Talk:John Lennon/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Remaining to do

Setting aside the sock-puppetry theater, what remains to be done on the article? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

yoko and cynthia. there's some key stuff missing, but i won't make them much longer. i'll do them tomorrow, with citations. then, the remaining citations should just about cover it Hotcop2 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I think this reference should be added to the external links and/or discography section:


http://www.discogs.com/artist/John+Lennon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.224.81 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2008 ( as you might think. I use Winword and copy one onto there, so it's not so confusing.

Having said that, I will now start to format them in the classic Wiki way. It's a boring life, but someone's got to live it. --andreasegde (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The books have to be formatted as well. (Sound of shaking head... :) --andreasegde (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done the books. (I don't want to do that again :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:55, 20 December 20010 (UTC)

I'll do some more citations later. And then you can correct them all ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This can make it easier. Tvoz |talk 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've nearly finished. (Sound of pulling out hair... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The End!

I have fixed all the references, but I am not sure about books being put in without page numbers being added. This could be seen as cheating, and the reference deleted. Now onto references again, and cleaning.

  • The Memorials and Tributes section needs to be drastically reduced, as it has its own page.
  • Solo career and Political activism are the worst sections at the moment, and Yoko's section needs more references.

I'm off to a hostelry, because my better half is going to Spain tomorrow for Xmas (some people have all the luck, but being in Austria isn't half bad...) --andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I have re-named the extra tributes page as The death of John Lennon. A lot of the stuff in this article can go there. Now I'm off... --andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt the MBE be taken from John Lennons name at the start? I thought he returned that in 1969? Or was he posthumously given it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.120.57 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should be in, but it will be put in when the main body of the article has been cleaned and polished, as they are wont to say... It could go in now, if anybody wants to do it. --andreasegde (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

This has bothered me for a while - what is the point of having the LSD-infused blotter paper image on this page? All of the other images are directly related to Lennon - I know, obviously, he dropped acid. But the text doesn't say he used that method, so why is that particular image there? Seems gratuitous to me, and not illustrative of the article. Just a thought. Tvoz |talk 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Like having a picture of J.C. in the Christianity section. Hotcop2 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah. I took it out. Tvoz |talk 06:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I only slipped it in because I like pretty pictures - anybody got some crayons and paper? :)) --andreasegde (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Death"

'When reporters cornered McCartney for his reaction, all the obviously shocked Beatle could muster was, "Drag, isn't it?"'

Do I sense some editorial opinion creeping in here? Might I suggest:

'When reporters asked McCartney for his reaction, all he said was "Drag, isn't it?"'

It might make his reaction seem somewhat cold, but his explanation is given immediately after, so it seems we don't need the weasel words. 81.86.210.23 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally right. I will fix that right now. "All he could muster" sounds like General Custer... --andreasegde (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the real weasel word there is "all", as if the editor was expecting more. In fact, i think it doesn't even belong in this article, though it might be better written for the McCartney article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You the man, Arcayne! :) (I have never really understood what weasel was - except the animal, of course... :) --andreasegde (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{main}}

AFAIK, the {{main}} article is intended to go at the top of sections which are a summary of a larger article (or, in this case, a section about that topic but from Lennon's pespective). So,

Main article: The Beatles
is appropriate here but e.g.
Main article: Pete Best
isn't. --kingboyk (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue with him about this, because he's really good, and he knows what he's on about. :) --andreasegde (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

As requested on my talk page, I've had a go at refactoring this article as I did with Paul McCartney. I've tried, but it was quite difficult this time because there's so much material... I doubt what I've come up with is good enough for the final version, but I hope it's a decent start.

