Talk:May Pang/Archive 1

That makes sense

I think the Wiki community understands where your coming from. Anything Ms. Pang says isn't reliable info. Films, interviews and books by others aren't reliable sources. What John Wiener opines in an interview is. I'm not being uncivil to you, but as long as you choose to bring up private email, I love your freudian "excerpt from a tell-all is damagine not only to Lennon, but to May Pang and Yoko One as well" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 04:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that she has no recourse here. But to include a lot of her claims without outside, neutral substantiation is reckless. (and really, you want to poke fun at my typos? Yeah, that works wonders for engendering respect amongst the self-proclaimed "Beatles experts". LOL)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I just figured out why you kept changing the spelling of what I am presuming are my typos - sorry, it was no Freudian slip at all; I just have lousy typing skills. And by the way, bringing quotes from private emails is pretty bad form. If you weren't aware of this most basic of netiquette, please do not bother to communicate with me by private email again. I won' communicate with folk who use my responses in private email as ammo in their partisan drive. See that part there? That's where you lost a little bit of my assumption of good faith, right there. You might wish you hadn't lost it, somewhere down the line. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware it was not a freudian slip. I have no doubt it's nothing more than a spelling error. You brought up the private emails first, I responded in kind. Just tit for tat (whoever Tat is) Hotcop2 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you felt compelled to keep changing it back. Sigh. Okay. Whatever. Moving on... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I keep changing because you keep correcting it. The whole point of my putting up there was your error, not your point. I notice you ignore the part about you putting up messages from private emails first, but that's ok. You sigh alot. Perhaps you should have that checked, could be precursor to emphysema. Hotcop2 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be a simply be a precursor to having you blocked for being disruptive and uncivil. Wanna guess which my money is on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You sublimely threaten me, call me inept, cite my personal email to you in this forum first, and I'm being uncivil? Are we done dialoging yet (as you promised)?

Hotcop2 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems terribly biased and unencyclopedic:

"While she seems to have a good life and many things going for her, she chooses to and remains to this day hopelessly obsessed with John Lennon."

At worst it's biased, and at best it's too conversational for this venue. Is there a citation that could demonstrate the same idea appropriately, or should the line simply be pulled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.69.217 (talk • contribs) .

You're right. I just removed that sentence; please feel free to copyedit the rest of the article to make it more accurate and neutral. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article states, "though others have noticed that she re-tells different versions of her story in order to stay in the news and over-inflate her importance in Lennon's life." Can this statement be supported in any way? --Eastend

Major Vandalism

There has been an extreme attempt to bias this article in Pang's favor, possibly by Pang herself (the user is MsMP), which included the deletion of an entire section that appropriately discussed criticism of her book without any discussion whatsoever. Everyone please watch this article. 74.39.18.117 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been a second vandalism attempt that was again reverted. I'd also like to add that the comment that claims that Yoko Ono has "verified" in "several interviews over the years" that John Lennon and May Pang were "emotionally involved" (from which the last user attempted to removed the "citation needed" tag) is likely untrue, as Ono tends to delegate such questions to her publicist, Eliiot Mintz. I've read many interviews with Ms. Ono and I don't recall her ever mentioning Pang by name. That's not to say she never has, but it's unlikely. Layla12275 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont let this happen. The original august 3rd was the best and most honest. It displayed the critisms accuratley.

Also it appears May removed the line about her being on the payroll the whole time through 1975, a fact she confirms in her own book, as well as her removing the line about Lennon having affairs with other women which May also confirms in her own book as well as testimony of the women he had the affairs with. here are the lines she deleted - "Pang lived with Lennon from late 1973 until the first weeks of 1975, and was employed and on the payroll working during the day on the business end of his recording projects" and "While in LA, Lennon decided to collaborate with Phil Spector to record an album of oldies. During this time, Lennon had numerous affairs with other women while drinking to excess and partying hard."

Amazing...just note in reading this article how incredibly delusional Pang is. "WE did Rock n Roll..." Wasn't she just a P.A., professionally speaking (obviously her role in keeping John's bed warm should have nothing to do with that album)? She honestly seems to believe that not only was John Lennon in love with her, she actually had an impact on his art. Wow. 128.226.221.151 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

11/17/06 Removed internal link for Robert Rosen. It was linked to Robert Rosen the biologist, not Robert Rosen the author.

In reponse to above, yes she was a PA and secretary. BUT she did not contribute to any of Lennon's artistic or musical projects other then to arrange studio times and organize sessions. It is sad that she seems to think she was a major influence on Lennon, when in her own book she states that in May 1974 Lennon left her in LA for an entire month while he went back to NYC. During the time away from May he wrote all the songs for Walls and Bridges in a two week period. She was not even present for the conception of these songs. This information is in her book and for her to change her story now is ludicrous.

Vandal

User 69.38.133.62 has added comments to my talk page that were hidden in the middle of another editor's comments. Protect this page now, and block the idiot in question. andreasegde 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can the comments here be toned down a bit? There is no reason to use profanities or to make serious allegations without foundations.

Please sign your comments. If you'll notice the long-term, constant attempts to vandalize this page, the similar usernames and the similarities to Pang's own name, not to mention to the author of the so-called "article" that was just removed from the External Links, these allegations are not without foundations. They're not proven, but no allegations are proven by the definition of the word. They are suspicions, and there is certainly plenty of reason to suspect. Again, if you'd like to be at all taken seriously, please sign your comments.

