Jump to content

Talk:May Pang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMay Pang has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Bias

[edit]

This biography has exhibited substantial bias towards Pang, notably using autobiographies and interviews by Pang[1] and Cynthia Lennon[2] and other sources that use their accounts (for example Bill Harry's Lennon Encyclopedia)[3] without balancing with accounts from other witnesses, including John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Dan Richter, Elton John and others who were present, more of which I have now added, with more factual accuracy and citations. I hope to see more sources added by other editors in future for further accuracy and balance.

The most well known account of the 'Lost Weekend' period was in the form of a book 'Loving John' written by Pang and Henry Edwards[1] and has subsequently been further publicly embellished by multiple interviews with Pang, who was obviously a good, kind person who fell head-over-heels in love with her boss and remained so - understandably as he was her first romantic and sexual partner[1], and is still somewhat obsessed with Lennon and keen to be unkind about Ono.[4]

But factually the page's original over-romanticised perspective of the time period differs significantly from Lennon's and others in multiple accounts, including Pang. Significantly that Lennon was in turn serially unfaithful to Pang[5] and continually broke off their affair,[1] that Ono continued to be in continual daily contact with Lennon (as much as three or four calls per day)[1][6], and more notably that when it comes to Lennon returning to Ono, Pang blames it on hypnotism[1] as she cannot seem to accept the fact that he voluntarily wanted to return to Ono. It is also worth noting that during this period, Ono continued to be Lennon's wife and manager, and Pang did not take over either of those roles from Ono.[1]

The Lost Weekend period stemmed from the fact that Lennon had been unfaithful to Ono for the first time in four years on the night of the Nixon election[7], and in order for them both to save their happiness and marriage, Ono (who was feeling stifled by Lennon's intensity and from antagonism from his fanbase) encouraged Lennon to take Pang as his mistress with her blessing and to go and get out of his system whatever partying and drunkenness it was that he needed to do in order to be happy, until he was ready to return.[8][9] Repeatedly Lennon asked to return, but Ono would not let him, reasoning that he needed to realise for himself that none of this pleasure-seeking and hedonism would bring him the inner happiness he was craving.[10]

Ono said of the period, "The affair was something that was not hurtful to me. I needed a rest. I needed space. Can you imagine every day of getting the vibration from people of hate? You want to get out of that. We missed each other. We were calling each other every day. Some days he would call me three or four times. He lived in LA, but that was fine. I was prepared to lose him, but it was better he came back. I didn’t think I would lose him."[11]

Lennon's account to biographer Ray Coleman immediately after their 1975 reunion: "I'm as happy as Larry to be back with her (Ono). It was a tough year for me. It's all right wondering whether the grass is greener on the other side but once you get there all you find is more grass. I don't know whether I'll ever learn that lesson about life. We had a mutual separation and a mutual getting back together. Look, she ain't no chick that you say: "OK, I'll see you Friday," or, "I'm coming back Monday." You're dealing with a fully aware human being. There's no treating her like your chick, you know. It fell in place again. It was like I never left. I realized this was where I belonged. I think we both knew we'd get back together again sooner or later, even if it was five years, and that's why we never bothered with divorce. I'm just glad she let me back in again. I was allowed back! It was like going out for a drink but it took me a year to get it. I'm the one who's supposed to know everything, but she's my teacher. She's taught me everything I know. The lessons are hard and I can't take it sometimes and that's why I freaked out. When we were separate, it was me making an asshole of myself in the clubs and in the newspapers. It wasn't her. She missed me as a human being and she loved me but her life was ordered. I went back to her life.It wasn't the other way round. Yoko and I are proud to say that our separation was a failure." [12]

The point I'm trying to put across about this page as it stood and Pang's emotional (rather than factual) perspective is also borne out by Owen Gleiberman in his Variety review of Pang's recent documentary of the time: "What doesn’t seem convincing, at least as the film presents it, is the final twist in this extraordinary rock ‘n’ roll soap opera. After John, seemingly out of nowhere, goes back to Yoko, and Pang confronts him about it, he says, quite simply: She’s letting me come back. Letting him? That doesn’t square with what the film has implied — that Lennon had drifted away from Yoko. His comment suggests that their separation was always contingent on an understanding between them. But that’s something we’d have to guess at, since the life of John Lennon remains, for all the ways it’s been chronicled, not quite knowable. “The Lost Weekend” is a compelling movie and a valuable puzzle piece, but it’s only pretending to be the whole puzzle."[13]

