Talk:John Lennon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Bigger than Jesus

can i please mention its parody on Angry Beavers - "we're bigger than sliced bread"? i thought it was hilarious.

Nope. As funny as it may be, you will find that it doesn´t fit. We´re here to report Lennon´s life/humour and the rest, and not other people´s variations of it.
P.S. You seem like a new editor, so I hope this will help: Sign four tildes after talking here (name and time) put new comments at the bottom of this page, and welcome to the project. Have fun. andreasegde 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Murder

Given that Lennon was British, and his death shocked here too (I was a child at the time, but remember it clearly), could somebody add a paragraph on how the news was announced in the UK and the reaction to it? --kingboyk 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote on Lennon's murder by Cosell seems partial to me; I was not watching the game at the time, I hate football, but I was studying and it was on as background noise. There were several announcements by Cosell, first that Lennon, "the ex-Beatle" was shot, then that he was shot several times; I remember Cosell mentioning at least once that he was shot in the chest before the announcement that he had died was made. It seemed to last about twenty minutes from first to last announcement.(comment added by User:172.148.195.5 03:57 14 July 2006)
I've got what appear to be three different tapes of Cosell calling Lennon "perhaps the best known of all the Beatles" and saying he was "shot twice in the back". Consensus of opinion at this time seems not to favour reprinting any of the full statements by Cosell. --Bluejay Young 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy

On the John Lennon page it mentions that mark chapman shot his pistol 4 times.

on the mark david chapman page, it states he shot 5 times, 4 of which hit lennon.

just thought id point that out.

Is it important? Does anybody really care? He murdered him; that´s all... andreasegde 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As regards the death of Lennon; no. As regards the perception regards accuracy and status of Wikipedia; yes. Any "internal disagreement" within Wiki would, I suggest, leave it open to accusations of inaccuracy and lack of legitamacy. If anyone with a definitive answer could amend the incorrect entry, then things would be wonderful.LessHeard vanU 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There appear to be a lot of conflicting reports about the number of shots. I have an aircheck of an ABC Radio news report from about half an hour after the shooting: "(Witness Sean Strub said) Some people told of hearing six shots and that some that Lennon was hit twice, but that police said he was hit in the back. And they added that the suspect had a smirk on his face when police took him away." --Bluejay Young 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW we try and tend not to mention his name, led by example of many Lennon tributes as a sign of respect to John and also as a sign that he is a forever tortured soul who - POV - doesn't derserve to be credited as his main reason for killing John was to get attention. (81.174.156.120 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

I have no idea who we are, but I try to be a good editor on Wikipedia. Wiki is an encyclopedia, which deals only with fact - thus Mark Chapmans' name should be mentioned (only) within context. This is not a fan page, even if it is edited by fans of the mans music, and should be treated as an encyclopedia.LessHeard vanU 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"Try not to mention his name" is the same argument that was made by innumerable callers to radio stations on that night. Not gonna happen -- one station repeated a police report verbatim, including the man's full name, home address, occupation and a lot of other extremely personal information. Look at it this way. Yoko Ono herself tried to reach out to the killer and spoke of forgiveness. We can follow her example. --Bluejay Young 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be possible to make note of this point of view, of not mentioning the shooter's name. From what I understand part of his motivation was to be forever historically linked with Lennon. Forgiveness and fact is fine, but it would be nice if it were also known that many feel that this man should not get his wish.Rockthing 17:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fuck" and Yoko Ono.

I altered the wording in Working Class Hero from "fucking" to "fuck", although I believe - POV - he sings "You're still pretty fucked up from what I can see..." since it doesn't matter what tense or form he used it in, it is the root anglo saxon term that is deemed offensive. If it does matter, then the form in which he used it in the song should be used.LessHeard vanU 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)(signed after checking per below)

(Or I could try looking at an example of the lyrics. I will change it back.LessHeard vanU 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC))
The line is: "Your'e still fucking peasants, as far as I can see". Lion King 11:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup.(see my comments above).LessHeard vanU 12:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been pursuing my policy of amending improper first name references to surnames, when it struck me that my changing Yoko to Ono may be wrong. Legally her surname is Lennon. My viewpoint is that the artist is known as Yoko Ono, and that Yoko Ono is regarded as being John Lennons wife, so I have kept the surname as Ono. ps. I don't know Japanese naming ettiquette (or indeed how to spell etti-wotsit) and if the "western" surname is correct, so I have stayed within English naming convention (the same for May Pang). Anyone with knowledge regarding this is welcome to change things accordingly.LessHeard vanU 20:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

She's almost always known as Yoko Ono, so Ono is fine. Your point about law is moot anyway. In Japanese she is actually Ono Yoko (family name first), but en.wikipedia policy is to use the Western form for Japanese names. --kingboyk 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool.LessHeard vanU 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to confirm, yes, she is almost universally referred to as 'Yoko Ono' and continues to attribute her own works to 'Yoko Ono'. Also, yes, Japanese family names preceed given names, but the etiquette remains the same as far as using formal terms of address. Ono-san or Ms. Ono. In less formal situations '-san' could be attatched to a given name as well, but that does not apply in this situation. Rockthing 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Could someone find a good quality photo for the introduction pic ? All the past photos just disappear beacuse of the copyright stuff, and the one on now is not great...

Lennon and his family controversy

This section needs sources for the information about Julian Lennon, I think. The statement about being close to McCartney, as well as the lines presented as a direct quote, have no source. If they are from the book John, that should be stated more clearly. Where are they from? GeneralGreene 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Aunt Mimi (and husband George).

Is anybody able to supply the surname for the above? Thanks.LessHeard vanU 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that this article does not spend any time on George and the impact his death had on John. He was very kind to John and was something of a father figure - a calm, friendly force combatting Mimi's more stern nature. Both Phillip Norman (Shout!) and Roy Coleman (Definative Lennon Biography) stress the significance of George's life and death on Lennon. His death, in particular, is seen as something of a forebearer to his mothers and brought him & Mimi closer together. I'm sorry, I'll try to find their surnames, but more on George and Mimi is needed.--Crestville 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This source gives the surname as "Smith" as does this one, which also gives more information on George and Mimi--Crestville 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. Thank you.LessHeard vanU 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted part of murder section

Because it is blatantly preposterous, I deleted where someone wrote "In the opening intro lyrics of the Beatles song, "Come Together", Lennon sings, "Shoot me". Little did he know that people would come together after somebody did exactly that." --tacotank10 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the change. --kingboyk 22:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Though it is an interesting note.--Crestville 14:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but I really don't think that anyone is saying "Shoot me" at the beginning of "Come Together." A nice Paul is dead type fantasy.--tacotank10 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I thought the same but I've seen John Lennon live (it's youtube and stuff) and he was quite clearly saying "Shoot me". Also the official Beatles Chord songbook lists the openeing lyrics as "shoot me".--Crestville 11:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Shoot me"??? Are you thinking of "Happiness is a warm gun"? This is the weirdest stuff I've ever heard. --Bluejay Young 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I was "blatantly preposterous", but I would like you to consider these facts:

The lyrics of "Come Together" definitely say "Shoot Me". (Are you contributing to an article about Lennon when you don’t know the lyrics?.. :) Buy a Beatles songbook.

Thousands of people did "Come Together", because they held silent candle-lit vigils, and "minutes of silence" after his death. Think about the old question of "Where were you when Kennedy was shot?", and realise that the same question applies to Lennon.

Preposterous means “contrary to nature, reason, or common sense”. I don’t think my edit was that. See above…

andreasegde 21:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

it's not that it isn't true or interesting, it's just that it's an unencyclopedic coincidence. If there were a consptiract live Paul is Dead, the information would be more than welcome, but it's not. It's just a coincidence. BTW, I don't know where I was when Kennedy was shot. I don't know where I was when Lennon was shot, I don't know where I was when Dear George died. I know where I was when Rod Hull died. This too is interesting, but it cannot be found in the Rod Hul article, by all means check.--Crestville 21:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, let´s be straight here.

"I really don't think that anyone (SIC) is saying "Shoot me" at the beginning of "Come Together," - from Tacotank10 - is a POV. Look it up. Facts are facts, and points of view are not allowed. People did "Come Together" to pay tribute to him (a fact) after his death. What´s the problem?

P.S. 1. I have no idea what an "unencyclopedic coincidence" is. Can you clarify?

2. If you don´t remember where you were when Lennon died, then you were not born at that time, or you have forgotten. Hmmm...

3. Are you really comparing Rod Hull to Lennon? Do me a favour...

andreasegde 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this isn't, like, a fan-site or conspiricy site. It's meant to be an encyclopedia. You can't just add any old observation to it.
1. By "unencyclopedic coinsidense" I mean it is not information which belongs in an encyclopedia. It is rather a chance occrance which resulted in two events being related. The link is tenuous, and, while interesting, is of no real consequence. see coincidence.
2. Obviously if you don't remeber something you were not born or have forgotten. Those are pretty much the only two ways of not remebering something. As it happens, I was not born.
3. In so much as they are both famous and dead, yes. I am comparing John Lennon to Rod Hull.


