Talk:John Lennon/Archive 4

message: I have started to put "citations needed" into the article, because it needs them. You can find a lot of them on the McCartney page (and the links pages) and copy them over to here. andreasegde 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need sourcing but I think Lennon did actually say this, it's been quoted in numerous Beatles books and he's supposed to have said it at a press conference in the States. He apparently regretted saying it later, because although he intended it as a joke, it sounded as though he was putting down Ringo. Jaspar Carrott may well have used the line in his act but he was probably just repeating Lennon's joke (it probably went down better than his other Lennon joke which he used in the States, suggesting that while the British took American stars like Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra "to our hearts", the British sent Lennon to America and "you shot him" - he was booed off after saying that). Ringo was a perfectly good drummer, he wasn't outstanding or technically brilliant, but he was very reliable and had a great feel. Plus his unusual fills, as well as his innovative playing on 'Rain', 'She Said She Said', and 'A Day in the Life', were quite influential on drummers, as plenty of drummers today will tell you. People put Ringo down because he wasn't one of the great rock drummers like Moon or Bonham but that rather misses the point, their style would not have suited the Beatles, they were a pop four-piece dedicated to balance, subtlety and nuance, most of the songs would have sounded ridiculous with a Moon or a Bonham pounding and thrashing away behind the rest of the band. Critics with little musical sense don't understand that. Lennon appreciated Ringo a great deal, but unfortunately that quote has been hyped by some as evidence that the Beatles themselves did not rate Ringo and that Lennon must have rated McCartney higher as a drummer (which is highly unlikely) when it was actually meant as nothing more than a joke. I don't think it bothered Ringo but I believe Lennon wished he hadn't said it. MarkB79 18:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: As Kingboyk rightly changed the Macca article to sub-sections, I believe Lennon's should mirror it. It would give this article the same feel, and look, and would make it easier to read. Slap me with a wet fish if disgruntled... andreasegde 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved more stuff, but it still needs a good sweep with a large brush. andreasegde 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to editors: Delete all adjectives, such as 'great', 'brilliant', and 'iconoclastic'. The people 'upstairs' frown upon these words, and will "waggle their eyebrows at you" (copyright: LessHeard vanU :)) andreasegde 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Happy New Year Andreasegde I'm not sure if you meant to or not, but you deleted the family section from theJohn Lennonartical.  I have reverted it back...but justed wanted to give you a heads-up.  Once again "Happy New Year" Shoessss 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bugger me - He won't do that again, by crikey... Plinky Plonky Plink Plonk 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Lennon]]

message: Very interesting that no passages from Albert Goldman's 'The Lives of John Lennon'. has been quoted in this article. Goldman stated that Lennon was homosexual. However,no one feared printing derogatory passages from Albert Goldman's book 'Elvis' in Presley's bio on this very same site.  Biased anyone?  Wikipedia is very unprofessional.
~~Suzulu~~
:Goldman's book is thoroughly discussed in a separate Wikipedia article: See The Lives of John Lennon. Perhaps some information from this book can also be included in the main article on Lennon. Onefortyone 01:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Albert Goldman's book on Lennon

