Jump to content

Talk:John Lennon/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Bigger Than Jesus -- own page?

Does anyone else think that, while the "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" statement and ensuing furor is important, it overtakes the article a bit. Perhaps we can edit down the mention on this page, and create a page devoted to the full details, quotes, fall out? Hotcop2 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Plus there's more that can be said. I've already been thinking "The Jesus Controversy" would make a good article in its own right and I'd probably put something into expanding it if someone creates a stub from the excess in the Lennon article. PL290 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Would we be able to hotlink the entire quote: "The Beatles are more popular than Jesus" to go to a page called "John Lennon: Beatles/Jesus Controversy"? Hotcop2 (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PL for fixing those links! Hotcop2 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the Jesus controversy article should be changed. The link is on the words "We're more popular than Jesus now", but that creates an Easter Egg where the user is unlikely to know where the link leads without actually clicking it to open the page. The link ought to be closer to the name of the article, or at least something that includes the word controversy. I couldn't come up with something that uses the actual article title; the best I could do was something like "Lennon made some controversial comments about Jesus and Christianity ...", and I didn't think that was good enough. Suggestions? — John Cardinal (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point—how about "The reaction that occurred five months later when Lennon's words were quoted by American teen magazine..."? PL290 (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Better, but I think if the article title includes the word "controversy", the link would be better with it, too. How about, "Lennon's comments created a controversy when quoted by American teen magazine..."? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that works better. So I've reworded it, ready for its link. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good—and the rewording is very good too, introducing a mention of both the lack of UK concern at the remarks, and the violence of the US reaction, without getting bogged down in detail. I'll look at adding some other stuff to the new page sometime. PL290 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with PL290, nice job. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you put it as Beatles are more popular than Jesus controversy or Beatles-Jesus popularity controversy. Or whatever in the text. I added the article to section title. Kasaalan (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this often referred to as "The Christ Statement". GabeMc (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest merging John Ono Lennon II to this page. I'm unable to find a notability guideline for fetuses (...) but I think WP:NOTINHERETED applies quite well here. Note that children of famous people who have passed into the plane of the living don't even get a page just for being the child of a celebrity (Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander get piped to their parents for example). I also think WP:ONEEVENT applies. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is long enough (perhaps too long) and the link to the Ono Lennon II page is sufficient. My .02 Hotcop2 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
But you must admit that this fetus does not satisfy the guidelines for notability. I'm ok with deletion or merging to Yoko Ono, but simply leaving the page would not be reasonable in my opinion. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, we must admit that. My own feeling is that the guidelines you cite support the idea that it should be deleted. The fact of the pregnancy and miscarriage is important to both the Lennon and Ono articles (although I notice the latter currently omits to mention it), but I'm not sure about the other details. I'd suggest proposing deletion rather than merger, to see if anyone produces a valid justification for keeping it. If deletion is successfully contested, my feeling is that Yoko Ono might be a better merge target; it has a section on aspects/implications of her and Cynthia Lennon's characters/actions, and the pregnancy occurred while Lennon was married to Cynthia. PL290 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't even know that page linked up. If it must be merged, the Y.O. page is more appropriate, Let's not separate mother and child... Hotcop2 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree this is a unique case. Not many celebrity children get time on their parents' albums, much less mentions (usually lengthy) in every major biography about them, and also in every major interview (Rolling Stone, Playboy and others) they gave to the press. This is one who was... and on top of that wasn't born; didn't get to be. I think Conical Johnson is overlooking these factors in "notability", and I find the "too long" suggestion a bit dubious for related reasons. ONEEVENT doesn't apply, as the unborn child played a role in several things (Lennon's relationships with Ono and his wife and son, his public perception, two albums, the Beatles' later history). I could see a merger into Yoko Ono, as part of her relationship with her (to-be) husband, if nothing else will satisfy... but I think it's unnecessary. Zephyrad (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, it's nice to hear an articulated discussion on that page for once. Some people have just flipped out in the past, over the nature of the topic. Zephyrad (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it can well be said that Britney Spears' kids and Michael Jackson's kids have been mentioned quite a bit more in press than John II, and they still are piped to their parents. ONEEVENT does apply, because even if (in your estimation) John II had a big impact on John senior, he is only notable for the single event of being miscarried. So the guideline seems to say that the event may be notable, but the fetus (dangerous to call it a person) is not. Since a page called "Miscarriage of John Lennon and Yoko Ono's first child" has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell of getting past deletion, I think a merge really is in order.
I can't really see your assertion that John II had a big impact on John's life, when he is only barely mentioned on senior's page. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


What say you to a merge to Yoko Ono?

Ok, merger completed. Conical Johnson (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After nearly three weeks, there's no serious contention that Chapman should not be included (since we quite plainly do deal, in detail, with evil-doers throughout the encyclopedia) and nothing to be gained by further discussion, as consensus has become quite apparent. It's bugger all to do with censorship as this is a matter of historical record, and no new arguments are being presented. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose that Chapman's name should not appear on the page. Continuing to propagate his fame has no purpose other than to make it apparent to other talent-less American loonies that they can likewise gain great fame by killing a defenceless celebrity. Certainly some basic details of the killing should appear on the page, but advertising the killer's name is simply playing into his hands. B. Fairbairn (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not censorship, it is common-sense. You are granting recognition to a mental deficient for committing a despicable act. B. Fairbairn (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - consider, in fact, how you are granting that very recognition by attempting this action. But whether or not you personally consider it common sense, that would indeed be censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. PL290 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS censored. Unsubstantiated allegations are removed from wikipedia. Images that do not meet the approval of wiki's so-called administrators are removed. Anything that contradicts wiki policy is censored.
And... that is a good thing. Something that maybe we need more of!
According to WP:NOTCENSORED, "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed."
See, it is censored. Have a think about that. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose such a nonsensical suggestion. Should Wikipedia also delete all references to - hell, entire articles about - Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden or other evil bastards just 'cause they did things that were, y'know, EVIL? Vonbontee (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2009 (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.

Beatles arriving in America

The image captioned "Lennon, left, and the rest of The Beatles arriving in the US in 1964" should be removed, for two reasons: 1) Another image on the same page is a blow-up of this image; 2) The mention of the US and the inclusion of the 'arriving in the US' images is inappropriate for the Beatles, who were born and raised in the UK, not the US. The Beatles travelled to numerous countries - how about including images for the Beatles arriving in other countries as well.
Only one Beatle eventually ended up living in the US (and we know what happened to him). B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you find a picture that you feel would better illustrate that particular section ("The Beatles: 1957–70") and then make a proposal here to replace the existing one. Then we can make judgement on which is better. Bluewave (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why my edit has been removed

From the beginning, the new relationship was rather bizarre. In a 1981 interview, Ono revealed, "I used to say to [Lennon], ‘I think you’re a closet fag, you know.’ Because after we started to live together, John would say to me, ‘Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag.’" See New York Magazine, May 25, 1981, 38 [1]

In my opinion, it is an important quotation, as it sheds light on the nature of John's and Yoko's relationship. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

First, who is stating that the "the new relationship was rather bizarre"? You? That would be an opinion, thus not WP:NPOV. Second, shedding "light on the nature of John's and Yoko's relationship" falls under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In other words, you are taking a published source to present an original thesis. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the quote reads like typical Ono/Lennon banter. I don't think it sheds light on anything except their style of humour. Bluewave (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, and the use of the word "revealed" is also indicative of the editor putting a particular interpretation on it...as though Ono must be giving away some secret, not just a light-hearted remark. Bluewave (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Many are of the opinion that their relationship was rather bizarre. According to The Mirror, October 1, 2000, "Cynthia was not the only one hurt by John and Yoko's bizarre relationship." Why should Ono's own statement fall under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? That's a mystery to me. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about this new version of the paragraph:

From the beginning, the new relationship was rather bizarre. In a 1981 interview, Ono light-heartedly remarked, "I used to say to [Lennon], ‘I think you’re a closet fag, you know.’ Because after we started to live together, John would say to me, ‘Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag.’" See New York Magazine, May 25, 1981, 38 [2]. According to The Mirror, October 1, 2000, "Cynthia was not the only one hurt by John and Yoko's bizarre relationship."

