton.--Hepcat748 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rating

I have upgraded this article, as (with a bit of cleaning and a few more references) could be a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Articles

Does anyone know that there is another article on Pattie? It's a bit hard to find because you have to go through the disambiguation link. I would deal with it myself but I haven't got the know-how. It might have some useful information.Kalleythenowhereman (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if you find one let us know.--andreasegde (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it when I typed in Patty Boyd.So try typing in that and see if you can find it.Kalleythenowhereman (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Patty Boyd has been redirected to this article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

I have started work on this article to get it ready for a GA rating.--andreasegde (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some work to do on the references and their formatting, but it's almost there.--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

References are done.--andreasegde (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I think that for this to get a GA it should have a more recent picture of Pattie. I think we could pull off a fair-use for that, considering average Wikipedia editors don't get to take photos of Pattie Boyd every day. (But who knows, Jimbo's probably married her already.) ;) Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A GA doesn't actually need a photo of the subject.--andreasegde (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(On review)

Oh no not another beatles related article... im still recovering from the last one , ok ok , no joking around. Im reviewing this article. Realist2 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 1 (A=Pass B=Pass)

Part 2 (A=Fail B=Pass C=Pass) - Sort citation tags.

Part 3 (A=Pass B=Pass) reluctantly, concerned about the Breakup section, its just not quite right...

Part 4 (A=Pass)

Part 5 (A=Pass)

Part 6 (A=Pass) - Is that extra Clapton picture needed though?

Issues

• Lennon and Mick Jagger were also said to have had crushes on Boyd, with the latter admitting to Bebe Buell in the 1980s that he'd tried and failed to seduce Boyd for years.[11][19]

-Who was saying this? Tabloids? expand.

• Breakdown

This section is really confusing, you have to read it like 3 times to understand it. It needs to be simplified some how.

• Sort citations

LOL! Here we are again! (We should stop meeting like this, said the bishop to the actress = English joke :) I think you're right about the paragraph - I will look at it.--andreasegde (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Oh hold, these things are easy to sort out, might chip in myself.

A reviewer that actually works on an article to improve it while reviewing it? You, dear sir, are to be respected and congratulated. (No, I am not being sarcastic in the least - as someone once accused me of - but deeply thankful, and in awe). Some reviewers write more about changing one word, instead of just fixing it, which would have taken less time. I think you should get a Barnstar for this dilligence and effort.--andreasegde (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've spent hours on it, thats how i review articles, it makes it easier for people, if you give ppl to much bad news they just give up. Realist2 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a great reviewer. BTW, I have sorted the reference problems.--andreasegde (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a tightening up of the break down section is in order then it is defo worthy of a GA statues to be proud of. Realist2 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, this article is now worthy of GA. Realist2 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you kindly, Realist2. --andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Clapton/Harrison

I think there is way too much info on this part of her life. But I'm asking for input at the BLPN. Please join the conversation here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• The feedback at WP:BLPN:
  • "Seems ludicrously out of place to me. Do we have to know all the sordid details? It should just say she met Harrison at point-in-time under such-and-such circumstance and they were married at such-and-such point in time". Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• seems to support my original conclusion that the Clapton/Harrison sections need to be pruned. I'm going to start that now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I've cut things back. If you want to add to the article please remember that this article is about Patti Boyd, it is not about Clapton or Harrison and is not the place for information about their drug addictions, their affairs etc. The article is about Boyd and things that she has done and things that have happened to her. For example, the fact that Clapton was in love with Boyd and fell into despair and took heroin has not place in this Bio, save it for Claptons' bio. Likewise the fact that Jagger wanted to bed Boyd, is also irrelevant here. Thanks for helping make this a good encyclopedic article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade in progress

I'm making bold changes to the article as it needs a serious upgrade:

Organize career by year, rather than by arbitrary subject. This the story of her life it should be told as it developed.

Remove details from the lead per WP:LEAD

Remove unsourced content per WP:BLP

Removing fan trivia

Putting marriage stuff into her Personal Life section

Comments and assistance are welcomed :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not an upgrade, it is a scissor-wielding downgrade.--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What the frig is going on?

