Talk:Pete Best

Ummm... Backbeat

If you're going to include "The Rocker" you surely must include "Backbeat" ( 1994 )... for one thing It's actually about the Beatles. The film goes into great detail about Stew and Pete both and all of the things that went on in Hamburg. 99.14.99.246 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the Aspinall-Mona Best connection?

This article states (emphasis added):

Neil Aspinall was waiting downstairs in Epstein's NEMS record shop after Best's dismissal, and was the first one to talk to the then ex-Beatle in The Grapes pub, across from The Cavern Club, where The Beatles had often played. Aspinall was furious and said that he would stop working for them as well—he had been employed as the band's road manager and personal assistant—but Best strongly advised him not to. Aspinall decided to stay, but ended his relationship with Mona (and his three-week-old baby, Roag). Aspinall asked Lennon at the next concert why they had fired Best, to which he replied, "It’s got nothing to do with you—you’re only the driver."

I think the bolded sentence needs to be clarified. Prior to this paragraph, nothing in this article has mentioned any Aspinall-Mona relationship. More importantly, the fact that this is all in one sentence (joined by a "but") seems to imply that there was a connection between his romantic break-up and the firing of Pete Best from the Beatles. If this is true, it should be explicitly explained. If it's not true, I suggest that this be broken into two sentences, or even that Aspinall's romance be deleted from this article entirely.

As it stands, the paragraph tells the following story: (1) The Beatles fired Pete Best. (2) Neil Aspinall said to Best, "I'm furious that they fired you; I will quit working for them." (3) Best replied, "No, mate, you should keep your job with them." (4) Neil replied, "Fine, I'll stay with them, but I will break up with your mom." !!!! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note for this, and have cleaned up the section. Well spotted, BTW,--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I revised your edits just with a few clarifying words. I don't have any knowledge of these events; my edits are entirely based on yours, with some rephrasing that is intended to clarify. Could you check my changes and see if they are correct? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, Lawrence King, that to understand what happened, one has to read the whole article.--andreasegde (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Occupations

He was listed as a "vocalist", I removed this since has never really sung on any record or live concert (though there is occasional vocals in pre-fame Beatles demos which could be him, but he's never really been a singer as a way of making a living). Also, I added songwriter, Since The Pete Best Band's 2008 album Haymans Green features 11 songs which he appearently co-wrote. I'm no expert on Pete Best though. Retro Agnostic (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Best did sing a song with the band sometimes, often when the club owner would submit to the fervent requests by female fans to put Best and his drum kit in front of the other Beatles for a song so they could see him more clearly. This was never recorded (Lennon always maintained that their best work went unrecorded, played live in clubs before getting a record deal, which means before Ringo was signed) but photographs of Best and his drum kit being temporarily placed in front of the band to placate the femmes, with the three other Beatles looking extremely annoyed in the immediate background, do exist. He had grown so much more popular than the others with the girls that it's no wonder they fired him and hired a man who could never compete with any of them on any level. George Raft Has Risen From the Grave (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC) 21:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"I'm no expert on Pete Best though." How interesting... Did you read the article at all? I quote: "When the group returned to Hamburg, Best was invited to sing a speciality number called "Peppermint Twist" while McCartney played the drums, but Best always felt uncomfortable being at the front of the stage.[29]" Some things are better left unsaid.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article has an odd, defensive tone. NPOV?