Any opinions on this version? Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really see the point of the paragraph. The statement is that their relationship was bizarre. However, I don't think the first quote really supports this...it might be more supportive of a statement that their relationship sometimes included some banter (but that would hardly be of note). The second statement does say that their relationship was bizarre, but it looks like the kind of adjective just chucked in by a Mirror journalist to spice up the sentence a bit. It certainly doesn't give us any clue as to how this bizarreness manifested itself. Surely it's better for the article to chronicle the course of their relationship as accurately as possible, then leave it to the reader to decide whether they think it bizarre. Bluewave (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is an expanded version of the paragraph:

From the beginning, the new relationship was rather bizarre. In a 1981 interview, Ono light-heartedly remarked, "I used to say to [Lennon], ‘I think you’re a closet fag, you know.’ Because after we started to live together, John would say to me, ‘Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag.’" See New York Magazine, May 25, 1981, 38 [3]. According to The Mirror, October 1, 2000, "Cynthia was not the only one hurt by John and Yoko's bizarre relationship." Albert Harry Goldman wrote in his book, The Lives of John Lennon (1988, new ed. 2001), that Ono was regarded by Lennon as a “magical being who could solve all his problems”, but that this was a “grand illusion”, and that she openly cheated on Lennon with gigolos. Finally “both he and Yoko were burnt out from years of hard drugs, overwork, emotional breakdowns, quack cures, and bizarre diets, to say nothing of the effects of living constantly in the glare of the mass media (458). However, even after their separation, when they “were no longer collaborating as a team, they remained in constant communication. Their relationship had taken another bizarre turn. No longer able to live together, they found that they couldn’t live apart either.” See John Blaney, John Lennon: Listen to this Book (2005), 139.

This certainly supports the view that their relationship was bizarre. Therefore, I have included the new paragraph in the article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision

In a 1981 interview, Ono remarked, "I used to say to [Lennon], ‘I think you’re a closet fag, you know.’ Because after we started to live together, John would say to me, ‘Do you know why I like you? Because you look like a bloke in drag.’" New York Magazine, May 25, 1981, 38 [4] From the beginning, the new relationship was considered rather bizarre by some parties. The Mirror claimed on October 1, 2000, "Cynthia was not the only one hurt by John and Yoko's bizarre relationship." Albert Harry Goldman argued in his book titled The Lives of John Lennon (1988, new ed. 2001), that Ono was regarded by Lennon as a “magical being who could solve all his problems” though it was a “grand illusion”, she openly cheated on Lennon with gigolos and finally:

“both he and Yoko were burnt out from years of hard drugs, overwork, emotional breakdowns, quack cures, and bizarre diets, to say nothing of the effects of living constantly in the glare of the mass media (458). However, even after their separation, when they “were no longer collaborating as a team, they remained in constant communication. Their relationship had taken another bizarre turn. No longer able to live together, they found that they couldn’t live apart either.” John Blaney, John Lennon: Listen to this Book (2005), 139.

Well try not to insert "bizarre" as personal comment. I cannot comment on whether their relationship was bizarre or not, however Yoko's own comments are bizarre even as a humor in my sense. And try adding it as a 3rd party comment with WP:RS. Kasaalan (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder section

I've changed some of the Murder section:

  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, blockquotes should be used only when the quote is four lines or more. Furthermore, some of the quotes are double attributed (Lennon said..."Quote" - John Lennon, for example). I removed the redundancies.
  • Imdb and Find a grave are not reliable sources and should not be used in a GA-quality article. I did not remove these, but if someone is working on the article, a top priority should be replacing these sources with authoritative ones. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction, MOS changes are always welcome. The quotes didn't appear good for layout, however quotes serve different purposes.
What you say about {{cquote}} or {{quotation}} then. Some famous quotations should be brought forward to draw attention. Kasaalan (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
What about a quote box like this?

There is no funeral for John. John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him. Love, Yoko and Sean.

Yoko Ono, 1980
Only one quote per section can be highlighted like this, but that gives an opportunity to do just that. Highlight too many quotes with quote templates and they lose their effect. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes we should limit the number. Also white background might be better, if not a pale blue maybe. What others say about this. Kasaalan (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've replaced the imdb and find-a-grave cites as requested. In the process I identified that the statement that Yoko Ono kept Lennon's ashes did not match the cited source, so I've updated it to match. I wonder if this sentence is necessary at all, however.
Regarding her statement shown in the quotebox above, according to Harry 2000b that is a truncated version and the full statement was:

There is no funeral for John. Later in the week we will set the time for a silent vigil to pray for his soul. We invite you to participate from wherever you are at the time. We thank you for the many flowers sent to John. But in the future, instead of flowers, please consider sending donations in his name to the Spirit Foundation Inc., which is John's personal charitable foundation. He would have appreciated it very much. John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him. Love, Yoko & Sean.

There may be problems with reproducing the whole statement due to the "plug for Lennon's charity" effect. Others may opine on that aspect but I will now reword things to indicate that that is the start and end of the quote and not the whole statement, which seems a sufficient course of action to me. PL290 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no funeral for John. Later in the week we will set the time for a silent vigil to pray for his soul. We invite you to participate from wherever you are at the time. We thank you for the many flowers sent to John. But in the future, instead of flowers, please consider sending donations in his name to the Spirit Foundation Inc., which is John's personal charitable foundation. He would have appreciated it very much. John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him. Love, Yoko & Sean.

Added wikilinks. Kasaalan (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding John Lennon's declared time of death

{editsemiprotected} The time of death in the murder section is incorrect. According to Lennon's death certificate, which, can be viewed here:http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Death_Cert.htm , John was declared dead at 11:15 pm, not 11:07, which is how it currently appears. Nme91 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

SFN

I would like to suggest we consider converting the citations in this article to use {{sfn}}. This makes the notes neater, and can make editing easier by removing a vast amount of clutter from the markup. Is there agreement with this suggestion? For examples of articles using {{sfn}}, see Hey Jude and The Beatles. PL290 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am all for it, and I will do it unless someone else beats me to it or objects to the change. I've written some scripts that help with the conversion and so I am pretty sure it's easier for me to do it than for someone else. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I should have mentioned that the conversion to {{sfn}} is a lot easier when the references are in good shape already. In particular, making sure there are years/dates when appropriate, author names if possible, etc. I'll do some citation edits to try and help with that before doing the switch to sfn. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: when implementing {{sfn}}, we did so in conjunction with the {{cite book}} family of citation templates, but the newer {{vcite book}} family are now more efficient and give faster page loads. I've asked User:Eubulides, who has a script, to update the article to use the {{vcite book}} citation family with {{sfn}}. PL290 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Put "Monuments and sculptures" on a diet?

Lennon has inspired a number of monuments, sculptures, etc., and the article should mention that, but the list is a bit out of control. I suggest we remove all the entries except those where there is a news story or other material that supports the notability of the piece. You'll note that some of the citations in that section currently point to blog entries, photos, etc., and not reliable sources that establish notability. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which ones you want to trim. I may break the section into 2 columns which may take less space. Kasaalan (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in History: Early years

The sentence: "Lennon was often disruptive in class and ridiculed his teachers, resulting in them refusing to have him as a student." should be corrected to read "... resulting in their refusing...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.210.254 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Plastic Ono Elephant Memory Band

During John Lennon's final NYC concert, his bands pseudonym was referred too (on the video tape at least) as 'The Plastic Ono Elephant Memory Band.' However, I don't see this on the pseudonym list. Could someone edit/confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyIsMeaningless (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(MoneyIsMeaningless (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

I have a picture of John Lennon street sign in Lviv, Ukraine. Anyone interested?

As far as I know, this is the only street named after him in the world. At least, I haven't seen anything of the kind before. Though they say there are several such streets, but where are they? (the street in St Petersburg, Russia is not official).