The chopping of this article into a Daily Mail-style info piece has to stop, and now. It has gone from 22,932 to 17,128 bytes since it was promoted to GA status.--andreasegde (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If this article is not returned to its former GA status very soon, I will do it myself. This is not a tabloid newspaper.--andreasegde (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andreasegde, thanks for your comment. I see that you have done a lot of work on the article and are the person who brought it to GA status in 2008. I commend you for that. However, now four years have passed and it seemed to be a good time to take a fresh look at the article. To my eyes it appeared to have quite a lot of off topic WP:COATRACK style text that focused on events in the lives of other people, most notably Harrison/Clapton, instead focusing on the events in the life of Boyd. As a result I have edited accordingly. As you can see above, I posted on the talk page asking for input and collaboration and I also asked for input at WP:BLPN. If you have some specific objections to what I've done, I'm happy to discuss and collaborate with you to improve the article. I have also brought several articles to GA status and I think together we can create something good here too. Best Wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It reached GA standard as it was. It would not reach GA as it is now. Put it back as it was, or I will delist it myself.--andreasegde (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. Furthermore, this article belongs to the volunteer community, of which I am a member. It does not belong to you, nor are you in a position to be telling other editors what to do or making threats. I respectfully suggest that you read WP:CIVIL which says:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.
• Try to make coherent and concise arguments rather than simply attacking others.

I hope we can work together.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Please use indents in the correct way.
2. You did not contact me before you unilaterally decided to cut this article to shreds. That would have been civil and polite, at least.
3. I have every right to delist this article, as it does not represent the article as it was when it passed a GA review. It is now a very poor list, at best.
4. I am not attacking anything but how the article as it now stands. That's an old trick, and I have enough experience here to know it. (Do you seriously think I'm a Newbie?)
5. I will give you one week to explain your position, and your reasoning. That is being polite.--andreasegde (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andrea, I see now it would have been better to have contacted you earlier. If this was a mis-step, then I apologize. But now we are here together, so let's move forward. If you want to de-list the article from GA status that is fine with me. My main concern is to have a quality article for the encyclopedia and its readers, one that does justice to the subject while meeting WP:BLP. I have given a general explanation of my editing above and my attempts to gather input from other editors via my talk page posts and the thread I started at BLPN. I think the current article is a vast improvement, however, I also know that you strongly disagree. So if there is something specific about the article that you feel needs improvement, or that should be put back in the article, I am happy to discuss it with you and make changes as needed. Wikipedia is about collaboration and I am prepared to collaborate with you if you want to collaborate with me. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I've asked for some outside input at BLPN [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. In it there is nothing to require notifying owners of an article that edits are being made. In fact, many older "good articles" would not achieve that status today if they were evaluated again as they were. Meanwhile ultimata rarely work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw this at BLPN. It probably wouldn't pass GA status in either its current or prior incarnations, given that three of the references (FN 2, 5 &6) are SPS fansite profiles that cannot be used per WP:SPSBLP. Carry on. Fladrif (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Fladrif: It did pass a GA review, but I agree it would not pass one now. @ Collect: When so many drastic changes are made to an article, it would be polite to discuss the situation, no?--andreasegde (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a discussion from here. If you mean "should primary article contributers be notified before any changes?" I regret that I have not found that in any Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, because it's accepted that one would do it. It's called being "polite", and I'll bet you can find lots of rules about that. Are you saying that if there isn't a "rule" about it we shouldn't do it?--andreasegde (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw Keithbob's post at BLPN. It is very frustrating to spend hours developing sourced text for a GA article only to see someone deleted it. Keithbob admitted his mistake in not contacting you first and does want to work together on the article. If there is difficulty in coming to an agreement, you can post at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard since the issue is not so much a BLPN issue as a content issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am always interested in working on an article with another editor, and I have done it many times. There is a difference between working on an article, which usually means improving it by expanding it or correcting it in terms of style. Cutting an article down to its bare components is not an improvement.--andreasegde (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article, Part 1

This: "Boyd was born in Taunton, Somerset,[1] to Colin Ian Langdon Boyd and Diana Frances Drysdale (married 14 September 1942). She was the eldest child, before Colin (1946), Helen Mary (later known as Jenny, 1947, later married to Mick Fleetwood), and Paula (1951). Boyd nicknamed Helen "Jenny", after one of her favourite dolls.[2]"

was cut down to this: "Boyd was born in Taunton, Somerset,[1] to Colin Ian Langdon Boyd and Diana Frances Drysdale. She was the eldest child and her sister, Helen Mary, whom she nicknamed, Jenny, later married Mick Fleetwood. [2]"