Awesomasaurus (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

from this point on we're going to stop the repeated edits of this article. It was marked "GA" and it will stay that way.
Any editor who thinks different will be removed from Wikipedia.
It will be locked shortly, so please move on. CorporationTeeShirt (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CorporationTeeShirt
Please read the first three sentences at the top of this page: "May Pang has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it."
Also: There is no deadline. Be nice. It's a collaboration not a dictatorship. Awesomasaurus (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s time to leave the page alone and stop reverting. It appears that you are in a battle with Hotcop2 which needs to stop as well. I’m working on getting the article locked as it stands so please use every fiber of your being, to leave it as it is. I hear there’s other articles that could use your tenacity. I can help you find them if you’d like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6A00:56BF:7064:958B:A0E0:FEA0 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Pang 1983.
  2. ^ Lennon 2005.
  3. ^ Harry 1990.
  4. ^ Owen Gleiberman. "'The Lost Weekend: A Love Story' Review: May Pang Tells Her Story, and a Piece of John Lennon's, in a Compelling Documentary". The Telegraph.
  5. ^ "Pang: 'Lennon cheated during our affair'". Digital Spy.
  6. ^ "interview with Chrissy Iley". The Telegraph.
  7. ^ "interview with Fiona Sturges". Independent.
  8. ^ "interview with Chrissy Iley". The Telegraph.
  9. ^ "interview with Fiona Sturges". Independent.
  10. ^ "The extra-marital affair that Yoko Ono arranged for John Lennon". Far Out.
  11. ^ "interview with Chrissy Iley". The Telegraph.
  12. ^ Coleman 1984.
  13. ^ Owen Gleiberman. "'The Lost Weekend: A Love Story' Review: May Pang Tells Her Story, and a Piece of John Lennon's, in a Compelling Documentary". The Telegraph.

GA

[edit]

This is close to a GA, and it would be great to see it on this. In fact, I will fix the references and then nominate it. --andreasegde (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have to fill in some of the Beatles 57-70 section. But I'm feeling like crap so I can't do it right now. After they conquer America, his books, touring, John's comment about Christ (which is already there), the end of touring, Brian's death, India, Yoko, lithos, rock n roll circus... then it should be pretty much done. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See how messed up i am? i thought i was talking about the Lennon page. God. Anyway, the Pang article looks great ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be the last laugh for May, as she will be a GA article while Yoko is still a B, and probably will be for some time. Silly, I know, but little things please little minds like mine... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate significant bias to Pang. Awesomasaurus (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's gonna be bias. IT's HER PAGE. Have you looked around Wikipedia lately? Anyway, I'm working on a lock with the powers that be.
Peace and Love. CorporationTeeShirt (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Harry

[edit]

Harry’s “John Lennon Encyclopedia” is a broken link. Maybe it will come back, but if not all the references will have to removed. --andreasegde (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. --andreasegde (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry’s “John Lennon Encyclopedia” is only reliable for Lennon's time in the UK. It is poorly researched and unreliable for the period in the USA (as Harry was not present and had lost contact with Lennon). Awesomasaurus (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA again

[edit]

It's getting closer, but it needs a good polish. --andreasegde (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put quite a few links at the bottom which will be deleted after I put them in the article. --andreasegde (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going very well, IMHO... :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos changed, as per instructions from the heated law and order officer. :) --andreasegde (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is very engaging and interesting. It could probably use a minor copy edit to perfect the grammar and presentation in a few places, but overall the writing is very good.
2. Factually accurate?: The article seems very well-referenced, see NPOV for the single flaw.