So, I have a picture of me standing near the street sign in Lviv.

Here are the links to the event: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BD#.D0.9F.D0.B0.D0.BC.D1.8F.D1.82.D1.8C_.D0.BE_.D0.9B.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B5 (in Russian wiki) http://postup.brama.com/usual.php?what=15015 (in Ukrainian) Diemon.ukr (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is no copyright issue, images on russian wikipedia article are much better than english wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
upd: added the file http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Lennon-Street-Lviv.JPG Diemon.ukr (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I’m more interested in the brickwork - I’ve never seen anything like it!--Patthedog (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
We should crop the picture before using it in articles. Does the sign says John Lennon Street. Kasaalan (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, one may check "вул. Джона Леннона" in Google Translator (Ukrainian-English), I may scan a city map as well. Google Maps doesn't show all the streets, but here is another source. http://map.meta.ua/map/lvov/#x:1625:y:-2754:s:0.5:o:1:r:2420x-5800,2614x-5910,2580x-5760,2552x-5688,2620x-5628,2658x-5480,2752x-5382,2926x-5300,3116x-5250,3324x-5226,3494x-5254,3624x-5268,3766x-5296 No.33 is near Mark 5, it's named as "Ленона Дж."Diemon.ukr (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Here it is Google Maps [5]--Diemon.ukr (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Finally I cropped the image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Lennon-Street-Lviv.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diemon.ukr (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Was he ever a vegetarian in his life? I've heard that he was after India for at least a wee bit? --207.177.111.212 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ivu.org/people/music/lennon.html some research over the case. Kasaalan (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. He tried to stick to a macrobiotic diet, and avoided sugar, except when he had pizza, whoppers, chocolate and coca cola. And coffee -- all forms. If anything, he was a caffeinitarian. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lennon was also a poet

{{editsemiprotected}}

In introductory paragraph, I think Lennon should also be identified as a poet. "John Winston Ono Lennon,[1][2] MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English rock musician, singer-songwriter, author, poet, and peace activist who gained worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles." Carasch (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't agree with this change. Lennon is not primarily known as a poet, and if we include poet then we could similarly add artist and/or painter, record producer, piano player, etc. It's not that he wasn't those things; adding them in the first sentence of the lead reduces the focus on his primary activities. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The lead mentions "author" which would cover poetry - as far as I am aware Lennon didn't have a volume of his poetry published, but "In His Own Write" and "Spaniad in the Works" both featured his verse. I wouldn't really call it poetry either, a lot of it seemed to be lyrics that he did not put to music for one reason or another and do not use the conventions of poetry. I think author conveys the breadth, and the depth, of Lennon's writing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Many fine points by all. While I suppose I fail to the see the harm in adding the word, I can see where it might detract from the major points in his life. Not to be argumentative, but if he were still alive however, he might disagree - poetry was probably a very large part of his life. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

)

Well, I tend to agree with what you all have said. I suppose I should post on the McCartney page, because it DOES say "poet" (as well as "painter") in his bio... and even though he did publish a volume of poetry and lyrics, going by the arguments above, it is not what he is primarily known as. Carasch (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"In His Own Write" and "Spaniad in the Works" are both works of poetry technically so it would be right to lable him that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's one word for gods sake, and besides, most people identify him as a poet. I say add. (Chasesboys (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Lennon had books of poems published, that makes him a poet, maybe not a prolific poet, but a poet. GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lennon has a Citroen car commercial airing in France, so he's also a car salesman. http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/national-news/128159-sean-lennons-hits-back-in-row-over-murdered-beatles-tv-ad-images.htmlHotcop2 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John Cardinal said:

Lennon is listed as an English rock musician, singer-songwriter, author, and peace activist.

Paul is listed as an English singer-songwriter, poet, composer, multi-instrumentalist, entrepreneur, record and film producer, painter, and animal rights and peace activist.

Lennon has two published books of poetry yet you think adding one more word would to his intro "reduces the focus on his primary activities".

Again, sounds like a 100% McCartney guy with no objective opinion. GabeMc (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say what I think you sound like, but WP:CIVIL prevents it. You'd rather interpret my motives based on your biases, rather than on EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE? Do you happen to know what my opinion of the McCartney article is? How do you know if I agree with the sentence from that article that you quoted? YOU DON'T. Stop guessing; you're not good at it. Stop worrying about what I think, and start worrying about making good edits and making good arguments to build consensus. Stop worrying about how McCartney's article compares to Lennon's article. The two articles are not related. The WP system is not that difficult to figure out. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

John Cardinal said:

You reverted my edits on said subject, that's why it seems you agree with adding everything Paul has done once or twice to his resume. I could be wrong, but you seem to want all those things listed based on your reluctance to trim it down. GabeMc (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to a revert of mine where you had made a series of edits to the lead section of McCartney's article. I reverted the whole sequence because the edits were poorly done over all, and your main goal--based on multiple talk page edits---was apparently to balance the McCartney article with respect to the Lennon article, an endeavor that multiple editors told you was pointless. I happen to agree that the list of occupations in the lead of McCartney's article is too long.
Other editors argued against including "poet". Are they also "100% McCartney guy[s] with no objective opinion"? — John Cardinal (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I stopped comparing John and Paul's pages, and have not made a comment in those regards in a while. GabeMc (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What was John Lennon's iq?

There usec to be a sentence about that. Was it removed because it was inaccurate? Does anyone know what his iq is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. 9? ````

Lennon was responsible for 24 number one singles on the U.S. Hot 100 chart.

He had 20 with the Beatles, one with Elton John, and three posthumous #1s after his death, when "(Just Like)Starting Over", "Imagine" (re-entry), and "Woman" all topped the US chart within 8 weeks of each other, that's 24 US #1 hits, counted the same way Paul's 32 hits are. [1] GabeMc (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Billboard info on allmusic, The Beatles had 21 Billboard Hot 100 #1 hits in America, Lennon 3, McCartney 9. GabeMc (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

www.allmusic.com

Technically, Mark Chapman was responsible for three. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And lest we forget "Fame" by (Bowie-Lennon-Alomar)Hotcop2 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, 25 is the accurate number, Lennon was a co-writer on "Fame". Nice polie work! 21 + 4 = 25. GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Well, actually 26. Elton's "Lucy In The Sky Hotcop2 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You rock HotCop! GabeMc (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the Peter and Gordon hit was a Lennon/McCartney, that makes 27 total Hot 100 #1s for Lennon. GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Happy X-Mas(War is Over)" was number one but billboard took a holiday on that week so it isn't officially but it sold more than any other billboard single that week, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Walls and Bridges

Why is this album not as regarded as Lennons other two respected ones? Seems to me there are at least 7 very good tracks on it, and some of it is better even then POB, IMHO. GabeMc (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it should be mentioned with POB and Imagine in the lead? GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is after all his only #1 album with his only #1 single on it. GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this album truly adds another revealing layer to Lennon's persona, and the songs immaculately describe the pain and fear that he felt during the Lost Weekend. However, I feel that this album is not nearly as groundbreaking as the raw anger POB or the sugar coated vision of Imagine. Potent and brilliant, but all pretty much within the singer-songwriter vein already established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.219.19 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do The Oz

we need to stick this lovely little ditty in here somewhere Hotcop2 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point—I've added a mention. PL290 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistress Pang

Before the lost weekend, Pang was Lennon's mistress for some months while he was still living in New York with Ono. The article currently implies a three-stage process of (a) Lennon & Ono separate, (b) Lennon and Pang become lovers, (c) Lennon and Ono are reconciled. This is clearly a false impression and I propose to add a few further details to correct the story presented. According to Harry (2000b):

