Talk:John Lennon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Not quite an accurate picture

It might be just me, but this article seems to focus too much on the negative and bad things John said about people. Sure, he might have been a bit cynical and could be cruel at times, but those interviews that suggest he pretty much hated the other three Beatles, particularly Paul, were done at a time when he was constantly on drugs and probably wasn't in his best frame of mind. If you think about it, the reason he probably suddenly started doing all these interviews was to vent his frustration about the Beatles' breakup.

If you read articles from their earlier years, everyone was impressed by how it was never about John, George, Ringo or Paul, it was always about the group. If you watch their films A Hard Day's Night and Help!, it shows. Not to mention that, obviously, you don't spend eight years in a band with guys you don't like. And in general, he did do good things in his lifetime. This article seems to paint him as an angry and frustrated intellectual, which he wasn't. The 'bigger than Jesus' quote wasn't a knock against religion, either, it was a criticism of the way Jesus' teachings were fading into obscurity and being replaced in people's minds by pop culture, etc. Americans took it word-for-word and blew it up into a massive controversy.

Now, I didn't know him, and neither did the other people editing this, but John Lennon strikes (present tense because he was dead eight years before I was born) me as an extremely intelligent and creative person who was searching for meaning. The guy made a lot of mistakes and did some not so great things during his life, but this concentrates far too much on what he did from 1970-75, which from an observer's point of view wasn't the greatest period for him. It's just what gets talked about, because it makes an excellent topic for gossip magazines and so-called biographies. In fact, if you go the bottom of this page and read the comments by Paul and John after the fact, it's a perfect example:

http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/db1971.11jp.beatles.html

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it focuses on the bad things he said about people. However, his last interviews, and his first (Lennon Remembers) solo interviews were, unfortunately, quite negative. Also, unfortunately, that's all we have. As far as the years in focus, JOHN LENNON was active primarily 1970-75. This isn't The Beatles' page. John was an intelligent, creative person who could sometimes, in real life (not in song), could lack a little sensitivity at times. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are that it is quite negative. Just looking through the Quarrymen artricle and this one there are alot of negative things. John was apparantly a violent and jealous woman beater. He also shamshed an instrument on a band mates head. According to this he was insolent, sarcastic and fecetious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour/Anger

I think this article could be improved by including further aspects of his personality. For example, while there is some discussion of his humour and wit, it would be relevant to include referenced opinions that his wit could be "acerbic", "caustic", etc. Similarly, references to his anger. Here is a 2008 quote from Jann Wenner partly about a 1970 interview "John was a guy who went up and down and up and down and his moods and attitudes and so I think we caught him on one of those down things but he was an angry guy overall to begin with. He was a guy who had a bad childhood and who was angry about that and being abandoned and the way he was treated in school and the guy was so bright and so bursting with talent and genius really but everything conspired to kind of constrain him. You know where he went to school and how the teachers treated him all that stuff and he was just plain old ready to fight the world."

Other folk's impressions of John are reflected in Pete Sinfield's lyrics to the song "Happy Family" recorded by King Crimson, which cast John as "Nasty Jonah", and the parody of The Rutles which cast the John-character as "Ron Nasty". This is relevant to the article as it may serve to balance out depictions of John as solely a peace-maker: he wrote "Give Peace a Chance", "Imagine", as well as "How Do You Sleep" and "Attica State". They are all relevant reflections of his state of mind and creativity.--Design (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly cite other peoples' opinions of him, but to cite multiple sources and draw collective conclusions from them would be a synthesis and therefore breach the original research policy. However, if any reliable source has already done this, it would be citable. --Rodhullandemu 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rodhullandemu, as any synthesis of his character would inevitably lead one down the garden path, so to speak. There are numerous examples of how cruel he could be, and how generous, but one has to let the readers read between the lines, and not present a slab of criticism that could easily be attacked as not being the complete truth. Andreasegde. (Sorry, but I can't sign my name, as it doesn't work...)

Sorry I missed this; the major authority on Lennons less than "lovable mop top" character would be himself - listen to the admissions on Jealous Guy. Another major source would be the (auto)biographies of Cynthia and Julian Lennon. Lennon himself was aware of his shortcomings, and was honest about them - something some fans eulogise without concerning themselves with the principle bad events he describes. As ever - good sources. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree about the issue of 'synthesis'. I still think the article would benefit from referenced examples/opinions about Lennon's angry/acerbic side. A rounded portrait, IMHO, includes his Some Time in New York City radicalism/agression, his nasty wit (joking about crippled people, etc), as well as his Bed-in pacifism. The 'peace-activist' tag should not be a whitewash. Similarly see the talk topic above, about his drug use.--Design (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lennon "retirement"

Altho he didn't release any of his own records from October 1975 thru November 1980, Lennon didn't know he was going to officially take time off (retire) until 1977 when, in an interview in Japan, he stated he'd be taking three years off to look after the baby. This is often misquoted as Lennon saying "I paid my debt to society, I'll never work again" In 1980, he was asked where he was for the past 5 years, and he answered baking bread and looking after Sean. But he did work in 1976 with Ringo Starr -- and he didn't think of taking an official extended break until 1977. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He actually baked bread only once, and asked Yoko to take a photo of it (from an interview with her.)--90.146.214.190 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Does May Pang need her picture in this article?

Seriously, I think she should be mentioned as is, But I don't think she is important enough to have her full picture in this article about John Lennon. However, it is not my opinion that counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.12.13 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a paper encyclopedia, so more is requested, not less.

The picture is a "free-use" photo, which is always asked for.

Pang worked on Mind Games, Pussy Cats', Rock 'n' Roll , Walls and Bridges, and others during an 18-month period with Lennon.

Your opinion does count.--andreasegde (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is great, but I just don't think it makes the page look professional. I also think that it maybe is hurting it from becoming a featured article. In my opinion. She might have been a part of his life for a year but no one wants to go to this page and read about May Pang and see her picture in full resolution. If she has a picture in this article how come McCartney doesn't? or even Harrison or Starkey? Why not add Mark Chapman as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.106.198 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

McCartney, Harrison and Starr are all pictured in the article. As for Chapman, well, I don't know, other than many people would probably find it in bad taste. faithless (^speak) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked on the McCartney page -- there's a photo of him and Dot Rhone, marijauna and his english teacher. So, please. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder about the English teacher though.... Tvoz/talk 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

Click here to see image referred to as "side on" below
The image of him side on is not the best of images either. The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've cropped the horrible chair and camera stand out of the 1969 image anyway.

(No images on talk pages, per policy.) I agree that the image in the above link is not the best, but the quality of that image (by that I mean clarity and resolution) is far superior to the one from the postage stamp. I don't have a problem with the postage stamp image elsewhere on the page, but not in the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ward on this - the postage stamp image is not suitable for the infobox, and is kind of weird to boot. Tvoz/talk 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's a bad image. Not because of the quality, but because it's a picture of Lennon with his long hair and beard which he had in 1969, and of which he later stated that he hated that haircut (Rolling Stone interview 1970). Doesn't the world know John Lennon as the guy with the round glasses? Like the first picture google shows? OlivierGoessens (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is David Peel?

David was a MAJOR part in the John Sinclair 10 for 2 concert (played with Lennon) and the David Front show was a DAVID PEEL performance that John and Yoko joined in for. Why is this being left out EVERYWHERE on wiki?

A quick search of Google or Youtube will provide all the sources needed to prove this fact in rock and roll history.

Can someone please help me edit this. Wiki is really not my thing... but this was an important time, these facts should be added.

(talk) 13:46, 18 December 2008

You're going about this in a terribly inappropriate way. Wikipedia has policies and rules, not the least of which are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. It is very important that you read and follow those policies rather than trying to bulldoze your way into an article by edit warring. First, Peel is not mentioned in any of the articles cited in John Lennon. The source you added (YouTube) is an inappropriate source because YouTube is unreliable and violates copyright. It also is original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia. Find a reliable, third-party source and cite it. And above all, discuss your changes on Talk:John Lennon when others disagree with your edits. If you need help or need to ask a question, ask your question on your talk page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. But please take the time to read the links that have already been placed on this page. Ward3001 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Very strongly agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to understand the wiki has a HUGE LEARNING curve for most of us these days. Help us, please. I didn't try to add some B.S. or stolen material, or promotion... it is an important omitted detail from John life. I and 1,000's of other New Yorkers (who knows how many worldwide) ALSO know the story of John Lennon, David Peel and the Yippies, the East Village... APPLE RECORDS. David has records out on Apple, has song PRODUCED by John and with Yoko singing (look up the song AMERIKA). David pretty much helped talk John into playing the 10 for 2 concert... Lennon was playing with PEEL on the David Forest show... David Peel's picture is STILL the one in the FBI file for John Lennon (a VERY FAMOUS FBI ERROR... there was a PLAY done about it called "I on a Beatle" Look that one up as well) not the other way around (watch the video).

These are HUGE FACTS... if I do not know how to put them up right... here I am telling you to research them... and YOU PUT THEM UP. That way I don't have to post on wiki... I really don't want to, but it BLEW MY MIND that David was being left out of shows the John was playing with him on. Peel was booked for 10 for 2 before John was on the bill... hence John Lennon and The Lower East Side (L.E.S. was David's band at the time.

I think you guys are BEYOND ITELIGENT to get me point... in a word..

HELP!

(I need somebody :)

(talk) 02:05, 19 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.15.94 (talk)

ALSO.... he is even in the wiki NOTES already featured on this page. Note Number 144 http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob18.html search Peel for a source on all the facts I just mentioned.

and another NOTE. NOTE number 148 on this page is for "The US vs. John Lennon" Check ImDb or watch the movie. David Peel is n at least 10 minutes of the movie telling the story... why? He was there, he was a major part of it, it was a major part of history... that's why they made the movie. In the very strange political times we are in... it is VERY IMPORTANT that this story be told correctly.

once again PLEASE HELP!