Vandalism of Talk Page

I notice that this Talk page was recently almost entirely deleted and had to be restored. I made a comment on the user's talk page that this is major vandalism, and if it was a mistake to please be more mindful in the future. In case it wasn't a mistake--PLEASE keep an eye on this page. Layla12275 02:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

May Returns

Okay, SixString1965 is very likely another attempt by May to revise history. Round of applause to LaraLove for reporting this "personal friend of May Pang" and for helping to revert her vandalism. Layla12275 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User was banned. Well done, LaraLove. He seems to think that I was the one to have reported him. Layla12275 05:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was no problem. However, the article does need to be sourced to reliable sources and correctly formatted. Additionally, the use of the book cover image in the infobox is inappropriate. Infoboxes should only include free use images. However, even in the body of the article, the book covers use needs to be justified with a detailed fair use rationale. Lara♥Love 06:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much again for your help. I agree about the sources, but I didn't write the majority of the initial article, so I don't know where the information in the Bio section came from, though much of it can be sourced from Pang's book. I also don't have any information for you about the picture. The Criticism section is sourced, though. Most, if not all, comes from the Wiener interview and the Coleman book. Layla12275 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Working on sourcing the criticism section now. Reported the anon IP address that ignored about four or five warnings--apparently May is threatening to sue over being fairly criticized. Interesting. Layla12275 06:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

needs work

The article really needs a major overhaul - to me it reads like an article about her book, not a balanced biographical article about her. It is too colloquial in places, and in serious need of sourcing throughout. A copyedit would be helpful. Should keep WP:BLP in mind too, of course. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section should be fairly adequately sourced now, though I'm not sure about the proper format. Layla12275 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd also add that most of it is about her book because the book is really her claim to fame, and its sensationalism is really the only reason she's a person of note. Of course, her relationship with Lennon is a reason as well, but other than the fact that she was his PA and that they had a physical relationship, her other claims are widely disputed--and also contradicted by the fact that Lennon was vacationing on another continent during many of the rendezvouses she suggests. Other biographical information would be welcome, of course, but I don't know where we would find that. Thanks so much for the help! Layla12275 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've formatted the refs. See WP:CITE and WP:CIT for help with future formatting of references. Lara♥Love 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect; I was wondering where to find that; thank you! 24.161.43.168 21:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

POV problems with Goldman section

It looks to me like there's some point-of-view pushing in the passage about the Goldman book, which begins

Perhaps Pang's largest lapse in credibility is her voicing of her support of The Lives of John Lennon, as also stated in Coleman's book, in which she declares that The Lives of John Lennon is "99% accurate"...

The passage then goes on to quote a passage from Coleman's book on Lennon, in which Pang is paraphrased (not quoted directly) as stating that Goldman's book was 99% accurate and mentioning several specific claims in Goldman's book that she claimed were accurate ("John was skeletal," "had been using cocaine.") Shortly thereafter, however, it quotes her saying that Goldman "got a lot of a right" but "presented it wrong .. took all the dark sides. And some of his opinions were wrong. ... I didn't read that book either, except for my parts, which he got pretty accurate."

Taken together, these two quotations hardly constitute "voicing of her support" of the Goldman book. The paraphrase from Coleman's book may seem to support the Goldman book, but it's only a paraphase and not an actual quote. Moreover, Pang's 2004 comments contain multiple criticisms of Goldman, going so far as to characterize one of his claims as "garbage." (Pang's two statements may seem at first reading to contradict one another, but not necessarily. If indeed she only read "my parts" of the Goldman book, it's possible that she told Coleman something such as, "the parts I read were 98% accurate." If this was the case, her earlier comments to Coleman would be consistent with her 2004 comments.)

The remainder of the passage about the Goldman book consists of quoting people close to John Lennon who denounced it, followed by a list of controversial claims in the Goldman book, none of which seem to have been mentioned or affirmed by May Pang. When I read this passage, I couldn't help but wonder why such a long digression about the Goldman book should appear in an article about May Pang. I suspect it goes on at such length because whoever wrote it is trying to build a case against May Pang's credibility by exaggerating her alleged "voicing of support" for the Goldman book, notwithstanding the fact that Pang's actual comments about Goldman are either contradictory or ambivalent rather than supportive.

I think the best thing to do with this passage would be to shorten it significantly, moving the criticisms of Goldman's book into the article about his book rather than keeping them here. Also, the Goldman passage should focus on simply pointing out that Pang has been more supportive of the Goldman book than many other individuals who knew John Lennon personally. Blowing her remarks up into "perhaps Pang's largest lapse in credibility" is (1) speculative, (2) hyperbolic, and (3) POV.

--Sheldon Rampton 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this constitutes a POV problem. Coleman states that Pang stated the book was 99% accurate. If she was misquoted, the responsibility rests with Coleman. People can read for themselves exactly how the Coleman book stated it. Layla12275 00:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that even means, as that was opinion, not fact. Anyway, I'd also like to add that even though Pang did say that she "only read [her] parts", the Goldman book is extremely well-known and so are its claims, so if Ray Coleman quoted her correctly, and she stated that the book was 99% accurate, then she should take responsibility for that. If Coleman quoted her incorrectly, then he (or his estate, as I think the man is dead) should take responsibility for that. Pardon me if I think the latter is unlikely, as Coleman's book came out in 1985 and she has had plenty of time to dispute him if he did misquote her. Layla12275 02:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur strongly with Sheldon Rampton that the entire section beginning "Perhap's Pang's largest lapse in credibility" is unencyclopedic in tone, and seems to be crafted with no purpose in mind other than to disparage. As near as I can tell, absolutely none of the cited material is critical of Pang, yet the section's entire raison d'etre is to support the contention that Pang somehow lacks credibility because of this-or-that. As such, this section seems to me to be nothing more than original research, and original research that pushes a novel and non-neutral point of view at that. It violates several of Wikipedia's content policies, and I have thus removed it. Nandesuka 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the section be re-worded, rather than deleted entirely? I still think that the fact that she was the one person who endorsed an incredibly controversial book is significant to who she is and her place in pop culture history. Layla12275 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NOR: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Without a reliable source asserting the position "Pang's credibility is suspect because she said these things about Goldman's book", the entire section is completely irrelevant to the topic of Pang herself. Does such a reliable source exist?

To be more blunt about it -- and I'm not trying to be rude -- the fact that you think that her endorsement is significant doesn't really matter. Does a reliable source think that? If so, we can find a way to discuss it. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. Nandesuka 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think you were trying to be rude. But...well, yes, the late Ray Coleman, a Lennon biographer, felt it was very significant, otherwise he would not have included it in his book. Layla12275 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Coleman say that Pang's credibility is suspect? If not, this is synthesis. Nandesuka 03:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not suspect, but significant. Layla12275 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting). Does Coleman say anything about Pang's credibility at all? Nandesuka 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on page 36 he states that her book was "in execrable taste". Layla12275 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time connecting that sentence fragment about Pang's book to the argument being put forth here that Pang's "credibility is suspect" because of things she said about Goldman's book. Feel free to quote more extensively here on the talk page if you think that will help. Nandesuka 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not making an argument for that argument. My argument is simply that the fact that Pang supported the book should be included. No comments about her credibility should be linked to that support; that was a mistake by the person who wrote that section. However, the fact that she supported the Goldman book should be put in her article, because Ray Coleman felt that this was significant enough to publish. Layla12275 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that May Pang was "misquoted" by Ray Coleman. In fact, she wasn't quoted at all. Rather, she was paraphrased by Coleman, and his mention of her reaction to the Goldman book is so brief that it's ridiculous to turn it into a major passage in her biography and claim that it constitutes her "largest lapse in credibility." It's true that people "can read for themselves exactly how the Coleman book stated it." The POV problem is that this passage goes beyond merely quoting the Coleman passage and tries to tell people how to interpret it. It's as POV as if someone were to take John Lennon's "Beatles are bigger than Jesus" remark and claim that it constituted his "largest lapse in credibility," throwing in for good measure an extensive digression into facts about Jesus Christ that don't even relate to anything Lennon actually said.