  1. Lennon's physical relationship with Pang, with Ono's approval, was instigated in August 1973 and was ongoing in NY until October when Lennon and Pang left for LA. That makes Pang a mistress for those months at least.
  2. At that point, Ono "suggested the two of them go to Los Angeles for a while". (p. 699)
  3. Harry states that when Lennon and Pang left for LA, "She was now his mistress." (p. 699)
  4. During the lost weekend, "Throughout the entire affair they had to report all their activities to Yoko", and "Yoko was initally phoning John twice a day, but the calls increased to six a day." Hardly a separation: rather, a husband away from home, accompanied by the mistress with the approval of the wife.
  5. When it was agreed that Lennon would go back to Ono in NY, Lennon told Pang that "Yoko knew he still loved May and that she'd allow him to continue seeing her, that Yoko could be the wife and May the mistress." (p. 701)

I accept that my recent edit to use "mistress" left things unclear, without the rest of the picture being given. I don't think all this warrants a lot of space in this article, but what it does say should reflect what reliable sources say. I'll put something together to straighten it out. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It was actually suggested in July. By August, Lennon was staying with Pang at her apartment and the relationship was obvious to those in the studio and photos were being taken of the new couple cavorting throughout Manhattan. Ono didn't suggest that they go to Los Angeles (no matter how many times she says so and dutiful biographers write it.) It was a spur-of-the-moment decision made by Lennon to promote Mind Games. The "reporting their activities by pnhone every day" is also refuted, and that's reinforced by Ono sending Elliot Mintz and Paul McCartney to Los Angeles to spy and mediate. The only time the relationship became clandestine was after February 1975. Pang is a more "reliable source" than a biographer who first learned of the situation from gossip columnist Rona Barrett.
No offense meant to Bill Harry, who's done an admirable job with books, but he's never lived in New York or L.A. and the article shouldn't focus too much on one publication or author because that begins to present (his) POV.
To this day, Elton John maintains the Lennons reunited at his concert. He needs to read this wikipage, too ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, we all know the deal: verifiability, not what editors think is true. There may not be much more the article needs to say on the matter, but the bottom line is, whatever it ends up saying needs to be based on reliable sources. Harry is a reliable source, and there's no WP:NPOV issue unless other RSs contradict him. It's not clear they do, without specific citations being provided. Still, the article has no great need to define the relationship too exactly. It may be best to just leave the word "mistress" unsaid. PL290 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The good news is... there will be a book out this year by Chip Madinger documenting every day of Lennon's life (receipts, records, etc) which will definitely make time lines easier and, finally, have things add up in terms of myth and reality. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

span the next what

Lennon launched a solo career that would span the next, punctuated Hotcop2 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

oh decade. except for the 4 years he didn't do anything. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what makes "span" a pertinent word: however (in)active he was during particular years, his solo career spanned that decade. PL290 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Brian Epstein

Because the great "Epstein honeymoon" was eliminated form the Cynthia section, perhaps we should include Epstein in the relationship section before someone puts all theories back in the article. Including the trip to Spain, Paul's 21st birthday, John's "on the record" quote from Playboy in 1980, John using his relationship as leverage within the group, etc. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. I think it's a good idea to create an Epstien subsection in Personal relationships. I also think the new subsection should incorporate the Epstein bit that's currently in Humour, and Humour as a section be retired in favour of locating any notable items of humour at relevant places in the main prose in the same way. I've started putting something together on Epstein and will add it to the article presently to see how it sits. PL290 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This section needs some reworking. First of all, the sentence "A Jew and a local record store manager, Epstein was homosexual, at a time of strong and widespread social prejudice against homosexuality" -- why is he listed as "a Jew" first and foremost? Doesn't sound nice to this Jewish girl... How about, "The manager of his family's large record store, Epstein was a Jewish homosexual at a time..."?

Secondly, if Lennon's taunting of Epstein must be included, then how about some context? The way it's written makes Lennon seem like a monster. He knew Epstein was in love with him, so he used the teasing as a way of drawing a line... and there are accounts that Epstein actually enjoyed the verbal abuse given him by John (according to Norman), as Epstein liked a "bit of rough." (I think it was Alistair Taylor who said that, though he certainly wasn't the only one.) And of course, McCartney (and, I believe, Harrison) teased Epstein as well! Anyway, the way it's handled in the Epstein article is good.

Lastly, the "rich fag Jew" line in Baby You're a Rich Man only happened in practice sessions (Norman again)... there is no proof it made it to the final cut. Carasch (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To respond to each of your points:
  • Jew first: I'm not a Jew myself, but I know a bit about the history and can understand that it's something important to you as a Jewish girl—but therefore, if you happened to own a record store, surely you wouldn't consider that more important? Which would you consider yourself, first and foremost? I think it's better the way round it is (and implies nothing negative).
  • Context: Sorry, are you sure you read the section? Ample context is already given for Lennon's taunting. The whole section builds the context for that statement. It would be unnecessary and inappropriate for Lennon's biography to go into more detail about how Epstein "liked a bit of rough" or any other aspects of his homosexuality. Readers can read up on Epstein for that if they're interested.
  • Monster Lennon: No, Lennon is presented as "delighting in" the teasing. Further, that statement is positioned after the passage detailing Lennon's sensitive interest in Epstein's homosexuality during their holiday together.
  • "rich fag Jew": The article says nothing about the line "making it to the final cut"; rather, that it was a twisted version of the lyrics Lennon taunted Epstein with.
So I don't think anything needs to change. As a general point, our policy is that articles must cite reliable sources, not our own ideas. That is what the article does, and does in a balanced context. PL290 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if you changed it to "Jewish" in two instances (A Jewish record store manager...) (Lennon delighted in mocking Epstein for his homosexuality and for the fact that he was a Jewish)- it would soften the langauage? Hotcop2 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The same thought struck me after I posted above. Not sure if that helps Carasch but I'll try it now and see how it looks. PL290 (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Was that sarcastic? No matter, the word needed to be changed; it didn't sound right the way it was. (And just as a sidenote, when you ask if I would consider my profession secondary to my religion, then I ask you why it doesn't say "John Lennon was an Anglican English musician" in the first paragraph?)
Also, to address the third point: From an *editorial* standpoint (and not my own personal opinion, as you imply), as it is currently written, the "rich fag Jew" bit sounds like Lennon either 1) used to sing that to Esptein as an ongoing joke or 2) sang it on the final version of the song. I suggest changing the sentence (since you all feel it must be included) to "And he taunted Epstein by twisting the lyrics of the Beatles' song "Baby, You're a Rich Man" during the practice recording sessions. Lennon sang, "baby, you're a rich fag Jew" (no caps; it's not a title) instead of the line, "baby, you're a rich man, too" (again, no caps).
Finally, the context is *not* clear as to why Lennon taunted Epstein so. The way it is written appears that Lennon was homophobic and anti-Semitic. Lennon teased just about everyone in the Beatles camp (except for Ringo)-- and this assertion is well-documented by many reliable sources. (And I *have* cited a reliable source. Many believe that Norman's scholarly work is more reliable than Harry's.) To make the section a bit more balanced (after all, Lennon did love Epstein-- you may choose any of a number of reliable sources for that fact), I suggest adding a sentence about Lennon's reaction to Epstein's death, which is well-documented.
Finally, my suggestions are all in the name of a better, more well-written, objective article. Carasch (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't being sarcastic, and it never occurred to me that Hotcop was either, though she'll no doubt say if she was. Were you, when you used "John Lennon was an Anglican English musician" as an example? He's different. My question was addressed to someone who had expressed sensitivity about the way a Jew was referred to, so I took it you took it seriously.
Look again at the "rich fag" bit, and I think you'll see that it's one of a series of four one-off incidents, and therefore not open to the misinterpretation you suggest. I think there's no need to labour the point by spelling it out or dwelling on it in any more detail than the passing mention. PL290 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you read my suggestion for changing the "Baby, You're a Rich Man" bit? My suggestion is to make the article more well-written; it's purely editorial.Carasch (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've now fixed the capitalization which as you pointed out was inappropriate. I think the wording is best as it is. PL290 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I was not being sarcastic. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Weekend

The Lost Weekend section needs to be expanded to include the scenes Lennon created in 1974 at the Los Angeles club The Troubadour during The Smothers Brothers' performance and with the infamous Kotex on forehead incident.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Memorial

{{editsemiprotected}} John Lennon Memorial strawberry fields is at 14 East 60th Street New York, NY 10022, United State