(talk) 02:14, 19 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.15.94 (talk)

Ok... maybe I am trying to be too helpful, but here a group of "SOURCES" "NOTES" "annotations" whatever you wiki geniuses call it for David Peel and John Lennon and Yoko Ono's professional / personal relationship.

http://www.the40yearplan.com/article_120608_Happy_Washington_Monument_Day.php http://www.film.com/celebrities/david-peel/14508714 http://books.google.com/books?id=LJ9Y0YgSE1oC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=david+peel+john+lennon&source=bl&ots=pCcIo61BfN&sig=G4kyi63rJPQdR04wlWqSqjbSQdk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA36,M1 http://www.documentaryfilms.net/index.php/the-us-vs-john-lennon/ http://books.google.com/books?id=Dj5uY-yAy4QC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=david+peel+john+lennon+john+sinclair&source=bl&ots=nnCKlpTp3f&sig=ggAJOkkiofIVluqwHMl_ZmqAV80&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318115/ http://www.democracynow.org/2000/5/25/gimme_some_truth_the_fbi_files http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4764.html http://www.bagtwo.scottunes.com/dope1.html

guys / girls... fans.. friends... please HELP! (I need somebody)

(talk) 02:27, 19 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.15.94 (talk)

This is an encyclopediac entry, not a biography. Lennon's work with Yoko (aside from the albums they released together) aren't included. We'd have to include Geraldo Rivera, Elephants Memory, Johnny Winter, Keith Moon, Lori Burton, Angela Davis, Bob Gruen, etc. I think it should be featured prominently on David Peel's page. And what jacket of Peel's is Lennon wearing? Hotcop2 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I am not asking for Davd Peel's biography to be added to John Lennon's profile. I was only trying to add David's name to the "Free John Sinclair" concert and David Frost entry. I was only bringing up all the other points to strengthen my poisition on Peels name at very least being added to the above events. It happend, it totally searchable... it belongs here as part of the story.

please help

(talk) 12:59, 19 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.15.94 (talk)

John Lennon / Jerry and Yoko as a GUESTS OF DAVID PEEL and The Lower East Side Band - http://www.retroland.com/retrotalk/viewtopic.php?t=14460&view=next - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0554975/

Watch the show... read the info... please correct this error in wiki history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.15.94 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I put Peel up yesterday. It's not quite as earth-shattering as you're making it sound, but he's there. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

______________

HotCop2 thank for adding David's name. Earth-shattering I don't know... but a MAJOR part of David's life and career and a big part of John and Yoko's as well. If he know that he was left out of the story it would be as if a life's work went without notice.

One last thing though, the David Frost performance. With a little more research you will find that I am 100% correct. John and Yoko were SPECIAL GUESTS of David Peel and The Lower East Side, not the other way around. It will billed as David Peel and The Plastic Ono Lower East Side Band. I found a link with the poster of the show once... maybe I can find it again. But I promise you is is fact, anything you can do to at least add David's name to the post would be VERY MUCH appreciated.

I hope your holiday was GREAT!

Happy New Year!

PhiMedia (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes a commercial 28 years after death.

Does anyone think this merits mentioning? MSNBC.com reports One Laptop Per Child has used Lennons image and voice in an ad approved by Yoko Ono. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28409967/ Padillah (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote no. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Genres, again (sigh)

I smell a genre war brewing. Does anyone know off hand whether there has been a consensus in the past to limit the genres in the infobox? If not, I'd like to launch a consensus discussion and ask editors to consider limiting genres according to previous consensus on The Beatles: Rock and Pop. Ward3001 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont see what the problem is with stating the different genres that he has done. anyone who thinks Psychedelic rock and pop rock are the same thing doesnt know their music. Its not like it is wrong information is stated with the genre section. The McCartney article states the different genres as well so I dont see why this is such a big deal if it is accuratley stated, which it is. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

The Beatles Section

I have a problem with the section for a couple of reasons. Number One I would just like to say that it is written quite well up to the "Jesus Comment" section. After that part, the "Jesus Comment" is all the section talks about. I believe the section "The Beatles" is supposed to be written about Lennon as a part of The Beatles. I just want to know who did the majority of the writing because I think they did very well up to the "Jesus Comment". If they could re-do it and maybe write about his contributions to The Beatles from "Help!" to "Let It Be", because that entire span of time is completely absent from the section. It only goes from "Please Please Me" to "Help!", which is quite rediculous, Thank You. I would do it myself but I just dont have the time. :| Chasesboys —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

Also, when it talks about "the beatles backlash" over the "Jesus Comment" I think it should be included that John said, "people have to buy it before they can burn it" something alongs those lines, I don't have the exact quote. Anonymous.

Nice idea but funnily enough, of all Beatles, it was Harrison who made that remark. I say funnily enough because although I've seen it interpreted both as "attempting to make light of the situation" and as "being pragmatic", my own unsubstantiated opinion is that although witty, it is in essence a materialistic observation. PL290 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Beatles day life.ogg

The image File:Beatles day life.ogg 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.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Strawberryfields.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Now this is just stupid. Number 1) Lennon wrote the damn song Number 2) It is one of his best damn songs so it gives the viewers of this article an example of his work with the beatles Number 3) I hate bots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.8.202 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The beginning paragraph

about his solo career is just retarted. I can understand why Ward would think that the one before was POV, which it is not because everything that was in it was in fact true. Saying his first solo album was a success is not pov because it was in fact a major success. I find it funny that ward can even look at that paragraph and not find it insulting to john lennon and wikipedia. lets reveiw it right now. "John lennon launched a successfull solo career, then he retired in 1976, then he got murdered." That is basically what it says. What a joke. How is saying lennon made successful albums until his unexpected hiatus POV? Look at his albums articles and look at the references that show they were all successful. I find it hard to believe that Ward does not have a personal agenda against Lennon with the crap he does to this article. This is a major person in the history of the world and all it says about him is "John lennon launched a successfull solo career, then he retired in 1976, then he got murdered." User:Chasesboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.97.143 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to make some suggestions for specific additions here (without all the POV and with some sources) and see what others think about it. And please watch your personal accusations about me. I have no agenda other than keeping this article encyclopedic. Your stating that I do "crap" to this article (with no specifics about what I've done that's so egregious) is a personal attack. I could make the same accusations about you but I will not do so. Ward3001 (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The beginning paragraph is just an overview sketch. All of Lennon's releases are discussed in the body of the article. Technically, Sometime In New York City and Rock N Roll were the among the two worst selling solo albums, so the "successful" is a bit POV. Even Double Fantasy had peaked in sales before December 8, 1980. Yes, Plastic Ono Band is considered a great album, so is Imagine. My personal favorites are Mind Games and Walls & Bridges. In the spirit of an "encyclopedia entry" -- we stick to the big picture. No two Lennon songs are as important as Imagine and Give Peace A Chance; we needn't list everyone's favorite. This article has been given a GA rating; unfortunately few "new" things in the offing as he's been gone for almost 30 years. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

HotCop I can understand the overall sketch of the beginning paragraph, The solo section of this article is not much better either. Look at what it says about his first album and tell me what you think about that. User:Chasesboys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.97.143 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Plastic Ono Band has its own page which (as do the other albums), by the way, could use some improvement. The album doesn't discuss poverty and world issues, it's a raw emotional revelation dealing with Lennon's personal losses -- and finding love with Yoko. If you want to discuss the albums at length, do so on the album pages. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, You can take Working Class Hero and call that a world issue and God and take that as a religion/faith issue, but I can understand your point. I just think it isnt very well written. It just states his first album, and then says how one song is banned from the BBC. I think it could use some improving. I am directing this toward you because you are a part of the beatles project, so dont think I am arguing with you. User:Chasesboys. —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

Music Samples

I just replaced Strawberry Fields Forever with In My Life. Is that okay with you ward? User:Chasesboys

For the second time, please stop the personalizing comments. Ask the entire Wikipedia community, not me. Ward3001 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

very well Ward, I am sorry for my frustration. I am just angry that this article is not what it could, or should be. I saw my contributions reverted by "You" and I was pretty angry over the fact that my contribution was in deed better then the one you reverted it to. In any case, I hope this does not further escalate our feud.Chasesboys (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It will only escalate if you continue the provocations. I did not revert because it was your edit. I reverted because I thought it best for the article. Ward3001 (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001, You unintentionally or maybe intended to escalate this matter by mocking me on Beeblebrox's page? Now then, tell me why you would rekindle a dead fire? When you said you wouldnt do so? Chasesboys (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You think sarcastically calling someone your "favorite person" on your user page isn't mocking them? As typical, you can dish it out but you can't take it. But the bottom line here is that I was not "mocking" you. I simply pointed out a few facts to Beeblebrox (because he was offended by your behavior) about your editing, which is completely obvious for anyone who looks at your user page and edit history. I did it for his benefit so you and he would not escalate the matter beyond reason. And what I put on Beeblebrox's talk page is my business, just as what you put on your user page is your business. Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennon's name

While reading The Love You Make by Peter Brown, he mentioned that when John changed his middle name he excised Winston altogether, a name he never really cared for. Newspapers are easily wrong, and I'd trust Peter Brown over a journalist. Should it be changed? 75.45.8.37 (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me agahnim —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC).

Well, sure, newspapers can be wrong, but Brown could also be mistaken, right? In Lennon's will he refers to himself as John Winston Ono Lennon. Also, in Nowhere Man: The Final Days of John Lennon, Robert Rosen says that Lennon's green card included "Winston" though he later dropped the name (not legally, however). According to Jon Wiener in his book Come Together: John Lennon in His Time, the lawsuit between Lennon and the United States government was John Winston Ono Lennon v. the United States of America. Barry Miles makes the assertion (in his book The Beatles: A Diary) that the name "Winston" was retained because birth names can never be fully revoked under British law. faithless (^speak) 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay if all that is a thing then that's fine then. Especially the bit about British law. agahnim 02:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

It's a little mixed up just now; we have "humour" but we also have "color" and "furor". Per WP:ENGVAR "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Lennon was an English musician, and therefore, despite living in the US for his last few years, we should definitely have British English spelling here. Any takers for changing it? --John (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely for changing it to British English. The man was an MBE, and while a US citizen later in life, remained chiefly British. Belasted (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon - British? I think so... Marek.69 ^talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also about equal numbers of "ize" and "ise" endings; back in 2004/2005, the "ize" outnumbered the "ise" by more. Looks like it was never in a consistent version of English. We should pick one and make it consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that "ize" and "ise" are both present in British English (see this article), with a very few exceptions such as "realise". --John (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed all the US Eng variants to UK Eng, leaving -ize endings (which work in either variant) in place. Please clear up any I missed. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about the intro