message: *80% of the humour section should be in 'Wikiquote'. It's 573 words at the moment. 
*Activism is 916.
*Christianity is 507.
*Solo career was 920. He only had five years of it... It's now 781. 
*Murder was 1,033. It's now 870.
OK, his 'Early years' is 874, but The Beatles is only 878. (I know, I know... Family life is 1,563.) Me - who else would it be?? 23:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Also, I oppose to young people using the word "gay" referring to homosexuality. Back in my day "gay" meant to be happy and carefree. I don't mind telling you when I declared at my local that, having won £2.64 at dominos, I felt "Gay as a gander." The youngsters gave me the strangest looks, and one burly biker raped me in the stalls. Oxford English Dicitonary - revise your policy!--The Rt. Hon. Basil Massingbird-Massingbird-Baden-Massingbird MBE (deceased) 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, I do so love a man that concurs... Burly biker 15:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Oddly, the section that speaks of his assassination ignores the photograph taken of John signing Chapman's LP as he left the Dakota
earlier in the evening.  I added a sentence mentioning it, but I think it would be more powerful if someone upload it and added it to the article.  I would, but I don't know how.  A Google Image search will turn up numerous results for the photograph in question.  -Notahippie76
:To be really honest, I think that a lot of people would prefer that Chapman could be erased from history. He can't be, of course, but putting a photo of him on this page would be cementing his image in people's minds, and would be thought of as distasteful. Let him rot where he is, and don't give him what he craved the most; being famous. This is only my opinion.
:P.S. If someone killed a loved one of yours, would you want a photo of them on a page? andreasegde 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the photo in question has been on and off of this page numerous times.  There may be a copyright question, or it may have disappeared because it is so disturbing - I'm not really sure - I neither added it nor removed it.  Some people have suggested  that Chapman's name not even be mentioned in the article, but obviously we have to think like an encyclopedia, so the name appears.  The photo, to me, adds only to the utter senselessness and viciousness of the crime - two things I don't personally need added to, because I never forget either one - to see Lennon extending a kindness that he didn't have to do to the man who a few hours later would murder him in cold blood is physically sickening.  But the photo certainly is a powerful reminder of just how awful the crime was, if anyone really needs that reminder.  I'm not going to look for it or upload it, and I probably won't remove it either - but no promises.  I researched the "combat stance" phrase a few months ago, re-reading the contemporaneous newspaper account - and as I said then, I never wanted to re-read that New York Times article and I never will read it again.  It doesn't get any easier, more than 25 years later.  This is just my opinion as well. Tvoz | talk 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading the Lennon/Chapman Photograph 

message: Freddie's father died when he was nine. Freddie left Julia when John was five. John left Cynthia when Julian was five. John was shot when Sean was five. Maybe wait for Julian and Sean to have kids before continuing... Daddy come home... from the pub 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bugger, I slipped that one in to see if anyone would notice. It still means that the fathers left when the wee bairns were young-ish. egde 22:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tradition

message: I've removed the "numerous" from "numerous members of...Royalty". Only the Queen Mother, Princess Margeret and Lord Snowdon attended, so there were only three members of the family, even if you count Lord Snowdon. Apepper 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Variety 

message: Maybe it's just me, but in this section it says:
Elton John mourned the loss of John Lennon in his 1982 hit "Empty Garden (Hey Hey Johnny)", from his Jump Up! album. John exclaimed, "As the New York Sunset disappeared, I found an empty garden among the flagstones there, Who lived here, He must have been a gardener that cared a lot."
Hmmmmm... Methinks it would be better to be a bit clearer on this subject; Elton John and John Lennon. For a weird moment I thought Lennon was talking from beyond the grave about Elton John's song! I suggest changing "John exclaimed" to "The lyrics" or something else.
Who agrees with me on here? Or am I just being thick - it seems to me that somebody could get the wrong impression or think it was a mistake. Liamshaw 10:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Liamshaw, you are totally right — change it. Should it be, Elton John sang?... andreasegde 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't help myself; I changed it, but I think it needs a citation. andreasegde 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - much obliged. Memo to self: BE BOLD AND DO IT YOURSELF! I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. I've added the citation.. I think. Liamshaw 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about, be bold and do it TO yourself? andreasegde 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorials and Tributes (Elton John + Clarity) 

message: JOHN Lennon was shot 5 times not 4.
Change the Image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is known as a vandal. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture  

message: He's not good enough to mention in there(death).--69.113.131.124 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[We didn't start the fire]] 

message: John Lennon did play piano accordion to some degree as is mentioned in other parts of the encyclopedia. Dr accordion 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It is quoted in Julia Lennon that she taught him the piano accordion. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 20:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruments John Lennon Played

message: This could easily be a GA if a little more work was done on it. It was started in 2002, BTW... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are poor sections in it, yeah, but you're right.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Was Lennon an atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a humanist or what? Is there anything known about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.196.244.74 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "God?" John Cardinal 02:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best answer to the question "was Lennon an atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a humanist or what?" is "yes". Raymond Arritt 04:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was John Lennon's belief? 

