Jump to content

Talk:John Lennon/Archive 12

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

1980s

Untitled
Singles from John Lennon/Archive 12
  1. "(Just Like) Starting Over"
    Released: 24 October 1980
  2. "Woman"
    Released: 16 January 1981
  3. "Watching the Wheels"
    Released: 13 March 1981

Some user are always putting the 1980s singers category, and John Lennon died in 1980, it's not an 80's singer, because he died in '80, and the postumous albums was recorded in the 70's. Please don't put that category.--JamesMarshallHendrix (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't these count? —Wrapped in Grey (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Double Fantasy and Milk and Honey were recorded in 1980 and Lennon had several hit singles up until 1984. That makes him a 1980s singer. freshacconci talktalk 11:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Even barring posthumous hits, assuming 1980 is part of the 1980s, he qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not make him a 1980s singer, that was the ultimate recording, and the most of his posthumous albums was recorded in the 70's. The Beatles was release Let it Be in 1970 was it's not a 70's Band. John Lennon it's not a 80's singer.--JamesMarshallHendrix (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All the evidence is against you, even your own. "80's" doesn't mean "all of the 80s" but "worked at some time in the 80's". Please buy a dictionary and a calendar. "Posthumous" means "after death", and in the 1970s, he wasn't dead. Rodhull andemu 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he meant to say that The Beatles aren't categorized as a 70s, despite releasing an album in 1970, and Lennon shouldn't be listed as an 80s singer for the same reason. I tend to agree with him. DC T•C 22:58, Thursday October 14, 2010 (UTC)
That, to me, is a point so jejune as to be unworthy of argument. Whereas strictly there was no Year zero, we are not so strict here as to ignore the commonly-accepted view that the 1980s began in 1980 and not in 1981. There's not harm in including the category for completeness' sake, especially since Lennon had hits in 1981, which to me amply qualifies him for inclusion. Tuh! Rodhull andemu 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Well to me, 80s implies he was active for multiple years in the decade (which is impossible in Lennon's case). To your point about him having hits in 1981, The Beatles have the the best selling album of the 21st century (1), but you wouldn't call them a 21st century band. Also, do sources refer to him as an 80s singer? If they do the category should be added, if not it shouldn't be. DC T•C 23:19, Thursday October 14, 2010 (UTC)
And allmusic lists the Beatles as 1960s and 1970s. Just sayin'.... freshacconci talktalk 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"Got To Get You Into My Life" was a hit for the Beatles in 1975, as I recall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the point; not the truth, but what is verifiable. We are not here to make it up as we go along; we are here to distill reliable sources into a usable resource. Meanwhile, I can see this heading for WP:LAME, so I'm out of here. Rodhull andemu 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1980's is fine, but by the same token, since he worked on Ringo's album in 1976, why does it say "1975" in years active? Hotcop2 (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:1980s singers means, quite simply, 1980s singers. As has been pointed out, the 1980s is the period 1980 to 1989 (all the years called nineteen-eighty-something). A 1989-only singer is a 1980s singer. Likewise Lennon. Perhaps those who question this are thinking of Category:singers who were active throughout the 1980s? PL290 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured article - please discuss first

Quoting from WP:OWN#Featured articles:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner ) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with image policy and with Wikipedia's Manual of style. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. The {{articlehistory}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews.

The recent spate of edits, rewriting this featured article without discussing it here on Talk first, is unhelpful and threatens its hard-won FA status. Suggestions for improvements are always welcome, but please present them here, rather than creating extra work for other editors iin having to sort them all out. Tvoz/talk 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has added "citation needed" tags to the article. Can one of the primary editors please verify that the statements are covered by the next citations? We don't want this to go to the main page with those tags. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible copywrite violations

  • How do you figure? I checked these myself (i.e., in the biography section, but couldn't find any of the quotes that are used in the article, presumably because the article is referencing a 2007 version of that website. Three of the nine citations to that site (not quotes) were fine. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I noticed that the site you mention has a hyphen between the names (i.e., [1], not [2]) So I investigated that site too; I could not find any of the Lennon quotes in this article that are attributed to that site, which again may just be because the site has changed or moved content since 2007. Didn't see any evidence of copyright violation though, could you be more specific about your suspicions? Sasata (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a Playboy interview; how could it have changed? Also, why isn't the name Sheff in front of the citation? It took me forever to find it. And if it's a 1981 interview, what is the 2007 date? Here it is in archive.org
@Sasata, to be more specific, www.john-lennon.com is used as a source for 7 quotes in the article. So either the source does not contain the quotes or the source is violating a copywrite by printing the material. Either way, there are at least 7 quotes attributed to the dubious source that either need to be reliably sourced or removed from the article. — GabeMc (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't find the correct citation until Sandy pointed out that Sheff was missing in front of it. I agree with the reasoning, and that the article should cite directly to the Playboy interview. Sasata (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I can access this issue in a few days, and will fix the citations, if no-one else has done it by then. Sasata (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation consistency issues-- some missing publishers, accessdates,[3] and what is the page no. format?

193.^ Harry 2000b, pp. 277–8.
194.^ Harry 2000b, pp. 382–3.
196.^ Urish & Bielen 2007, pp. 121–122.

Are we using one final digit, two or three on page numbers?

Think I fixed the page range consistency, except for the one you list below, which didn't make sense to me either; someone with access to the source will have to verify. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the page no here? [4] 382-2 makes no sense.

Text is squeezed between images in "Awards and sales". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  • article text: "The second version, told by McCartney, is that in late 1965, Ono was in London compiling original musical scores for a book John Cage was working on." this statement is sourced to the Encyclopedia Brittanica article here, but I don't see where on that page it backs up this statement. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Neither do I, there seems to be many cites in the article that do not support the statement that proceeds them. — GabeMc (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Playboy interview

As far as the Playboy interview is concerned, I had not seen the above discussion about copyvio when I reinstated the cite and I have no comment right now as I have not looked into it, but there is no reason we have to link to anywhere, as long as we have the correct bibliographic information for the interview itself - links are not required. Does anyone have the bibliographic info? If not, we can get it. Tvoz/talk 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't need a link, but I think there is also a question about whether that info is even in the Playboy interview (based on the copyvio link), so someone will need to get hold of the real article. I'm wondering why y'all are uncovering so much sourcing discrepancy, and hope PL290 will weigh in soon. I'm concerned now that an examination of article history may be needed, as it's possible that PL290 didn't add some of these citations anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's late here.... of course we have the Sheff biblio info. But who is saying that this material may not be in the interview itself? Why do they think that? (I must have missed that discussion. Where?) I don't know where these questions about the sourcing are coming from either, but I have to say I am skeptical - this was done carefully, by some seasoned editors over time, and the refs that I have checked, where I saw questions asked, were all correct. What I'd like to know is why we're using such a difficult citation system, which is nifty except when you try to make changes. Too late to change this, of course, but I would have spoken against it for this very reason. Tvoz/talk 09:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Sasata had a post above that he couldn't find some of the info from the Playboy interview, but it could be that he was checking the wrong source (???) because of the confusing citation system-- I have to agree with you, that this article uses a citation method that absolutely stinks and is very hard to work with. That could be the cause of many of these problems. Besides how awkward the citations are, they don't work with the ref tool I use for citation cleanup, and I don't know why we aren't linking to author name when one exists. I guess Fifelfoo wasn't on the job when this went through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

← OK - am I crazy? Why in heaven's name are we not just using this link: http://www.playboy.com/articles/john-lennon-yoko-ono-interview/ which I am writing out so everyone can see it?? I am too tired to check the other places the interview is cited right now, but I see the Lorne Michaels stuff right there, which is where a tag was put. You know, it took me about 10 seconds to find this on Google, and I'm beginning to get really annoyed at people slapping on tags saying citation needed or suggesting something dubious is going on, when the material is readily available and the correction could just be made. Is there some other agenda at work here, or is it just fun to make other people jump through hoops? (I don't mean you, Sandy.) Tvoz/talk 09:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Geeeeeez (no, you're not crazy :) Don't know why that wasn't done to begin with, and why the copyvio EL wasn't picked up at FAC. Glad we had time to pour through this article before mainpage day! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix this to link to the Playboy article and eliminate the copyvio EL, but the link no longer jumps (from Sheff to the citation); I hate this citation method, does anyone know how to fix it? [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think it's fixed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy - I was too tired last night to go through it all. There were a few more spots where the Playboy interview had been cited as John-lennon.com - they had been in fn 80 - and I checked each and changed them to Sheff. But there still is one quote that I am not finding in toto in the Playboy interview - part of the words are there, but other words are not - I am trying to track down the source of the quote and will add it, or will change the quote to what is available in the interview transcript. It's a revealing quote, so I would prefer to retain it with proper sourcing. Any help on this would be appreciated - need to find who added it/cited it in the first place, as that person, if still around here, may have the book or whatever it's found in. Tvoz/talk 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And why is the "non primary source needed" tag the one that was placed in exactly one place, when the Playboy interview was also cited elsewhere? (This is in the "Former Beatles" section.) I wouldn't want to use an interview as the sole source in an article, but that is not what's going on here, and I see no reason that this interview can't be used here. Tvoz/talk 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Awards and sales

'his best-selling studio album' appears to be WP:OR; maybe all the supporting facts are available in the RIAA database but if no reliable source has combined the material in this way, then it's WP:ORIGINAL SYN—Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the monuments list and pics are crowed and look crammed together? I suggest placing the two pics of the statues in an image stack and losing the pis of the bust, it's not flattering. — GabeMc (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the pic of the bust from the disography, and left justified the pics to avoid sandwiching text. I think the section looks better now, let me know if I am wrong. — GabeMc (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Why is there no mention in the article of how Lennon's solo music was received by the contemporary music press (or how his activism was received by the mainstream press)? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Added a few mentions to get the ball rolling. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

.

Edit request from Hlcscatter, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 

please i must make a edit to this sumnmary.Thank you

Hlcscatter (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You need to specify exactly what needs changing, and provide sources if necessary. Rodhull andemu 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Too long

This page is 112 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. Or reduce the verbosity. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Readable prose" is 62 KB. Yes, a little long, but not egregiously so. Tvoz/talk 06:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Currently over 20 pages. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
First, we don't measure article size by KB, as that is only an approximation and includes refs and images, which are more present in FAs and chunk up KB. Second, we don't measure FAs by printed length for the same reason (they often have lengthy refs that add to the printed version). Third, this page is just over 10,000 words, which is within the norm for other comparable FAs. That template isn't helpful and should be removed, and if you can suggest specific sections that should be more tightly summarized, that would be more helpful than the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Who is "we"? Wikipedia has a set of guidelines, one of which is Article Size where KB and printed length are used as indicators. Whilst there are of course exceptions, being a FA isn't one of them. Failure to follow a guideline at one article or time does not justify the same at another. As identified on TFAR, the article lacks quality; reducing the verbosity could go a long way towards gaining it (NPOV is also an issue but would be easier to deal with were the article shorter). If the template stirs people into useful action then it's helpful; it is doesn't and TFA still goes ahead, it's easily removed. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
"We" is WP:SIZE; read it thoroughly. And then see FA stats, and Dr pda's prose size script. Again, please focus on WP:SS and suggest areas that need trimming, and remove the unwarranted template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's on the long side, but just over 10,000 words isn't horrible (and tagging doesn't help); it's 18 pages of prose, the rest discography and references. The length can be sorted by careful tightening, though I'm a bit concerned that some of this editing isn't to the main writer's liking. It would be good to know that he's behind these changes. PL290, where are you? :) SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is verbose mostly throughout. One example at random, do we really need to know the name of his primary school? If you're certain that the template is not useful then please remove it or replace it with a more appropriate one. Certainly, I doubt we need more sub-articles — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
FAs must be comprehensive; if you want to cut text, you need to suggest daughter articles where WP:SS can be better employed. Two editors have asked you to remove the tag; I am disinclined to edit war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well there's another problem; it's not comprehensive (but I'll come to that later). From what I can gather, the consensus is that the article should be 'tightened'. This need not involve daughter articles, just copy-editing to remove trivial and superfluous stuff. Another random example: "Lennon's impact on popular music culture was far-reaching"—just remove it; the facts following that statement should speak for themselves. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
If this weren't an FA, you'd be welcome to do a copy edit, but given that it's been promoted we're supposed to be a bit more careful about steaming in. You mentioned naming his primary school, for example: that's the kind of detail I think people might appreciate. A suggestion: why not take what you consider to be the most verbose section and tighten it on a user subpage? Then we can see whether we're on the same wavelength about the kind of thing that's superfluous. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm here only to echo the view expressed at TFAR that "The article lacks quality, and looks like stretched and unattractive". I had hoped that there might be some core editors of the article willing to address this. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There are. And they're waiting for you-- since you added the template-- to say where you want it trimmed, while still adhering to WP:WIAFA with the appropriate use of summary style employing daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already said: throughout. In many cases, one could take pairs of adjacent sentences and reduce them to a single sentence without detracting from the informativeness of the article. Succinctness is a virtue. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the "Personal relationships" section; each sub-section there has a daughter article to which trimmed content can be moved, and it seems disproportionately long. But since I'm not a Lennon fan, I don't know how much of that is necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Succinctness should not come at the expense of readability. Just because sentences can be joined, doesn't mean that they should be. Your proposed lead, for instance, is stilted and awkward. I also don't think the length is excessive given how much there is to say. Trebor (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, I agree with your reasoning; it seems like a good candidate. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Trebor's point just above - many of Wrapped in Grey's edits were awkward to read and not at all improvements. Overall, this text has been gone over many times by man y experienced editors, and while a tweak here or there may certainly help comprehension, the kinds of rewrites WiG has been inserting have not been helpful. Succinctness is not the only consideration, and not necessarily the most important one either. And yes, in my opinion there is a lot to say that needs to be in the main article, so I would be very careful about what is removed to a daughter article . We've written the bio of a multi-faceted personality, who has had great impact, and we want the main bio to present a comprehensive picture of his life, career and ongoing legacy. We are not paper, and we can afford sometimes to go a but longer than the average - this is one of those times. If you have ideas about shortening sections, please take Slim's advice and do it on a user subpage and then present it here for review first. The footnote/reference setup here is complicated and it can make a lot of extra work to make or undo large changes. Tvoz/talk 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Trebor's point was a straw man. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Care to expand? (If it's because the edit of yours I cited wasn't to do with succinctness: I know that, but it was an example of how your idea of good writing might differ from the norm.) Trebor (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrapped, please work on the section Sandy suggested, but try it first on a user subpage. It makes no difference whether you do it there or here, except that this is an FA and so the expectation is that no overly bold editing will occur. But if it's an improvement it's likely to be inserted, because that section is indeed very long. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No progress here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