I don't like the "Pseudonyms" section. It's small and listy - could it be moved or perhaps deleted? --kingboyk (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoko Ono

Ok, I reworked the Ono section. I suppose we'll need citations, so we'll fill them in. I think it makes a better read in the context of the article. I'm going to put the "Rock and Roll Circus" performance in the performance section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, but it was there and I didn't want to just delete it. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)\


(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, you beter watch out for Hotcop, or she'll give you a citation! :) (This means a parking ticket in America, but is very good for Wikipedia :)) --andreasegde (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cynthia Lennon tweak next

I'll take a stab at this one later. Since we changed some orders, May Pang is introduced as "Pang" and stuff like that. But Cynthia will lead nicely up to Yoko... and I notice we ditched the househusband section, but perhaps that subtitle should be reinstated to differentiate from the Pang era? Just a thought.... Hotcop2 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign your messages, liebling. It's the 10th button above this page from the left, with the squiggly writing on it. It's inbetween the 'W' with the red circle around it, and the '—' sign. --andreasegde (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ok ;-) --Hotcop2 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, My cup floweth over... :)) (I'm gonna tell you about reference-formatting next, as soon as I learn it :) --andreasegde (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death section

I've moved it back down below again, as it is the final chapter. Please don't move it back up. --andreasegde (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked me to refactor. Why didn't you reply in that section of the talk page?
Anyway. Lennon's life and times 1940-1980 are in the first few sections. Next comes his death. Then comes analysis and discussion of the details of his life. That's my take on it anyway.
Imagine if the layout were like this:

==Life and career==

===1940-1957===

===1958-1970===

===1971-1980===

===Death===

==Lifestyle==

==Relationships==

==Art==

==Memorials==

==Awards==

So, why should death be at the bottom? Because it's chronologically last?! --kingboyk (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, death wasn't part of his career really... hmm... Well, anyway, think about it and see what you can come up with. Imho, seperating out memorials into a standalone section really helps. --kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems topsy-turvy that you have his death (which was a massive shock) and then you have his marriages and the birth of his sons. Winston Churchill's is at the end, Oscar Wilde's is not. What to do? --andreasegde (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the death section and tributes needs moving to The death of John Lennon, as it would reduce the size of the article. --andreasegde (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On a personal note, I haven't seen Kingboyk that 'peeved' for a long time :) It's just like the good old 'goalpost-moving' days on the Macca article... Ahhhh...nice :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm only peeved at you ordering not to move it! :) Yes sir Sgt Major!
As for the structure, it would be nice to get it right but I'm not hugely bothered so long as it makes reasonable sense.
I see what you're saying about the family stuff coming after death; perhaps that stuff should be in the general chronology. Not sure. Let's leave it as is for now. --kingboyk (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honestly

Call it what you will, but I'm beginning to have bad feelings about Lennon becoming a GA article. He attracts so many comments/edits from numerous editors that think they know what is good or bad (without references) which makes it unstable.[citation needed] Can you 'imagine' a review—lasting seven days—when the page changes so much? Call it a lack of faith, but I'm not sure about this one. --andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading recent edits, I am certain that this is a hopeless case. GA reviews are very delicate things y'know, as I well know... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombs away!

Can we leave out the legend of his birth during an air raid? Historical records show no German raids on Liverpool on the date of his birth. There were some raids on Merseyside around the general time period, and people tend to mix up events in their memories, so that's probably where the story originated. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Could the honourable Mr. Arrit find a reference for that? I actually remember reading a page about air-raids on Liverpool at the time (such is my wont) but I would like to know the truth, so I could contact Mr. Miles and Mr. Spitz, and tell them they wrote about urban legends...
BTW, when one writes "Merseyside", it means Liverpool, and bombers were (on both sides) not perfectionists (having no means of knowing exactly where they were). --andreasegde (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's one reference (from an ex-Quarryman).[1] I've also seen compilations of the actual dates of raids, but can't recall where -- bookmarked it on my old computer, which has since died. Rod Davis's report of a raid on 10 October is not corroborated in RAF records. Rod notes it focuses on the innocence of the victims; perhaps it was a fabrication for propaganda purposes? There were repeated raids on the night of 11-12 October. A reasonable conjecture is that Mimi visited Julia and John in the hospital on another day when there were raids, perhaps 11 or 12 October, and put the two events together in her mind (though of course that would be WP:OR). Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And here are RAF records for the day.[2] Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"There was no mention of Liverpool or Merseyside by name, just one incident " in a North-west town" [Doh! Look at a map...] However 40 London districts were mentioned as having been bombed."