It is inacurate to state one month later he was murdered. This sentence inplies that a month after the release of Double Fantasy he was murdered which is in fact not the case. He was murdered on December 8th not December 17 which would be a month later. I believe it would be better to state "On the evening of December 8 1980 Lennon was shot and murdered. Which is better wording anyway. What do you think Ward? Chasesboys (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but please address the entire Wikipedia community, not just me. Ward3001 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

please add IW link

[[wuu:John Lennon]]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.82.97 (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

kind of confusing

I dont know if this confused anyone else, but when it says, "Three weeks before his death, John Lennon had fired his bodyguard. His reply was that any killer would shoot the bodyguard first." At the end of the article about his death,does the "his" in "his reply was" refer to John Lennon or the bodyguard? If so could we change it to "Lennon's reply was", or "the bodyguards reply was"

You're right. Is this clearer? Hotcop2 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lennon's Politics

What's the policy on tagging people as socialists/communists/whatever? It's fairly notable, more so than a lot of what has been included. And we have an interview where he discusses his politics at length. It's something that could concievably cause some debate, so I thought I'd go post here first.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob12.html- would this be a suitable source? 89.240.186.125 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Page doesn't work for me; but although journalists of varying point of view may tag people with political labels (bearing in mind, for example that "liberal" means something vastly different in the United States than it does in the United Kingdom), such labels are fraught with difficulties of interpretation; and this varies over time- "anti-war", for example, does not mean, post-911, what it meant in 1968. As regards self-description, if Lennon described himself as socialist/communist/anarchist, whatever, it can be reported from a reliable source. Er, but the major problem with Lennon post-1964 is knowing when he's being serious or taking the piss out of the media. So my take is that very little you can say about Lennon's 1965-1968 politics is serious, and after that, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Why do we need to label thusly, when labels are simplistic? Lennon was a musician, and a very rich one; he wasn't a political philosopher. If the measure, and apparently the limit of his political philosophy is "Imagine", well, that song is so full of inconsistency that it does not stand up as being that worthy; when that song came out, I was relatively rich in many ways, but now I'm extremely poor, again in many ways; but there is nothing in that song that addresses how those in my position can get out of that position. I bought all the Beatles albums; in 1968, I rode my bike down to Strothers' record shop in Liscard the day before it was released just to see what the cover looked like; but even a totally white cover seemed radical; and we went for it. But just remember this- over the years, EMI have never discounted The Beatles catalogue, despite the fact that it cannot make a loss; and Lennon, for all his politix, never put a penny back into Liverpool. McCartney at least funded LIPA, which is something. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu 23:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That page doesn't work for me either. I mean, literally, the page is not found. In any case, John Lennon's political stance that of a desire for peace, and no war. However, he was a great capitalist. After the Beatles found out that all their money was going to taxes, they did their best to stop that from happening. But I must emphasize, his politics were more about peace than they were about wealth distribution. And, love him or hate him, his fight for peace was the only political stance that remained consistent (notwithstanding his personal life). Belasted (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree to an extent, I don't remember contemporaneous press reports of The Beatles becoming tax exiles, whereas I do so roughly for the Rolling Stones. But then, I don't remember the Stones advocating peace that much. But even given a desire for global peace, there was arguably a more pressing need for local social security, in many places, and The Beatles largely abdicated that responsibility, preferring to to leave it up to some influence in politics, which never actually happened. Badly advised and considered, perhaps but still, shame; why is there no Eleanor Rigby Foundation to assist the lonely and desolate, even in Liverpool? There's only a statue. --Rodhullandemu 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the Beatles weren't Tax exiles. But as I recall, they found that they were giving significantly more to taxes than they needed to, due to bad accounting. But the point is, Lennon didn't believe in socialism, as in letting the government take all your money and distribute it. He may have believed that we should share, but I don't think he was a huge fan of government, war or no. This is getting close to forum-type discussion, so I'll stop there. Belasted (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think the bottom line here, as set out by the original IP commentator, is Lennon's politics. Labels are inherently simplistic. No amount of analysis or interpretation is very likely to reach an encyclopedic conclusion, which is where we differ strongly from Britannica, who do not cite their sources. Whereas they can cite synthesis of their sources, on the basis that it is supposedly written by "experts", we can claim no such thing, and nor should we; but I do agree that from our editing model, we should not enter into a subjective analysis of the various viewpoints of Lennon's politics- our responsibility is to report the various reports thereof and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds; if any. And that is where people perceive us as failing, in that they expect truth, without realising that that is not what we should be trying to deliver, much as it would be worthwhile doing that; but there's no way we can do so. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, a rogue "-" messed up the link :) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob12.html I bring it up only from noticing a tag at the bottom of someone elses page, "British Socialists", which lists a handful and misses out on a lot of prominent ones. The same goes for most of these tags, I guess. But while they're here- we may as well try to fill it up where we can! It's an interesting read- it's 1971, though- he could have changed in his last 9 years, but we can't just assume that he did. 89.240.149.179 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that in that link Lennon talks about recording a longer verson of Revolution... and recently one apparently was put on Youtube (never got to hear it... damn you EMI). 89.240.149.179 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know; was Lennon a campaigner for republicanism in the U.K, because of in imagine the line nothing to kill or die for?BRFC98 (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

PLAYBOY: On the subject of your own wealth, the New York Post recently said you admitted to being worth over $150,000,000 (1980) and… LENNON: We never admitted anything. PLAYBOY: The Post said you had. LENNON: What the Post says - OK, so we are rich; so what? PLAYBOY: The question is, How does that jibe with your political philosophies? You're supposed to be socialists, aren't you? LENNON: In England, there are only two things to be, basically: You are either for the labour movement or for the capitalist movement. Either you become a right-wing Archie Bunker if you are in the class I am in, or you become an instinctive socialist, which I was. That meant I think people should get their false teeth and their health looked after, all the rest of it. But apart from that, I worked for money and I wanted to be rich. So what the hell - if that's a paradox, then I'm a socialist. But I am not anything. What I used to be is guilty about money. That's why I lost it, either by giving it away or by allowing myself to be screwed by so-called managers.

http://www.marxist.com/john-lennon-stood-out081205.htm

“I would like to compose songs for the revolution.”' — John Lennon, in an interview with Robin Blackburn and Tariq Ali, 1971.

http://www.socialistaction.org/auciello18.htm

Lennon was not only socialist, he was an revolutionary activist anyway. Imagine (song) or Working Class Hero is enough proof if you know any politics. A clear fact. Kasaalan (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lennon's possible bisexuality

The following passage has been removed from the article some time ago:

It was during his time in New York that Lennon purportedly engaged in sexual relationships with men, according to biographers Albert Goldman (The Lives of John Lennon) and Geoffrey Giuliano (Lennon in New York). Lennon's estate, however, has denied charges that he was bisexual. It should be noted that both Goldman and Giuliano were heavily criticized for their work, and their evidence was highly dubious.

It has long been rumored that Lennon had a sexual affair with gay manager, Brian Epstein. Now reputed biographer Philip Norman writes that Lennon had gay fantasies in his new book 'John Lennon: The Life'. Paul McCartney says that this was not the case. According to a 'Washington Post' review, 'Mr. Norman, author of several works on the Rolling Stones, Elton John and the Beatles, captures the story of Lennon's life in appropriate detail, serving up a compelling biography, perhaps definitive, a work which earns its subtitle: "The Life." ' Therefore, for reasons of balance, these allegations should at least be mentioned in the 'personal life section' of the article. Here is another opinion from a webpage:

There has been a long-standing rumor that John Lennon was gay or bisexual.

There are the testimonies of several people that point in this direction.

One is that of his step-mother, Pauline Jones Lennon, who married his estranged father when she was 19 in '69. She said that when he was relaxed, there was definitely something feminine about him.

Another is that of his friend, Pete Shotton, who was a member of one of the original Beatles line-ups. To explain his testimony, in April of 1963, John and the Beatles' homosexual manager Brian Epstein went on a vacation in Barcelona, Spain. It has long been rumored that John and Brian became lovers during this trip, or they at least had gay sex.

This testimony is quoted from his 1988 book, "John Lennon In My Life:"

"I visited John at Aunt Mimi's a few days after his return to England, and when he started in about how much he enjoyed Spain, I could hardly resist taking the piss out of him. 'So you had a good time with Brian, then?' John didn't so much as crack a smile. 'Oh, fuckin' hell,' he groaned. 'Not you as well, Pete! They're all fucking going on about it.' 'Actually, Pete,' he said softly, 'something did happen.' John then went on to confide the particulars to me. 'Eppy just kept on and on at me. Until one night I finally pulled me trousers down and said to him, --Oh, fuck it, Brian! Just stick it up me arse then.-- And he said to me, --Actually, John, I don't do that kind of thing. That's not what I like to do.-- I said to 'im, --Well, then, what do you like to do, what kind of thing do you do?-- He said, --I'd like to just hold you.-- So I let him toss me off (Liverpool slang for "make love to me").' 'That's all?' I said. 'Well, so what? What's the big fucking deal, then?' 'Yeah, the poor bastard. He's having a fucking hard enough time anyway. He got roughed up some by a dockworker in a loo because Brian tried to get him to toss him off. So what harm did it do then, Pete?' John asked me. 'The poor bastard can't help the way he is.' 'What's a fucking wank between friends?' I said."

Another is that of Tony Manero, the inspiration for the New York magazine story that later became Saturday Night Fever.

In May 1974, Manero was walking alone through Greenwich Village when he spotted John, singer Harry Nilsson, and another fellow strolling down the street.

"John was my idol. I walked up to him and said, 'I know a lot of people hassle you, but I just want to thank you for your music. You've helped me through a lot of bad times.' Outside Jimmy's Bar, he said, 'Why don't you come inside for a drink?' After we ordered, John switched seats to sit next to me. He said to me, 'Are you gay?' When I told him I wasn't, he looked really disappointed. He could have been joking, but he wasn't. My initial reaction was fear. And yet I wouldn't leave because it was John Lennon. I said to him, 'No, man, I don't go that way.' 'Are you sure?' he said, 'give me head.' I remember Harry was 'borrowing' $100 bills off him. At one stage I went out and when I came back, he was talking to this woman and he said, 'Pauly.' I thought he meant Paul, meaning McCartney. So John turns around and says, 'No, he's much prettier than Pauly. He's got a nicer mouth than McCartney. Paul's got a small mouth.' Then he turned to me and said, 'Let's go out and get some chicks.' This man was giving me a dream to pay millions for. John almost admitted his gay tendencies. So anyway, we went out walking and he put his arm around me. He said, 'It feels good to hold someone. You know what I mean?' Prior to that, he said, 'There is nothing wrong in being gay. Two people exchanging feelings is not wrong. Did you ever try it?' People were following us. We were wasted, and he put his arm around one girl and said, 'Suck my cock.' He stuck his tongue down her throat. We were loaded. Somebody stole the hat right off his head."

