Talk:John Lydon/Archive 1

Archive 1

What

I didnt know The Sex Pistols were still together, that would make sense because I changed Is to was the lead singer of the sex pistols but someone reversed the edit.

I've reversed the redirect that previously took us from John Lydon to Johnny Rotten, as Lydon used the name 'Rotten' only whilst a member of the Sex Pistols, which was for about 4 years. He declared the persona of 'Johnny Rotten' dead when he left the Pistols, and went on to form PiL, and from then on used the name Lydon. He's had a 24 year career since then as Lydon, so to me it seems more appropriate that Rotten should redirect to lydon rather than vice versa. quercus robur 09:42, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree... regardless of the length of time he was in the Sex Pistols, most people would still remember him for that, and the policy is that whatever the 'most commonly used name by the public' is for a person, that should be its title. However, with redirects I don't think it matters much. --plattopus (talk) 16:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

--- Whats the policy on including profanity? I forget. GWO 16:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Include where necessary, redact when prurient. What you have is fine, I think. If someone were to add the "fuck" incident (which was on Parkinson, I think) then I think that should be spelled out, unstared (as it's something of a famous moment, because of the word). Opinions vary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:17, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this consistent with current situation of spelling-out the f-word butstarring-out the c-word? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's far too much stuff I think on I'm A Celebrity I think. Maybe we could have more on the journalism and (serious) TV work instead? Andrew

May also want to mention something about the Rotten TV series on VH1 ("I want my rotten TV!"). Was extremely short-lived, but still... 11:11, Mar 13 2006

Photos

I think there's a bit too many photographs on this page... — mæstro ^t/c, 07:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You could also argue that there's extremely little on PiL, and because it's one sentence it's contained in the Sex Pistols section, even though PiL lasted about five longer than the Pistols. I guess it doesn't matter since not a lot of interesting stuff happened with the band other than the albums they put out, whilst the short amount of time with the Pistols was much more eventful. I'll let you decide. Sly

• Glad we have the obscure Danish variation on his world-famous assumed name right in the first sentence where the crowds will be expecting it. Brodo 06:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchist?!

Is there any info on Lydon's politics? I seriously doubt he is an anarchist. The Ungovernable Force 03:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

After a web search, he claims to be an anarchist in an interview with the Guardian[1].

He returns to a favourite subject - class. How would he define himself politically? "Asexual...I don't know...individual." He says he has learnt over the years how to make life better for himself, and he'd love to help do the same for society as a whole. It's a big ambition, I say, how would you set about it?

"You've got to stop interfering with individual space," he says. "You've got to stop telling people what is good or bad for them. If you wanna be a raging drug addict, go forth young man, I'm not stopping you, but I'm not paying for it. Right! Get the poncing off the system attitude removed, and then realise what freedom is. Freedom isn't to do what you want at somebody else's expense."

It sounds like a form of anarchy? "It is, but it's a proper kind. It's not just knock it all down with no set of rules. Rules are important, but they're temporary and they're always supposed to be changed."

So yes, he is an anarchist. Probably an individualist anarchist. There we go. And he has, in plenty of other interviews, not confirmed that he is an anarchist, but not contradicted anyone who called him such. --Switch 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But is he an antichrist? MrBlondNYC 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"a proper kind (of anarchy)"... hahah. he is NOT saying HE IS AN ANARCHIST with that. He even refers to anarchy as if they were a good one (the proper one) and the bad one (probably the kind he spoke in their lyrics with the Sex Pistols). I would prefer to remove this guy from the Anarchist category. I don't think he has anything to do with anarchism. please, provide sources that shows he is (or consider himself) an anarchist, because those quotes don't mean a thing. thanks, -Cacuija (my talk) 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note the top note at the top of this page:

"...controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." - Cacuija (my talk) 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be removing him from the Category:Anarchists if nobody shows evidence that he is an anarchist. that phrase doesn't mean he's an anarchist or self-proclaism as such. thanks, -Cacuija (my talk) 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed! --Cacuija (my talk) 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"It sounds like a form of anarchy?"

"It is..."

How can you claim he does not consider himself an anarchist? I would agree there are "bad types" and "good types" of anarchism. You appear not to know a lot about anarchist theory. I already provided sources and you removed him. Time to revert. --Switch 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

UNTIL you DO provide evidence that says he considered himself an anarchist and put it in the article, you cannot place him in the anarchist category. that piece of interview doesn't mean anything. and please keep your comments on whether i know A LOT or not about anarchist concepts, while you mention anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. please. limit to the john lydon talk and provide useful evidence that he is an anarchist. i'm removing him from that list again. --Cacuija (my talk) 20:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He said his political philosophy "Is a form of anarchism". I don't exactly understand what more evidence you need. You're either in denial or being intentionally stupid. -Switch ^t 03:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