GabeMc and the incessent citations

Instead of putting requests for citations every other line, why don't do the work and find them if it bothers you so much? We don't need a reference for every statement, especially when further reading within the paragraph proves the point. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We do need a cite for every quote, don't we? I'm just trying to help. All my Lennon books have different isbns then those used in the refs list, and when I tried to check the sourcing on "Lennon 2005" I got 5 straight mismatches, pages that did not contain the quote the cite claimed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is out of control make-work for other editors. If you really want to help you could do the work it takes to find the right sources if you think these are in error. or list them here on Talk for other people to go through and eliminate, as was done above. Throwing tags onto the article doesn;t help and just makes work for others to clean up.. You already know that your editions of the books are different from those used here, and SlimVirgin pointed out to you that if you really want to help, you can go back into article history and try to see if errors were introduced along the way. As for where cites go - some of these appear elsewhere in the article and probably don't have to be repeated- like the cite for "how do you sleep" being about McCartney. If you felt it so important to have a cite in the other section too, why didn't you just copy it in instead of tagging? Surely you;ve read the article and knew it was already in there? Further, the citations don't necessarily have to be immediately after a quote, if they are a line later in the same paragraph. But you could have copied them over if you felt they had to be there. Instead of doing the work, you've made work for others, and this is unhelpful. I've spent hours trying to track down citations here, and I didn;t do it by throwing on a tag and expecting someone else to do the work. Tvoz/talk 03:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't place anymore cite needed tags in the article. — GabeMc (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And?? Tvoz/talk 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And what? I'm just trying to help. — GabeMc (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Good. Then "and", you could you try to track down any faulty cites, through page history, Google books or voodoo, and correct them - and/or make notes here on talk of where you see problems rather than forcing others to have to fix or undo? I hope so. Tvoz/talk 04:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rock and roll

I added rock and roll after skiffle as one of Lennon's influences as a teenager. — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence now: "Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved as a teenager in the skiffle craze, later rock and roll." SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Easy fix, is it still confusing? — GabeMc (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Now it's ungrammatical: "Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon became involved as a teenager in the skiffle craze, later rock and roll became a significant influence." And it's not what that sentence is about; it's a different thought. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How about this, "Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon was influenced by the skiffle craze as an early teen and rock and roll during his later teenage years." — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
As Slim said, his influences aren't what the sentence is about, and adding rock and roll in there loses the point that the Beatles started as a skiffle band. Tvoz/talk 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
According to the article, "The first song he learned to play was Fats Domino's "Ain't That a Shame".{{sfn|Lennon|2005|pp=40–41}} The article claims that the first song he learned to play was a rock and roll song, not a skiffle tune. I think rock's influence on Lennon was greater then skiffle. Lennon once said, "Before Elvis, there was nothing." Tvoz, are you really saying that rock and roll does not warrent a mention in the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, Gabe, please read more carefully. What has been said several times now is that the sentences you want to change are not talking about what musical genres influenced Lennon. They are talking about Lennon starting a skiffle band which he named the Quarrymen, and which evolved into the Beatles. This intro is summarizing the article which clearly makes that point. Of course I know the influence that early rock 'n' roll (and Fats is arguably more R&B than R 'n' R) had on Lennon, and if there were a section in the article that talked about the genres that influenced him, and it was a significant enough section, then we would add it to the intro. But there is not. And there are lots of things that are in the article that also are not in the intro. If you feel strongly that there should be a section in the article about the genres that influenced him, I might even agree with you (since I am not one of those who are fainting at the length of this piece), so make your case and take a shot at it. But awkwardly sticking the words "rock and roll" into the intro alone, in a sentence that is trying to serve a different purpose, is simply not the way to go. Do you see what I'm saying? Tvoz/talk 23:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but as the lede stands now, a reader might think that skiffle was Lennon's main musical influence, and it was not, rock was, at least, according to Lennon rock and roll changed his life. I have not heard Lennon say anything similar about skiffle. But I do understand your point Tvoz. But, where is the section about skiffle's influence on him, the article only mentions it in passing. — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Where does the intro or the article itself talk about "influence" at all? The meaning of the sentence in the intro is that he got caught up in the skiffle craze, formed a band called the Quarrymen which evolved from the skiffle band that it started as into the Beatles. That's all it says. It's giving the provenance of the Beatles - it came from a skiffle band, as the body of the article says. And there are major links to the articles The Quarrymen, Lennon/McCartney, and The Beatles, all of which go into more detail about the early years. The intro of this article is a summary of the material below, which in the case of the 1957-70 section is itself a summary of the longer articles. So I don't know if adding material about influences to the article would fly, but I do know that adding it to the intro alone won't. Tvoz/talk 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe the article should mention Lennon's musical influences. Certainly rock music had a massive impact on Lennon's life, and it's ommision from the article is perhaps a sign that important subjects are not covered in adequate depth for a FA. — GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right; as it stands, the reader will be surprised to find that his '75 album was called Rock 'n' Roll and not Skiffle (or perhaps Dovedale Primary Forever). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

← Hey, you two have been among the voices saying this article is too long. I have not. Now you want to *add* a section that goes into the musical influences on Lennon? Go ahead and write one in user space, have it well-sourced, present it here when you're ready, and see what other editors of this FA think. But you can't have it both ways - too long and not long enough. The sniping criticism of an article that represents a huge amount of work, and passed FA successfully, is getting pretty annoying - do something constructive, and see how it's received. But please do it in user space and here, as is appropriate for an FA. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC) `

In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, FAs must be comprehensive. Achieving comprehensiveness before addressing the length issue is a perfectly valid strategy. Nevertheless, parallel efforts on these issues could also produce good and perhaps more importantly, timely, results. Serious trimming/daughtering should be performed by someone more familiar with the article than I. Whilst not denigrating the efforts made thus far, the 250+ edits in less than a week, together with comments both here and at TFAR, place the article's FA status in serious doubt. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, an article can be too long and omit important facts at the same time. That it is long does not mean it covers all the important topics it should cover, like, for instance, rock and roll's influence on Lennon. — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S., for the record, I think the article is too long because of the detail in which it goes into his personal relationships. I think each relationship should be summarrized and farmed out to sub-pages, otherwise, the length is fine, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Many of which edits [the 250+ that WiG referred to] were wholly unnecessary, and the reverts thereof. Tvoz/talk 09:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That merely supports the point; FAs must be stable. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No - any instability is caused by a spate of unnecessary rewriting and tagging, as has been pointed out all over this talk page. Ad hoc - i.e., without reaching consensus here on Talk - adding or subtracting of material based on any one or two individuals' sense of what's important is not the way to edit a FA - it has been through a lot of vetting and decision-making, and likely no one agrees with everything, but consensus was to approve it. If the piece is returned to a close approximation of the FA-vetted page, then it's not unstable. Tvoz/talk 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

*"McCartney's father said Lennon would get him "into a lot of trouble", but later allowed the band to rehearse in the front room at 20 Forthlin Road, where Lennon and McCartney began writing songs together."{{sfn|Lennon|2005|p=46}}

:This is sourced to Lennon 2005, page 46, (Lennon, Cynthia. John. Crown Publishers; 2005. ISBN 0-307-33855-X.) but there is no mention of McCartney or the quote from his father on page 46 of my copy of Lennon 2005. There is a mention of Jim McCartney being apprehensive about Lennon but it's on page 35, and it does not quote Jim McCartney — GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  • " ... but later allowed the band to rehearse in the front room at 20 Forthlin Road, where Lennon and McCartney began writing songs together."{{sfn|Lennon|2005|p=46}}
I cannot see this on page 46 on Google or my paperback. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "He failed an annual exam, despite help from fellow student and future wife Cynthia Powell, and dropped out of college before his final year."{{sfn|Lennon|2005|p=67}}
I don't see this anywhere on page 67 of Lennon 2005. — GabeMc (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "McCartney said later that Lennon was always considered the leader: 'We all looked up to John. He was older ... the quickest wit and the smartest'."{{sfn|Lennon|2005|pp=45–46}}
I cannot see this quote anywhere around pp. 45-46 of Lennon 2005. — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, the cite claims this is sourced on pages 40-41 of Lennon 2005, but I can find no mention of Fats Domino in the entire book. Somebody stop me if they know why all these cites to Lennon 2005 seem incorrect. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a different version than PL290 used: have you checked the ISBN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the isbns do differ, but both are 2005 editions. Google shows no mention of Fats Domino in the book though, which makes me doubt the cite. — GabeMc (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
All 10 of my Lennon books have different isbns from the article, does that make it impossible for me to check the sources? — GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know-- I don't have any of these books, and unless someone else does, we may just have to wait to hear from PL290. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Part of the above was earlier sourced to Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now. Henry Holt & Company, p. 38. ISBN 0-8050-5249-6. Could be a ref was moved by mistake. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
@Sandy, but if a reviewers copy is the same as Google's, then they won't care what PL290's copy says, will they? — GabeMc (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Gabe, if you have time, you could go back through old diffs to see if such an error occurred somewhere along the way. Not fun :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. I want the article to pass, but no more goose chases for me. — GabeMc (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It's online, and it shows Paul's father and the "into trouble" quote on p. 32. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, because my page 32 is the same as Google's, but there is no quote from Jim McCartney on page 32 on Google or my paperback. Where on page 32 are you seeing a quote from Jim McCartney Slim? — GabeMc (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This edition on Amazon. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, the article is using the wrong book to cite that particular quote. I fixed it. What about the other ones? — GabeMc (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found the others in that particular book. When I'm looking for missing refs in my own articles, I look in old versions to see if something was misplaced, so maybe if we do that here -- go back six months or a year, or longer depending on when it was mainly built up -- the refs might be there. Might be faster just to do Google book searches though. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I find Google to be the quickest way to search a source. I think its hard to believe that so many of the Lennon 2005 cites could be wrong. It may well be an edition issue as Sandy suggests. — GabeMc (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No mention of the song on given web page. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
A ten second search of Google books yielded many excellent citations for this very well-known event - I'm using two of them. If the cite format is too much of a pain to deal with (I would agree) then it would be really helpful for editors to get the citations and post them here on talk for others to muck around with the format, rather than tag and run. Tvoz/talk 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

December 1980: Murder

Does anyone else think the photo of the Dakota should be removed from this section in the article? The photo is already in the main article about his death. Why give any more attention to his death in an article that is about his life. — GabeMc (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would that it were not the case, but unfortunately his death is an unavoidable part of his story - would you omit the picture of the Dallas motorcade from John F. Kennedy? And the Dakota figures in his life story in other ways than just his murder. Also - if you've come here to Talk to ask other editors what they think about a change you are considering - which is the right thing to do - why go ahead and make your change before you get any input? I reinstated the picture, but in a different place, with a caption that just identifies it as the Dakota - and let's see what others think. Tvoz/talk 09:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The image of the pub where he met his first wife adds nothing to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

2nded — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree and removed it. DC T•C 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The image of the Apple building to illustrate the section on Yoko seems pretty lame. Commons has only recent photos of Yoko; better than the building though? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and there are too many pics of buildings in the article as it is, this one should go, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No aftermath?

Is there a good reason not to summarise here the Aftermath section of the Death daughter article? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be added to the murder section, as a subsection, but it should be brief, as many of the subsections have almost become articles themselves. — GabeMc (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Writing and Art

Is it just me or is this section a quote farm with few citations. — GabeMc (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As of now there are only three cites in the section. — GabeMc (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with this section - there are all of three paragraphs, and the cites in each cover the points within each paragraph that need citation. Tvoz/talk 04:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent editing

It's hard to know how to proceed here because I don't have the sources, and the main writer, PL290, seems to be offline. But I'm concerned about people adding clarification tags after things that seem clear; for example:

  • According to biographer Ian MacDonald, Lennon's continuous experience with LSD during the year brought him "close to erasing his identity"[clarification needed].[48]
  • Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Sutcliffe became "The Beatles" after the other members left.[clarification needed]
  • McCartney said later that Lennon was always[clarification needed] considered the leader ...

And citation tags being added unnecessarily; for example:

  • Ono issued a statement the next day, saying "There is no funeral for John," ending it with the words, "John loved and prayed for the human race. Please pray the same for him."[citation needed] His body was cremated at Ferncliff Cemetery in Hartsdale, New York. Ono scattered his ashes in New York's Central Park, where the Strawberry Fields memorial was later created.[109]

The source for the quote is citation 109, which you find if you google the words.

If something needs clarifying, it's best to clarify it, or if something needs a source it's best to find it, because if the person adding the tag doesn't do it, no one else can be expected to. But I don't think the examples I gave here do need clarifying.