The Goldman passage also seriously distorts the context of May Pang's interview with Daytrippin Magazine. It states:

This is a recent version of Pang's opinion on Goldman's book, from Daytrippin Magazine, Fall 2004:

Oh, please. Some people didn't even know John and they think they're experts. I can even understand why Goldman got in there, [The Lives of John Lennon, 1988, William Morrow & Co.] but not Giuliano. At least Albert Goldman was a writer, and he did a lot of research. Goldman actually got a lot of it right believe it or not. But he presented it wrong. He took all the dark sides. And some of his opinions were wrong. When you're only choosing dark sides, no one wants to read it. I didn't read that book either, except for my parts, which he got pretty accurate. But that part about John being a homosexual? Garbage. John used to do things like that, go into gay bars and stuff for a joke, knowing someone would see him and start a buzz. To him it was funny.

Despite these comments from Pang, most of the criticism of Goldman's book came from those who did know Lennon...

This out-of-context excerpt from the DayTrippin interview strives to make it sound like Pang was defending Goldman against critics of the book who actually knew Lennon such as Yoko Ono or Paul McCartney, when in fact the thrust of her comment was actually a criticism of people who write books about Lennon without having actually known him personally. Here's the passage from the DayTrippin interview that immediately preceded her comments quoted above:

Interviewer: What do you think about those books about John that are out there now? Like, you know, Bob Rosen's book, Nowhere Man (2000, Robert Rosen) has gotten both praised and criticized.

May Pang: Yes. I haven't read them too much, just excerpts.

Interviewer: Then there's Geoffrey Giuliano's book Lennon in America (2000, Cooper Square Press)

Pang then replied, "Oh, please. Some people didn't even know John and they think they're experts ..." etc., etc. It's clear from this context that she was referring to people like Giuliano when she criticized "some people" who "didn't even know John and they think they're experts." She was obviously not juxtaposing her opinion against that of people like Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono, who in fact shared her contempt for Giuliano's book. (A Washington Post review described Giuliano's book as "more of the character assassination that was begun in such high style by Albert Goldman's notorious The Lives of John Lennon.)

All that can be inferred from May Pang's statements in Daytrippin are the following: (1) She says she didn't read Goldman's book, other than passages in which she was mentioned. (2) She thought those passages were "pretty accurate," and that Goldman's book was better than Giuliano's. (3) Nevertheless, she thought Goldman's interpretation was biased and negative, and that parts of the book were "garbage." It's simply inaccurate, therefore, to call her a supporter of Goldman's book.

As for the Ray Coleman reference, I got curious so I used the Nexis/Lexis news database to search for references to mentions of "May Pang," "Albert Goldman" and "John Lennon." I examined every news story in the database that mentions Goldman's book, and couldn't find a single example in which Pang is quoted saying anything supportive about the book. I did, however, find a 1988 story (the year Goldman's book was published), noting that Rolling Stone was about to publish "a scalding dissection of the Goldman book by Stone writers David Fricke and Jeffrey Ressner. Headlined 'Lennon Imagined,' the piece is based on interviews with such Lennon intimates as wife Yoko Ono, former girlfriend May Pang, pal and fellow musician Harry Nilsson and Lennon's first wife, Cynthia Lennon." I wasn't able to find the actual Rolling Stone article, but if the Fricke-Ressner piece is a "scalding dissection" of Goldman, I doubt that May Pang's comments were an endorsement. I also came across a couple of excerpts from Goldman's book in which he portrays Pang in a fairly flattering light and seems to rely heavily on her account of certain conversations and details about the time she spent with John. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pang would think those parts of the book are accurate.

In general, accounts of John Lennon's life tend to polarize around Yoko Ono. People who tend to view her negatively include Paul McCartney, Cynthia Lennon, May Pang, Julian Lennon, and of course Goldman. People who view her positively include Ray Coleman, Elliot Mintz, Sean Lennon, and of course John Lennon. Coleman's biography of Lennon (which I own) is on the pro-Yoko side, as evidenced by its brief and dismissive (I would even say hostile) treatment of May Pang. There's no evidence that Coleman actually interviewed her for the book, and he provides no references for the paragraph in which he claims that she supported Goldman's book. It is therefore highly POV to spend a full third of the Wikipedia article about May Pang expanding on the claims in this one uncorroborated paragraph in Coleman's book.

