Jump to content

Talk:John Lennon/Archive 13

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

The constant editing of the lead photo has become comical and ridiculous

The original red cast photo was just that, the original. Now I can understand a simple crop. But the constant change of the photo has become increasingly unnecessary. First of all there was nothing wrong with the original photo. In fact it is higher quality than the one that is currently being used because it hasn't been artificially edited numerous times by who knows what. If the only basis against the original was personal preference against the red cast, fine. But at what cost? The photo now almost looks as if it is on the verge of being a drawing. I would like to get other opinions about this because I feel like the red cast is the lesser of evils when it comes to the lowering of quality and artificial lighting that it has become. PositivelyJordan (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the file page, the original upload version is much superior to what's presently running. I agree: a simple crop and nothing more is called for. DocKino (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Double Fantasy was not well received by the Critics? Not True

Modification of this entry is necessary. I do not believe that the statement "Double Fantasy was not well received" is factually correct. The album was eagerly anticipated in general, in light of Lennon's 5-year hiatus from the music scene, and then met with instant success upon its release. This wiki article cites ONE critic only. The album received wide airplay immediately upon its release. The reservoir of critiques of the album untainted by John's murder may be small, as John was murdered so shortly after its release, however I believe a survey of reviews would show that the majority of evaluations of Double Fantasy were favorable. Melody Maker's "indulgent sterility" is the harshest thing I have ever read about the album. This Wikipedia article incorrectly makes it sound like this album was treated by the critics similarly to Some Time in New York City. It was not. Far from it. I urge someone to research this; it is factually incorrect to say critical reviews in general were unfavorable. It is fiction to say the album was not well-received. John was ecstatic, and congratulated Yoko on co-writing a #1 album -- which she modestly dismissed, though arguably her best songwriting to date was on that album, and even her songs were well-received -- Kiss Kiss Kiss received immediate AOR airplay. John would not have been ecstatic and the world would not have been so horribly shocked upon his murder if Lennon had released a stinker of an album. Check out the liner notes to the single release of Walking on Thin Ice (For John) to see Yoko's statements of John's ecstatic feelings, for one. The album was well-received, period. It outsold Melody Maker and their whiny review which now distorts this historical record of events. Balertwine (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The inital reviews were poor and mixed at best (John was boring, Yoko was interesting). They were withdrawn after the murder. While airplay was heavy, sales weren't. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012

John Lennon was bestowed, just like all the other beatles, an MBE-- this is not signified on his name, while he did return his metal to the queen, it was only symbolic, as the title under british law cannot be forfeited. It should read John Lennon, MBE Cambrooks (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is correct. Like his middle name change, he still is an MBE. Hotcop2 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, per the previous discussions. It was removed without consensus. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk)

Knighthood

He is MBE, so why does not he have the title "Sir" in front of his name? Sven Müller 78.51.207.254 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple -- he's not a knight. He's a Member of the Order of the British Empire, but that's a completely different thing from knighthood. Accordingly, the title "Sir" is not affixed to his name. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Removed citation needed tag from first sentence in "Awards and sales" subsection. The statement that the "Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership is regarded as one of the most influential and successful of the 20th Century" has no more need of a citation than a statement that the sky on planet Earth will be blue in color on a sunny, cloudless day.PJtP (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The color of the Earth's sky on a sunny day is a generally accepted fact, and considered common knowledge. The paragraph in question states: "As performer, writer or co-writer Lennon has had 25 number one singles on the US Hot 100 chart.", followed by, "His album sales in the US stand at 14 million units."
Both sentences are statements of fact, and appear to be properly sourced. The problematic statement (which was changed just today to be even more sweeping) is: "The Lennon–McCartney songwriting partnership is regarded as one of the most influential and successful of all time."
There are several problems with this statement: By whom is the partnership regarded as "one of the most ..."? It goes on to use the phrase, "of all time", which is pretty ambitious (because it's a pretty long period). We have to prove that assertion or reword/remove it. (Even the prior version, "of the 20th century", was pretty sweeping and would have to be sourced.) But don't take my word for it, see WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:WEASEL. A really good essay on the "sky is blue" issue is WP:CK.
And don't go shooting at me--I'm just the messenger (and a Beatles lover, too, sitting here listening to my box set I finally got to replace all my old, worn out vinyl and audiotape copies). Our mission, though, is to improve the encyclopedia, so it doesn't matter how much we love--or hate--an article's subject, we should treat them all the same.
Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The sentence in the article header "John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician and singer-songwriter" should be changed to "John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician, singer and songwriter.", because the hyphen in between singer and songwriter insinuates that he only sang the songs he wrote. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article defines singer-songwriters as "musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies." Since this isn't the only case with Lennon, I think your edit request is appropriate. Thanks!
Done Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with this. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lennon "considered himself Irish"

Yoko Ono in Dublin today: http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/lennon-considered-himself-irish-3146236.html. Also, will somebody change the number of dead on Bloody Sunday from 13 to 14 people. See Bloody Sunday (1972). 109.77.151.160 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, she said he sometimes considered himself 100% Irish, as she was getting an award in Ireland, so we'll chalk it up to a talking point in an acceptance speech. The 14 deaths is correct. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Death

I'm surprised there's not a section about his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.82.226 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe it had been decided that since there is a topical article dedicated to that subject, that John Lennon's page would remain as free as possible of the material details of that situation, so as to minimize Chapman's connection to Lennon, a motivating factor in the crime. Maybe this is not an exactly textbook encyclopedic approach, but it is classy, IMO. We don't need a detailed section here, the briefest of mentions, with a link to the relevant sub-article should more than suffice here IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to place post-nominal letters

I removed the post-nominal letters fFrom the infobox after reading the guideline at WP:POSTNOM. It appears to discuss only the lead section and nothing else. From that I gather post-noms only go in the first sentence.

However, the practise for honorific titles in infoboxes is different. The official title "Sir" or "Dame" would go both in the infobox and in the first sentence, according to MOS:HONORIFIC.

I hold that the infobox should say simply "John Lennon" at the top, and nothing more. The first sentence should follow his name with MBE. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Pleaes read it again Binksternet, as you seem to have missed something crucial. As I said in my revert edit summary, also according to MOS:HONORIFIC: "Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, since doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling)."(emphasis mine) ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We are talking past each other. You are referring to an honorific before the name, I am referring to post-nominal letters following the name. Your honorific guideline is fine but it does not speak to post-nominals. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I now see what you mean. Perhaps I am wrong about this and you are correct. However, I just got McCartney through FAC (with massive assistance), and nobody complained about it there, during one of the most highly vetted FAs this year. Lets see what others have to say shall we? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am admittedly biased on this subject. I think I've added postnominals to the infoboxes of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50-100 British subjects this year. I was briefly under the impression, like Gabe, that WP:HONOR dictated that we list them therein; I now know that this is not the case, but will still generally add them when I come across an article that doesn't have them listed there. It seems to be an informal style guideline that is followed by many editors; the first time I've seen it challenged was at Stephen Hawking, last week. I believe, however, that that may be a special case, given the large number of postnominals possessed by the individual. For someone like Lennon, and all four Beatles, I don't believe that's a problem. I think the postnominals at Paul McCartney were probably the only part of the article that wasn't called into question during the FAC, so I would assume that it's not a very controversial thing. I'm all ears for the input of other editors, though. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Christianity

Can someone post the information on Lennon's letter to Oral Roberts and his 1969 interview to the CBC? It plays in contrast to his public image and shows how complex he was and his changing points of view as he aged. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/januaryweb-only/001-22.0.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2403617/Bigger-than-Jesus-The-Beatles-were-a-Christian-band.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.155.232 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012 @ the Beatles

FYI, there is a discussion and straw poll taking place at the Beatles talk page. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual Beatles The/the Mediation Input Requirements

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

9 Newcastle Road

This article has a photo of 251 Menlove Avenue, and that house even has its own article, but there is no picture of the earlier-mentioned 9 Newcastle Road. Is it still standing? Can we have a picture of it? Is this it? Credulity (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Name

What is the basis for the claim that he could not change his name by deed poll? - "since he was not permitted to revoke a name given at birth". Anyone can change their name by deed poll.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Political views

Lennon was believed to be very left wing politically. But I recall hearing an interview with someone who knew him well - I do not recall now who it was - who said that Lennon was far more conservative personally than his public persona, and was even an admirer (if not supporter) of Ronald Reagan. Any verifiable quotes to add to the article?203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. No reliable source says anything of the sort. Jacqueline Edmondson writes in John Lennon: A Biography that Reagan probably viewed Lennon as a threat. Lennon did not think highly of Reagan. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, nobody describes Lennon as conservative, not even later in life. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add at least a 'See also' link to Death_of_John_Lennon. When one reads about a life, one also expects to learn something about the end of the life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.74.253 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There's already a link in John_Lennon#8 December 1980: Death GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles capitalisation RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE CHANGE THIS

John was actually born in Hamburg, not Liverpool like the article says Please change this if you see this Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEEPINTHEQ15 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ray Coleman's Lennon: The Definitive Biography has a photo of John's birth certificate, given at the General Register Office, London, which states "REGISTRATION DISTRICT Liverpool South - BIRTH in the Sub-district of Aberrcromby in the county Borough of Liverpool". GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Founder Member

Founder Member is not a term. Lennon was a founding member, or the founder. Pick one, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.32.44 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, see: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/founder-member Richerman (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Capital letter following a colon in a heading

Binksternet reverted me here, but I can't seem to find the justification in the Wikipedia MoS, which says: "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)."

According to New Hart's Rules, "The word following a colon is not capitalised in British English (unless it is a proper name of course)." (p.74)

According to the CMOS, "6.61 Lowercase of capital letter after a colon. When a colon is used within a sentence ... the first word following the colon is lowercased." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

* I agree with Binksternet, he's right and I'm wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Strike comment concedeing point, as the jury is apparently still out ... ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs)

Experimental music

John Lennon has released many experimental music records in his career such as Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins. Shouldn't we also include experimental music (or avant-garde) in the genre section of the infobox? - Myxomatosis75 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

'War is Over' Billboards date incorrect

The "War is Over" billboard campaign was done over Christmas/New Year 1969. It was not done to promote the 'Happy Christmas war is over' single which was released in the US in 1971 and UK in 1972.

Correction made. Piriczki (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

this song was written by unknown artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.4.212 (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to put useful link in article

Liverpool John Lennon Airport

I suggest to mention (feel free to decide where) that Liverpool Airport (formerly Speke Airport) was renamed in 2002 "Liverpool John Lennon Airport".

"Above us only sky", taken from Imagine's lyrics, is painted on the air terminal ceiling.

A wikilink can be added : [Liverpool John Lennon Airport]

Abcd-international (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)(Abcd-international)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcd-international (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Awards and sales section mentions that Lennon "has been the subject of numerous memorials and tributes", which links to Death of John Lennon#Memorials and tributes, which contains a link to Liverpool John Lennon Airport. I agree that we shouldn't have every memorial and tribute in the John Lennon article, it would seem to me that the airport would be more notable than the John Lennon Peace Monument, which is mentioned in detail in the John Lennon article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The Lennon Airport is highly notable and should indeed be in this article. Jusdafax 23:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
plus Added with reference - thanks for the suggestion! GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Cynthia

Cynthia Powell's name should at least be mentioned. She was his wife and the father of Julian, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.118.26 (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It should - that's why there is a whole section entitled "Cynthia Lennon" Richerman (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

'The Onion' article about this page

Today the humor web site The Onion posted an article about the John Lennon wikipedia page. [1] Enjoy! —SaxTeacher (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thing it's already semi-protected. I could easily see a lot of people coming through and deleting it for a laugh. 152.23.209.118 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Only administrators can delete articles, and admins are not stopped by semi-protection. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but wiping it would be almost as good. 152.23.209.118 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I must have 'Imagine'(d) this article. Richerman (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The picture of The Beatles with Lennon on the right

There is a picture in the article with Jimmy Nichols instead of Ringo Starr. No mention of this being Jimmy Nichols, that caption just says it is Lennon with The Beatles. Rantedia (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation practice

In which section will you place this? Or is it relevant to this page? Its up to someone more knowledgeable than me.

According to an in interview with Yoko Ono in 2012, John Lennon practiced Transcendental Meditation (taught by Maharishi) up until he died (as did George Harrison. And Paul and Ringo have said many times that they still practice the technique today.) http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/06/27/yoko-ono (its at the end of the interview.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Views

I propose we add a Views section to this article, subdivided into Political, Social, and Religious. Lets face it, Lennon was outspoken about just about anything, and we should be able to find plenty on the subject.~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 10:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And it would be twice as long as he changed his mind about everything all the time. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes but there were certain concepts that remained with him throughout his life, peace, love, religios skepticism. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The last song he wrote is Grow old With Me (God Bless Our love). In the '80 Playboy interview, he stated "I'm a most religious fellow" Hotcop2 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please correct error: "married at The Rock Hotel in Gibraltar" -- utterly wrong and unsupported

"They were married at The Rock Hotel in Gibraltar on 20 March 1969,"

No, they weren't.