message: Can I suggest that the inclusion or exclusion of this fact is discussed here, rather than by reversions to the article with or without edit summaries? Once consensus is reached, reversions can refer to this discussion. This is an issue with POV ramifications and likely to be controversial, so definitely should be done by consensus. --Dweller 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rolling Stone is a well respected resource and the quote had been in some time before someone felt affronted about a supposed lowly placing. It should stay, since the argument of "Well, I don't like it" is facile.LessHeard vanU 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The trouble with truth, and statistics, is that you can only have the whole and not the part that suits a particular viewpoint; The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Rolling Stone's placing should stay, since it is a well regarded publication that reflects an American view of popular culture while the BBC reflects a perhaps more broad section of British public opinion. As a personal opinion I think Lennon was a immensely talented and articulate individual and I don't need opinion polls to tell me what he means to me. He also had a few things to say about facing up to truth, even if it is painful. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sam Cooke; perhaps. The Ramones, no. Bo Diddley, emphatically yes. No Bo = no Buddy Holly = No Beatles = No John Lennon... Significant is the word here, not popular/favourite. That said, this is just my opinion. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "we are recording evidence, not facts/truth." Like, you're kidding about that, right? 212.241.67.98 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not kidding! Rolling Stone reckons Lennon is the 38th most significant individual... Is that a fact, or the truth? Well, yes and no; I don't agree, Wjfox certainly doesn't agree and John Cardinal may or may not agree. It is, however, the position of Rolling Stone and that is a reputable published source. So we cite the evidence of the existence of that published listing. It isn't, I realise, the easiest of concepts to understand, but it is the Wiki way. Someone, somewhere, writes something notable and Wikipedia references it. What we believe does not matter. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at all. I think it's the very essence of balance! --Dweller 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stone's 38th place 

message: Were there different grades at 'O' Level in Lennons time? I believe that in the 50's and 60's you either passed or failed, and the later C grade was at the old pass mark. I have left a question over at the GCE page, but think I might get more responses here. I also think that the edit is ill-founded in that the original edit may have been talking about the 11+ exam, which determined if you went to Grammer School or Secondary Modern/Technical College (which is what Liverpool Art College may have been). I have no idea if the 11+ was graded as I didn't do that, although I did do 'O' Levels in the mid 70's. LessHeard vanU 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'O' Level Grades edit query 

message: Shouldn't there be some discussion of his heroin addiction? It seems to have been pretty significant. The whole article has a whiff of hagiography to it, which leads me to question why it was left out. Whatever his merits, he was clearly a deeply troubled individual, and it seems there ought to be more discussion of that.
:There is much information about Lennon's consumption of drugs in Albert Goldman's book, The Lives of John Lennon. Perhaps somebody can write a summary of the facts from this book. Onefortyone 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heroin Addict 

message: There's an unregistered user by the name of Suzulu who's attempting to insert Goldman's allegations regarding Lennon's sexuality into this article. Goldman's book was discredited years ago, and any "information" taken from his book is essentially rumor. This same user has also been playing around with the Elvis Presley article, it appears. I've reverted Suzulu's most recent edits here, but other Wikipedians will probably have to keep an eye on him/her. J.R. Hercules 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any former celebritiy who wasn't allegedly gay?Alleged' gayness just automatically comes with reaching a certain level of stardom it would seem. Brentt 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by some Albert Goldman fan

message: That main pic of John is awful-it needs changing! Yuck!TammiMagee 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be a free image, so if anyone has one, upload it to Commons. Tvoz |talk 06:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the Picture Please!!!! 

message: I think not enough of his drug use and promotion are mentioned here. Xavier cougat 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His promotion? Is that sexual? Do tell... egde 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes? Perhaps, "Pips on his shoulder"? "Scrambled eggs upon his chest"? "Major Drama"? Encyclopedias, they are so full of innuendo... LessHeard vanU 23:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he not have a sexual relationship with Brian Epstein. 

message: Editing in AP article details. Yoko says they came home instead of going out to eat as John wanted to see Sean before he went to sleep. Also Yoko says John did not say any "dying words".Piperdown 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yoko's new revelations about Dec 8

