Talk:John Lennon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article John Lennon has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


Good article GA
This article has
been rated as
GA-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

Top
This article has
been rated as
Top importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] GA

If nobody says otherwise, I'm going to put this up for GA.--andreasegde (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done it (GAN) and have also archived all the last few months stuff. --andreasegde (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have been through all of them and fixed everything, I hope. These 'automated bot' references are not good.--andreasegde (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am putting as many references in as I can. Let no stone reference be left unturned. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Double links are also being worked on, as there are quite a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA - again

This article is slowly looking like it has a real chance of getting to GA.--andreasegde (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it cursorily, this seems like a good featured article. This is just amazing! Great job! Kodster (Talk) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA, again and again

It has been nominated.--andreasegde (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I truly believe that it is now ready for a GA review. There are always a few little things to do, but it's there, at long last.--andreasegde (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding instrumentation used by John Lennon

After having a brief discussion with LessHeard vanU (talk) , I've added instrumentation used by John Lennon as a small article to be linked from the main. Steveshelokhonov 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice one.--andreasegde (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Hello all. Listen, I've been a little under the weather for about two months, and wasn't able to finish a small portion of the 57-70 section. I'd like to do so; I'll write it out and we can all find the "notations" needed for it after I add the info (I'll do my best to asnwer the "citation needed" requests.... Then, I believe, we'll have a good flowing, comprehensive article on Mr. Lennon which should definitely be G.A. material Hotcop2 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've added the missing info 57-70

so let's work on making it wiki-worthy, with all necessary source notations. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listen up

I went through this article and checked that the references were in place where they should be. I now see sentences/paragraphs are creeping in that have no references. They have been deleted. This is waiting for a GA review, so PLEASE don't add stuff without references.--andreasegde (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It can't be a GA unless it's complete, which I attempted to do. I did say that we would cite the sources after the facts were down, which ANYONE can feel free to do -- I didn't write anything that most Lennon fans don't know. I'm also on painkillers and won't be "well" for another month, so try to work with the facts rather than deleting them. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll begin citing sources tomorrow. We will get our GA. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just as easy to collect the facts and references, and then put both of them in together. Don't put the cart before the horse, as they say. As for being complete, it probably never will be, so let's just get it to GA first.--andreasegde (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some as you might have noticed. It's not just as easy to do both at the same time, because I have all the Lennon stuff in my head and only write the things I know we can source. But after it's written, I read and see what needs to be cited (tho not as extenselively as you ;-) and try... Also, I'm not feeling too well, so I'm trying to get this all in while they're reviewing it. If you think anything else (within reason) needs a source, as for a citation and I'll take care of it. It's basically done and looks pretty good, don't you think? Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks the best it ever has. They can't fail it for lack of references, but they might home-in on POV stuff. That has to be carefully watched...--andreasegde (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May Pang

I understand that she was involved with Lennon for a year or so, but is it really necessary for her to be in the introductory statement? Usually the intro is used to define stand-out moments in ones life. If McCartney doesn't merit inclusion in the intro, how does Pang? Following this logic, his relationship with that Thelma "Pickles" girl prior to Cynthia should also be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I just read the rest of this article. Who the hell posted SO MUCH info on May Pang? You'd think she was the 5th Beatle after reading this. It appears that her inclusion is just an attempt to boost attention towards her book. I've read a lot of books on Lennon (I mean TONS), and I've never heard of Pang playing this LARGE of a role in his life. If she gets her own section, then so should Julia, Paul, Nilson, Spector, Martin and Klein. I'll check again later for a response, if not I'll take it out. Cheers.Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

Well, the period that Pang was in his life was the most prolific period of his solo career. It was also a period of historic importance as he mended fences with his son, Julian, and the other Beatles. I agree that she can be removed from the top intro paragraph, but "her section" only shows how productive Lennon was during that period. Unfortunately, the TONS OF BOOKS you've read have whitewashed this period, probably in deference to Ono, but the productivity cannot be denied. So that will remain. There was basically no real info in this article until Andreas and I started going at it. Then several other editors joined in and we beat it into factual shape. Now, it's comprehensive and, with the observations you made that are quite valid, it is even moreso. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the intro paragraph and removed the photo of the Instamatic Karma book cover, which was a good observation. There is no mention of the book in the article. Lennon had three major relationships, they're all represented fairly in this article. Cheers back. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks way better. But, I still don't feel she deserves an entire section. According to Pang, she was "white washed". I doubt the big Lennon biographers like Guiliano and Coleman would back this claim up. Lennon was still married to Ono at the time and I'm sure he wasn't exclusively seeing Pang and no other women during this period. Also, as far as being "the most prolific period of his solo career", I really have to disagree with that. Despite the work with Elton, Bowie and Nilsson and the successful Walls & Bridges (plus my personal fav Rock N Roll), album sales and any respectable review sources would deny that statement all out in exchange for his early singles (Turkey, Karma, Xmas) and albums (Ono Band, Imagine). Lennon had a lengthy relationship before Cynthia with a girl in Liverpool that far exceeds the time he spent with Pang and I also believe she does not merit a sub-section either. Cheers. Lemme know what you think. Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