They were married at the Registry Office at 3 Secretary's Lane, which is where EVERYONE getting a quicky marriage in Gibraltar gets married -- something true for more than fifty years.

Incidentally, every source is incorrect when it says they were married at "the British Consulate" -- there WAS NO British Consulate, then or now.76.218.9.50 (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Worth

Lennon's personal worth should be mentioned. A Googe search suggests £200,000,000. Apparently, it annoyed Chapman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.5.40 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit and undo

I made a small edit, inserting "test" into a sentence in the main article, then after saving and it applied, went to edit history and clicked undo. That was to prove a point to a user who was claiming this article was "Locked". As near as I can tell, based upon that brief gripe, it seems that the user is unfamiliar with most of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not to mention Protection, Semi-Protection, etc. If said editor wishes to learn, I'll help as I can and also seek assistance to guide the editor forward in understanding how Wikipedia works, as my time is rather sparse and I'm also still learning. This is largely for those monitoring page changes.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is semiprotected so if the other user is still new, he/she wouldn't be able to edit the page. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Spank you, bot. Keep up the excellent work!Wzrd1 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Typos needing correcting

I can't edit this page because I don't have a WP account, and I'm not getting one.

In the May Pang section, the hotlink to the "Lost Weekend" section in Pang's Wikipedia page is broken. The link here should have an uppercase W, not lowercase w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.51.139 (talk) 21:08, August 10, 2013 (UTC)‎

checkY done - thanks. Richerman (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1975–80: Retirement and return

Some of those Double Fantasy/Milk and Honey songs weren't written in Burmuda. There are demos on YouTube that sow he was working on some of these in the late 70's. Maybe someone can find a proper source? The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Eight Arms To Hold You by Chip Madinger goes into the detail of every recording. I'll do it later in the week. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Cool. The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Monument

Memorial monument to John Lennon in Mohyliv-Podilskyi Ukraine on the monument says "Give peace a chance." There is a monument benches painted slogans hippies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodia1406 (talk • contribs) 17:13, March 7, 2013

Memorial to John Lennon in Mohyliv-Podilskyi Ukraine.

Cynthia Powell's name should at least be mentioned in the article. She was his wife, after all.

There are too many monument pictures in this article. I removed these three images, because they were breaking up the page, and I feel that it is more important to include the Liverpool memorial. The Wookieepedian (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Statue of John Lennon in Durrës, Albania.
Statue of Lennon, bespectacled with long hair, on a park bench. There are red flowers in the statue's lap, and numerous trees are visible in the background.
Statue in John Lennon Park, Havana, Cuba
John Lennon Peace Monument, Liverpool

Edit request on 8 October 2013

In the section "1975–80: Retirement and return", I have found this at the start of the last sentence:

"Released jointly with Ono, Double Fantasy ..."

Try changing that to:

"Double Fantasy, released jointly by Lennon and Ono, ..."

The current wording could suggest the nonsensical release of Ono and Double Fantasy together.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: Good catch. I've changed "with" to "by Lennon and" as you suggest, but left the syntax as is. That fixes it, I think. --Stfg (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MBE

Hi, how on Earth could this page start with "John Ono Lennon, MBE", when he had returned his Order in November 1969? Feťour (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

He returned the medal, but there is no way to return the honour itself. Whatever official registers there are for this sort of thing, he is still listed there, and he is still an MBE. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation.Feťour (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that references to Lennon's MBE ought to have caveats and there should more elaboration on the scant (even grudging) mention of its rejection. I presume that this is one of those articles which is guarded by jingoists round the clock.
Here's a legitimate citation, including his letter to the Queen (which is surely brief enough to quote): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/4128022/MBE-medal-that-John-Lennon-rejected-unearthed-in-royal-vault.html Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Absolutely crazy that the article starts with MBE. He returned it! It can't be right that it's forced into his wiki article. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, he returned the medal. Died with the honor. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Says who? If an honour can be given 'just like that', why can't it be given back 'just like that'. Why is undue weight given to the State's giving of the honour vs John's return of it? Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Take it up with Parliament. Or the Queen. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Was John Lennon an English musician or a British musician?

The opening sentence of the article states that John Lennon was an English musician. Personally, I thought that "British" was a more appropriate term to describe him. When the Beatles landed in New York City in February, 1964, it was the "British Invasion," not the "English Invasion." When the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, Ed referred to them as "Britain's new singing sensation," not "England's new singing sensation." Also, one of the four major tournaments in golf is "The British Open;" I've never heard it referred to as "The English Open." I don't understand why my edit was reverted back to "English musician."

Anthony22 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Iconic songs

In the lead, shouldn't "Working Class Hero" be listed as an iconic song? It seems to be one of his most-covered songs post-Beatles, and seems to me to be a better choice than listing "Imagine" twice (which is what the article currently does). The Wookieepedian (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014

In first paragraph change founder member to FOUNDING member of the beatles. 99.249.112.86 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't. As per WP:MOS. OccultZone (Talk) 04:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Clarify, please. I used the find function on the page you've linked, and neither "founding" nor "founder" appear anywhere in there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"English musician, singer and songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as a founder member of the Beatles" 2nd/3rd line of article. OccultZone (Talk) 17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Martin was querying the relevance of WP:MOS, not failing to find the first paragraph. Ian Dalziel (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Why would the MOS prevent changing the awkward phrasing "a founder member" (noun as adjective) to the more flowing "a founding member"? It's not a MOS:ENGVAR British/American issue, is it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe it is, yes. "Founder member" is the correct UK English term. Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Slight edit needed

can someone edit where it says "Liverpool, Lancashire" to "Liverpool, Merseyside" as Liverpool is not in Lancashire. thanks 2.120.150.95 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It was when Lennon was born Richerman (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

you misunderstand.. liverpool is in merseyside not Lancashire might be worth changing it for the rest of The beatles 2.120.150.95 (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand: Liverpool was in Lancashire until 1974. Lennon was born in 1940. We use the name of the county at the time the subject of the article was born. Radiopathy •talk• 15:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

John Lennon Phantom V

Hi! I live in Málaga (Spain) and I would like to say that John Lennon's car was bought some years ago by the motor museum and is still on display. You can find the museum at this location: Avenida Sor Teresa Prat, nº 15. Bye!

Han218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.110 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The/The Beatle's Article Mediation Notice

There is an open mediation taking place here. Interested editors are encouraged to participate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Despite what may be disputed in you're current Wikipedia article, John actually met Epstein in 1962. Mattsblack (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added or altered in any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Beatles 1964 photo

Might want to consider substituting a different photo, as this one includes Jimmy Nichols playing drums, not Ringo Starr. Nichols joined the Beatles for some dates in Europe and Australia in mid-1964 when Starr had tonsillitis. It would be better to have a photo with Ringo in it, of which there are many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.110.131 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Walrus his nickname

Wasn't he called this shouldn't this be in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C59C:1049:2598:10CA:E9E3:8463 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Notable instruments: Drums Cp.the.guitar.king (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox update needed?

In the Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison articles the infobox is "Infobox musical artist", but in the John Lennon article it is the so called "Infobox person"... why is that ? I wanted to add the lines "spouse" and "children" to the infobox in the Ringo Starr article... and it simply didn't work. What must be done? to update the John Lennon article by replacing the infobox? to update the "Infobox musical artist" by adding "children" and "spouse" lines? Kintaro (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

Please add a reference to Jihadi John in the hatnote, as that individual has also been called "John the Beatle". 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I think this is WP:UNDUE on this article. The Lennon reference does not seem to be an intricate aspect of this terrorist's identity, the hostages just came up with the idea due to the accents of that particular cell and arbitrarily assigned names to members. If Jihadi John had been shown to have some sort of meaningful connection to the Beatles or Lennon (e.g. it was found that he had some sort of manifesto explaining that Yellow Submarine inspired him to become a terrorist), it would be another story, but I do not think this connection is worth mentioning on this article Cannolis (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Divorce settlement

I've change the amount in USD of the settlement. 100,000 pounds was just translated to $148,000 in the text. That might be correct today, but in 1968 the exchange rate was $2.40, giving a translation of $240,000 at the time. Pretty small by today's standards, but still much more than $140,000. Please also remember that both dollars and pounds bought alot more in those days, perhaps about twice as much (I haven't checked exact figures), so we're talking close to $500,000 in today's money. I haven't checked sources for this, other than [2] which shows the well-known fixed rate of $2.40 per pound. But checking our article for Cynthia Lennon, shows it's just a bit more complicated:

" The settlement was then raised to £100,000, £2,400 annually, and custody of Julian.[135] Another £100,000 was put into a trust fund which Julian would inherit when he was 21. Until that time, his mother would receive the interest payments. Their decree nisi was granted on 8 November 1968.[136] The trust fund had one codicil, which provided for any further children by Lennon, so when Sean Lennon was born in 1975, Julian's inheritance was cut to £50,000.[137]"

So let's not apply today's standards willy nilly and make Lennon look like a total piker.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A pound or dollar in those days would have bought you a lot more than twice as much. As an example, to buy a pint of beer in the north of England in 1967 cost around 1s 9d (about 8p in today's money). Today it would cost around £2.60 (260p). The price of tuition at Yale was $1,950 in 1967. Today it is $38,300.[3]

Harmonica

His harmonica playing is an important aspect of their early sound. I think the mouth organ deserves a mention in the instruments. (Of course, he also played the mellotron and bass guitar, but they're not that significant). --Frozen Jese (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He even played it on his solo albums, so I would agree. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Nichols?

This man filled in for Ringo Starr on only 8 occasions when Starr had tonsillitis. A photo of the group with Starr must replace this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.28.224.10 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015

Edit for the "John Lennon" page. Under the section labeled "8 December 1980: Death" the following sentence appears:

At around 10:50 pm on 8 December 1980, as Lennon and Ono returned to their New York apartment in the Dakota, Mark David Chapman shot Lennon in the back four times at the entrance to the building.

However, this is incorrect. He was shot *five* times. This can be verified on Wikipedia's own page devoted to John Lennon's death: "Death of John Lennon". Under the section labeled "Murder" the sentence correctly reads:

"Seconds later, Chapman took aim directly at the center of Lennon's back and fired five hollow-point bullets at him from a Charter Arms .38 Special revolver in rapid succession from a range of about nine or ten feet (about 3 m) away.[1]"

Ajpianoman (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You are correct in that Chapman fired 5 bullets. However, if you continue reading in that same paragraph, it goes on to say that "The first bullet missed, passing over Lennon's head and hitting a window of the Dakota building." The remaining 4 struck him in the back, which is what this article says Cannolis (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The link 'skiffle craze' in the intro is dead, should probably be: Skiffle#Revival_in_the_United_Kingdom

JohnElliotV (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lennon should not be categorized as atheist

The bulk of evidence points to Lennon’s religious views being closest to someone who was critical of organized religion, but interested in spirituality. (See the article “religious beliefs of the Beatles.”) He leaned toward being agnostic in the 60’s, but categorizing him as an atheist based on a couple song quotations is deceptive. In fact, he had one song in 1973 with the line “Every day I thank the Lord and Lady for the way that you came to me.” He was also quoted as saying “I'm not afraid of death because I don't believe in it. It's just getting out of one car, and into another.” I’m removing him from this category. If anyone objects, let me know. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree strenuously. My feelings for Christianity aside, all the Beatles reviled organized religion. George was spiritual and John was clearly influenced. John, in particular, reviled the role of Christianity and all organized religion. He would have much to say about being designated as "spiritual." Yes, he named the foundation the "Spirit Foundation," but it was only capitalized with the NY state minimum capital. I could not believe my eyes when he sang "Imagine no possessions." The NY fans took to the airways and told him what we thought. To John's credit, he did change the lyrics to "Imagine no possessions, I wonder if we can." John never changed the lyrics to "Imagine there is no heaven. I have a sophisticated view of spirituality and organized religion." Yoko turned down offers to have John buried at St. John the Divine. John was spiritual in a very sophisticated way. He was NOT religious. Paul is not religious. George was religious. I expect John and George had some interesting conversations about Hare Krishna and the Maharishi. Dear Prudence,....won't you come out and play. ...Sexy Sadie.....John was an atheist. Would he remain so if he lived? Paul is. You can understand spiritual traditions and reference them in your life without being religious or spiritual. John admitted he was not great at meditation. George meditated for countless hours. Paul and John worked up to quite long sessions, but they were never in George's league. Paul now mediates using TM for about ten minutes before important events. It upsets me greatly when people change lyrics or assert that John was religious. John would be furious. He would be particularly furious at someone claiming to know his views who clearly does not. When he referenced car, he meant car. He knew there was no heaven. I believe in a type of heaven. John did not. I suspect John believed that death was the end of existence. He never agreed with George about Hinduism. George was a clear influence. Even when John was furious at George, he acknowledged his influence. They loved many parts of Hinduism that George exposed them to, but neither John or Paul embraced religion. Any good writer knows the dominant religion of his culture. When he wrote, "Christ, it ain't easy, you know hard it can be. They are going to crucify me." He did not mean that he was a believer in Jesus or any religion. John meant that just as Jesus' words and actions were misconstrued and used by the Church falsely, John 's words and actions were misconstrued and misunderstood. Ringo was also not religious, but in recent years he seems to be more open than before to religion. Ringo is very mellow. Always was. He taught them mellowness and showmanship. There are many excellent John Lennon biographies. I can name a few for people to read. We do not need revisionism from Yoko Ono or fans. Yoko listed Sean as John's first son. Sorry, Yoko. Millions, utter millions know Julian was his first son. Julian sounds much more like John. Wikipedia reports that Julian was he first son. What can you do about websites that Yoko owns? Paul, George, Ringo all state that Julian was and shall always remain John's first son. John acknowledged it, when pressed. Only when pressed. He was not perfect.75Janice (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice

What a load of nonsense - an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a creator, not someone who doesn't follow an organised religion. If the quote given above that says “I'm not afraid of death because I don't believe in it. It's just getting out of one car, and into another.” is true then clearly he didn't believe that death was the end of existence. Categories, like everything else in wikipedia, have to be verifiable, so he shouldn't be categorised as an atheist unless we have a source that says he was. On most subjects Lennon changed his mind throughout his life, so to ascribe a particular philosophy to him is a bit pointless anyway. I have read a quote by McCartney that, not long before the Beatles broke up, John announced to them all that he was the reincarnation of Christ. Richerman (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

His name?