86.154.47.171 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source for this? Rodhullandemu 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tourist guide book. The monument is already mentioned, and covered in Strawberry Fields (memorial).  Chzz  ►  17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Hello, please change May 1974 to June 1974 for the return to NY as this is directly from May's book Loving John. In her book May states John returned alone with Harry to NY in May 1974 and May Pang followed several weeks later. Do not recall the exact page number but can provide if requested. This would then make this change cited. under lost weekend section. same as pangs page

"young teenager"

I propose removing the word "young" in the first sentence of the second paragraph, "...Lennon as a young teenager became involved in the skiffle craze." Is there such a thing as an old teenager? If the intention is to emphasize his youth (14, I believe), then I propose changing the phrase "as a young teenager" to "as a youth" or change the sentence to "In his early teens,..." Carasch (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done--"teenager" is specific enough for the lead, and I think it's preferable to any alternative qualifying phrase. PL290 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting

Why were the quotes about John's pending murder removed? It's definitely notable when you consider that he said many of these as recently as the very day of his murder. I am referring to the Andy Peebles interview and the RKO interview and, to a lesser extent, the "I'll probably be popped off by some loony" quote. Also, why was the link to his murder removed in the introduction? I mean, I know that people will more than likely read the entire article, but sometimes people just want to read a certain section in which case linking to the page about his murder on the introduction makes sense. I just don't understand why those were moved. I am assuming because they weren't relevant? I don't know, I disagree on that. Also, I investigated further and saw that it was removed because YouTube was not a reliable source. Having an interview in audio from the day of his murder is not a reliable source?Having an interview with Andy Peebles in audio is not a reliable source? Come on, that's just splitting hairs. John directly says the various quotes and from his own mouth to the interviewer. How is that an unreliable source? John is discussing Double Fantasy while using these lines which would indicate these were some of his final interviews. How is that an unreliable source? I am not trying to come across as hostile, but I just don't get it at all. It just seems a bit pretentious to remove a YouTube source which clearly and definitively proves that John said these things. ChrisSimpson (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As the one who removed those items, let me explain why it was necessary.
  • Firstly, the link in the lead: it's generally unhelpful to link to anything in the lead section that isn't absolutely necessary to an understanding of the lead. To do so is distracting and interrupts the flow of what is only a high-level summary of the article.
  • Secondly, removal of the youtube quotes: I understand those quotes will be something people feel strongly about, and believe me, I didn't do it lightly. But those familiar with our verifiability policy will know the reason, from the edit summaries I provided. It may seem unlikely that someone would fabricate or modify a video, but the fact is, anyone can put stuff on youtube. For this reason, it's not generally accepted as a reliable source for quoting people's words in Wikipedia articles.
PL290 (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree about taking the quotes down. I mean I could easily find a text source, but it just seems like an unnecessary task. I mean, on Milk and Honey, his posthumous album, they have a condensed version of the last interview which includes the "dead and buried" line.ChrisSimpson (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

When it comes down to it though, I don't think placing those quotes alongside the historical account of the assassination, simply for irony, is truly essential to the article, and is perhaps a little tasteless. If there were overwhelming consensus against that view, someone could no doubt find a reliable source, but at the moment I'm not hearing any other voices wanting those quotes retained. PL290 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Give people the option to choose. I think that, while the quotes are indeed quite depressing and a bit ironic, it is relevant information. I mean, his murder happened and it was a part of his life, but putting the quotes in the article would give it more context I think. It's not meant to be macabre or morbid, it is a factual quote. Many people have given quotes which became ironic due to the nature of their death. I just don't see the harm in adding the quotes in, but I guess nothing I can say will change your mind. ChrisSimpson (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Observations of "experts"

I am not too sure I like the inclusion of "expert" opinions (pseudo-intellectual reviews, observations, etc.) peppered (no pun intended) throughout the article. Hotcop2 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lennon's wordplay and surrealism are central to his character; we need to show how they affected not just his nonsense stories but his song lyrics. We can only do that by quoting WP:RSs. But I think those couple of mentions are about enough; I agree that the article shouldn't be Peppered with the stuff. PL290 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As this year is the 30th anniversary and the 70th birthday, F.A. is a good idea Hotcop2 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption under "Ye Cracke" photo

"became partners" sounds a bit lame, in my opinion. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes, though I'm not sure of a better way of putting it. (It's copied from the wording I used in the main text.) Any suggestions? It's quite accurate: she agreed to come to the pub after he said "I didn't ask you to marry me", but that's pretty much what happened when they got there! PL290 (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe became a steady couple? Lovers might work, but it seems pedestrian. I spilled iced tea in my keyboard and the keys were sticking, sorry for the spelling errors. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Iced tea! Did it freeze the keys?! It was a good improvement, anyway. Don't really like steady couple or lovers ... For a while I could only think of colloquial cliches like "started going out" or "became a unit" which were not suitable, but I've just had an idea: how about "began dating"? I think that's pretty good. But if it's not popular either, I still think "became partners" does it quite nicely. PL290 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Duh! Began dating is perfect. You can keep the other in the text, "partners" just didn't work dangling as a caption. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Got together? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Query concerning instruments played

My concern is over the sourcing of both the list of "notable instruments" in the infobox and the discussion of his guitars in the second paragraph of the "Instruments played" subsection, and the consistency between the two.

  • The infobox lists full names of five specific guitars, brand and model. Simply put, there is no evident sourcing for these full model names and, except for the Epiphone Casino, they do not appear in the primary text of the article.
  • The narrative says "he played a variety of electric guitars including the Rickenbacker (four variants thereof), the Epiphone Casino, and several Gibson and Fender models." Again, there is no evident sourcing for this list. (The source cited after the next sentence only addresses his piano playing and "Imagine".)
  • The infobox lists just one Rickenbacker model (the Rickenbacker 325) vs. the four mentioned in the narrative. I gather that the four Rickenbacker models he played were all versions of the 325, but the narrative does not indicate that, so the presentation here seems very inconsistent. The infobox lists the Martin D-28, yet the Martin brand is not mentioned at all in the narrative. While the infobox lists two Gibson models, it lists no Fender models. What is the criteria for including some guitars in the infobox, others in the narrative? Regarding the infobox alone: five guitars are considered notable, but none of his keyboard instruments?

The narrative has a hatnote directing the reader to an article with the promising title John Lennon's musical instruments. It does name all these guitars and many others, but it is sparsely sourced. It looks like it does include viable sources for the Epiphone Casino and the two Gibson models. I see no sourcing for Rickenbacker, Martin, Fender, or the several other brands mentioned in the instruments article. DocKino (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've looked at say his main guitars while with the Beatles were the 325, Casino and J-160E, and when he began his solo career he started using the Les Paul Junior. McCartney had/has a Martin D-28, but it doesn't appear to have been one of Lennon's main instruments. I've removed mention of all except those four, and rationalized these in the infobox and (with citations) in the primary text. Sounds as though the instruments article needs attention too (as suggested by its "multiple issues" banner) but as far as this article's concerned, I think what's now there is an accurate summary of the main guitars. PL290 (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks great. And all I had to do was ax.—DocKino (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad choices for music samples, I think I have a better idea for it...

Is there really a debate about whether A Day in The Life is ICONIC?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, A Day in the Life and Strawberry Fields are John's two best songs, and they are not mentioned on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.168.55 (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

First, this is the second time you've signed on anonymously and agreed with yourself. Second, this isn't a list of "John's best songs" or "John's best songs in John's opinion" or "John's best songs in your opinion" or in mine, or whatever. "A Day In The Life" is not iconic in the sense that "Imagine" or "Give Peace" is. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to upload music samples, but isn't it true that the samples should be "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Imagine"? Musically, "Strawberry Fields Forever" is his most critically acclaimed song with even John Lennon himself saying that it was his "greatest musical achievement". And then "Imagine" lyrically is one of the most iconic/famous songs of all time (I believe). They also are more unique sonically then the other too when "In My Life" sounds like a lot of smokey robinson type songs or something and "A Day In The Life" needs the whole orchestra build up to be heard in full to really come across as great.