Whether this goes on the front page or not, lots of people are likely to read it on December 8. Trying to edit extensively without access to the sources is problematic. Are we certain that the version that was promoted to FAC was not good enough as written (maybe with a bit of tightening)? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We are certain that it will never satisfy everyone's individual impression of Lennon and what is important to them. As you point out, the tags are overdone. None of the recent edits or calls for citations particularly add anything. And alot of people are sure to edit it on December 8th, as they have since October (and always do, but without such frequency). Hotcop2 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Lennon led a full life and people are interested in all the details, so the article necessarily has to leave quite a bit out, and the choice about what to include is not going to be to everyone's liking. But to cram in more would risk the flow becoming choppy: a series of factoids. I think PL290 did a good balancing job between getting lots of information in and maintaining readability. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was considering emailing User:Andreasegde who is responsible for the bulk of the editing of this, and the other Beatles, and the bands, articles until last year, to see if he is willing to provide any help. He is quite burned out by the WP experience, and it may be a value judgement if you want his resources. I will see what other people think before contacting him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea, thanks. I called PL290 the main editor because he brought it to FAC, but looking at the edit history I see lots of others involved too, particular Andreasegde, so apologies if I inadvertently minimized other contributions. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No offence taken, it is the wiki way that the torch passes on and PL290 has done a lot of good work (I still have all five articles on my watchlist, so I have been noticing) - but Andrew does have resources that might prove helpful. I shall gently inquire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd be delighted if Andrew were able to help out here (although understand why he might have had enough) - and if we could get VC&D and Crestville back it would be like a class reunion. Feel free to use my name if it's any help. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Uhhh, my ears were burning and I wondered why. :) I will have a look at the 'citations needed' or other tags.--andreasegde (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Does anyone else think this section is enormous, and that there is no need to put every single cite into the refs list. Some are magazines cited to once. Am I alone on this one? — GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. This article is set up using one consistent style - the sfn template - which separates cites from references, so you need to have a reference for every cite. See WP:CITESHORT. Not my personal preference, actually, but it would require a major overhaul to change it, and I doubt there would be consensus to do so as it would be a tremendous amount of work with great potential for introduction of error. Tvoz/talk 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
For example, I added this cite to source a quote, (Lange, Larry. "The Beatles Way: Fab Wisdom for Everyday Life". Google Books. Beyond Worlds Publishing. Retrieved 15 November 2010). There is no need to add "Lange" to the references list is there, or are you saying I should? — GabeMc (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, it's fairly easy to get to Harvnb from sfn. The references list should be condensed into the main refs used in the article, and the others should be in further reading or just cited to once. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as consensus, I think almost everyone has agreed, the current system is tedious and not friendly to outside editors. I would be willing to convert the article to Harvnb, and to condense the refs list into sources that provide more than one cite to the article. — GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Those Allmusic and BBC refs at the top of the ref list cite to one sentence, and are not used again in the article. They should just be cited to once, in the citations list and not added to the refs as has been done. The current system is making editing more difficult, and that alone is a good reason to look at conversion to another, I suggest Harvnb. — GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am not even sure that the article cites to Allmusic, they seem to be there only to support the 27 hits claim. — GabeMc (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It's as I said originally, they are cited to once, yet added to the references list. — GabeMc (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you've made your point, thanks. Now please let editors consider it - in other words, please wait for consensus before attempting this change in the article. I think we'd want to look at why it was done this way, for one thing, and my first reaction is concern about introduction of error in making such a massive change. Tvoz/talk 04:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And now I see you raised a question here but went ahead and did what you wanted without waiting for consensus for changing the reference style. Please revert your changes to the original style, with whatever additional citations you came up with, but in the consistent style that has been in effect here. And please stop making unilateral changes to this FA. Consensus isn't "I think almost everyone has agreed" - no one was given the opportunity to consider why it was set up like this, or what effect changing it would have, and no one else has weighed in here in support of redoing this. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I havn't changed the cite system used in the article, there were, and still are, several quotes without sources, I found a source for most of them, and sourced with a cite web. Why is a cite web not compatible with sfn? Again, I was only trying to help, and source the many quotes that were not sourced in the article. — GabeMc (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like me sourcing quotes then go ahead and delete the cites, and leave the quotes without sources in violation of WP:CITE. — GabeMc (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Gabe, read. I didn't say citations shouldn't be added, I asked that you put them into the sfn format that has been in use in this article, that was in place when it was elevated to FA, until some kind of consensus is reached about whether the reference style should be changed. I know, yojre trying to help. So please don't help by making work for other editors, ok? Tvoz/talk 05:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gabe, just for future reference on other articles, when using Google Books page links you can shorten the URLs considerably. Instead of this, which was in the article:

<ref>{{cite web|url= http://books.google.com/books?id=Lho3352UOFIC&pg=PA202&dq=%22Lennon's+best-selling+studio+album%22&hl=en&ei=9QXiTIGvCIvmsQPyt8meCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Lennon's%20best-selling%20studio%20album%22&f=false |title= December 8, 1980: The Day John Lennon Died|last= Greenberg|first= Keith|publisher=Backbeat Books|work=Google Books|date=2010|accessdate= 15 November 2010}}</ref>

try the following (and no need to add an access date for books, or Google Books as a "work", though you do need to add the page number):

<ref>Greenberg, Keith Elliot. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Lho3352UOFIC&pg=PA202 ''December 8, 1980: The Day John Lennon Died''. Backbeat Books, 2010, p. 202.</ref>

I've written it above without a citation template, but the same applies with. If you want to write it as a short ref, you could try this:

<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Lho3352UOFIC&pg=PA202 Greenberg 2010, p. 202].</ref>

As Tvoz says it's best to stick to the style this article was promoted with, but you might find the above helpful elsewhere. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 11:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on Google Books urls SlimVirgin, I am sure it will prove helpful in the future. — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Fancruft" sources

Are these the kind of "fancruft" sources you're talking about Tvoz?

  • MacDonald, Ian. Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties. Pimlico; 2005. ISBN 1-8441-3828-3.
  • Prown, Pete; Newquist, Harvey P.. Legends of Rock Guitar: The Essential Reference of Rock's Greatest Guitarists. Hal Leonard; 1997. ISBN 978-0793540426.
  • Ryan, David Stuart. John Lennon's Secret. Kozmik Press Centre; 1982. ISBN 978-0905116082.
  • Schinder, Scott; Schwartz, Andy. Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever. Greenwood Press; 2007. ISBN 978-0313338458.
  • Urish, Ben; Bielen, Kenneth G. The Words and Music of John Lennon. Praeger; 2007. ISBN 978-0275991807.
— GabeMc (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not actually familiar with any of these, although I would look twice at something called "John Lennon's Secret" just from the title (and unfamiliar publisher). That was the giveaway to me for the Lange book - not a biography at all, but instead some kind of self-improvement tome. Maybe whoever added them knows more - from the quotes they seem to be providing critical analyses of Lennon's musical technique, not biographical information, which may be less prone to fannish excess, but what's your point/question exactly? Tvoz/talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I was only wondering if they should be used to source the article, and only two of the five are about his musicianship. — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I stand corrected, it looks like 4 of 5 of these sources are about his musical style. Still, the material they support reads like a fanzine, IMHO. — GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these two sources?

I assume this is one source but I wanted to verify since they do have different dates and isbns, and apparently, different titles. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Cross, Craig. Day-By-Day Song-By-Song Record-By-Record. iUniverse; 2004. ISBN 978-0595314874.
  • Cross, Craig. The Beatles: Day-by-Day, Song-by-Song, Record-by-Record. iUniverse, Inc.; 2005. ISBN 0-595-34663-4.
Don't know these specifically, but I do know that I-universe is self-publishing - so not sure if these are ok as RS. Tvoz/talk 23:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the Cross self-published cites with ones from Coleman 1992. I also removed Cross from the refs list. — GabeMc (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Doube cites need notes

  • According to some biographers, a German air raid was taking place and Julia's sister, Mary "Mimi" Smith, used the light cast by the explosions to see her way as she ran through the blacked-out back roads to reach the hospital.{{sfn|Spitz|2005|p=24}}{{sfn|Harry|2000b|p=505}}
(Answer) I put that ref in, but on Mimi Smith's page, I also added this: "The story about the air-raid has since been repudiated, as there was no attack that night. The previous raid had been on 21–22 September, and the next was on 16 October, when the areas of Walton and Everton were badly hit.[14]" Mimi was a bit of a storyteller. --andreasegde (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Chapman pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to 20 years to life; as of 2010, he remains in prison, having been repeatedly denied parole.{{sfn|CNN.com|2004}}{{sfn|BBC News|2010a}}
  • "Give Peace a Chance" ... was sung by a quarter of a million anti-Vietnam-War demonstrators ... on 15 October, the second Vietnam Moratorium Day.{{sfn|Perone|2001|pp=57-58}}{{sfn|Holsinger|1999|p=389}}
  • ... he played a variety of electric guitars, predominantly the Rickenbacker 325, Epiphone Casino and Gibson J-160E, and, from the start of his solo career, the Gibson Les Paul Junior.{{sfn|Prown and Newquist|2003|p=213}}{{sfn|Lawrence|2009|p=27}}
  • ... and his albums John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, 22nd and 76th respectively of "The RS 500 Greatest Albums of All Time".{{sfn|Rolling Stone|2008}}{{sfn|Rolling Stone|2003}}
These cites either need to be broken up or a note needs to be written to clarifly which cite is citing which clause. Some of them may be redundant, and could be deleted. But then you would have to delete it in the ref list as well, what a fun cite system to use. It does have it's advantages, but it's nothing to lose with Harvard. — GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think double cites have to be broken up that way? All of the hundreds of articles I work on often have them and I've never seen that as a requirement. Tvoz/talk 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I used to have them in another article, and a certain FA reviewer, who I shall not name, told me they were confusing and I needed to either break them up or make notes for each source. — GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh, an FA reviewer. You have my deepest sympathies. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Ain't it the truth.... Tvoz/talk 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But it was a nice FA reviewer who told him that, and it wasn't the double cites that were the problem so much as the triple, quadruple, and quintuple. :) SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with you SlimVirgin, I came around to your thinking (the article in question was greatly improved due to your input). The cite system should be as easy to understand as possible and not at all confusing to the average reader. I just wonder, where does clear and easy to follow citing end and confusing begin, is it at two cites, three cites, four, five, more ...? — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad someone listens to me. :) Personally I try not to write anything nowadays with two or more ref tags in a row. I use citation bundling if I've used multiple sources for a sentence or paragraph. I would say, given recent events, that it's important to be as clear as possible about which sources support which points. See WP:INTEGRITY. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox list of instruments

Problem: The infobox lists two instruments--Mellotron and recorder--for which there is no support in the primary text. Those need at least one sourced mention in the main text if they're going to appear in the infobox. On the other hand, the infobox does not list flute, which is mentioned in the primary text. Is there any reason not to add it to the infobox? DocKino (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed two of these three issues: I added a sourced discussion of Lennon's Mellotron to the primary text. I cut recorder from the infobox after a modestly long Google Book search turned up no evidence to support its inclusion. I see a "citation needed" tag has been added to the mention of flute in the primary text, so we'll wait and see on that. DocKino (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Lennon's activism, Hanratty, and User:Wrapped in Grey