first off, watch your language and your rage. secondly. Having one `anarchist` idea doesn't make you an anarchist. by this i mean, you cannot consider somebody an anarchist just for having one anarchist (of the 'proper' kind) idea. If you the reporter would have asked him, "do you consider yourself an anarchist" and he replied yes.. I would not be discussing this because wikipedia doesn't have yet a category called Category:Self proclaimed anarchists for people who have nothing to do with anarchism and said one time they were. Again: having said that doesn't put him in the Category:Anarchists. --Cacuija (my talk) 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, people who self-identify as anarchists are included in the category for anarchists. Example, Jello Biafra, who ran for office and advocates voting, and Murray Rothbard, an anarcho-capitalist who most anarchists do not consider an anarchist. Calling yourslef an anarchist makes you an anarchist on Wikipedia. He said his political philosophy is a form of anarchism. That makes him a self-proclaimed anarchist. That means he belongs in Category:Anarchists. You of all people do not have the authority to decide who is ad is not an anarchist. By the way, my language and rage are fine. I completely stand by what I said. -Switch ^t 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"If you the reporter would have asked him, "do you consider yourself an anarchist" and he replied yes.. I would not be discussing this because wikipedia doesn't have yet a category called Category:Self proclaimed anarchists for people who have nothing to do with anarchism and said one time they were." ...if you know how to read btw lines, you may notice i already knew that people who said 30 years ago they were anarchists they are anarchists for wikipedia. my point is: Is that line, that single "kind of anarchist idea" enough to consider this person an anarchist (i don't care what you/i/the-rest-of-the-world think about lydon, the question is... is serious to consider him and anarchist just for saying that line. again: I HE SAID ONE TIME ,, YES, I AM AN ANARCHIST (no, when i sang "anarchy in the UK" doesn't count) i'm ok and let's put him in this category, it is just that just that line cannot be taken and consider him an anarchist, IMHO. --Cacuija (my talk) 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is dumb, of course he's not AN Anarchist. Politics has nothing to do with John. Not Politics with a capital P. He may have said and sang ABOUT Anarchy, but I wouldn't say he IS an Anarchist! Steveant 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that John Lydon would not be classified as an anarchist because his reasons for writing a song like "Anarchy in the UK had nothing to do with his political views, just that "[he] couldn't think of a ...thing that rhymed with [Antichrist]. And then "anarchist" just fitted really nicely." Parkthecar (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal fan

Could someone include on his page that he is an Arsenal fan? arsenalwwerulz 15:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source for that: [2] - PeeJay 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Green Day

Shouldn't we mention that he attacked green day, and criticised them for not being punk. 82.35.196.55 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I agree he did attack Green day. DavidJJJ 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. He attacks a lot of things. WesleyDodds 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Birth certificate

"birth certificate has been lost" - can't he just get a replacement? is there a source for this? Morwen - Talk 11:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

it's possible that he could just get a replacement, but since it's unclear where he was definitely born, he might just find it easier to just not even bother. it says in his book "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" that his birth certificate was lost. who lost it is unclear and never mentioned... his parents? him? who knows... Skin Crawl 01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - John Lydon and Tom Barry

I've tried a couple of times to add a 'trivia' comment on the main page that John Lydon is a grandson of Tom Barry. Any time I have the post has been deleted by the admins. Simple question - why?

From what I can make out, there are three possible reason for deleting this:

1) It’s considered irrelevant as Tom Barry isn’t anybody famous

Granted, many of you from outside Ireland may not have heard of Tom Barry, but I can assure he would be regarded as a significant figure in the history of Twentieth Century Ireland. His account of the Irish War of Independence, 'Guerilla Days in Ireland', is still in print over fifty years after its publication.

2) Libel concerns over linking John Lydon to an “IRA terrorist”

Of course, any mention of an IRA link to Lydon might have raised libel concerns on the part of the editors. If so, this is due purely to ignorance on their part. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) of the 1919-21 war was just that - the army of the yet-to-be-recognised Irish Republic. Most of it became the Irish Army, a minority (including Barry) opposed the treaty with Britain and retained the IRA label. Barry himself resigned from the IRA in 1938. Therefore to say that somebody was involved with the IRA in the War of Independence is to identify them as part of a national army of a fledging state, not a terrorist.

3) You don’t believe they are really related

The only other reason I can think of for deleting this titbit is that you don’t believe it’s true. However my source is impeccable – John Lydon himself. In the early chapters of ‘No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs’ he talks about his mother, Eileen Barry from Cork. Although he doesn’t actually identify Tom Barry by name, he describes Eileen's father as a leader of the Irish independence army who was famous and 'hated the British'. The only other Barry who could remotely be described as famous from that period was Kevin Barry from Dublin (no relation to Tom), who was hanged at the age of 18 long before he time to think of fathering any children.

It’s evident that Lydon has no idea just how famous his grandfather was and continues to be in Ireland. He would probably scoff at any suggestion that his impulse to rebel and lack of respect for authority to rebel was genetic, but I reckon he could learn a lot about himself by reading his grandfather's life story.

"Famous" is a fluid term. He could have been referring to anyone. "Barry" could have been an assumed name for his mother; his grandfather may not have been called Barry. He may have avoided naming his grandfather just because he wants not to be connected to him. If a genealogist made the link, or if a positive identification were available, it would belong in, and I think it should be included, but at this point it is speculation. Not until it is stated explicitly by a reliable source can it be included. It's unfortunate, but it isn't allowed in. --Switch ^t 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is not included anymore 71.175.61.78 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ari Up?

isn't he to young to be her kids' "grandpa"?

His wife, Nora, is considerably older than him and Ari was about 13/14 when he and Nora started dating. Go figure, eh? He also explains all this in his book. 4.178.132.173 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Ari had her kid when she was like 19

He's quite young for being Ari's dad and grandpa for her kids. But so what? Wanna change it? How? What about it? termi 14:51, 10 March 2007 (CEST)

He's not technically Ari's dad. I'm not sure if he technically ever adopted her as a child. He took in her two kids because Ari is sort of fucked up and thinks she's a Rasta. Skin Crawl 04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual?

could someone start an inquiry into the statement at the beginning of this article that john Lydon is Homosexual? I have never heard such a claim made before. ~~Ben~~ i highly doubt that.