message: I really don't think Lennon should be on the list of English atheists. He was never entirely clear about his religious beliefs, and they seemed to change from one year to the next throughout his life. He seems to have been an atheist in the early 70's (though even then he refused to give a straight answer when asked whether he believed in God, and seemed to imply that he wasn't sure what to think), but his later statements on the subject seem to suggest he believed in some concept of 'God', in his own words he said his beliefs were similar to Zen Buddhism. As far as I am aware, he never stated that he was an atheist or that he firmly disbelieved in God, and many of his statements on the subject throughout the 70's do not appear very compatible with an atheist outlook. If anything, he appears to have been some kind of agnostic with a belief in some sort of spirituality. Having him labelled an 'English atheist' is probably very misleading. It would probably be wise not to label his religious beliefs at all. MarkB79 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Lennon sure was not an atheist for any significant portion of his life. The problem mainly stems from people who heard Imagine and believe that Lennon didn't think there was a heaven and hated religion. Ug. CynicofWiki 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks to both of you for backing me up on that. The various athiest categories appear to have been removed thankfully. I think Lennon is kind of held up in the United States in particular by all sorts of secular humanists and athiests, including people in the sciences, as some kind of major athiest artist and commentator, largely because of 'Imagine' and the Plastic Ono Band album. Socialists often highlight Lennon's apparently athiest sentiments in 'God' and 'Imagine' approvingly, and while all these people are well-meaning and some might actually be aware of Lennon's ambigious attitude towards the question of a God and merely approve of the sentiments, I think most actually do believe he was an athiest. If Lennon was truly an athiest at any point, it was around 1970-72, when he and Yoko were heavily influenced by Janov and Marxism (and even then, as I say, when interviewed during this period he refuses to give a straight answer as to whether he believed in God). The fact is Lennon's stated views in later years are not indicitive of him being an athiest, as I say he appears to have had a belief in some concept of 'God', and stated that his spiritual beliefs where similar to Yoko's Zen Buddhism. Lennon was probably added to these categories on here by well-meaning athiests/humanists/socialists but it is very misleading to call him an athiest. It should be ensured in future that his name is kept out of these categories. MarkB79 07:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English Atheists

message: I remember reading (I believe it was in Rolling Stone 500 greatest albums) that the song Tomorrow Never Knows was an attempt by Lennon to distill an LSD trip into a song. Should this be mentioned in the Recreational Drug Use section? Glassbreaker5791 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomorrow Never Knows 

message: When Lennon once had put on a lot of weight and had been drinking heavily, he said, "I was eating and drinking like a pig, and I was fat as a pig, dissatisfied with myself, and subconsciously I was crying for help. It was my fat-Elvis period."
The article doesn't say when this actually happened, though, or what period of his career this was, and it's a quote from a booksource. Can anyone fix this?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, it'd have to be not long before his death as Elvis didn't get fat until the mid-70s, right?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but Lennon was talking retrospectively about 1965-ish.--Crestville 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that to the article, but yeah, much of that section "Humour" is quotes and needs cleanup/transwiki to Wikiquote.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fat Elvis period" - when was this? 

message: Reporter: "What is it about your music that excites people so much?" 
Lennon: "If we knew, we'd form another group and be managers."
That was actually Ringo -- I just watched a great VH1 documentary last night called "Imagine", and they had footage of the interview where Ringo said this.
Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly -- first time wiki-user... just wanted to pass this along. thanks!
ps - Lennon's "fat and disgusting" period was ~65, right around when he wrote the song "Help!"
:I have it on tape that Lennon said, "If we knew, we'd form another group and be managers." I think Ringo nicked it. --andreasegde 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon's Humor - "Band Manager" Quote 

message: On the Annie Leibovitz page there is a picture of the Rolling Stone cover from the photo shoot she did the morning of the shooting. Someone should consider putting this on this page.
Thanks for adding it.
The photo from the album "Lennon Collection" was also taken by Leibovitz on 12/08/80.
Hotcop2 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Takin on Day of Death 

message: Shouldn't this be a bit more specific?: "He also picked on anyone who was in anyway different, using his quick wit and sense of humour to bully them."
Anyone who was "different" how?  Different from him personally?  Different from some sort of perceived social "norm"?  And is it truly accurate/NPOV to suggest that he "picked on ANYONE different"?  I haven't read the source material but this particular passage seems like it could use some work.  If anyone has access to the source material, I'd suggest touching up this bit of the article. Ginnna 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Years 