--Sheldon Rampton 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rampton, I appreciate your point of view. I am certainly not advocating for the passage to be reinstated as it was. However, I do feel that Ray Coleman's decision to put it in his book makes the quote from the Coleman book significant enough for inclusion in the article. I do not feel that "perhaps the largest lapse in Pang's credibility" should be returned to the article, but I do feel that a quote from the Coleman book is appropriate, as long as there is no disparaging commentary. I do not feel, however, that a full third of the article should be devoted to it. However, Coleman did at least paraphrase May Pang as stating that the book, not just her parts, was "99% accurate". It is merely a quote from Coleman and not from Pang, and should be represented as such. This is very significant. If he misquoted or misrepresented her, the liability falls to Coleman, not to Wikipedia for quoting him. I also don't feel that the quote from Daytrippin' Magazine should be re-included. Just the quote from Coleman's book on its own, and others can decided whether it is legit. Coleman is a published author, and there is no reason not to trust a quote from his book. Layla12275 04:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to edit that several times due to silly mistakes I made! Anyway, I am in 100% agreement with you that the original section was biased. I think it should be separate from the Criticism, but it should still be included, just as a quote from Coleman's book, no more. Layla12275 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated at the outset, I don't have any problem personally with including the quote from Coleman's book (although I happen to think it reflects his point of view and shouldn't be simply taken at face value any more than something May Pang's own book should be). My problem wasn't with the quotation per se but with the way the article then elaborated at length on Coleman's brief paragraph to turn it into a major basis for attacking Pang's credibility. I've read Pang's book and several interviews with her, and it's absurd to suggest that she's in the same camp as Goldman. She invariably praises Lennon as a person and an artist. She also describes some of his problems with drugs and alcohol and has a negative view of Yoko Ono, but none of that is unique to her. (Even Coleman's book, which is full of adulation for Lennon, notes some of the same flaws that Pang and others have described. In one passage, Coleman describes Lennon becoming so drunk and violent that he had to be strapped down for his own safety, while screaming at Elliot Mintz and calling him a "bastard Jew.") The main difference between Pang's book and the point of view of the pro-Yoko camp is not that one side praises Lennon and the other trashes him. Both sides praise him while also acknowledging that he had a dark side. The main real difference between the two camps is that Pang thinks her relationship with Lennon was more important than they do, and she thinks she was a more positive influence than Yoko. (That they should differ on these points is hardly surprising.) --Sheldon Rampton 02:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

the page is a joke

Whoever is editing to "prevent revisionism history" is doing exactly that. There is no integrity to this page. It's a book review, not a biographical entry. This page might as well begin with "May Pang claims she was born in New York in 1950, but offers no proof of this."

This is what happens when 20-year-olds attempt to write about, impart wisdom and "set the record straight" on events that occured over 30 years ago.

Can an agenda be more obvious? It's been bastardized so much it doesn't make sense grammatically or chronologically.

"May claims to be close to Paul" -- Paul personally invited guests to Linda's Memorial Services.

On Pang's website there are plenty of photos with her and Cynthia, Julian, Paul. Pang appeared with Cynthia on Cynthia's recent book tour, attended Beatles conventions together, etc.

This is not the most important page in the world, yet it is longer than War and Peace. A factual disgrace to Wikipedia.

And I am *not* May Pang.

Hotcop2 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures of fans taken with Paul, Cynthia, Julian, etc. She was married to an invited guest to Linda's memorial service, who was a bigwig producer, and the article is mostly about her book because she is most famous for her book. This is a woman who claims that the entire Playboy interview was a lie, among other sensationalist things. Every secretary, bodyguard, etc. writes a book when involved with a famous person. That does not make it gospel. The ages of the editors are irrelevant. If something is sourceless, it is original research and does not belong. Most of what is mentioned here in terms of book tours, Beatles conventions, etc. are professional endeavors and photo ops, nothing that proves a personal relationship. Even if May Pang hadn't been married to one of the bigger producers in the record industry at the time of Linda's death, and had been invited of her own accord--it was ten years ago. He could have invited her just to take a shot at Yoko Ono, who wasn't invited. Point is, we don't know. Look, original research is original research, and I could be three years old and it would still be true.

If you can find a quote in the press where Paul McCartney states that May Pang is a dear friend, and you can source it properly, feel free to include it. But my prediction is that you won't find it--because it's never happened. Until he confirms a friendship, why should her claims be treated with any more credence than anyone else's claims of friendship with an ex-Beatle, just because she slept with John Lennon?

And there's no such thing as "revisionism history." Layla12275 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's odd to me that you think that my age, or the age of any of the editors, matters, because: A. I didn't write most of this article. B. I'm old enough to read, spell, and look up facts in a book. That's really all that this entails, along with a bit of common sense, which you seem to lack--since I could go get a ton of pictures taken with Paul McCartney and claim to be his friend just as well as anyone else, and so could you. If the fact that you were a Beatles fan during the 1960s is affecting the way in which you put this article together, then that's called bias. Layla12275 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Visconti was married to the invited guest to Linda's memorial, not the other way around. Just as Tony attended the many McCartney parties his wife was invited to. In fact, because of his marriage to May, Paul finally gave Tony the long overdue credit for his arrangements on Band On The Run. As far as being a powerful producer, not since the early 70s. Now he's a bit of a chuckle in the industry trying to hawk his current paramour.

Age has a little to do with it when much of John's lost weekend was in the press as it happened. Not always positive, true, but enough for people to know what was going on while it was going on.

That you would take the word of a person like Elliot Mintz (who incidently NEVER worked as a publicist for John -- in fact, one of the big stories surrounding his comeback album, Double Fantasy, was that he hired an unknown flack -- as he was deemed -- from Boston to promote the album). Elliot's revisionism began on December 9, 1980 and he's made quite a career of it, kudos to him.

In today's world, you'd have a good career in journalism since there is no accountability nor integrity. As a writer, not too much. You and your fellow hawks have turned this page into a convoluted comedy.

Hotcop2 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can source any of that, the information is welcome. If you can't, it is not. Tony Visconti has credits as David Bowie's record producer. May Pang was a secretary and a personal assistant. The facts speak for themselves. Layla12275 02:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

May Pang has production coordinator credits on Lennon, Ringo, Nilsson and the upcoming Jagger album. So what? Tony didn't even produce Bowie's first #1 single, Fame, co-written by Bowie-Lennon-Alomar. So what? What's your source for Tony being invited to Linda's memorial and brough his wife? Yes, the facts certainly do speak for themselves. Let's have a few. Hotcop2 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)!

He may not have produced his first #1, but he produced several of his albums. Pang's credits on Lennon's albums are as a production coordinator, i.e., a secretary who arranged sessions and organized paperwork. It was the same for Harry Nilsson, and if Ringo Starr's albums in question were during the same time period, it was likely the same for him, as well. This is all in Pang's own book, by the way. Layla12275 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Layla, looks like you've hit a brick wall. Someone finally has come forward with factual information and jammed it down your throat. Sixstring1965 02:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What, that May Pang was a secretary? I knew that. Layla12275 02:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

Layla, I wouldn't even put the part about journalist Shawn Weiss supporting the claim. The ref makes no such claim. He refers to her as a dear friend, but there is nothing to suggest she is close to Cynthia, Noel or Julian. Furthermore, this does not look like a reliable source by any means. Sources that include words like "becoz" aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lara♥Love 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks, Lara. I must have misread that portion. You're extremely helpful. Layla12275 02:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lara, if you could take a look at the bizarre, sourceless arguments above and set them straight with your authority as an admin, that would be awesome! Layla12275 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, Layla. Lara♥Love 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry! Never mind. You seem you have enough knowledge to be one.