His given name at birth was “John Winston Lennon”; he changed it in 1969 to “John Ono Lennon” - the article says as much. But the article itself lists his name as “John Winston Ono Lennon”. I have seen this listed elsewhere on the net as being because supposedly you can’t “revoke” all your names under British Law, but think that that is just plain wrong. Changing your name by deed poll is perfectly legitimate, and needn’t contain any name you were born with, so was “John Winston Ono Lennon” the actual name he changed to, or is it a needless conflation of the two? It should surely be one or the other, but not a compendium of both. Jock123 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article is pretty clear. And is sourced, so you are disputing Coleman p. 64, which would seem to be a perfectly good WP:RS. (Although I don't think that changing one's name by deed poll normally involves a rooftop ceremony.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no legal requirement to use any name under British law. Any one can have as many names as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothing6547 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Request help fixing red errors for referencing

Could someone please adjust the {{sfn}} templates in this article to remove the big red errors in the References section? It looks like the same author/year/page combination is used with multiple |ps= parameters. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

John Lennon's infobox

I believe it would make sense to change John Lennon's infobox to the musical artist infobox. Every other Beatle's infobox is the musical artist one, with a gold background. I think it'll look better and would make more sense. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems we can and without consensus too. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference's page

What are the respective pages of the two quotations in reference 83?--Beat 768 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just added them, along with page numbers in a couple of other refs from the same source – Miles' The Beatles Diary. JG66 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and which is the reference in the quote "According to biographer Philip Norman, one of his reasons for wanting to manage the group was that he was physically attracted to Lennon."?--Beat 768 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And too about the quote "He likes you a lot" that preceed to "She went on to suggest that Pang should begin a physical relationship with Lennon, telling her (...)".--Beat 768 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Lennon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Page is vandalized with an overlay redirect link blocking any clicks. 76.91.149.87 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Can't confirm or already fixed --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the page is vandalized, all clicks are forewarded to rasp.is, which is some "pay for clicks" page. At least, this happens when viewing it with Firefox! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.180.24.6 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

John Lennon Returned the MBE

MBE must be removed from John Lennon's name as he rejected the honour and it's inclusion is anti-thetical to how he represented himself as he returned the medal as an act of protest:

Quoted from the http://www.beatlesbible.com/1969/11/25/john-lennon-returns-his-mbe-to-the-queen/

John Lennon returned his MBE to the Queen on this day, as an act of protest against the Vietnam war.
Lennon's chauffeur Les Anthony returned the insignia of the award to Buckinham Palace in the morning, also delivering handwritten letters to the Queen, prime minister Harold Wilson, and the secretary of the Central Chancery, explaining his actions.
The letters were written on notepaper headed Bag Productions, the company Lennon had recently set up with Yoko Ono.
Your Majesty,
I am returning my MBE as a protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against 'Cold Turkey' slipping down the charts.
With love. John Lennon of Bag

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Brandon (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No provision exists in the British Honours system for renouncing any honour once given. Simply returning the insignia is irrelevant as to whether the holder continues to hold the honour.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious question

Why is there so little mention of Lennon's racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial? (86.183.30.40 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC))

Probably because it was all invented. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Lennon is on record making racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic comments. (86.183.30.40 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC))
If you make such comments again without providing a reliable source, we will be discussing your disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Drop it and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

lennons abuse to women

I just think there should be a mention to his views and abuses of women, not just anecdotes from his first wife. i mean he said in an interview with play boy that he beats the hell out of women. (i think thats note worthy)

Ag03818 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 4/19/2016

Do you have that source from "play boy"? Don't think he's beating anyone now. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"It is a diary form of writing. All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically... any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster." <close quote> The way you say things make it seem like he beat women until the day he died, when in reality, he started doing it in his teenage years, when his mother died (or it could have been a little bit before her death), and stopped at around 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:1200:F22C:F47D:9CAA:703F:EEFD (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Suggest adding to reading list at bottom: Lennon on Lennon: Conversations with John Lennon, ed. by Jeff Burger. Published 2016 by Chicago Review Press. ISBN #978-1613748244 JeffAB0422 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Original Group Name

I seem to recall that there was another name before "The Quarry Men". The WP entry for Quarry Men mentions "The Blackjacks", but that they never played under that name. Should it be added here? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hall of fame?

Intro says Beatles were inducted into RR HOF in 1998,wasn't that 1988?107.77.203.101 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Tim

Seriously folks, straight from the Rock and Roll of Fame website:

THE BEATLES Courtesy of the Rock Hall Library and Archive 1988 Category: Performers Members: Paul McCartney Ringo Starr John Lennon George Harrison Such a blatant error in the first paragraph? Will someone PLEASE fix?70.91.35.27 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)T

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Lennon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Further Reading

Added Lennon on Lennon (2017). It's a compilation of interviews and recorded conversations from Beatles and post-Beatles eras. Doesn't have the Rolling Stone or Playboy interviews. Still interesting read.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Lennon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Lennon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tiny grammatical point

Biography: Paragraph 3. Tiny point but ' I would infiltrate the other boys minds.'

There should be an apostrophe after the 's' in 'boys'

I would infiltrate the other boys' minds.--92.207.218.180 (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DoneNEDOCHAN (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Norman on Lennon/McCartney

I've just read something in a music magazine that may be notable for the article, particularly in the section regarding John's relationship with his former bandmates. According to Philip Norman, Yoko has told him that partly due to casual remarks made by John, she's always suspected that the actual reason for The Beatles's break-up and long bickering between John and Paul throughout the 70s was that at one time during the late 60s, John had made a sexual advance directed at Paul, who turned out too adamantly straight to say yes. Yoko told Norman that she always felt that John was acting like a rejected lover towards Paul during the 70s and that Paul was just too discrete to ever let word get out of what she thought had happened in private. I suppose the definite source would be Norman's 2008 book John Lennon: The Life, but it'd be great if somebody could find the actual source where Norman relates this. I guess what sets this apart from Albert Goldman's 1988 conjectural smear is that it comes from Yoko's mouth herself. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

In the section "1970–1972: Initial solo success and activism", there is a typo due to a misplaced quotation mark. Please change:

Lennon and Ono moved to Manhattan in August 1971, and released "Happy Xmas (War Is Over) in December".[107]

to

Lennon and Ono moved to Manhattan in August 1971, and released "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" in December.[107] Brockway (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Lennon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Brian Epstein section / Baby, you're a rich fag Jew

That John sang "Baby, you're a rich fag Jew" during the recording of "Baby, You're a Rich Man" is a rumor.[1] It's not true! Why did it got deleted? Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia with facts, not not fake fictional rumors! "Baby, you're a rich fag Jew" is a rumor. This is from the site: "According to popular myth, John definitely sings "Baby you're a rich fat Jew". According to the other popular myth, John definitely sings "Baby you're a rich fag Jew". According to another less popular myth, Paul is the culprit. These statements are supposedly directed at Brian Epstein. While I can well believe that this is not beyond John's sometimes cruel and scathing sense of humour, it is not the case on this recording. It is not "very clear that he is saying it", nor is it true "because I read it in a book about the Beatles". The words are simply "Baby You're A Rich Man Too". It sounds more like "A Reech Ma Too" simply because of lack of diction. This is another case of reading too much into a lyric." That's the truth. That Wikipedia has the fake facts make me mad. Please correct this. Thank you. --NRKfan (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "reference".

Lennon notable as an actor?

Another editor insists on adding to the lead and infobox that Lennon was an actor. Yes, he had many roles: we could also add that he was an author, artist and poet. Nevertheless, all of these roles (including actor) pale against his roles as singer and songwriter. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "actor" appears in the infobox, the lede sentence, and in three categories. It doesn't appear once in the body of the article. I agree this is excessive; the Filmography says his roles were largely as "himself" in Beatles films such as A Hard Day's Night (film). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Change to songs mentioned in the lead

When rewording the text to avoid the implication that "Give Peace a Chance" was released after the Beatles' break-up, and the statement that Lennon only recorded as a solo artist after that event, I've ended up adding mention of "Instant Karma!" and "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)". I'd say they're far better known than "Working Class Hero", but a message does say to raise the issue here. I've not done this before making the change, I admit, because the change came about for the reason explained. JG66 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Associated acts - Elton John

Hi there,

I recently edited the page to have Elton John listed under Lennon's associated acts (Lennon is included on Elton's page - not my edit), but it has been removed with the citation that it was a 'one-time association'. Due to collaborations on each other's projects: Elton appearing on John's Mind Games album, most famously collaborating on Whatever Gets You Thru the Night and John appearing on Elton's recordings (under the occasional pseudonym of 'Dr Winston O'Boogie'), and their performing live together - which led to John's reconciliation with Yoko (as well as, away from music, Elton becoming Sean Lennon's godfather), I'd hardly suggest it was a "one-time" association. Any thoughts?

Aefevans (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry, Bill (2000). The John Lennon Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 0-7535-0404-9.

A lot of these references are for this book "The John Lennon Encyclopedia," an unauthorized biography with 2 Amazon reviews. How can this be considered a reliable source? For example, it says John terrorized Cynthia with physical violence, but Cynthia herself said in her book "John" that he hit her one and only one time when they were teenagers.

Watda89 (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay attention to the number of Amazon reviews – fact is, Bill Harry is recognised as an authority on the Beatles. Having said that, I've got his George Harrison Encyclopedia and it is littered with basic errors, comically so, and with contradictory information, depending on where one looks in the book (as, in fact, I'd been forewarned about in an Amazon customer review). Partly because of that, I believe we rely on Harry's "Encyclopedias" way too much in some of the Beatles articles on Wikipedia. As with books by Mark Lewisohn and Ian MacDonald, we can be choosy, and these authors can be wrong. MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, for instance, gets more "wrong" with almost every passing year and the publication of more up-to-date books on the Beatles' recordings.
So if you feel something in the article is plain incorrect, a) it's much appreciated that you've raised it on the talk page; and b) I'd say change the relevant text, just so long as there's an alternative reliable source to support the change. JG66 (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Time of death

This article states he was pronounced dead at 11:00 PM, but the article about his death states 11:15 PM. Which is correct? RyanDanielst (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seaman and conservatism

I don't see why this should be included under "Political activism". The sources we have dispute the assertion that Lennon was conservative. It is also not notable from an encyclopedic point of view. He didn't go public with his supposed views; he took no particular actions to support them. The assertion that a musician made a political comment in the heat of the moment — possibly under the influence of alcohol etc — just isn't very notable. It would be notable if it led to a public manifestation, but it didn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lennon a...feminist?

I'm a big fan of John Lennon and have read several biographies about him over the years but I was shocked to see him placed in categories like Category:British feminists. He had a history of treating women horribly despite all of his talent. Can we remove these three categories which hardly apply to Lennon? I mean, it might be nice for his fans to think of him as a precursor of feminism but he wasn't and I doubt he would describe himself as a feminist unless it was towards the end of his life. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think the personal treatment of women is a criterion for being a feminist. And I don't see how Lennon could be a precursor of feminism; feminism is much earlier than that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are no reliable sources (and nothing in the article) that establish Lennon as a feminist. I have removed such categories. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Every biography I have read confirms that Lennon had a hostile attitude towards women, bordering on misogynistic, therefore I agree with removing any material that suggests otherwise. He may have regretted later in his life his volatile and sometimes violent behaviour towards women, but that doesn’t make him a feminist. As for: “I don't think the personal treatment of women is a criterion for being a feminist” Sorry, but if there is one measure it is that.Patthedog (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the feminism category was probably related to "Woman is the Nigger of the World" etc. I don't object to its removal as I don't think it adds anything to the article. However, I don't see anything in the Feminism article which states that personal treatment of women is a criterion for being a feminist. Feminism is not a code of personal conduct. Looking at it another way, if a man behaves in exemplary manner towards women that does not make him a feminist. That is simply not what the word means. The other men in the "British feminists" category seem to be put there mainly because of verbal support for feminism. What will come next? Lennon wasn't a pacifist because he was violent and confrontational? Lennon wasn't a socialist because he was a share-holder of Apple Corps?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Right of Kolya Vasin for tribute

Bad idea force me write such things (several arguments are directed vs John). Because John is my idol also.