First, the article begins by saying Best was "never given a full explanation as to the reason why" he was dismissed from The Beatles? Never? Really? Odd that everyone in the world has heard the story but Pete, huh? Second, the section about recording in Hamburg ends with "Best played drums on all tracks and Kaempfert never publicly criticized Best's drumming". This sentence serves no purpose other than to preemptively defend Best against the criticism of his drumming by George Martin. Once again, is this really NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1: He was never given a reason as to why. 2: There is a danger that this article could then go the other way and say George Martin didn't think he was good enough, and he was sacked without a reason. That would be tantamount to saying he only got the job with The Beatles because he had a drum kit, which is not true.--andreasegde (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There again, I have just deleted the "Kaempfert never publicly criticized Best's drumming" because it didn't have a reference. No matter what anyone thinks, if it doesn't have a valid reference, it can not be accepted.--andreasegde (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Never given an explanation? Multiple beatles said that he wasn't good enough, and we have quotes saying that. I think that's a full enough explanation? Saying "never given a full explaination" is obviously defensive. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• After reading this article, I'd have to agree: the tone appears to me to be both odd and defensive, as if it were written by someone close to Pete Best who is clumsily trying to slant the story. I'm not saying Best didn't get a raw deal from the Beatles, but that the article comes off to me as unencyclopedic in regards to WP:NPOV. I wasn't surprised to find this section on the talkpage, but I am surprised at the lack of action on this important subject... it has been nearly two years. Jusdafax 20:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh really?--andreasegde (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I started to work on the intro but saw you were also busy on the article so I stopped, but the article needs a lot of work to make it encyclopedic, in my view. It has numerous issues including being rather poorly phrased and the previously mentioned problems... Jusdafax 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise you to talk about major changes on this page, before you start.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did. Looks to me like we have a pretty big difference of opinion on how to go about fixing this article, so I'm going to tag it as a violation of NPOV to bring in some outside opinion. Jusdafax 21:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Slipping in "Looks to me like we have a pretty big difference of opinion" when all I said was "Oh really?" and advising you to talk about things here first is very inflammatory. We've both been here for awhile, so we know how these things go, do we not?--andreasegde (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your use of "Slipping in" aside, you neglect to mention your revert of my edit to the lede which convinced me we indeed have a major difference in editing outlook, and the fact that I did in fact mention my concerns prior to editing the article, making your advisement moot. I've tagged the article as NPOV and started a section below regarding what I see as serious problems. I hope we can settle this and move forward. Jusdafax 22:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. I reverted your edit because the lede is short enough as it is, and the club's name is important enough, considering it was owned by Best's mother, and the Best family actually lived above it. Best still does. Please detail your accusations of non-neutrality below, in the new section you created. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well let's see, you then edit the article nearly 60 times; I must admit, a truly impressive act of article ownership! And after all those edits, I'm to be allowed to make a comment or two subject to your approval? Unbelievable! Jusdafax 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not own this article; I'm the only one that worked on it to get it to GA, and there have been lots of random amateur edits since then. Believe me, I would love to have somebody else to work with (see Badfinger), but Beatles' editors mostly work on the FA articles. They must like the FA 'stars'...

The most interesting thing is that almost exactly at the same time you made your edit here, I started working on it to clean it up. I've been working on Maureen Starkey Tigrett, Badfinger, and The Beatles in Rishikesh, so it's not a one-off show of activity. Now lower that eyebrow. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting statements

Under Parlophone audition It states: The recording convinced Martin that the group was good enough to be signed to a contract (even though he had already signed a contract with Epstein) but with one exception; Martin and his engineers did not like Best's playing.

Under Reasons for Best's dismissal It states: George Martin was shocked that Epstein had sacked Best: "He seemed to be the most saleable commodity as far as looks went. It was a surprise when I learned that they had dropped Pete. The drums were important to me for a record, but they didn’t matter much otherwise. Fans don’t pay particular attention to the quality of the drumming"

The first statement suggests it was Martin's idea to get rid of Best and the second quote indicates that he had nothing to do with it.

Which is it?