One incident? When 40 London districts were bombed? So only one bomber lost his way, and flew to Liverpool, did he? This was wartime, when propaganda was paramount. I will now read the RAF report. --andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Night Operations - 9th / 10th October 1940:

"1900 Hours to 2100 Hours - Night activity commenced at about 1850 hours, raids crossing the coast towards two main objectives. The first was the Liverpool/Manchester area'..."

The report only deals with the south of England and up to the Midlands, but does mention the Liverpool/Manchester areas as being two main objectives. If they played down the damage the bombers did, why would they write "two main objectives"? That was serious. --andreasegde (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It also says. "It is estimated that about 220 enemy aircraft operated over or near our coasts during the night 8th / 9th October and 290 during the day of 9th October." --andreasegde (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki things

These things are not Wiki:

  • "The Lennons soon grew tired" - POV, and no citation.
  • "easy access to their door so, after a robbery," - citation?
  • "they relocated the more [sic] secure Dakota apartments" - citation?
  • "Manhattan's upper westside" - alright for someone living in New York, but not here.
  • "May Pang" - Pang, as is Wiki-style
  • "Once they were settled in" - what does that mean? (I know, but it's not Wiki). --andreasegde (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We can not use "street language". To get John a GA we have to be very dry, and I mean more dry than a very, very, dry, white wine. Facts, and simply put, with a little bit of "style". --andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I said I'd put the facts in and do the citations later. I didn't write anything I cannot find a citation for. "The Lennons grew tired" isn't POV, btw. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, unless they actually said it, and were quoted. (BTW, even if they did say it, is it important enough?) --andreasegde (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(comment by indef blocked user removed) R. Baley (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If we talk about the "Greenwich Village" area of Manhattan, why is "the upper westside" not acceptable? Hotcop2 (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's too vague. I was born in the upper north-east side of Leeds. Do you know where that is? --andreasegde (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
North of Watford.LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but as every New Yorker knows, New York is the center of the universe. ;-) It's actually specific, A. We have the Upper East Side, Upper Manhattan, the upper westside, midtown, uptown (harlem), etc. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the links to your universe. :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about New York. It is a rather splendid little town. I once asked a guy at a ticket booth in a subway station if the train on that side went north or south. After not understanding me at all I asked him again, and then he said, "Hey, Buddy, Diss train goes uptown or downtown, now whadda ya want?" :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References - again

This: "Lennon gave the original handwritten lyrics to "The Word" from Rubber Soul to Ono". Did Ono write to Lennon, or did she knock on his door? (This would be difficult, as he lived at Kenwood.) This has to be sorted out, because it would destroy the Urban Legend, if it is true. Ono and the Maharishi time, when she asked for a lift in the Lennon's car is also important. --andreasegde (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several other versions that are "uncitable" so I didn't include them. When this article is finished and taken as a complete read, a lot of the Lennono myths are improbable if you follow the timeline. Regarding Ono knocking on Lennon's door -- Ono lived in New York and knocked on McCartney's door in London; nothing is impossible. And, considering she didn't know who the Beatles were, that was quite a lucky knock. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My "EternalFlame" reference was deleted (the main one, which negates all the rest.) I now have to look through the history section to find it... :( --andreasegde (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

"Once they were moved in, Ono forboding said, "Our life here is doomed."[100]" This would never pass a GA review. 1. Is it clear why she said it? 2. Why did she say it? 3. Why did she continue to live there when she had said it? 4. Is it important enough to keep it in? --andreasegde (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

She had a feeling? I guess she thought their life was doomed -- and this was before she got into astrology. I kept it in because, well, turns out she was right. Twice. Shortly after they moved into the Dakota, John left. Then there's the little incident on December 8th.

It makes a good intro to the next section. I'm not sure why this would keep it from being a GA though. We can take it out if you think it'll affect the GA rating, but I'm curious as to how it would (just as a writer's standpoint.)