Lennon is not the British Queen or Albert Einstein (example). He's just the music industry, entertainment (like and Beatles). At a very high level, I don't argue. His musical influence is also a simple music industry (other bands: Oasis and so on ....). Actions for Peace some people consider ordinary PR. Lover of different drugs. But he never hide this.

Without Vasin The Beatles can not become strongly known in the huge state (USSR). He is a creator of them fame there. John must say very great thanks to him. Without Vasin and people like him The Beatles can not crush the communism on the huge part of the Earth (changing of political rejimes has a huge meaning). Compare this with some other tributes (those tributes look like zero, when compare).

Vasin is known around the world. Great man by the words of sir Paul Mccartney. Vasin lost his life because of this tribute, by the way, stop humiliate him. He is another victim of The Beatles (Sharon Tate in this row). Article does not know such sad fact.

Etc.

I suggest place the tribute of Kolya into the article. - Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC).

This is all wonderful stuff but this is an article about John Lennon... not about the people he influenced or how they influenced other people.--Moxy (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The passage does not belong in the article. Carlroddam put it best: "So... a fan wanted to build a temple to John, but he didn't, and now that fan has died. This is not noteworthy".
Note: I mistakenly previously deleted this discussion under WP:NOTAFORUM before I realized that Yellow Man 1000 was discussing his disputed edit, not just posting unrelated talk. Apologies for that. I would have reverted that deletion myself, but Yellow Man 1000 beat me to it.
That being said: Yellow Man 1000, you are the sole editor trying to insert this material nine times; and it has been removed by seven different editors (Hotcop2, Finnusertop, Echoedmyron, Moxy , WWGB , Carlroddam, and me) each of those nine times. It is clear that you do not have consensus to add this material. Please stop adding it unless and until you gain consensus. You've been warned on your talk page that you are edit warring, and have simply deleted those warnings and continued your warring. If you continue on this course, you are very likely to be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is abundantly obvious that the consensus is correct. This article should clearly not include a section on this tribute.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • You are wrong. Russophobia on Wikipedia - bad thing. External policy of the US have no any relation to Wikipedia. All users are brothers here. Wikipedia is not the US Congress. Good users, help me place this tribute! - Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC).
Oppose inclusion. Look, it's clear you feel passionately about this subject, but claiming an anti-Russian bias is not the way to have useful conversation. The fact is, you're asking to include a tribute that technically does not exist. It's lovely that someone thought it would be nice to build a tribute, but the fact that it has not been built (for "unknown" reasons) definitely means it's not worthy of inclusion here. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion. It is not noteworthy. This has nothing to do with Russophobia, or humiliating or disrespecting John Lennon or Vasin. It is simply not noteworthy that someone planned to build a tribute. Carlroddam (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The temple was already built, it turns out. I did not know. Even if it's not there currently, it doesn't matter (because it was ready somewhen). I put this tribute together with the other. - Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
Stop adding this until you get consensus. Your unilateral decision that it's notable does not make it so.
As far as I can tell, this is merely a big fan who "turned his apartment into a museum" to the Beatles. It's kind of interesting, but not rising to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
I would revert. but another editor already has. TJRC (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Lennon and allegations of physical abuse

As most readers will certainly know, the Internet is full of casual references to John Lennon being a domestic abuser, with some comments going so far as to say he belongs on the long list of "#MeToo" villains. Lennon helped create this perception with his now notorious (but somewhat vague) admission to Playboy magazine in 1980 that "I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically… any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn’t express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women…". And apparently a former housekeeper of the Lennons claims to have witness one or more episodes of abuse.

To state the obvious, even one act of domestic violence is something to be treated seriously. But was Lennon a serial abuser, or a "monster" as many articles or blog posts online claim? If the evidence from Cynthia Lennon and others backs up this conclusion, it seems reasonable to include that information in this article or others. There's also the possibility that Lennon was painting his own past transgressions with an overly broad brush, making his younger self sound more awful, as a way of 'proving' how much wisdom and serenity he had attained by 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.19 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the current treatment is fine; it's limited to that single quotation, which is pretty much all we really can reliably say. What change are you proposing? TJRC (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Original poster, answering question above: I haven't read Cynthia biography, or her interviews, or any other accounts, so I really don't know what information is out there. I just noticed a lack of nuance in online discussions of Lennon's behavior. But if there simply isn't much 1st hand testimony from Cynthia or others, than I guess a more nuanced treatment isn't possible within the context of Wikipedia, and the Internet will do what the internet will do otherwise. Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.19 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is that picture used for the infobox?

I'm wondering why a low-resolution image that shows Lennon's side profile and not his entire face is being used as the image on this page's infobox, when more recent, better quality and larger images are available. --Mr Serious Guy (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And if I try to change it, it gets reverted. Why? --Mr Serious Guy (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
There is is leftwing bias in Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for content and scope

I'm really surprised about the lack of coverage – the complete omission in most cases – of many of Lennon's best-known songs from the Beatles era. I appreciate that his biographical article has a lot to cover and many key points are going to be underplayed, by necessity. But the omission of any mention of his songwriting during the Rubber Soul and Revolver period (and of any mention of those albums at all) needs to be addressed, in my opinion. I've already added some text about two major "message" songs from 1967–68, "All You Need Is Love" and "Revolution", but I'd say more is needed in this direction. For instance, when discussing the Please Please Me album, the mention that Lennon "had yet to bring his love of wordplay to bear on his song lyrics" and that lyrics were "irrelevant" to him seems to invite further comment: that a) Lennon began to consistently produce more thoughtful and personal lyrics from Beatles for Sale onwards, after meeting Dylan; and b) he made a point of introducing the wit and wordplay of his books in his lyrics for Rubber Soul, after being challenged on the subject by Kenneth Allsop. I mean, to read in the sentence discussing Sgt. Pepper that the album "revealed lyrics by Lennon that contrasted strongly with the simple love songs of the group's early years" seems shockingly bland and inadequate(!). More than that, though, it's the sort of general description that most sources apply to Rubber Soul, if not before, with his lyrics on Revolver and the musical arrangements given to the songs representing a complete breakthrough in pop songwriting.

In 1968, his activities with Ono led to the British establishment turning on the Beatles by charging him with drug possession (a bust that, as with Harrison's a few months later, was widely viewed as a stitch-up by the infamous Norman Pilcher). I think this lack of tolerance from the authorities, and the similar turn in public opinion against the Beatles, for so long Britain's national treasures, and particularly Lennon, should be mentioned in the article also.

While there is some discussion of Lennon's December 1970 Rolling Stone interview, in the last paragraph under "1966–1970: Studio years, break-up and solo work", I think a brief mention in the next section, following details on the Plastic Ono Band album, would be in order. As detailed in Lennon Remembers, the interview was a major event in early-1970s Beatles history and its influence on Lennon's standing, and the way the public and the media viewed the band's break-up, was immense.

Under 1973–1975, if not at the end of the previous subsection, I think it needs stating that Lennon was crushed by the critical and commercial failure of Some Time in New York City and barely wrote a song for many months. Ono, on the other hand, remained highly prolific, and Lennon continued to produce her Apple recordings (something we don't mention at all in the article) but was basically relegated to a supporting role in their artistic partnership. Not that it needs discussing in the article, but this was a factor in the couple separating, and Ono telling him to go "find himself" in LA.

Under Political activism, it would be more accurate to mention that Lennon washed his hands of radical politics and any sort of activism in late 1972. We currently give the impression that he was especially active in 1969–72 (which is true, he was) but not that he then wholeheartedly turned his back on such activities; he ridiculed activism and political demonstrations in a 1975 interview, for instance. This sort of off/on, pro/anti contradiction in Lennon – and, as mentioned, it's the story of his career from about 1967 onwards (in turns, pro Summer of Love, Maharishi, pacifism, Janov, Mao, only to drop and replace each philosophical belief within a year) – can be covered in the previous, chronological sections to some extent, and I've made a few additions already with that in mind. But I haven't been able to shake off the feeling that, with such emphasis drawn specifically to his role as a political activist (ie, with a dedicated section), we're underplaying the facets of his personality and career for which he was equally famous, and undoubtedly more popular and critically lauded. I'm referring to him as "the dreamer" (a description I often read) – the psychedelic Lennon who managed to capture a generation's imagination by avoiding dogma and any sort of activism. Pre Ono, in other words, not that I've got any bias against her whatsoever (in case it needs saying). I don't know, I'm probably not expressing myself too well ... This issue could well be a carry-over from the lack of attention given to the Rubber Soul/Revolver period (songs like "Norwegian Wood", "In My Life", "Nowhere Man", "Rain", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "She Said She Said"); perhaps it will sort itself out once Lennon's work from that period has some sort of presence in the article.

Pinging Laser brain, because I get the impression he watches these Beatle FAs, and I know he's knowledgeable about Featured Article content. LB: I notice Paul McCartney is considerably longer than this one, counting the Notes text also (but not the references, of course); would you agree then that here at John Lennon the article could be expanded somewhat? I'm not talking about a large increase in length at all, and in fact there are a couple of areas where text could be trimmed anyway, which would lessen the increase overall. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@JG66: After reviewing your comments and the existing articles, I agree with your assessment that there is an opportunity for expansion. As you noted, we need to balance this, the Beatles article, and also the relevant album and individual song articles. The points you note seem missing from the narrative on this page. The FA nominator is long inactive. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Laser brain: That's good to hear, thanks for your reply. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

That horrible photo

We had permission to use the Gruen NYC t-shirt photo, but someone decided the permission wasn't real. Use a Beatle pic, if necessary. He was one of the most photographed people in the world. We can do better than this lol Hotcop2 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the infobox image? If so, I agree – it's terrible, and several sources remark on how ill Lennon looked in his final months. (And, since we're presenting this late-'80 gaunt look as our main image, its inclusion would appear to invite some discussion in the article, giving an idea of the speculation surrounding Lennon's health and the state of his marriage – contrary, of course, to the public image they adopted for Double Fantasy promotion.)
But the less flattering aspect of the image is highlighted by the fact that it's been so severely cropped. It's a similar problem with either of the cropped 1964 images (here, or from the Beatles' arrival in New York) that we've had in recent months: by cutting away so much from the original photos, we're left with too much "face" for any of them to serve as a good infobox image, imo. For that reason, I'd say even the heavily bearded, Bed-In portrait shot worked better. Although it's not an ideal choice, at least the picture looks like a natural and presentable image, rather than an obviously doctored shot. JG66 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I personally hate that bearded Bed-In photo, mainly because his face is sideways. I also hate that awful infobox picture of George Harrison but since WP only has like 5 photos of Harrison alone I've had to deal with it. Perhaps this one for Lennon's infobox? – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 1969 Bed-In is far from great – but do you get my point that it at least seems suitable for infobox use compared with the overly cropped, face-overload quality of the two '64 pics and the 1980 one we're currently using? I agree about the 1974 pic of George Harrison; he looks haggard and ill (which he was), hard to believe he was only 31 at the time. It's a pity we haven't got access to some images from either side of that year – he looked the picture of health throughout 1973, for instance, and in 1976, post-acupuncture. Anyway ...
And yes, if it's not 1969 Bed-In, then the portrait image of Lennon from the same year would be best, I think. JG66 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bed-In photo is more appropriate than the 1980 image, especially since in 1980 Lennon was really starting to look not the best. It's crazy to believe how he would've looked if he was never murdered. But yeah the other 1969 image is better. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the infobox lead photo. Or half-photo as Ono's been cropped out. There's #9 million photos of him, even the USPS stamp. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

CarterLennon, regarding your recent change, moving one of the 1964 images into the infobox, I thought you were in favour of using the 1980 image? Regardless, perhaps you and Beatleswillneverdie might like to join this discussion.

Based on what Hotcop2 and BeatlesLedTV have said above, and going from the current version of the article, I propose we use this 1969 image in the infobox: it's ideally proportioned, unlike the over-cropped, head-filled 1964 images and the 1980 one. Just compare with infoboxes at George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and then come back here to John Lennon, or take a look at other music artist articles – Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Elton John, etc. (Personally, I get a "Whoa, weird – so much face!" moment each time I return to this page, especially with that 1980 image [because it's so ghoulish], but also whenever we've had one of the two 1964 cropped shots in the infobox.) We should then move the 1969 J & Y image up from the Yoko Ono section to "1966–1970: Studio years, break-up and solo work", replacing the one that's relocated to the infobox, and include the full 1980 image of the couple down at Yoko Ono, which I believe we had there for a long while anyway.