OK, lets laugh about this, because these talks can go on for months! No problem about the deletion, really. It was a bit "flowery", even though I do say so myself. Anyway, have fun.

P.S. I think TacoTank should try to chill-out a bit, though...

andreasegde 10:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 ways of dealing with things - the nice way, the nasty way and the wrong way. I think he used the nasty way. I hope I used the nice way.--Crestville 11:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There was really no need for that comment, Crestville. I´m sorry you feel like that.

Have fun.

andreasegde 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing is bugging me: Crestville, where were you when Rod Hull died?! --kingboyk 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I had just finished smearing grease paint on his roof.--Crestville 16:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I walked straight into that one, didn't I?! :) --kingboyk 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don´t get much humour on Wiki-pages, but even I laughed my testicles off at that one. It´s an example of "British black-humour" that everyone (non-brit) finds so confusing.

John Lennon used a lot of it. Maybe we should put some of it in the article? He did laugh a lot with The Beatles, after all. His sense of humour was (acidic/black) very funny.

"If we knew the secret of being successful, we´d all become managers"... comes to mind, or is that "Wiki Quotes" stuff?

andreasegde 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Beatles' humour was part of their appeal, and there are some cracking quotes out there. Mostly they would belong on the other site, yes, as this is a site for prose not quotations. That said, a quotation here and there to illustrate the humour ought to present somewhere in our articles (and I hope already is). --kingboyk 15:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Beatles Quotes

Some famous Beatles Quotes are

“Give peace a chance” -John Lennon

“The postman wants an autograph. The cab driver wants a picture. The waitress wants a handshake. Everyone wants a piece of you.” Note: This isn't a FAMOUS quote but is one that is true

“I'm not going to change the way I look or the way I feel to conform to anything. I've always been a freak. So I've been a freak all my life and I have to live with that, you know. I'm one of those people.”

“When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream.”

BrainyQuote: John Lennon Quotes is a good source to get quotes, check it out. FirefoxDude 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers man, but this stuff belongs on the Wikiquote site. It's like wikipeida, but for quotes. The Wikipedia John Lennon article contains a link to the Wikiquote John Lennon article if you would like to add them--Crestville 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Postcard from Paul

I thought I would put this in before I am accused of anything.... (smile)

She put the postcard in to show how her and Julian were completely cut-off of from The Beatles for years after the break-up. Paul was being nice to suggest marriage, of course, even though it must have been meant in a joking/friendly way.

andreasegde 11:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What did the postcard say? Was it, like, he wrote it in the 60s when they were getting divorced and the didn't send it until 17 years later?--Crestville 11:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have the book, so if andreasegde doesn't follow up I can look it up (have a terrible memory!)... Anyway, as for my edit - it might be worthy of a mention, just so long as it's not being used as some form of pro or anti-Macca bias. I think the original editor wasn't intending such things, just had trouble with English. PS I got Cynthia's book for Christmas, and thought it would be - frankly - a pile of steaming crap. It's "dishonestly" titled of course (should be called Cynthia) but a worthy read I believe, and I rather enjoyed it. She may overstate her importance (I'm not saying she does, but some will accuse her of it) but after reading the book you may well feel that she's been written out of Beatle history and that this addresses the balance somewhat. Lennon admirers might be shocked at his and Yoko's treatment of Julian, by the way. --kingboyk 11:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Cynthia being written out of The Beatles history; she was being "written out" when she and John were married - Brian Epstien believed it to be good business sense to pretend that each Beatle was unattached. "Official girlfriends" were discouraged, to the extent that it may have been this approach that made Macca's "engagement" to Jane Asher to be unannounced, so the existence of a wife was not permitted. For all his later sagity, Lennon toed the party line early on.
It wouldn't surprise me about Yoko Ono and any matters relating to Julian - not because I think she is "bad", but because she (and all the others) are human and capable of all the pettiness you find with everybody else. I don't need to look for the feet of clay of heroes, I simply assume that they have them.LessHeard vanU 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Very good analysis. The point is, though, that Mr Epstein's dastardly plan is still working 40 years later. The impression I got from a great deal of Beatle reading in the past was that John and Cyn accidentally conceived a kid, had a shotgun wedding, and then barely saw or knew each other. That, of course, isn't true. WRT to Yoko/Julian, she was pretty rotten to him if Cynthia is to be believed (I'll let you be the judge on that) but I wasn't really singling her out. John was the boy's father, and he pretty much abandoned him truth be told. I just hope Julian gets his fair share of the millions when Yoko passes on. Anyrode, never mind my ramblings, I take it you haven't read the book? It's probably not worth full retail but if you can get from a discount score or the library it's worth a read la. --kingboyk 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Epstein did order that their relationships be kept quiet, but UK journalists at the time did report John was married, and he even joked about it on US TV.
This is not verbatim, but it was something like, John: "Married? Nooooo.. well..." Ringo: "We´re not supposed to talk about that... errr....keep it quiet". They were laughing at the time but were looking slightly embarrassed. andreasegde 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In the book does Cynthia mention anything about the affair she had with an Italian reseraunt owner while she was on holiday in Italy (while John was meanwhile having an affair with Yoko)? This is the same man who's hotel/resteraunt she have visited before and who she later married. Cyn often like to paint herself as a victem, but she was just as bad as John. And who can blame them? Though they were in a steady relationship, Julian was not a planned child and they married not because they necessarily wanted to, but because it was the done thing in those days (this is still distinct from a shotgun wedding). Of the four parties, three (John, Yoko and Cyn) were guilty of pettieness. Sadly the only innocent party, Julian, bore the brunt of this. The only redeeming factor is the three got along in later years and Julian benefitted from this, getting on with his Dad and little brother, and then some bastard shot him.--Crestville 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

SHE DIDN'T HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH HIM! She went out for a meal with him and a friend and got back to the hotel to discover John was divorcing her on grounds of adultery. She never had an affair while she was married to John , I think it's offensive to her to say she was 'just as bad as John' as she stayed by his side for years looking after his child and enduring all HIS affairs. (81.174.156.120 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Ultimately, we have to be encyclopediac about this; what can be discerned from records, authenticated sources and undisputed references is written as fact. Anything else needs to have two or more reputable and independant sources, and should be included if only considered relevant to factual contributions.LessHeard vanU 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

isin't john lennon's killer as hated as adolf hitler?

I read on some wiki article that he was...true or not?

As spokesperson for The Whole Wide World and its Various Peoples, Cultures and Everything I would have to say... please sign your comments.
It is extremely difficult to say what other peoples views are. The murder of Lennon is a more recent event regarding a figure more familiar to most of (Western) population. As regards the evilness of Chapman versus Hitler.... Chapman was just some lonely failure of a human being famous for killing one person - he doesn't come close to Hitler (IMO)LessHeard vanU 09:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


The less we talk about them, the better. The more we talk about the people who have done something good for mankind, the better.

Lists make interesting reading, but can´t we find a better subject?

Have fun.

andreasegde 12:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Boo Champan, yay me!--Crestville 13:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have NO idea what that means, Crestville, but I still laughed me wedding tackle off. Boo champan! andreasegde 16:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At a guess "Champan" = "Chapman"; A simple typing error.LessHeard vanU 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lennon's humour

I think this section should be moved to somewhere futhur down in the article. Anyone else thinks it seems out of place?--Crestville 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


You may be right, Crestville (and the bits you added were great, by the way) but his humour was defined by his birthplace, was it not? It was probably the thing that brought The Beatles together, and Pete Best was sacked because he was moody and had none.

I also felt that it could have been split into various sections, but then it would have become just quotes and stories that were added to other bits.


P.S. As we both know about a place in northern England, I would really like you to look at "Yorkshireisms" in Wiki, and add something, if you want. I´m sure you could.

andreasegde 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just think you'll get shot down if you claim the Beatles were funny becuase they were Liverpudlian. I think it had a bearing on thier humour, as does anyone's birthplace, but the idea of Liverpudlians telling everyone the have "a great sense of humour" is a much maligned cliche. They were funny because they were witty, articulate lads. Also, I think history dictates that the band were, first and foremost, brought together by music.
I think there is a section on Yorkshire dialect or something like that. I've never really looked at it, but it might be fun to have a crack.--Crestville 18:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the section toward the end of the article, for the reasons stated above. Also, not all Liverpudlians are funny; for example Jimmy Tarbuck. LessHeard vanU 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor Jimmy. He means well.--Crestville 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Nice one guys; I do believe we might be the only Wiki page to be actually working together with some semblance of harmony. What a nice thought.

I do have one problem with the position of the "humour" bit though; as always - sigh...

It comes after Murder, and Memorials & tributes. Isn´t that Black Humour? I feel strange about it being there. You go through the whole article with the lows, the highs, the murder, the tributes, and then you have his humour. Not a nice feeling, and not something I could laugh at; which was the point of the thing in the first place, after all.