Lennon and company meandered over to the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, where he and Nilsson shared three adjoining suites, rooms 1608, 1609, and 1610.

"There was Harry's bedroom, John's, and a living room with a keyboard. He gave me a guitar, but it was later stolen. After we returned to the hotel he propositioned me again. After he died, I wished I'd done it. He tried to kiss me. He put his arm around me. John was making moves on me like a guy would a chick. When I said 'Halt,' it was finished, and we laid down together on the couch. I love the guy. I never asked him if he'd had sex with a man, but it was obvious to me he had. I stayed at the hotel sleeping on a spare bed next to his for about a week, but he never attempted it again. There were feelings and looks, though. He was very loving, like when a guy is very lonely. The man was bisexual. There are no two ways about it. He was feeling me out."

We turn to Pete Shotton again for the testimony. The two of them dropped acid one night in 1967, they ended up in his attic, and they both passed out on the floor. The next morning, they were awakened by the maid trudging up the attic stairwell. John woke up and on hearing her footsteps, suddenly shot to his feet saying, "Oh Christ, she'll think we've been fucking!"

A famous British radio and television broadcaster, Gloria Hunniford, was a guest at a London bash in 1965 when she and a friend happened to pass by a bedroom door. They peeked inside and what should they find but John Lennon passively engaged in anal sex with a well-known male celebrity photographer. They quickly shut the door and the secret was kept for a long time.

What does everyone think?

(End of quote) Onefortyone (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I've never seen such a pile of crap in my life. We are not a tabloid gossip-mill and although it's very easy to defame the dead, because they can't sue us, doesn't mean we should try, especially with such a bunch of self-serving and unreliable sources. I further advise you to consider whether it is wise to pursue this line. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your edit. My commentary is based on a new Lennon biography by a reputed author. There are other Lennon biographies including similar material. And I have cited the opinion of somebody else. As Lennon's possible bisexuality was mentioned in an older version of the article, I think it is not unimportant to discuss the topic here, especially since it is to be found in books, among them a new biography written by Philip Norman, not in tabloid newspapers. Onefortyone (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I could use some extra cash. I think I'll write a book about the week I spent with Lennon when Yoko was on holiday. Ward3001 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

However, you are not a reputed Lennon biographer. Onefortyone (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes these people so "reputed"? See my comments below. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rodhullandemu. If John Lennon were alive I would have immediately deleted this entire section per WP:BLP. In fact, if enough editors were in agreement, I would not oppose deleting it anyway. And before we get the inevitable reaction "You're just being homophobic", if an article has solid sources about someone's sexual orientation, I wouldn't have a problem stating that someone enjoys erotic behavior with animals, but the above crap about Lennon is about as weakly sourced as it can be. Ward3001 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any reputable sources saying that this is all crap and weakly sourced? Onefortyone (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. They are not necessary and we don't write biogs on the basis of "there's no evidence against, so he must have been"; that's irresponsible. --Rodhullandemu 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source..." The allegations are to be found in books on Lennon by reputable biographers. Onefortyone (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Published" does not equate with "reliable" or "reputable", not by a long shot. That's a common misconception about WP:RS. What makes these "reputable" biographers? What special insight do these "biographers" have that the many other Beatles-related biographers don't have? What, besides an anecdote or two and so-called "conversations" they had with Lennon that can't be corroborated by others? Remember, we're not talking about how good his music was or how many number one hits he had. We are talking about very sensitive and potentially inflammatory information. Even though he is dead, many of the same standards of WP:BLP still apply, and those standards are much higher than other Wikipedia standards for reliablity. So tell us what makes these "biographers" stand out above all others, and these incidents they report (confabulated?) beyond doubt as true. Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pete Shotton was a very close friend of Lennon's. Philip Norman's biographies have been called "definitive" by reviewers. Onefortyone (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of "very close friends" of Lennon and/or other Beatles wrote biographies in one form or another. Why is Shotton's friendship so special that it is more credible than the other "friends" who have not made such statements? As for Norman's biographies being "definitive", tell us specifically: was that said about his writings on Lennon, and who said it? Remember this is one of The Beatles we're talking about, not some one-hit wonder that few people have heard of. They have been researched endlessly. To put this kind of crap in the Wikipedia article, these folks need credibility that stands far above the other writers. You haven't given us evidence of such credibility. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Washington Post' says, 'Mr. Norman, author of several works on the Rolling Stones, Elton John and the Beatles, captures the story of Lennon's life in appropriate detail, serving up a compelling biography, perhaps definitive, a work which earns its subtitle: "The Life." ' Shotton's account is not unimportant, as he had personal experiences with Lennon confirming the allegations. Onefortyone (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your history of faking sources about sexual orientation of celebrities, we're going to need a lot more than this. A LOT more. Ward3001 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, not to mention I'm named after one of the Village People (but I mentioned it). Hotcop2 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as Mr. Norman's credentials are concerned, whereas I was not around during the Beatles' period in England and thought highly of his Beatles' book, Shout! -- I can see that such care wasn't taken in covering Lennon's New York years (which are a bit lacking in the factoid dept.) We won't even discuss his depiction of the "Lost Weekend" which is only discussed by Elliot Mintz and Bob Gruen, who, frankly, weren't there for 97% of it. Also, most of Lennon's allusions to bisexuality is based on Yoko's assumptions and interpretations (which makes her withdrawl of support a bit odd). - We have Lennon on record as saying his relationship with Epstein was "almost sexual, but not quite." Many on here never doubt Lennon's honesty (even when it sometimes flies in the face of logic) but that's what made John John. All this to say, whether he "did" or "didn't" once or twice doesn't warrant mention in an already overcrowded article. And while we're at it, he learned banjo chords from his mother to apply to guitar -- he didn't play the banjo! Hotcop2 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is even called his "possible bisexuality" -- we mentioned that in the Cynthia section. Larry Kane's book was better. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is, his possible bisexuality is not notable. That is something for revisionist biographers trying to gain attention via sensationalism, not for an encyclopedia. Belasted (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Without reading all of the above, I'll offer my take. There's nothing wrong with discussing a person's sexuality, even if said person's sexuality is not 100% known, and there is ample precedent for doing so (see James Dean and Marlon Brando for just a couple of examples). However, if it is discussed and we don't know for absolute certain what the person's sexuality was (as is the case here), we have to be absolutely clear about that. For instance, in John Lennon's case, we would have to point out that his being bisexual is not the orthodox view, that it is a small minority of biographers who have made the claim, and we have to attribute the claim specifically to the biographers who make it. All that being said, I think it's either 1.) a bunch of hogwash or 2.) just plain not important enough to mention. Some people are well known for their sexuality (Marilyn Manson, Tegan and Sara, Andy Dick, Ellen DeGeneres to name a few), and it makes sense to mention their sexuality. In Lennon's case, all we have is conjecture from a small minority. Besides, John and Yoko don't strike me as the kind of people that would be ashamed or feel the need to hide that sort of thing, you know? faithless (^speak) 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are good references, it should go in, albeit a couple of lines. I don't think John would mind at all.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We should neutrally add it in any case, no tabloid style or no censorship, long time passed, noone can know for sure. Bad Reputation (song) A straight Lennon may sound better for general population for you and for me, but we cannot decide his personal preferences for himself. Just as any edit, we cannot hide any common good or bad rumors about anyone. Kasaalan (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

But also note, lots of false "bad reputation" sexuality claims in the world. Kasaalan (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why such a big deal? Elton, Bowie and others never cared in the early 70s. They were all jumping out of the closet.--andreasegde (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's an interview with Macca in the 29 Aug edition of 'Radio Times'. He denies the suggestion that Lennon was gay, saying "The people who say John was gay didn't share a bed with him like I did." Bluewave (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We should add the comment too. But that also no proof since having sex with women does not proof someone is not bisexual. I tried to explain it in Hoover page but they claimed WP:OR. Kasaalan (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

MBE?

John Lennon returned his MBE medal. I presume he was still an MBE despite this? Computerjoe's talk 16:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not something you resign from, and merely sending the medal itself back does not remove the honour; it has to be removed by the Crown. This is why I've just removed him from here. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought so much. Just checking. Computerjoe's talk 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deportation attempt reason?

The article states that "In 1972, the Nixon Administration tried to have Lennon deported from the U.S., as Richard Nixon believed that Lennon's support for George McGovern could lose him the next election." In Talk:William Timmons#Suggested compromise, we're discussing whether the deportation attempt's connection to the upcoming 1972 election is fact, or just the opinion of some. If anyone has found other interpretations, let us know there.

I reworded the passage slightly to more accurately reflect... see what you think. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

requested changes

If I may request, with consensus of course, that we remove the fluff in the intro paragraph. I dont believe the section about showing his "Wit" or "Humour" is really necessary for the entire picture that was John Lennon, It really doesnt fit well at all with the entire intro. Also the part about his family should not be in the intro because that could simply be stated in the main article. I know we are not to mention "other" articles but, how many articles do you see them list their entire family in the intro? It is my understanding that the intro paragraph is supposed to give the reader the best possible understanding on who he was, I think if we remove some of this stuff it would appear much more professional. Chasesboys (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all a matter of opinion, of course, so here's my opinion. Apart from his music and political activism, Lennon's wit and humor were his most defining characteristic. That was true when he was with The Beatles, whether it was the charming, boyish humor that attracted so much press, or his more biting wit (e.g., "rattle your fucking jewelry"). It continued into his solo career, although it was overshadowed then by other issues. I think to remove that part of the lead would not only create an inferior image of Lennon, but would do him a disservice. Not many musicians could (or can) match the sharpness of his wit.