I have just had occasion to warn User:Wrapped in Grey over edit warring to include content in respect of a particular example of Lennon's activism. I note that I was the editor who reverted the initial edit, citing WP:UNDUE. As part of Wrapped in Grey's inability to comprehend WP:BRD and the appropriate WP method of gaining consensus for addition of content, they suggested I provide a rationale why the edit should not be included. While I noted it was their responsibility to create the consensus for inclusion, I am minded to comment on why this particular edit is not appropriate for the article. Firstly, and most importantly, the sources for the content seem weak - the sources are in respect of Hanratty specifically, and may not provide much greater detail in respect of Lennon's involvement than included in this article. Secondly, being something of a Lennon fan and a frequent contributor to this article of a few years back, I was not aware of Lennon's involvement in the public debate over Hanratty's possible innocence - although I am aware of Lennon sending red roses to striking Clyde shipbuilders, the support for striking stable lads, and the other instances noted in the article - and would question the notability of this one instance in Lennon's activism. For this reason I marked the original insertion as WP:UNDUE and suggest that this remains the case.
I note that User:Wrapped in Grey had previously been recently warned and sanctioned for edit warring over their preferred insertion of content relating to this article. I further suggest that this editor be advised that they should seek consensus prior to adding any further material to the article, until such time as it is considered they are fully aware and capable of complying with WP policies, guidelines, and practices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeardvanU on this- the Hanratty matter is not known to me either, while I was previously quite aware of the other matters in the activism section that LHvU mentioned, including Lennon's support of John Sinclair here in the US. Before even looking into the veracity of the report on Hanratty, I think the weight it's being given is excessive and out of proportion to the other much better known matters in the rest of the section. But also, I note that the wikipedia article on Hanratty makes no mention of Lennon or Ono, which further suggests that this is being given undue weight here. So I returned the text to how it was before this was added, pending discussion here of course.
In general, as has been said above, this is a featured article that has gone through a load of vetting, and while not perfect and certainly always improvable, editing should be done carefully and the addition or removal of material, or major change to what's there, should be done with extra caution and with consensus from other editors, reached here on Talk. It's further exacerbated by the complex citation/reference method employed here (initiated by a sadist, perhaps? I haven't checked...) - this method can make the undoing of changes particularly irritating, and prone to introduction of error. So it's been asked a few times here that editors talk here first - in keeping with FA practices. I support LessHeardvanU's specific noting of User:Wrapped in Grey as well, and he/she is not alone in not being responsive to requests for restraint, which would include asking that an attempt be made to actually research and provide proper references when there are errors rather than tagging and running (my pet peeve of the moment). Tvoz/talk 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The tag and run issue is due in part to the enormous number of cites to magazines and newspapers most readers do not have access to. Also, I think the isbn's being British will exclude American editors from searching for material where the page numbers differ. I have 10-13 sources on Lennon but none have the isbn used in the article. How can an editor with American versions do anything but, tag and run. — GabeMc (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, gee, I'm here in America too, and somehow I'm managing to track down sources. Googlebooks is a place to start. Tvoz/talk 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
While I don't support the way user:Wrapped in grey has gone about things I do think the Hanratty affair is notable. The fact that LessHeardvanU has not heard of it doesn't mean much as I certainly did hear about it at at the time. The fact that it has been forgotten about since doesn't make it not notable. Obviously this was a British affair that wouldn't have been of interest to anyone in the US, but it was one of Lennon's early crusades. Also, the fact that Lennon and Ono made a film about the case and according to this shouted "Britain, you killed Hanratty you murderer!" on the 'Live Jam' album and and chanted his name on 'Don't worry Kyoko' shows how involved they were. Richerman (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet the people who wrote James Hanratty didn't find it notable enough to include there. And the point raised was about undue weight as well as questioning its inclusion at all. IN what universe would this merit 115+ words where the Bed-ins - head and shoulders above in terms of notability and widespread recognition - merit only around 70? UNDUE WEIGHT, front and center. Tvoz/talk 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the Hanratty affair is notable, and as one of Lennon's early civil crusades it deserves a mention. — GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am Brit, and in my 50's, and the Hanratty thing - of which I have also been aware - never connected with my reading of Lennon, and in my time editing this article (back to 2006/7) I was never exposed to it previously. There more notable, i.e. wider known and commented, examples of Lennon's activism that might be included. The issue, I suggest, is easily resolved upon the quality and variety of references available - what Lennon specific sources note it, as against Hanratty specific ones, against other examples, and how contemporary they are. Indeed, the fact that the issue may be forgotten at large is a fairly strong argument against it being notable, according to that criteria. LessHeard vanU (tatlk) 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's mentioned in a Spectator article here and in Philip Norman's John Lennon (2008), the story is spread over three pages beginning with "Near the top of his campaign agenda this winter was the James Hanratty case". I'm only part way though reading the book but, surpisingly as it's probably the most comprehensive biography of Lennon to date, it's not been used in this article for references and is only mentioned in "further reading". That seems like a serious omission to me. Anyway I'm signing off now as it's way past my bedtime. Richerman (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the Norman book in the most comprehensive of all the Lennon bios, IMHO. That it is not used in this article is surprising to me. — GabeMc (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooooh, the temptation to drop in a cite request template is almost overwhelming... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
<LOL>Tvoz/talk 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think it's a good way to determine notability but I've never heard of John Sinclair and that paragraph is longer than the Hanratty one. Personally, I found it fascinating that Lennon spent so much effort (wow, he made a documentary?!) on Hanratty's case. Of the 115+ words on Hanratty, over 40 are directly quoting Lennon's words and provide a great insight into what 'made him tick'—covering his thoughts not only on Hanratty but on South Africa, the establishment etc. Consider also that Lennon's involvement in the Clydeside affair might have been as little as a 2 minute phonecall to his P.A. and (AFAIK) didn't even make the news at the time. As Tvoz should know, his WP:WAX on the Hanratty article carries no weight, as should LessHeard vanU know that "being something of a Lennon fan" does not qualify him as a good judge of WP:DUE; the opposite is perhaps more likely. The sources that he complained about are books by Wenner and Miles (already in use in the article) and The Spectator and The Independent which are quality British press (The Guardian and The Daily Mail also carry Lennon+Hanratty articles). As Richerman points out, commitment to the Hanratty case was further expressed in music ('Live Jam' album and 'Don't worry Kyoko'). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that Lennon had difficulties in obtaining his Green Card, permitting him to stay in the USA? Maybe you don't. Anyway, it was Lennon's involvement with John Sinclair, and thus the Black Panther movement, which lead to the FBI holding a file on him. I am sure that there are sources that can back my comments, but the point I am making is that I was familiar with the Lennon story before there was an internet - and that is the case for many of the editors of a few years back; we knew the stuff, and went looking for sources (well, Tvoz, John Cardinal and Andresegde and a few others - I just did copy editing). That way, much of the content is notable because it was included by people familiar with the subject - stuff that we already knew about. It doesn't surprise me that more recent books might have detail on elements not considered relevant in contemporary accounts or ones of a couple of decades ago, because they need to generate new angles and new interest for publicity purposes. I suggest you ask yourself why these details were not noted in previous publications - and in Lennon's case there was an explosion of books right after his murder; it may be that it really was not that big a thing... This is not to decry the efforts of either the recent editors here or the writers of the latest book, but it may be a matter of perspective - the earlier books really do note the events that mattered, to the subject and to the contemporary public, while later publications more fill in the gaps and find half forgotten episodes to offer those who already know all the important stuff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This was the beginning of Lennon's activism which those of us in the UK who were old enough knew about at the time (I was 20 in 1969) however, you obviously have a closed mind on this point so I'll give up and make my contributions to other articles. Richerman (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely do not agree that the Philip Norman book is comprehensive, least of all most comprehensive, since 95% pertains to Beatle John, and the other 5% has plenty of factual errors (repeated ad nausuem by Norman). Hotcop2 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Which bio do you consider the best HotCop2? — GabeMc (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no one bio that adequately and accurately represents all facets of Lennon's life -- particularly the solo years. The Coleman books are extensive, however, he lived with Ono at the Dakota and had her cooperation. Therefore, he's a bit, err, subjective. Larry Kane did a good job in Lennon Revealed as far as the (personal) man was concerned; Ono even went on record regarding the "lost Weekend" in that book; Norman follows with his latest and repeats the same old stories about that period (perhaps he should have read Ono's explanation first). The one book I think will be a must-read is Chip Madinger's new book (the first of four volumes due out in 2011) which will chronicle the day-by-day life of Lennon, without the interjection of his opinion or narrative. Using studio records, restaurant receipts, photographs, airline records and ticket stubs (all of which will be reproduced), it will illustrate exactly when, what, where and with whom Lennon actually did what he did, presented in a logical timeline. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Norman is not even one the cites in the Hanratty para. His name can added though to the list of different sources so far: Wenner, Miles & Badman, Norman, The Spectator, The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Mail. LessHeard's personal goal "note the events that mattered" bears no resemblance to WP's "its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects". — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am still thinking about this, and would like to hear from other editors who know this aspect of the subject about their take on its notability and relative weight in his life. And had you simply added a sentence about Hanratty this likely would not have been questioned, provided your sources were good. But adding a whole paragraph raised legitimate questions, and there is no call for you to claim that anyone is suppressing or censoring information here. I object to your suggesting that, and ask you to stop it already. Tvoz/talk 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I merely quoted WP's primary goal—should I have edited it for the faint-of-heart?. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"I'm sorry, didn't mean to accuse anyone of censorship" would have been a more collegial response, and that's the first time I've ever been accused of being faint-of heart. I'll go get my smelling salts now... Tvoz/talk 19:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I stand by my words but I can't—they are WP's words; apologies if you find them offensive. Here's a censored version: "its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects". If you think that smelling-salts might help prevent future over-reaction and thus get this discussion to a conclusion then all well and good. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You've already heard from other editors, with GabeMc & Richerman supporting the inclusion; the only dissent voiced in WP terms has been in reference to WP:DUE but that seems ill-applied: here we're talking about undisputed events, not controversial theories/beliefs such as flat-earth, creationism etc. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just took notice of this matter. Completely unfamiliar with the Hanratty case, I have no prejudice on the substance. I see logic in both the argument for inclusion and the WP:DUE argument for exclusion. Looking it over, I come down in favor of the former. The matter is well-sourced, it is significant, and it speaks strongly to Lennon's political views and general bent of attention during the period. I appreciate that there is far, far more retrospective discussion of the Bed-Ins (the core of the DUE argument against), but the fact is that this is an important matter with mainstream coverage in multiple sources whose inclusion serves our readers in what seems to me a very obvious way. One could well argue that the general emphasis on the Bed-Ins reflects embedded media biases toward shallow spectacle--in any event, we are in no way obliged to follow (and are, in fact, incapable of assessing) the precise ratio of external coverage of matter x versus matter y. If there is a policy-conscious consensus that matter y merits inclusion than it should be included in a productive manner. WiG's edit does just that in broad terms, though I would cut the Rolls-Royce bit, which is relatively trivial, and I can see a spot or two where the language can be tightened. DocKino (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Bed-ins receive more discussion—that's why they have a daughter article. Including the Rolls-Royce bit was to establish that Lennon's relationship with the Hanrattys was a personal one (but this could also be done e.g. by mentioning that he worked with them in making the documentary). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's quite a jump from knowing that he provided the use of his car to concluding that the relationship was a significantly "personal" one, and in any event it's not particularly relevant to an understanding of John Lennon. (If there was evidence that he and the Hanrattys truly became close friends and remained so for an extended period, that would be--is there any such evidence?) The rest of your edit is so relevant, and I support it on that basis. DocKino (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that Lennon had something of a personal relationship with the Hanrattys as evidenced by the facts that he lent them his car and that he was photographed with them and worked with them in preparing material for the documentary. This is perhaps notable as it is in contrast with say, the Clydeside affair where AFAIK, he had no personal contact with those involved. I've not proposed that it is stated that the relationship was a personal one, only that facts are presented (which allow readers to come to their own conclusions). However, I think we're in the fine detail here; common-sense can surely be allowed to prevail in any copy-editing made by those with access to the sources (such as Norman which I don't have). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Clean

I have cleaned/deleted one or two things, as they had no references and looked as though they had been slipped into previous text. (It's a case of them breaking the flow, and obviously looking like fancruft).

I have started to look carefully through the article, and spotted this: (Mimi Smith) "I knew the moment I saw John in that hospital that I was the one to be his mother, not Julia. Does that sound awful? It isn't, really, because Julia accepted it as something perfectly natural. She used to say, 'You're his real mother. All I did was give birth.'" She might have said this to Bill Harry, but I don't believe for one second that it was the truth. Mimi was careful with the truth about lots of things; even claiming she had bought Lennon's first guitar. I haven't deleted it, as others might disagree.

The George Formby connection seems weird, because of this: "they would all go to Blackpool on the tram two or three times a week to watch shows.... They regularly passed Formby's house on the bus journey from Preston to Fleetwood, often spotting the singer and his wife sitting in deck chairs in their front garden and exchanging waves with them." To go from Liverpool through Preston is possible on the way to Blackpool, but not through Fleetwood, which is seven miles north of Blackpool.

"became "The Beatles" sometime in 1960". This is well documented, and should have a more exact month/week than "sometime in 1960".

"that would endure until the group's break-up in 1970. Lennon married Cynthia in August. The band's first single.... " Whoah! Hold the horses!--andreasegde (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, dear: "McCartney said that the other Beatles idolised John: "He was like our own little Elvis...". I know Macca said "We all looked up to John. He was older, and he was very much the leader; he was the quickest wit, and the smartest", but I very much doubt the former statement. Lennon would have hated to be called a "little Elvis". Is this another case of slipping in a bit of fancruft?--andreasegde (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Great to see you here Andrew! I agree about the fancruft potential here. I'm not sure when or how it all got in the article - so without looking at that, I was first attempting to at least find reasonably good sources, better than those that were added there that were obviously fannish (like that Lange book - The Beatles Way: Fab Wisdom for Everyday Life: "Provides principles on ways to live a successful, fullfilled life based on the success of the Beatles.."). There certainly are a lot of such fannish books out there that are not good sources, and it's not always immediately apparent when glancing at them online, so I'm fine with your taking any of it out if it's off. About "little Elvis" - interestingly, that one appears in a bunch of places, and looked like it all might have come from the Rolling Stone interview with Macca in 1987**, but I couldn't track that down more last night and think we should do without Elvis if we can't source it definitively. If you have a copy of that interview, I'd be curious to see if it's there. But I suppose even if it is, it may be some revisionist history on his part if he did say that - 1987, looking back - it would be more interesting if he said it before 1980. In any case, the three or four sources I saw it in had the whole quote coming from McCartney, not Ringo as one weak source indicated, so I wanted to clear that up and then go from there. There likely is more questionable material in there, so your help in identifying it is priceless. (And always good to see you!) Tvoz/talk 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
** OK: Anthony DeCurtis did the 1987 Rolling Stone interview with Paul, and he presents a transcript in his book In Other Words: Artists Talk About Life And Work (2006, Hal Leonard Group, publisher, ISBN 9781423413288). The "idolized" and "little Elvis" quotes are actually there on page 61, but we can still decide whether or not we should include it. (Clearly it was in retrospect that he was coming up with this metaphor, and not a representation that they actually called him Little Elvis - in fact apparently Elvis music was on in the background during the interview, which is probably why Paul made that comment, but that's just my guess, not for our article.) However, the more famous "quickest wit" quote which I also have seen lots of times, is not in the Google books preview which seemed complete, but might not have been - I don't know if it was in the interview, and if not, where it was said. Any idea? Tvoz/talk 23:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll look through the rest of the article first before the scythe gets sharpened. I'll do it before 8 December, because that's a date Johnny and I both share, in an unfortunate way.--andreasegde (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (Yes, I remember that date-share. Sigh.) Tvoz/talk 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Gould is quoted four times in the article, talking about Lennon's lyrics. Surely these quotes should be on the relevant song pages?--andreasegde (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, well. It's like "old home day" on this article. Between Tvoz and An, it's like a reunion ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This has got to go, or be referenced. "During his five-year career break he was content to sit back so long as McCartney was producing what Lennon saw as garbage". Ouch.--andreasegde (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in Fred Seaman's book, and also in that rambling audio diary, made by Lennon, floating around collectors. I'll find the pages. Ouch indeed. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"baby, you're a rich fag Jew"

Sometimes stated as fact; sometimes stated as myth—what does Harry present as evidence for attributing these words to Lennon? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question, although it's reasonable to say that Lennon never fit the "politically correct" category. He was also heard to make punning side comments in the Let it Be album, such as restating "I Dig a Pony" as "I Dig a Pygmy", and making up a punning first line to "Get Back". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I should add that I googled that sentence and no references came up at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A Google Book search on "rich fag jew" turns up many high-quality references: [6]. I'll just examine the first two (which turn into three or four):

(1) Schneider, The Long and Winding Road from Blake to the Beatles, p. 66:

While recording "Baby, You're a Rich Man," Lennon amused himself by altering a line of the chorus to "Baby, you're a rich fag Jew."

Schneider identifies Spitz as his source. I was able to track that down.

Spitz, The Beatles: The Biography, pp. 685–86:

[The "Baby, You're a Rich Man" recording sessions] had the feel of an after-hours party. By the time the shindig reached its peak in the postmidnight hours, even John fed off the buzz and grew giddy, expressing his delight by tweaking bits of the lyric. There were numerous aborted takes owing to his frisky, even scandalous, improvisations. He took some wicked shots at Paul, Ringo, and Mick [Jagger, who was present], according to one observer; otherwise, "everyone else was spared."
Not quite everyone. An oblivious victim wasn't mentioned by name, but no interpretation was necessary when John, grinning like a jackal, was unable to "resist singing, on some of the later choruses, 'Baby, you're a rich fag Jew.'"

Spitz identifies MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, p. 206, as his source--unfortunately I don't have that and it's accessible neither via Google Book nor Amazon Look Inside. By the way, check out Spitz, p. 510, for an example of John's goose-stepping, Nazi-saluting, "Sieg heil!" humor.

(2) Norman, John Lennon: The Life, p. 503:

The B-side to "All You Need Is Love" was a hippie-debunking Lennon song called "Baby, You're a Rich Man," ostensibly mocking the Beautiful People but providing a coded double dig at Brian. In practice sessions (some say on the finished track also), John sang its chorus of "Baby, you're a rich man, too" as "you're a rich fag Jew."