It feels like a Jimmy Tarbuck joke at your dad´s funeral. Know what I mean?...

andreasegde 19:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I put it at the end of the sections that dealt with his life, his work (art) and death, since although his humour (and wit/intelligence) was a part of him and informed his life and work, it wasn't what he was known for. He was a Beatle and a solo artist (IMO). However, if you can find a place which is perhaps more appropriate then please do. LessHeard vanU 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ps. Well done for a JT reference that is funny!


I have a real problem with "Baby you're a rich fag-jew", because it doesn´t have a explanation/citation that Epstein was rich, homosexual and Jewish. It just sounds homophobic/racist.

There is a whole bag of worms here, including Lennon´s supposed affair with Epstein. Should it be in the Humour section?

andreasegde 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's source is "Shout" by Phillip Norman. I put it in because it is an example of the darker side of Lennon's humor which could alienate people, including the other Beatles. I agree a futher explanation is needed, but I'm quite busy with exams, so it might be a while before I get to it. It's weird coz Lennon really liked Brian. I read in the same book he left him a bunch of flowers towards the end of BE's life, when he was struggling with personal deamons, with a note saying "you know that I love you". When you are close to someone (and Epstine and the band were very close - and I'm not talking about the homosexuality rumors) you can get away with making personal jokes. Maybe Lennon was subconsciosly trying to keep people at an arms lenght. Who knows? Or course Tarby would be above such humor. He'd rather say something vaguely racsit.--Crestville 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, but it doesn´t answer my question.

Should the fag-jew reference stay in? I think it´s not funny in the slightest, and I´ll bet you a pound to a penny that it will get reverted soon, and then there will be a discussion war... Oh, dear...

andreasegde 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I changed the position of the Humour section to just before his Solo career, because the quote at the end about The Beatles not being fun anymore seems to fit well. I also changed the Epstein reference to include the "Ya Ya" lyrics, which I hope balances it out a bit. andreasegde 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was, it should stay in because it's one of the best examples of how Lennon could use his humor to be hurtful to his friends. The rest of the band probably found it funny because it's different when you´re making fun of friends.--Crestville 12:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Spot on, Crestville, but I thought just using the words alone would make him seem like a bit of a bugger, to the non-initiated. (I´m still waiting for the backlash though... :)

Here´s one: what about the first time they smoked dope with Dylan? Epstein stood in the bathroom looking at himself in the mirror, pointing to himself (very stoned) and saying repeatedly, Jew!" and laughing... (Beatles/Epstein)

We could also put in the big joke/attack he wrote with Yoko on "How do you sleep?" Apparently they were like little kids when they were writing the lyrics. (Solo)

andreasegde 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "How do you sleep" was intended as a joke. It was an attack on McCartney. What do you mean they were kids?--Crestville 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


It was one of Lennon´s sarcastic/caustic jokes. Apparently (documented) John & Yoko kept rushing back in the studio "giggling like kids" because they had written something new.

They had to be persuaded that some of the lines (I will check this out and find a citation) were way too insulting, and libellous, and they had to change them, although they didn´t want to. I remember one which was: "The only thing you done was, yesterday... and you probably stole that fucker - anyway..."

Watch Harrison & Lennon on the "Imagine film" - at the breakfast table - when Lennon asks what "the horse" (or something, is doing...) Harrison says, "I´ve heard he´s big in Sweden", or something like that... It´s very mumbled and off the cuff, but about McCartney. And the next song in the film is....?

Strange days, indeed... andreasegde 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this section per se, but if you made a "humour" section for every historical/contemporary figure, whether they be Kennedy or Elvis or Wolf Blitzer or Oprah, you'd likely find gay/racist jokes somewhere in their life. That doesn't necessarily make them racist or homophobic, but at some point, somewhere in your life, you're likely going to make that kind of joke, and this section could unfairly paint Lennon as being a bigot, which I don't think he was.-6/22/06

What about of "I want to hold your gland"? That's funny but I don't found any citation. Do you know is true? -- arabigo 11:32, 16 August 2006

Yessirree. Any one of the books. andreasegde 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lennon's Humour Concern

When the article mentions that Lennon altered the lyrics to "Baby You're A Rich Man", there is no citation. It's not true, anyway. It was just one of those rumors that spread, due to over exited fans hearing thins in songs. The claim states that John had a "homosexual experience" with Epstein, who by the way [b]was[/b] gay.

All in all, rumour/claim or not, it's not humorous. This really shouldn't be in the humor section, nor in the article.

See discussion above. You are taking it out of context.--Crestville 20:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry.

Yer alright. But please sign your comments.--Crestville 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Ahhhh..... here it comes; the backlash.

Anyway; Mr. Unsigned: If there was a citation (and there is one somewhere) would you then believe it was true? (A quote from the other Beatles?...)

Lennon´s humour (as has been often talked about) was not only friendly banter, but also caustic, as was the nature of his humour, and his jokes in general. He "loved" Brian Epstein (I will leave the concensus to decide on that one) but he also made fun of him, because of the fact that Epstein hid his sexuality, and The Beatles knew about it, when not many people did.

The lyric he used was never released as an album/single track, but was heard/recorded by The Beatles and others. You are right, though; time for a citation.

andreasegde 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Bugger, it´s a great interview (see below) and I haven´t really taken all of it in, but there are some great humour quotes to be put in. Example:

"The chauffeur's window was closed, and there were just four of us in the back of that car, laughing hysterically. We knew what we were laughing at; nobody else can ever know what it was about . . . I doubt if even we know, in truth."

I don´t know if this pertinent to Lennon, or The Beatles as a band, though..

andreasegde 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide a citation for the Lennon quote about Ringo not being the best drummer in the Beatles? I ask because I suspect he never said it. I have seen articles from around 2000 on claiming it as a quote of his, but never the original source. I recall Jasper Carrot (UK comedian) used the line (unattributed to Lennon) in his stand-up set in the late 70s or early 80s.

--Beatlefan63 16:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Beatles reaction to murder

I want to do more on this but don't have the time. There is a great interview here. If anyone wants to incorporate it, feel free. If not, at least the link is still there and I'll do it in a week or so.--Crestville 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

new pics......

YO guys, what do you say we get the infamous pic of him in New York?


U know, this one - http://1retroplace.com/0%20posterjlnyc.jpg -Dragong4

That would be good, but it could be copyrighted...want to check out the copyright info? Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Getting Better" (song)

Please can we have a definitive account of Lennon's ad-lib/backing vocal ("It can't get ... worse")? This has been the subject of appx. four edits in one week. Is there a good source, or do we have to rely on individual editors ears? If it can be referenced, then it can stop being "corrected". LessHeard vanU 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes "It can´t get no worse". But it´s on Sgt Pepper, the first record to print the lyrics on the cover, so why there's a problem is beyond me. Unfortunately I threw my cover away.--Crestville 12:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s here:

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/gettingb.htm

Shouldn´t this be on The Beatles page?

andreasegde 01:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Those chords are wrong. It's not important, but I thought I'd mention it.--Crestville 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
(To andreasegde) this was originally an example of Lennon's caustic/downbeat wit - as compared to McCartneys more positive viewpoint - so this is indeed the appropriate place to put the correct line.LessHeard vanU 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Right - I get it now (Doh!) I thought the comments were about the song, and not the humour in it. Good - that´s settled.

So..... who´s going to put it in the Humour section? (Imagine the sound of fingers drumming on the desk... :) andreasegde 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Oh; I thought I´d say that the lyrics he sang are (maybe on purpose) not good grammar. Maybe that´s why it is being disputed. McCartney sang, "Me used to be angry young man", so maybe (POV) Lennon used the same style. It should be, "It couldn´t get any worse", which is a mouthful, even if you´ve got a full set of teeth. Only a thought... andreasegde 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics, like any verse/poetry, need not conform to the standards of prose. It is a little trick used by rhymers thoughout the ages.(grin).LessHeard vanU 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that. Will it be put into the Humour section? andreasegde 02:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the "Getting Better" bit to the humour section. It was a great example of his humour, after all.. I think we should work on Lennon´s Role in The Beatles. He always thought that he was the boss, did he not? When Macca "took over", he was mightily miffed. andreasegde 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with this. If you have a read through the transcripts of the Get Back sessions, you'll see that John became more and more aloof towards the rest of the band (and generally disinterested in it) as time went on. Paul, rather reluctantly, had to take over as "leader" in an effort to keep the band together (and keep them productive). Paul bruised some egos (and had his bruised in return), but he didn't have a lot of choice given how John (and to a lesser extent, George and Ringo) were acting at the time. Bands don't function very well as a democracy, and if it weren't for Paul's actions, we wouldn't have Let It Be or Abbey Road. And the rest they say, is history....:) Martin 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wise words--Crestville 22:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Role in the Beatles

Aside from the misspellings and the fact that there are no references, just a few points.