As for the family issue in the lead, I feel less strongly about that, but family matters stood out for Lennon more so than many other rock stars. His relationship with Yoko got lots of press and public reaction, not to mention the ire of many Beatles fans who (mostly erroneously) blamed her for the break-up of The Beatles. It could be argued (perhaps questionably) that his sons achieved fame in their own right; in any event, they got more press than many children of rock stars. So I'd like to keep the family stuff in the lead, but I'm open to suggestions. Ward3001 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think of all the humour that The Beatles are known for, especially during the "American invasion"; Lennon's has the hardest edge; no compliant dummy he, and especially given his surrealistic "Spaniard in the Works", his wit was perhaps more intellectual, irreverent and daring (i.e. jewellery comment) than that of the others; for that alone, I think it worthy of mention. As for his family, his early life is strongly reflected in his music, moderated within The Beatles, perhaps, but coming out most strongly in "Mother" from his first solo album; it's obviously an important factor in his most personal work! but also, his later relationship with Yoko was such a creative influence for him, yet arguably contributed to the breakup of The Beatles, that it is worthy of being in the lead, although let's not overstate it. As for his children, they have become notable in their own right, so should be mentioned. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you on everything, but I really do think it would be best to take out that part about his children. I believe Yoko is definitley important enough to be included in the intro, Julian........I dont know.........Sean.......kind of iffy. This is an article about John Lennon and I dont think we should forget about that. Of course Julian and Sean are successful and important, but can we just keep the intro about John? Chasesboys (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Can we include a couple of songs that he wrote while he was with the beatles? I want to have a consensus about this, I am thinking Strawberry Fields Forever and In My Life. Chasesboys (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you write it? And why those two songs over the numerous other notable songs? It would make more sense if it were Ringo or George, as they have contributed only a handful of songs to The Beatles. Thank you for asking for consensus, because I don't see the point. Belasted (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph, because it doesnt really state what he contributed to The Beatles accept for his parternship with McCartney, Why I pick those songs? For one thing Lennon himself said Strawberry fields forever is one of his best songs. Chasesboys (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that anyone who knows nothing about Lennon or the Beatles would not be much better informed by such information than if they just clicked on the link to The Beatles in the first paragraph. And to reinforce what I said earlier, it doesn't make sense to mention these two songs when he contributed so many more of relatively equal or greater notability. It would make it seem like those two songs were the major achievements of his career, when in fact they are just small parts of a vast pool of notable contributions. By the way, I ask how you would write it, not where. I'm still curious to see how you would incorporate it. Belasted (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I think your right, after all, this was just a suggestion. Chasesboys (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bodyguard content in "Death" section

I suggest that reliable sources be found that, firstly, he had a bodyguard and, secondly, Lennon had fired him weeks before the murder. I edited this article a lot a couple of years back, and neither I nor the then editors seem to be aware of this (and some of them were pretty hot on the use of references from various books). Unless these "facts" are cited, I do not feel they should be in the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lennon didn't have a bodyguard. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He did, two which were former cops. 147.70.112.176 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pertinent wods in the above request are "reliable sources". I can say he had bodyguards. I can say he didn't. I can say I'm Lennon. It's all irrelevant unless it's backed up by a reliable source. Padillah (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Although it's been written he had bodyguards that were let go just before the murder, coupled with Yoko's bodyguards (who were former policemen hired AFTER the murder) -- Lennon didn't have a bodyguard. Sometimes things that are written aren't true (imagine that). Hotcop2 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And if Wikipedia published things that were true, you'd have a point. We don't. We publish things that are verifiable. So, if you can provide reliable sources for both of those claims we can add them to the article. Padillah (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I took them out of the article. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationships edit

In order for the article to flow correctly chronologically (and because there's so much info in the body) I've added "Beatles" and "Julian" to the relationbship section and moved some of that info out of "solo career" because it's more geared toward relationship than career. "Relationships" doesn't necessarily mean women ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship

is this correct? I couldn't find it in the article: "He was given his U.S. Resident Alien registration (his "green card") on the bicentennial of the American revolution: July 4, 1976. He was also informed that he would be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship in 1981.Nunamiut (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You can see Lennon's actual green card with the date 07 27 76 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/yokoonoofficial/3514911110/ It's very cool. Mrs. Peel (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FBI CIA Involvement in the killing

There is a lot of allegations against CIA, FBI for the killing, even controversial, isn't it better to mention this in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if you have have some reliable sources discussing it. DP76764 (Talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who Killed John Lennon? by John W. Whitehead December 2, 2008, Huffington Post. Kasaalan (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good start, but for something this controversial, you'll need more than 1 source. You could work up a draft (with more sources) of what you want added and then bring it to this Talk Page for discussion. DP76764 (Talk) 17:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I found some good sources for the case, yet I will try reading and categorizing first. FBI only mentioned in 1 paragraph, also no CIA, that is unnatural somehow though, since lots of people suspecting their watching actions, and lots of speculation over the case. The shooting of Lennon somehow should include the tracking of FBI more deeply. Even the Death of John Lennon title mentions so little. Kasaalan (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Has Stephen Colbert Been Hiding John Lennon’s F.B.I. Legacy? NY Times Gimme Some Truth The John Lennon FBI Files Jon Wiener. Kasaalan (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I took some time, create a separate title for FBI documents, merged content with jon wiener, duplicated same title in other relevant pages. I will add more info to the separate article later. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Lennons' murder was investigated by the New York City Police Department. The Detectives could find no reasonable evidence that anyone but the man convicted of Mr Lennons' murder was involved in the crime. The United States Authorities who Prosecuted Mr Lennons murderer however were not satisfied that the murderer was an 'obsessed fan' and very ably demonstrated their reasons for doubting this description of Mr Lennons' killer; (see trial details). The American Authorities were disputing the 'motive' for murder and did not suspect conspiracy, as there was no evidence for such suspicion. The dispute over motive involved the sentencing that would be decided by the Judge.Johnwrd (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johnhwrd, the whole incident was investigated, and no evidence of a conspiracy ever surfaced. I do not think Wikipedia should turn into a forum for conspiracy theory nuts.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

From Publishers Weekly
Bresler, a British lawyer, believes tht Mark Chapman, assassin of John Lennon, was no "lone nut" but was programmed by the CIA, through drugs and hypnosis, to carry out the murder. The N.Y.C. police lieutenant who interrogated Chapman the night of the slaying in 1980 is quoted here as saying: "He looked as if he could have been programmed." Bresler builds an entirely circumstantial case without a shred of hard evidence, but he does raise some interesting questions. Why, for instance, did Chapman, in 1975 a 19-year-old, religious, anti-Communist Southerner, select Russia as his preferred destination in a YMCA exchange program, and end up instead in Beirut? Bresler posits that Chapman was recruited by the CIA as a killer and kept "on hold" until the agency found a target: Lennon, portrayed here as a magnet for leftist causes. He argues that Chapman spent three "missing days" in Chicago before arriving in New York to shoot the rock star. As Bresler ( The Mystery of Georges Simenon ) reports, Lennon was kept under surveillance by both the FBI and CIA, but that in itself proves nothing. Author tour. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Serious allegations by British lawyer and writer Fenton Bresler in Who Killed John Lennon, St. Martin's Press (November 1990) Claiming the FBI and CIA which follows and targets Lennon very closely against his peace activism, like they do against Black Panther Party by COINTELPRO or Martin Luther King during the same period, may never be involved in the assassination of Lennon in any way is not logical.

Wikipedia is no place to insult others either. It is well documented since his political peace activism, Lennon was broadly investigated by FBI. Also it would be no wonder, regular police would not "suspect anything" if he assassinated by FBI or CIA anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed New Title Arrangement Any Comments

Can we somehow rearrange the titles, they are mixed somehow. Can we collect titles under some main titles, like early life, musical career, personal life, political activism and shooting.
Also we should consider mentioning his singles, like Give Peace a Chance, Imagine, Gimme Some Truth within political activism. So we should somehow align, political activism, solo career, and shooting sections one after another. So a better connection will be accomplished. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article, as detail-heavy as it is, is supposed to be an overview, and we've already mentioned Imagine and Give Peace as iconic anthems. I like the section you added, but let's not overdo it. My two cents. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was not repetition, but if we align political activism, solo career and shooting sections one after another it may lead better chronology. And if we collect the titles under 4 main titles like early life, musical career beatles solo, political activism, shooting and personal life it may be a better categorization. Because somehow his solo career connected to his political activism deportation and shooting. I will read more later so I can propose a better mention. Thanks I will try reading on the killing more. Kasaalan (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But the reasoning is to make a connection between his political activism and his death which is a theory held by a few. It's a "good article" and you added a good section; he was a musician first and foremost -- I don't think we should redo the article to showcase a conspiratory slant. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

His solo career, his marriage to yoko, his political activism, and his deportation is closely and chronogically related and facts. Only his shooting is a theory.

Is there any reason to put drug therapy, his marriages, his nicknames and humour, between political activism, solo career and shooting titles. Kasaalan (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

His death comes last because it was last, chronologically. You can add info to "The Death of John Lennon" article if you'd like, but it took a long time to figure out the flow of this main article, as so many facets of Lennon were intertwined -- we have changed the order several times in an attempt to make it a coherent read. In the end, however, I'm afraid JL was correct -- he was "popped off by some looney." Hotcop2 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really

From Publishers Weekly
Bresler, a British lawyer, believes tht Mark Chapman, assassin of John Lennon, was no "lone nut" but was programmed by the CIA, through drugs and hypnosis, to carry out the murder. The N.Y.C. police lieutenant who interrogated Chapman the night of the slaying in 1980 is quoted here as saying: "He looked as if he could have been programmed." Bresler builds an entirely circumstantial case without a shred of hard evidence, but he does raise some interesting questions. Why, for instance, did Chapman, in 1975 a 19-year-old, religious, anti-Communist Southerner, select Russia as his preferred destination in a YMCA exchange program, and end up instead in Beirut? Bresler posits that Chapman was recruited by the CIA as a killer and kept "on hold" until the agency found a target: Lennon, portrayed here as a magnet for leftist causes. He argues that Chapman spent three "missing days" in Chicago before arriving in New York to shoot the rock star. As Bresler ( The Mystery of Georges Simenon ) reports, Lennon was kept under surveillance by both the FBI and CIA, but that in itself proves nothing. Author tour. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Serious allegations exist, by British lawyer and writer Fenton Bresler in Who Killed John Lennon, St. Martin's Press (November 1990) Kasaalan (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Fenton Bresler is redlinked as an author perhaps indicates his notability here; my experience as a reader and writer of criminological textbooks, journals and academic papers since the early 1970s at least tends me to the view that Fenton Bresler is more concerned with selling copy than rigorous analysis. Accordingly, I don't necessarily regard him as a reliable source; he's a journalist, not an analyst. Whereas he may have a unique take on the truth, unless his analysis achieves academic acceptance, we cannot accept it here beyond "Bresler argues..."; and for every argument, there are probably a thousand counter-arguments. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly what I meant, he alleged some serious accusations, if you like to read I have critical articles of his book somehow, but they also say some of his questions are really serious. We should mention it as he claims, but not mentioning wide spread allegations over CIA and FBI involvement in the killing, is somehow should be avoided. The article should contain even minority views. Also let me remind you he was an attorney so his approach is somewhat different. But let alone no deep investigation held and only suspect found guilty immediately is enough suspicious. He has accomplished an 8 year research one way or another, taking his all claims strictly isn't what I propose, but his other claims should be voiced somehow. Kasaalan (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to hop on the next comet that happens by. Who's with me? Come on.... it'll be a gas! — John Cardinal (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Claiming the FBI and CIA which follows and targets Lennon very closely against his peace activism, like they do against Black Panther Party by COINTELPRO or Martin Luther King during the same period, may never be involved in the assassination of Lennon in any way, is as outrageous as jumping on a comet. There is something called TV for humour. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; but there is a 76-year cycle between at least Halley's Comet appearances. Meanwhile, my feet remain, sadly, planted on the ground. Rodhullandemu 02:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning wide spread controversy over CIA and FBI involvement in the killing, is somehow should be avoided according to the guidelines. The book is somehow worth to be mention the allegations. Kasaalan (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have the book you can put in references, but this would probably only be a paragraph.--andreasegde (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lennon was the CLEVER WITTY Beatle

so if you insist on continually vandalizing the page, do so in a manner that would at least try to live up to these attributes.