Who was this girl that had such a long affair with Lennon before Cynthia? Putting a childhood girlfriend against Pang is taking it a bit too far... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thelma Pickles (yes, that really was her name... wanna bitch, bitch to Mr Pickles about it) was Lennon's girlfriend before Cynthia; there's a picture of her in Ray Coleman's biography, and I believe she was interviewed for Hunter Davies's book. She broke up with him with the words "Don't take it out on me, just because your mother's dead!" Zephyrad (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

May Pang's time with Lennon was in the middle of his high profile career. There is nothing in that section that isn't cited, nor related to Lennon's career. Biographer Coleman lived with Ono in the Dakota for two years and had her blessing and cooperation on his books. He gives the lost weekend two sentences. Giuliano's book on Lennon's diaries does discuss Pang's affect on Lennon. When we state that "the lost weekend" was the most prolfic period, we're referring to the 18-month span in which he released three albums, worked with many other artists, had his only #1 hit single and was very high profile. Cold turkey, Karma and Happy Xmas are over a span of three years. When John was married to Cynthia, and to Ono, he was "seeing one woman" too. It comes up in their sections because they were wives and "other women' played major roles.

What we've done here is fill in the holes of a period that, as you yourself said, is never written about. You might not like Ms. Pang (and perhaps you should read other books)-- but it's written quite comprehensively, chronologically and cited. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia" -- when you say you never knew Pang played such a large role, well, you've learned here she did.

And most of the "big biographers" often reprint the myth that the Lennons reunited at the elton John concert; which did not happen. Instead, on this Wiki page you have a pretty well laid out timeline and our page is factually correct.

Prolific doesn't constitute a "quality" judgement; there has never been a period (much less an 18-month period) in Lennon's post-Beatle career that so much was done. Three songs with Ringo, one for Johnny Winter, one for Keith Moon, producing Mick Jagger, four songs with Elton, David Bowie's hit plus three Lennon albums and three singles. It's not my opinion that he was most prolific; it's a fact.

Your critique of the intro paragraph and the new book were spot-on, and that's what's good about Wiki -- the fresh sets of eyes. But we're not deleting the section. Hotcop2 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, either way you cut it, she was still a messed up bitch. Unsigned comment by Hellobeatle (talk)

And you Sir/Madam, are probably as blissfully unaware of the facts of history as the comments you make show. To reply in your parlance; you ain't go no idea no-how, an' I'll bet yor sweet butt you don't read betwen the lines. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Son, I don't think "Hellobeatle" even reads the lines, much less between them. (I don't care HOW many books someone reads, if they learn nothing by doing so, which is becoming more and more painfully obvious as I read his posts, here and elsewhere, and not just about this topic.) I don't see how someone who encourages the man she's LIVING WITH (so much for "I'm sure he wasn't seeing her exclusively", though John did have a fling with another woman while he was with May) to stand on his own, stop abusing himself and others, admit his mistakes, settle unfinished business, and reconcile with his child and his old friends, qualifies as a "messed up bitch" in any way. - Now, compare that to someone who isolates her husband from virtually everyone he knows, plays on his fears, backstabs his relatives (e.g. selling their houses out from under them, after they were promised they could always live there) and is royally spiteful (and litigious) toward them when they complain, gives his son by his first wife cash instead of heirlooms, while she sells her husband's memory out to the highest bidders... shall I go on? (And I actually liked her music.) Zephyrad (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, who whispered "John" on "#9 Dream"? It sure weren't Yoko.--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, what section had to be reduced in order to be made a GA? Yeah, that's right.. so piss off... Maybe you can define prolific or explain what an encyclopedia is to me again... 139.57.44.211 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, big mouth. Read what the reviewer actually said...--212.241.67.98 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passing GA

I passed this article as a good article, before anyone attempts to put it through FA review, I would suggest reducing the section on May Pang and working on the copyediting. Aaron Bowen (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll reduce May Pang. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

She's reduced -- only facts and chronological are there. The last paragraph is about Lennon and Ono and the reunion. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