This edit completely cuts out the fact that Boyd had a brother and second sister, making it seem as if she was the eldest of two children. Now, what was the point of cutting out two siblings? Was that little piece of information too much for this article? Was it irrelevant? Of course not.--andreasegde (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the dates of the parents marriage have no bearing on the subjects life and the point about her favourite doll is trivia. However, if you feel strongly that they should be included, I will not object. The removal of Colin as eldest brother was an error and I have today put it back in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Old version: "Boyd attended Hazeldean School, Putney, and the St Agnes and St Michael Convent Boarding School, East Grinstead as well as St Martha's Convent, Hadley Wood, Hertfordshire, which she left with 3 GCE O level passes in 1961.[3]"

Present version: "Boyd attended Hazeldean School in Putney, the St Agnes and St Michael Convent Boarding School in East Grinstead and St Martha's Convent in Hadley Wood, Hertfordshire. She received her 3 GCE O level passes in 1961.[3] " What was the point of that edit? It confuses the issue so the reader doesn't know which school she was at when she received the passes. It's clumsy.--andreasegde (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the current version is either clumsy or misleading. But if you prefer to have one sentence, please feel free to change it. I'm not going to debate about the style of writing for information we both agree on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh... I do like that "the style of writing for information we both agree on". We don't agree on it at all. Why should I "feel free to change it"? You made the mistake, not I.--andreasegde (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, I wasn't clear. Let me try again. We agree on the content, we don't agree on the style of writing. I am happy with the present style of writing, However, if you are not, you are free to amend it in a manner that pleases you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We do NOT agree on the content, because you have cut it to the bare minimum. If you are "happy with the present style of writing", then you should look at some good articles. This is not the Daily Mail, and nor should it be.--andreasegde (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and all this time I thought I was Clark Kent doing volunteer work at a newspaper :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Old version: "Boyd was born in Taunton, Somerset,[1] to Colin Ian Langdon Boyd and Diana Frances Drysdale (married 14 September 1942). She was the eldest child, before Colin (1946), Helen Mary (later known as Jenny, 1947, later married to Mick Fleetwood), and Paula (1951)."

Latest version: "Boyd was born in Taunton, Somerset,[1] to Colin Ian Langdon Boyd and Diana Frances Drysdale. She was the eldest child before her brother Colin, and her sister, Helen Mary, whom she nicknamed, Jenny, later married Mick Fleetwood. [2]"

It now seems that her brother has been brought to life, but her second sister is still in the ether. Deleting the years they were born seems entirely unnecessary. (Don't forget the unneeded space before the ref, BTW). Can it get worse? Watch this space. :))--andreasegde (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need to name every relative and their birth date. But maybe you don't agree. In what way do you feel that adding the sister's name and the birthdates of the siblings are significant facts or events in the life of the subject? Do you feel we should add names and dates for other relatives like grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews etc.? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If her siblings were mentioned before, and then Eddie Scissorhands comes along and deletes two of them, but then only adds one back, and not the other one, it is ludicrous. Why not go ahead and delete Boyd's parents? They didn't marry Harrison, and then Clapton, did they? Who cares? Obviously not you.--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the source for this information, Footnote 2, is a self-published fan website (which has moved, actually, to here [2]. It cannot be used in a BLP per WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. Rather than arguing about the language, you should either delete this text or find a new, reliable source. The identical problem is presented for footnotes 5 and 6, which are likewise self-published fan websites. Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif for the reminder about sources. I haven't had time to examine them but I agree we should only use reliable sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why didn't Keithbob spot this before? He didn't have the time. This article is becoming a playground. Sorry, did I say becoming?--andreasegde (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why didn't Andrea spot this before? He didn't have the time. This article is becoming a playground. Sorry, did I say becoming?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not called Andrea, as I have wedding tackle.--andreasegde (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this article, Part 2

Old version: "Boyd, who was nearly twenty years old in 1964, met Harrison during the filming of A Hard Day's Night, in which she was cast as a schoolgirl fan.[10]"

This version: "Boyd met George Harrison during the filming of A Hard Day's Night in 1964.[21]" The supposed "better" version makes no mention of how old she was, or what she was actually doing in the film. Why not? Is it not relevant? Please, do tell.

It gets worse (this version): "In early 1965, a friend secretly placed LSD in her and Harrison's coffee.[10][22] After they found out, she and Harrison left in an agitated state, and Boyd threatened to break a store window.[23] Later that year, Boyd moved into Kinfauns with Harrison.[24]"

Wow, life in the fast lane, huh? No mention that Lennon and his wife were also at the same party (which one would think was important, no?) The Harrisons and Lennons all left together, with Harrison driving. All four went to a club before driving out to Esher together. This version leads the reader to think the Harrisons went through the experience by themselves.--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lennon is now not mentioned once in this article, as is the case with Starr. Epstein, as in Brian Epstein, is only once mentioned as "Epstein". Shoddy work.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You have cited several sentences above. Since each of them touch on different issues, perhaps we could discuss them one at a time. I think that would be helpful.