During the case of Lydon versus Malcolm McLaren, several of McLaren's people accused John of harboring "homosexual feelings" toward McLaren, but it was irrelevant to the courtcase and quite frankly, very silly. The fact remains that John Lydon is married and has been for quite a few years. 4.178.132.173 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering his disenchantment with his Roman Catholic background, he has occasionally voiced, in (serious) interviews quite a number of theories that one would commonly associate with Catholicism, amongst them a distaste for divorce, abortian- and also homosexuality, as well as homosexual marriage, adoption etc. I must try to find the link in which I saw him say that, as it would be good to add it, I think. Not050 (talk)

Wikiquote

You have got to love the things this man says! He deserves a wikiquote page and I'll make one probably this weekend, it's easy to find intreviews of him on youtube, he always has something interesting to say! And he has been saying it for a long time now so if anyone opens it beofre me, please sort the quotes by year, for as he says Like fine wine I have improved over the years basically he has admitted he changed, so let's sort em. --Mudel 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay? Skin Crawl 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Contact

Anybody any idea how to contact him? It's pretty urgent actually. An agent or something would be alright. termi 14:49, 10 March 2007 (CEST)

Probably his website would be your best best. ? They probably have an e-mail. Skin Crawl 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guitar

His info box indicates that he plays the guitar. In all the years, I've never seen him (live or on concert photos) play this instrument. I haven't got his solo work, so I'm not sure whether he plays guitar (or dabbles with it) on that. Can someone illuminate? Otherwise I'd suggest to remove "guitar" from the infobox.Malljaja 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if he's left handed, his fretting hand would be his right hand, so the stab wound to the left hand would have had minimal effect on his playing, and he certainly wouldn't play right handed. Can someone clarify that section?Mzmadmike 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's actually said that he can't play the guitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.201.90 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Married?

I read an article on John Lydon's website (the article was from about two years ago) that John and Nora never technically got married. I'll try finding the article again, but I think he's talked about it quite often - that they are not technically a married couple. Skin Crawl 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Who Deleted my photo?

I did 71.175.61.78 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Topshop

I'm sure a few years ago I heard him say somewhere he designed clothes for topshop If anyone can cite this or confirm its not the case please do so. 3tmx 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On Air Personality

Shouldn't there be mentions of his rebellious candor with interviewers? Such as in the MTV interview: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=7824910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.121.29 (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gstq.PNG

Image:Gstq.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly useful interview

John Lydon Uncut is a surprisingly good recent interview by (of all sites) men.style.com. Might be useful for citing some things that are in the article, might even have some material to add. Probably not something to just add to the external links because it is a bit ad-heavy. Hope this is of use to someone. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Palominos

John Lydon does a song called 'The Animal Speaks' on one of the Golden Palomino's albums.

If you can find it, I highly recommend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.14.158 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

dead link?

johnlydon.com referenced from the page appears dead to me 6:45pm 23/2/2008 in the UK - if it's permenant, probably worth removing the links from the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.189.189 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Birth Place

John confirms that he was born in north London on this YouTube Clip from 2005 here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-VIw7qFyid8&feature=related

This was uploaded by rottentv which is John's official YouTube channel.

Aviousours76 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Birth place & cultural affiliation

The issue of JL's "Englishness" vs "Irish descent" has now come up in various forms of dispute, invoking his Irish background (both his parents hail from the island), birth place and alleged fondness of the St Georges flag, and current residence (in the US) to make a case for or against it. Given this repeated dispute, and the fact that there is evidently no authoritative source that clearly states that JL has unambiguously identified himself as being strongly affiliated with any cultural or political entity, the best way to resolve this may be to merely give his place of birth in the lead and remove weighted references to his cultural or "ethnic" origin. In doing so I found my efforts reverted, and so I'm now seeking input from other contributors to reach a consensus on this issue. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how removing his English description (which the anon ediot did himself) to suit an Irish (American?) nationalist, who isn't getting his own way to force an ethnicity description into the lead, makes sense. No one is denying his Irish background, but it doesn't belong in the lead and is already covered later on. This anon editor is also making identical edits on others articles of English people with an Irish background... this is known as POV pushing and am surprised they have not been blocked yet. Also, it would not surprise me if this was the same editor who was repeatedly (falsely) claiming that Lydon was born in Ireland.

Aviousours76 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Just to make it clear, I am not suggesting to include JL's Irish background in the lead. And I agree with you that this is needless, and I've also reverted such edits myself. However, bringing is "Englishness" to the fore is equally biased for the reasons I've mentioned above. It is likely going to spark more warring over JL's cultural/national background, and so forth. So excluding explicit and potentially controversial mention of nationality (or "ethnicity"–with the melting pot that is modern Europe I do not think that Irish or English appropriately describe distinct ethnic entities) in the lead, may help stabilize the entry; inclusion of his birthplace in the lead assures neutrality of the article and provides all the information the reader will need at a glance. I'd urge you to consider these points, and move on from the frustration with edits you consider wilful–often these kinds of disputes are raised by both sides feeling very emotional about the same issue but with different views on it. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no genuine dispute though. This is a user who's only objective is to overstate peoples Irish background and should have been blocked a while ago. I don't see how describing him as English is in any way biased - he IS English. At the moment, he is performing on a stage with 4 St. Georges Flags, a drumkit with a Union Jack finish and at the recent Isle Of Wight festival began England chants. The intro music for the Pistols coming on is also "There'll Always Be An England"! Plus, his recent-ish singles album was titled "Best Of British: 1 £ Notes". As far as I can see, there is no dispute over of his Englishness. No ones denying his Irish background - it's already stated in the article!