This regular swapping around of the infobox image is getting somewhat tiresome, and as far as I was aware at the time, for years we had the 1969 Bed-In picture without any problem. More recently, perhaps over the last year or so, there's been a spate of swapping them around based on individual editors' personal opinion. It would be good to establish some sort of consensus on the issue, and I think my proposal makes sense with regard to the article as a whole – eg, J & Y 1969 is a logical image to include in the text discussing Lennon's move away from the Beatles over 1968–69, and J & Y 1980 fits the relationship-focused discussion down at Yoko Ono. That's in addition to the fact that three of us here have said an emphatic "no" to the 1980 image appearing in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I am so sorry if I caused any weirdness. I just felt that if we use an image of John, it should be one in his prime so I put it there. I think the 1969 photo you decided on would be great and I think it's much better then the old 1969 image that I honestly disliked. The 1980 photo is fine too and I liked it better then the old 1969 image which is why I said I thought it was a good change, but like what's been said on here John was not looking the greatest in that time in his life and it looked a little too zoomed-in. I also didn't really like how you could see some of Yoko cropped from the image. I do agree that the 1969 image that you decided on would be fine. Very sorry for not talking on here by the way, I'll try to talk on talk-pages more often.CarterLennon (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with CarterLennon. I might end up changing the photo. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I say go for the other '69 photo as well. In the choice between the original '69 bed-in profile and the 1980 mess, go back to that. If someone else wants to reach out to Bob Gruen and once again get permission to usde the NYC t-shirt photo, which he previously had given, that's be the best option. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The 1969 bed-in photo doesn't fully show Lennon's face like BeatlesLedTV stated. I think the one certainly being used is the best one. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

McCartney's supposedly different version of Lennon and Ono's first meeting

Hotcop2, where in that source, Miles 1997 p. 272, does it say that Lennon and Ono in fact met before 9 November 1966 and that Lennon gave Ono the handwritten lyrics to "The Word" in 1965? Ono arrived in London in September 1966. Miles' description is simply referring to McCartney having met Ono a short time before Lennon attended the Indica Gallery show. Ono visited McCartney, along with a few other well-to-do artists in central London no doubt, looking for manuscripts to give to John Cage. Miles says that "not long afterwards" Ono puts the same request to Lennon and receives the lyrics to "The Word". But just because this information appears in the section of text discussing "The Word" and other 1965 songs, you appear to be assuming that this meeting and exchange of song lyrics must have taken place in 1965. In fact, it's simply a case of the author adding the point where it's relevant in McCartney's story (specifically to a song he co-wrote), just as, say, mention of the Manson Family's 1969 killing spree and 1970 trial appears in a section of the book discussing McCartney's songwriting in 1968, specifically songs such as "Helter Skelter" and "Blackbird" that were said to have inspired the killings.

The line that appears at the start of the "Yoko Ono" section here – "Two versions exist of how Lennon met Yoko Ono." – is unsupported editorialisation. The subsequent comment that "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 ..." is rubbish, as far as the date goes. And it's original research to say that the point about Ono's manuscript-hunting in any way contradicts the widely accepted story of the couple's first meeting. JG66 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hotcop2: This same point was queried at Yoko Ono in October 2010 (Talk:Yoko Ono/Archive 1#Deletion from section outlining relationship with Paul McCartney) and it has appeared in that article since or before then, I imagine. You defended it as fact there too. I completely agree with Dsnmi's point there that the statement's "misleading and factually inaccurate" but not with the idea that Miles dates McCartney and Ono's meeting to 1965 – he does not.

In page 272 of the book, there's McCartney's recollection of he and Lennon, in 1965, writing out a multicoloured lyric sheet for "The Word". The author's voice then takes over:

When Yoko Ono first arrived in Britain, before she met John she turned up at Paul's house asking for manuscripts to give to John Cage for his fiftieth birthday. Cage collected musical scores. Paul told her that he always kept his original manuscripts, but not long afterwards she asked John to give her one and he chose the multicoloured fair copy of "The Word" as a birthday gift. It is reproduced in John Cage's Notations, a selection of the scores he had been collecting for the Foundation of Contemporary Performance Arts to show the diversity of notation in modern music.

So where in all of that does it say that this occurred in 1965? And where does it claim to present a different scenario to the widely accepted version of when and how Lennon first met Ono? JG66 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now ... You were the one that added this alleged alternative scenario here at John Lennon in December 2007 and at Yoko Ono in April 2010. You were and are wrong; you've misunderstood what the source says and have promulgated a false history for over ten years. JG66 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And I notice you have issues with McCartney recollections in your various edits. If the "1965" bothers you, remove that, altho in the context of the it can be surmised. In another paragraph which you didn't retype here, it clearly states she met Paul before John on her first visit to London (which was not her '66 art show). Hotcop2 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hotcop2: I have issues with McCartney's recollections of the 1960s being accepted as fact, yes, and especially with the idea that Miles' 1997 book Many Years from Now can serve as a reliable record of Beatles history, because it was clearly a McCartney vanity project. All sources should be subjected to some scrutiny, and that one was controversial and continues to be scrutinised by the more discerning Beatles biographers. (And I recently read another editor here slagging it off big time, so I'm hardly alone in my reservations.)
Where in Miles 1997 is this other paragraph that you're saying I failed to include here? It's not on the cited page; I don't own the book, but I've accessed it plenty at Amazon and according to the index at the "snippet" google books preview, Ono appears on pages 272, 329, 345, 491, 530, 544, 555, 574. So, please, where is it? Miles clearly states on the only page cited here and at Yoko Ono (p. 272) that she met McCartney before meeting Lennon, yes – she approached him for a manuscript, that's well known. But where does it say there this was on a previous visit to London, and where are you getting the information that she visited London in 1965? Most capsule biographies of Ono in Beatles books (eg Jonathan Gould, Can't Buy Me Love, pp. 473–75) say she was in Japan from the early 1960s until the autumn of '65, when she and Tony Cox moved to New York; they then arrived in London in September '66 – no mention of a previous visit.
At best, the account in Miles 1997 is slightly ambiguous, but it still doesn't state what you say it does, and no way does it challenge the date for the first meeting between Lennon and Ono. In later publications by Miles, the ambiguity is removed, for the important reason that he's not approaching the subject from the context of a 1965 Beatles song. His book The Beatles Diary (first published in 1998, updated in 2001) gives 9 November 1966 as the date for the first meeting. The only thing Miles questions in the usual, frequently repeated account is the claim, made by Lennon, that Ono had no idea who the Beatles were. Miles writes (p. 246 in the 2001 edn): In fact Yoko knew very well who The Beatles were. She had approached Paul several weeks before, hoping to solicit some original Lennon and McCartney manuscripts to give to John Cage for his 50th birthday celebrations as Cage collected original scores of modern music. Paul said no but told her that John might let her have one.
It's the same situation in an article dedicated to the couple's first meeting, titled "Your Move, Yoko!", which was one of Miles's contributions to the second Beatles Mojo Special Limited Edition title in 2002 (p. 87). There, he gives way more detail on Ono's artistic background and the Indica Gallery, and he writes: In Yoko's official version of the meeting she claimed that she did not know who The Beatles were when she met John. However, by 1966 the downtown Manhattan art world was fully aware of The Beatles, to the extent that one of the first things that Yoko did on her arrival in Britain – weeks before her show – was to approach Paul McCartney for an original manuscript to add to John Cage's Notations collection of contemporary music scores. Paul refused and suggested she contact John for one.
Those two examples, aside from the abundance of sources that recognise 9 November at the Indica as the first meeting, resolve the issue, surely. I simply can't fathom how one editor's interpretation of a passage in one of hundreds of Beatles books, about the first meeting between one of the best-known and most-discussed celebrity couples of the twentieth century, results in a statement on Wikipedia that "Two versions exist of how Lennon met Yoko Ono." Two versions do not exist, apart from on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, weeks before. It was couched in a conversation about while recording Rubber Soul (1965) and the manuscript Lennon gave her was for "The Word" (on Rubber Soul 1965). This is supposed an "encyclopedic" article, not a preserve the myth of Johnandyoko article. McCartney offered his recollection. It should be included. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reproduced the relevant text from the source cited in the article. You said I've missed out another paragraph – as I asked previously: what paragraph? JG66 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

MBE no longer

John Lennon returned his MBE with an attached nastygram to the queen. There are plenty of sources including that the MBE has been recently discovered and Lennon fans want it made public. Wlmg (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

When you say "the MBE has been recently discovered", you mean the actual medal (like this one), but in it's presentation case, with accompanying authentic documentation, yes? After all, being a Member of the Order of the British Empire, in itself, is just an Order of chivalry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Copy of The Daily Telegraph article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Beatles fans call for return of MBE medal rejected by John Lennon
The MBE medal that John Lennon famously rejected has been unearthed in a royal vault and now, 40 years after Lennon sent the award back to the Queen, Beatles historians are calling for it to be dusted off and put on public display.
MBE medal that John Lennon rejected unearthed in royal vault
Lennon's medal was found in a cabinet at the Chancery Department of the Royal Household where it has lain untouched for years Photo: PA 1:44AM GMT 06 Jan 2009
The Fab Four were invested as Members of the British Empire in the Queen's Birthday Honours in 1965, after topping record charts around the world.
But later Lennon decided that he had sold out to the Establishment and returned his MBE to Her Majesty 25th November 1969 as part of ongoing peace protests masterminded with Yoko Ono.
In an accompanying letter Lennon said: "Your Majesty, I am returning my MBE as a protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam and against 'Cold Turkey' slipping down the charts. With Love, John Lennon."
Years later he was quoted as saying: "Lots of people who complained about us getting the MBE received theirs for heroism in the war.
"They got them for killing people. We deserved ours for not killing people. In a way it was hypocritical of me to accept it. [4] Wlmg (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"But I'm glad I did really, because it meant that four years later I was able to use it to make a gesture."
Now Beatles fans have established that the medal has been located in a vault at St James' Palace and have written to Yoko Ono urging her to retrieve it.
The medal was found in a cabinet at the Chancery Department of the Royal Household where it has lain untouched for years.
It is still in the presentation case bearing the name John Winston Lennon, and has been stored along with his protest letter.
Beatles history experts regard it as one of the most important pieces of Beatles history and are calling for the medal to be exhibited in the city 40 years after it was returned.
It has been suggested that it should be given a permanent home at "Mendips", the childhood home John shared with his Aunt Mimi in Woolton, which was bought and donated to the National Trust by Yoko Ono.
Lennon had originally sent the medal to his Auntie Mimi and she kept it in pride of place on her mantelpiece, until John collected it and returned it to The Queen.
Liverpool Beatles Appreciation Society founder Gene Grimes said: "The Palace are sitting on a unique piece of Beatles history and it should not be left to gather dust in a draw.
"The medal is a vital piece of Beatles memorabilia and should be exhibited for John's fans to see."
A Buckingham Palace spokesman confirmed that it was holding the MBE.
The spokesman said: "The Central Chancery would, without question, return any Insignia to the original recipient if they request it during their lifetime.
"If a recipient had not asked for insignia back before they die then it is assumed that they did not wish it to be returned, and any request from any other person for its return at a later date would be going against the original recipient’s wishes.
"The Central Chancery would therefore only consider releasing insignia if they had a direct approach from the recipient’s legal next of kin."Wlmg (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. A substantial report in a very good source. I would certainly add a mention of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday 2019

Robert Caryle plays him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:861D:28B7:3E89:9F67:C6B2 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Error in the date he married Yoko Ono

Title Followthedamntraincj (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

I've read that Lennon admitted to having beat his girlfriends and may have charged with domestic abuse. If so, I'm wondering why this isn't in the wiki article.

It is - it's in the section on Cyntha Lennon. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

New photo suggestion

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennon_en_zijn_echtgenote_Yoko_Ono_op_huwelijksreis_in_Amsterdam._John_Lenn,_Bestanddeelnr_922-2314.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennon_en_zijn_echtgenote_Yoko_Ono_op_huwelijksreis_in_Amsterdam._John_Lenn,_Bestanddeelnr_922-2305.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennon_en_zijn_echtgenote_Yoko_Ono_op_huwelijksreis_in_Amsterdam._John_Lenn,_Bestanddeelnr_922-2307.jpg

We crop his face and put it as the main picture.