"A Day In The Life" doesn't sound good on a 30 sec edit, it's a song that has to be heard in full you know. "In My Life" is a song that some people I find get really personal about, and I have a feeling it's just one or two people who do everything they can to make sure it is included. I like these two songs, but I think, objectively, "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Imagine" are better and more representative songs of John Lennon.

What do you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It may also be a good idea to mention the songs we provide samples of in the text. Strawberry Fields is already sampled on The Beatles, so there could be issues about using it here. How about Help! in its place? Imagine should be on it this page though. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't care if "Strawberry Fields Forever" is already sampled on the Beatles' page... If that is really a serious though "Help" is fine. "I Am The Walrus" also works too.

The use on another page isn't an issue. Each article's use of a non-free sample requires a non-free-use rationale to be stated which justifies its use in that specific article—the fact that a rationale exists for another article isn't a problem. Something that might help decide the right songs to use here would be to attempt to draft a rationale for each being considered, either here on the talk page or somewhere else. I say this because by definition, the "right" choice may perhaps be those songs for which there is the clearest justification. See WP:NFC for more information, and to see example rationales, click the song title at the top of the sample in any article. The rationales for The Beatles were recently tightened up to gain approval so I suggest you include those in examples you look at. PL290 (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how this works (licensing-wise), but "Give Peace A Chance" and "Imagine" are the logical choices for this page. Maybe every album page should also have a snippet or two, but again, I don't know the rules regarding the rights. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok...

Strawberry Fields Forever: -John Lennon says in the playboy interview it was his "greatest musical achievement with the Beatles". Paul McCartney also said it was his best beatle song too in interviews and has covered it at his own solo concerts. George Martin stated it was his favorite beatle song in many interviews. -Most acclaimed Beatle song by far along with Yesterday, A Day in the Life, and Hey Jude by critics and "best of" lists.

And Imagine should be one of them for lots of obvious reasons... It's sung all over the world. And lyrically it is similar "Give Peace a Chance" and has the same basic message really except musically it is a lot better and more critically/generally acclaimed.

Also, both of these songs are defenetly his top 5 musically/melodic best. Strawberry Fields Forever covers his poetry lyrics and beatle period pretty well and Imagine covers his really political blunt lyric style and solo period.

I have sources for the interviews and critic claims.

It's hard though to put scientifically how one piece of art is better than another, but aesthetically I think it's true that "Strawberry Fields Forever" was his best and most original/defining melody and "Imagine" his best solo work/social activist piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk • contribs)

Alright so it seems consensus is to switch to SFF and Imagine. I'd do it myself, but I don't know how to create the audio samples. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can justify any of the songs mentioned. If the article text and rationales can indeed be made to justify it, I suggest we aim for all three ("Imagine", GPAC and SFF) as replacements for the current two. I would say "Imagine" stands out as the essential, iconic, number one choice. Both GPAC and SFF are clearly good additional candidates; currently though, the article makes not a single mention of SFF. Before a sample of that song could be justified, this shortcoming would need to be addressed, so perhaps the IP editor volunteering sources above would like to provide those in any case. I've added a sample of "Imagine"; per WP:NFC we're only allowed 10%, which for "Imagine" gives us 18 seconds of a slow-tempo song—not time for many words! I think it's OK but if others want to suggest a change, no problem. I can add one for GPAC in due course; a sample already exists for SFF so it's just a matter of writing the GPAC and SFF rationales for use by this article. PL290 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A Day in the Life and In My Life aren't mentioned either. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No they aren't, and so in the event that they were retained, and their inclusion was challenged, it would be difficult to justify. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Without Imagine (song) as a sample the page shouldn't be right. But Working Class Hero should also be added as one of his greatest and earliest activism work. Give Peace a Chance and Gimme Some Truth other songs deserves to be in. Kasaalan (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
just because there politcal songs doesn't mean they are his best. most of his poltically work are musically underwelming besides imagine of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Altho my previous "unconstructive" post was deleted, my point was, like too much info, too many songs would be overkill. I think we should add "Give Peace" but that's it. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
How about this, take out in my life and a day in the life, add imagine which covers his protest songwriting songs like give peace a chance and give me some truth, add in strawberry fields forever which covers his musical aesthetic songs you know. Isn't this better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well his latest efforts was uttermost important in his political life. 1 Imagine (song) 2 Working Class Hero 3 Give Peace a Chance 4 Gimme Some Truth 5 Happy Christmas (War Is Over) for political activism work as rating, not suggesting putting all samples together. I didn't listen all of Lennon's work so I cannot rank his all time songs, but I cannot consider Working Class Hero as overwhelming at all. Working Class Hero: The Definitive Lennon and Lennon Legend: The Very Best of John Lennon might be a good proof. Kasaalan (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gimme Some Truth is not that important. Happy Xmas? You see, we'll never agree on all our personal favorites, so let's limit them to "huge societal impact" and we narrow it down to two (Woman Is The Nigger of the World not withstanding). Hotcop2 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Lennon's opinion of "Strawberry Fields", an assist has to go to George Martin for piecing together two separate (and slightly different) tapes with a linking bit in the middle which you can hear if you listen closely - John's voice drops in pitch slightly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
What personal taste. I linked compilations for a reason. Working Class Hero: The Definitive Lennon and Lennon Legend: The Very Best of John Lennon is a good start as I said. Woman Is the Nigger of the World not bad, good music, lyrics depicting a social issue yet not anti-war activism. Also cannot top 1 Imagine (song) 2 Working Class Hero by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The compilations (since his death there have been 8) are someone's opinion of what would sell at that given time (holiday-timed compilations include Happy X-mas). I didn't say YOUR personal taste, I was referring to all of our collective personal favorites. I like Woman, #9 Dream and Intuition, great songs but don't belong here. Even "Power To The People" has more cred than "Gimme Some Truth." This isn't a jukebox ;-) "Imagine" is what it is. "Give Peace A Chance" is credited as the generational anthem of the movement that helped stop a war. "Working Class Hero" may include the word fuckin, but hasn't transformed society. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it is "your own personal taste" so you are omitting Working Class Hero. Working Class Hero is some song to add. Whatever you say cannot change number 2 political song of Lennon. Kasaalan (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Working Class Hero is not so political; it's an observation about (his experience) growing up. And the compilation "Working Class Hero" was put together by EMI in conjunction with a 2007 BBC documentary of the same name about Lennon, which Ono didn't want to be seen and it was shelved. But the soundtrack was released because there was money to be made. That's the "politicalness" of Working Class Hero. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If we put "Give Peace A Chance" near that god awful picture (toward the top in the empty space oposite the table of context) that pic wouldn't seem so bad. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"Working Class Hero" is not that great, that's just a song that you like a lot for some personal reason. Personally, I would like to put "Across The Universe" and "I Am The Walrus" but I know objectively they don't top "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Imagine". "Imagine" should defenitly be one because of the immense popularity to it and the lots of references to it in popular culture in general. But most people are missing the point. Music isn't about lyrics, meaning, or effect on politics. What "Strawberry Fields Forever" is is one of Lennon's best melody. John Lennon told George Martin how he wanted the orchestral instruments to sound and suggested the merging of the folk take with the brass instrument take, etc. [IP editor]
We can check, notable covers, compilations, popularity, public debates, ... of Lennon's political activism songs. Do I Am The Walrus or Across The Universe political activism songs, no. They are Beatles time songs, possibly more or less contributed by other members. So how can you even compare them, when I rank political activism songs of his solo career. 1 Imagine (song) and 2 Working Class Hero are. So in political ranking they are 1 and 2. Kasaalan (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're focused on "political" songs too much. These little snippets are designed to give an overview of an artist's most popular songs, for whatever reason. Lennon has A LOT of popular songs. We can't include everything. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need more than one lennon political song to represent lennon's political songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think John's page needs a third song mentioned, I think Instant Karma! should be it. GabeMc (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it should be either "#9 Dream" or "Tight Ass" (from Mind Games)Hotcop2 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

. Why is Paul's page so top-heavey but John's is not?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeMc (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It might have something to do with McCartney living 30 years longer and having a much more active and fruitful career than Lennon. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
But Paul has only had two hit songs in the US since John was killed, and one, his last hit EVER was co-written with Michael Jackson, 1982's Ebony and Ivory was the last hit song Paul EVER had in America which he wrote himself, 28 years ago. With just a 5-year solo career John sold 14 million RIAA certified albums, Paul has sold 15.5 in 40 years. http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTopArt&action= SO who was really more succsessful? GabeMc (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Moved comments to the end of the section; they were inserted at the top which is not how this is supposed to work.)
Delete everything in this article and replace it with "Paul McCartney was not as good as John Lennon." Will that satisfy you? — John Cardinal (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the samples should be "Strawberry Fields Forever", it is his best and most original song, right next to "Imagine" in terms of artistic merit. It should replace "Give Peace a Chance". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Yoko Ono is properly included as an "associated act" in the infobox.