Dstephensusa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The two aren't actually contradictory. What Martin envisioned was that Pete would remain in the band as the visible "face", but not record in the studio (GM was very firm on that point). "On the 6 June Beatles' session (audition) I [Martin] decided that Pete Best had to go [and said to Epstein] I don't care what you do with Pete Best; but he's not playing on any more recording sessions." It wasn't all that uncommon at the time, if not quite rising to a Milli Vanilli level. For their first two years the Monkees didn't play their own instruments on record. Solicitr (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Very true.--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The 6 June 1962 session was not an audition as we now know. It was a 'commercial test'. That means they were on contract. Polydor studio engineers in Germany, 2 weeks earlier, had no reservations about Best's drumming. It was the timing that Martin was on about. Best drummed out of time, called the Atom beat. Martin was unfamiliar with this not being a pop/rock producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.245.95 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

George Martin also brought in other drummers to record the drumming after Ringo was brought in as Best's replacement until the other Beatles insisted that Ringo be used in the future. He didn't like Ringo's drumming any more than he did Best's, and would have preferred an extremely competent studio drummer rather than Ringo. This has been widely known for decades. George Raft Has Risen From the Grave (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

1) Yes, studio ringers were common, but there's no reason to drag in the Monkees. The Monkees weren't a real group. You'd might as well invoke the Archies or the Partridge Family. 2) Yes, George Martin was not initially keen on Ringo Starr, but that's the not same as not liking his drumming any better than Pete Best's. None of the principals, as far as I know, has ever maintained that. TheScotch (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"Best Of The Beatles" Cameo Records???!!!??

Most definitely an untrue statement. "Best Of The Beatles" was most definitely NOT on Cameo Records. It was released by Savage Records. I am editing the statement about Cameo Records, to reflect the fact that it was, in fact Savage Records that releaed "Best Of The Beatles". --isshii 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isshii (talk • contribs)

Confusing sentence

I'm puzzled by the sentence: "In a 1995 BBC Radio Merseyside interview, Kirchherr, who was former bassist Sutcliffe's girlfriend at the time, explained: 'My boyfriend, Klaus Voorman, had this hairstyle,...'". What does "at the time" mean here?. Obviously not 1995 as Sutcliffe was long dead by then, but apparently not at the time Kirchherr is talking about either if the quote is accurate, barring open polyamory. Could someone more knowledgeable than I about very early Beatles history have a look at that and clarify the timing? 99.88.239.1 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Well spotted.--andreasegde (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

POV language in text about Anthology 1 album cover

1) The cited reference in the current version is just the DVD cover which is a visual image not an independent source about the matter

2) The entire collage on all 3 album covers is full of images that have been torn and overlaid by other images. Not one single image on the 3 covers is in its entirety.

2) The word "ripped" in the current version of the text is pejorative and implies that there was a motive to be defamatory to Best. That may or may not be the case. As individuals we can SPECULATE as to whether the removal of Best's head was ill-motivated or simply an artist's way to graphically convey what happened to Best (ie replaced by Starr) - but we can't do that on Wikipedia. We can only present incontrovertible facts.

They are these:

A) All three Anthology album artworks created by Klaus Voormann are in collage style with photographs and visual elements torn and only shown in part.

B) The part of the Savage Young Beatles record jacket in the centre of the Anthology 1 artwork that is torn is at the corner where Pete Best's face had been.

C) Where Best's face was on the poster is the face of his successor, Ringo Starr, on the Please Please Me album cover beneath it in the collage.

D) Best is seen on the Anthology cover in a separate small photograph standing in front of Aspinall's van parked outside The Cavern.

E) The cover of Best's album Haymans Green displays the image of Best's face not seen because of the torn album cover seen on the Anthology 1 cover.

The current text - which has no text sources - presents a POV and it must be NPOV. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it. It was really quite easy to do.--andreasegde (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag on article

• I have tagged the article per discussion above regarding the "Odd, defensive" nature of the prose, especially in the area of Mr. Best being fired from The Beatles. I will be happy to discuss each sentence as we go along, if need be, regarding specific phrasing that it seems to me needs improvement. Additionally, the article is poorly written and unencyclopedic in spots. The lede is a good example of this, but I seem to be meeting with resistance regarding changes to bring it into line with Wikipedia policy. Jusdafax 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Additionally, I can't agree with the GA rating the article has, and have it in contemplation for reassessment, pending observation of how matters go here. Jusdafax 22:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here we go...