In sum, I'd say there's a historical consensus that Lennon did sing "rich fag Jew" in reference to Epstein during the "Baby, You're a Rich Man" sessions; that there is no consensus about whether he is heard doing so on the released version of the song; and that we need to edit our current description which inaptly claims that this was an example of Lennon "taunt[ing] Epstein with twisted Beatles lyrics." While he was known for publicly taunting Epstein (see Norman, p. 503), there is no evidence of any other occasion involving "twisted Beatles lyrics" and on this occasion it is (a) not even clear if Epstein was present and (b) if he was, he was "oblivious." This is a well-sourced and fairly well-known example of Lennon's character, crude humor, and view of Epstein, and thus merits inclusion, but it is not an example of taunting, which connotes direct provocation of the target of ridicule. DocKino (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lennon did taunt him by suggesting Epstein call his autobiography "Queer Jew" and "A Cellarful of Boys" tho, i'm not sure find corroboration on the Baby You're A Rich Man lyric (might be more folklore than fact). Hotcop2 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hotcop2, I'm guessing you wrote this before reading my entry above. There is no dispute that Lennon often did taunt Epstein on other occasions. And multiple high-quality sources state as a matter of fact that he sang "Baby, you're a rich fag Jew" during the course of the "Baby, You're a Rich Man" sessions—therefore so should we, but without improperly framing this as an example of taunting. DocKino (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--I wound up at a different edition of the book earlier, which wasn't searchable.

Interestingly, what MacDonald views as certain and uncertain is the opposite of most other high-quality sources:

["Baby, You're a Rich Man"'s] high-flown sentiment is undermined by Lennon's inability to resist singing, on some of the later choruses, 'Baby, you're a rich fag Jew'--a supposed reference to Brian Epstein.

So, he seems to regard it as certain that the line appears on the final version but as not certain that it refers to Epstein. Still, it looks to me like the consensus is the reverse.

This happens to be one of my favorite Beatles songs. I just listened to the last 20 seconds of the official release version at very high volume. For what it's worth, I'd say Lennon probably sings "Baby, you're a rich fag Jew" on the final chorus (and perhaps on the penultimate one as well), but that it is impossible to be sure. DocKino (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

There are an awful lot of quotes in this article, and I don't mean from Lennon. Take this one: "Gould writes, "For readers of Lewis Carroll, the Walrus and the Eggman are unmistakable characters from the pages of Through the Looking Glass."[59]" --andreasegde (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, time to take the pruning shears. I can help. --BwB (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I was never a fan of opinions myself. The entire vocal style section is opinion, in my opinion lol. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just read that, Hotcop2. "From his earliest days with the Beatles, Lennon's singing voice was recognised as distinctive, versatile, and variable." (No ref, BTW). Well, blow me down with a feather, I suppose that's why he became famous, huh? Good grief...
Oh, no (not Ono), I have just read through the rest of it. "Lennon simply shredded his vocal cords in the interests of rock 'n' roll." These people can put any take they want to on it after the fact, but this is not a collection of what they think, it's supposed to be about what actually happened.--andreasegde (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
What's next? "A large majority of young women at the time wanted to have Lennon's babies, because his hormones reached out to them over the bleachers." Don't answer that one, I was kidding. :)--andreasegde (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mendips

I listened to a BBC radio programme about Mendips 251 Menlove Avenue, with Alexei Sayle as commentator, speaking to the curator of the house, who explained that Mimi and George were living in the Smith family's dairy cottage before WWII, but moved into the much larger Mendips because it was empty (which was allowed during wartime).--andreasegde (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

ISBN

The refs section uses 10-digit for some refs and 13-digit for others, according to Template:Cite book: "Please use the 13-digit ISBN where possible." — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference Pages

Since many books have several editions (i.e. paperback, hardcover, kindle, etc), and books released in England (such as JOHN by Cynthia Lennon) have different page lineups than their American counterpart, I don't see the need to change the source quote pg numbers that correspond to the particular version(s) of the edition in your bedroom. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My edition has the same isbn number that was listed in the refs list. Different editions have different isbns. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh- I didn't see this - see my reply above. The edition on Amazon "look inside the book" and the one on Google books are not the same ISBN as the one cited in the article - they look inside the paperback, which you apparently are too. The Crown hardcover, ISBN 0-307-33855-X, is the one that was originally cited in the article, and as I said above, likely the page refs were right all along and all of this was a wasted and unnecessary effort. But in any case, you can't have paperback page refs and list the hardcover as source, because those refs are wrong for that edition. And in my opinion, using the original hardcover edition is better form, when it is available, as it apparently was when whoever entered the refs did it. So I agree with Hotcop here. Again, see my point [[Talk: John Lennon#Lennon, Cynthia. John. Crown Publishers; 2005. ISBN 0-307-33855-X.|above]].Tvoz/talk 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The copy I used to edit the article, is "The Crown hardcover, ISBN 0-307-33855-X". I also have a paperback with matching pages to my Crown first edition HC. — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lennon, Cynthia. John. Crown Publishers; 2005. ISBN 0-307-33855-X.

Can anyone confirm if any of the cites to this book are accurate? Everyone I check is wrong on Google, and in my paperback. Does anyone have a copy of this book whose page numbers are accurate to the article cites to it? — GabeMc (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm an edition of this book that does not have 306 pages. Both my paperback and my hardcover copies have 306 pages, but the version used to source several quotes in this article do not match up. — GabeMc (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but this is rather odd - did you check to see who put the original cites in? I don't see how they all could be wrong and I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to find the Fats Domino quote in your book - I doubt someone made up the reference. There must be an explanation - British ed of the book sounds logical. Tvoz/talk 01:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you find any reference at all to Fats Domino in the book, it's searchable on Google. I fixed three cites to the book for pages beyond 345, surely the UK edition isn't 40 pages longer. — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - it's very strange. But I don't think someone made up the page refs - at least I hope not. The problem with relying on Google books is that not every page is included in their previews, so a no-results search there is not definitive. Tvoz/talk 06:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
True, but Fats does not come up in the book on Amazon either. — GabeMc (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Amazon also has only selected pages and some missing pages, but that's not the issue as Fats isn't in the index. But as for all of the changes you made to page references, the ISBN on the copyright page of the Amazon paperback is 978-0-307-33856-3 or 0-307-33856-8 (Three Rivers Press paperback). That is not the same as 0-307-33855-X (Crown hardcover). (Three Rivers is the paperback arm of Crown, which is why both have the "307" in the ISBN.) So if you are using the paperback edition that is 978-0-307-33856-3 or 0-307-33856-8, you would need to change the ISBN in the reference section to align the references to the edition. Apparently whoever posted this in the first place - and it goes back a long time - was using the Crown hardcover book with ISBN 0-307-33855-X. It doesn't matter if it's the 10 digit or 13 digit ISBN - what matters are the 5 numbers in the middle (33855 or 33856), and that indicates that they are two different editions. So the original reference cites may have been right all along, for ISBN 0-307-33855-X - I don't know about that, but you want to be sure that the page refs that you've entered correspond to the edition you are citing below. Or put it all back to the way it was, which may well have been correct for that edition, and this entire exercise not necesssary. Tvoz/talk 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The edition I used to edit the article, and fix the cites was the same isbn that was listed in the article, ISBN 0-307-33855-X (Crown hardcover). While I used Google and Amazon to search the book, I was not implying that I was editing without the actual physical edition in hand. — GabeMc (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And you're right, Fats is not in the index of ISBN 0-307-33855-X. — GabeMc (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Page space

A lot of his 'Early years' cut be cut down, as it is well documented on Julia, Mimi, and Alfred's pages. His relationship sections as well.--andreasegde (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"According to author Albert Goldman,"... The paragraph in the Ono section should be binned or severely cut down. It is out of the time line, and looks like it was just dumped in there.--andreasegde (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not keen on the relationship section at all—many of its key points might be better worked into the history section. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, because then you'd have them slipped in all over the place.--andreasegde (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep "relationships" -- because they'd have to be divied up in the article timeline, which will actually make it longer. Those little interjections wouldn't really fit within "career highlights" anyway. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There are already facts about Cynthia, Yoko, etc. 'slipped in all over the place' in the history section. Why, for example, are the bed-ins repeated in the Ono section, and why are the Lennon and Nilsson drinking sessions taken out of the time-line and put in the Pang section? It's not currently called "career highlights" (but hey, maybe it should be), it's called "history". — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

False Cites

  • " ... drawing comical cartoons and mimicking his teachers."
A couple of days ago I added a cite needed tag to this phrase and someone cited it with Harry, 2000b, page 737. Trouble is, Harry 2000b, page 737 says nothing about drawing cartoons, or mimicking teachers. I suspect this is yet another false cite of the type I had fixed last week. — GabeMc (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • " ... but the cheques stopped when he went absent without leave in 1943."
Another statement, for which I added a cite needed tag a couple days ago, now cited to Spitz, 2005, page 25, but again, page 25 of Spitz does not say "...the cheques stopped when he went absent without leave in 1943." On Spitz page 26, it says Freddie was still sailing in February 1944, and on page 29 it says that in June 1946, Freddie took "an unexpected leave of absence..." There appears to be more than one "false cite" added to remove tags but not to properly source statements. — GabeMc (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Klein was appointed as Apple’s chief executive by Lennon, Harrison and Starr, but McCartney refused to sign the management contract"
Another, for which I added a tag that is now sourced to The Telegraph. Celebrity Obituaries - Allen Klein; 5 July 2009 (cited 5 December 2010). Trouble is, while this article says, "Paul McCartney detested Klein." It does not say he refused to sign the contract, and in fact contradicts this assertion by stating "On New Year’s Eve 1970 McCartney sued Klein and the three other Beatles in an effort to break Klein’s grip on the group. Two years later, McCartney succeeded in getting a receiver appointed to handle the band’s affairs." Why would Paul have to sue Klein to get out of a contract he never signed? I could be wrong, but at any rate, the new cite does not say Paul "refused to sign the management contract", which is the claim that needs sourcing. — GabeMc (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat concerning state of affairs. Please fix-up if you are able; otherwise, not least since we have TFA tomorrow, the falsely cited statements should be removed. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have Harry's book, so whoever put that one in will have to answer.--andreasegde (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One of his his school reports was damning: "Certainly on the road to failure... hopeless . . . rather a clown in class...wasting other pupils' time."[19]. Now fixed.--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The date of 1943 is wrong and the page number of 25, but on page 26 of the Spitz book, it says, "In February 1944... he was arrested and imprisoned. Freddie subsequently disappeared for six months... during which time his family assumed he'd deserted them." Cynthia Lennon says, "Until then he had sent her money each month from his wages, but now it stopped." Now fixed, with references from Spitz and Cynthia.--andreasegde (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Try reading the soddin' Telegraph article. "Meanwhile Klein presented the group with a three-year management contract giving him 20 per cent of everything they earned. McCartney refused to sign his copy, provoking a bitter row with the other Beatles". --andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
But refusing to sign his copy does not say he refused to sign "the management contract", two different things. And it's confusing as I said because if he refused to sign, why was he under contract to Klein. At the very least this is confusing and needs clarification. Was Paul bound by the other three signatures, why did he have to sue if he never signed? — GabeMc (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you blind, or what? "Meanwhile Klein presented the group with a three-year management contract giving him 20 per cent of everything they earned. McCartney refused to sign his copy, provoking a bitter row with the other Beatles" It is most definitely NOT two different things. He retained Lee Eastman as his manager. Read the soddin' history, and stop being a dick, because you didn't spot it the first time round.--andreasegde (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, if this obit from the Telegraph is the only source for the claim, how do we know it is correct? There are no sources cited for the article so there is no way to verify anything in it. This is a contentious claim about a living person, so it should be sourced by more than just Klein's obit. — GabeMc (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Per page 545 of my copy of Miles, Barry. Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now., "The others outvoted Paul three to one at the board meeting, and, presented with a fait accompli, Paul went along with it." Thus, Miles does not support the assetion that Paul "refused to sign the management contract." — GabeMc (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
WRONG! Do you hear a bell ringing? The actual quote is: "On 3 February, Allen Klein was appointed to conduct an audit of their financial affairs." Conduct an audit is NOT a management contract. Did you not read that bit, or did you not fully understand it?--andreasegde (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I know, Spitz later says Klein was appointed, without offereing any detail, but clearly McCartney went along with it. Why can't you source this with Paul's bio? Why is an obit from the Telegraph that does not provide it's sources definitive? The statement is contentious, Paul is still alive, it's that simple. — GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • @Andreasegde, per "Lennon, Cynthia. John. Crown Publishers; 2005. ISBN 0-307-33855-X", which edition are you using, because my american first edition HC, with the same isbn listed in the refs section does not verify Freddie's leave on page 56. Further, on page 29 of Spitz it says that in June 1946, Freddie took "an unexpected leave of absence..." Surely he was not allowed two "unexpected leaves of absence", he would have been canned after the first time. So if he went AWOL in 1944, why does Spitz have him still sailing in 1946 — GabeMc (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Bill Harry wrote that Lennon's iconic songs came to "inspire and symbolize the ideals of the masses."{{sfn|Harry|2000b|pp=277–278}}
This is cited to Harry 2000b, but pages 277-278 do not contain the quote, "inspire and symbolize the ideals of the masses". — GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "The Beatles evolved from Lennon's first band, the Quarrymen, named after Quarry Bank High School, the group was established by him in March 1957 when he was 16, and began as a skiffle group."{{sfn|Spitz|2005|p=52}}
Yet another false cite. Spitz page 52 does not give the March 1957 date of establishment. Spitz 52 says, "another skiffle band" shared the name the Blackjacks, which was their pre-Quarrymen name. Harry 2000b says the group was formed in September 1956, though at first without a name, later calling themseves the Blackjacks something the article should mention. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I fixed this one using Harry 2000b page 738. — GabeMc (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This cite is also false, since the source does not support Lennon and Ono "befriended" Rubin and Hoffman, quite to the contrary the source, Harry 2000b, page 344 suggests that the FBI "fabricated" a report that Lennon gave the two money at a restaurant in New York. Page 343 says that Lennon and Ono did meet with Rubin and Hoffman, but for 5 hours, and on one occasion. Further, the source refers to Rubin and Hoffman as Yuppies, not Yippies. — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, the source is wrong. Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were founding members of the Yippies. That is verified by their wikilinks for anyone too young to actually know what they are talking about. And I'd say a 5 hour meeting with those two constitutes befriending, as further evidenced by John and Yoko's involvement in the Free John Sinclair events brought to them by Jerry and Abbie. The giving of money is what may have been a fabrication, not their friendly relationship, which was not a secret back then. While we want the article to be well-referenced, knowing the truth helps us edit properly and seek out accurate refs, rather than slavishly following incorrect or misunderstood citations. Tvoz/talk 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "After a robbery, they relocated to the more secure Dakota at 1 West 72nd Street, in May 1973."{{sfn|Harry|2000b|p=182}}
This cite to Harry 2000b page 182 is indeed to a page about the Dakota, but Harry does not mention a robbery, or the relative safety of the Dakota. — GabeMc (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Harry is verifying the date. The Dakota is more secure. It's a fact, and we can't reference every word. Tvoz/talk 07:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "They planned another Bed-In in the United States, but were denied entry, so held one instead at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, where they recorded "Give Peace a Chance"."{{sfn|Harry|2000b|p=276}}
This cite cover only that they recorded the song at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, but says nothing about a planned Bed-In in the United States that was prevented by denial of entry into the US. — GabeMc (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, they did plan to do it in New York and were denied entry. So find a source that says so. Hotcop2 (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add the info so the burden is not on me to source the claim. — GabeMc (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "The case was settled out of court, Lennon giving her £100,000, roughly one month's earnings for him at the time, along with £2,400 annually, custody of Julian, and ownership of their home."{{sfn|Harry|2000b|p=498}}
The cite only verifies the payment of £100,000, not an estimate of Lennon's earnings at the time, or "£2,400 annually, custody of Julian, and ownership of their home." — GabeMc (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get into petty arguments about which page I have referenced, and which edition of any book that may have been published in whatever country. I have Spitz's book (in hardback) that I bought, as well as Miles' book about McCartney and Cynthia's book, which I bought in Austria. I have them here right now on the desk in front of me. Do some work and stop whining.--andreasegde (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To say I'm angry about these petty accusations is an understatement. --andreasegde (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off, I'm not making any accusations of any kind, about anyone, I am just checking the sources, to be sure the article is verifiable and in keeping with the cites. These issues are pretty small, and can be easily fixed. I only asked about Cynthia's book because I have two copies, the Crown HC, and the three rivers paperback, and neither agree with your page numbers. I was trying to find out if there is a copy with more pages than mine, that both have 306. As far as, "Do some work and stop whining", if you check the page history you will see that I have done my fair share of edits to the article. — GabeMc (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You're not making any accusations? Are you serious? Who started this thread?
It took me 30 minutes today to correct the complaints you made about references. How long did it take you to complain about them here? Get some work done, and then you can be useful.--andreasegde (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I never pointed my finger at anyone specific. As far as, "Get some work done", that is what I am doing, to be sure the cites are accurate, most are, a few aren't, I am fixing all I can, but I do not have every Lennon source memorized, though I do own all the good sources. — GabeMc (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Then stop complaining here, and look up the correct references. I did it today, and it didn't take that long. Why are article talk pages longer than the actual articles? It's because people like complaining instead of actually working. References don't need to be talked about. If they're wrong, just fix them.--andreasegde (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the bit about the robbery, and I know it's somewhere in print. I have NEVER read the Harry book. But it is a fact, and it's out there, somewhere. Hotcop2 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Give us a ref, dearest. These people need a ref for every sentence, and they will not be denied. Hope you're doing well, BTW. Give my regards to May.--andreasegde (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't introduce Harry 2000b to the refs list, I merely double checked to see if the cites to it were accurate. — GabeMc (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Typos