I think the current image is better. It's closer up, and he's looking straight at the camera. Humbledaisy (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

159.191.133.254 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

hi

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The photo

I had obtained permission from Bob Gruen to use the iconic NYC t-shirt in this article, but some overzealous editors wouldn't permit it. Too bad. That would've been the perfect photo. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Photograph that excludes Ringo Starr is inappropriate in John Lennon's article

The Section 1957-1966 contains a 1964 photo of the band, but Ringo Starr is missing in the photograph. The overwhelming majority of Beatles photos shows the Fab Four, not the Fab Three with a missing link. IMHO, this photograph is inappropriate in the article because Starr is missing. This picture should be either deleted or replaced with a photo of all four band members.Anthony22 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You can remove it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it's an article about Lennon, not Ringo, so the presence of other members shouldn't really matter as much. But if that's the concern, what about the other photo in that section, showing Lennon, Harrison and McCartney "performing in 1964 at the height of Beatlemania" in the foreground, with a drummer behind them who is not Ringo? Echoedmyron (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, I really don't think the lack of Starr in the picture matters very much. The article is poorer without it. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I already mentioned that the picture should be replaced with one of the Fab Four, not the Fabe Three. The photographer goofed by not having Starr in the picture. As far as I know, the Beatles never performed as a threesome.Anthony22 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Per Echoedmyron, it's an article about John Lennon not Ringo Starr (and there's the matter of the other image here that shows a different drummer). And the article would undoubtedly be poorer for its removal – the pic captures some of the joy and excitement of the Beatles' performances. It's not a case of the photographer "goofing" – drummers do usually play at the back of the stage and are therefore out of shot – and in no way does the image suggest the Beatles were performing as a trio.
We're so short of free images of the Beatles, good or bad, relative to their impact as musicians and cultural icons, so we can't possibly omit photos for this sort of reason. If someone wants to search through US state libraries and magazines for more Commons media on the Beatles, that would be fantastic. I recently uploaded a pic of a scene in Jacksonville 1964, for instance – that's the closest thing we have to a visual representation of the band being engulfed by Beatlemania. JG66 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that Ringo Starr would not approve of this picture in Lennon's article. People don't like to be left out or ommitted.Anthony22 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You appear to misunderstand what Wikipedia is and what the purpose of an image might be in an article about a former bandmate of Ringo Starr. Another free image from the same Dutch TV performance might focus only on Lennon and the drummer behind his right shoulder – who would in fact be the same wrong drummer. By your argument, the use of such an image here could be deemed to be disrespectful to the memory of George Harrison or (god forbid) downplay Paul McCartney's importance in the Beatles. In reality, would it matter? Of course not – the purpose is to complement the article in question, not a different article.
Sir Ritchie's one of rock 'n' roll's great gifts to humanity, as far as I'm concerned. But for Wikipedia's purposes, perhaps he could use his influence and goodwill to persuade photographers like Dezo Hoffmann, Robert Freeman, Robert Whitaker, Pattie Boyd and Don McCullin to release a few images of all four Beatles into the public domain. That is, if he's as disapproving as you suggest. JG66 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Change
since he was not permitted to revoke a name given at birth as per British statute

To
since he did not choose to remove his middle name in his Deed Poll request


UK law, as it is normally referred, regarding changes of name by Deed Poll is fairly straightforward for UK citizens.

About Deed Polls
Answers to other frequently asked questions
please read http://www.deedpoll.org.uk/OtherFAQs.html

82.14.227.91 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The current note cites a definitive Lennon biography for the claim. While the edit request cites the current standards for deed poll name changes, it does not shed any light on whether this would have been the case or not in 1969, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019

I have found that the information of "Years Active" is not quite right, is think it should be "1957-1980" though he released his last song in 1984.

I would like to edit this article because it seems that I have found some mistakes with the following information, I will fix anything wrong with this article if you allow me to edit the article. Thank You. Musa2006 (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Lennon was not musically active between 1976 and 1979. He was raising Sean and baking bread. WWGB (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

change https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/John_Lennon_1969_%28cropped%29.jpg to https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-102102-016_john_yoko_smoke.jpg?w=1260 Nico4ocin (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

​The image is copyrighted. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Something is amiss with dates

The article says that John visited Julia when he was 11, and showed him Elvis records, but according to the Elvis page, Presley didn't start recording until he was 19, which was 3 years later. Is the article just poorly phrased, and did Lennon visit regularly after the age of 11 for some extended period of time? JohnCena9899 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalism quote

I added a capitalism quote a couple months back. For some reason NEDOCHAN wants it removed despite being on this page for months. He removes it out of the blue. I'm not understanding the logic that this quote, which is sourced and was posted on John Lennon's verified facebook page, cannot be added to his wikipedia page in the political activism section. SuperBikeFan (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told, the issue is not whether it is sourced. Sourcing isn't the sole criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Several editors disagree that the quote should be in the article. The fact that you added it "a couple months back" also is not a sufficient reason for inclusion when others object to it. Thank you for finally deciding to raise the issue on the talk page instead of continuing to edit war. Please wait for consensus here before restoring. Pinging NEDOCHAN and JG66 who have made relevant edits. Sundayclose (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
JG66 and NEDOCHAN are the only two I've come across that are against it. I'd like to hear other people's opinions as to why this shouldn't be added to the political activism section. SuperBikeFan (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the thing to consider is whether a) the quote is typical of Lennon's statements on this issue and b) whether it works with the main text or just stands as some sort of appendage. This last point is the issue I keep flagging when one or two editors keep returning here and giving the page an image overhaul, seemingly for the sake of it.
Just because the capitalism quote was posted on Lennon's Facebook page, I don't think that makes it definitive as far as his views on the subject go. What surprises me is that it's not a quote I recognise, whereas so many of his statements have been reproduced over decades. Seems to me all of these boxed quotes should be definitive to some extent, and in the case of an iconic figure like John Lennon, familiarity goes hand in hand with that. Perhaps the other quotes need to be reviewed with that in mind also. (It's not as if "Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives ..." necessarily hits the mark either, as far as I'm concerned.)
When I say definitive, I'm thinking about how Lennon's activism and particularly his views on activism changed so radically after 1972. From that point on he'd often ridicule protest, political demonstrations, even benefit concerts – this is a point covered quite well in Peter Doggett's books There's a Riot Going On and You Never Give Me Your Money. In fact, one of the things I'd always meant to address in the article (along with, say, adding something more on Lennon's importance to psychedelia – mentioned here, I think) is how he changed from being the most loyal to the Beatles cause, the most gang-focused member of the Beatles, then to a Maharishi/TM evangelist, then a no-holds-barred avant-garde exhibitionist, then a dedicated non-violence/peacenik, then a self-focused Primal Therapy advocate, then a Maoist revolutionary (for a year and a half) ... Each of these phases was often accompanied by a tearing down of the previous image and/or bitter denouncement of the individuals that had guided his thinking. From what I remember of the article, we don't really explore this issue, yet it's key to his identity and legacy.
The relevance of this point to the capitalism quote is that, per Doggett and others, it is said that Yoko Ono has constructed or sought to further a narrative that paints Lennon as a dedicated activist up to his retirement in 1975, when in fact he wasn't. I mean, as far as quotes that appear to sum up John Lennon's political activism, I'd say his 1980 comments about "Revolution" are arguably the most definitive: "The lyrics stand today ... I want to see the plan. That is what I used to say to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Count me out if it's for violence. Don't expect me on the barricades unless it's with flowers." That represents his enduring viewpoint, and it's endured as a standalone quote. Yet his Maoist/Marxist anti-capitalism rhetoric was only reflective of late 1970–August 1972 John Lennon, which is why I don't see the long capitalism quote as a must-have, and particularly when we've got to juggle quote boxes with images on the page (given the pic-overhaul activities mentioned above).
I don't want to dictate what's in or out of the article, but I do want to ensure it's representative of John Lennon from start to finish. For instance (and the underplayed psychedelic-Lennon point is one example), I don't think we establish his supremacy as head Beatle sufficiently. It annoys me to see, at Paul McCartney, mention that "Starting with the 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, [McCartney] gradually became the Beatles' de facto leader, providing the creative impetus for most of their music and film projects" – because that situation only came about through Lennon's abdication, and we should say as much. Yoko wasn't wrong when she said in the late '90s that Lennon's leadership was "more inspirational and very high level, on some kind of magical level", and it's what the other Beatles and their fans at the time picked up on. So it's that sort of thing that, imo, is far more in need of attention than whether to include a long quote on capitalism. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Excellent points. Really enjoyed reading the above JG! NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, if it entertains, even better(!). I've just realised from following the link I gave above that I've said all this and more in a previous post. I guess I keep hoping someone else will address it. Instead, we're continually dealing with images on the page and, now, quote boxes.
SuperBikeFan, I'm not belittling your contribution or opinion, but does any of this make sense – the need to ensure elements work with and complement the text, rather than sit there as what I've called an appendage? I'm all for exploring Lennon's political activism, because it was and is highly notable and could easily lead to a spin-off article. (That facet of his career and personality has been the subject of Jon Wiener's Lennon biography, is covered extensively in books like Doggett's Riot, and has received plenty of attention in magazines such as Rolling Stone, NME and Uncut.) Right now, I think I'm right in saying there's mention of "the Dylanesque 'Working Class Hero', a bitter attack against the bourgeois social system" (under 1970–1980: Solo career), but there's nothing else that touches on this anti-capitalism idea. He did speak out against the capitalist system (and good for him) but including the quote without any description of anti-capitalist activism on his part produces that appendage effect. JG66 (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is what John W Whitehead said about Lennon in his final years:

"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.” One of Lennon's final acts right before he died was to help workers. John Whitehead has written numerous articles for the Huffington Post as seen here https://www.huffpost.com/author/johnw-973 This isn't a random conspiracy theorist. He's written for legit sites for years. SuperBikeFan (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I support keeping the quote in there, because I think it adds to people’s understanding of his political activism. Rainer Shea (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) — Rainer Shea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not opposed to this in theory, but I don't know that he stands out from many other sixties musicians who were critics of the culture that allowed them to become very wealthy. Lennon was just one of the most successful financially. For that matter, do we level a similar criticism to the many hypocrites such as politicians who benefit from the values that they criticize? It would be an uphill battle to get something like this to stick in the article, and it would require some damn good sources. But we don't have to include the quotation to make such an edit. Sundayclose (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, seems like most don't want to keep it. We should just remove it then. SuperBikeFan (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

To whom it may concern

I am requesting a change to the photo of John Lennon at the top of his page. The current photo is somewhat unflattering and there are many better photos that could be used. Here are some of my personal suggestions.

1.(https://drive.google.com/file/d/16LVYfSsUCSmMcfKoU6NxYEpJX-iJIjDx/view?usp=drivesdk)

2. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tRFUUEj-iUQBZsIdm_cF9r-FG7utkJtC/view?usp=drivesdk)

3.(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RhJXd84WgwEaDquOsSC3vmoj0a2sPZtR/view?usp=drivesdk)

4.(https://drive.google.com/file/d/14qpp4DtHF40RGMDKQ-y8ROIZcnSp4dCd/view?usp=drivesdk) 1.159.240.64 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted images without permission from the copyright holder. See WP:COPYRIGHT. Additionally, "unflattering" is a matter of personal opinion. But if you can provide an image that is free from copyright, please let us see it for discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

this page should be unprotected Celiamangun (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Jack Frost (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Please remove the Assassinated word from his death date, statesmen are assassinated, not pop singers. 2.26.251.158 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Check the dictionary. Assassination can apply to any prominent person. Sundayclose (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chapman as a "fan"

Anticipating that one does not simply add a word to the John Lennon Wikipedia article without argument, I'd like to support my addition of the word "former" with this:

Chapman was smarting. His dislike would only intensify with each passing year. Lennon, he decided, was a hypocrite. The release of “Imagine” in 1971 – a song Chapman considered communist – was perhaps the final straw. “He told us to imagine no possessions,” he would say, “and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music.”[1]

That said, I get that he is characterized as a fan, he's been described as behaving in fan-like ways, etc., it just seems like he really wasn't. He was more of a deluded maniac with some shreds of previous fandom whirling around psychotically in what used to be his mind. (/WP:OR). I won't challenge a reversion. Though, p.s., he did go to New York in October 1980 intending the shooting then, but changed his mind. Actions of a fan? ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэl3 11:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/john-lennon-shooting-murder-anniversary-death-mark-david-chapman-jail-yoko-ono-a9330231.html

Notice the phrasing is not "fan", but "Beatles fan". He was a fan of the group, not John Lennon. He still enjoys the music to this day. Yes, it makes no sense... That's mental illness for you. ili (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Fan" is short for fanatic which can have both positive and negative connotations so it works either way, Hotcop2 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

Dear Established Editors of Wikipedia, Please change the front photo to another photo of him. There's A LOT of photos where he looked good in instead of that one of him in 1969! (But if you do change it, please don't use THAT photo of him, I'm sure you know which one I meant - the one everyone used as if it's the only photo of John Lennon on the internet.) Preferably, him in the late 70s or him in the 60s would do just fine. I hope you considered my request as a lot of people I know (including me) who liked John Lennon have been so bothered by that photo. Thank you. Sincerely, your loyal Wikipedia reader.