1) The article says Lennon was resentful that Paul's songs made more money. Now, early on Lennon's songs made more money, so this sentence shouldn't make it sound like Paul was always their best seller or that he was their main song writer. Lennon also became less interested in the band as time went on, if I understand correctly. Also, when did John ever say it was "his" band?

2) In regards to the last paragraph. This paragraph seems to imply that Lennon felt he was the leader of the band, hence he felt he should have been the one to break up the band. I think it is known that Lennon was angry that he wasn't the one to break up the band, but this doesn't necessarily prove that he felt he was the leader. I've read that the Beatles felt there was no leader, and John never claimed to be the leader.

John left the band once, if I remember correctly, not "two or three times." I believe George left once, and Ringo left once, as well.

Also, the last sentence says that Paul breaking up the band was John's "main grievance." I think John, Paul and George had been quarreling for years, which is the reason the band broke up to begin with, so I think John was already rather annoyed with Paul, Paul leaving added to Lennon's anger.

3) This whole section makes it sound like John was jealous of Paul. Maybe he was, but I think at different times and for different reasons they were both jealous of each other to one degree or another. -unsigned, July 2, 2006

Looking at the section I do agree that it appears a little POV, but I would comment about your first point. The article suggests that Lennon resented Macca's songs selling more - but doesn't mention money. As the songwriting credits were split equally no matter who composed most or all of a song, then both Lennon and McCartney received equal amounts for each composition. It may be that Lennon was unhappy that McCartney's songs appeared more popular, but as mentioned there is no source given for this statement. Lennon was most certainly the dominant figure in the early group, but the dynamics changed during the bands lifetime. I feel that this section could do with a rewrite, with appropriate citations.LessHeard vanU 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am to blame, as I put it in. I shall watch Anthology (again) and check the books. I wrote it very quickly, but I thought it was more pertinent than what was there before.

Their arguments were rife, even though they presented the mop-tops image to the public, and Lennon was the only one who broke the rule that if one of The Beatles didn´t agree, then it wouldn´t happen.

One last point, though... If it is right that he only left once, then why not change it? I don´t mind. We´re all editors. Yeah, guys, hit those keys...! andreasegde 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Just put this quote from Paul in: "Yeah, I definitely did look up to John. We all looked up to John. He was older and he was very much the leader; he was the quickest wit and the smartest and all that kind of thing." andreasegde 14:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Society

It's a sign of a decrepid, anti-classical, modernist society that a man such as John Lennon (who in my opinion was killed justifiably), has such as huge article but Belisarius, one of the greatest generals ever, does not.

Screw all Modernism, screw all Post-Modernism, screw all Modern Music - May Classical Music live for 10 centuries more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.148 (talk • contribs)

So? Write more on the Belisarius article, and cut the violent rhetoric. - Tapir Terrific 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Lennon was a modernist,
he liked his modern art,
but at the very end of it,
he got it through the heart.
No one cares how Belisarus died,
No one cares about his life,
His work is largly forgotten,
His Mother was also his wife

(a bit childish, but we are all entitled to love what we love. You love Roman history, and good for you. We love Lennon and good for us. Few are ever really killed justifiably. Stop being a four letter word. Love you--Crestville 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

My, my.. what a rash young man 86.138.0.148 is. How unfortunate that a person who loves classical music should be so angry and frustrated. It always has a calming effect on me. Tea, a slice of cake and a touch of Vivaldi, anyone? andreasegde 17:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very clever to be able to create the effect of, say, a season using just musical instruments, but it is much more entertaining and effective to connect with people using words. And I tried listening to classiscal music on pills. It was shit. I find In My Life by Lennon far more effective than any peice of classical music. Except maybe for The Liberty Bell, because it means Monty Python's Flying Circus is starting! May Monty Python live for 10 more centuries!
I think Lennon's murder was somewhat justified, he promoted modernism in all it's forms, I find modernism sickening, I find post-modernism sickening, Chapman is not a hero, but he liquidated a key proponent of anti-classicism. Hockney will be next hopefully.
I think someone got the wrong page... andreasegde 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
More to the point I think someone is a prat who believes people should be murdered just for promoting a scene, fashion of theory he finds distasteful. To be honest, I find that much more sickening than modernism, post modernism, or simply being stuck in the past and thinking classical music is somehow aloof of modern music just because its older. I hope you one day come to understand the true gravitas of your stale, pathetic, cowardly opinion. Being a Bradford boy I somehow doubt David Hockney has anything to worry about. May he continue to paint and wear shit glasses for another 10 centuries--Crestville 09:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

George Toogood Smith up for deletion

Just to let everyone know, the article on George Smith, John Lennon's uncle, who raised him as a son, is up for deletion. While I in no way wish for non-notable people to be given articles purely on the basis that they are related to someone famous, Smith was like a father to Lennon and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles mythology (if that's the right word). He features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, which highlights close connotations to the fact that he is mainly famous for his relationship to Lennon. Other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon. I just thought I'd give anyone interested the oppertuninty to voice their opinions here: [[1]]. Ta very much.--Crestville 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dirty Mac

I object to the band "The Dirty Mac" being listed in John's "Associated Acts" section. The Dirty Mac was a one-off band which only ever performed two songs. I deleted it from the page and it was hastily restored, so I thought I would let everybody debate the issue and decide as a consensus. I had a similar discussion on Keith Richards' talk page (please check it out) and it was decided The Dirty Mac did not warrant a mention on his page. Thoughts? Wwwhhh 13:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be in the trivia section? andreasegde 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are an act (albeit a short-lived one) associated with John lennon. I can see no reason to remove it from the page.--Crestville 16:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean it should be included under the acts? cuz if so nobody has put it. wat crestville said is right, it technically is an act so i will add it in. if anybody objects to that please explain your reasoning.-- P. 7:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of John Lennon

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of John Lennon's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of John Lennon. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to John Lennon's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of John Lennon. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It´s not about "The life of John Lennon", it´s about the "after the death of" John. He left everything to Yoko. Anybody interested in that?... andreasegde 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little perturbed that, once "Wikipedia" said that they prefer they not create links themselves, they are advertising the availability of the service in the article. I suppose if anyone is interested then they could take a look and see if there is anything of note - and post a link if there is. If it isn't then a quick synopsis and an acknowledgement of where the info was found would suffice.LessHeard vanU 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the link again, because it was added by an anonymous IP adding multiple links to the site. That's not acceptable, although adding the link by consensus would be. Wmahan. 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits and contributions

I have taken out a lot of stuff that was about "Taller than Jesus", which should be in MAD magazine and not here. The humour section was getting to be purely quotes, so I snipped that as well. (Quick, nurse, the screens...) andreasegde 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

His ashes

That "some" (who?) believe Lennon's ashes are scattered in Central Park, is - with all respect to the contributor - a rumour, not a fact. It is even a rumour on the top of a rumour. Unverifiable. See wikipedia's rules on weasel words. Thank you. 84.189.118.101.

“An unavoidable consequence of cremation is that a tiny residue of bodily remains is left in the chamber after cremation and mixes with subsequent cremations.” (See Cremation). Which means that other recently deceased residents of New York were also mixed in with John´s ashes, and he with others that were cremated after him. Sad, but true. andreasegde 16:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Auto peer review suggestions

John Lennon

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, yesterday might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[3]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[4]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[6]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon Day

Okay dudes, we HAVE to put this thing in here. I mean if it's going to be an international holiday, like Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we HAVE to put this in here, you guys got three days to do it, or I'll put it in here myself. -The Bird

Looking at your talk page, you have a history of vandalism, plus the John Lennon Day page has been deleted, so please don't put it in yourself. Cordless Larry 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Bird, please look at The Beatles discussion page about your idea. andreasegde 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of shots fired?

After linking through to a number of the pages related to Lennon's murder, I'm left puzzled why all the references to the event refer to 5 shots but the Lennon article refers to 4 shots. Is it that one shot missed? That seems the only consistent explanation, but since it's not spelled out on either this page or the linked pages it leaves someone naive as myself confused. Could someone with a citation clarify this apparent discrepancy in this (and, say, the Chapman) article?

"Murder" vs." Assasination"

In case no one noticed, I changed the "assasination" headline to "murder," as it is very innacurate to say his killing was an "assasination," which would denote the murder of a sort of political leader, for political reasons. Celebrities really do not fall into this category, and the killings of celebrities by psycho-obsessed fans most definitely do not. Lennon is just another "murder victim."