Layla12275 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Sixstring keeps reverting, with promises to add the source later? Layla12275 02:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Don't get into a revert war. You'll both get blocked. Lara♥Love 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Layla12275 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The information about the upcoming book and how it can be pre-ordered is not encyclopedic. We're not advertising books here. If it's relevant to May Pang, mention the book, add the source, leave Amazon.com out of it. Additionally, there is no "Here's the info, I'll add the source later." Add the source with the info. Lara♥Love 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not reverting, it, though, as I may have made too many already. Layla12275 02:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this edit by Nandesuka because it removes information that was jumping to conclusions with sources that only provided some information and which did not provide the actual conclusions (see WP:NOR) and because it was going on about a book written by someone else, etc., not seeming highly relevant to this article. --Coppertwig 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

JON WIENER

While promoting his book at various Beatles conventions, he told the audiences he never actually met Lennon, which I included the first description of Wiener on this page.

Hotcop2 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, he's a nobody. He's his biggest fan - just look at his Wikipedia page history. Sixstring1965 03:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LENNON'S PLAYBOY INTERVIEW

While Lennon acknowledges his excessive drinking during this time in his 1980 Playboy interview, nowhere does he make mention of "numerous affairs with other women." Ms. Pang cites the drinking and examples of two occasions of John's straying from her, but the Wiki passage was worded in such a way that implied Lennon acknowledged numerous affairs in his 1980 Playboy, which is not true.

In fact, Lennon's references to his excessive drinking were only in regards to his and May's time together in Los Angeles, as he names drinking buddies Keith Moon, Harry Nilsson, Ringo -- a clear reference to the beach house they all shared together in March 1974. Lennon and Pang spent the first 5 months of their relationship primarily in Los Angeles, altho they were in New York for lengthy breaks throughout. They spent the final 13 months of their 18-month "lost weekend" in New York, where there are no incidents of excessive drinking, and Lennon was quite productive -- completing Nilsson's Pussy Cats album, his own Walls and Bridges and Rock N Roll albums and numerous musical projects with Elton John, Ringo Starr, Mick Jagger.

The two Troubadour incidents (when John wore a Kotex on his forehead and, two weeks later, when he was thrown out of the club for drunkenly heckling the Smothers Brothers) both occured in March, 1974, while the wild, chaotic alcohol-fuel Spector "Rock N Roll" sessions were in December. So, out of the the 18-month period, the three widely documented instances of Lennon's drunkenness spanned a period of four months.

The only acknowledgement of Lennon feeling bad (and indulging) in New York during this period refers to his stage jitters when performing with Elton John at Madison Square Garden, November 28, 1974, sadly Lennon's last major public appearance.

Hotcop2 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Better flow

Now that all the clutter has been cleared from this page, and we're spared book reviews of Albert Goldman and character assassinations, I cut and pasted some paragraphs and added some detail to make an attempt at a more cohesive, flowing biographical entry.

I also eliminated the Amazon books reference as this indeed is not a forum for advertising.

Hotcop2 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kane's "Lennon Revealed"

I've added a short passage from the Kane book which quotes Lennon himself about this period in his life. Moreover, Kane got the cooperation of both Yoko Ono and May Pang and went into depth about the "Lost Weekend" period.

Hotcop2 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited material

I've removed the majority of the biography section, as is horrifically unencyclopedic. Since when do we essentially parrot a tell-all book that doesn't bother citing itw own sources? Please do not re-add ANY of it without notable, verifiable and reliable information, As per WP:BLP, it will stay removed until then. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Not that it would at all affect the need for citability, but the article appears to be less about the person of May Pang and more about the book, Loving John. Every section is a lift from or a discussion about the book. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should rename it. We should make the article more about Ms. Pang and less about a 24-year-old book that's been out-of-print for 23 years. If you think it's bad now, you should've seen it about a month ago.

Why do you need a citation about Pang's jewelry on her website or her upcoming book, Instamatic Karma (which has its own website, instamatickarma.com? You claim this is nothing but a book review -- Yet, you only leave the criticsm about her book there. And you removed Ms. Pang completely from the John Lennon page. Nice try. Hotcop2 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, Since you feel the article should be made more about Ms. Pang, please feel free to delete everything about the book that is not cited. Uncited material cannot remain in a biography. Period. We need citation for everything in a biography - that's wiki policy, not my personal command. That's the reason it was removed from the Lennon article - it was uncited, and non-reliable. It opens WP to lawsuits, and it cannot remain. If you don't like it, please take your personal complaints to the Village Pump, BLP or theBLP noticeboard, and discuss changing the policy for citation.

That said, I will wait a week for you to provide more in-depth info about Ms. Pang (that doesn't include unsourced, unreliable info from an out-of-print tell-all). After that, I will move to correct the article and remove the unsourced material myself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You can add citation tags where need be and I will put them up since you like to sit by your computer looking to start trouble. And yes, there are Beatles experts.Sixstring1965* Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Great. Either cite them, or email me your diploma from the Beatles Expert Home-Schooling. Otherwise, your opinion is not citable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could always use the old material about the book in a new article on the book. From one article becomes two. Simple really. --kingboyk (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an out-of-print 25-year-old book warrants its own article. Besides, her new photo book, out in March 2008, will be far more interesting. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Interesting has nothing to do with it. It's all about notability, verifiability and reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pang's Story

is well documented in movies, interviews and books other than her own. Her Wiki page was turned into a book review by the same "helpful" person who has been cyberstalking Ms. Pang for two years and had you do these changes. If one simply stated the facts of her life, you (or the helpful one) would want every single line cited. So sources from book are mentioned. And why would you delete the bio portion and just keep the criticism of her book? Ms. Pang was part of Mr. Lennon's life and that's reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Dude, did you just accuse me of working alongside this LucyLennon person you ranted about tme in a private email? Are you trying to get blocked for uncivility and personal attacks? lol. Seriously, knock it off.