message: I think that Lennon's returning of the MBE actually does negate the award as a refusal or delination of the honour. I am not sure we should be mentioning his MBE in the Lead. Is there confirmation that the MBE was returned? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the physical award can of course be returned, there is no official provision for a recipient of a British honor to renounce said honor, so technically John Lennon OBE is still correct. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite that, Faithless? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, I've never seen any proof, it's just what I've heard. Now that I'm looking around, I'm no longer so sure that this is the case. This is the best info I've found so far; I'll post here if I can find something a little more specific. Faithlessthewonderboy 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasonI ask is that a number of entertainers have refused or returned their honours. Bowie refused a nubmer of times as had Helen Mirren. I feel uncomfortable having it in there unless we are sure he is in possession of it. Is there a list by which we can check? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MBE

message: I raised the general question of BLP's applicability to an article about a dead person, and Arcayne is quite correct regarding the fact that people who are still living are being written about here, so BLP applies.   The need for accurate sourcing - always policy here - is even more acute for biographical pieces, and the decision to remove the material vs. adding a citation tag would depend on the nature of the text and if it is potentially derogatory toward living folk.  Requesting citations by tagging is fine for non-contentious material, even about living people, but if the material is contentious, the consensus is that  we err on the side of removal.     
This discussion is worth reading.  And meanwhile, people with access to legitimate sources might look for some - I do think that the article should have material about May Pang and the lost weekend, as it is well-known and readers might well look for it.  It should not be in its own main section as it recently was added, however - for a long time it appeared as a smaller subsection of "personal life" which I think makes more sense.  Note that right now, without any explanation of what her involvement with Lennon was,  Pang is mentioned regarding Julian - this needs context.  So rather than arguing about this, how about getting some reliable sources.  Tvoz |talk 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From  [[WT:BLP/N]] 

message: I have issued both editors with a 15 minute block, with the comment that they should discuss (with others) the best way to edit this article, and reach consensus. Further edit warring will attract longer blocks. LessHeard vanU 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re [[User talk:Sixstring1965| <span style="color: #009900; font-family: stop;"><b><i>Sixstring1965</i></b></span>]][[User talk:Sixstring1965|<small><b><sup><span style="color: #009900; font-family: goudy old style;">The Beatles Wikiproject</span></sup></b></small>]] and [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] revert warring 

message: Just shortened it a bit, added a few facts, made it more Lennon-focused.  WAR IS OVER (if you want it)
Hotcop2 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you added no references or citations, and the section includes what are purported to be direct quotes.  Where I grew up you don't put direct quotes into a paper, article, piece of writing without saying where those quotes came from. This goes beyond BLP concerns - this is basic Writing 101.  I added a "unreferenced section" tag and several "citation needed" tags next to the more egregious unreferenced items.  And I am questioning the placement - once again, I think May Pang and the lost weekend should be included in an article about John Lennon, but I preferred when it was part of "Personal Life". I recognize that some of the section is talking about her role in his personal life and some of it is talking about that time period in his career, so maybe the two can be separated - I'd like other editors' opinions on this.  Tvoz |talk 19:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they were "covered heavily by media", then get some citations. Actual, real citations - newspaper or magazine articles, with titles, authors, dates, url if available, or page numbers in books - real citations.  Just saying that a subject is covered in Larry Kane's book  or Cynthia's book in the text does not substitute for actual citations.  WHat if I want to llok it up?  Give me page numbers.  And as I said earlier, direct quotes need sources - who said that the waitress said that?  Where is it cited?  This is basic stuff - it has nothing to do with BLP.  "Common knowledge" is not a good enough answer.  I deliberately put a tag on the whole section as well as some individual tags to point to the particularly problematic places. Please don't remove the tags until you replace them with real citations.  Tvoz |talk 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it took me 2 minugtes to locate the Rolling Stone interview - the actual one, not an unreliable reprint. Please go for better citations, not the easy way out for others to fix.  Tvoz |talk 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree completely - I think this is of small value, but shouldn't be ignored -  my instinct is to have May return to "personal life" where it was for a long time as to me any significance is in the personal relationship if the stories are true - and I would have no problem with the whole "lost weekend"  being scaled down in size considerably.  Tvoz |talk 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more cincise "Lost Weekend" 

message: There used to be a free image of Lennon in place int he article before it was swapped out for an old Bealtes one. Anyone know why? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Not finding any reasoning forthcoming, I will be removing the non-free image and replacing it with the free one that better represetns Lennon as an individual, and not a Beatle. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Free use trumps non-free every time. LessHeard vanU 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also note that the other Beatles' articles do not use press images from album covers/press publicity shots as the Lead photograph. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too.Tvoz |talk 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the replacement of the subject image?

