Talk:Julia Lennon/Archive 1

Julia needs more than this

See Mimi Smith to see what it could look like... Julia bought Lennon's first guitar, and not Mimi, so Urban Legends will be corrected, so they will, by Jiminy Bob. andreasegde 19:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I know that it looks as though there are a lot of Spitz quotes in here (yes, there are) but I will read through the other books soon. andreasegde 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

I'm slightly confused about where to put the different headings. andreasegde 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK now. andreasegde 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done

I think I'm nearly done with it, apart from some web references for photos. Unfortunately no photo of Julia as yet. andreasegde 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some references from the other books to do. andreasegde 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I have put this article forward as a GA. It doesn't have a photo of Julia, but hopefully one will surface. andreasegde 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it out until Mimi passes. andreasegde 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi has passed GA, so Julia is next. andreasegde 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rated this as a B article. andreasegde 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to oneself

I may have to see a 'Shrink' about this.andreasegde 10:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

I have passed this article as a GA. It is well written, was comprehensible and maintained NPOV, and had a large amount of well-cited citations. I see that there was some discussion earlier on the talk page expressing dismay that there were too many quotes from the "Spitz book". Unless you have doubts about the verifiability of the book, there should be no need for concern. The only major change that would be positive for the article would be the addition of a picture of Julia, but that didn't impede my passing of the article. ErleGrey 01:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Family

This smacks of voodoo genealogy. All Stanleys are not descended from Lord Stanley. If a line of descent from Lord Stanley to Julia has been documented, that fact should be stated and duly sourced. Otherwise, it probably shouldn't even be mentioned. But I'll leave it in for now in case somebody has worked the line. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked high and low for John Lennon's Stanley lineage but could not find anything tracing the line back beyond John's great-great-grandfather, William Henry Stanley, who was born in London around 1814. Certainly, a 20-generation leap of faith to Lord Stanley is too speculative to be included here. (Especially since it's already been quoted by hundreds of other websites.) I have therefore removed the references to the 15th Century Stanley family pending better authority than "they had the same surname". -- Butseriouslyfolks 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to change/remove it. andreasegde 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cottage

It has to go in. --andreasegde 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in. --andreasegde 06:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

This GA article should be deleted? What a waste of time. --andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

I know I'm going to get hell for this, but is Julia Lennon actually a notable person? I mean, she was John Lennon's mother. That's about it. I understand that this is part of the Beatles WikiProject, but really, she had nothing to do with The Beatles except for the fact that she was the mother of a member. Yes, she gave him his first guitar, but that could be incorporated into his page, surely. If she has any notable value, apart from the fact that she is John Lennon's mum, PLEASE let me know, I'd like to hear it because I don't know much about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.137.95 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's prolly on this page and i couldn't find it. but do you think the song "julia" was written in her honor. ~Zac

I suppose one could say that she was only his mother, but this page is 32,333 bytes, and has 67 references. If you read the article, you will learn that Lennon was heavily influenced by his mother, which coloured his attitude to life. If Lennon had been raised in a normal home, he might not have become who he was. Wouldn't you like to know where his ideas came from? If not, then all one has to say is that John Lennon was born in Liverpool in 1940, was a member of The Beatles, and was shot in New York in 1980.--andreasegde (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Because this article is not in chronological order, it is somewhat confusing. Maybe it is just me. To read Julia was "living in sin" with a previously unmentioned man had me wondering if I missed something. I thought, "Isn't she married to Alf?" Then I come to the part where her relationship with this new man is discussed. He dies... Then I come to a new paragraph and he's being talked about like he's alive again. It's just confusing as someone who is unfamiliar with this subject matter. Quietmartialartist (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro explains it all, and the rest of the article goes into depth. The confusing bit is that Julia never divorced Lennon's father, even though she had two children with Dykins. That's how her life was. Sorry.--andreasegde (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Julia Lennon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

The lead does not adequately summarize the article.

I have altered the lead to place more emphasis on her influence on John Lennon (see new section below).

There's a lack of context and improper scope. The first two sections, "The Stanley family" and "Alfred 'Freddie' Lennon" have very little to do with Julia in the first place, and need to be restructured and refocused on the article subject. Basically the article is structured around her spouses and children, which begs the question: what's the point of having this article if it cannot be cast in respect to the subject?

I have tried to condense the section on the Stanley family and remove what I believe are some irrelevant details. I have also added a new section on her influnece on John Lennon, which I think needs to be expanded upon - after all, the only reason she has an article on Wikipedia is because she was John Lennon's mother, so I believe there should be more on her encouragement of his music while she was alive, and the hold that she continued to have over him in death. Ian MacDonald, author of the acclaimed book of musical analysis Revolution in the Head,goes as far as saying he had a "quasi-oedipal obsession" with and a "tortured devotion" to her. Much of this came out in the extensive therapy he and Yoko had with Dr. Arthur Janov.

