Talk:John Lennon/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bigger than Jesus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Cool.LessHeard vanU 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Fuck" and Yoko Ono. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lennon and his family controversy 

message: Is anybody able to supply the surname for the above? Thanks.LessHeard vanU 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good stuff. Thank you.LessHeard vanU 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aunt Mimi (and husband George). 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Beatles Quotes 

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

text: At a guess "Champan" = "Chapman"; A simple typing error.LessHeard vanU 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  isin't john lennon's killer as hated as adolf hitler? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh sorry.
Yer alright. But please sign your comments.--Crestville 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon's Humour Concern 

message: 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)
thread_title: Beatles reaction to murder

message: 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)
thread_title:  new pics...... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Those chords are wrong. It's not important, but I thought I'd mention it.--Crestville 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Getting Better" (song) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Role in the Beatles

message: 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: []. Ta very much.--Crestville 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[George Smith (John Lennon)|George Toogood Smith]] up for deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Dirty Mac 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Last Will and Testament of John Lennon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits and contributions

message: 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)
thread_title:  His ashes 

message: ===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.  See footnote
*If this article is about a person, please add  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.See footnote
*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.See footnote
*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.See footnote
* 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.  See footnote 
*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.”
See footnote
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
*Please provide citations for all of the 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. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review suggestions 

message: 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.  See footnote
*If this article is about a person, please add  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.See footnote
*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.See footnote
*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.See footnote
* 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.  See footnote 
*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.”
See footnote
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
*Please provide citations for all of the 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. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Lennon]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Dear Mr. Bird, please look at The Beatles discussion page about your idea. andreasegde 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Lennon Day 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The rich jew fag comment isnt necesary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Speedy deletion"... WHATTA JOKE!!!!!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes. I totally withdraw the inference of vandalism. My bad.LessHeard vanU 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24" removing:Entertainers who died in their 40s" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: good thought, thanks - I'll go for boldTvoz 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove wikify tag? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: John Winston Ono Lennon 

message: 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)
replies: text: good points - I'll take a look. Tvoz 19:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Sinclair details 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Source for Beatles instrumental credits can be found in Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head  - 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)
thread_title:  Instruments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Here's where you go: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cgingold 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Typo corrected. Tvoz | talk 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request protection for later this week? 

message: "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)
replies: text: hahaha - you have a point!  go ahead - or I will Tvoz 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  2nd sentence 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Too subjective?

message: 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)
thread_title: Lost Weekend

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Early years

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cynthia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Turn on, tune in, drop out 

message: 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)
thread_title: Freddie, again

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes and References

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Mimi and the early years

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Word count

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FA or GA