Talk:Popular beat combo

Original research

We currently have the following paragraph:

The deliberately out-dated phrase may be used as an ironic or journalistic synonym,[1][2][3][4] or by someone to denigrate a pop group referred to, or may be used of another person's views to imply that they are "out of touch".[5] It may also be used to ridicule legalese, antiquated courtroom practices, and eccentric judges.[6][7]

This is problematic because:

• none of the four cited sources for the first sentence claim the phrase "may be used as an ironic or journalistic synonym"
• there is no source for the claim the phrase "may be used by someone to denigrate a pop group referred to"
• the source given for the claim that the phrase "may be used of another person's views to imply that they are 'out of touch'" does not make this claim.

In all cases the sources are examples of the phrase being used, and a wikipedia editor has themselves come to the conclusion that the phrase is being used in a certain way, and that the particualar examples of usage given are sufficient to conclude that the phrase has that widespread and general usage. I have tagged the article for orginal research until this is resolved.----Pontificalibus 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the above content because no one has been forthcoming with any sources that discuss such usage.----Pontificalibus 09:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BLUESKY and your editing here, and during the failed AfD, is extremely tendentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the notability of the sky was never in doubt and sources discussing its colour (of whatever hue) are plentiful. Meanwhile we go further than the (naturally uncited) Wikitionary entry which simply states "(Britain, ironic) pop group". WP:V requires sources for such leaps, beyond the kind of examples of usage which would belong in a curated dictionary.----Pontificalibus11:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Christie Davies/Daily Mail citation

This article currently cites Christie Davies' chapter "Judges and Humour in Britain: From Anecdotes to Jokes" in Judges, Judging and Humour, edited by Jessica Milner Davis and Sharyn Roach Anleu. If one reads the relevant passage in Davies' chapter it becomes apparent that Davies is citing this obituary by James Slack in the Daily Mail. This has two problems: firstly that Slack's article doesn't seem to use the phrase in question, which might suggest either that it in fact came from Davies' own memory, or that it was removed from the version of the article that's currently available online for one reason or another; and, second, that consensus in 2017 and 2019 determined that "the Daily Mail ... is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". On the other hand, Davies is a fairly unimpeachable source, and the matter at hand is a fairly trivial point and certainly not a BLP or similar scenario where questionable sources can be dismissed out of hand. As such I'd welcome others' thoughts. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

By "the relevant passage" I take it you mean the freely available "works cited" which lists Slack, rather than the actual paywalled article. So I'm guessing you don't actually know what Davies said - or if you do, please share. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The book is available on Google Books, in excerpted form, for me in the UK at least. Page 68 has:

More recently Judge James Pickles caused mirth when he asked in court, 'Who are the Beatles?' and was informed, 'I believe they are a popular beat combo, m'lud' (Slack 2010).

Google Books doesn't show the bibliography, but one can use the search function to show passages from the missing pages: if one searches for "Daily Mail" it shows the full reference for Slack 2010, which includes the URL I've linked to above. (The search function also shows that the above-quoted sentence is the only part of the book that uses the phrase "popular beat combo".) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

As I've said at the Afd, I don't believe Pickles was the originating judge, not least because I'm pretty sure the phrase pre-dates his start as a circuit judge (m'lud). But it would be entirely characteristic of his late post-retirement self-parody phase if he encouraged people to think he was. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"a phrase within British culture"

The lead tells the reader that this is "a phrase within British culture". What does this mean?

If it's just "a phrase that occurs within British English", then this could also be said of "it becomes apparent that...", "the ... in question", "in fact", "currently available online", "for one reason or another", "on the other hand", "the matter at hand", "be dismissed out of hand", etc etc (with apologies to Arms & Hearts, whose prose above is unexceptional in consisting in its entirety of phrases that occur within British English). -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It means that it's a phrase within British culture. It's not part of the English language; it has no meaning in the USA or Australia (as is evidenced by the "Merge to beat music" !votes). It appeared in the 1960s and has 50 years of regular use establishing it as a catchphrase. It is mostly used within a certain strand of middle-brow, middle-class humour, centred arounf Private Eye and Ian Hislop's TV appearances, but it's widely recognised beyond that.

The nearest US equivalent would probably be some catchphrase from Saturday Night Live or the Colbert Show, both of which are unknown in the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"A phrase peculiar to British culture"? (Though this doesn't sound quite right to me either.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Real reason for the Judge's question (if it really was asked)

Taking the subject question as an exemplar of similar questions asked by supposedly "out-of-touch" judges, its reporting in the way it has been is actually an example of deliberate journalistic misrepresentation.

As any competent journalist knows, the British legal system (like many others) depends in part on precedents, which means that the rulings and judgements made in a current case may be guided and determined by those of past cases, sometimes long past, where similar legal considerations applied.

For this reason, all the spoken evidence, arguments and pronouncements by the parties, witnesses, barristers and judge(s) in a case are carefully recorded so that, if necessary, they can be consulted in the future. Because of this, judges routinely ask for particular terms, names etc., that may be currently well understood but potentially transient, to be clarified for the record by the participant (or the relevant barrister, if different) who has just used them.

In the 1960s the Beatles were well known, but pop groups are rarely long-lasting in their fame, and no-one then could have known for sure that this particular group would still be widely remembered in 50 or 100 years' time. Such a question by a judge (who would him/herself almost certainly have known who "The Beatles" were) would therefore have been both appropriate and necessary. The barrister's supposed answer, deliberately couched in (only) slightly dated language, reflects the inherent humour in the required exchange while still being accurate.

I regret that it is beyond me to find Reliable sources to support my assertions above: perhaps another more accomplished editor may find it an amusing exercise. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)