I believe that they collaborated on some music. That is why I reverted the edits by Bobsanderson555. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Relationships – Add Stu Sutcliffe

Under personal relationships, there should be a section on Stu Sutcliffe. Yoko has said, after all, that she felt like she knew him because John spoke of him almost daily. Stu was a tremendous influence on John and their relationship was clearly one of the most important in his life.

And, I would like to kindly and respectfully ask people to look at the Epstein section one more time with an editor's eye. It is curious that more is written about his relationship with Epstein than with McCartney, and it is almost as much as is written about his relationship with Yoko. Carasch (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not about how much in each section, but how much information is available. --andreasegde (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad picture of john lennon, isn't there a better one...

that was a weird period of his life when he just got off drugs and stuff isn't there a better picture we could use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We are limited mostly to uncopyrighted images; however, this is representative of a time in Lennon's life and should not be discarded simply because it does not depict him in the best light. Remember, we are an encyclopedia and not a hagiography, although the article might benefit from a wider range of free images, if such can be found. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

well aesthetically you should have a better picture than this. You read an encyclopedia, they care about aesthetics and don't just post some awkward random photo of albert einstine with his eyes closed... i'm not saying we should censor the photo, put the photo on the page about his "bed for peace protest" page, but i'm just saying this photo doesn't represents him very well as a person and it looks awkward...

in other words this photo doesn't look encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetics have sometimes to take a back seat to the mission of Wikipedia to be a "free-content" encyclopedia- that's "free of copyright", not as in "free beer". Printed encyclopedias can be sold, and part of their operating costs include fees for use of copyrighted images. We don't have that luxury. As for as the image goes, I think it is of reasonable quality and depicts Lennon at a pivotal time in his history, and therefore should remain. As I said above, other free images would be welcome. Have you got a TARDIS and a camera? ~~
The point is we are mostly limited to commons and contributions. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon So only ones not used are http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lennon_apartment.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prague_-_John_Lennons_Wall.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lennon_imagine.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imagine_Memorial.jpg Kasaalan (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That picture is just horrible. It must be the worst picture of John Lennon. It doesn't do justice to John, he looks like a patient in a mental institution. And he was such a beautiful man. I propse one of these pictures (for example): http://www.lastfm.ru/music/John+Lennon/+images/365060 http://www.lastfm.ru/music/John+Lennon/+images/313482 http://www.lastfm.ru/music/John+Lennon/+images/100099 http://www.lastfm.ru/music/John+Lennon/+images/209157 Withthebeattles (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted (all). TbhotchTalk C. 20:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you change the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I suggest we set up automated archiving of this talk page using MiszaBot. If there are no objections I'll set it up presently. PL290 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done PL290 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Monuments and sculptures

  1. ^ http://www.everyhit.com/record1.html
  2. ^ BLSart.com 2009.
  3. ^ StockphotoPro 2009.
  4. ^ Jatras 2007.
  5. ^ Panoramio 2009a.
  6. ^ Los Angeles Times 2007.
  7. ^ Panoramio 2009b.
  8. ^ FreeFoto 2009.
  9. ^ rootsweb.ancestry.com.
  10. ^ New York City Department of Parks & Recreation 2009.
  11. ^ BCNinternet 2009.

WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONALITY

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.

I am a bit bewildered that there have apparently been some opposition to aligning the article to British English spelling, with WP:COMMONALITY being cited as the reason for keeping things as they were. As I read it, WP:COMMONALITY attempts to deal with choice of words to use, and not spelling, which is the province of WP:ENGVAR. Whilst there may be some justification to use Oxford English spelling if the first major contributor used those -iza- -ize- or -izi- forms consistently, I do not believe WP:COMMONALITY nor WP:RETAIN were intended as justification for changing 'immortalise' to 'immortalize', or 'manoeuvre' to 'maneuver', thereby being in breach of WP:ENGVAR. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: WP:COMMONALITY refers to commonality of words or phrases, and specifically gives the example of using the term "fixed-wing aircraft" rather than "aeroplane" or "airplane". Nowhere does it say that Oxford spelling is mandatory. WP:ENGVAR is the applicable policy here, specifically the mention of "strong national ties to a subject", which encompasses not just the -ize suffices, but also the Norman-French spellings, ie, "colour" versus "color". Radiopathy •talk• 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's true that WP:COMMONALITY doesn't "say that Oxford spelling is mandatory", but the spirit of the guideline is clear from its opening words:

Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English ... Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.

I would not wish to imply we should change articles to Oxford spelling simply in the interests of commonality. However, where editors have already used Oxford spelling, the words are, as an incidental side-effect, "correctly spelled" for a wider audience. It goes against the spirit of the guideline to remove that benefit by mechanically re-spelling such words using another British spelling. PL290 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Once again, let's not get confused. and it still seems you are attempting to apply WP:COMMONALITY to something where it wasn't intended to apply. WP:COMMONALITY is about the choice of words or terms; WP:ENGVAR is about spelling. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with PL290's view and am once again restoring the established style of this article on the basis of his argument and on our style guideline's general principle "Stability of articles." DocKino (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems I should state my general position here as well as at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Here it is:
  • For many verbs and verb derivatives that take -ize in American English, authoritative sources clearly establish that either -ize or -ise is proper style in British English. The spirit of WP:COMMONALITY thus encourages the use of -ize in British English articles on Wikipedia. However, our general principle of article stability is paramount, so if an article's style is well-established with either -ize or -ise, it should not be changed. But for new articles or for ones where a predominant style has yet to be established, yes, the commonality principle guides us to use -ize. DocKino (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be overinterpreting what WP:COMMONALITY says, to the extent of implying a preference for Oxford English spelling over British English spelling when none exists. If it was intended that Oxford English were to have primacy, then such preference MUST be explicit. But I think you may be too busy reading tea leaves to focus on what the guidelines actually say. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The main focus of WP:COMMONALITY is contained in the opening statement: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English..." (emphasis added); it further elucidates that if " ...one variant spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and in linking" (emphasis added). This is the only time that WP:COMMONALITY addresses the issue of spelling. It clearly allows for variations in spelling and does not mandate the type of commonality that DocKino seems to think it does.

In addressing DocKino's claim that 'But for new articles or for ones where a predominant style has yet to be established, yes, the commonality principle guides us to use -ize. ': he is once again dead wrong. It is WP:RETAIN that specifically states that "...the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." There is nothing in WP:COMMONALITY addressing this.