under: Personal relationships//Cynthia Lennon:

His marriage began just Beatlemania took hold across the UK. I believe the word "as" belongs in there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.194.40 (talk)

Thanks, I fixed it. In the future you can use {{edit protected}} for a speedier response. DC T•C 05:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sheff page numbers

Don't we need page numbers for the eight cites to Sheff 1981? — GabeMc (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Playboy Interviews have come out in so many forms, including audio. And what's the Fats Domino quote that creating a stir? Hotcop2 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The question about Fats Domino was this line that had been in the article: The first song he learned to play was Fats Domino's "Ain't That a Shame". which had been referenced to Cynthia Lennon's John pp 40-41. Gabe was not able to find that info in his copy, and indeed I don't see Fats in the index of the paperback on Google books so I don't know if it's actually in the book or not, but not being in the index is not definitive - the line could be in the original book. I see, though, that our line now reads ... where she played him Elvis Presley records, and taught him the banjo, playing "Ain't That a Shame" by Fats Domino. and is referenced to Spitz p 48. Not quite the same and a tad awkwardly put - I mean, it's not a big deal, but I'd like to include```` that it was the first song he learned to play if that's right, as it's a nice factoid, but I don't have either book in hand so don't know how to properly source it. Since Google books and Amazon both preview only selected pages, it's hard to confirm that it is or isn't in the Cynthia hc on pp 40-41 which someone seemed to think it was. (This is separate from the whole re-doing of the ref pages discussed [[Talk: John Lennon#Lennon, Cynthia. John. Crown Publishers; 2005. ISBN 0-307-33855-X.|elsewhere]].) Any help? Tvoz/talk 21:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
" ... where she played him Elvis Presley records, and taught him the banjo, playing "Ain't That a Shame" by Fats Domino."
Per, "Not quite the same and a tad awkwardly put", Andrew changed the wording to the current version, not me. — GabeMc (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In one of Pang's books and in interviews, she discusses Lennon learning "Ain't That A Shame" from his mother (the first song he learned). Lennon included it on the Rock N Roll album, on which Pang was session coordinator, so a discussion of this sort make sense in that period. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
He played the mouth organ before the guitar, and one assumes he actually played songs on it. Come to think of it, he sang before he played anything, so what was the first song? This could run and run...--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's alright since the interview is available online. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article protection

Resolved
 – Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is today's featured article semi-protected?Smallman12q (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(1) Because it has a long history of vandalism, looking at the logs, and when unprotected rarely lasts more than a week before the level of vandalism requires protection; (2) Because Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection permits protection of TFAs in the same way as any other article, i.e. we don't unprotect an article just because it's TFA - this approach changed in June 2010. Bencherlite Talk 01:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that change.Smallman12q (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected or not, I think it is utterly disgraceful for a featured article to have a clearly vandalized infobox :-( It doesn't even spell Paul McCartney right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.209.204 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the facts to fit "Harry"

rather than use Harry as the source of 90% of this article, if there's a question regarding a fact according to Harry, ask it here first, as "Harry" cites were added well after this article was kinda sorta finished, kinda. Hotcop2 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:VERIFY — GabeMc (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
verifiability, not truth What the frig does that say? The truth is not the truth, but it is when it's referenced? Am I missing something here? The truth is not the truth, but only what people think is the truth, and is reported, or written, in a respected publication, so this is what we have to report. Please don't advocate gobbledygook.--andreasegde (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if an editor knows it's true, and suggests looking in another one of the 200 books written about Lennon besides Harry, try it, you'll like it. Hotcop2 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Which factoid are you guys even ranting about? — GabeMc (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And what's this have to do with Harry anyway, I own all the good sources, it just so happened that today I was going to double check every Harry 2000b cite, to help the article. — GabeMc (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Lennon himself says in an interview that they wanted to do the bed-in in New York but were denied entry. There are plenty of Lennon voicde snippets floating around the airwaves these days. Is a car radio a good source? Hotcop2 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if that's on a DVD, which it likely is, then it could be reliably sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"I own all the good sources" (GabeMc). What arrogance. Let's just all step back and let you get on with it, shall we? Sad that you didn't fix all the references before you complained about them here.--andreasegde (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GabeMc was right to raise the issue of false citations; if something is rotten in the state of Denmark, we need to be able to detect any other occurrences and prevent re-occurrence. Verifiability, not truth is Wikipedia policy; it should not be dismissed out-of-hand. Let’s try to keep the discussion constructive and (another policy) WP:CIVIL. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a little knowledge of the subject matter is important to the editing of a page. Some of the Gabe "citation needed" requests are silly; anyone with a precursory knowledge of Lennon knows some of the issues here. Also, if a cite is incorrect (and it's usually a Harry cite) just find the correct one. A little common sense would help here. The man is dead 30 years; this page is never going to fit everyone's personal perception of John or what is important to them about John. Time to let it go a bit, for the greater good here. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There were lots of refs in the article when it passed GA. What happened to them? Did somebody actually buy Bill Harry's book(s) and then delete them?--andreasegde (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Edit request from 159.53.46.142, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change Fromer Beatles to say "The Beatles" or "Beatles".

Former Beatles suggest that they are no longer Beatles.... They will be Beatles forever.

Thank you.

159.53.46.142 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Since the band broke up, they are no longer The Beatles, and former is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

MBE Award

A small point. The article gives Lennon the post nominal letters MBE. Lennon was awarded the MBE along with the three other Beatles in 1965. However in the late '60s he renounced the honour and returned the medal. Should the MBE at the end of his name not be removed on that basis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.8.104 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see here for previous discussion. Rodhull andemu 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It should.--andreasegde (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope. The MBE is an honour in the gift of the Crown. It's open to recipients to refuse its acceptance prior to award, but once it's awarded, it's not something that can be resigned from- it has to be taken away by the Crown, like a knighthood- see Anthony Blunt. It wasn't, therefore, he is still (or was, until his death), a member of that order. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Final interview was not the Rolling Stone one

Rolling Stone is incorrectly claiming that a Friday 5 December interview with Jonathan Cott was Lennon's final interview here. The next day (Saturday 6 December), BBC DJ Andy Peebles interviewed him for 3hrs and 20 minutes. Peebles wrote about it in the November 2010 issue of Q Magazine (pages 58-62) and on the BBC website here. There may be other, still later interviews than the Peebles one that I haven't come across, but the Cott/Rolling Stone one definitely wasn't the last one, as they are claiming.

Poignantly, one of the things Lennon said to Peebles was "When we first moved here, we actually lived in Greenwich Village. I would be walking around tense, waiting for somebody to say something, or jump on me, and it took me two years to unwind. I mean, people come up and ask for autographs or say, Hi, but they don't bug you." 81.147.148.166 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the info, and Rolling Stones removed full transcript and made it only available to the subscribers. Kasaalan (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An easy way out

A common practice in the 'Notes' section of books is to actually quote some of the original text from the publication being referenced. I have already started this:

^ Lennon 2005, p. 54: "Until then he had sent her money each month from his wages, but now it stopped". ^ Spitz 2005, p. 26: "In February 1944... he was arrested and imprisoned. Freddie subsequently disappeared for six months". ^ Lennon 2005, p. 306: "He raised his offer to £100,000".

This will assuage any doubts about whether references are being faked or not. Seems reasonable to me.--andreasegde (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea. Thoughts: Is it being done elsewhere in WP? Pushing page size (and load times) up? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The page size is 117 kilobytes. "WP:SPLIT. With some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all. " As stated before, the relationship sections could be cut down a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this list: [7]. Columbia University is 136kb, and #997.--andreasegde (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lennon was suffering the effects of a cold

Can anyone point me to the source for this, while seemingly well-known, I can't find which source it's in. — GabeMc (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lewisohn 1988, pp. 24–26. "The day ended with a cover of "Twist and Shout", which had to be recorded last because John Lennon had a particularly bad cold and Martin feared the throat-shredding vocal would ruin Lennon's voice for the day. This performance, captured first take, and generally regarded as a classic, prompted Martin to say: 'I don't know how they do it. We've been recording all day but the longer we go on the better they get.'"
Spitz 2005 p. 376. "It is obvious from the very first notes that John was straining for control. “Shake it up bay-be-eee. . .” was more of a shriek than singing. There was nothing left of his voice. It was bone-dry, stripped bare, with all the resonance husked from the tone, and the sound it made was like an angry, hoarse-voiced fan screeching at a football match. Between clamped jaws, contorting his face, he croaked, “Twist and shout.” He had been struggling all day to reach notes, but this was different, this hurt. " Done.--andreasegde (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. — GabeMc (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The Lewisohn cite covers it, however, Spitz 2005 p.376 does not attribute Lennon's raspy vocal to a cold, or to sickness, but rather to fatigue, from 10 hours of work. Both John and Paul drank milk and took "Zubes" for soar throats that day. — GabeMc (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Well listen to Anna, which was done early on. Makes you want to give him a box of Kleenex. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I always thought he had a cold that day, I just wanted to source it reliably. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"Makes you want to give him a box of Kleenex". LOL. Was Johnny recorded blowing his nose? :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The charms of that first album: John phlegm and Ringo's squeaky bass pedal Hotcop2 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Our World

One of Lennon's finest and most famous hours was performing his song "All You Need Is Love" on Our World, watched by 400 million in 26 countries. If someone has a screen-grab from the video (Anthology DVD?) and the rationale is sufficient not to fall foul of NFC then this could be a nice addition to the article to illustrate the event, the studio years section, and the summer of love/psychedelia etc. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was one of the group's finest hours. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
And you don't give Lennon any credit for his role in getting the gig, or for writing or singing the song? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"you don't give Lennon any credit for his role in getting the gig"? Got a reference for that?--andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The Beatles were given the gig because of their fame which was in no small part due, as founder, major songwriter and everything else, to Lennon. When they were asked to provide something for the broadcast, Lennon came up with the goods, "All You Need Is Love", and sang it to millions in what is described as one of the defining moments of the sixties. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a McCartney fan then? :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wrapped and Hotcop2, it would be great to include it, with a low res screen cap if possible. It was one of the defining moments for the band, and for Lennon. I always wondered why they only got to perform one song, they should have let Paul do one as well. Too bad George flubbed the guitar solo, which had to be shortened to remove his nasty playing. — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"Too bad George flubbed the guitar solo, which had to be shortened to remove his nasty playing." What??? This is new. They played to a backing track, even though everything was 'supposed' to be live.--andreasegde (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Andreasegde, you don't know everything about the Beatles. Listen to the very end of the guitar solo, you can hear it being sliced out as George hits a nasty clincker. — GabeMc (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Added a pic. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Oi, you young spraffer, knock off the sly digs, or you'll get a clip round the ear. BTW, the video does not show anybody playing the supposed solo (which was only two bars of 7/8 and hardly constitutes a solo), which leads me to think it was on the backing track. It's obvious that the 'solo' was supposed to be longer, but somebody pulled a fader too quickly. It also sounds like Lennon, (or Macca?) because if you listen to The End from Abbey Road, you can hear the difference between Harrison, McCartney and Lennon's solos. Check it out...
"The first two bars are played by McCartney, the second two by Harrison, and the third two by Lennon, then the sequence repeats.[1]".--andreasegde (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I know, very cool, but it's George on AYNIL, and his solo got so crappy at that point they fadded it out fast, and faded in the strings. I am speaking about the album version of course, what people actually heard that night is not what you hear today on the MMT album. — GabeMc (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, if you listen to this, [8], you'll hear the guitar starts too quietly (1:19), and then gets pushed up too high in the mix, before it gets chopped out by an engineer. As the track was being mixed simultaneously with a backing track and a live vocal by Lennon, it's feasible to think that somebody goofed. It was not possible to remix the thing again, obviously, so it had to be left in.--andreasegde (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The version you hear on the album, MMT, has studio vocals from Lennon, who didn't like the live version, and so new vocal leads from John were recorded at Abbey Road. — GabeMc (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't write an answer when you're on the sauce.--andreasegde (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, look here for a reliable source that says Lennon re-recorded the lead vocal after the Our World program. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
For moi, this conversation is over. I don't want to discuss stamp collections.--andreasegde (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Beatles-our-world.jpg

Wouldn't be better find a picture of Lennon alone, without the Beatles? Because this image in fair use is in a section about his early solo career and the break-up of the group. In addition, there are already many photos of Lennon with the other three golden boys of Liverpool in Commons and Wikipedia. NandO talk! 09:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The section covers 1966–70 (there's a clue to this in its title) and the shot is from 67. Nevertheless, the intention was ideally for a picture from the performance of Lennon alone, one which had psychedelia ‘written all over it’, but it's the best I could find at short notice—if you have a better candidate, all well and good. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is good. But we also can upload pictures like these: 1, 2, 3, specially in the section "1973–80: Lost and found". Most have a good quality, but we can discuss that later. What do you think? NandO talk! 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

John's time with Julia

As the article reads now it goes from John choosing his mother over his father right to John living with his Aunt and Uncle. "It would be 20 years before he had contact with his father again."[9]

"Throughout the rest of his childhood and adolescence, he lived with his aunt and uncle, Mimi and George Smith, ..."