I did remove the POV issue you brought up (they grew tired) because it was a bit too narrative. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that when writing, a certain line may seem an interesting or quirky thing to put in, but if you pare it down to the basic facts it's much easier to read. GA reviewers always find something. It's a good bet that if you read through something and you get even the slightest feeling that maybe you're pushing it a bit, or it's not quite good enough but it will do, THAT is what the GA people pick on. You should be able to read it like falling off a log, as they say. That's why GA reviews depress me slightly, because I know the bits they'll talk about (because I was a bit lazy and hoped they wouldn't spot it) but they always do... --andreasegde (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John & Yoko's picture

is gone from the Yoko Ono section. How do we bring it back? Hotcop2 (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't I'm afraid - It has gone from the source page. Whoever uploaded it must have got the fair-use tag slightly wrong. They would have been informed, but not us here. Have to find another. It's a pity, because that was the best one I've ever seen of them both together. --andreasegde (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing Style

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but sentences like these are not acceptable:

  • "Although the teddyboy with the rough exterior and cruel humor was "not her type," she was attracted to him immediately".
  • "lead [sic] to speculation of an affair between Lennon and Epstein that

continues to this day".

it says "would lead", you forgot the "would"

  • "a drunken Lennon beat up his old friend". (Wooler was not an old friend - he was the Cavern's DJ)

Cynthia describes Wooler as such Hotcop2 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • "made into an independant [sic] movie".
  • "felt closer to McCartney than to his dad". (His father)
  • "She was also aware of the presence of an avant-garde artist named Yoko Ono. At first, she thought nothing of it."
  • "Cynthia was kept from boarding the train". (Stopped by a policeman who did not recognise her)
  • "the symbolism was not lost on her". (Oh really?)
  • "She thought "this was it for me, I'm getting off at this stop". (She wasn't actually on anything that she could get off, and this is not true.)

Dear, that's what Cynthia said in the interview, and I put her quote in We know she never got on the train, but that was how she put it. It's a quote from her. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"But Ono had become pregnant, so it was Cynthia who petitioned for divorce". (Cynthia waited until Ono became pregnant?)

No, Cynthia got to turn the tables on Lennon who set her up with Magic Alex and was initially suing her.Hotcop2 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a cheap gossip column in a daily paper. Making one or two sentence paragraphs is always a problem, BTW. I thought the Cynthia section was good enough for GA (as it was basically copied from her own article which achieved a GA) but now it's a mess. I know this will offend Hotcop (and I'm really sorry) but "it's all too much for me to take". Lennon, in this way, has no chance of a GA. Sad, but true. --andreasegde (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Feel free to change the "style" -- I just wanted to get the story and the points up there. BTW, "cheap gossip column" is redundant; they only are cheap ;-)

As an example, the following is a GA review:

"These are just the most pressing concerns regarding the article. The article reads like it was taken directly out of the book that is cited, full of excess details and POVish statements that, while substantiated by references, raise deep concerns about the encyclopedic tone of this article. Also, I started a copy edit, but gave up by the children section, as this needs some considerable work as well. Normally when a review encounters a small number of problems, it is put on hold to allow for several days to allow for these changes. In this case, however, I feel that the problems are too numerous and severe to justify a hold. This article would benefit from time spent purged it of unencyclopedic statements to create a more objective, factual and encyclopedic article. There are just too many facts in the article that, while verifiable, are neither notable nor encyclopedic. I suggest a project-specific peer review, or at least a read-over by a pair of eyes who are unfamiliar with the subject and are specifically looking for encyclopedic tone. For this reason, I am failing the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment". Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


--andreasegde (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing style and Beatles section

OK, we should Wikify the Cynthia section, etc, but the Beatles 57-70 section goes into excrutiating (and at times needless) detail until the release of "Please Please Me" and resumes in 1968. No Brian Epstein, no discussion (or mention) of any work. Doesn't this section also need some work? Where's How I Won The War? The erotic lithographs?

Again, I'm putting in the points that are (I feel) missing. Andrea, you can reword them to make them more (dry, Wiki, ungossipy,banal, etc. - -as you did in the talk section). And I type quickly, if there's a mistake, just fix it, don't (sic) it in talk. We'll get it finizhed a lot quicker.