message: :I have said this before, but since there appears to be a fresh start, so to speak, i will voice my concerns again. The inclusion of the Lost Weekend information both here and in the May Pang article (where Hotcop, Sixstring and myself also contribute) is largely uncited information. A good, hard look at any of the FA articles for musicians (indeed, for almost any individual with an FA article) indicates that dozens of sources are required to create a comeplement of interlocking sources. Lennon's article contains multiple citations from the same source - a source which was called a "trashy tell-all" by the London Times when it was published.
:Wikipedia clearly states that in the case of extraordinary claims that extraordinary proof is required. I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to see two sources (one a biography and one a reminiscing journal) to consider this to rise to that particular plateau.
:Wikipedia also states that defamatory material cannot remain in a BLP without strong citation. While Lennon is in fact dead, the other people referred to in the passage (Yoko Ono and May Pang) are in fact living, and BLP extends to protect them. In fact, we are enjoined as editors to remove it immediately. It is notable that the Lost Weekend passage appears not at all in Ono's article.
:In short, the header under which is discussed the Lost Weekend needs better citation than the books by Kane and Pang. They simply do. Without it, the article won't be considered for FA or even GA - and frankly, that is the point of even having an article in WP. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are arguing per WP:Undue weight. There are enough Lennon biographies that cover this period to provide a neutral POV for the article. This does not mean that the Pang book need be discounted, but only as one of several sources. LessHeard vanU 00:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read through a bit more of the article again and had forgotten that the section "1970-75 Solo career" already covers May Pang and the lost weekend.  So why do we need this separate section at all?  I think we should remove it and make sure there are adequate citations  in the 70-75 solo section that could include Pang's book, Kane's, the Hamill interview, and whatever else we can come up with, and be done with it.  In context I see no particular reason for adding the section, and in fact it is redundant and perhaps more detailed than needed.  Tvoz |talk 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved a few bits of info from the separate section and incorporated into the 70-75 solo section and removed the other section. It was redundant and unnecessary.  More specific citations needed in solo section, however - page refs where Kane talks about what Pang and/or Ono told him, for example.  Not general ref to his book or Pang's or the other one that appeared there. Tvoz |talk 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry; perhaps I was unclear. I understand the purpose of review. I was asking if the statements had any citation, such as a review or news outlet notation. The statement begs for citation, which is why the cn tag was placed there. It isn't the review of the bootleg we are as interested in as the verification for the statements that the review would provide. My apologies if I was unclear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting the ''Lost Weekend''

message: Sometime in 2008, a new day-by-day account of John Lennon's life will be published.  This will help answer some of the "citation" questions.  Hats off to the authors who undertook this most tedious task, but they've spoken with many Lennon/Ono staff and friends in putting together this daily account.  This should help with citations throught the article.  Hotcop2 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good news - when we have the citations we can  remove the "citation needed" tags.  Tvoz |talk 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the operative word there is when. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's what I said. Tvoz |talk 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lennon book coming 

message: Is this a citation for this pseudonym? I see where it appears in the infobox, and in the article along wil Mel Torment, but I think a cite would be helpful. I am not sure we need the alias in the infobox, though. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he used the alias for a production credit (Plastic Ono Band?), so it was another identity. Same per Macca's "Apollo C Vermouth". I believe it should be in the info box. LessHeard vanU 15:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a citation is going to be needed to verify its inclusion. It was mentioned that one alias or another was used to rsign in to hotels. These sorts of things need citation, I think. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aka Dr. Winston O`Boogie