Regarding this sentence: "Boyd, who was nearly twenty years old in 1964, met Harrison during the filming of A Hard Day's Night, in which she was cast as a schoolgirl fan.[10]" The phrase 'nearly twenty years old' is WP:weasel wording. Furthermore, its not necessary to state her age especially when we are giving the year the event occurred. Regarding the movie, she is listed here as "girl on train". Did she have a speaking part? or was she just an 'extra' on the film?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you're editing/cutting down an article and you DON'T KNOW? Are you really serious? :))

BTW, changing "Boyd, who was nineteen years old in 1964," would suffice, and it wouldn't have anything to do with a weasel. "its not necessary to state her age especially when we are giving the year the event occurred"? Unbelievable. She was a teenager...--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean you got GA status on this article and you DON'T KNOW if she was an extra or not? Are you really serous? :) And yes "nearly twenty years old" is weasel wording.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I knew. :)) BTW, you're acting a bit strange, no? Copying my answers as your own?--andreasegde (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm feeling fine. Thank you for asking. :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with article, Part 3

"fashion career in 1962[2] and worked". Missing comma.

"She is the former wife of musicians George Harrison and Eric Clapton." Married to them both at the same? Comma missing

Comma (i) not needed and (ii) would not resolve the conclusion you draw in any case, which, in any case, is unwarranted. 81.159.108.159

"whom she nicknamed, Jenny, later". Comma not needed. "She was the eldest child before her brother Colin". If she was the eldest, it's very obvious that she was before her brother.

"Twiggy reports that when she". Although linked, it makes no mention of who Twiggy is, and she is not a "reporter".

I suggest you look up the definition of reporter. The use of the word in association with a formal job title is only one, limited and specific use. The use of the word to signify one who reports, an action which anyone can do, is correct and is the primary definition from which the job title is derived.81.159.108.159

It still does not say who Twiggy is. Why the rumble in the jungle about the word "report"? Forgot to sign in?--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"London during 2006 and". Missing comma.

"Australia and[15] in Almaty". A reference after "and"?

"and Brian Epstein in attendance". Now linked, but who was he? Yes, he was The Beatles' manager...

"Harrison's increasing religious explorations, work ethic and personality changes caused the couple to split up". You would think that needs a little clarification.

"about his love for Boyd[10] and the two". Missing comma.

"the two married years later in 1979. [31] Later, Boyd left Clapton".

"Clapton and Boyd divorced in 1989 on the grounds of". Ahh, it comes in the next sentence.

"In 1991, Clapton told Boyd that he had had a year long affair with Yvonne Kelly who had given birth to Clapton's daughter, Ruth, in 1985". No explanation as to why he suddenly felt he had to tell her that.--andreasegde (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No explanation required. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to state facts, not to speculate about motives.81.159.108.159

If it can be referenced, it should. Don't forget references, old bean.--andreasegde (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Esher Epsom for a day?

The entry on George Harrison says: "Harrison married model Pattie Boyd on 21 January 1966, at the then Epsom Register Office, Upper High Street, Epsom, with McCartney as best man."

The entry on Pattie Boyd says: "Boyd married Harrison on 21 January 1966, in a ceremony at the Registry Office, Upper High Street, in Esher, Surrey, with Paul McCartney and Epstein in attendance."

This suggests that either one of the articles is wrong or that Esher and Epsom were the same place on 21 January 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.159 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Harrison's reference is "Miles, Barry (2007). The Beatles Diary: An Intimate Day by Day History", and Boyd's reference is "Boyd, Pattie (2007-08-06). "Pattie Boyd: 'My hellish love triangle with George and Eric' - Part One" I'd go with Boyd's version.--andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA status

This article has to be restored to its former GA status. People with scissors and a narrow viewpoint should not cut it down into a telephone book.--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Current GA standards do not reward verbosity or prolixity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers to you. It's your round.--andreasegde (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I apologize that I haven't registered a username here; however, I want to state that (1) I have made numerous contributions to this page over the course of several years, (2) I am closely familiar with Ms. Boyd's biographical information, (3) I have even gone to the point of personally confirming directly with Pattie Boyd herself certain of her biographical information (although I do not work for her or represent her in any way), and (4) I have followed the edits / sparring between Keithbob and Andreasegde. Without violating any policy of Wikipedia's with regard to respect to other commentators, I am firmly in agreement with Andreasegde that Keithbob's editing and commenting really gutted the article, and that Andreasegde is essentially correct that Keithbob's (IMO misguided) attempts at brevity in fact eliminated all sorts of important information. I am glad that the article has been largely restored (although I still see some missing stuff), and I hope that this article doesn't fall victim to any such effort in the future. 72.71.200.6 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Divorce year in question?