Why did I delete the bio portion and keep the criticism? Hmm, could it be that the criticism portion had reliable, citable sources whereas the bio went utterly uncited (except for some trashy tell-all - which, btw, we are supposed to use the sources - if any - that were listed in the book)? Yep, that was why.

You know what? ˆIf you think tha tI am part of this vast, faintly-unhinged anti-Lennon community, follow the advice I've given you in private email, on your Talk page and here - go to an admin at the BLP noticeboard and take it up with them. I am guessing that this hasn't been done because you are both smart enough to know what shaky ground the provenance and reliability of the remarks are on.

If you can provide solid, reliable, verifiable citations that indicate any of the May Pang remarks (and don't insult either of us by trying to include the tell-all without the original citations hat are likely in the endnotes of the book), then the statements can return. Understand that, because it is a BLP, it will undego the greatest amount of scrutiny. I am going to sidestep AGF for a moment and caution you against inventing citations. I will lead the effort to have you banned if that sort of nonsense occurs. That said (and AGF back on), I am willing to help you work within the rules to include as much of the remarks as possible. I will not allow anyone to sidestep the rules. Lennon's article, and the BLP's of those who knew him, deserve better than that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've removed a couple of the {{Fact}} tags added by User:Arcayne.

• The first one that I removed asked for a citation for the sentence that states, "She creates an original line of Feng Shui jewelry that is available on her website." Since this sentence specifically references Pang's website (which is listed in external links), and her line of jewelry is easy to find there, no further reference should be needed.
• The second one that I removed asked for a citation for the sentences that state, "St. Martin's Press has announced the publication of Instamatic Karma, a book of photos taken by Pang during her time with Lennon. The book will be available in March 2008." The external links section (which appears directly following these sentences) includes a link to the Instamatic Karma website, so adding a footnote for this particular statement would only add pedantic redundancy.
• There is a third cn tag added by Arcayne that I haven't removed but which I personally think is unnecessary. It calls for a reference for the statement that "Pang has remained friends with Paul McCartney," which begins the sentence, "Pang has remained friends with Paul McCartney, and was invited by Paul to the memorial service for Linda McCartney." This sentence already includes a reference to a Fox News story mentioning that Paul invited Pang to Linda's memorial service, which I think constitutes prima facie evidence of some kind of friendship. Pang has stated that she is friends with Paul in various interviews, and her website includes a photograph of her with Paul's arm around her shoulder. I suppose the statement could be amended to "Pang says she has remained friends..." with a link to one of the interviews where she says this, but given the prima facie evidence in the reference already attached to this sentence, I don't really think additional referencing is necessary. However, I'll defer to others' judgment on this point.

--Sheldon Rampton 04:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To being with:

1. Yes, but the presence of the external link doesn't alleviate the need for internal citation of statements.

2. See point number one. Every statement in a BLP requires a citaion.

3. Agreed; however, prima facie as you may or may not know, literally translates as 'at first glance'. We do have have statements from Pang on her website that claims a friendship; it would be nifty if there were a more reliable source than that to cite. That's why the cn tag was added - the reference underneath implied a connection to both statements that was not in evidence. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read Wikipedia's policy on BLP, and nowhere does it say that "every statement in a BLP requires a citation." Rather, it says, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. ... Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Note that the second sentence states that information which is "contentious" should be removed if it is unsourced, etc. It is in fact quite common for BLPs to include statements that are unsourced if they are not contentious. For example, here's a paragraph from the Paul McCartney article:

His company MPL Communications owns the copyrights to more than three thousand songs, including all of the songs written by Buddy Holly, along with the publishing rights to such musicals as Guys and Dolls, A Chorus Line, and Grease. Aside from his musical work, McCartney is a painter and an advocate for animal rights, vegetarianism, and music education; he is active in campaigns against landmines, seal culls and Third World debt. McCartney was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 1965, and was knighted in 1997.

You'll note that the paragraph does not contain a single citation. I suppose it might be nice to have citations for the statement that his company own the copyrights to more than 3,000 songs, that he has an MBE, etc., but since no one has disputed those claims, there is nothing "contentious" about them and no need to be precious about citations. Similarly, there is nothing even remotely "contentious" about the sentences which mention May Pang's jewelry line or her upcoming book, Instamatic Karma, so those statements are not subject to quite the same exacting standards as "contentious" statements. I suppose someone might argue that there is debate about whether Pang and McCartney are friends, but I haven't actually seen anyone contend otherwise, so where's the "contentiousness"?

In any case, there is nothing in BLP that requires "internal citation of statements," by which I assume you mean that supporting citations must be included in the very same sentence in which the statements are made. I can't think of any Wikipedia articles, even BLPs, that meet this impossible standard. To meet this standard, literally every sentence in every BLP would need to contains a supporting citation. Actually, the statements you're arguing about in the May Pang article already meet a much higher standard of referencing than the Paul McCarney paragraph I quoted above. The article already states that May Pang sells jewelry on her website and provides a link to her website shortly thereafter. I don't necessarily oppose adding an additional reference within the the article her website's jewelry page, but I think it's unnecessary and is so redundant (and somewhat commercial) that some people may object to it as linkspam. Ditto for the Instamatic Karma mention. As for the "friends with Paul McCartney" statement, I think her invitation to Linda's memorial service is hard to interpret otherwise, but I'll defer to others on this point. --User:Sheldon Rampton) 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I know you were using McCartney as a comparison, to show how a great many comments go uncited, since McCartney and Lennon are closely related musicians. I agree that appears to be the case in McCartney's article. You will also note that McCartney's article is not an FA article at this time. If you check out some other featured articles on entertainers, like "Weird Al" Yankovic, Celine_Dion and Bob Dylan you immediately note that all of them have over 50 citations (Dylan has over 100).

The point of Wikipedia is not to create a random collection or warehouse of information for the fan. It is to create something encyclopedic. Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia strives to remove itself from the equation when it comes to potentially libelous information provided in articles, so they tend to go a little overboard when it comes to citations. By only quoting others, Wikipedia present articles that rely solely upon secondary information that due diligence has been made (for FA articles, at least) to ensure that this ideal is upheld.