I think what constitutes a GA is a good article (facts; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-type entry).

This is a cooperative effort, remember? Hotcop2 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I put in 40 missing key points, and I'm criticised for spelling errors and style. In the time it took you to write all that in the discussion, couldn't you have just cleaned up the body of the article and saved a little time? Just a thought Hotcop2 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the style - I can't keep correcting "hot-button", or "all he could muster" issues. I'm working on the Julia Baird article at the moment, so I think you should go for it and take Lennon to a GA review, if only because you will learn how wearing it is to go through one. They are hard task-masters (not to mention FA reviewers, who are demonic) and I think it would be a good experience for you. I've been through 17 GA reviewsand two FAs, and they still give me the jitters... Have fun. --andreasegde (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Have a look at this, and read the comments on the talk pages. --andreasegde (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, how I go about this is -- I write like I have diahrrea, getting everything in my head out. Then I go back and check for obvious spelling errors from typing to fast. Then other things occur to me that should get put in. Then I put citations in (then others ask for more lol).

So, the Lennon article can never be a good article if it doesn't say anything or read cohesively. I can tone down the writing a bit; I'm sorry the wikipowers do not appreciate anything other than dry writing. But you also took me to task on facts, and those are more important. Everything I put in the Cynthia section ?(and the others) is fact. cited fact. just making that clear.

I noticed his books are mentioned in the "writing section" which I'd put up in the 57-70. An analysis of his songwriting growth through those years should also go up, as should "How I Won The War," the erotic lithographs, I think. If anyone disagree, let me know.

The way it is now, it has so many minute details of his childhood , yet nothing about Sutcliffe's death, Epstein, a few other key things that are appropo on this page as it is on the Beatles page.

So, when the Cynthia sections passes "muster" as it were, we can work on the others. The tighter each section gets, the worse the untouched sections look. A GA cannot be all about style; there has to be some substance I should hope.

Anyway, happy holidays everyone and we'll look at this after Christmas and continue knocking into shape. Hotcop2 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"was not lost on her" is a good example. I suggest you look at the GA link I provided, and the coments from reviewers. --andreasegde (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right about things not being included, but we only have so much space to include them, in the grand scheme of things. We have to write a very clean, and a very definite, biography. I know it feels weird, but that is how it is. --andreasegde (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Found it!

Last night while thumbing thru Cynthia Lennon's "John" -- I found the small cuticle scissors I've been looking for for months. I must've used them as a bookmark. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)



[edit] INSTRUMENTS

JOHN LENNON PLAYED GUITAR, HARMONICA, PIANO, DOBRO, DRUMS, PERCUSSION, SLIDE GUITAR, HARMONIUM, ORGAN, SITAR, BASS GUITAR, SYNTHESISER, LAP STEEL GUITAR

I HAVE BEEN STUDYING JOHN LENNON FOR 3 YEARS, SO PLEASE ADD THIS. THANK YOU.


Well, first of all, original research isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia.
Secondly, a lot of the "instruments" you list are just stylistic variations on a guitar or a piano. To credit oneself with "guitar", "slide guitar", and "lap steel guitar" all at once is a sort of band-geek pretentiousness you'd expect from Tommy Shaw, not Lennon. True, a lap steel is a different instrument, but "slide guitar" is just a guitar played with a slide. Likewise, is a "dobro" really any different from guitar in terms of how one plays it? I honestly don't know. But when I see you list "drums" and "percussion" separately, I know I have to question the whole post. I'm surprised you didn't list "12-String guitar" as a separate instrument. Did you forget?
Regarding the piano, harmonium, organ, synthesizer: I think the best thing to do is credit Lennon with "keyboards", instead of "piano" plus eight similar instruments (You forgot harpsichord!)
To play various guitar and various keyboards is more than enough for as ferocious a songwriter as John Lennon. Let's remember, it is his songwriting that makes him the hgihly notable musician he is.
--63.25.97.7 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

slide guitar, dobro (played on the lap like a lap steel) and 12 string are all very different instruments, requiring very different techniques to play well. that said, i really don't care what's in the article.