John Lennon facts

The following facts/trivia have recently been posted under a new article called John lennon facts. This has been proposed for deletion but it may well be a number of them could be successfully added within this article (maybe a number are already included). Hopefully one of the regular editors can have a look and add them in as appropriate - I just didn't want them to be lost from Wikipedia. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  * John Lennon was born to Julia Lennon after 30 hours of labor on October 9, 1940.
  * John was expelled from school for misbehavior at age 5.
  * John was raised by his mother's sister, Mimi Smith.
  * Later in life, John discovered that he had dyslexia.
  * By age fifteen, John was a big fan of Elvis Presley.
  * John decided to become a rocker after hearing Elvis' "Heartbreak Hotel."
  * Without glasses, John was legally blind.
  * John had brown hair and brown eyes.
  * John was about 5'11" tall and weighed about 165.
  * John's favourite colour was green.
  * John's favourite foods were corn flakes, bread, and vegetarian dishes.
  * John's favourite group was The Shirelles.
  * John had a strong affection for cats, at one time owning as many as six of them.
  * John's mother taught him to play an old Spanish guitar as if it was a banjo.
  * The first instrument John was given as a child was an accordion.
  * John formed his first band, The Quarrymen in 1956.
  * John was 15 when he met Paul McCartney, who was 14.
  * John didn't want George Harrison in The Quarrymen, at first, because he was too young.
  * It has been reported that John got a big thrill out of shoplifting when he was young.
  * In the late '60's, John purchased his own island of the coast of Ireland.
  * John Lennon married Cynthia Powell on August 23, 1962, after finding out she was pregnant.
  * Brian Epstein was the best man at the wedding.
  * Brian reportedly wanted to keep the marriage secret because he didn't want to ruin John's rock star image.
  * John and Cynthia did not go on a honeymoon until 13 months after their wedding.
  * John did not appear at the hospital until a full week after his son Julian was born.
  * In 1965, John wrote the biographical songs, "I'm a Loser," "Help," and "Nowhere Man."
  * John and Yoko first met in 1966.
  * John often referred to Yoko as "it."
  * Yoko referred to John as "businessman" early in their relationship.
  * John and Paul were never as close as they appeared publicly.
  * On the road, John would room with George, and Paul would room with Ringo.
  * The dissension between John and Paul probably started the long decline that ultimately broke up the group.
  * At first, John was apprehensive about divorcing Cynthia because he did not want a public scandal.
  * John saw his father for the first time in seventeen years in 1964.
  * In October 1967, John invited his father to live at this home at Kenwood.
  * Cynthia read about John's affair with Yoko in the paper while she was on vacation in Italy.
  * In November 1968, the divorce was final.
  * John and Yoko were married in March, 1969.
  * John kept a light on while he slept, because he hated the dark.
  * John travelled with his own huge supply of books, music and videos.
  * John ate very little after a reporter labeled him "the fat Beatle" in 1965.
  * John drank 20 to 30 cups of tea or coffee every day.
  * John gave Yoko Ono power of attorney and responsibility for his estate.
  * John frequently chose to wear no clothing, even when he had visitors in his home.
  * John believed in reincarnation.
  * On March 5, 1970, John and Yoko checked into the London clinic, a private hospital for wealthy addicts.
  * The St. Regis Hotel in New York City became home to John and Yoko in 1971.
  * In 1973, the Lennons rented an apartment in the Dakota for $1800 a month; they later bought the apartment.
  * Sean Ono Taro Lennon was born on October 9, 1975, John's birthday.
  * By 1978, John Lennon had wasted away to a mere 130 pounds.
  * John signed his autograph for Mark Chapman six hours before he was shot.
  * Mark Chapman shot John as he was walking into his apartment building around 10:50 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 1980.
  * John's will was a simple four page document which he wrote the year before he died.
    Yoko had John's body cremated on Wednesday, December 10, 1980.

My reactions are: (1) Many of the items in the list are already covered in this or other articles and (2) without sources, the entries are unusable. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I say keep it on a "trivia" page; this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia-like site. And the more important ones are covered as John Cardinal pointed out. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Lennon had reddish/auburn hair and, despite press releases, stood 5'10. He weighed 165 briefly in 1965; he usually was 145-150 and was 135 in 1980. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Without reading full lennon article and full entries hard to tell, after I read both article fully I may comment. Also for example "John drank 20 to 30 cups of tea or coffee every day" may be considered as trivia by other editors, but I consider it as a living habit that affects his artistic works, like pot. Kasaalan (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I seriously agree that the coffee/tea intake is noteworthy. BTW, got any milk? Mine's two sugars.--andreasegde (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, he had the coffee habit during his hiatus, so it affected his work inasmuch as he didn't work. Two sugars, yes.... but Coffeemate's da bomb. Hotcop2 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again if he drinks 20-30 cups of tea a day it is not regular at all. "John often referred to Yoko as "it" Yoko referred to John as "businessman" early in their relationship" are also interesting. It is also interesting you people mention who reads newspaper first at home in article, yet try to joke over others comments. Additionally "John kept a light on while he slept, because he hated the dark." also worth mentioning if he fears dark. "John's favourite group was The Shirelles." also good information. If the "facts" are real facts, some might be useful. Trivia not always bad, just not overdo it. Kasaalan (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

For pseudonyms section John_Lennon#Pseudonyms we may wikilinks yet there are 3 with same name, which one is true Plastic Ono Band, John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band or Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band also 2 of these names not included in John Lennon discography. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King

Is there an appropriate space on this page to describe how the murder may well have been carried out by Stephen King on the orders of Reagan, or is it better to put it in the article about the death of John Lennon? Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's better to omit it entirely unless Stephen King has been convicted of anything or there is overwhelming evidence of this. In short, no. Rodhullandemu 14:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED so yes. WP:UNDUE is about length of the mention. Read my similar concerns Talk:John_Lennon#FBI_CIA_Involvement_in_the_killing Even conspiracy theories deserves to be mentioned at least a sentence long as long as they are widespread and or came by a WP:RS. What is your source. Kasaalan (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway apparently user got a block for multiple accounts. I don't know who argues such, but I will search if it is true or widely discussed myself then. Kasaalan (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lennon's "occupations"

Let's not get nuts with this and stick to what he was known for -- because we can add disc jockey, record producer, film producer, movie director, boat pilot, historian, television weatherman and many other things that he ever did. This article is bordering on dilution because of all the miniscule facts -- we need to present a coherant and complete BIG picture. It is, afterall, a good article already. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from all the peripheral activities, I'd consider "actor" justifiable, if only for How I Won The War, as much as Ringo Starr appeared in The Magic Christian and Candy. In The Beatles films, they were essentially playing themselves, but these outside projects are somewhat different. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Lennon acted in a How I Won The War, but I don't think he's notable as an actor. (I'm not using the WP definition of notable here, just the usual meaning of the word notable.) It's similar to him playing a trombone or something on a record: that doesn't make him notable as a trombonist. Starr's situation is a little different because he acted in more films (I think there were at least three), and he also had at least one TV role. My take (which would have to be supported by evidence, of course) is that Starr tried to make acting a second career. Anyway, we shouldn't mix the Starr and Lennon cases; whether or not Starr is listed as an actor should be decided separately. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lennon was not known principally as an actor, but he was known as an actor. As far as I am concerned the Beatles films are perfectly valid: he was playing himself, but he was still playing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Evaluating the article

I'd taken something of a break from the article for a time, and I am pleased that it has improved significantly through the efforts of a number of dedicated editors. Congrats. There are some issues with the article which I think should be addressed (or at least discussed). I offer them here for perusal and consdieration:

• I understand completely that some points of the biography have proven contentious, hence the double- and sometimes triple-citing of various facts. I would suggest that the most reliable citation of the pair (or trio) be used instead. The presence of too many citations is often distracting for the reader. Discussion here could help to decide which citations were most reliable, with consensus governing the result.

• The Lede is a summary and overview of the article. As such, it should avoid statements which are controversial enough to snag dissenting opinion, maintaining a more general tone. Precisely because it is an overview and summary, we need not have seven citations in the Lede. This is ever more true when once considers that the material being cited in the Lede is also cited in the body of the article. It isn't necessary. Trst the reader to read the article beyond the Lede to find the citations they might want.

• Lennon is primarily known as a musician. Though he wore a great many hats during his life, he is initially and primarily known as a musician - indeed, none of his other work would likely have occurred had he not gained prominence as a Beatle. His different hats can be noted in the Lede, as further description of them is located in the body of the article.

• The notable instruments bit in the infobox is undue weight. Aside from knowing that John and Paul were guitarists (and could play other instruments as well), noting specific instruments is something that only fans would truly consider intrinsic to an understanding of Lennon. It is more distracting than useful. It could be foot-noted, I guess. As the article is supposed to be encyclopedic, I think the concerns of brevity are being ignored a little bit.