message: John Lennon was never known as John Winston Ono Lennon. He changed his middle name from Winston to Ono. To shoehorn the two into a single 'full' name is a crass error.
The relevant section of the MoS (which I referenced both times I corrected the above error) clearly states:
:While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known...
:In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:
:*(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …
Unfortunately, the MoS is not explicit about the case where the article's subject has died. "(born John Winston Lennon on 9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980)" would be wrong, so I've put the dates first in my previous corrections, but "(born John Winston Lennon on 9 October 1940, died 8 December 1980)" would be acceptable. Grant 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain, but I do not think he changed his name by deed poll and thus was officially John Winston Lennon at the time of his death. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am strongly against John Winston Ono Lennon. I think he went by John Ono Lennon and so even though he may not have made a legal name change, I'd use that. I think Grant's proposal is fine for referencing the John Winston Lennon at-birth version. John Cardinal 13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lennon's Death Certificate gives his name as John Winston Ono Lennon. Masaruemoto 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Death Certificate is not a great source for someone's name because the subject is dead and the person who completes the form usually has little or no access to legal documents. A legal name change document would be much better, for example. Even so, I'd probably defer to the Death Certificate if the source for it wasn't the website you linked; I am very suspicious of "conspiracy theory" sites. Is there another source for the Death Certificate? John Cardinal 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The death certificate seems to fulfill the criteria for inclusion. As well, we note that we born John Winston lennon in the early years section. Is there somewhere in the article where it shows he changed his name? Is it possible that Ono influenced the titling of the birth certificate? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I imagine the one and only immediate source for the name put on the death cert would have been Yoko. Liverpool Scouse 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Such a citation belongs int he article, perhaps in the section regarding his death. Does anyone object tome putting such a statement in the article with the citation above? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which 'full' name should be used in the lead paragraph?

message: Lennon was previously a page listing people with the surname Lennon, along with some articles called Lennon. According to WP:MOSDAB I have created Lennon (name) for the people, and Lennon (disambiguation) for the articles. "Lennon" should always have redirected to John Lennon as he is the only person listed on Lennon (name) commonly called "Lennon" and more notable than the other articles on Lennon (disambiguation) that are known as "Lennon". Masaruemoto 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lennon]] now redirects here

message: seriously. Duff man2007 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree that is a major issue with this page. The photo keeps changing and rarely is the photo chosen a particularly good one. Problem is finding one which qualifies under Wikipedia rules. Ideally I suppose the White Album photo - the famous one from the insert photo you get with the vinyl album - would be the best choice, it's a very common portrait of Lennon seen in a lot of places, but I don't know if that is usuable, probably not unfortunately. MarkB79 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that has been one of the major issues with that. A lot of people don't like Weird-Beard Lennon (frankly, I have trouble seeing Lennon without one, as he seemed more relaxed and at peace with one), but the reason it has bounced a few times is that people have uploaded pictures that had provenance issues. As well, it seems disingenuine to include as the main picture a Beatles pic, as his life tended to encompass more than just that short (yet notable) period. However, I agree that a face-forward picture would be better than one in profile. What is the copyright expiration on press photos or album covers? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I haven't replied til now, my PC was broke for a time and I've only just looked at this page again. I have no idea what the copyright expiration is on album covers and press photos but album covers seem to be used all over Wikipedia and for some reason seem to be regarded as fair use. I don't know if EMI or Apple hold any copyright on the Lennon White Album photo but the photographer was Richard Avedon, who is deceased. I presume either the copyright expires with his death or passes to his family, I'm not sure which. I don't think it's a problem using a Beatles pic so long as it's not an early moptop shot which I don't think is appropriate. I don't have a problem with a bearded picture so long as it's decent quality. The one that is there now is OK but maybe not ideal, it seems a bit low quality and is black & white but it's OK I guess. There are some great colour shots of Lennon from around the summer of '69 (yeah, I know that's a Bryan Adams song). I recomended the White Album one purely because it seems a very common image of Lennon that it used all over the place and very familiar to people, in addition to being a great photo. I think whatever picture is used, it should be either late period Beatles or Imagine-era, there are a lot of good photos from that time but I'm not great with the legal issues. I know something about music recording and publishing copyright but I've little idea about photos. MarkB79 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we find a decent picture of john lennon? 

message: :* Was there a citation for usage of the alias? Its inclusion doesn't truly seem notable for the infobox, but if there are citations as to incidental usage, it should be included somewhere in the article.
:* I have noted that an image of Lennon's guitars keeps popping in and out of the article. Is there a noteworthyness attributed for the inclusion of the image? A musician has musical instruments so as to practice their craft. I am not seeing the need for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some remaining questions