Aviousours76 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read over my comments again, as you seem to be hung up on second guessing the anon contributor's intentions, and on your view of JL being English. Please also note that the modified lead has no mention of JL's Irish background, so this has become a moot point. His views on the place of his birth have not been exactly patriotic (see eg., here), and if you're familiar with his experience growing up and during the early days of his career in his home country, it's easy to see why. If the adornment with various flags is really his doing or may even be of satirical nature is somewhat open to debate. Again, please consider that "English" is just as much as a read flag to some readers as "Irish descent" is, as both imply strong cultural affiliation–in JL's case his mixed cultural background could perhaps be separate section, but for the sake of the neutrality and stability of the lead strong statements regarding his nationality or cultural affiliation should be avoided. Malljaja (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MBrady "Anon" Keynote1 to Aviousours76

M Brady "Anon" -- Keynote1) Avoiding the actual topic and contributing sarky remarks, questioning my ethnic/cultural origin/political intentions/objectives reveal much to me about why the additional component is unnacceptable to you. I could similarly portray you/others here--but its entirely inappropriate. Do not let wire and distance provide comfort from civility and empower you to use language you would not use in person. Stick to the discussion topic. (I've put my REAL name on ALL of my previous talk posts BUT have now signed in to remove "anonymity" as a point) In Lydon's autobiography, a reasonable authoritative source, he states that he IS IRISH. (READ IT!) Nonetheless, I worked with Malljaja and came to a solution that makes neither of us completely satisfied but respects what you believe to be opinion, and what we believe to be fact (and vice versa although I've never questioned nor tried to REMOVE his Englishness but INCLUDE the total picture). The INCLUSION of his English birth FIRST and his ethnic hertitage LATER was AND STILL IS the most reasonable format....Finally, what exact alternative can a reader surmise after reading that he was born in England besides that he is English? There is no "dispute" with that fact, the only dispute appears to be what you are trying to achieve by changing it. Keynote1 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check WP:NAMES:

The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Nationality –
   1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)
   2. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

Garik 11 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Read your own quote completely. You are trying to define (and cling to) one element of his ethnicity and squash another. Since "there is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom...ethnicity should generally not be emphasized..." We, Malljaja and I, accepted that. You too should accept the guide you just quoted. Keynote 1====

• I am not emphasizing his ethnicity. According to WP rules, Nationality must be mentioned in the opening paragraph, ethnicity must not. As for "how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom", Lydon is not a problem here. It is a matter of difficulty for people from the UK's "constituent countries", but Lydon was never a citizen of any of those except England and he did not "become notable" when living in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.Garik 11 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reference to WP:MoS. This is indeed a good point for discussion. Although from my experience here and at some other entries, the definition of nationality in the MoS is in serious need of an overhaul–it's become too much of a bone of contention, and diverts valuable time and energy to often fruitless arguing over nationality. "In the normal case" is a phrase that would probably never hold up in legal writing, as it would require a long tail of special definitions of what constitutes "normal"; the ominous reference to the lack of consensus re people from the UK speaks volumes and goes probably a long way to explaining some of the puerile bickering here. So IMHO to deal with this thorny and unruly hedge is to cut it it down, i.e. leave nationality out of the opening paragraph, and merely describe place of birth and present country of residence. A "special case" like JL (born in England to Irish parents, now living in the US for well over a dozen years) would certainly warrant that. It would follow common sense, but I'm well aware that it's all but common–probably not among editors who pad out their arguments with alleged sighting of flags and the playing of beer-soaked anthems. I'll keep the JL page on my watchlist, but will for now abstain from further edits and discussion on this topic. But I'd hope that some form of consensus can be reached not too far from now. Malljaja (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph should give...

Nationality (Rules must be obeyed).Garik 11 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BOTH rules must be obeyed. You stated that "Rudyard Kipling was born in India, does that make him an Indian writer?" Exactly. His Indian birth/Indian life does not necessarily make him "Indian" -he is described as that of his forebears, English, born in India.... Yet, JL et al whose immediate forebears are similarly from elsewhere, are not afforded the same descriptive treament that YOU QUOTE. That is an amazing contradiction. English is BOTH a nationality and ethnicity. But you believe its use represents nationality only. Regardless it is and does represent ethnicity. Is IS BOTH. Yet you want only one element of the lead definiton to be followed because it serves to fit YOUR preference--even though its explained that that is not how it should be. Another writer Jonathan Swift who was BORN IN DUBLIN, IRELAND is defined as Anglo-Irish, NOT IRISH. That is an accurate descriptive lead. (one btw that Kipling's parents used to describe themselves-- Anglo-Indian) Our COMPROMISE eliminated this issue entirely. You and others should respect both the rules that you quote AND the compromise. And according to LYDON'S AUTOBIGRAPHY (PLEASE READ IT) it is indeed a compromise. --keynote1 Keynote1 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The compromise is not yet reached. Please address the following points:

1. The suggested "compromise" goes against the WP rules: Nationality must be given in the opening paragraph, ethnicity must not. Place of birth does not qualify either. Where is nationality in the lead now?