• I think we are missing out on not having his more famous songs in the article. For myself, "Imagine", "Woman", "(Just Like) Starting Over" or "Mind Games" are quite recognizable the world over ("Imagine" probably more than any other, I think). Having one or two of them (and only one Beatle tune) show how John's style and ability continued to develop after his time with the Fab Four.

• In the section about Lennon's murder, there are far too many box-quotes. I know that some consider them dramatic, but Wikipedia is not a place for formatting dramatics. I think the article is better without them. So, keep the quotes, lose the formatting of them.

Well, that's my assessment. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with everything -- except for the "famous" songs. This encylopedia-type article should be an overview; and this one is pretty complete and in-depth. I personally feels it goes into too much miniscule detail about his childhood, but that's just me I guess. I try to keep additions to the infobox to a minimum. As far as the songs, altho "Mind Games" and "Woman" are favorites of mine personally, as are "#9 Dream" and "Starting Over" -- they do not have the societal impact nor historic importance of "Imagine" or "Give Peace" and we'll all end up listing every song he ever did -- like "Instant Karma" or "Working Class Hero." Alot of those songs can be found on album pages or even their own entries. There are two Beatle tune sound waves on this page (which I personally am not fond of of his solo page) but they add to the overall scope of his entire song catalogue.

Notable instruments shouldn't mean every guitar he ever played... and, to that end, we're missing some right off the bat. They shouldn't be added tho; there are too many "notables" on there now. Nor should we add everything he ever did as an "occupation" -- it dilutes everything and makes it a cumbersome read. I'm going to stop adding to my paragraph, as it's getting miniscule and cumbersome; a drag. A well-known drag. :-) Hotcop2 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Considering the comment above, I would like to suggest that we start out the process by having an editor familiar with the relative strengths and durabilities of the citations go through the article and sift out any back-up citations. I would happily do it, but I think in-depth Lennon aficionados would know which references are the strongest. Keep in mind that the only claims that might need citation are those which are hotly debated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments.

1. Arcayne says "only claims that might need citation are those which are hotly debated". I disagree. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and the WP article on that says that anything that could be challenged should be cited. Let's err on the side of citing, not 'tother way round. Everything but gut-basic statements should be cited. Of course, statements in the lead shouldn't be cited because the lead should summarize material that is cited below.
2. Evaluating the citations should be relatively easy. Good sources are from fact-checked publications. That includes published works from established publishers. It also includes reliable news agencies such as BBC News, etc. We should specifically exclude any online fan sites, blogs, etc.

John Cardinal (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to John Cardinal's comment no. 1 above, Arcayne's statement that "the only claims that might need citation are those which are hotly debated" is clearly mistaken. Wikipedia:Verifiability says " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source...". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the Lead is not automatically exempt from the need for citations: see guideline WP:LEADCITE. PL290 (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PL290. I was mistaken about the lead. My understanding of that was based on comments by other editors and not on the guideline article. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of multiple citations added to address contentious issues, I vote for keeping them. I don't think we should compromise verifiability for the sake of aesthetics—the WikiMedia software can take care of aesthetics (e.g. by allowing the "everyday" reader to turn off display of citations, as is proposed)—and removing them makes it likely the point will once again become contentious, necessitating time spent digging through talk page archives and/or debating to reestablish consensus. PL290 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to wait a bit, and see what folk had to say. To begin with, I'd like to correct John Cardinal's and PL290' assertion that removing excessive citation from the Lede is a gob-smacking violation of Wiki principles, policies and guidelines. To whit, this is a topic that has come up before, with often contrary results. However, the general consensus is that since the Lede is an overview of the article, it follows that any content in the Lede is present in the ensuing text. As it is present in that text, it is redundant to repeat in the Lede that which is more effectively cited in the article ("effectively" referring to the context of the cited info within the body of the article). If it is cited within the article, it need not be repeated in the Lede; the exception to this being that of exceptional claims being made in the Lede (ie, "John Lennon is a space alien" or "John Lennon ate beans exclusively through his nose", etc.). The goal of the Lede is to entice the reader to read further; a jarring series of citations in the first paragraph tend to dissuade precisely that.
Additionally, I wanted to challenge PL290's assertion that screening out extraneous citations damages the verifiability of the cited information. First of all, it is presumed that if a citation exists for a statement (using the user's given example of a "contentious issue"), then multiple citations for the same statement all say the same thing. I do not recall suggesting that we remove citations en toto; I specifically suggested that we limit the citations to the most reliable ones of the set and discard the remainder (though I should note that maintaining a variety of sources throughout the article can only seen as beneficial). As well, it would follow that deciding which citation to use (in the instance of two equally valid sources both being used for the same statement) would not be edit-warred about in article space but discussed here beforehand. It doesn't have to be a contentious process, as PL290 has suggested. Redundancy is good in computer systems and when preparing for camping. it is not always the best policy in relation to articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that representation of the assertions made by other editors in this conversation. For example, "PL290' assertion that removing excessive citation from the Lede is a gob-smacking violation of Wiki principles, policies and guidelines". Please see above for what I actually said. We appear to be in agreement about the typical effect of the guideline I cited.

To focus on the issue of multiple citations, rather than invent quotations such as "John Lennon ate beans exclusively through his nose", let's consider a real one. Take the very first statement in section 1 of the article. He was born during an air raid, and Julia's sister used the explosions to see where she was going on her way to hospital during the blackout. Triple-cited. Excessive? Perhaps not: Bill Harry (for example) asserts the contrary. He asserts it so strongly that at every opportunity to mention Lennon's birth, he states it again. Even ignoring his Lennon Encyclopedia, here are five times he says it:

• "at the time of John's birth, there was a lull in the bombing" (The Beatles Encyclopedia, p.635)
• "Contrary to what has appeared in numerous books, he was not born during an air raid. The raids had ceased by 23 September and didn't resume until 16 October." (Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, p.497)
• 1940, 9 October. John Winston Lennon is born [...] on a night when there was no bombing in the city." (Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, p. 101)
• "Contrary to what many books on the Beatles allege, John Lennon was not born in the middle of an air raid." (George Harrison Encyclopedia, pp.244-45)
• "1940, 9 October. John Winston Lennon is born [...]. No bombs fell on this night." (George Harrison Encyclopedia, p.52)

No doubt other examples of statements subject to conflict can easily be found by anyone who will take the time to do so, but this example alone should serve as ample demonstration of the conflicts that exist between statements made by one Beatle biographer and another, and, therefore, of the need for multiple citations. In some cases (perhaps including the one in my example) we should go further and represent all views, but otherwise we need the multiple citations to demonstrate that it's not a one-off statement from a single source. PL290 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, please do not restate my position in your words. It doesn't help. I didn't say anything about "removing excessive citations from the Lede." I initially said that the lead didn't need citations, but changed my opinion after reading the guideline. You refer to a general consensus, but the WP guidelines are a better (ahem) guide.

Lastly, you might find citation references "jarring", but I don't. To me, they are the marks of an article that is supported by evidence and I find them very pleasing to the eye. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To build on PL290's earlier post:

"John Lennon... was born... during an air raid. The air raid bit gets repeated in every book, but Rod [Davis]... set himself the task of going to the British Library... and reading every copy of the Liverpool Echo for October 1940, looking for air raids. He found... no report for 9 October... So who began this story, displaying a disgraceful lack of proper research? Me, probably."

Davies, Hunter. "Introduction". The Beatles: The Only Ever Authorised Biography (40th Anniversary Edition) (2 ed.). Ebury Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-09-193051-6. Dendodge _T\^C 23:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lennon "retirement" II

The "years active" section is being disputed - one editor insists that it should read "1957-1976". However, Lennon's contract with EMI was fulfilled in 1975 with the release of Shaved Fish. There were no recording sessions for his own work after October, 1974. His last live appearance was in April, 1975. His second son Sean was born in October of 1975. With the exception of working on a song with Ringo in 1976, Lennon was effectively "retired" at the end of 1975; therefore, "Years active" should be "1957-1975".

Discuss. Radiopathy •talk• 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:EAR:

---

John Lennon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am being accused by user: Radiopathy of being in an "edit war" by reverting edits three times on the John Lennon page -- however, it was he who started the editing and the information in his edit is incorrect. He also asked for a "citation" for something and I provided TWO references, then he slapped me with a warning.

I tried to reason with him, even email him, which he ignored, so I ask for help in this matter. I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" and we're just trying to keep it good and factual. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Right - you should be discussing this on the article talk page - that is what it is there for. Discussions scattered over user talk pages and emails are impossible to follow coherently. Discussions on the article talk page enable consensus to emerge. Neither yourself or the other editor are providing edit summaries to clarify what you are doing. If another editor reverts sourced material then you may want to consider action such as going to WP:3RR.

The dispute seems to centre on the year that Lennon "retired". Can you source that? If so, put it in with the source and perhaps come back here if it gets reverted again. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I was one of two editors that made the John Lennon page a "good article" - can you cite that, too?!? This sounds like a slight case of article ownership; I think the user needs to step back a bit and realise that it's a collaborative effort. Radiopathy •talk• 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a Beatles fan (though by no means an expert), I see the question to be thus: Did John Lennon that he perform live or release anything new during 1976? Since his last concert was in 1975, according to the article, it is a question of releases. The last album he released before Double Fantasy was Shaved Fish in 1975, and I am unable to find any 1976 singles. Therefore, I think he retired in 1975. Dendodge _T\^C 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to the article talk page for this. Radiopathy •talk• 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you were the one who reverted in the first place. Without discussion on this page. Then I find the threat you made on my page for the "three edits" so I took the liberty of reporting you. He recorded in 1976; he was active. We're not doing this by degrees: Years active, years very active, years not so active... He didn't record in 1957; he learned to play in 1955, so where does it really begin and end? (well, it ends in 1980, but...) He was also shopping for a record label in '76 since the Capitol/EMI/Apple deal was up, but then decided to take some time off. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, "we're" not doing it by degrees; "we're" doing it by consensus. So far, it's been your opinion and nothing else. Any attempt to engage you in discussion results in snarky comments and edit summaries.