Seems like a paragraph is missing about the time he spent with his mother before moving in permanently with Aunt Mimi. — GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is missing from here, but is documented in these:
Further information: Julia Lennon, Alfred Lennon, and Mimi Smith
.--andreasegde (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Death of John Lennon#Political murder conspiracies

Political murder conspiracies
Main article: John Lennon § Political activism

Because of the Nixon administration, FBI and CIA's surveillance and deportation efforts against Lennon's left-wing anti-war and revolutionary political activitism during 1970s-1980s, which later revealed by Jon Wiener, and his assassination after he "plans to become politically active again" with a new album and election of Reagan administration,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] brought conspiracy theories over CIA's political murder by Jesse Ventura, Mae Brussell, Fenton Bresler (Who Killed John Lennon), Alex Constantine (The Covert War Against Rock) and others. [7] [8] [9] [10]

  1. ^ lennonfbifiles.com (Official FBI Lennon documents) by Jon Wiener
  2. ^ John Lennon 1940-1980: History Professor Jon Wiener Discusses Lennon’s Politics, FBI Files and Why Richard Nixon Sought to Deport Him by Amy Goodman, Democracynow.org, 12.08.2005
  3. ^ Gimme some truth: the John Lennon FBI files by Jon Wiener, University of California Press, 2000
  4. ^ Who Killed John Lennon? in Huffington Post, by John W. Whitehead, 12.02.2008
  5. ^ While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon, by Adam Cohen in New York Times, 09.21.2006
  6. ^ Still A Drag… John Lennon’s Death - 25 years On by Martin Lewis, in Huffington Post, December 5, 2005
  7. ^ Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia by Peter Knight, ABC-CLIO, 2003, pp. 426-427
  8. ^ Fenton Bresler in Who Killed John Lennon), St. Martin's Press, November 1990
  9. ^ Alex Constantine, The Covert War Against Rock, Feral House, 2000
  10. ^ The Young Turks: Jesse Ventura TYT Interview (Video and Transcript)
reverted version

Because of the Nixon administration's FBI/CIA surveillance to spy and efforts to deport Lennon in the 1970s,[1] there are those who believe the murder might have had political motivation.[2][3]

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu4.html
  2. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/who-killed-john-lennon_b_147351.html "Lennon's time of repose didn't last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again. The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused, "The whole map's changed and we're going into an unknown future, but we're still all here, and while there's life there's hope.""
  3. ^ Fenton Bresler in Who Killed John Lennon, St. Martin's Press (November 1990)

WP:RS sourced 75 word conspiracy section about CIA involvement allegations in Lennon assassination created along WP in Death of John Lennon#Political murder conspiracies . Talk:Death of John Lennon#Debates for early version debates. Talk:Death of John Lennon#Political murder conspiracy for quotes from sources. Request for Comment. Please quote specific policy with reason if you object. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked a review from User talk:Realist2 since he has a review for GA. Kasaalan (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Debates
An examination of the 10 cited sources - by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. [10] This appears to be an WP:SPS. The link points to the site's main web page. Doesn't seem to mention political murder conspiracies.
  2. [11] I'm not sure that I agree that DemocracyNow.org is a reliable source although I think that this is as a primary source. However, I don't see any mention of political murder conspiracies.
  3. [12] I don't have access to this book, but based on the summary, it doesn't seem to cover political murder conspiracies.
  4. [13] Again, it doesn't seem to cover political murder conspiracies.
  5. [14] Opinion piece. Doesn't seem to cover political murder conspiracies.
  6. [15] Doesn't seem to cover political murder conspiracies.
  7. [16] Alright! First source that actually covers political murder conspiracies. This looks good.
  8. [17] Self-published web site. Not reliable.
  9. The Covert War Against Rock, Feral House, 2000. Don't have access to the book.
  10. [18] Blocked by my work. But I'm guessing that at best this is a primary source about a non-expert's (Jesse Ventura) opinion about Lennon's death.

I'm sorry, but based on these sources, this doesn't seem important enough to include in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Quest, references 1-8 is about facts, last 4 references are about the major/notable conspiracy over that facts. Lennon was under heavy surveillance and unwanted by USA, so facts and conspiracies are 2 different matter.
  1. is not WP:SPS it is the official FBI files by court and already published by University of California Press in history professor Jon Wiener's book. No conspiracy only Official US government files as orginals.
  2. American history professor Jon Wiener interview by Amy Goodman on Democracynow.org ("daily independent syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio, television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America and hosted by investigative journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, and serves as the flagship program for Pacifica Radio network), notable interview because of Jon Wiener.
  3. Gimme some truth: the John Lennon FBI files is the book about official FBI documents about John Lennon, which are released by court order by appeal of Jon Wiener. Official and notable RS. No conspiracy in it.
  4. Again Wiener no conspiracy. Wiener officially proved there is heavy surveillance by CIA/FBI (and possibly MI5) that they tried to cover up for national security, deportation attempts etc.
  5. "Opinion piece" by Adam Cohen in New York Times, he also states facts, no conspiracy
  6. Again no conspiracy since they all about FBI/CIA efforts against Lennon, no murder. The first part facts, second part conspiracy they have different references.

I will write about other sources later. Kasaalan (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very strange. So much information about why there are no conspiracies? Interesting.--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing "percussion" from infobox

The most straightforward reason is this: There's no mention of him playing percussion in the primary text, so it simply doesn't belong in the infobox.

More expansively, I'm aware that Lennon banged on a box during three or four Beatles recordings, but I'd be willing to bet that most rock musicians with substantial recording careers have done exactly the same on occasion. We don't list "percussion" for everyone who ever picked up a rattle when the drummer's hands were full. If anyone turns up sourcing for Lennon having significantly performed percussion, we can add a mention of that to the text and return it to the infobox. I've looked around the sources a bit, and have yet to come across anything that applies. DocKino (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

“Lost and found”

The main things that happened in this period seem to be: return to musicianship (activism now taking a back seat), the lost weekend, some not-so-notable albums (compared to the 1st 3 anyway), and a number 1 single. Wondering if we could have with a more literal section title, I tried, but couldn't come up with anything elegant. Any suggestions? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy days are here again? Hotcop2 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's take out all the verbiage and just have the dates. The text is a bit pretentious. --BwB (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get so drastic. We don't need the extensive review on "Mind Games" (that's on the album page, but everything else is consistent with the narrative of the article. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
One can only assume that you missed the intent of the question, which was, can/should the section title be changed to more-literally summarize its contents (like the others appear to do, to a certain extent at least)? Or, to put it another way, should we be writing tabloid-like (okay, so it's not quite that bad) or encyclopedia-like section titles?
As for the Mind games review, it should remain in some form since otherwise we tend towards: “then he released an album, then he released another album, ...” — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It was called "The Lost Weekend" originally, which is what the paragraph's about. I'm on netbook which doesn't have tildes, I just noticed. Hotcop2
I'd go for that. (Should be some tildes in the edit tools panel). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I found them lol Hotcop2 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sheesh, no poetry allowed, eh? "Lost Weekend" is fine, but so was "Lost and found", which was, dare I say, more poetic, as befits the subject. You'd think we were writing an article about shoes. But fine. Tvoz/talk 21:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

his ideas

Lenno had a crazy idea to drill holes in their haecd and put flowers in but paul said no way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.64.18 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Care to source this? 66.87.0.241 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Gets You Thru The Night & Elton John

The notes at the end of the article list Lennon's Billboard #1 singles.

Originally, it listed Lennon as having two as a solo musician and having one with Elton John (WGYTTN). The single release was not a John Lennon/Elton John release nor was it credited to the two as songwriters. Elton played on the track but this hardly constitutes the single as a Lennon/Elton song. In this vein, it would be like listing Imagine as John Lennon with Klaus Voorman simply because another musician famous outside of session work played on a track.

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH JOHN LENNON WE MISS YOU ♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.155.252 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs)

Paul McCartney

I think there should be a subheading under Relationships discussing his friendship with Sir Paul McCartney, especially during the Quarrymen/Beatle years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.152.182 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Time of death

Why is the time of death here marked with 11:07? In other documents, his death certificate is also linked here. That reads time of death "11:15" not "11:07". Is there a reason for 11:07?

Parsec9 (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken references

I fixed some broken {{Sfn}} citations in this article (thanks to User:Ucucha/HarvErrors), but couldn't fix those to Clark 2002 (current ref 189), Mismo 2002 (ref 190) and Songwriters Hall of Fame 2009 (ref 253), because the full citation for none of these is listed. Could someone add those citations? Ucucha 09:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

John Lennon's name

It's simple, yet, I guess it might be important, too. I think it should be written as: "John Ono Lennon, born John Winston Lennon" as he later gave up the name Winston -given after prime minister Wİnston Churchill- and took up Yoko Ono's surname. The Ono surname can create confusion and giving up his middle name was an imortant thing. Esen O (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a statement would require reliable 3rd party sources to verify your statement. Mabuska (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Although it was reported at the time that he had changed his middle name from Winston to Ono, legally he could only add Ono but not remove Winston so his legal name was John Winston Ono Lennon. Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No legally you can drop part of your name. Not sure if Lennon did that though 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

MBE

Should he still have MBE following his name considering he returned it? Jefe (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that although he returned the physical medal he received, the actual postnominal title remains and can only be revoked not renounced. freshacconci talktalk 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Seaman

Obviously the Fred Seaman stuff about how Lennnon switched to conservatism at the end of his life but didn't tell anyone but Seaman should be edited to include that fact that Seaman stole hundreds of personal items from John Lennon. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/28/arts.artsnews 68.188.25.170 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet... Hotcop2 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Lennon

A brief note should be added the Sean Lennon section that his godfather is Elton John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyprod1 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's in Sean's article, which is where it needs to be. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the person he choose as the godfather of his child (I assume in a legally binding way) would not be notable in his article. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that? - you can ask anyone to be a godfather to your child. All they have to do is be present at the baptism and say that they'll be responsible for the child's spiritual welfare. Richerman (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Typically a godparent is someone who agrees to take legal and financial responsibility over a child in the event of both parents dying. What I meant by saying assuming its legally binding, was that since Lennon and Elton John are celebrities, it is possible that it was simply a statement made for publicicty and he was not actually the godparent of the child in a real sense. But if he is it is certainly notable, especially considering the fact that one half of the parents did infact die and the possibility of a godparent being needed was very real. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the Goldman quotes from the Yoko Ono section

I submit that the inflammitory Goldman quotes should be removed at once, and I seek consensus for said removal. Goldman's book is largely unsourced sensationalism, and reliance on it for material about Ono's use of "gigolos" is highly questionable, in my view. Jusdafax 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Given that this is a WP:BLP issue we need to be careful with sources like Goldman's which are highly questionable and discredited. If other sources could corroborate anything he claims, perhaps then we could use it. But as it stands this is one man's claim with very little backing it up. freshacconci talktalk 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree also. It doesn't add anything. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Radiopathy •talk• 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Goldman's book is not a reliable source for controversial information on Lennon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Seeing no objection and substantial support, the Goldman material has been removed. Bravo, all. Jusdafax 02:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrite?

Lennon wrote: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow", yet claims to be a Marxist? I'd say that means he's a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.28 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the article, not the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
He first said that was the key line of the song, but later stated that he regretted it. also, mao murdered thousands of people in the name of the revolution. Esen O (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Marxism does not equal Maoism (or Stalinism etc.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of term "assassination"

Although this doesn't apply to this article (with the exception of it being included in the category "Assassinated English People"), one odd aspect of Lennon's murder is that it is frequently referred to in media as an assassination. The term assassination, however, is generally reserved for the killings of political figures - JFK, Malcolm X, Anwar Sadat, etc. I wonder if this should be discussed in the article - is there a reason why some refer to Lennon's murder as an assassination? On a related note, he probably shouldn't be in the Assassinated English People category, since the category is otherwise populated by politicians and Thomas Becket. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on lead image change before an edit war happens

Hotcop apparently doesn't like my recent change to the lead image. Well let's have a discussion. Here are my reasons for the change. 1. It is the most recent image of Lennon taken weeks before his death. 2. It shows his face, something the previous lead did not. 3. The previous lead is more useful in the section about Give Peace a Chance which I moved it to when I changed the lead. 4. It is a higher resolution image than the previous lead. 5. The previous lead went through heavy editing, such as re-coloring, cropping and so fourth. Lowering the quality of the image.