Right on. --andreasegde 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering Lennon's career as a political dissident and the fact that so many people thought of him as, not exactly a leader, but as embodying and speaking their views on the war, the CIA, illegal wiretapping, the shutting-down of opposition radio stations, etc., I think "assassination" is appropriate, but perhaps this should be polled. (I have seen John Lennon For President buttons, but I'm not counting things like that.) --Bluejay Young 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Chapman has been fairly clear as regards his motives, and there is no indication of any (quasi)political involvement with either Lennon or Chapman prior to the murder. Lennon's radicalism had long been submerged into domesticity in later years. In any case, a vote would not be the way to proceed - we can only write about what is known, not on what people think may have happened.LessHeard vanU 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true. (Plus I did read about the controversy over defining Lennon's murder in the assassination article.) I did hear "assassination" on radio and it was termed that by Rolling Stone and so on. The police were quoted (repeated on nearly every news report that night) as saying they were "handling the case carefully, adding that it was as important as if an American president had been assassinated". (None too carefully, given that the suspect's exact name, home address, occupation and other details were repeated verbatim on WABC that night and the next day!)
However, "assassination" is defined as "the deliberate killing of an important person", usually (i.e., not always) for an ideological or political agenda. Chapman is on record as saying he actually did have an ideological reason; he believed Lennon in his extremely lavish, moneyed lifestyle. had sold out to the very establishment he had formerly criticized. I still see it as ambiguous, subjective, and a matter of personal choice whether to say assassination or not. If consistency in the article is required it should say murder and have a link to the part of the assassination article that discusses whether or not it was. Personally I think there are a lot of damn unanswered questions about the whole thing, but I want to keep my conspiracy theories off of wikipedia. --Bluejay Young 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Assassination, in both the classical as well as modern world, is primarily a political act - it removes a person from power (which means the target is an important person) and even when on idealogical grounds the result is a change in the balance of power. Lennon had no political power or agenda, and his death affected no change in any in any spheres other than entertainment, popular sentiment and (most painfully) family and friends. Chapman may claim reasons of more import, but that is indicative of the sickness of the man and is not reliable of itself. Perhaps the best motive for Chapman in murdering Lennon is as in the case of Bob Ford, whose name is forever linked with his victim - and nothing else.LessHeard vanU 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) ps. I note that the Ford article says he "assassinated" JJ...!
Lennon had no political power? Please... What is the discrepency here? "Assasination" praises him too highly? Lennon was objectively a very important person, and whether or not the killing was politically motivated, it most definitely had both political and cultural effects. Lennon was and is an icon, more important to many people than *any* president (and not just out of fandom, but impact on their lives) and there are even some (myself included) who feel he did more net good than any president we've had post-Kennedy. This is quibbling and semantics, and it's churlish, pointless quibbling at that. I'm not changing it, but I'd just like to note I think the arguments here are highly flawed. Unsigned note posted by IP address 67.181.180.9 at 00:38, 5 January 2007


We've been back and forth on this point a lot, but "Murder" has stood as the heading for a while and seems right, so I reverted it. If there are arguments in favor of changing it, they should be discussed here, rather than just changing it again. Another way to go is to have the heading just be "Death" . The text of the section is what counts, anyway, and it is quite explicit that Lennon was murdered, and not randomly so. "Assassination" is a more loaded, perhaps POV term. Tvoz 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mark David Chapman's article says he assassinated Lennon. Shouldn't the two articles agree on the terminology, whichever way we decide to go on it? 69.210.61.19 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. Tvoz | talk 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Chapman's interpretation of events shouldn't be relied on. Murderers often attempt to rationalise their act. LessHeard vanU 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Right. I changed the Chapman article back to "murdered" when 69.210.61.19 pointed it out above. Tvoz | talk 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The rich jew fag comment isnt necesary

leave it out

If it's true it's necessary. This is discussed in detail above under the "Lennon's Humour" section. It shows how his insecurities led him to make cutting jokes about the people he loved. Pretty necessary as a window into his thought processes if you ask me.--Crestville 11:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not true, and one book claiming that it is doesn't prove anything; there are many others who claim to debunk this. I removed this, but wouldn't object to something along the lines that there were "claims" he or Paul sang it, but it's far from conclusive and probably belongs in the Brian Epstein or Beatles article, not here.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion"... WHATTA JOKE!!!!!

I cannot believe someone actually recommended this article for "speedy deletion". ON WHAT GROUNDS?! I see no explanation here, much less in the realms of common sense, for such an action. Lennon had a life before the Beatles, and a career after them: "My name's not John Beatle, it's John Lennon."

The person who made this deletion suggestion is either seriously underinformed, or merely out to cause trouble; a glance at his contributions page shows at least a couple ridiculous adds to other pages, so I suspect the latter is the case. Zephyrad 01:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are right, Zephyrad. I think vandals have learned how to circumvent their normal practice of attacking a page by using the Trojan Horse method of appearing to look like an admin, i.e., by looking as if they have some control. The Beatles trivia has also recently gained a deletion tag. --andreasegde 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24" removing:Entertainers who died in their 40s"

What is this? Do I understand that there has been a deletion for the category "Entertainers etc."? I don't see the point, but it appears to be a bot, so I suppose the decision has been made elsewhere. Or is it more vandalism (just not Lennon orientated, this time)?LessHeard vanU 18:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes , the misunderstangin has been cleared somewhere else. Just to point for casual readers, that the decisssion has been made precisely at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24 -- Drini 20:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I totally withdraw the inference of vandalism. My bad.LessHeard vanU 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

remove wikify tag?

I did some editing of the intro and Youth sections of this article to tighten up the writing a bit, and I added wiki tags and sub-sections to "Youth". Don't know exactly what the poster of the "wikify" tag was looking for, so I didn't remove it yet - perhaps someone can illuminate this? Tvoz 07:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag was removed by another editor later. If you are unsure whether your edits justify removing a tag, I suggest contacting the editor who placed it in the first place - ask them to check it over and suggest any improvements. However, I would recommend that you be bold and remove any such tag after you have done the work - if another editor feels the section/article is still not up to scratch then they can retag it.LessHeard vanU 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
good thought, thanks - I'll go for boldTvoz 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lennon's Humour

OK, from the section, "Lennon's Humour", this was the last thing posted:


Even Paul McCartney realised that The Beatles had a strange sense of humour (which was fuelled by Lennon) as he once said:

"The chauffeur's window was closed, and there were just the four of us in the back of that car, laughing hysterically. We knew what we were laughing at; nobody else can ever know what it was about... I doubt if even we know, in truth."

Alright, no offense or anything, but whoever put this there was an idiot. A cursory reading of the part of the interview from which this is taken shows that he's not making a reference to anything humor-related at all. He's talking about the Beatles' career in general, that only the four Beatles understand what it was like to be Beatles. He's not referencing some actual incident inside a car. I thought this needed removal.

John Winston Ono Lennon

He was born "John Winston Lennon", went by "John Lennon" until he married Yoko, at which time he changed "Winston" to "Ono", as is stated in the article. It is completely proper for the title of the article to be "John Lennon", as the name he was most known as. The first bold reference to the name, I think, should be the name he himself last used, and that would be "John Ono Lennon", followed by a notation that his birth name was "John Winston Lennon", as it now reads. I do not believe he was ever known as "John Winston Ono Lennon" and do not agree with changing the first reference back to Winston as that is covered by the birthname notation. Hence my revert. Tvoz 21:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see the notation that British law didn't allow the middle name to be changed from Winston to Ono, and technically you may be correct that his legal name became JWOL. I'm not aware of his ever being known as that, though, and he seemed to use John Ono Lennon as his name, as I recall. I don't think this is a big deal either way, just trying to have the article fit with the usual Wiki construction. Does anyone else have a thought on this? Tvoz 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to throw in that, if British law states that his name could not be legally changed, and John Lennon was world-known as J.L., and that Lennon went by J.O.L. purposefully (and might have even gone to extremes to make it so in everyday situations - outside of marketing maybe), and that this article is about a UK individual, then it should start out as John Lennon...born John Winston Lennon...."although" preferring John Ono Lennon ~once he married Yoko Ono. Or something like it. (I know, this is what it's all about; What is that something?!) How about foregoing all of that, just start out John Winston Lennon, and later on mention his addition of Ono? There are a myriad of articles that start out with the birth name, or just aliases, and any name differences would be down below (or in the opening). I never knew about JWOL until a few months ago when I noticed it coming up again and again in the rv's. Anyone really interested in the article as research, would read the whole thing, and it just doesn't seem like it's something 'that' important. Yes, it was to Lennon, but his thoughts about peace are more relevant than his 'middle' name. Jimcripps 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Changing your name in Britain (or the US) is no big deal; as a general rule using your new name without attempt to defraud is enough to establish its legality (See Name change). If a public figure asserts that his middle name is Ono rather than Winston upon his marriage, that should carry legal weight by itself, regardless of whether he undertook other steps such as a deed poll. Unless someone can present serious evidence that casts doubt upon the "legality" of Lennon's name change (and in a published source, not as original research), it should remain "John Ono Lennon" from 1969, and "John Winston Lennon" before that. Under no circumstances was he ever "John Winston Ono Lennon".  ProhibitOnions  (T) 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Re: "combat stance"

I'm puzzled as to why User:S0uj1r0 deleted the reference to Chapman dropping into a "combat stance" before he fired the gun. I don't believe there is a factual argument on this, it was widely reported and hasn't been disputed, to my knowledge. And it is evidence of a sort, that Chapman had "practiced" the shooting & that he approached it with deadly intent, not "casually", as it were. Have I missed something? Cgingold 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I was going to reinstate it but you beat me to it (and improved the writing too). Tvoz 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The "combat stance" phrase detracts from the flow of the sentence, and is further uncited. If it's widely reported, it still needs a citation, but I don't think it adds anything to the statement. Why does it matter how Chapman was supposedly standing when he fired? A phrase like "combat stance" just reeks of unecessary television magazine news sensationalism. --S0uj1r0 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This on the subject from Time magazine:

A pudgy Georgia-born ex-security guard from Hawaii named Mark David Chapman fired his shots at Lennon from what the police call "combat stance": in a stiff crouch, one hand wrapped around the butt of his newly purchased revolver, the other around his wrist to steady it.