"Poorly written?" Are you having a laugh, or what? "1. (adverb) poorly, with a low standard of quality, or skill".

"I can't agree with the GA rating". How many articles have you taken to GA? How many have you reviewed, Mr. J. Fax? Please, do tell.--andreasegde (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec - encouraged by your redaction) That sections of the Pete Best article "in spots" (my previous term) were poorly written seems obvious by the huge number of corrective edits you made in the past day, since this came up. I'll take it on good faith that you just happened to start editing on this right after my initial comment and first steps towards cleanup. I have not reviewed all the multi-dozens of edits you have made here, but the ones I have sampled seem clear improvements. The agressive hostility you evince in your posts, however, is offputting to me, as it would be to any reasonable person. WP:OWN says it all. My first look at this article had me shaking my head, and it indeed seemed as if it was written by someone with a stake in Pete Best's reputation. I don't believe in cross-editing, so I'm going to let you finish your work, and then take a look. I don't obsess over this stuff as I have many interests here and belong to many WikiProjects, not just one. Believe it or not, I wish you well. Life goes on; live and let live. Jusdafax 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"agressive [sic] hostility", "offputting [sic] to me, as it would be to any reasonable person". Very aggressive comments, indeed. You, Mr. Fax, are only here for an argument, IMO. Do you want me to detail your own shortcomings? Will you answer the questions about your own knowledge of GA reviews and GA articles? I think you will not, but I'm happy to advise.--andreasegde (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. Your intent appears to be to drive away, not encourage participation. I'm not here to submit to a grilling. I say again, the article obviously needed work or you would not have burst into action. I suggest you drop the stick. Jusdafax 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your intentions are quite obvious, because I've had previous experience with editors like you. Why don't you just work on the articles you "started", which are in dire need of help? Need I say more? :))--andreasegde (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Final warning: drop the stick, be welcoming, and don't leave edit summaries on articles that "experienced GA editors are welcome" - anyone can edit Wikipedia. Your badly needed cleanup on a flawed GA article is noted, but in my view you need to read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Jusdafax 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your final warning is that if you don't improve the articles you started, they might get deleted. Do you want me to link them? You obviously live in a glass house, and have a lot of pebbles by the front door.--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, here, Mr Jusdafax, are the articles you started, which you boldly proclaim on your own page to be yours: Undershaw (a three sentence lead), Thomas Weir (American soldier) (a two sentence lead, and only two references), The Red-Headed League (1985 Sherlock Holmes TV Episode) (NO references at all)... Shall I go on?--andreasegde (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Beatles recordings

I think it would be useful to itemise the Beatles recordings which are officially released, on which Best appears. I think these will all be Anthology / Decca tracks - maybe other semi-official live recordings. Will be a good addition to his career discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.148.80 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC) What about the Live At The BBC recordings? Isn't Pete Best included in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.85.178 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Complete?

I notice in the page ratings section of this article that the article is ranked 4.0 (out of a possible 5.0) as far as covering all essential aspects of the topic. So I was curious to hear from others what more can be, or needs to be, said about Pete in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.35.65 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably more about his life outside The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Best's Poor Drumming

Lots has been written about Pete's alleged poor drumming with enough recordings available to prove it needed polishing for studio work. The Love Me Do recording with Pete Drumming was poor for sure. However, drummers in those days played at large dance halls and needed to get volume, so were quite heavy. There are enough pre-Beatles recordings of Ringo. Has there been a comparison between the two? If so this should be included to give to the big picture of the drumming abilities of the two drummers.

Then it would become an article about the two of them, which it shouldn't be.--andreasegde (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Two and a half months from recording to sacking

I have emphasized this. The sacking was not instant.