Hi guys. I just watched a program on the Bio channel about Beatles women, there was some conflicting info in that it stated Pattie and George had a marriage that lasted 11 years. I assumed it had been shorter (eight years) from reading Pattie's Wiki article, and did a brief bit of research to find a number of sites have their divorce listed as 1977 rather than '74. Does anyone have anything definitive about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernadettegenes (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe the difference between breaking up and having the divorce finalised (which takes a long time)? Got it: "In 1974, now partnered with Pattie (they would not actually marry until 1979)"--andreasegde (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should change it? I do. The information in the summary panel most of all is misleading. I think it is wrong in George Harrison's page as well. It doesn't seem right that we should suggest they were married for fewer years than they factually were just because they separated before the year of divorce. Especially considering Pattie Boyd's memoirs where she speaks of the nature of the split, stating that Harrison offered his ongoing support of her whether they were together or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernadettegenes (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your input, but references based on factual evidence are the foundation of Wikipedia. It is as it was written. Wikipedia is not a place for "feelings", or how one "thinks", as brutal as that may seem. Sorry.--andreasegde (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted a few things in the infobox to show this: "George Harrison (1966–1974) Eric Clapton (1979–1989)". No mention of divorces, affairs, or whatever.--andreasegde (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Feelings aside, the fact is that though their marriage broke up in 1974 they didn't actually divorce until 1977. It should be changed.--92.30.11.36 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack and other issues

WP:COATRACK says: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. Boyd had a life and career as a model, actress, author and photographer however, in this article those aspects are minimized and used as a rack on which to hang fan trivia about the Beatles and Clapton. The premise seems to be that one can include any information they like about the Beatles or Clapton as long as the word Boyd or "her" is stuck somewhere in the sentence or paragraph. Some examples include:

• [Photo caption:] Clapton performing live at the Eishalle theatre of Wetzikon, Switzerland, 19 June 1977, during his time with Boyd
• Harrison said to her on the film set was, "Will you marry me? Well, if you won't marry me, will you have dinner with me tonight?"
• Their first date was at the Garrick Club (a private gentlemen's club), in Covent Garden, in the company of Brian Epstein, who managed Harrison and the other Beatles
• Boyd and Harrison, along with John and Cynthia Lennon, had their first encounter with LSD in early 1965.
• A dentist, John Riley—the son of a London police officer—along with his girlfriend, Cyndy Bury, secretly laced their coffee with the drug after a dinner party at his home. As they were getting ready to leave, Riley told them of his actions and fervently tried, but failed, to stop them.
• The two couples eventually found themselves in a lift on their way up to the Ad Lib club (above the former Prince Charles Theatre at 7 Leicester Place), believing the lift was on fire.
• Harrison said he would have to talk to Epstein, to make sure no tours had been planned.
• with Paul McCartney (as best man) and Epstein (sharing best man duties with McCartney),
• John Lennon and Ringo Starr had gone on holiday abroad with their wives
• Boyd and Harrison later went on their honeymoon (accompanied by Epstein),
• the Harrisons moved from Kinfauns to Friar Park, a Victorian neo-Gothic mansion, in Henley-on-Thames.
• While Lennon was in Spain filming How I Won the War in September 1966,
• Lennon and Mick Jagger were also said to have been attracted to Boyd, with Jagger admitting to his then-girlfriend, Bebe Buell, in the 1980s, that he had failed to seduce Boyd after trying for years.
• In the late 1960s, Clapton and Harrison became close friends, and began writing and recording music together.
• Clapton also fell in love with Boyd's 17-year-old sister, Paula, who moved in with him.[21] Paula left Clapton when she heard "Layla", as the song confirmed that Clapton had been using her as a substitute for her sister
• he descended into heroin addiction and self-imposed exile with Alice Ormsby-Gore for three years.
• during Clapton's tenure in Derek and the Dominos, their only studio album, Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs (November 1970)
• It included the track "Layla", which became a hit in three different decades, and in two versions.
• his affair with Italian model Lory Del Santo, who had given birth to his son, Conor, in August 1986
• [Her book was] released near the same time as her ex-husband, Clapton's autobiography
• Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition an editor has removed a number of unreliable sources from the article [3] leaving some info unsourced. This article does not, in my opinion, meet the GA standards and may need a GA community reassessment. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for additional input at BLPN, you and join the discussion here if you like. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The BLPN discussed has been archived and can be found here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clean Up needed to retain GA status