From what I read in this article, the police weren't on hand to see this supposed "combat stance", so it was merely labelled such in retrospect by the media. I suppose this would constitute a notable enough source to use the quote, but as I mentioned above, I don't think it works well in the sentence, and it just has the grimy feel of yellow journalism to it. --S0uj1r0 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I took great pains to rewrite those lines in such a way that the narrative proceeded clearly & cogently. I don't think the phrase detracts from the flow of the sentence in the least — perhaps you're less comfortable than some people with m-dashes? (Some writers love 'em, some writers avoid them.)
As to the need for a citation... if you really feel that's necessary, why not just go ahead and supply the details for the Time mag quote you found? (I'd appreciate that, since it would save me the trouble of repeating the work you've already done.) Like I said, it was widely reported in the immediate aftermath (don't know how old you might be, but those eyewitness accounts are still vivid memories for me).
I appreciate your concern for avoiding "yellow journalism", however in this case, it's not an exaggeration, but rather a factual description which tells us something about how Chapman approached his "task". The whole point of using a "combat stance" is to ensure that you will hit your target, because it enhances your stability and improves your aim. In sum, it's not merely a negligible detail.
Hope I've resolved your concerns... Cgingold 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


I think CGingold is right - I also recall it being widely reported at the time — and actually there were eyewitnesses who may have given this detail, so you can't assume it was made up by journalists — and it does characterize the nature of the shooting as a planned event. The Time citation would be a good idea, and the sentence could be slightly amended to say Chapman "reportedly" dropped into a combat stance. (BTW, I like emdashes too, although I think they work best to offset an otherwise parenthetical phrase... but that's a conversation for another place.) Tvoz 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added a direct quote from the NYPD Chief of Detectives in The New York Times article of Dec 10, 1980 saying that Chapman tood a combat stance (the article also confirms other eyewitness reports). Can we leave this alone now? I never wanted to re-read that article, having lived through it, and I won't again - someone else can if they want to. Tvoz 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

John Sinclair details

Comparing the material in this article with the John Sinclair (poet) article, I noticed several minor discrepancies, which we should endeavor to resolve for the sake of consistency.

1) This article states that Sinclair sold two joints to the narc; the "Sinclair" article can't even agree with itself :) -- one paragraph says he sold them, another paragraph says he gave them.

2) This article states that Sinclair was released from prison two days after the concert; the "Sinclair" article says he was released three days later.

3) This article gives the crowd size as "20,000"; the "Sinclair" article used the figure "15,000" (which I changed to read "15-20,000").

Crowd estimates are notoriously unreliable, of course -- but I still think WP articles should agree with one another whenever possible. Cgingold 15:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

good points - I'll take a look. Tvoz 19:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

We have several quotes in the article that are unreferenced - that is not acceptable style, so it would be very helpful if people could track them down and add citations. A couple are regarding Cynthia and Julian - perhaps they're from her book 'John', so if anyone has that book could you check? Citations are always good to add - but they are essential if you're including material in quotes. Tvoz 00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Instruments

i'm wondering if under his instruments it should also include bass, because it is his bass playing recorded on the songs let it be and the long and winding road. what do you think?

No I saw Let it be John never played bass it was always Paul. Even when Paul played guitar there was no bass guitar on the track Sorry I retract the above statements, I was wrong I thought it was a a Stratcaster but it was a Fender VI

Its clear from the film, and recording of "Let it Be" (the song) that John is playing bass, the band kept a right handed bass in the studio so that if Paul was playing keyboard for guide tracks and so on then George or John would play the bass. Usually, for the final recordings Paul would play the bass. For the Let It Be project where they tried to avoid using overdubs (George Martin has said the original plan was to perform the entire album as a live concert) John played bass on some tracks. On the Let It Be recording you can hear John makes a slight error on the bass and Paul has a laugh in his voice as a result. Apepper 08:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should look for better sourcing before adding other instruments; there is a huge amount written about Lennon, and surely there is a reliable source for who played what instrument when. Seeing Let it Be is not enough. Tvoz 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's well attested that John played bass on several songs. The Sulpy/Schweighardt Get Back / DDSI book relates his bass playing on the Let It Be sessions. Raymond Arritt 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now doesn't the article for 'Back in the U.S.S.R.' say that John and George had a drum track for a demo or something which made John make that comment about Ringo "Oh he's not even the best drummer in the Beatles" but I know Paul played drums on the first few tracks on the 'White' Album and in Let it Be during like a break after the rehearse 'Besame Mucho' doesn't John sit and play drums for awhile?

Source for Beatles instrumental credits can be found in Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head ISBN 0-8050-2780-7 - Lennon plays a second bass on 'Helter Skelter' (possibly he was the bassist on the initial run-through with Paul overdubbing his bass later); Lennon is the bass player on 'Back in the USSR,' 'Let It Be' and 'The Long and Winding Road.' By the way, Harrison plays bass on 'Birthday,' 'Honey Pie,' 'Golden Slumbers' and 'Carry That Weight;' McCartney drums on 'Back in the USSR,' 'Dear Prudence,' 'Martha My Dear' and 'The Ballad of John and Yoko.' Lennon was probably in a mood with his snide remark regarding Ringo not being the best drummer in the Beatles; Ringo's drumming skills have always been devalued by the uninformed and Lennon knew full well the extent of Starr's abilities. A quick listen to 'Rain' or 'She Said She Said' will confirm this.PJtP 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lennon's bass playing on "The Long and Winding Road" is infamous, to the point where some have accused it of deliberate song sabotage. In fact, when "Let It Be Naked" came out, it was put to Ringo Starr what he thought about it and he said while it wasn't the greatest, it was still better than most people. 4.232.210.233 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it not worth mentioning, in this article, what models of instruments John Lennon used? I Do believe he used Rickenbacker 325 and Epiphone Casino guitars and a Fender VI bass while he was in the Beatles but during his solo carrier i do not know what models he used.

request protection for later this week?

There has been an increase in vandalism on this article in the last few days - notably last night's photo vandal and today's blanking idiot - I'm guessing that this will increase even more with the anniversary of Lennon's death coming up. So I am wondering if we should request that the page be edit-protected in some way for maybe Dec 7 through the weekend? Does anyone share my concerns? A lot of time is being spent reverting the destructive work of a few, some of whom - but not all - are IP addresses. Tvoz 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a thought, and I agree that it should be done for anons and perhaps new accts. Jimcripps 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, both IPs and new, I agree. Do you know how to get it done? I haven't looked yet. (Unless others disagree?) Tvoz 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's where you go: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cgingold 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made the request for semi-protection from IP and new users to be at least through the weekend. Personally, I'd make it permanent. Tvoz 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And, it's done. I hope this will allow some breathing room here. And that they don't start going after the images like the guy a couple of days ago - will keep an eye on that. Tvoz 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job pushing/nudging it through! Jimcripps 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I hope it works. Tvoz 04:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My minor comment about Lennon's last major interview not being the Playboy one, but was with Andy Peebles of the BBC the day before he was shot was removed, as I can no longer modify the article perhaps someone could change it to read "one of the last major interviews". Apepper 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's now January 4th, and the page is still locked. There's a glaring typographical error near the top of the page. "Roling Stone magazine"?67.181.180.9 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo corrected. Tvoz | talk 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd sentence

"He and fellow-Beatle Paul McCartney formed the massively successful Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership throughout the 1960s". This tells us that Lennon and McCartney went through ten years of trying to form a partnership. I don't think they had to try that hard or for that long. How about: "He and fellow-Beatle Paul McCartney formed the massively successful Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership that lasted throughout the 1960s"? Rikstar 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

hahaha - you have a point! go ahead - or I will Tvoz 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
actually I'd leave off the the 1960s part - in effect the partnership is still intact, represented by the catalog of songs. It's not really needed. Tvoz 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Too subjective?

"Lennon's songwriting was often full of pain and hope. His melodies were at times beautiful and at times dark".

I think this is too subjective, especially as it appears so early in the article. Kind of thing you see in a fan site. It should be in a section which analyzes his music and songwriting skills and there should be a reference to a critic who has made such comments, or to the opinion of his admirers. Or it could be removed completely...