The nicknames should be cut own; they sound informal, are of little use or importance, and lengthen the text unnecessarily.

I have changed "Alf" to "Alfred" througout. (I would have called him Lennon, but then that could be confused with John.)

Most of the images used are non-free, and as such need to comply with WP:NFCC, but I don't think File:Freddielennon.jpg, File:Lennon as a young boy.jpg, File:Julia Lennon in 1950 PNG.png and File:Julia's house at 1 Blomfield Road.jpg meet criteria. They are mostly decorative, are not the subject of critical commentary, and lack author/source information (File:Julia in hat.jpg is missing author and provenance information as well, but I think you can strengthen the fair use rationale for inclusion.)

I agree with you that most of the non-free images are not needed and I've removed all but File:Julia Lennon in 1950 PNG.png and File:Julia in hat.jpg, for which I will strengthen the rationale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I've removed Julia Lennon in 1950 as well as it doesn't provide anything that the other one doesn't do equally as well.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many references appear to be unreliable, for example: britishbeatlesfanclub.co.uk, ancestry.com (paygates), homepage.ntlworld.com, darksweetlady.tripod.com (error), iknow-northwest.co.uk, beatlecity.com, triumphpc.com, holysm0ke.tripod.com/Smith.html, and www.beatles-bootlegs.com

Checking out some of the sources, I don't see a problem with britishbeatlesfanclub.co.uk, although it is a fansite, the article is an interview with Julia Baird, Julia Lennon's half-sister:obviously a reliable source. Similarly, ancestry.com is simply reproducing a primary source, the 1881 census. I also don't see anything wrong with the triumphpc.com reference: it's an article by Bill Harry, a friend of John Lennon and editor of the Mersey Beat magazine- an extremely knowledgeable and reliable source. Some of the others do just appear to be fan pages, however, so I'll do my best to replace those.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is we can't verify whether an interview is legit, or whether they've changed or added or distorted information; as for the primary source, we can't tell if there's been invalid research or synthesis from the original source. Just because they cite something reliable does not make the publication itself reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article on hold for one week, longer if contributors make significant edits to addressing the above. Keep me informed of progress on this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete it from a GA rating. You people will have your way, and I'm not here to stop you, because I've had enough. Your attitude is driving more and more editors away, with your nitpicking and constant raising of the bar. Do it, and enjoy yourself.--andreasegde (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of WP:Beatles, though I'm not that active in that area, and I think it would be a shame to see this fine article delisted. I agree the lead could be improved, and there are too many non-free images. I'll have a go at addressing the rest of your concerns; probably tomorrow - I have a date with my wife tonight:)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has any progress been made on the above? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Have you not read my responses above?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the matter of the sources used. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are still concerns listed above that have not been addressed, I am delisting the article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time. If you have questions, leave me a message on my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Whatever happened to being bold and fixing it yourself instead of complaining, and then delisting it? No, that would be too simple for the self-elected despots, would it not? Lazy and authoritative are the words that spring to mind.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's dad - Williams or Pedersen?

In this article - the sources claim that the daughter Julia eventually gave up for adoption (now named Ingrid Pedersen) was fathered by Taffy Williams. But in this video http://www.ina.fr/ardisson/tout-le-monde-en-parle/video/I09203631/ingrid-pedersen-lennon-a-propos-de-son-livre.fr.html (about 1:00 until 1:15) Ingrid confirms that her adoptive father (Peder Pedersen) is actually her real father. Other people seem to be discussing this confusion - e.g. the discussion here http://www.beatlesbible.com/1945/06/19/john-lennons-half-sister-victoria-born/ where the article earlier states that Williams is her father but the article also later quotes her as saying Peder Pedersen is her father. Has anybody read her book to see what she says there? Pklala (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the video interview linked above - she also claims John Lennon knew of her existence but couldn't find her because of a name and date of birth change. She says knew of her relation to him but promised her adoptive mother that she would keep silent. In the present article it is claimed Lennon didn't know she existed. Pklala (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the BBC link on the article's page, it says, "Ingrid Pedersen claims that his mother then had a brief affair with a Welsh soldier called Taffy Williams, who was her real father." This is also documented in plenty of books. I hate to say it, but she might have changed the story to get publishers interested. Besides, if Pedersen was her real father, he wouldn't have had to adopt her.--andreasegde (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any source can be found to prove Lennon knew of her existence, it would be most appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed sentence to read: "Lennon was not told about Victoria's birth—who was later re-named Ingrid Marie Pedersen—although it is not known if he never knew of her existence."--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]