I suggest that you:

  • Familiarize yourself with the actual wording of the pertinent policies so that you understand what they each say;
  • Prove conclusively to the rest of us that the -ise form was not the first to be used in this article and that you therefore are justified in making broad, non-consensus changes;
  • Stop being so fanatical and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

Radiopathy •talk• 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't until I saw all the amazing bold letters in your comment that I realized you were seven years old. I suggest that you respect the principle of article stability and become sufficiently fluent in English to read and comprehend WP:RETAIN. You definitely have your work cut out for you. See you back here in a decade or two. Your "fanatical", "disruptive" friend, DocKino (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, you're sooo witty! Where did you learn to be like that, or were you born that way??? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, stop wasting our time here, return to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style where you have repeatedly suggested that certain parties are "whimsical chang[ing] 's-words' into 'z-words'", and either back up your claim with clear evidence (i.e., diffs) or humbly apologize for being a liar. DocKino (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I must say, if this article started out using ise, it should not have been changed to ize. I have no objection if it is changed back again. I find the arguments here about commonality most unconvincing. DocKino, if you are on some kind of crusade on WP to change ise to ize, I formally ask that you stop, now. Please read the general principle in the MoS: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". This is causing disruption. Tony (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Tony, all the evidence I've seen suggests that DocKino is not the initiator and not on any such "crusade". As the discussion has now moved on considerably from the above at the MoS talk page, may I respectfully ask editors not to continue a duplicate strand here, but to contribute to the central discussion. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2010 (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.

Atheist

Why is Mr. Lennon's atheism not mentioned in the article, he was a very vocal critic of religion wasn't he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.79.240 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't an atheist. In his last interview for Playboy, he said, "I'm a most religious fellow." One of his last songs was "Grow Old With Me (God Bless Our Love)." Criticizing organized religion and not believing in a god are two different things. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I guess I only knew the well publicised "bigger than Jesus" stuff. I stand corrected.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.78.144 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Chapman's Motive for Murder.

Mark Chapman revealed his motive for murder was a simple craving for fame and notoriety (Lennon was randomly chosen as a victim because he was accessible to the public). Chapman had drawn a list of celebrities he thought of murdering to achieve fame, Liz Taylor, Johnny Carson among others. But he found it was impossible to get close enough to kill them, so he chose Lennon. New York Authorities long suspected at Chapman's Trial that Lennon was of no consequence to Chapman other than a means to an end, and went to lengths to make this fact clear at his Trial. (Source of Chapmans Motive, New Musical Express online).Johnwrd (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And my mother took great pains to explain to me that just because I have the same lisp, limp, and the exact physiological features as our milkman, there is no possibility at all of him being my father.--andreasegde (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the asinine comment from andreasegde is supposed to add to this but I see the information comes from here. I would suggest it would be a useful addition to the Death of John Lennon article and the Mark David Chapman article. Richerman (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
All comments aside, this "insight" has been known since 1980. Perhaps it should go on the Chapman page; Lennon died at his hands, hit list or not. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cjh97, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager, his first band, The Quarrymen, evolving into The Beatles in 1960."

The previous sentence is a run-on. It should read:

"Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager. His first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into the The Beatles in 1960"

or

"Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager; his first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into The Beatles in 1960." I'm not really an editor, but would like permission to make this change. Cdub42 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cjh97 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC) John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English singer-songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles, and together with Paul McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships of the 20th century.

Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager, his first band, The Quarrymen, evolving into The Beatles in 1960. As the group began to undergo the disintegration that led to their break-up towards the end of that decade, Lennon launched a solo career that would span the next, punctuated by critically acclaimed albums, including John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, and iconic songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine".

Lennon revealed a rebellious nature and acerbic wit in his music, his writing, on film, and in interviews, and became controversial through his work as a peace activist. He moved to New York City in 1971, where his criticism of the Vietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt by Richard Nixon's administration to deport him, while his songs were adapted as anthems by the anti-war movement. Disengaging himself from the music business in 1975 to devote time to his family, Lennon reemerged in 1980 with a comeback album, Double Fantasy, but was murdered three weeks after its release.

Lennon's solo album sales in the United States alone stand at 14 million units,[1] and as performer, writer, or co-writer he is responsible for 27 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart.a In 2002, a BBC poll on the 100 Greatest Britons voted him eighth, and in 2008, Rolling Stone ranked him the fifth greatest singer of all time. He was posthumously inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1987 and into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1994. by connor-james hurst

 Not done Your request is not specific enough as your text appears to duplicate the existing lead. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

His face does not show

His face is not showing, all that we can see is the side of his face. Someone has got to be able to change this picture. --ChelseaChoice (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Radio Programme about Mendips

There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 today about John's home "Mendips" which you can listen to for the next seven days here. According to that his Aunt Mimi and her husband only acquired the house during WWII because it was unoccupied and during the war empty houses could be taken over by anyone who needed them. The Wenner tapes will also be played on BBC7 on Saturday at 9th October at 10PM Richerman (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth?

I'm confused, everyone in the US is celebrating John Lennon's 70th birthday today, October 8. But according to Wikipedia, his birthday was October 9. Can someone please clarify that for me? Thanks! Tina Kimmel (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The American Top 40 book also has it as the 9th. Good question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Taking a random look at google (which, by the way, has an animated Lennon illustration), there is no question the actual anniversary is the 9th (Saturday). I'm guessing they're just getting started early, as it will be midnight in the UK just as Americans are getting off work today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

happy 70th birthday --Tony Winward (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No photo of Yoko Ono!?

Regardless of how one feels about her, it's an amazing omission. 24.5.102.149 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Think we first need to find one, that we can legally use. We should really include a photo of her, but we need permissions.

Ryankonkolewski (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You could choose one from the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Yoko_Ono. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 22:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Albert Goldman

I know that for information to make it on to a Wikipedia page, it has to have a verifiable source. But what of using information by someone like Albert Goldman, who was known for doing sensationalistic hatchet jobs on the subjects of his tell-all biographies (like Elvis and Lennon)? Are his sources actually verifiable, or did he create things out of thin air in order to sell books? Look what is written in the Wikipedia article:

According to author Albert Goldman, Ono was regarded by Lennon as a "magical being" who could solve all his problems, but this was a "grand illusion", and she openly cheated on him with gigolos

Is it really necessary to include such nonsense in a Wikipedia entry? You might as well include The National Enquirer as a source. The truth is Goldman was an angry man with an ax to grind against people he hated. He should not be considered a "legitimate" biographer, and any passages pertaining to what Goldman says should be stricken from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.24.198 (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Run-on in first paragraph

{{edit semi-protected}}

"Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager, his first band, The Quarrymen, evolving into The Beatles in 1960."

The previous sentence is a run-on. It should read:

"Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager. His first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into the The Beatles in 1960"

or

"Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved in the skiffle craze as a teenager; his first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into The Beatles in 1960."

I'm not really an editor, but would like permission to make this change. Also, I'd like to apologize for requesting this edit on a previous thread; like I said, I'm pretty new to this. Cdub42 (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made the change for you as you can't do it yourself yet. You will be able to though if you make some edits to non-protected articles first. To quote from the article about protection:

Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions.

As for you "not really being an editor" - we're all just amateurs - some of us have just been doing it a bit longer :-) Once you've made an edit you're an editor. Also, I've fixed the first quotation you put in above - the space at the beginning of the line was what causing the problem. Richerman (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done by Richerman. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not a run-on sentence. The lead of a featured article candidate comes under considerable scrutiny during the WP:FAC process, and an experienced FAC reviewer copyedited the sentence to produce that phraseology. I agree that it's engaging and connects the related facts, in a way not achieved by the alternatives suggested. I've restored the established phrasing. PL290 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems a little cumbersome to me, rather than engaging, and it is a run-on according to any rules I've ever learned. (Here's another incorrect comma usage: "I agree that it's engaging and connects the related facts, in a way not achieved by the alternatives suggested.") Oh well. Guess I got trumped.Cdub42 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid "experienced FA reviewers" are just as fallible as the rest of us. Just because it's been copy edited by one of them doesn't mean it's set in stone and can't be improved. Richerman (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference error

Apparently, the reference 117 does not serve. Thanks.--Beat 768 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. PL290 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In the reference 135, What book is? There are three books of Coleman. Thanks.--Beat 768 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also fixed. PL290 (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Official Site

It's bugged me for a while that there seems to be no initiative to include the man's Official site. Can it be edited in? http://www.johnlennon.com/ --Emperor Norton I (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lennon/Archive_11&oldid=1136850373"