Schofield420 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please feel free to suggest one from Commons. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
More specifically, from this commons page. We are allowed to use any of those images. Or you can try to convice the owner of a copyrighted image to give Wikipedia permission to use their image. Sundayclose (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Image

I noticed that it appears the image of John for the infobox has been 'enhanced' using AI upscaling, perhaps an app like Remini. The app processes images using AI to pick out faces and replace parts (eyes, nose, mouth, hair etc) with higher quality counterparts. It's impressive but has a certain smoothed-out, uncanny look to it. I don't wish to sound dramatic but, if such an app has been used, this isn't really a genuine picture of John Lennon anymore. I think it was fine as it was - the grain wasn't so much of a problem that the image needed to be doctored in this way. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Which image? It's had several switched in and out the past several days. TJRC (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's present on the current image, but I think the 'enhancing' was introduced with the colourised version. You can see the difference comparing the current version with the original image. It's been altered quite a bit - the AI version introduces some inauthentic detail, replacing Lennon's face and hair, and removes other details (John's cheeks, neck and jumper are all smoothed out). Humbledaisy (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Does no one care? Compare the current version of the image with the one before it. The one before is grainier and has some bits of dirt that could be removed with manual retouching, but it's fine for the infobox. The replacement is an AI-generated upscale that is inauthentic and no longer photographic. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Humbledaisy, I agree the current one looks AI-generated. (I mean, it is AI-generated, but it looks it too, and that's the problem.) Seems to me we should revert to the 2 February 2019 version at Commons (vs this one) – is that what you're thinking? I don't watch too many bio articles on Wikipedia, but the regular reworking of images here at John Lennon (usually by adding more pretty pictures or, in this case, prettifying existing images) is astonishing. Guess the boy's still a pin-up ... JG66 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I just want to add to the consensus and state that I agree, it appears to have been enhanced by AI and shouldn't be used as that makes it doctored. - ChainSmoker82 (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad you folks agree. I think a reversion to 2 February 2019 version would be best, yes. I have prepared a version of that with those pesky white spots manually removed, but I don't have the permission to add it myself. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Humbledaisy, I think it'd be better to revert the image to the previous version on Wikimedia Commons as well due to artificial upscaling and such being prohibited there (which it obviously it, seeing that the width and height are exactly 2x the previous version) -ChainSmoker82 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Profile Picture

Can John get a proper profile picture where he is not on Heroin? He has a lot of nice pictures, I don't see why you have to use one where he looks (and feels) like a mess. I think a picture from around 1967 would be more proper here, considering that was a good time for him and he also had an iconic look then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:E645:1:992F:D0DF:A49E:3D5C (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is finding a nice image of him that also fits into Wikipedia's image use policy ChainSmoker82 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I propose we use this photo on Wikimedia Commons. It's very similar to the current photo, but I think it looks overall better with superior lighting. ChainSmoker82 (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The picture quality of the image you propose is much poorer. The proposed image is very grainy, and the current image is much sharper. Better lighting in the background doesn't improve the quality of the image of Lennon's face. And it really is no more flattering to Lennon than the current image; in my opinion he looks like he's stoned. Sundayclose (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's truly of superior quality because, as discussed in a topic above, the current image has been artificially upscaled and degrained. If you are comparing the two, you should be comparing it to this version of the image. -ChainSmoker82 (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
A couple of points: Artificially degrained or not, the suggested image is still of inferior quality. I'd be happy to compare both of them degrained if or when that's available. I don't agree that degraining it is inappropriate if the improved version looks better. No offense, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to change to a poorer quality image simply because one of the images has been improved with technology. Such improvements are quite common, including with professional photos in quality publications. By the way, it is not against Wikipedia quality to use an upscaled image as long as there is no consensus against that particular image. Additionally, apart from image quality, the proposed image is less flattering to Lennon because of the facial expression. Sundayclose (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

100 Greatest Britons - Lennon was placed eight

Should this article point out that John Lennon was placed eighth in the poll of 100 Greatest Britons in 2002? Vorbee (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference to John Lennon's assassin on the third paragraph

The name of the assassin should not be mentioned in the third paragraph of the article, but only in the murder chapter. In my humble opinion, this kind of highlight is not only a prime example of what not to do regarding murders for notoriety but above all a lack of respect for John Lennon (unintended, of course). Could you modify it, please? Thank you! Nuno Santos (removed email address, which is not allowed on Wikipedia)

 Not done The name of the murderer is quite notable. Naming him in the lead in no way disrespects Lennon or increases the notoriety of Chapman; Chapman is already quite notorious. The logical extension of your argument is that news reports about assassins such as Chapman or Lee Harvey Oswald should not mention the name of the assassin. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Like any reputable encyclopedia, it does censor the facts or sweep aside important information, nor is it here to promote the agenda of those who would like to do so. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Years active

I would humbly propose changing the "years active" on this page to 1956-1980. I understand why it is is 1975-1980, but John wasn't artistically inactive during this five year period--he was writing songs and made some artistic contributions during this period. Also, this page deals with John's efforts as a writer, and a manuscript of his written during this period was published posthumously. So yes, I understand the historic reasons for the way this part of the page is how it is, and I also think a case could be made for ignoring the retirement period in this section of the page. I'll leave this for others to decide whether to change this or not.

Exactly bands and artists now routinely go 5 or more years without putting an album out but we don't say they were inactive during that time. Plus Lennon did record demos during that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:108:24CA:84A3:935:EF1 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

I recently tweaked the infobox cause of death from "Gunshot wound" to "Murder by gunshot", with a wikilink pointing to Murder of John Lennon. As everyone knows, there are different levels of causation; I find gunshot wound to be a direct, low level cause, while murder is a higher level cause. My reason for the change is that "Murder by gunshot" captures both these levels of causation in a concise manner, while "gunshot wound" does not. I also think that a wikilink to the article about the circumstances of the specific death of John Lennon should be more helpful than an article about gunshot wounds in general. Unfortunately both these changes were reverted in one sweep.

There has been a discussion about clarifying the death cause parameter, but without any consensus other than a case by case judgement of relevance. In this case, "Murder by gunshot" would not only give concise, enlightening information, but also make sense when compared to e.g. "Suicide by gunshot" (Kurt Cobain) and "Assassination by gunshot" (Olof Palme). --St.nerol (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Lennon's death certificate gives the immediate cause of death as "multiple gunshot wounds". Homicide is a "contributory cause". There is no mention of murder, assassination etc. That is all. WWGB (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Murder is a homicide committed with “malice aforethought”, which of course needs to be established in a judicial process, and thus can never be written into a death certificate. It is generally accepted that the homicide was indeed a murder. And so I think "murder by gunshot" would be a handy way to include both the immediate and the contributory cause. St.nerol (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The original page did not cite the killer's name. I added the name thinking that this fact was not contentious but it was removed as it "wasn't a good idea". I'm not sure what that meant and as the killer is named elsewhere in Wikipedia can't see what the purpose of hiding the name is. Gusdeadman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

John Lennon was only shot once in the back please change the cause of death section to “gunshot wound” instead of “gunshot wounds”. Editor man12115 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editor man12115: Please read the article before making edit requests. Sundayclose (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Listing Harmonica in the Infobox (instruments played)

Is there a reason the harmonica is not listed under "instruments" in the infobox? GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

the time of Lennon's DOA

Please change the time of Lennon's DOA to 11:15 p.m. (EST) so the correct time is shown. https://www.biography.com/news/john-lennon-death-timeline 73.167.238.120 (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done although I would say it feels unusual to include this at all. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Manual of Style talk

There is an RfC here regarding the use of post-nominals for people who have returned their medals. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder?

I saw that Julia was categorized under people with bipolar disorder, even when she was never diagnosed (I assume). I wonder if we can put John in this category as well? Considering what we know about him, I think it's fairly obvious he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:E645:1:88BE:F396:5273:B150 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that Julia Lennon has Category:People with bipolar disorder but nothing else. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any actual reputable sources for either Julia or John being bipolar? Humbledaisy (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The term bipolar was introduced in 1980, so the answer is clearly no. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad it was removed from Julia's article. Frankly I can't believe we are even discussing the possibility that a medical diagnose should be added to anyone's article based solely on a Wikipedia's editor's speculation. Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

I'd like to open a dicussion about a new photo for John Lennon. The photo as of now, is a rather low quality, 1969 photograph. It should be a photo from 1980 - the last year of his life. The man didn't die in 1969, afterall. Gyijfvbjfg (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. However, this is the proper place to have the discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The only 1980 photo of Lennon available in Wikipedia is the photo of him with Mark Chapman, which is currently lower down the article. Chapman could be cropped out, but Lennon is not looking at the camera. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Given recent history with it being briefly changed or altered it and being reverted because of consensus, I think this really is the best picture we have for now. As for having a 1980 image over a 1969 image, I think images of deceased people at their most notable and recognisable stage are usually favoured. The infobox for Marlon Brando, for example, shows him in the 1955. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Alfred Lennon into John Lennon. I think that the content in the Alfred Lennon article can easily be explained in the context of the John Lennon article. It is likely that Alfred Lennon does not meet WP:BIO and any information that is not already duplicated can be incorporated into the John Lennon article without any problems as far as the John Lennon article size is concerned. Consensus on merger and redirection would be preferable to nominating Alfred Lennon for deletion. JeanPassepartout (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns. I think Alfred Lennon is more notable than most fathers of famous people, although not quite as notable as John's mother, Julia, who has a separate article. He is notable if for no other reason than the negative impact he had on John's life (before and after The Beatles) because of his abandonment of John as a child and the annoyance and embarrassment he caused John after The Beatles became famous. My other concern is the detail in Alfred Lennon's article. It's too much to move entirely to John's article (even after any duplication is removed), and I'd hate to see it lost. One of the advantages that Wikipedia has over paper encyclopedias is that greater detail can be included. Sundayclose (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Alfred Lennon is a notable figure worthy of his own article. His article has too much detail to be merged into John's. Proposing to merge Alfred Lennon's article into John Lennon's is like proposing to merge Lee Harvey Oswald into JFK. TuckerTVG (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (CST)

I agree that Alfred Lennon probably fails WP:BIO; his notability rests entirely on the effect he had on John Lennon's life. I also agree, though, that there's a limit to how much of the detail can be incorporated into this article (partly because I think there are areas of John Lennon we don't explore sufficiently here).
Separate articles on McCartney's parents were merged into Personal relationships of Paul McCartney – quite rightly, imo. I favour merging both Alfred Lennon and Julia Lennon into an article on John's upbringing (ie, I don't believe Julia merits her own article either). That could be quite an article, because the emotional scars from his youth reverberated through his writing – at first with realisations that came about through taking LSD, and then most overtly in his songs on the 1970 Plastic Ono Band album – and also in how he went about being a parent himself. What sets the subject of Lennon's parents/childhood far apart from other artists' is the extent to which he made it central to his work and made the issue so public; not only that but, in the case of his embracing and championing of Janov's primal therapy in 1970, and then his retirement from music to be a house husband in 1975, the extent to which it influenced decisions about his career. So the article would serve as an important home for this topic, which we could link to from numerous song articles. It would obviously receive "main article" hatnote treatment under John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band#Background. JG66 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I could accept a merging of Alfred and Julia's articles, but not merging into John's article. Sundayclose (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree it would be a suitable compromise to merge those two articles. JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you please point out exactly what notable things he did outside of being the father of a Beatle? JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Winston Ono Lennon

The article states (citing Coleman) that, "Although he used the name John Ono Lennon thereafter, official documents referred to him as John Winston Ono Lennon, since he was not permitted to revoke a name given at birth." A note earlier in the article says, "Technically, Lennon was unable to lose the Winston from his name, as UK law dictates that a person is unable to fully revoke a name given at birth."