2. "English" in the opening paragraph cannot and should not mean ethnicity, but nationality - just because it is in the opening paragraph! But the opening paragraph must give "nationality". Ethnicity should not be even thought of when you read the lead in an encyclopaedia.

3. Place of birth should NOT be in the opening paragraph (may be optional? Right after date of birth, but before nationality).

4. Kipling is "English" in the lead not because of his ethnicity, but his nationality and his place in the English, not Indian, literature. Just like Lydon "became notable" as an English (by nationality) punk-rocker. After his birth in England his parents could have taken him to some other country where he could have become notable - then we'd say he's a Canadian, or a French, or a Russian, etc. singer regardless of his ethnicity and place of birth.

5. Other than English, what nationality do you think Lydon can be given in the lead according to the rules?

Garik 11 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I said my piece about the WP rules re nationality, which, as is now well illustrated here, are deficient in aptly accommodating special cases such as this one. As I hold no illusions that this rule will change over night, British, though again not uncontroversial for some (see British Isles) would be preferable over English–it is less restrictive and would capture more of the diversity of JL's background. Malljaja (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my suggestion (which, by wiki definition implies consent), and in the hope that edit warring over nationality will now cease, I've included British as JL's nationality. Malljaja (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MJ--I do consent. Not because I agree at all but because you have at least attempted to provide an open-minded inclusive solution. Thank you for that. Keynote 1==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynote1 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe not responding to your suggestion within 3 days implies consent. In fact, the page you linked to states that you haven't reached any consensus. The British description isn't preferable over the English description - as there is no doubt that he is English. The English description isn't restrictive as there ia wiki-wide general consensus to use Eng/Scot/Welsh etc. over British. Prior to this edit war he was described as English it isn't against Wiki policy to go round changing English/Scotish/Welsh/N Irish descriptions to British. If you had any knowledge of John Lydon you would know that he describes himself as English - theres even a quote further on in the article where he describes himself as such. I'm not quite sure why this has actually gone back to argueing over whether to use English or British though as the issue was the IP editor forcing ethnicity into the lead - which should have just been removed.

"You are trying to define (and cling to) one element of his ethnicity and squash another" - this is utter nonsense. You repeatedly tried to force his Irish ethnicity into the lead (and was reverted repeatedly on several articles by numerous editors). The English description isn't anything to do with ethnicity - he is from England, he is English (?!) and it is well established that English/Scottish/Welsh/N Irish are considered acceptable descriptions.

Aviousours76 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"...as there is no doubt that he is English". If your statement were true then we wouldn't have this sort of discussion. Obviously there are editors who feel that this is too narrow a description, and who have made valid points about JL's diverse national background. The editor in question has initially edited anonymously, but he has since created an account, and explained the reason for his changes on several occasions. I've read/listened to interviews with and books about JL since the early 80s. So I reject your notion that I am uninformed. Your implication shows little respect for other editor's work, and I urge you to reconsider your wording and approach here. Using British as a description of national origin is a suggested compromise to move forward and forestall the need to include both "English" and "Irish descent" in the lead and thus make it more stable. JL as a personality bears many contradictions, and if there's an occasion where he may have declared himself as belonging to one national affiliation, he surely would change this at another. Moreover, contrary to your assertion of the universal use of English/Scottish/Welsh in WP entries, there are several articles that give individuals nationality as "British", so we're not looking at something completely out of the ordinary. Malljaja (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your last point - there may well be many articles that use the British description (if there are no firm birth details or if there is a source where they have displayed a preference to this description), but the majoirty of articles do use English/Scottish/Welsh descriptions over British. All I'm doing is restoring the article to how it was prior to the vandalism. He has been fairly consistently described as English for well over 500 edits. You are the only person trying to change the description from English to British, aside from the IP editor who is trying to force Irish descent text into several articles despite it already being covered where it belong in the article. As already pointed out - ethnicity doesn't belong in the lead. English isn't an ethnicity. Although, I'm not quite sure how changing English to British is a compromise for someone who is trying to over promote Irishness in articles as Irishness is certainly not a brand of Britishness any more than it is of Englishness.

Here is a clip from a recent Pistols gig in Birmingham. Note that along with with the Union Jack design drumkit, the amps are covered in St. George's Crosses and at 3:33 Lydon is clearly singing "I'm an Englishman, I ain't no animal" (which as I'm sure you're aware, isn't part of the original lyrics).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p1tASpO3tJY

I trust you will now leave the article as is as you have not reached a consensus to change the descriptin to British and that he has been very consistently described as English for well over 500 edits.