We thank you, Aaron Bowen. --andreasegde (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't 'effin believe it - John is a GA.--andreasegde (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. This is great! WTG A, I'd give you a star back if I had any idea how ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. After all your protests and crying, this article was finally listed as a GA after the demand to reduce the May Pang section was followed? That's exactly what I thought.. I told you, she's a messed up BIATCH! 139.57.44.211 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you read???? I quote: "I passed this article as a good article, before anyone attempts to put it through FA review, I would suggest..." Got it? So, let's start with A for Apple, B for Bollocks, and C for C#*=.--212.241.67.98 (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
hahahaha... I'm in law school, so yes, I can read you degenerate. GA, FA, whatever.. either way, it has to be edited. Keep up the good work, at least you're useful @ something in life. 69.157.110.240 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a brother who talks the same way you do, so I understand. Law school is (quoting you) a BIATCH I have heard, so the frustration can lead one into releasing it on these pages. The funny thing is that when you pass the Bar exam, you should talk in court the same way as you do here. It would be a breath of fresh air in the legal world. Let's call it a draw, and shake hands. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Lennon an atheist?

Some of his songs, including "Imagine" are critical of religion. Was he an atheist, agnostic or just a misunderstood person? -User:Chamaoloan 1:35 AM April 22, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.23.185 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't an athiest. He acknowledged a higher power (several, in fact). Organized religions got on his nerves tho. In one of his last interviews, he said "I don't know why people think otherwise but I'm a most religious fellow." Probably had something to do with the song "God." Anyway, he's sporting a crucifix all over the photos in "Instamatic Karma" and he ended his career with God bless our love." Hotcop2 (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Session bands

Given the page is semi-protected, just a heads up to the fact that the band name for Walls and Bridges is the '...Philharm*a*nic Orchestrange', rather than Philharm*o*nic - 124.171.49.93 (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael X

John Lennon paid the bail for Michael X in January 1971. In February 1971, he fled to his native Trinidad. Within a year, Michael X had murdered Joseph Skerritt and Gale Benson. Gale Benson had been hacked with a machete and buried alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.199.67 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Four Shots, Not Five

Hit John. Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.211.157 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that was hard to fix. I hope nobody else comes up with something like that again...--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, Andreasegde. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah laugh it up. The article is GA with the wrong information. I would have changed it myself but it is locked. 24.193.211.157 (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The laugh is probably on whoever provided the only citation for the paragraph on the gunshots, which is to this embarrassingly unreliable tertiary web source. Please supply better sources: I believe some can be found at Death of John Lennon. Please also check the article for similar embarrassing issues of unreliable sources. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lickety-split, sir.--andreasegde (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Excessive number of copyrighted images"

Really? Don't recall any objections when it made GA barely two months ago. All have valid rationales. I don't see the point of this tag. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting at the first image, the rationale is:
Fair is use is claimed for this photograph of John Lennon in the articles John Lennon: The image is of a lower resolution than the original photograph (copies made from it will be of inferior quality). The photo is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original in any way. No free alternative is known to be available, and the subject is deceased. Source: [2]
how is this valid? it in no way addresses how the Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding (WP:NFC#8) Fasach Nua (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I request you to find free-use photos of Lennon at that time. How are we supposed to inform any reader that Lennon was once a boy? Ask them to "Imagine" that he once wore short trousers? Visual information is vital to this article, so as to stop it looking like a train timetable.--andreasegde (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the average WP reader so nieve, that they are unaware that in becoming a man that John Lennon had to be a boy at some stage (and also a baby), that they need a photo to understand this concept? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is the average WP reader so nieve"? Hmmm.. That's a new word.

You, Fasach Nua, misunderstand the concept of how people like to read an article, as do many others. Yes, you may feel happy when an article looks a DVD/video recorder manual - which nobody bothers to read, even less understand - but that is what you think is correct. Cut it, and let people see everything in black & white, because the true information is there, in your opinion. Telephone books are interesting to read, if that is what you like.

I ask you to do one thing: Burn every single photo of you when you were young, and only keep the ones of you now. Why not? Lennon is dead, and you are not. Do you want to erase everything?--andreasegde (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get what you are trying to say, but this is Wikipedia, and it has a function Fasach Nua (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have just read that mission statement, and it has nothing to do with how Wikipedia functions at all. Secondly, it says absolutely nothing about photographs. BTW, telling me "this is Wikipedia", is so naive. Did you think I didn't know? :)) Stating the obvious confirms the point that some readers are naive, and certain historical photographs are needed. I rest my case, M'Lud :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)