Now, am I going a little overboard in my expectation of citations for almost all of the statements? Maybe, but when this article (and the John Lennon one as well) are viewed alongside FA articles, the difference in quality of writing style, citation and image usage becomes readily apparent. I am not here to dick with people trying to put the article together; I want any article I work on to become a Featured Article, and going a little overboard on citations is always better than not having enough reference material to back up statments. During FAC consideration, we can be told by the group that we don't need a citation here and there, and remove it at that time. It is a huge pain in the tucchus to try and find a citation for what might be a pivotal piece of info or lose the statement altogether. I believe in overkill. I believe in overbuilding the article so that its more a matter of trimming off a bit, rather than trying to find stuff to fill in the gaps.

As for the external links, I recommend that the external links should remain, but comments within the article be cited, just like any other statement. I will try to lighten up a bit over citations of things like 'she was born on such and such a day', but we all need to be aware that over-citation never killed an FA article. Under-citation always does. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing against citations in articles, and I agree that it's generally better to err in favor of over- rather than under-citation. The specific statements we're discussing, however, all involve statements for which the article does provide references, so adding additional citations is an exercise in redundancy that doesn't add additional information for the reader and may in fact detract slightly from readability. --Sheldon Rampton 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the external sources as the redundant references, I think that most readers see that and think it provides information over and above what is included in the article, and rightly so. However, citations are different (and can refer to information present in the external sources). The reason we have reflists, as opposed to simply using external sources is to show precisely where the statement in question comes from. And while citing every sentence would detract from the readability, when we are covering any information that can potentially damage the subject of the article or another living person, citations are unavoidable, and required. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a break from the page

it will be revisited in a couple of days, sources will be cited, and it will look more like a biographical entry in an encyclopedia than a gossip rag. ok? cool Hotcop2 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair - I don't see that this is an emergency. A few days shouldn't be a problem. Tvoz |talk 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And Cop? You don't need to put your sig on a brand new line, bud. All it does it take up space. We know your edits are from you, so put your sig next to them. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Hotcop2 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

nifty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations (2)

Listing a book where statements are made is not the same thing as a citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking for citations is good, but tag-bombing the article in the manner you have done here is not helpful. WP:POINT comes to mind. Raymond Arritt 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the idea behind the cn tagging is to specifically identify what statements need citation, as it would appear that another editor is having trouble identifying that anything needs citaiton. It's a BLP, and BLP needs stronger citation than any other type of article in Wikipedia, However, if you want to discuss the matter more with me, please feel free to contact me on my User Talk page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Raymond. This is blatant vandalization on Arcayne's part. Sixstring1965 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't vandalism. Please be careful about making such accusations. Raymond Arritt 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The approach I usually take in cases like this is to add an overall article or section tag, as this article has, and then a fact tag next to actual quotes - I think if you add something as a direct quotation you must cite that quote specifically - even if the book it's from is mentioned elsewhere in the article, sentence, or external link - the page the quote is taken from is essential, not just that it's generally from a book or something some named person said. If the material is a paraphrase, fewer citation points are needed, I think. Tvoz |talk 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from here)

I understand that my edits, which seem to directly oppose yours can be frustrating to you, Six. Please understand that while some editors would flay you alive and send you weeping inconsolably into a corner through severely witty comments, I think its more helpful to keep trying to point out that my edits aren't meant to spite you directly or at all.

I want the articles to be the best they can be. In the biography of a living person (actually, any biography) requires a higher level of citation than say, a movie article or an album review. The reason for this is that biographies tend to affect the lives of living people, and theur reputations and fortunes can be ruined by information entered into Wikipedia. The reason that WP insists on more citation for BLPs and biographies is that if the person (or their estate) wants to sue for incorrect information appearingin Wikipedia, the higher-ups want to be able to say, 'hey, we didn't say that; the comment was cited from what some other person said,' and then be able to show that citation.

It isn't a matter of me trying to dick you out of the article. I think that everything you are adding is indeed accurate. However, you need to specifically cite where the statements you add come from, so that no one can say you made it up, and that Wikipedia condoned it. My edits - while the seem like a pain in the ass - are there to protect both you and Wikipedia. I hope you can understand that, and we can move forward to improve the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

New page format

After looking at several other Wiki biopages, this format seems to conform a little bit more to those and less like a fan-frenzied gossip rag. Now,, let's work at making it "completely correct" Hotcop2 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. the things we need to cite are those statements wherein we are noting the motivation or underlying reason for something. For example, the statement that the Lennons' marriage was in trouble needs to have a citation. Who says the marriage was in trouble? I would really like to avoid citation from Kane, as he has been bitch-slapped by every reputable news service in the English language as unreliable, and this hurts his verifiability and noteworthiness. I am thinking tha tthe must be news stories about this floating about. Maybe there are news stories or book reviews that might point the way to better sources that could be applied to this article (sources that don't deal with Kane, but rather to facts either correct or incorrectly proven by those reviewers or news stories). While Pang is a good source for her own article, we need to remember that a lot of people tend to jumble up and pretty-up their own recollections of the past. I am not ssaying we should discount her memories; we shoudltry to verify what she says, so we can know the info is accurately recalled. I hope that makes sense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I used Kane in reference to Ono and Lennon quotes, not for his opinions and conclusions. Ono goes into the entire explanation of how the marriage was in trouble (which dates back to 1972 when Lennon screwed a girl with Ono, fully aware, sitting in the next room). This episode has nothing to do with Pang, and isn't included here, but it is well documented (including in Yoko's own movie, Imagine, as well as several interviews she has done. The marriage had hit a rough spot, and I did soften the langauge on the page. There's a mess sixstring is cleaning up with the citations, so be patient and the page will get normal soon. Then we can take a fresh look. Hotcop2 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Kane is the only place Ono has discussed this very public relationship. Hotcop2 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that strike you as odd? She must have talked about this "very public" relationship elsewhere. Aren't there any news stories or articles in magazines that also treat this issue? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)P

Actually, it seems odd that you think she "must have talked about this...relationship elsewhere". I think it's amazing that she EVER spoke about it publicly, considering how humiliated she was when her plan backfired and John fell in love with May. She had to work hard to get him back and even sent McCartney over to intervene.70.111.233.230 08:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be odd that she hasn't spoken about it much in the media? If you, Arcayne, had been of age when all this was happening, you would know that their marital troubles and split were common knowledge both in the music world and in general news. Years ago it was not common for famous people to air all their personal problems in the media like it is today. For example, it's fairly well known that FDR had a long term affair during his marriage. This affair has been discussed in many books about him and it's clear that Eleanor was aware of the situation BUT I challenge you to find published interviews where she discusses her marital problems.