Aviousours76 (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the only one supporting British in the lead, as should now be obvious. Note that this constitutes a compromise, and that my preferred version was to leave out nationality in the lead entirely (and I had my own clashes over the inclusion of "Irish descent" with the anon contributor in question, see here, and who has now accepted this compromise). You're also very strongly suggesting that there's consensus about the use of nationality–not so! To quote from the WP:Manual of Style (biographies) "Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom". Moreover, there are plenty of examples of persons being described as British, such as here, here, and here. Moreover Lydon himself has argued in an interview here that "there isn't much Britishness left here any more and we need it." So he has clearly identified himself with being British, so describing him as such is entirely appropriate. Citing his lyrics or stage persona is utterly pointless: he's also famously suggested in his lyrics that he's the "antichrist"... So do you seriously believe that he's revealed his true identity in these lyrics? Lastly, Wikipedia by its very nature is not static in its content, so even if JL has been described mainly as English before, this doesn't preclude changes that more aptly describe his national/cultural background as more contributors feed information into this entry. Malljaja (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A compromise in what way? It doesn't even appear to relate to the issue at hand. The IP editor/Keynote1 has stated they don't agree with your suggestion and stated they aren't even disputing the English description! They stated they wanted the English description, plus reference to his Irishness - it is already there in the Early Life section, plus the matching category - from reading the article as is, there is no doubt at all that he is English of Irish descent.

You hadn't reached any consensus with your "compromise" and your edit was reverted accordingly. I haven't suggested there is a strict consensus at all - you are the one that stated you had reached a consensus because no one has reponded within 3 days of you posting the suggestion. Although, a quick glance over Wikipedia will show, there is an obvious general consensus to use English/Scottish/Welsh/N Irish over British as it conveys more information. For some reason you have taken the issue of an IP editor repeatedly inserting an ethnic description into the lead when it doesn't belong there to change the lead description.

Aviousours76 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC

Keynote1 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Incorrect. Again....I DID and DO accept Malljaja's suggestion; although for your record it is indeed NOT my preferred description.....And as Malljaja noted your statement that you have "no doubt" that he is English-- coupled with your writing/s that I am simply trying to "promote Irishness" and "force Irish descent" are comical contradictions. Malljaja worked to remove the Irish ethnic description and I accepted the change--that certainly isn't "promoting" by absentia. I have requested before that you stop trying to push/uncover agenda--especially when there is more than ample evidence of your own. AGAIN, STICK TO THE TOPIC.

Back in mid June when you first set-up?? and other instances you quote a youtube link to refute an editor who claimed that Lydon was actually born in Ireland. On the clip Lydon casually says "where I was born and raised......really" as he walks in North-London. Yet a few moments later Lydon states "my background is Irish...I'M AN IMMIGRANT MYSELF." No, I did not write that he was BORN in Ireland, as you assert, but to someone/s who did, you found a clip, heard what YOU wanted to hear with the first quote, rejected the second quote, and that argument was closed-- as far as you were concerned... Incredible. And metaphorical for this entire episode. YOUR CLIP www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIw7qFyid8&feature=related

Because (and this is frighteningly simple but I will try ONCE MORE) English is BOTH a nationality AND an ethnicity it is not ENTIRELY accurate to detail English in Lydon's lead alone; it documents what you believe to be an acceptable "nationality" but misleads on who he is in totality by allowing for inferred ethnicity. Stating that he was "born in England" would certainly have generously implied that he is English. But, not acceptable to you. Interesting that the removal of one definition, the Irish "ethnic" one was fine by you--but conversely, you have no problem with another one being included because it suits you-- under the guise of "nationality" of course; yet then when it is ommitted SUDDENLY there's a doubt he 's English even though there's no doubt?.... (Sounds like there's SOME doubt).....I accepted Malljaja's NEXT compromise not because I agreed AT ALL rather because it is just that--a compromise, and an effort by one who did not share my opinion to be at least non-contradictory AND-more importantly- reasonable.

My real preference? To have NO STATEMENT that one can imply/infer ethnicity from/to UNLESS THAT STATEMENT IS COMPLETE (which Malljaja and I first tried to do)..... As Mr. Lydon himself said..."Well, you're brought up in England with people telling you you're Irish. You go to Ireland and they call you English. So, you're very confused as to what your nationality is. And you end up, quite rightly, not believing in any nationality." If you can't agree with Mr. Lydon himself, you should at least try to work with someone who has given you a description that is generously close to the one you seek.

You are suggesting that I am/was the only editor reverting your edits - this wasn't the case. You have been repeatedly told by numerous editors that ethnicity doesn't belong in the lead. The English decription doesn't refer to ethnicity. As per the Nationality article on Wikipedia "Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Kurds, Basques, Catalans, English, Welsh, Scots, Palestinians, Tamils, Quebecers and many others". His ethnicty/brackground is already covered in the article - the article leaves no doubt as to his ethnicity.

I haven't disputed he has a strong Irish background (no one has - no one is removing it from the article), anyone who has read about him is will aware of it, but he obviously has no problem with being English either (otherwise he wouldn't be willing to perform in front of English flags, have There'll Always Be An England as the bands intro music, constantly refer to England in interviews http://www.nme.com/news/sex-pistols/37367 note the "one of use" quote etc).

Malljaja brought the issue to the talk page to try and reach some kind of consensus - and the result to their suggestion has been a weak accept and a strong oppose so far... therefore no grounds for change as per wikipolicy. The article should be left "as is" until some agreement has been reached. I don't see how it is any kind of compromise as it has just removed more information from the lead and doesn't even correspond to the issue. It seems to be agreed that he is English of Irish descent - the real discussion is about how that is to featured in the article, surely? The options are as is - just English, or English of Irish descent.