Btw, the words "to record" are unnecessary in this section; Lennon and McCartney didn't write songs for the Beatles and others to do anything other than record them. Rikstar 11:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think referencing the characterizations of Lennon and McCartney's writing styles is a good idea - I've added one which specifically talks about "edge" (L) and "optimism" (McC) - and am looking for others. Help appreciated. But removing this altogether seemd too extreme to me. As for Lennon-McC songwriting team being "massively successful" , I'm getting a ref for that too, as it clearly is a true statement. I don't want the article to be POV, but I think this part is descriptive, not biased. Tvoz 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

wikilinks

I think way too many wikilinks have been added - do we really need a link on "parental", or "wife" for example? It makes the article harder to read, is distracting, and really not illuminating of anything when so many words are linked. I'm going in and reducing it - happy to discuss this here, however. Tvoz 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking further at this: when links are added it's not enough to see if the word turns blue - you have to look at the link and make sure it is appropriate- so for example, linking iconic to icon brings you to a page about religious icons, having nothing to do with what is meant regarding Lennon. I'm reverting the whole lot that were just added - I don't have the time to go one by one. If someone wants to, be my guest. Sorry, but this is verging on vandalism, although it may be well-intentioned. Tvoz 10:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully reverted all of the internal links added, none of them were of any use whatsoever, and it's not general practise to go around linking every second or third word in and article ;-)
I think I had already done that, but that's ok. Tvoz 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus, if it was well-intentioned, it's not vandalism. See WP:AFG. ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
which is why I said "verging on vandalism" - I don't know if it was well-intentioned or not, but I thought I'd give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. But I did revert 'em all, so I'm not sure what anonymous above did after me, but it all seems ok. Tvoz 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There were a few more wikilinks you missed. Anyway, it's quite funny how someone went through all the trouble of wikilinking all those things :S ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Lost Weekend

It never really explains how the Lost Weekend came to an end, and how and when John Lennon and Yoko Ono reconciled. [posted by 24.225.245.10 at 02:16, 12 December 2006 - moved to bottom of page]

I think this is a good point - it says that Lennon returned to Ono after Palm Beach (Palm Springs?) but doesn't really explain what happened, if known. Maybe someone has a biography and can post something more - preferably with some citations? Tvoz 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

All the biographies I have read on the Beatles & John state he was baptized & brought up Roman Catholic, not Anglican as stated in this article? I thought I would check what other people have to say before changing it(Khanada 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

I have had a hard time finding that out as well, but I did find two references that I put in. My own opinion is that Quarry Bank was a Protestant grammar school, and the Institute was Catholic - such was the deep division in those days. --andreasegde 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know in John's last interview before the shooting he talks about the Clvinist and Anglican churches

Early years

I have added some stuff about his early years. Although it may look as if there are too many citations, they are all needed. --andreasegde 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put this in because I thought it was too detailed, but Taffy Williams wasn't interested in Julia because she wouldn't give up John. Freddie and his brother cornered Taffy in a bar around Xmas 1944 (to find out if the rape story was true or not) and Taffy admitted he had been having an affair with Julia for the last six months, so the kid (Victoria) was his. Victoria was given up for adoption to a Norwegian captain, and was taken to Scandanavia. She is now called Ingrid, and wants nothing to do with the Lennons. Lennon was never told about her. --andreasegde 12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia

Can someone explain why the Cynthia Lennon references to Paul McCartney joking with her about "How about you and me, Cyn?" and the postcard to Cynthia from McCartney is included in this? If anything that- belongs on a Cynthia Lennon page, not the John Lennon page- isn't there enough info on him to included without having to go on some tangent about Cynthia Lennon and episodes from her life? I think that should be gotten rid of-

Yeah, I agree. Tvoz 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It could be shorter, but it details how much The Beatles were "living in a box" (McCartney). It was an intense time, when every one of them felt obliged to the others, and to their respective wives. Cynthia's comment throws light on their friendships/relationships. Don't forget that Harrison's wife (Patti) left him for Eric Clapton (who had also worked with The Beatles/Harrison) --andreasegde 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Turn on, tune in, drop out

FYI: The reason that link keeps getting deleted is because according to the MoS, headings aren't really supposed to have wikilinks. This isn't listed on the main MoS page, but it IS on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Btw, I sympathize - so I'm leaving it there for now. :) Maybe you can come up with a way to insert the phrase into the text and wikilink that. Cgingold 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - at least I see where the changers are coming from. I just think it is a nice succinct way of making the linkage without going into details at that point. I'll see if I can get it in the text, but I feel comfortable with "aren't really supposed to" sounding like another choice can be acceptable. (But I do realize if we leave it another bot or rules-hound will change it again, ad infinitum.) Tvoz 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I know when I'm whupped. Out of the section head and into the text, where it works just fine. But I liked it in the header. Ogh well, I am no match for a Bot. Thanks for the sympathy anyway! Tvoz 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits & level of detail

I'm sorry if my edits look like they have been saved without previewing the things I have edited (and I do - honest) but I tend to work on lots of small details, and then save them straight away. It stops the problem of there being an 'Edit conflict', which is a pain for both editors involved. Most editors work on one small detail, and then save it, but I work on one paragraph for an hour or two (yes, I know that's boring, but I enjoy it). I suppose I could do everything on 'Winword' (which I have often thought about doing) and then copy it across, but I often get the "Edit conflict" problem. I am caught between a rock and a hard place...  :) --andreasegde 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I was anticipating a reply via email, but if you're comfortable discussing this here, it's fine with me. I hope you don't mind that I've changed the heading on this.
After reading your comments, I'm not entirely sure, but I think I understand how it is that my suggestions re use of the "preview button", etc. might not entirely resolve the issues I mentioned in my note. I suppose it wouldn't really matter that you edit in that particular way — except, the result is that it renders the Edit History nearly useless.
After giving this all some serious thought, it looks to me like it's rooted in the level of detail that you're introducing to the text. And after reading over the results of all the work you've put in, I am wondering if perhaps the cummulative amount of detail is a bit more than the article can handle. I'm still assessing that in my own mind, and given that it's a "work in progress", it's more of a tentative conclusion — but I thought it would be better to raise this issue now, before you've expended prodigious amounts of time & effort.
I would really like to know what other people think about this issue — I mean, the level of detail that's right for a given article is a major question that no single person can adequately answer. I should add that the level of detail is not beyond my personal interest in the subject — but I am concerned that it may go beyond the level that's appropriate for the article. So I would like to throw this open for discussion.
Cgingold 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try and cut down on the edits.
  • Level of detail: Look at the Paul McCartney article, and you'll see that some things are very detailed, and some are not. (It's below 10,000 words BTW). I think that so much has been written about Lennon and his "pain", but after reading about the Blackpool incident and the other details, it's easier to understand. It's better than the usual story, which is, "Julia had John, Freddie left the family, John lived with Mimi, and Julia was killed by an off-duty policeman". Don't forget, at the moment it's 'B' article. --andreasegde 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Content forking can always be used for stuff that warrants further discussion, but not in the main Lennon article. LuciferMorgan 15:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments on this. Thanks to User:Cgingold for opening the discussion here.

  • First, thank you, User:Andreasegde, for providing such rich detail to this article. It takes a moment, perhaps, for editors (including me) who are used to the original to switch gears and adjust to the differences, but I took a small break from reading it and just came back and read the whole article again and I think it has benefited enormously from these additions. Andreasegde is right, I think, that this now provides context for the sketchy reference to Lennon's pain that we had previously. The article gave only the barest skeleton of his story, and I think it now makes much more sense. Other sections could stand to be more detailed as well. So thank you Andreasegde - I for one hope you and others continue to add relevant details and help improve the flow and sense of the article.
  • Secondly, I think User:LuciferMorgan is right, that at some point some material can be forked off to subsidiary articles for more detail, but I don't think that the early life stuff as it is now warrants forking - these details really do explain the kind of disjointed, painful childhood that he had, and puts a lot into perspective. For example, I had long been bothered by the extremely cryptic "Due to a lack of home space and concerns expressed about her relationship with a male friend, John's mother handed over his care to her sister" in the earlier versions but with the added detail this whole episode makes sense. Moving it to Julia's article would not allow the reader of John's article to quickly get a handle on how difficult his childhood must have been. And clearly this is a fundamental reason for the pain John's lyrics reveal, and perhaps also for the choices he made as a father. If you read the text without slogging through the edit screen with all of the refs in place, you see that the early life section is still short. Great references, by the way - the article was sorely in need of them.
  • And thirdly, a practical suggestion to editors who want to track the changes and are feeling overwhelmed - yes, it's a little difficult when there are so many multiple edits, but I can see why Andreasegde and others do it that way, and I realized that there is an easy way to track them: rather than going one by one, all you need to do is click on history, click on the buttons next to the last edit you read and the most recent one posted, or the earliest by a specific editor and his or her latest, or any in the range of edits, and then click on "compare selected versions" you'll see how the text changed from older to newer. You can then just determine if you agree with the changes or not, and proceed accordingly. You really do not need to track each one page by page to see how an editor got from point A to point Z.