I gave five reasons for discussion about the change. Seeing as HotCop has had discussions about this image in previous encounters I fear the only reason he dislikes the change is more about personal dislike of the photo instead of what is best for the article. I have been overseeing this article for almost 4 years now and I know the only reason the previous lead was used was because there was never a better replacement. Now there is and I hope that HotCop will put his personal dislike for the photo aside and do what is best for the article. PositivelyJordan (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give my reasons again here. altho I don't love the Lennon with acoustic photo, it's more representative of "iconic" Lennon than the b/w, which goes perfectly in the Yoko Ono section. So let's have more discussions folks. (P.S. -- I got permission from Bob Gruen to use the NYC T-shirt photo, but that was vetoed as well. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
"iconic" Lennon is opinion. The point about the b/w being in the Yoko Ono section is fine, but seeing as there is already a picture of Yoko in the section it would be redundant to have two photos in the section. Meanwhile the Acoustic photo is perfect for the Give Peace a Chance section. PositivelyJordan (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It is redundant; I would've taken the solo Ono picture out. We'll need opinions as to which of these two best represent the opening of the article. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree that "iconic" Lennon is opinion. Having a recent (and by no means obscure) pic in the lead, with others in their relevant sections would seem an encyclopedic approach. Uniplex (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hotcop2's conclusion. The "acoustic guitar" image is a superior choice for the lead, for three primary reasons:
1. It shows Lennon much closer to the prime of his career.
2. It shows Lennon performing music, the activity on which much of his notability rests.
3. It shows Lennon and Lennon alone.
These factors, in my view, readily outweigh the ones enumerated by PositivelyJordan at the top of this thread. The fact that Mitchell's is "the most recent image" readily available of Lennon is not a positive, it's a neutral. Showing him at or close to the height of his career is significantly more valuable. The utility of the image elsewhere is again not a pivotal consideration; the replacement image is also useful elsewhere and it is highly debatable where the acoustic guitar image is "more useful".
The other considerations enumerated by PositivelyJordan do carry some weight—though there is the gross exaggerated claim that the "acoustic guitar" does not show Lennon's face. Of course it does, just not as much as the Mitchell duo portrait. The image quality of the Mitchell photo is unquestionably superior; however the image quality of the acoustic guitar image readily meets our standards. Given the other factors I've enumerated, it remains the superior choice.
The acoustic guitar image should be restored to the lead, and the Mitchell image brought into the "Yoko Ono" section, replacing the mediocre image presently there. DocKino (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As already mentioned, ‘iconic’ and ‘prime’ are opinion—your points could equally describe the 1964 pic. Uniplex (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
1. "Iconic" is not a word I ever used.
2. Sure, "prime" is opinion--like virtually everything else that's been said here, not least by you. Guess what, it's called the exercise of editorial judgment and pursuit of consensus.
3. You're absolutely right that my points could equally describe the 1964 pic. I didn't consider it above. Given its quality and the fact that it shows more of his face than the acoustic guitar image, it might be the best choice of all. DocKino (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Your points don't have any validity to them whatsoever. You even agreed yourself that the Mitchell photo is far superior in quality, and shows much more of his face. I take much more weight in those two points and the fact that it is more recent. Than what your opinion is on when John Lennon's prime was. PositivelyJordan (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah. So now you're throwing a hissy fit ("Your points don't have any validity to them whatsoever"), baldly distorting my words for your benefit (I did not call the Mitchell photo "far superior" in quality, just superior; I did not agree that it shows "much more" of his face, just more), and apparently fantasizing that my views are "opinion" while yours are, what, objective? Guess what, you've been reverted. No consensus for the change. DocKino (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Bottom line: When other viable free media is available, it is simply inappropriate to lead a biographical article with an image that gives equal prominence to a person who is not the article's subject. Second: If there is a viable image that shows the subject performing the activity for which he was famous, that is almost invariably a superior choice to a static portrait shot. This is not a tough call. DocKino (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The only one throwing a hissy fit here is you, and from your past violations of name calling and incivility I won't even begin talking to you any further. However I would agree to the notion of the 1964 image being better than the Rehearsal photo as the lead, as it applies every one of your points about the rehearsal image, AS WELL as being in better quality. PositivelyJordan (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it takes to stop you from whining and misrepresenting what your fellow Wikipedians have said, we're very grateful. As for our past behavior, since you've suggested that's in some way pertinent, I'm proud to say that our fellow editors have awarded me six Barnstars, while you have...uh...awarded yourself 19 userboxes, including ones declaring your devotion to "WikiPeace" and "WikiLove". That would be funny, if your behavior didn't make it so sad.
Back to substantive matters: Either the 1964 (Beatles) or 1969 (Give Peace a Chance) picture is a viable choice. On balance, I prefer the 1969 image: it shows Lennon as a solo artist and I believe better conveys his individual character (in part because he's not in a group costume). PJ clearly much prefers the 1964 image. Other opinions? DocKino (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the good Doc. Like I said, I had gotten permission to use the NYC shirt shot, but it was removed. It's an article about LENNON so we don't need anyone else in the lead photo. Finally, he looks pretty horrible, but that's just my opinion -- and, as we all know, it's just my opinion. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
From the lead sentences of both the lead and legacy sections, it seems that Lennon’s notability stems primarily from his work with the Beatles, so that would suggest the ’64 pic. Uniplex (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with Uniplex's point. Also since the Mitchell photo has a creative commons share alike license would cropping it to include only Lennon change your mind about it? Since it is one of the most famous photos of him, as per being the seventh image that shows up on Google images when searching for John Lennon. Also I disagree that he looks horrible in the Mitchell photo, in my opinion he looks horrible in the 69' photo since he was a heavy drug user at that time while also going through the Beatles breakup. On the flip side, in the Mitchell photo he seemed to have turned his life around and was ready to settle down health wise. PositivelyJordan (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I also obtained permission from David Spindel to use his photos of Lennon from 1980, but that too was nixed. The Mitchell photo may be high on the Google search, but this is due to good tagging. It is NOT one of the more famous photos of Mr. Lennon. In the series that Mitchell took of Lennon, let's just say this shot isn't the best. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that how famous a photo is has much to do with it—see WP:Images#Image_choice_and_placement where, for a person, ‘a portrait’ and ‘not with other individuals’ are given as desirable attributes. AFAICT, the Spindel photos have Lennon in dark glasses, so the Mitchell photo gives a clearer portrait (needing ideally, to be cropped). Uniplex (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather the trademark dark glasses than the bagism under his eyes. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, "the trademark dark glasses" aren't mentioned in the text or present in any photo in the article. Leibovitz's portrait is clear, in color, and without harsh lighting. Uniplex (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, Gruen's pic is cool too. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
So long as there is a viable free choice for the lead--and there's clearly more than one--we must go with free. DocKino (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
As we have seen, permission can be obtained to use non-free. If anyone wants to spend more time on this, I suggest that recognizability should be key; i.e. if a reader with minimum familiarity with Lennon comes across our article, our lead pic should be the one that maximizes the chance that the reader will recognise the subject; other worthy pics can go in the body. Uniplex (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

change the principal picture

i think the best picture should be the firsts in appears when you write " john lennon" in google, there are a lot of options. (and PLEASE CHOOSE A PICTURE OF LENNON ALONE, like in any other article, that souldnt be in discussion) Alex gnpi (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They're certainly are lots of pictures but they are all copyrighted and can't be used. The one in the article is used with permission from the copyright holder. If you think you can get permission to use one of Lennon on his own go right ahead. Richerman (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand the copyright issue , but no all the pictures are copyrigthed, although is true that is dificult to know the pictures that have free rigths. In any case in this link is the same picture that the principal but with out Yoko: http://www.actualidadmusica.com/2009/10/29/john-lennon-el-trailer-de-%E2%80%9Cnowhere-boy%E2%80%9D/ Alex gnpi

John Lennon = Reagan?

As I'm sure you've all seen reports about John Lennon reconsidering his leftist views and becoming a fan of Reagan, I'm wondering what you all think about including this in the article? 108.48.29.250 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Find a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The news of Lennon's possible political transition to conservatism is significant. I would think any Daily Mail reference should suffice. For instance, I wrote the following based on its 30 June, 2011 article by David Gardner. ___ On June 30, 2011, David Gardner reported in the Daily Mail that Fred Seaman (58), a personal assistant to Lennon, claims in a recent documentary that in his later years Lennon was actually a “closet conservative embarrassed by his radical past.” Seaman was Lennon’s personal assistant during the last year of the singer's life. Additionally, Seaman maintains Lennon was a fan of Ronald Reagan. “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on Jimmy Carter.” Seaman also believes Lennon was embarrassed at his past leftist radical ideologies. “By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naiveté.” He also added, “I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist. He enjoyed really provoking my uncle. Maybe he was being provocative but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.” Seaman worked for Lennon during the year leading up to Lennon’s death in December 1980 at age 40. [end] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.2.58 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


I highly disagree. The article was from a Conservative paper. Nowhere in what was said in the contents was it stated that Lennon called himself a Conservative or anything like that, or that he rebuked his Leftism. That was the article's interpretation of what Seaman said of Lennon, which it later inserted into the title and its commentary. What Seaman said was that Lennon argued with Seaman's Marxist uncle, and that Lennon said that if he was voting between Carter and Reagan, he'd vote for Reagan. Firstly, Marxism =/= Leftism, it is an ideology on the extreme Left rather than a representative of the whole of it, and likewise, if Lennon did argue, it could either mean the uncle was a Marxist he found no liking in (Maoist, Stalinist, etc) or that Lennon was just being a rabble rouser. Secondly, millions of people supported Reagan over Carter, and most not FOR Reagan, but AGAINST Carter. It wouldn't signify him being a Conservative; it would signify him being like most Americans and thinking Carter was doing lousy, and supporting anyone who wasn't him. This was the case of millions of voters who didn't love Reagan but rather disliked Carter. Thirdly, i think it said Lennon met Reagan and the two got along at a baseball game or something. So what? How the hell does that signify ideology? Seth MacFarlane gets along with Rush Limbaugh. Is Seth MacFarlane an arch-Conservative now? No. Acting civilly towards a person doesn't mean you become a rank and file follower. Fourthly, will no one mention that Seaman stole documents from the Lennon family after his death? Why is this man treated as a reliable source?

Fifthly, and here's a kicker, in late Novemeber of 1980, Lennon (who the Conservatives are trying to make a Reaganite now) spoke in support of a labor strike in LA and San Francisco. Lennon said “We are with you in spirit. . . . In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children. “Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.” Does that sound very much like a Right-winger to you?

From "The Nation" article, "John Lennon NOT a Closet Republican", http://www.thenation.com/blog/161751/john-lennon-not-closet-republican

"A guy named Fred Seaman is all over the conservative blogs today for a new documentary in which he claims that John Lennon was “a closet Republican” at the time he was shot. This seems unlikely.

First of all, who is Fred Seaman? He’d been a personal assistant to John and Yoko at the Dakota in the late seventies, but he’s also a convicted criminal. He was found guilty of stealing John Lennon’s personal belongings, including his diaries, after Lennon had been killed. He was sentenced to five years probation. You might say that weakens his credibility. What exactly were Lennon’s political views at the end of 1980? Late that November, Lennon spoke out on behalf of striking workers in L.A. and San Francisco. (The story is told in my book “Come Together: John Lennon in his Time.”) The strike was against Japan Foods Corporation, a subsidiary of the Japanese multinational Kikkoman, best known for its soy sauce. The US workers, primarily Japanese, were members of the Teamsters. In L.A. and San Francisco, they went on strike for higher wages. The shop steward of the LA local, Shinya Ono, persuaded John and Yoko to make a public statement addressed to the striking workers: “We are with you in spirit. . . . In this beautiful country where democracy is the very foundation of its constitution, it is sad that we have to still fight for equal rights and equal pay for the citizens. Boycott it must be, if it is the only way to bring justice and restore the dignity of the constitution for the sake of all citizens of the US and their children. “Peace and love, John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York City, December, 1980.” That was Lennon’s last written political statement. It doesn’t seem to be the work of a “closet Republican.” Seaman says Lennon told him he was disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980. Lots of people on the left were disillusioned with Jimmy Carter in 1980, and for good reasons. That didn't make you a Republican, closeted or otherwise. In what turned out to be Lennon’s last interview, with RKO radio the afternoon of the day he was shot, he talked about “the opening up of the sixties.” He said “Maybe in the sixties we were naïve and like children and later everyone when back to their rooms and said, ‘we didn’t get a wonderful world of flowers and peace. . . the world is a nasty horrible place because it didn’t give use everything we cried for.’ Right? Crying for it wasn’t enough. “The thing the sixties did was show us the possibility and the responsibility that we all had. It wasn’t the answer. It just gave us a glimpse of the possibility.” That interview was his last. Six hours later he was killed. Fred Seaman tried to cash in on his Lennon connection with an earlier book, published 20 years ago. That one has been forgotten. This story will be too."

So yeah, its baloney. Lennon was not a Conservative. --Emperor Norton I (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon has had 25 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart

This statement is verifiable per WP:CALC, but how do we demonstrate that its significance is WP:DUE without a secondary source? If it is indeed significant, surely we could just cite it (or something related) from one of the many books on the article topic. Uniplex (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I dislike these types of statements because they require too many qualifiers to make them true. In this case it's "as a writer, co-writer or performer." The bulk of these were Beatles records and the popularity of the Beatles should already be apparent without mentioning they had 20 number one singles in the US. Without further explanation, I'm not sure this statement is truly informative or meaningful to the reader. Piriczki (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it could do with some sourced comment to put it in context; otherwise, perhaps we should just delete it. Uniplex (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean Lennon section

can you please update this section with a note on Sean's band The Ghost of a Saber Tooth Tiger thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.80.15 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in Sean's article, which is where it needs to be. Uniplex (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioning who killed John

Saying who killed john on here is giving the guy exactly what he wants. His name should not be associated with him and I don't think John would want that either, it should not mention who shot him only that he was assasinated. He is a horrible person that doesn't deserve any recognition to someone as great as john, remove his name, i say! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.2.40 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. DP76764 (Talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead Image

I noticed that the lead image of this article is that of lesser quality. Should there be a different image that was more recent or having higher quality?--GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 23:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the smoother one was better this one is harsh. — GabeMc (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lennon/Archive_12&oldid=1142440549"