User:GabeMc and I have agreed to work together to raise the quality level of this article back to GA. However we are unable to do so for about a month due to other committments and projects. In the meantime others should feel free to improve it or if they feel it is a blight on the face of WP they may submit it for a GA reassess which it will likely fail. Use your good judgement. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK GabeMc and I are going to try to improve this article by removing the coatrack issues, sourcing all content and improving the sentence structure, so as to maintain its GA status. All are welcome to help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation

I am storing this content here as its a BLP violation ie unsourced controversial content. If a source can be found it can be replaced in the article.

• Boyd says that when she rebuffed Clapton's advances in late 1970, he descended into heroin addiction and self-imposed exile for three years.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I replaced the current photo of her to one from when she was modelling. This is how people remember her. Sposato (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a possibility of including a more recent picture of her? Does she have "it" after all these years?? V Schauf (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of her with George Harrison is appropriate in the info box. It should be just the subject alone.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Clapton photo which didn't have Boyd in it. See WP:COATRACK -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WTF? There is a picture of the subject's house and her husband but not of her? Give me a break.68.178.50.46 (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The sole surviving first wife of a Beatle?

[4]

I've removed it as unsourced (possibly WP:SYN). Without a discussion in a reliable source, it feels like trivia to me.

In any case, this has been added, reverted, re-added, re-reverted, etc. in several variations. The applicable guideline is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRD. - 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

John Lennon's FIRST wife Cynthia died in April. Ringo Starr's FIRST wife Maureen died in 1994. Paul McCartney's FIRST wife Linda died in 1998. A person can have only ONE first wife. Therefore, Pattie Boyd, the ex-wife of George Harrison, is irrefutably the sole surviving first Beatle wife. Thus, I have re-instated it as a fact, and NOT trivia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.131.81 (talk • contribs)

Oh yeah, I did not see the "first" part. Anyway, this information seems of very little relevance, and still wrong : Pete Best has been married to his wife Kathy for over 50 years, and both are still alive as far as we know. El pitareio (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Pete Best married after he was sacked from the Beatles, therefore Mrs. Best doesn't count. Moreover, in a serious discussion of The Beatles, most people do not consider Best or any former member outside John, Paul, George, and Ringo as being trully Beatles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.131.81 (talk • contribs) 19:19, December 23, 2015‎

You've just hit upon one of the core reasons we do not allow synthesis in articles: In order for the statement you are adding to be "true", the reader must define key elements of the statement in very specific ways. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fact vs. trivia: A fact is something that is true. "Trivia" is unimportant information.

El pitareio's reasoning seems to be pretty clear here, so there's little doubt this probably isn't a "fact".

As for "trivia", my general rule of thumb is that anything you can't find in a reliable reliable source is likely trivial. This also applies to ideas cobbled together from isolated facts (something Wikipedia calls synthesis). While we could probably reword the statement so that it is "true", it would still be trivial. We might be able to find birth dates, heights, weights, hair lengths, home addresses, etc. for all of the Beatles and their wives. Which one of the remaining wives lives the furthest from the crosswalk shown on the cover of Abbey Road? We might be able to figure it out, but who cares?

WP:BRD: You boldly added material. You were reverted. At that point, it would have been time to discuss the issue. Instead, you repeatedly re-added it. Even with a WP:3RR warning hanging over you, you re-added the claim without waiting for discussion. It's definitely a better idea to wait for discussion. There is no deadline here. That said, the WP:CONSENSUS here (demonstrated by two editors' comments here and three editors reverting the addition) is to not include the statement. If a consensus develops to include the claim (preferably with a reliable source directly making the claim) we can easily add it back at any time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am only very sorry that a lot of people have too much time on their hands, looking for some obscure technicality to strike it from the article, or by dismissing the item as mere "trivia". Being a first Beatle wife was indeed a rare privilege for these ladies. The first Mrs. Lennon, Mrs. McCartney, and Mrs. Starr (ooops, sorry, I meant Starkey) are all dead and gone now. Therefore, Patti Boyd is the last woman standing, and indeed--IN FACT--the sole surviving first Beatle wife--and when I say Beatle, I mean John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and not anyone else before or since. And what do you mean by "reliable source"? The facts I stated are common sense knowledge, like 4-3=1. Therefore, I ask that this true fact, unique among Boyd, be reinstated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.131.81 (talk • contribs) 19:19, December 23, 2015‎