What is happening to this?

Well…regarding the edits that I made to the lede, I felt there was scope to improve the flow, as often happens when a number of edits have occurred (I see this further down the article too) and also try and address the grey area surrounding the band’s drummer(s) during the Casbah period. For instance Colin Hanton, Tommy Moore and Norman Chapman all sat-in on drums immediately before Best, and I thought it might help just to summarise this in a condensed form to fit the lede. I appreciate that the article is not about the Casbah, or the aforementioned drummers, but there does seem to be a slight question mark regarding their (Best and The Beatles) “coming together”. --Patthedog (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You can find all of that in The Quarrymen article. Best only joined them because they couldn't find anyone else, as is stated here.--andreasegde (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde's topic ban re: all Beatles related articles including 'Pete Best'

After staying away from this subject due to the unpleasant encounter with Andreasegde in two separate sections above, I return to this talk page with the news that the editor in question has been topic-banned for one year from all Beatles-related articles, including this one, effective July 20, 2012. The discussions and administrator action at WP:ANI can be found here [1], and anyone who would like to improve the article may now certainly do so without interference and/or intimidation. Jusdafax 01:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The names of the band is The Beatles with a capital 'T'.

NPOV and Pete Best's Drumming

It seems the NPOV issue works both ways. There seems to be two camps - those who fiercely defend Best and also those who try hard to paint him in a bad light. Both seem to struggle with NPOV IMHO.

I have a problem with the following sentence:

"As stated in Bob Spitz's 2005 biography: "All Pete could do was play 'Fours'", 

"a style of drumming that uses kick drum notes on every quarter note to hold down the beat."

ok. If Spitz does indeed say this - and I do not doubt it - then it is a statement of fact. However, to phrase the sentence 'As stated in..." tends to suggest that this is the opinion of the writer, which is confirmed by Spitz. This is already starting to lean to lean away from NPOV and to be not encyclopaedic. But my big problem is this: I don't know when Spitz wrote this, but there is now available on youtube and elsewhere a fair number of tracks featuring Best prior to his dismissal, from both the Anthology and elsewhere, so we have many examples of his playing.

A quick note on drumming here. We are talking pre 1962 rock and roll drumming. This pre-dates the 'rock drumming' style where the rhythmical variations are mostly played by the bass drum. On many contemporary Rock and Roll records of this period it is often the snare drum that is giving the rhythmical variation. Consequently we should judge Best's playing by what could be expected of a competent drummer of this period. This would involve minimal, simple bass drum patterns. You are not going to find the relatively complicated footwork that would be played by rock drummers in the late sixties.

What we hear on several of the tracks is the bass drum being played on four in a bar, but also on one and three in some songs. There is at least one track that isn't in 4/4, Phil Spectre's "To Know Her is to Love Her" is in 12/8 where he places the bass drum mostly on on 1 and 4, with more beats added in as it builds at the end of the chorus. There are other variations, too.

I am making no comment about whether his playing is good, bad or indifferent, but the comment that "All Pete could do was play 'Fours'" is manifestly untrue. We can not include tracks for people to listen to as references - that would be 'original research' - and even if Spitz is wrong, it is still a valid reference. I do question, though, whether this section of the article should adopt Spitz's point of view when it is clearly and demonstrably wrong?

SAHBfan (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Extremely well said, SAHBfan! Racing Forward (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding His Full Name?