message: I would edit this myself, but the page has been locked so I'm hoping some friendly administrator will notice and do it for me.
Anyway, this sentence in the section on Lennon Memorials need to be changed, although it does add a sense of levity to an otherwise very sombre section.
On January 22, 1981, Annie Leibovitz's shot taken on the day he died appeared on the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine (Issue #335). In October 2005 it was voted the best ever magazine cover ever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.21.130 (talk • contribs) 18:58, September 21, 2007 (UTC)
:It's now reworded as "an Annie Leibovitz photo of Lennon, taken on the day he died...." —Adavidb 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Mistakes 

message: I have put a new photo of Johnny in. --andreasegde 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And while we appreciate that, you've replaced a free image with a non-free image. It cannot remain. It might be better to discuss your proposed changes int he article where it regards images here rather than via edit summary. It is a topic that has come up a few times here before. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: This article is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project. I added a feature from the Evening Standard, and one from a technology publication, so this meets notability, but the article is only two sentences, so if anyone is able to add any relevant information, or more sources? I remember Yoko Ono mentioning this, in a positive way, but I can't find any reference to that now. If Yoko's comments could be found that would add a lot to the article. Masaruemoto 19:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project]] nominated for deletion 

message: How does a turning point in J.L.'s life vanish into a few sentences? Sixstring1965 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six, who is this person? I added their sig on, but it looked like they haven't had a lot of experience here; maybe WP:BITE might be an appropriate method of interaction? Or do you know them from somewhere else? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Arc, Isn't it strange how she knows my Wiki-history? Don't feed the trolls. Sixstring1965 19:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a troll, Your "history" was all over the beatles/Lennon/Pang pages for the whole world to see. All I did was point out that the lost weekend was mentioned on this page there are several paragraphs about it in the 1970-1975: Solo career section. That is not offensive or wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.115.59.2 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. You pop you head in as soon as the Lost Weekend is mentioned.  Cut the crap. Sixstring1965 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I watch that's all. I don't interfere. Just like you, I would like these pages to be accurate. I have no beef with you Six, or anyone here. Yes, you and others know that I am not fond of May Pang but so what? That is my right to like or not like whom I choose. As long as I am not touching these pages who cares? Lucy
Okay, is the drama over now? Clearly, there are some issues between the two of you - issues I do not want to know about. Six has editied enough with me to know what a taskmaster I can be about things like this. If you are going to add information, make sure it has good, solid, neutral citations. With citations, no one can claim that one person or the other is not being neutral. And when you take that whole neutrality thing out of the equation, there is less to be upset at regarding the other person's edits.
Lastly, try to remember to AGF and stop sniping at each other. This is supposed to be fun, and letting yourself get all worked up isn't going to do anyone any good. Remember: The world will not end tomorrow if the edit doesn't go the way you think it should. There is always another day to seek a new consensus. If you guys cannot disengage,i am pretty sure that an admin will help you do so against your will, and I can tell you from experience that that pretty much sucks. 
So, lighten up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on that, Six. If you want to restore what was removed, go ahead. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost weekend Diminished 

message: I took out "Estrangement from his father" because it only has one reference, and is totally covered in the Alfred Lennon, Julia Lennon and Mimi Smith articles. --andreasegde 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut

message: The photo of John in Section 3 has the caption Lennon at Kenwood, his and Cynthia's home. It looks more like a picture of him in the Cavern sometime in 1963, way before Kenwood was ever bought. Can someone who knows the credentials of the photo please change the caption to something more appropriate. Eyebeeuk 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the right caption. I cut out the rest of the photo showing Paul and Ringo looking at Lennon holding Julian. --andreasegde 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon photo in Section 3 

message: And I thought the header photo couldn't get any worse.Sixstring1965 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't dig Long-Haired Lennon, do you? :P - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, yes please! :) --andreasegde 06:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not as keen on this as you are. It could be almost anybody because of the angle and pose, and the resolution is very low. --John 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG, it appears that Six was fucking lying about the whole thing, and did NOT have the permission. He's been indef banned. It just goes to show, don't screw with fair-use licensing, and don't threaten to vandalize an admin;s page when he asks you to remove fair use music samples from your user page. Like, ever. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Arcayne on the "OMG" comment. Deary me, I'm gob-smacked (speechless...) --andreasegde 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, i've been told that the user formerly known as Six-String has socks all over the palce, and simple checkusers don't help. If you notice a similar style of editing, speak up and loudly. And I kinda feel bad for you, And - you gave him a barnstar...eep. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remind me... (ouch!) --andreasegde 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Photo