"Reliable sources" are a significant part of one of Wikipedia's core policies. Wikipedia exists to report what reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia does not accept original research, such as "Boyd is the only living first wife of a Beatle, not counting Pete Best's wife, because Pete Best wasn't really a Beatle and/or they married after he was no longer a Beatle."

If your statement were as simple as 4-3=1, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What you are actually saying is far closer to A+B=C. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Guitarist in law

They never refered to each other as "husband in laws"...George once refered to Eric as his "guitarist in law" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepcat748 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Dates

KekeTwist78: You may be "Positive" that you have the dates correct. However C.Fred and I have reverted you numerous times on this issue. The dates we have restored are backed by the reliable sources cited in the article. If you believe the sources say otherwise, you will need to explain this. If you believe the sources are wrong, you will need to cite new sources.

Repeatedly changing information to the version you prefer does nothing to resolve the issue. You need to explain where you are getting your information from and discuss the issue. Edit summaries like "Sweer"(sic), "Kind" and "Positive" do not accomplish this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: The dates which KekeTwist78 is adding to the infobox agree with those in the article text. Many of them are also confirmed by the articles on the spouses, and the date for her 3rd marriage is confirmed by the reference given. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am finding specific sources for the birthdate, marriage dates and divorce dates. Please hold off on any other editing until I can source the verified dates. Shearonink (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: is right, but I have gone ahead and found separate sources for the marriage/divorce years or dates. Shearonink (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding the marriage/divorce dates

Various editors are changing the dates of Pattie Weston's marriages/divorces in the infobox and also changing sourced material and also changing direct quotes in reference-cites. Because of all the incremental and small errant edits, earlier today I think I changed something back to the wrong date.
So, that being said, laid plainly out here for all to see and to help any of us who keep a watch on this article from possibly making a mistake in this WP:BLP, here are the actual (sourced! referenced!) dates:

• MARRIAGE & DIVORCE to George Harrison: 1966-1977
• MARRIAGE & DIVORCE to Eric Clapton: 1979-1989
• MARRIAGE TO Rod Weston: 2015

I have gone through the article and checked every. single. time the article mentions Mrs. Weston's various martial statuses, in the main text and in the infobox. The ones that were wrong - according to the cited sources - I have corrected. These dates/years are sourced & verified facts taken from multiple sources. This is a biography of a living person, and. as such, these sourced and verified statements should not be altered *unless* all the facts are somehow proven wrong, the possible changes are first discussed on this talk page, etc., etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'd like to address a few content-related issues in the article. I remember there being plenty of discussion here between March 2012 and April 2013 (Talk:Pattie Boyd/Archive 1, threads 12 through to 21), so it might be wise to flag these things first.