Aviousours76 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John Destroy.jpg

The image Image:John Destroy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Let us have another pic of Lydon. He looks too serious here, he wouldn't like it. 92.100.37.132 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I find it strange that the three things mentioned in the "Controversy" section are all from 2008—when John was 52. Isn't the whole mythology of Johnny Rotten that he was a controversial figure in the 1970s? Those three incidents from 2008 should really be footnotes compared to the controversy that Lydon and the Pistols stirred up in the 70s. If anyone has a biography of him or of the Sex Pistols, expanding this section with relevant info would be a great service. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that the section should be renamed "Recent controversies". Sex Pistols activity belongs in that article, surely. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a nonsense that these three incidents are even mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.249.140 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable friends

The section "early life" states Lydon "...attended St. William of York School in Islington, North London, where his friends included David Crowe, Tony Purcell and John Gray. David Crowe went on to become involved with Public Image whilst John Gray became a school teacher and Tony Purcell went on to become a pioneer of the Internet industry in Scotland." I can think of no good reason to include a list of school friends unless they are notable in their own right, and from what I can tell, none of those listed are notable, especially not Mr. Gray, the future school teacher. Tony Purcell has few hundred Google hits, most of which seem to be repeating the identical PR copy. Likewise, David Crowe, who was supposedly "involved with Public Image" (as what -- a roadie?) scores a few hundred Google hits, with nothing substantive about his notability. I move that the mention of these three be removed unless they can be properly sourced. Occam's Shaver (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In lieu of any disagreement, I have removed them. Occam's Shaver (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

John Gray does have the paradoxical notoriety of being the otherwise unnotable one of the fours Johns and being part of punk lore because of it. Confirming him beyond myth is helpful; further disclosure misses the point unless revealing a blood-oath never to become a famous punk musician! David Crowe was PiL soundman and in this interview from December 1979 was considered a full member of PiL together with Jeanette Lee http://www.johnlydon.com/zz79.html Kmitch87 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stance"

"Lydon became notorious in the media during the 1970s as a figurehead of the punk movement, and for his stance against the music establishment, class system and the British monarchy."

What stance? We need a source for this information. Lyrics of their songs don't tell us anything about his stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.95.134 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1996 Pistols Reunion - no mention?

There is absolutely no reference to the Pistols 1996 Filthy Lucre Re-union tour. Dubbed by Lydon "Fat, 40 and Back!" , this was a significant event and tour. Only a brief sentence exists that says "the band reunited in the 1990's" , in the wrong decade of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123torrent (talk • contribs) 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship

May throw fuel on some fire. Apologies in advance if it does. However, I was surprised to read today's paper Lydon state that he is an Irish citizen and travels under and Irish passport:

• Boyd, Brian (2010-08-31), The Making of a Rotten Public Image, The Irish Times, I didn't ask to move out of Ireland. I'm an Irish citizen. I travel on an Irish passport. Don't look down your f****n' nose at me for having an English accent. {{citation}}: Text "access-date:2010-08-31" ignored (help)

--RA (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lydon has dual nationality. He is a British Citizen by his birth in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and an Irish Citizen by descent through his parents' birth in the Republic of Ireland. He can hold passports for either or both. As outlined above, where it gets confusing is that the vast majority of the native population would, at least at home, consider themselves according to the broad ethnic groupings of English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish; the notable exception being Ulster loyalists. Also, a passport need not be required for British and Irish citizrens to travel between the UK and Ireland which can add to the confusion. As for ethnicity, I am certainly English and could claim the Low Weald as my roots. To me Lydon is London Irish, best described himself as being hated in London for being an Irish immigrant and hated in Ireland for having an English accent. As for his association with England and the Union Flag, he as entitled to it as Morrissey or the first generation Bengali tottering around in his platforms is he so desires. Kmitch87 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheist?

"Lydon's parents brought him up to be a Roman Catholic, and took him and his brothers to Mass, but he "never had any godlike epiphanies or thought that God had anything to do with this dismal occurrence called life."[52] He would retain this atheist belief for the rest of his life."

It's clear that Lydon isn't religious and is in fact very anti-religious, based on what he's said in interviews and in various songs he has written. But at the same time, I am not sure if that qualifies him as an atheist. He does believe in the afterlife and the supernatural, so he is not a materialist. He has never outright said "I don't believe that there are any gods," just that he doesn't believe they are involved in human life. Do we really have enough information to call him an atheist? Ash Loomis (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Segregated education mention in lead

It mentions Lydon speaking out in opposition to segregated education in the lead, and refers to such as a "contentious issue". Segregated education redirects to Brown vs. Board of Education. At the time Lydon was in Sex Pistols (not to mention afterwards), Brown vs. Board of Education was already well-established in the US, and was no longer a "contentious issue", since the segregationist movement had already been marginalized by that point. So I'm not sure Lydon speaking out against segregated education was a particularly "controversial" or "punky" thing to do. Unless the phrase "segregated education" in this article is being used to refer to something else, perhaps? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "segredated education" was being used to refer to something else. Lydon was educated in England, where schools have never been segregated on colour. The article mentions segregation on the basis of gender, and public (private)/state schools. Public schools still exist today. The state school I attended didn't go co-ed until 1973, so it is very possible Lydon's school was a boys-only school. I see that the misleading wikilink has already been removed; good. HairyWombat 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Finsbury Park

The article states that the young John Lydon lived in Finsbury Park and that

"At the time, the area was largely impoverished, with a high crime rate and a population comprised predominantly of working class Irish and Jamaican migrants."