 Done I think I got it. The aggresive brother and not being accepted, perhaps? --andreasegde (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: The article appears to touch most of the major points. Some issues (see images comments below).
4. Neutral point of view?: References like this should attribute the author/source explicitly in the article text. It should not be cited like a reliable independent reference. Instead, the reader should be alerted that these are May Pang's assertions. Regarding the following comment: "Ono confirmed this conversation in an interview with Larry Kane for his 2005 book, Lennon Revealed." This should be cited to that book, including page number, for verifiability's sake. Presentation like this appears to be a bit apologetic/sympathetic on May Pang's behalf. This and any similar examples should be revised to address any concerns regarding NPOV.

 Done I think I have done that, but I will go through it with a fine toothcomb. --andreasegde (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Article stability? This article appears heavily worked on, but stable and without much dispute.
6. Images?: There are an unusual number of fair use images in this article. Not all of the fair use material seems appropriate. For example, Instamatic Karma is not actually discussed in the article, making its use purely decorative (and it's fair use rationale deceptive). This definitely needs to be addressed by removing fair use images or expanding the article appropriately.

 Done The photo has gone. It will probably be put back when the book is released, or when Hotcop2 can get it approved by May Pang.--andreasegde (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article is mostly in very good condition, with copious references and solid writing. Some adjustments need to be made to comply with NPOV and fair use policy.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Vassyana (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on your points (I see what you mean) and I thank you for the review. --andreasegde (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. This article is in very good shape with only a couple of issues. I look forward to the improvements. :) Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you again. What a nice reviewer! I have to work the whole day tomorrow, but I will go for it tomorrow afternoon/night (Central European time). --andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exciting. I added a couple of references, hope I did so correctly. Regarding the Instamatic Karma cover, I have a galley copy, and can expand a bit about the book. Or it can be removed and possibly replaced when the book is released.... Hotcop2 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. --andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, changed May 1974 to June 1974 for the return to NY as this is directly from May's book Loving John. In her book May states John returned alone with Harry to NY in May 1974 and May Pang followed several weeks later. Do not recall the exact page number but can provide if requested. This would then make this change cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.148.168.53 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling mistake and date inconsistency

[edit]

Hello, great article, thanks. Just a couple of points:
where it says "Lennon would start seeing other women" in the "Lost weekend" section, I think the editor meant to write "Lennon should start seeing other women". It just makes more sense in context (and I have a feeling that that was Ono's intention ... is there a good source?)
The date for recording of 'Pussy Cats' would seem to be right, and so would the date for the 'oldies' (presumably Lennon's 'Rock and Roll' album). In which case the Spector info needs to come right after "In October 1973, Lennon and Pang left New York..." otherwise Lennon has his drinking incidents in 1974 and then collaborated with Spector in 1973, which doesn't make sense.
I'll check back and see if its been changed in a week or two, thanks.Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made a mistake, the correct sense is "would probably start seeing other women" (from the 'lost Lennon Interviews' book), sorry!Jabberwock359 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I restructured it a bit for clarity. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon did see multiple other women during this period. See below. Awesomasaurus (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stray code

[edit]

Can anyone figure out where the "style="background: #BFD; color: black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="yes table-yes"| es" at the bottom of the article is coming from?—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By process of elimination, I've determined it is the "{{Good|es}}" tag. Now to figure out what to do about it.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it, that's what, since the template is inappropriate.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The name "Pang" is not quoted in Larry Kanes book. It is conjecture and assumption that Lennon means only Pang when he had intimate relationships with several other women during the lost weekend. Please do not enter uncited content unless a quote can be proven.

Hello, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.23.76 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Kane's book, the passage and quote directly refers to the "lost weekend" and John's explanation of his mixed feelings of his return to Ono. He didn't have several other "relationships," he fucked a couple of girls (as he had done with Ono and Cynthia) and says "I loved this woman" not "women" -- and the name Pang wasn't in the quote, which is why it's in (parenthesis). Hotcop2 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for the clarification - at least it is not as misleading now. By the way there was one woman named Angel that John had a 4 month affair with in La when he was with May Pang. She was the girl John would go to when he and May would fight and he would walk out. This girl Angel has contacted and spoken with May through emails several years ago, and posted some of May's replies to her on the internet. So, seeing that John did have multiple "relationships" during the lost weekend it all should be taken into account. John even said in his own words that he was like a chicken with this head cut off and that he meant no disrespect to people he was having "relationships" with in an interview shortly after returning to Yoko. Yes he used the plural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.23.76 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says that john hadn't had contact with his son Julian for four years when May had encouraged him to re-establish contact during the "lost weekend" of 1974 when in fact there exists footage of Julian at johns house during the "imagine" sessions of 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.200.246 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on May Pang. 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:

comment added by Wikicodecollector (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress

[edit]

I want to discuss these edits:

  • Anthony22 - (replaced girlfriend with mistress. By most accounts, Pang was Lennon's mistress)[1]
  • Verbcatcher - (Undid revision 814752519 by Anthony22 (talk) unsourced and contentious)[2]
  • Anthony22 - (added sourced information that May Pang was John Lennon's mistress. A number of people have referred to Pang as Lennon's mistress. Also, this encyclopedia is loaded with contentious information that should not be deleted.)[3]

My revert was in the context of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Higher standards of sourcing are demanded for BLP articles.

'Mistress' is a contentious term, and indicates a committed adulterous relationship. We should not claim this without establishing that the relationship started before Lennon and Ono's relationship ended. We say Lennon and Ono were having marital problems and decided to separate, and Ono suggested to Pang that she become Lennon's companion. This indicates that Lennon was not two-timing Ono, and that the Pang relationship followed the breakdown of the Ono relationship.

Anthony22 has added three sources to support the term 'mistress':

femalefirst.co.uk and hottytoddy.com are tabloid journalism sources, and are not acceptable sources for BLP articles, see WP:BLPSOURCES. The Fox News source is a gossip column article by Roger Friedman, and is insufficiently reliable in this case. Friedman does not discuss the details of the relationships between Pang, Lennon and Ono. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles refer to May Pang as Lennon's girlfriend, while other stories refer to her as his mistress. The issue is semantics or six vs. half a dozen. There is very little distinction between "girlfriend" and "mistress." The two terms basically refer to the same thing. Lennon committed adultery with Pang with Ono's approval. When a married man has an extensive heterosexual relationship with another woman, she is basically classified as his mistress. I can give you two excellent examples of politicians who had mistresses (or girlfriends). JFK had a lengthy sexual relationship with Mimi Alford when he was in the White House; she was still a teenager when he took her virginity. Reille Hunter was John Edward's mistress; he knocked her up at the same time that his wife was dying of cancer.

I don't understand why someone is making a federal project out of this issue. Wikipedia doesn't seem to respect tabloid journalism. You have to understand that the tabloids can be sued for millions of dollars for defamation. I don't think that the tabloids would intentionally publish false information that would harm somebody's character.

Girlfriend vs. mistress is the equivalent of partridge vs. ruffed grouse. This is getting off topic, but as long as I live, I'll never know what John Lennon saw in Yoko Ono.Anthony22 (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Mistress' implies secrecy and deception. This applies your examples of politicians, but not to Pang.
Your views on the tabloids appear naive, at least from a British perspective. It is often only the threat of legal action that restrains them, and Pang may not have the resources to prosecute. I will revert Verbcatcher (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lennon and Ono were living apart. His relationship with Pang was public. He was not "with" Pang when he was with Ono. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Friedman has a background, as can be seen by an easy google search, that makes him to my mind a very questionable source. 2603:7000:2143:8500:94D2:447:CF44:F53 (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress - As per Wikipedia, Mistress is a term for a woman who is in a sexual and romantic relationship with a man who is married to a different woman. As Lennon and Ono remained married, the definition stands. Lennon and Ono called each other several times a day and remained in close contact throughout the period. Ono remained Lennon's wife and manager and Pang remained Lennon's assistant and mistress. Awesomasaurus (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The affair was very on-off and not exclusive - Lennon was very sexually active. He would overnight with other women at hotels or at their apartments. He frequently split up with Pang, notably for three weeks in November/December 1973 and for over a month in April/May 1974. The affair was non-exclusive as Lennon also slept with multiple other women during this period including his wife. Awesomasaurus (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on May Pang. 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) 07:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_Pang&oldid=1253756929"