Hope this helps the discussion - I may be back with more if I missed anything. I truly believe this article has been enormously improved, and that we should encourage more of such collaboration. There is still a lot of work to be done here, and having new blood and new eyes in here is all for the best. Tvoz 19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Julia

I know it's damming evidence against Julia, but that is what happened. She used to put make-up on before she went to bed, so she would wake up, "Looking pretty". (Spitz) She was once seen cleaning the house "with a pair of knickers on her head." The truth is stranger than fiction... --andreasegde 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

what a gal Tvoz
Lol, you're totally right :) It seems that Freddie was a "screw-up" (Spitz/Miles) but she was always the fun-lover. This leads to the whole 'Lennon's humour' side of things... --andreasegde 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mick Jagger and The Record Plant

I was looking through some of Bob Gruen's photos and I was thinking whether something should be said about the Record Plant or maybe an article about it. Also that something should be mentioned about Mick Jagger's visit in 1972. And that there should be about a section in the article about his friends (Elton John, Bob Dylan, Jesse Ed. Davis, Harry Nilsson, Klaus Voormann, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, Bob Gruen, Eric Clapton, etc.)Let me know what you think my AIM is peterkeith99 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

yes - I would say that all of this seems relevant and valuable - not so much a list of his friends, but rather anything (with citations) that would add to the portrait of Lennon as a full human being (not just a Beatle, etc.) with parents, friends, wives, children, and a life. If you have material and can write something up on any of this, please do and post. We can always move text around if it's felt that it needs to be better integrated. That's the easy part (for me, anyway) - getting cited facts in some coherent form is the harder part. Tvoz 19:50, 17 December 2006

yeah got some sites and stuff and it was an interesting photo. I'll come up with a couple aof citations and stuff in the next couple of days.

Freddie, again

It's not so important for the article, but Freddie offered Julia the chance to go with him and John to New Zealand (whilst she was standing there with Dykins in Blackpool) which she refused. He had also taken John to live at his brother's house whilst Julia was going through the last stages of her pregnancy (and birth) with 'Victoria'. I was shocked when I read that, because I had always believed that Freddie was the ar*ehole. He might have been a screw-up but his heart was in the right place. He loved Julia and John. Such is life... --andreasegde 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References

I changed the "Notes and References" because that's how it is in books (am I pedantic, or what? :)) Having 'Notes' before 'References' is a strange Wikipedian thing, because in books they are the other way round. The books by Lennon/contributor should be in a separate section, though. --andreasegde 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Berry

Yeh, I'm finding some good videos of John & Chuck Berry doing 'Memphis Tennesse' and 'Johnny B. Goode'. I was just wondering if that should be in the article. Besides that it's a great performance of two great stars. Hare Krishna —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Walking on thin ice by putting them in. Maybe as an External link, though? --andreasegde 12:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant mentioning the performance, seeing as though he rarely performed from 1966-80.

Mimi and the early years

I know I'm putting a lot in here, but little bits can later be forked off to respective articles (with citations, of course). It's easier for me to work with a flow, and not to keep jumping between pages, because I get confused easily, and it makes my head go all funny... :) --andreasegde 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

When do we stop writing 'John' and start writing 'Lennon'? To do it too early in his life would be confusing (and we have to make him seem young in the minds of readers) but at what age did he become "Lennon"? This is a puzzler... --andreasegde 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't Mimi take Victoria? She was adopted by a Norwegian sea captain, but she chose John. What was she thinking? The mind boggles... --andreasegde 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

George Smith died in 1955 (when he was 15) and Julia died two years later (and both encouraged John to be musical, unlike Mimi). This is a shock. He was losing the people he loved faster than he could think... --andreasegde 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Word count

8,653, so far. We have to be careful about this, as anything over 10,000 will be hacked to pieces by the 'powers that be'. Macca has less than 10,000 but he has lived a lot longer (not meant to be funny, BTW). --Mr Hornby 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I shan't bother to check out Mozart for a word count, but he only lived to 32... I don't think longevity relates to length of article, just what makes the subject noteworthy. Agreed that Macca has continued to produce music and art since 1980 - and was active whilst Lennon was a househusband - but that is what forking stuff into other articles are for. If Lennon is worth the word limit then it should be taken to the very edge - but perhaps there will be less forked off of the main piece than Macca.Airfixed tonite (Mrs) 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

latest round of edits & intro

Overall, I think these again have been excellent edits and additions by User:andreasegde. I tweaked the text in a few places where I thought it could be tightened, and removed some excess words in the process, but I also reinstated a few things in the intro that I think are important and want to raise a couple of others:

  • Although I would have kept some version of "Lennon's songwriting was often full of pain and hope. His melodies were at times beautiful and at times dark. His lyrics reflected his personal and career demands, philosophical outlook, his unease with his fame, and current events.", I understand why it was removed, so I did not reinstate it, but would like to ask how others feel about that. Maybe it could go elsewhere in the article, or perhaps incorporate into Lennon/McCartney, but I do think the thought is worth saving somewhere.
  • I inserted the "anthems of their age" phrase (originally "icons of the age", but thought anthems is better) because these 2 songs stand out far above all of his other solo work - and indeed above most other songs by anyone - as symbols of the time, and therefore it explains why they are (appropriately) singled out in the intro. I was going to look for some references if people think we need them (can't hurt I guess).
  • I think we need to say upfront that Lennon was murdered by a deranged fan because it is important to be clear that he wasn't murdered in some kind of random act or domestic violence or in the course of a street crime or robbery - he was murdered because he was John Lennon (which is why many use the word 'assassination' but let's not open that one up again) and "deranged fan" capsulizes that fact, and I feel strongly that it is needed in the intro.
  • And finally, "He was - and continues to be - mourned throughout the world" I believe also should remain in the intro, again with references if that is felt necessary - because this also speaks to the ways in which Lennon transcended his role as a rock 'n' roll singer and became a much larger figure, around the world. Other superstars have died tragically, but few continue to be as fervently mourned worldwide - so I think again this is vital to the intro of this article.

Needless to say, I'm interested in others' opinions. And again, hats off to andreasegde and the other editors, new and old, who are giving so much to this page. Tvoz 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

References is all - anything that isn't common knowledge (and often when it is) needs citing by a published source. If the (quite beautiful) words about his subject matter and tunesmithing are not quotations then they cannot be used in an FA status article - since they are both POV and original research. Re Chapman, again the sources need be cited - but this is easier as there are a lot of books regarding this individual, some available from libraries. My understanding is that Chapman was a soured ex-fan, who believed Lennon had betrayed some ideals and deserved to die (that is a dilution of several articles/books I've read - but that is only my take on the matter). Of all subjects, this is the one to be careful about!! Lastly, I'm uncertain about mourned - only a few people may be said to still suffer from grief. A greater number of people may be said to still hold him in the highest regard as an artist, songwriter etc. and regret his passing... These are only opinions, of course, to be added to the debate; in the end it is what a third party admin is going to consider that means it fails or passes its FA.LessHeard vanU 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write or post the songwriting words - totally agree that if they were a quote that should have been referenced all along (!). But that's why I didn't reinstate them, even though I'd like to see them here. Maybe whoever posted them can enlighten us to their source. (Not sure they are OR, though you may be right on POV - but they are essentially descriptive, not evaluative, wouldn't you say?) As for Chapman, I think we have sources down below in the murder section to that effect - we can take a look at moving one up, and/or I agree there are many out there if we can't find an appropriate one here. I respectfully disagree about "mourned", but let me see if I can find some supporting citations, ar maybe another word can be used, but I think it may be skewed more toward the "regret his passing" part than the "highest regard" part - seems to me it's the senseless nature of his death at that time in his life that is still most grieved over, but I live in NYC and that could be why I think that. Tvoz 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If it is to be "regret his passing" then it needs to be explained why - which is obviously what he may yet have achieved, but that is difficult to quantify - whereas "highest regard" is both a reference to the man, his achievements and potential. Double Fantasy may have been the high point of his subsequent output or the start of something that would equal/better what went before, but his murder robbed everyone of finding out - but that speculation is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.
ps. Don't worry about "respectfully..."; I sometimes agonise whether I contribute to Wikipedia to help increase the sum of human knowledge or just for the slanging matches - why else join a Project involving Andre Sledge and Peter, Paul and Mary?LessHeard vanU 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FA or GA

This article appears to be receiving the attention of the good folks that did such a great job on Macca. In the considered opinion of all, is this article going to be worked on as a GA candidate or straight for the FA? As the parties mentioned above are just finishing going for FA then they might prefer going for the standard achieved with Sir Paul. Obviously this means more work in the short term, but perhaps less in the long? Dr Winston O'Boogie is much more my cup of spiked tea than Apollo C Vermouth, so you may have the dubious reward of more of my contributions to this...LessHeard vanU 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, in my humble opinion, that it should go for for GA first (but needs some work) as the Macca article was improved after it got its GA, because of eagle-eyed new members that came on board (Ahoy captain! :) and spotted things that tired eyes had not seen. andreasegde 15:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)