I'm 10 months younger than Mr Lydon and I too was brought up in Finsbury Park. 'Largely impoverished' I'll give you - certainly we were. But high crime rate? I'd like to see some evidence of that. It is entirely at odds with my experience of living there at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.115.40 (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A-Levels

It is often reported in reliable sources that John Lydon obtained two A-Levels (e.g. here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3444151.stm.) But this article makes no mention of this and says he dropped out of college. What is the actual situation? Peteinterpol (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

St Anne's Hospital

I've changed the article to indicate that it's in Haringey borough and not Highgate which is miles away. 92.40.253.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Controversies"

This section needs to be integrated into the rest of the article as it is inherently POV. Also, the section is way too large compared to the rest of the article and violates WP:UNDUE. A few scuffles and misunderstandings are not central to the career of this person. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Johnny now appears to be a part of the establishment? MBE?Knighthood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.22.70 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He has also done extensive charity work for children, and YES, had legal issues, SO WHAT?? Did it impact his career, maybe, who knows? How about his early life, books published etc etc etc ????Coal town guy (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

+image

can i put this photo in the template? thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Σπάρτακος (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Preferably not. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an improvement over the one we already have. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

simple is more recently and has expression is normal--Σπάρτακος (talk please) 08:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

His face and body are also mostly obscured. I think that trumps any argument based on a couple years' recency. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The body, the face not, however, ok, I asked,thank you --Σπάρτακος (talk please) 10:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

...and yet you continue to spam your pictures all over the Wikipedias of the world... Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

   This talk page is for discussing en:WP, not WPs of the world. I should also think WP:AGF and its obvious sibling (the principle that what matters is the effectiveness of the accompanying article) also rule out that talk contrib.
--Jerzy•t 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Article title

   The John Lydon article's 2001 hx page seems to establish that title as the first one (despite 2003 evidence of an article Johnny Rotten and Rdr from JL). In any case, however, i found no sign of a G-test, so i offer the reassurance that the G-srch for "Johnny Rotten" has only 540,000 hits vs. ~20% more for "John Lydon" (648,000). I assumed JL fans were blinded by their own enthusiasm, and i guess i was right, to the extent that the G-test was too close for any collection of gut-checks to be reliable. (Fittingly, it turns out that Fitzgerald was writing about second acts in American lives, and first used the phrase in saying "I once thought [emphasis added] that there were no second acts...." Lydon indeed has a sound second act ... of which i knew nothing.)
--Jerzy•t 10:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Record label prevented him from releasing material for many years

Not adding this to the article because I don't have sources in front of me, but Lydon was contractually bound by the record label and prevented from releasing material as long as he owed them money, ala "Some of Your Friends Are Already This Fucked" http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17 This is important and should be added to the article. Smitse (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Lydon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629140138/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4159539.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4159539.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080610062148/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/08/bmlydon108.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/08/bmlydon108.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

A user has changed Lydon's nationality to Irish on a number of occasions recently and on the last occasion added a citation which does indeed indicate to me that Lydon holds an Irish passport. I propose that the lead should change to:

• ... is an English-born Irish singer, songwriter, and musician

Unless there are objections I will make the change shortly. CalzGuy (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That may have been a bit hasty. Another citation here suggests he has multiple passports, including a British one. So how best to express that in the lead? CalzGuy (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes and this suggests he also has a US passport. So how should that be expressed in the lead?

References

First image in article

I believe the John Lydon - 2010.jpg image that was there until recently is the better image. The John lydon live 27 10 2013 photo 13.JPG image is much less clear. His face is darker, and it is obscured by the microphone and lights. The 2010 image is well focused, well composed, and brighter than the other. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The King is gone, but he's not forgotten.

Does anyone know anything about the reference to Johnny Rotten in Neil Young's Hey, Hey, My, My? Why did Young put it in there? What was Lydon's reaction/response to it? What exactly is the meaning to the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.144.81 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The song is discussed at some length in its article - Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black) - though the Johnny Rotten reference is not discussed in detail. Was it correct to say that Johnny Rotten had burned out ? He wasn't Johnny Rotten by that time, I suppose.

Here's something from Mr. Lydon:

"Also in 1979, Neil Young released "My My, Hey Hey (Out of the Blue)," which was about you. You tried to get him on your Rotten TV show, but I don't think you've ever said what you thought of the song itself.

Well, I've always loved Neil Young's music so you know, like, wow. One of my all-time favorite albums was [1975's] Zuma. It's so close to collapsing [laughs]. I really loved the mood and tones he puts into songs and, uh, so there that comes along.

"This is the story of Johnny Rotten."

"Oh, hilarious! I wanted to know what it was about. "The king is gone but not forgotten?" King? [Laughs] Gone? [Laughs] Well, it helped lurch him back into a career there somewhat."

-- https://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/john-lydon-and-his-rotten-past-20150429 -- Beardo (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Or -

maybe he was just pressed for rhymes.

the king is gone but he's not pernicious

the king is gone but he's not delicious

the king is gone but he's not doing the dishes

the king is gone but he's not FORGOTTEN

- https://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=41&threadid=35841 - Beardo (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

But pernicious, delicious, doing the dishes would not rhyme with the end of the first line. Unless the first line were to have ended in vicious -- which is perhaps informative!

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Libel

Nothing I've said is libel

Which would have been true. Slanderous, perhaps (though as we now know, not untrue) but not libel: libel can only be said of a thing that has been written, or published online. Nuttyskin (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Anarchism

I think he has several different things on the issue over the decades. I don't think we should place so much emphasis on one quote.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

When did John become an American?

When did John Lydon become an American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.198.189 (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)