Pete Best's full name is Randolph Peter Best. He goes by his middle name, much like Sir James Paul McCartney goes by his middle name. Given that, could his full name be included in the article much like it is for the Paul McCartney article (where it's started with "Sir James Paul McCartney") or the John Lennon article (Where it's started with John Ono Lennon (born John Winston Lennon)? --67.240.156.83 (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FULLNAME, yes. However, the statement in the text that that is his full name really needs a good reference. I've just searched at Ancestry.com and can't find anyone of that name born in 1941. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact appears to be verified to a book source that I assume is reliable - Mallory Curley, "Pete Best - Time Traveller" p. 23–24 ... failing that, any decent Beatles book should have it. The book might also say that he wasn't the first drummer, maybe the first full time regular one, but otherwise that's a bit of a howler in the opening sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah.... of course he was born in India (d'oh! - I should have remembered) so it may well be correct. Ignore my comment about the Ancestry site because I only searched it for UK births (it doesn't have records for India). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've now tweaked the lead and infobox to give his full name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Best was contracted with Beatles

Best's recording session was to make a record not an audition. He was not rejected at an audition.

That may be so but a lengthy explanation of the difference between various types of audition is not necessary here, a brief note is enough. MFlet1 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Discography

Pete Best does not sing on Haymans Green album, but what about all the other albums and singles in the discography section? Shouldn´t it be mentioned where he sings and where he´s only the drummer? Vesahjr (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess nobody knows... Is it possible to hear Pete Best singing on a record somewhere?Vesahjr (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

People say that Pete sings lead on the 1965 song "Boys" by the Pete Best Combo at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6XOV15c-o8 (YouTube link) 2600:1000:B10E:BBE6:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's the proof: Cameo Records's 1965 7-inch record "Boys" (C-391) says on the sleeve "PETER BEST Formerly of the BEATLES SINGS Boys AND Kansas City". See it at https://www.discogs.com/release/7002319-Peter-Best-Boys (Enlargeable JPEG) 2600:1000:B10E:BBE6:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe Cameo Records wasn't being honest. Best of the Beatles: The Sacking of Pete Best by Spencer Leigh states that for this song "Boys": "Despite the label, vocalist is Wayne Bickerton." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B119:2B61:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

According to Spotify article Pete Best does not sing on Pete Best Combos recordings, so I guess you´re right. He never sings on Pete Best Band videos either. So probably his singing has never been recorded anywhere. Vesahjr — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting timeline?

In this video : PETE BEST, I've Got a Secret 1964 Pete Best states that he was with the Beatles for 2 and 1/2 years. However, this article states that Best was with the Beatles from August 12 1960 to August 16 1962, just 2 years and 4 days, far from the 2 1/2 years stated in the video.... Is the timeline accurate, and the statement a little exaggerated? Dhrm77 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Omission: Career as a civil servant

The article lists that he was a civil servant for 20 years. This is as of the current writing almost 1/4 of his life. While I understand that the controversy surrounding him and his musical career is important, leaving out information from such a sizable portion of his life seems somewhat remiss. It would seem contradictory that someone who was as inconsistent as he was reported being, could maintain such a position (what position) for 20 years without public documentation. RowanHawkins (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not an omission. The text says that he worked at the Garston Jobcentre in Liverpool, "where he rose from employment officer to training manager for the Northwest of England." I don't really think that this article needs to go into undue detail as to the nature of a job centre, or a training manager. There is a vast range of jobs that can be described as "civil servant" , not all of which require an exceptionally high level of responsibility. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Civil service work is typically mundane. What would be notable about it? It's Best's connection to the band that is notable. Without that I don't think we'd be talking about him. What would you propose as an addition RHawkins? MartinezMD (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dismissal

I just condensed the section on Best's dismissal (particularly the section on the reasons for it). There was some redundancy, some irrelevancy, some speculation, and some excessive detail. That whole section seemed disproportionately long in relation to the rest of the article. I want to point out that even after my edits, the section on dismissal is still slightly longer (14 paragraphs to 13) than the rest of the material on Best's tenure in the Beatles. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Pete Best

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Open one month with no objections and minimal edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This article passed GA over 15 years ago, where standards were more lax. There are several maintenance tags on the article and too much unsourced and controversial content. As the exact reasons for why Pete Best was fired from the Beatles depends on who one speaks to, we've got to use high-quality sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.