• In the "Marriage to George Harrison" section, it's easy to come away with the impression that Boyd's interest in spirituality was the sole factor in Harrison and the Beatles' espousal of Transcendental Meditation. I'm sure that's not the intention, but it is the picture that's created through omission of other details and/or lack of sufficient context. As the most authoritative sources present it, Boyd shared in Harrison's journey of discovery, which began, if not with that first LSD experience in February/March 1965, then by the start of the following year. Together they investigated various paths in search of a guru, but Harrison first met the Maharishi with Shankar in late 1966, while in India. How the Beatles came to hear about and attend Maharishi's lecture in August 1967 might have been down to Boyd, but Harrison (and John Lennon also) was so au fait with the concept of meditation and transcendence by then, so it's not as if her urging came out of nowhere. Not only that, but some sources credit the infamous Magic Alex as the one who suggested that the Beatles should attend, after he'd seen Maharishi in Greece earlier in the summer of '67; Harrison himself (in the Anthology book if I remember correctly) says that he first heard about the upcoming London lecture from a friend, the sculptor David Wynne. I know that Boyd's role is supported by a few sources, but I believe it's a case of online sources, particularly, jumping on this point about Boyd's involvement with the Spiritual Regeneration Movement and deciding "Aha – so Pattie was the one who guided the Beatles on their spiritual quest ...!" By doing that they're taking Boyd's own statements out of context and ignoring the chronology of events.
• Further to the above point, we appear to say that within the Boyd–Harrison marriage she was the most spiritually oriented of the two. As we have it, Harrison, while musically connected to India in the 1960s, was just a drugging and womanising rock star by the early '70s ... Harrison's self-styled "naughty years" of 1973–75 are well documented, but from 1968 or '69 it was his fascination with the Hare Krishna movement that began to divide the couple. This issue receives plenty of coverage from Harrison biographers such as Joshua Greene and Gary Tillery, both of whom are equally sympathetic of Boyd, it should be said. Our mentioning these final, despondent years of the marriage is a valid inclusion, but from the early '70s, as Boyd has written, Harrison's binges and wild ways alternated with periods, spanning months, when he was utterly devout and non-communicative.
• Under "Career", it might be worth adding that once her relationship with Harrison became public knowledge, in mid 1964, Boyd's modelling career skyrocketed (for want of a better phrase). I'll have to dig around to find the sources, but I've read that she, Jean Shrimpton and perhaps one or two others were "the faces" of Swinging London fashion in the mid '60s, and internationally renowned as a result.
• Also, although I'm aware of the need to avoid overlap between "Career" and "Marriage to George Harrison", it could be worth saying that Harrison opposed Boyd pursuing her career, as early as 1965, and she duly abandoned modelling. This was partly out of fear for her safety, since she appears to have been the target of hate mail and abuse from obsessed fans more than any other Beatles wife or girlfriend. And her return to modelling in 1971 or '72 was viewed as an act of independence, if not outright defiance of Harrison's wishes, which by then were based solely on his view that fashion was frivolous.
• The point about fans' treatment of Boyd is relevant to her role as someone living inside the Beatles "bubble" at the height of their fame but also (again, more so than Cynthia Lennon, Maureen Starkey or Jane Asher) her position as a partner that genuinely shared in the direction the band's career took through Beatlemania, experimentation with LSD, meditation and India, and the rise and fall of Apple. Mere association is no guarantee of notability, of course, but I think some comments made about Boyd in books by Hunter Davies and Ian Inglis would be useful. Inglis makes a good point, imo, about the depth of their shared experiences in his discussion of Harrison's 1973 song "So Sad". Davies quotes Boyd (from the 1967–68 period) on the Beatles' group identity and saying that she wishes they would channel their worldwide influence into publicly representing a cause, as Marlon Brando had.
• Seeing as we name a few Boyd-inspired Clapton songs under "Marriage to Eric Clapton", it's a surprise to see no mention earlier on of Harrison songs such as "Something", "If I Needed Someone", "Love You To", "For You Blue" and "So Sad". Particularly since our source for Clapton's "Bell Bottom Blues" and "Wonderful Tonight" is Boyd's autobiography, in which she also says that Harrison told her "Something" was written about her. I know that there's long been a question mark surrounding Harrison's inspiration for "Something", based on comments he made long afterwards, but I can't see that's any reason to omit it altogether – McCartney, George Martin, biographers who analyse the song, many reviewers and music historians all view it as a love song to Pattie Boyd. (As Clapton once said, Harrison wrote "spiritual-love songs", which always leaves it ambiguous as to whether he was singing to a woman or to God.)
• While in India in September 1966, Boyd began learning to play the dilruba at Ravi Shankar's Kinnara School of Music. I'd never taken this too seriously before, but I recently read that she continued to study the instrument in England, with Shiv Dayal Batish. In his memoirs, Batish is very complimentary about her dedication to the task and sincerity towards Indian music and culture.
• Aside from so much that's been written about the Boyd–Harrison–Clapton triangle in terms of a musical legacy, what's frequently commented on is how the friendship(s) remained intact, for the remainder of Harrison's life. I believe it's Joshua Greene who quotes Boyd's solicitor as saying that the kindness and respect between the two parties throughout her first divorce was just extraordinary in his experience of super-rich/celebrity divorces. I think it's worth including a mention of that also.

There could be one or two other details, but these are the ones that immediately spring to mind as worthy of inclusion. I realise we need to avoid having the sections on Boyd's marriages mushroom out and overwhelm the article, but I don't think any of the above crosses into the territory of trivia. And these personal relationships do inform her more recent work as a photographer, after all.

All comments/thoughts are welcome. I'll start making some of the proposed additions, although I'm hardly in a great rush – I've been meaning to address much of this for about four years now … JG66 (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)