Radiopathy •talk• 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I need my shades... your halo is blinding me. I like the way you (finally) drag this argument onto this page after haranguing and threatening me on my page. And it was you who edited without explanation and then admonished me for reverting in the first place. I am fully aware that this is a group effort, thank you. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

End. Dendodge _T\^C 23:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be 75 and not 76. Wether B (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't believe this is happening. Is there some dispute about what "active" means for a musician? Because I don't see that. If a musician plays one notable recorded session in a year, in my view, he's "active" in that year. The Beatles project, although more often than it needs to be, is something of a battleground, and also too often on the most minor details. Please leave the personalities aside and concentrate on the sources. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The implication of the start year being 1957 is that "active" means "active as a musician" as opposed to "active performing as John Lennon" or "active releasing material credited to John Lennon". The article states: "Lennon wrote and recorded "Cookin' (In The Kitchen of Love)" with Ringo Starr in June 1976, his last recording session until his 1980 comeback." On this basis, I would say he was active in 1976. But I also suggest that "how active" doesn't come into it. David Bowie hasn't done much recently, but he's active till he says otherwise. I'd say it's Lennon's announcement of his break that counts, which I now see was in 1977 ("In 1977, Lennon announced..."). So on this basis I would say it should be 1977. PL290 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning for 1975. Many other sources say he retired from music in 1975 to be a house-husband and parent. I doubt very much that had anyone else other than Ringo asked him to collaborate he would've actually participated. It was a one-off session but hardly 'active' in a true sense. As a house-husband he still dabbled in music at home and recorded demos for his own personal interest and enjoyment. But even those are no more 'active' than him "mailing in" a song dabbling with Ringo. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about the recording with Ringo, and now see strong arguments for both. I would actually now recommend 1976, since he was active then, if only for one session. Dendodge _T\^C 08:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1977?

I had an edit conflict with Aussie Ausborn while I was amending my comment above. In my opinion, it's the date of Lennon's announcement we should use, per that comment. As 1977 was not previously considered in the discussion, I'm interested to know what others think about the justification I've proposed for it ("how active" doesn't come into it. David Bowie hasn't done much recently, but he's active till he says otherwise). I picked Bowie out of the air, but substitute any currently non-productive musician (real or imaginary) and the point is still made. PL290 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense as well and is reminiscent of Don Mattingly... who sat out the entire 1995 baseball season and then made it official in 1996. And lots of artists have missed three or four years between "releases" and/or tours. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1957-1980

As long as we're rewriting history, let's just go for it big time, and consider every time Lennon made a rhyme, or hummed a tune, or wrote out a lyric on a matchbook, or beat out a pattern on a table top, or dreamt he was in the studio, or made eye contact with another musician walking around Manhattan, or farted - geez, he was active the whole time! Why waste so much time here trying to get the history right when we can just make it up ourselves! Radiopathy •talk• 16:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that Lennon himself re-wrote quite a bit of history? He made an off-the-cuff comment in 1980 that he did nothing for five years except bake bread. Even if we exclude Ringo in 1976, he was still pretty active in 1975, which means he did nothing for four years at best. He was 'mistaken' about when he and Ono reconciled, too, as is noted here. I think you're trying to fit this page in neat little familiar soundbytes as opposed to citated facts. It says on your page: This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake. You can repeat something 500 hundred times, it doesn't make it true or correct. But I do agree with you wholeheartedly that this world is a much better place because of dogs. Hotcop2 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

From the time Sean was born til Double Fantasy was released was FIVE YEARS. From the time that Lennon's EMI contract was fulfilled until Yoko got him signed to Geffen was FIVE YEARS. From the time Lennon completed work on Rock 'n Roll until he completed work on Double Fantansy was FIVE YEARS.

Do you see a pattern here? Radiopathy •talk• 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He worked in 1975. He worked in 1980. That leaves 76 (Ringo aside), 77, 78 and 79 to bake bread. I do see a pattern here; your need to be correct. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Surely we would indeed simply say "1957–1980" but for one thing: Lennon's announcement. This reinforces that it's the artist's announcement that formalizes a period of inactivity, not our opinion of how busy the artist is. PL290 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, since we're compiling the Wikipedia version of Lennon's life. He actually did write songs and record demos at home all through his so-called retirement, as well as writing Skywriting by Word of Mouth. He was "active" the entire time, regardless of what he or others say. If we're going to respect history, then we'll go along with the premise that his retirement was for five years, from 1975-980. Radiopathy •talk• 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I follow your logic until the conclusion. Since we do know he was, in fact, to some degree "active," why not just call it "1957-80"? Hotcop2 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just fine with "1957-1980". Radiopathy •talk• 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the view expressed by the comment "I'm just fine with "1957-1980". Radiopathy •talk• 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)". As I mentioned before, I don't think our opinion of "how active" should really come into it, just as in the case of any number of current artists who have not released or toured recently but are nevertheless deemed currently active. Thus if we were to break it I'd say not 1975 but 1977, which the article says was the year of Lennon's announcement. But it also makes sense to say he was active for the entire period 1957-1980. In 1975 he said "I never see meself as not an artist. I never let meself believe that an artist can run dry." [1] PL290 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still stand by 1957-75, 1980. Radiopathy •talk• 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a little bit between 1977 - 1980 in the paragraph to help clarify... see what youz think Hotcop2 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So you take the consensus back? 300,001 Hotcop2 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm still opposed to your consensus of one. See WP:OWN. Radiopathy •talk• 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you gaslighting me, or forgot the meds? Hotcop2 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the original consensus of 1975 being the stop date. Fair Deal (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The field should be 1957-1975, 1980. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"No, I'm still opposed to your consensus of one. It's two, but then again I was never good at maths. I thought it was five or six. Leave the lady alone, Radiopathy, it sounds like you're bullying her. BTW, colourful username, but over-complicated to copy.--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"I read them first"

Great quote from Yoko, and very illuminating... "On Sunday morning Lennon brought in the newspapers, laying them down on the coffee table, but when Ono tried to pick up one of the papers Lennon slapped her hand, saying 'I read them first'." I wonder if he had Yoko lay out his pipe and slippers?--andreasegde (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I guess woman was still the n-word of the world back then. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Lennon still maintained he had to read the newspapers first in New York? Hmmm...--andreasegde (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why such a trivial, pointless anecdote is even here at all. I'm taking the liberty of deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonbontee (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

His name

Someone recently changed the name in the lead section. I believe that, although he was born John Winston Lennon and changed his name to John Ono Lennon by deed poll, he signed his will John Winston Ono Lennon, so must have used that form of his name, too. But it is a bit excessive to put all that in the first sentence. Bluewave (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

His last will and testament can be found here... http://www.john-lennon.com/johnlennon.htm It does indeed confirm that he called himself John Winston Ono Lennon. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the question. The question is do we really need all that explained in the first sentence? I think, being the lead, it should be discussed in the article and mentioned in the lead. Not the other way around. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the later name change, wouldn't the Early Years section better start like so... "Born John Winston Lennon in ..." ? That's more indicative of people born under one name and operating under another. Padillah (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much Beatles?

I feel like too much of section 2 (The Beatles) is a bio of the band, and not of Lennon and his role

Examples of sentences that are not relevant to the Lennon article:

• Allan Williams became the Beatles' first manager in May 1960, after they had played in his Jacaranda club.[46]
• After their first recording session, Martin voiced his displeasure with Best.[57] It was decided that Ringo Starr, drummer with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, should join, although it was left to Epstein to inform Best. Epstein dismissed Best on 16 August 1962, almost exactly two years after Best had joined the group

Just as two examples...

I'm going to take out some of this excess information that I feel isn't actually about him. TheHYPO (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea. No, it's a bloody good idea.--andreasegde (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not delete this, and especially not "the Best" episode. It sets a light on the Beatles, and therefore on John.

--Withthebeattles (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Best is noted in the main article, and on Best's page (and Epstein's). Lennon didn't have much to do with Best's sacking, apart from agreeing to it, because Epstein did the dirty work.--andreasegde (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing Facts

What in my opinion should be mentioned:

1. About his friendship with Stuart Sutcliffe:
- the movie "Beatback" (which is really well made) as well as the documentary "The Lost Beatle;"
- the fact that John insisted to have Stuart in the band, notwithstanding the fact that he ("Stu") was a poor bass player (and this, despite Paul's dissatisfaction).

2. About the Hamburg period:
- his three German friends - Astrid Kirchnerr, Klaus Voorman and Jürgen Vollmer -, as well as their role in his life; at least, it should be mentioned they took the famous Beatles Hamburg photographs.

3. The Beatles performed the first major stadium concert in history of music at Shea Stadium in New York in August 1965. John's performance that night - especially during "I'm Down" - deserves to be described; also, how John referred to that in one of his major interviews (grosso modo, he said that at Shea Stadium he saw the top of it).

4. The reasons why the Beatles gave up live performances an well as John's later rationalisation. Fred Seaman's book is excellent in this respect.

5. John's later strong resentments for having 'bought' and maintained the fans' adulation and frenzy during the Beatlemania (e.g., wearing religiously the moptop for years, sexy-shaking it when singing and encouraging the other Beatles to do so, maintaining the clean-cut image of lovable gentle polite sweet boys, etc.).

6. The dissolution of John's personality under the massive influence of LSD especially after Brian's death, and Paul's role in the group in that period.

7. His very complex, even contradictory relationship with and attitude towards Yoko Ono is not at all discussed/depicted, and this omission makes this part of the article superficial and John's personality overall caricatural.

8. His own considerations about himself (expressed in interviews) are very relevant and really helpful. Through their realism and/or exaggeration, John gives the best description of his mind and personality.

These ideas popped out after a first reading of the article. If I have other things to add, I'll put them here. Of course, I could add all this in the article myself, but out of respect for the people who worked on this, I'll resist the temptation. --Withthebeattles (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to resist the temptation to do it yourself, go ahead and add what you think is missing. Lots of people have worked on this article and the best articles are not written by one or two people but by lots of people - look at the history of any featured article in wikipedia. It's only a problem if people add unreferenced material. No-one owns the article so be bold and make any improvements you think necessary. Just make sure it's all properly referenced and there shouldn't be a problem. Richerman (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look for all the references and exact quotes and I'll add in the article what I think it's necessary and relevant. --Withthebeattles (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy Toledo - Julian Got a Drum Machine for Christmas in 1973?

Note, the drum machine was not even in existence until 1975.. Go check the Wikipedia page on drum machines. BTW, Sample playback versions of drum machines were not available until the 80s. Someone should ask Julian what sort of drum machine this was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.31.21 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I found the reference in Google Books Search (John - Cynthia Lennon): Here it Is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.31.21 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They were known as rhythm boxes back then, mostly for organ accompaniment... bossa novas, that kind of stuff. Hotcop2 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)