Yoko is famously quiet (in the media) about the touchy subjects in her life, like John's affair with May Pang and her 30 year estrangement from, and ultimate reunion with, her daughter, Kyoko. One would imagine that a mother who reunites with her child, and grandchild, after so many years would come out publicly and celebrate her joy, but this did not happen. To my knowledge, there have been news stories about the reunion but no quotes. Is that odd? Maybe, but it's clearly her way. Inquiringmindz 05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not really expecting her to open up about it, but I expect stories would be written in the paper - esp. after Lennon's death, when the press and Hollywood and - yes - the Pope had something to say about the feller. Someone would have found something that could serve as citation for this stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually not. Ono spent the early 80's airbrushing Pang out of the story, then used her Loving John book as the basis for two Ono-approved movies (Imagine and the CBS-TV John & Yoko: A Love Story) then once again tried to airbrush Pang out in 2005 by creating a video to #9 Dream where Ono is lip-synching Pang's vocals, and by putting her (Ono's) face on the CD label (the former label from the John & Yoko album Sometime In New York City album) on the reissue of Walls and Bridges. I'm not a fan of revising history no matter who's doing it. Hotcop2 00:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have heard a lot of information here that I think the article could benefit from. It doesn't escape notice tha tthe Yoko article doesn't mentionMay Pang at all (thbat will have to be addressed later). Now, please tell me that someone has some citations for the statements that just came up? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed up

I feel like little Christina in Mommie Dearest. I cleaned up this mess. 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Be thankful I didn't beat you with a wire hanger. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You call this clean? Bring me the axe! ;-) Hotcop2 23:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

No wire hangerrrrrrs! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it proper to remove the "sources" box on the top of the page? Sixstring1965 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, Six? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the tag to this one - I think it's closer to where we are now as it's not the case that the article now contains "no" references. Also, Arcayne, could you point me to where Kane has been "bitch-slapped by every reputable news service in the English language as unreliable" - I'm not arguing, I'm asking for some backup to this claim, as my knowledge of Kane is that he's a respected journalist, and if indeed his book has been attacked as unreliable, I'd like to read about it myself before making a judgment about his reliability as a source. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I, too, would like to read those quotes myself. And also please cite all the articles/reviews where May Pang's book has been trashed, as you claim it was. By the way, have any of you folks read her book? I would think before you dismiss it as a source you would have read it.207.200.122.17 01:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I will try to hunt it down. I recall reading it in Rolling Stone, but I've read so man y issues of it, it will take some time to find it. Never fear, I shall seek it out. As for the reference to 'trashed', it isn't exactly what I meant when I described it as a trashy tell-all. I was referring to the quality of the poolside summer fodder. I think my aunt has it, so I'll call her - if its about the Beatles (pre or post), she is all over it. It was on her recollection of its reception by the media that I based the characterization as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, we are still waiting for your citations where Kane was "bitch slapped" and where Pang's book was discredited as being dishonest or inaccurate. It's not important whether book reviewers "liked" the style or tone of her book--their personal opinions are not of interest here--rather, our concern would be if Pang was found to have materially misrepresented verifiable facts.

Was there an uproar when the book came out? Did any of the hundreds of other people who were present at the described events in the book come forward and dispute her words in the press? Did anyone bring a libel suit? Was the publisher forced to issue apologies or retractions?

Without such citations, there does not seem to be any reason to discredit her book as a source.

And, earlier in this discussion, at one point you dismissed the book as a source under the guideline of needing to protect the subjects of BLPs...going forward, I assume we can all agree we have no need to protect May Pang from her own words! Inquiringmindz 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

:::With all due respect, it isn't my place to provide how the source is notable; its the job of the uploader to do that, so as to avoid WP:UNDUE issued from popping up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's YOU who's pushing an agenda and trying to skew the article. When other editors referred to certain books for their quotes and citations you deleted or dismissed many of these as invalid by denigrating the books and articles that don't agree with your obvious point of view. A neutral person would never use emotional phrases like "trashy tell-all" and "bitchslapped by every reputable news service in the English language".

It's been 3 weeks since TVOZ asked for backup on your allegations about Kane's book and you've provided nothing. If indeed "every reputable news service in the English language" had something bad to say about the book, it would have been ridiculously easy for you to provide proof by now.

My goal is to have the box totally removed. If anyone has an idea of what info should be supplied, I'll go after it. Sixstring1965 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Rolling Stone's editor, Jann Wenner, is Ono's good friend and isn't considered the bastion of journalism, either. However, Ono did have approval of Kane's manuscript, which was a condition of her interview, and it obviously met with her approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record, but is there a cite for that tacit agreement? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That falls under the citation "original research." Hotcop2 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What does, Cop? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Sound citation

We cannot use citations taken from About.com, as the citatiosn from there aren't really stable or reliable. Maybe someone should track down the source About is using and verify its provenance? Either way, the About.com citation will have to be removed soon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC

Yeah Arcayne, I agree on that About.com thing. It really doesn't have any meat and potatoes to it. I'll try to hunt down a better source.Sixstring1965 00:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a better source. Sixstring1965 00:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome work, Six. I'll check it out. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a site for the book on line, besides Amazon. But I've read it in the book. How do we go about citing something in a book that doesn't appear to be referenced on line except in a place like About.com? I cannot even find the Newsweek interview the author did, where he mentions this. It is, however, explained in Ms. Pang's book and Lennon coyly aludes to a "loud sound" in his Hamill interview, but states "he doesn't tell tales out of school" so doesn't go into specifics, as a professional courtesy. Hotcop2 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, omce, when i was looking for a quote for the Children of Men article, I actually sent an email to the studio to get a transcript of an interview. They were happy to provide it, via email. Maybe you could go old skool, and send Newsweek an email? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at other bios and they simply footnote a passage from books that are not referenced on line, or at least do not specificaly reference the passage cited. it's apparently acceptable. Hotcop2 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations from books are very welcome indeed. andreasegde —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreasegde (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this book reference was removed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason Jon Wiener's book about the Lennon FBI files, is included on this page? Let me know. Thanks Hotcop2 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

We should have no problem with this photo. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and don't forget it! :) --andreasegde (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

NAME

Where did the Chinese characters go? Hotcop2 (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)