The problem is there is no such UK law. I'm not disputing Coleman may say this, but it's complete nonsense. The UK Government's official page on changing your name says, "You can change any part of your name, add or remove names and hyphens, or change spelling." I can't find anything outside of Beatles-dom that makes this claim. Can we just change this to: "Although he used the name John Ono Lennon thereafter, some official documents referred to him as John Winston Ono Lennon."? Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Good spot. This is tricky- it appears a usually reliable source has, for once, got it wrong. Removing this assertation without proof it is wrong on such a long standing article is liable to get bounced as "removing sourced information" or similar. Rankersbo (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
With respect, there's no "for once" about it. Whether it's Coleman, Bill Harry (especially), Ian MacDonald, Philip Norman, Barry Miles ... Beatles historians get so much wrong – or at least, it's contradicted by several subsequent authors (or in the case of Harry's encyclopaedias, sometimes elsewhere in the same book). I've long found you have to step around a statement or two in most Beatles books; the rest of the page may well be fine, but often you'll read something that's, well, utter rubbish – guesswork, or claims that have been superseded by later research, or examples of an author's POV masquerading as fact.
How that corresponds with this issue – well, maybe just attribute the point to Coleman directly. Might be worth considering whether the current deed-poll provisions ("You can change any part of your name, add or remove names ...") applied in 1969. Perhaps there's been a relaxing of the restrictions since then? JG66 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There is some relevant background material at Name change#United Kingdom. And some background history at Deed Poll Office. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Again, nothing supporting Coleman. I don't have a citation to hand, but I don't believe the deed poll provisions were any different in 1969. I can't find anything (non-Beatles-related) asserting this claim. As per WP:V, things have to be true and verifiable. This ain't true, so I think we just drop what Coleman says. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

In Early Childhood, it lists John's parents deciding he'd stay with "Julia", his mother, rather than "Mimi", his aunt who he actually spent adolescence with. 108.168.97.92 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The current text is correct. Fred left John with Julia, who in turn asked Mimi to raise him. WWGB (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Under associated acts in the info box, David Bowie and Elton John could be added. Both artists have worked on songs with John Lennon. Iacoblanzer (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
That field is for “ Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together”. I doubt that those two conform. WWGB (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
David Bowie no, but for Elton John that probably applies? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

Adding Harry Nilsson as an associated act, seeing as he made an album with him (Pussy Cats) and worked with him a lot on the mid 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Cats Agent101232 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Support for terrorism

The article should mention Lennon's family were outraged when he admitted funding the Provisional IRA at the height of its terrorist bombing campaign: https://www.independent.ie/world-news/john-lennons-family-hit-the-roof-when-funds-were-donated-to-ira-26125005.html (Gdfifer (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Suggested change “his songwriting partnership with Paul McCartney remains the most successful in history” —> one of the most successful (This is an opinion and should not be stated as a fact. The source cited is a listicle) 107.77.234.198 (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The source, which is Billboard, states By any measure, no one comes close to matching the success of The Beatles' primary songwriters. The dichotomy between Paul McCartney's optimism and John Lennon's realism always pushed each songwriter to best the other, resulting in an unprecedented collaboration that yielded 180 songs, the most albums sold by any artist and a still-unbroken record of 20 number ones on the Billboard Hot 100. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Name change and "Helter Skelter" misconceptions

According to a comment on this page on Beatles Bible - https://www.beatlesbible.com/1969/04/22/john-lennon-changes-his-middle-name-to-ono/ - there is actually no UK law that requires citizens to keep birth names. Elton John legally changed his name from Reginald Kenneth Dwight to Elton Hercules John in 1972. John was actually not the bassist on the final take of "Helter Skelter", but in reality, according to https://www.reddit.com/r/beatles/comments/83ghlg/what_bass_is_being_played_in_helter_skelter/, it was actually Paul McCartney playing his left-handed Fender Jazz Bass. 27.32.188.134 (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Subjective song selection in the lead

This was recently added to the lead: "Songs written and performed primarily by Lennon for the group include 'Help!', 'Nowhere Man', 'In My Life', 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'I Am the Walrus'." Considering Lennon's vast songwriting catalog, selection of a few songs is very subjective, especially for the WP:LEAD. What makes these songs more notable for the lead compared to (for example): Please Please Me, If I Fell, A Hard Day's Night, I'm A Loser, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, It's Only Love, Norwegian Wood, Girl, And Your Bird Can Sing, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, A Day in the Life, All You Need Is Love, Revolution, Rain? Other editors may have a different list that they prefer. The simplest solution is to delete that sentence, although a reliable source naming specific songs as most outstanding (or consensus) could help; but consensus could be an endless debate, and there could be numerous sources that disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I think certain songs could be added if they represent a sort of milestone, like All You Need Is Love being Lennon's first big "anti-war" kind of song, but nothing more comes to mind. ili (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Even those would need to be supported by sources that identify them as significant milestones, with evidence to back it up (i.e., not just one magazine writer's opinion). Lennon had a number of milestones, as did the Beatles as a group. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. From working on a lot of the articles over the years, I can see Nowhere Man, perhaps Help!, definitely Tomorrow Never Knows and Rain, Strawberry Fields, All You Need Is Love, maybe I Am the Walrus, and Revolution as possible candidates, because they're each recognised by biographers and music historians as marking important firsts in the Beatles' career, and most often in that era of rock music too. (I'm not talking about the music, but about the songs' vision and message.)
I don't think this article currently goes into any of the sort of detail I'm thinking of – in fact, I'm pretty sure I raised the point on this talk page, years ago, that the originality, impact and influence of Lennon's psychedelic songs was/is distressingly downplayed, if not entirely absent. If that sort of coverage of Lennon's key songs (emphasising their sociocultural impact on and mirroring of the development of the '60s) was here, we'd obviously be able to reflect that in the lead. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

Line in opening about McCartney and Lennon having the most successful songwriting partnership in history is linked to a piece that simply makes this claim with no support. I agree with it, but it is an opinion against neutral point of view policy. 24.90.249.6 (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 Not done : Billboard is a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment. No, not "against neutral point of view policy", but I'd agree some evidence or explanation would be better. I'd assume it was on numbers of records sold of songs by that pair. Perhaps Guinness World Records might have something? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Why not just search Guiness? While it points out that Paul has more total success than John, it also points out the many ways in which the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership is unmatched. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. No objection. But Billboard is still reliable, as far as it goes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Most successful partnership of all time

As sources at the moment this is an entirely subjective statement. The source in the lede is little more than an opinion piece. It is not adequate for WP:LEADCITEUnbh (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC) It's also clear from the above that this is a perrenial issue. A better source that a listicle should be found to support this statement regardless of whether Billboard is generally RSUnbh (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Dirty Mac

Should The Dirty Mac be part of the associated acts? Or not because it was just a one-time event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A457:E645:1:F142:7F62:44AB:1A5 (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

- I think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:4500:618:D835:F2CE:9DA6:FF49 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s too minor as a one-time thing, it’s just a very famous one. We wouldn’t have, for instance, the Smokin’ Mojo Filters (a similar rock supergroup who achieved a UK top 20 single) for McCartney. Humbledaisy (talk)

Discography does not include Menlove Ave

Menlove Ave was another post-humous release of John Lennon's recordings in 1986. There is even a Wikipedia page for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlove_Ave. 139.85.223.11 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a compilation, and just like Shaved Fish is not included with regular releases here. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

Julian is older than Sean and should be listed first 73.246.51.207 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, Please find a source. Blanchey (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Did you bother actually looking at the article. Julian is listed first. 23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: don’t know who that question was for, but if it was me, no, I didn’t check. The user who made the request hadn’t provided a source and because I don’t actually edit this area of Wikipedia, I wouldn’t personally know, the talk page came up on recent changes as it had just been updated. Blanchey (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Blanchey: Sorry for the confusion. My comment was intended for the OP, who apparently didn't look at the article before making this request. Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

Original image, reverted to by User:ILIL
Image used from 9 July to 26 August, proposed by User:BappleBusiness

I noticed that User:ILIL reverted my change of the lead image. In my opinion, the image I proposed is a much more flattering image, and it's higher resolution. I also believe the original image is a little bit distorted (I could be wrong about that; he could just be at a strange angle). The contrast/lighting in the original image is also poor. My proposed image also has Lennon facing towards the text, as per MOS:PORTRAIT, while the original image has him facing slightly away from the text. The images were taken within a week of each other (March 1969), so the optimal time period for a lead image isn't an issue when comparing these two images. I'd like to hear your thoughts, ILIL, as well as the opinions of anyone else. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Left image gives the reader a better sense of what Lennon actually looked like. Right image has imbalanced contrast/lighting and, coupled with his glazed expression, makes him look like a Madame Tussaud waxwork figure. It might have a higher resolution, but it's not a higher quality portrait. ili (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, both images are less than ideal, and debating superiority between two poor photos is wildly subjective. But the image in daylight has far less harsh contrast than the other, which literally makes him look like a deer in the headlights, including extra glare on his glasses. As an aside, they are both examples of how he may have looked in 1969, but is that the defining year of his life? Arguably he spent more of his life without a beard than with one. It's a shame we are stuck with using one of these two substandard photos. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's two sixes really, but if you held a gun to my head (btw, please never do that) it would be the one on the right. Patthedog (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard of the "portrait should face left" rule of thumb before. A bit silly, since a lot of good articles have portraits facing forward or to the right (including Gorbachev and Diana, whose articles are on the front page as of 31 August). I have to agree with ILIL in retaining status quo: while the flash photography is a bit harsh and the fidelity isn't great the higher contrast and grain serve to make him seem less plastic. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd call the photo on the right the better choice, but would prefer either a later or earlier era than this, which is representative of a relatively short period of how he looked. Jusdafax (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the current one that was reverted by User:ILIL. The other image may be higher quality, but the lighting isn't really on Lennon's face - the image is low-contrast but Lennon is still a little in the shadows. The other is more high-contrast but he's looking at the camera and doesn't look like he's mid-sentence. I imagine sometime in the not-too-distant future, we will find a better candidate but I think that's the best we have for now. Humbledaisy (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  • There has been a long-standing consensus for the image on the left. It never should have been changed on the whim of one editor without a new consensus. And it should remain in the infobox unless there is a clear consensus here to change it. That's the way consensus works on Wikipedia. Consensus can change, but it does not "expire" with the passage of time. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder, some 10 years or so ago I obtained permission from Bob Gruen to use one of his iconic NYC photos, but one editor who was warring with me prohibited it. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Hotcop2: I have a couple of questions. Was the permission properly vetted by Wikipedia/Wikimedia with an OTRS ticket so that an official statement can be made on the the image's description page verifying the permission? You probably already know that we would need more than your assurance that Gruen granted Wikipedia permission to use the image. Do you have a link that allows us to view the image? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I provided the email correspondence (from his personal email account) in which he "gave permission and would be honored" to have his photo used -- which should've been enough since there's an "I have permission from the author" option. I named him (rightfully) as Lennon's "official" photographer in the article. It was up there for a couple of days and was not removed by him or the image agency he was with. As you know, Beatle related articles are touchy as there are so many 'texperts' on the subject. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Hotcop2: To whom did you provide the email correspondence? Did you get an official response from anyone at Wikipedia/Wikimedia that verification was acknowledged? For an example, see "Permission" at File:Phil 1.jpg for a photo that appeared on a cover of Newsweek magazine. Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't recall, it was years (and a few brain cells ago). I don't much about the mechanics of wiki; I know I uploaded the photo and email through commons, citing all the right options, and then I ended up having to defend all the photos I've put up, all of which I took. I am sure Mr. Gruen would still be honored for his photo to grace the lead in this article so someone should reach out to him.
Hotcop2 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes to great lengths to avoid copyright violation because the legal implications for violating copyright can be severe. It takes more than the uploader selecting the right options. There is an official verification process that the owner of the image has provided permission for free use. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, we had permission but an editor went on a personal crusade against me, so we're stuck with one or two horrible photos. Speaking of Wiki and it's great lengths, every year there's 20 new Beatle books and lots of them contain new "facts" (you gotta have a selling point) which aren't exactly true but since they're "sourced" they're peppered (pun intended) in Wiki articles (often by the authors of said books to increase sales of their books).
Hotcop2 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
If Wikipedia (not just you) has documented permission from Gruen for free use and it hasn't been rescinded by Gruen, one editor cannot reverse that permission. An editor may have other reasons besides free use to object to an image, but that is handled through dispute resolution. 14:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Born: October 9, 1940 Assassinated: December 8, 1980 2600:8807:2D09:900:D7E3:EAC1:8C1E:2BA7 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Lennon's murder is already well-covered in the article, there is nothing to add here. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ashes Scattered

I can't find a definitive source that his ashes were scattered in Central Park. I only found a sources that said his ashes are presumed to have been scattered there. 74.196.122.198 (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the source cited in the article? Sundayclose (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Every year there are 20 "new" Beatle books. A lot of them contain new "facts" which then appear on Wiki as sourced. Unless her way of revealing to the world (and to John's family) where his ashes are was thru this book, it could stay with a grain of salt. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Non encyclopedic tone

This article has scatterings of synthesis and OR. I've recently removed a line saying that people are still mourning, which was uncited. The next piece of prose was about memorials. Every dead person is still mourned, this is just fan cruft. It needs to be removed Very Average Editor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I can accept removal of "mourned", but there was no point in removing the link to Death of John Lennon#Memorials and tributes. That is useful information for the interested reader. If you mean that memorials are "fan cruft", I think many people here would disagree. Get consensus to remove that. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the link is fine, and I may have cut more than needed in my edit. It is the "mourned" part that comes across as non-encyclopedic. The existance of memorials is notable, I would agree. Very Average Editor (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This reversion

Not sure why my edit has been reverted but should we avoid the simultaneous use of "singer" and "musician" in the lead sentence? Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

He did more than sing. He also played guitar, keyboards, harmonica, ..... WWGB (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
So can "musician" be replaced with "multi-instrumentalist"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
No. He was involved in many aspects of the music industry. "Musician" covers most everything outside of singing and songwriting. Leave it like it is. Sundayclose (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Lennon/Archive_13&oldid=1205023805"